|
Message 4696
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Reply to John Rawson | | Date: | Monday, April 16, 2007 11:09:10 (+1200) | | From: | Henry Raynel <henry.raynel @..........nz>
|
Dear Richard, and Everybody,
Just a word of warning from my understanding of study of the founder of
Social Credit work C H Douglas.
The two most powerful organisations with Power to dictate to the people and
Nations of the world are:
One - Politicians
Second - Bankers
Marry the two and you establish the greatest National and world dictatorship
possible.
Under New Social Credit economics the creation, ownership and management of
the Nations money supply must be established genuinely separate with
carefully considered legislation and be independent of both Government and
independent of bankers.
This is also clearly stated in a publication by "The Social Credit
Secretariat" in its publication in their three booklets Sustainable
prosperity " Challenge and Change" 1994 publication. Booklet three page 16
Please go to the Director of Studies of "The Social Credit School of
Studies" while considering my statement.
I also referred to in the School directors publication "A Brief Outline of
Social Credit" by the School director Vic Bridger page 12.
Mr. Wally Klink Canada would be another authority to discuss this matter
with.
Please note although I am very interested I do not wish to get personally
involved in continuous debate on the subject.
Very best wishes.
Yours very sincerely
Henry Raynel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Cook [mailto:rickycook21@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 16 April 2007 2:30 a.m.
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Reply to John Rawson
I just want to point out that the proposals I am workinig on just now
include both direct creation of credit by the government (non-tax, non-debt)
for infrastructure spending and a national dividend for citizens. I believe
that in today's conditions, both are needed.
>From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
>Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>Subject: [socialcredit] Reply to John Rawson
>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:52:43 -0400
>
>Hi John,
>
>I'll reply below yours in 'green'.
> (John Rawson wrote:-) Joe, with respect, is money to be used for a
>national dividend or consumer subsidy (yes, Douglas did use that word)
>going to be "increasing debt" to be repaid?
> No. It's 'debt-free', in that it has not been 'costed' into any
>production. It doesn't have to appear in any 'price', in other words.
>It does allow what 'costs' HAVE ALREADY appeared in 'prices', over the
>fiscal period selected, to be (more) FULLY liquidatable in 'money'.
>Something, primarily because of ongoing 'labour displacement', they can't
>be in the aggregate currently without further increases in overall
>'debt', (or a continual, and impossible, 'favourable' balance of trade).
>
> If not, why should similar money, issued to fill the "gap" in other ways
>need to be?
>
> Because some of those "other ways" create further 'costs', which then
>have to be liquidated at some time in the future. And also will increase
>consumer prices in the process, which further 'taxes' your income, by
>further reducing its already generally deficient purchasing power.
>
> The difference from Douglas' time is that public expenditure on
>infrastructure, health, education, police etc. has so ballooned since then
>that different circumstances apply. With it has come mountainous debt most
>of which needs to be repaid. I know a lot is simply bank credit, but it is
>so intertwined with superannuation fund money etc. that any government
>simply repudiating it all would be a pariah.
>
> Yes, that's true, the 'figures' are larger. But the government need not
>'repudiate' them at all. "The world would gladly pay all its debts if only
>it were provided the money with which to do so." You can't provide it with
>'money' to pay its debts as long as that 'money' creates another 'cost'
>which then has to be liquidated in the future. But it can be done by
>directly augmenting deficient consumer incomes, and in a manner that
>'reduces' consumer prices without a loss to producers. Debt that is
>capable of being fully liquidated as due cannot grow from 'interest'.
>
> Replacing debt with honest money will be a long, slow process, and in
>the mean time I see little point in paying an average citizen, say, $500
>per year and taxing him, locally and centrally, with two to ten times that
>amount.
>
> But you're not doing that. Taxes will fall, not rise.
>
> Douglas was not perfect in all his ideