|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger|
|Date:||Saturday, April 14, 2007 09:08:36 (-0400)|
|From:||Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|In reply to:||Message 4689 (written by Richard Cook)|
I believe both Richard Cook and Bill McGunnigle are still largely missing
the point. The purpose of any economic system should be to deliver the
'physically possible' goods and services that are needed and desired by
CONSUMERS. Each and every one of us, as INDIVIDUALS. For we are ALL
'consumers', even though it is no longer necessary, or even desirable, that
we ALL be 'producers'. At least in the traditional sense we once were.
And this is true whether we're residents of the USA, New Zealand,
Indonesia, or wherever.
Look around your own country. How many people, whatever the accepted
standard of living, wherever you are, are living right now at a
'subsistence' level. And are unable to rise above it. The only
difference between there, (places like Indonesia, the 'Third-World'), and
here, is the accepted standard of living here is higher. But so, too, is
the level of OVERALL personal indebtedness. We, on average, live higher on
the hog, but we're also 'financially' far deeper in the bog.
The reason for that all that 'personal' indebtedness, in our 'First-World'
countries, ISN'T that the 'GOVERNMENT' doesn't "create money and spend it
into circulation on public works". A policy which will ultimately only
lead to greater 'debt', only to a different party. (Higher taxes ~ as the
'debt' is now owed, and must be repaid, to the 'Government', which in spite
of what many may think, is NOT the same as you and I as 'Individuals'. And
it will be repaid. Either through those higher taxes directly. Or
indirectly, through the cruelest tax of them all , inflation. Or likely
The only solution to this, if we truly DO believe that "systems were made
for man, and not man for systems" ~ in other words, that the 'individual' is
the most important element, and that 'society' is formed for the service of
each of us, as 'individuals' ~ is to make it possible for OVERALL 'debt', no
matter whether it's to its creator as a private bank, a Government bank, or
the 'Treasury", to be always completely capable of 'self-liquidation'. This
it presently is NOT!
We can only do this by the proper periodic distribution of appropriate
amounts of 'debt-free' new credit directly to CONSUMERS. To ensure that
'past' aggregate debt is always capable of being fully self liquidating as
it comes due in the 'present'. Even though 'future' debt may continue to
grow as we continue to add necessary 'real production' capacity, (including
'public works', if they are truly necessary, which many no doubt are), we
will then always be fully capable of its liquidation as it comes due.
We CAN NOT make it so merely by "spending money into circulation for public
works, infratructure, statues to great leaders, armaments, etc." as
proposed. That only replaces one debt with another. A larger one, that in
itself can only be paid by an endless repitition of the process. Which
will culminate in an orgy of 'physical destruction', ultimately
accomplished through 'war', and carried out in a mindless attempt to make
the 'facts' fit the 'figures', rather than properly having the 'figures'
reflect the 'facts'.
Bill Ryan has provided the background for, and possibilities of, a method
by which, in the USA at least, we might move from where we presently are to
where we'd like to go. I think it is a very interesting approach to a
subject which has not, to my knowledge, been approached from that direction
before. I have some concerns, and doubtless others will surface, about
certain aspects of what's proposed. I'm optimistic those concerns will be
examined and addressed, and I believe they will be. Regardless, I believe
Bill Ryan has been consistant in his approach towards increasing financial
'freedom for the individual' rather than in merely proposing a 'change of
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Cook" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger
> The delusion is that a country needs someone else's money, such as the
> dollar, to lubricate their own financial and economic system. All these
> countries have the capability, either on their own or in concert with
> others, to generate their own indigenous currency. It could be done either
> by their government spending it into circulation or by issuance of credit
> the form of low-interest loans. This is how Colonial America built its
> economy, by using scrip. Another example is the use of Greenbacks by the
> U.S. during and after the Civil War. An outside fund source is not needed
> for indigenous currency which any nation can use to develop its own
> resources. It can then sell some of these products to overseas customers
> acquire currency to use in foreign trade.
> >From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <email@example.com>
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: <email@example.com>
> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger
> >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:37:28 +1200
> >W.H.McGunnigle: comments on Reply by William B. Ryan
> > Your comments with respect to Major Douglas do have
> >some relevance considering that the financial position globally is far
> >different than in his day. Nevertheless his basic axiom, namely that the
> >money in circulation in our present system of financial managent, is
> >smaller than the amount of goods and services that can be made available
> >everyone, still holds true. The biggest problem facing monetary reformers
> >is CHANGING the way it operates. While I look with interest on the
> >arguments put forward about A+B I have yet to see someone who offers a
> >tangible and viable method of reducing indeptedness to the private
> >system. This compounding problem is the reason why resource rich
> >like Indonesia have a massive amount of poverty among its general
> >population. I do know that many of these "third world" resource rich but
> >cash poor countries are now realising that they will get no positive help
> >from industrialised developed countries beyond that which will maintain
> >them at a bare subsistance level, and that they have to adopt financial
> >methods that bypass the IMF and World Bank to avoid the crippling debt
> >burden preventing them from self-financing their own developement.
> > They are looking with favour on Socred type methods to do this
> >despite efforts by the IMF and World Bank to prevent it.
> > respectfully submitted
> > Bill McGunnigle
> >----- Original Message ----- From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: <email@example.com>
> >Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:26 AM
> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger
> >>Joe, I look on Vic Bridger and also Wally Klinck as
> >>being in somewhat the position of being village
> >>priests in a near dead religion, who have done great
> >>service in preserving the ancient texts of the founder
> >>of their religion, inasmuch as the ancient texts have
> >>disappeared practically everywhere else. They are,
> >>however, in my opinion, not necessarily the best
> >>interpreters of the ancient texts. By saying this I
> >>mean no disrespect whatsoever. They have both been
> >>exceedingly helpful to me in supplying much of the
> >>Douglas literature that they have maintained in their
> >>personal archives.
> >>I regard C. H. Douglas as having been a true though
> >>flawed genius, flawed in the sense that every one of
> >>us is flawed. He was poorly understood by not only
> >>his detractors, but also his supporters.
> >>I see very little in the historic Social Credit
> >>literature apart from Douglas' own writings that is
> >>worth reading today.
> >>--- Joe Thomson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>Vic Bridger wrote the following 'off-list' private
> >>comments as part of an e-mail to Keith Wilde, with a
> >>copy to myself, and has agreed they may be more useful
> >>if forwarded to the List.
> >>They were made on April 8th, and convey some of his
> >>thoughts on the subjects under discussion on the List
> >>under the heading, "In Reply to Keith, more on A+B",
> >>up to that date.
> >>While Vic did not say so to me specifically in a later
> >>e-mail , I don't believe his position has changed from
> >>what's appeared on the List under that same heading
> >>since then. He also notes, "The next Australasian
> >>(Social Credit-Joe) Journal contains much on what has
> >>been said on the Elistas group discussion particularly
> >>with regards to the Banking system, the National
> >>Credit Authority, Debt and Controls."
> >>(Vic Bridger wrote, [addressed to Keith] :-) "I am
> >>taking the trouble to send this message to you,
> >>hopefully, to explain some differences I have with
> >>what has been posted on the Elistas group discussion.
> >>"Bill responded to you on April 5th regarding your
> >>comment that "the Social Credit solution would have a
> >>government office to calculate the precise amount of
> >>new claims to goods and services."
> >>"Whilst I agree with your comment I believe it could
> >>have been worded a little better but your meaning was
> >>clear enough. I notice the comments re the name of the
> >>government office and also the comments about
> >>corruption, which I find rather silly. If there are
> >>people who are concerned about what might happen under
> >>a Social Credit system, why are they not doing
> >>something about the corruption that is rife under the
> >>current system?
> >>"Social Credit policy is not about attempting to
> >>change human nature nor does it make any claim to
> >>absolute perfection in ALL things. It is simply a
> >>method to arrest the flaw in the financial accounting
> >>system to reflect facts. It makes no claim to
> >>establishing a system that would lead to some sort of
> >>"Bill has completely missed the point and his
> >>diversion into the A+B is way off track. I believe
> >>that although he accepts the A+B Theorem as being
> >>correct he attempts to read too much into it. For
> >>instance although he brings "TIME" into his graph it
> >>is simply a recognition that time is a factor. However
> >>not only is it a factor but also it is a crucial
> >>factor, which cannot be graphed, in a static
> >>condition. The economy is not static but dynamic and
> >>whatever may be the position at any point of time will
> >>be different one millisecond later.
> >>"The only way to determine what we refer to as a
> >>deficiency, in any particular period, is after the
> >>event, in other words after the period has ended. Dr.
> >>Tudor Jones, the Chairnan who followed Douglas wrote a
> >>series of lectures published under the title of
> >>Elements of Social Credit. One lecture is devoted to
> >>the "notion of sufficiency". I will not repeat this
> >>here and if you do not have this book I can send you a
> >>copy of the lecture.
> >>"Bill brings into his argument such items as "Sales"
> >>and "Expenditure" neither, of which have any relation
> >>to the A+B Theorem. The A+B relates to Wages, Salaries
> >>and Dividends and Prices. One might argue that
> >>"Prices" and "Sales" are synonymous but this is quite
> >>incorrect. The price of an article, for the purpose of
> >>explaining the A+B is an accumulation of costs, some
> >>of which are distributed and some which are not
> >>distributed in a particular period of production.
> >>Sales of an article are not necessarily equivalent to
> >>the Price, which contains all costs. As Douglas quite
> >>correctly pointed out, sales below cost or at cost are
> >>in fact one way of reducing the deficiency in
> >>purchasing power (not money).
> >>"Expenditure is not synonymous with "Costs" and is
> >>misleading in that there are two types of expenditure.
> >>One is for wages, salaries and dividends (A) and other
> >>payments (B) that are again of two types for the
> >>purpose of explanation. One is payments to other
> >>organizations for past transactions and the other is
> >>for items for which no actual "expenditure" has taken
> >>place, i.e. depreciation.
> >>"The comment in his paragraph 4, "Not graphed is real
> >>production." is pointless. It is not necessary,
> >>desirable to attempt and impossible to keep (A+B) or
> >>(A) constant in relation to production. This together
> >>with his supposition on monetary policy as an "easy
> >>money policy" is a reflection of his orthodox economic
> >>training and has nothing to do with Social Credit
> >>proposals. Monetary policy, easy or restricted, has
> >>nothing to do with Social Credit proposals.
> >>"Other issues he brings in such as credit becoming to
> >>loose or too tight, open market, purchasing or selling
> >>of securities are again issues relating to current
> >>orthodox economic, financial and monetary policies.
> >>"There are a number of other items with which I could
> >>take issue but find unnecessary to deliberate on
> >>(End of quoted part)
> >>Do You Yahoo!?
> >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> >>Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> >>You're subscribed to this list with the email email@example.com
> >>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> >You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
> >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John. Enter to win today.
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> You're subscribed to this list with the email email@example.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit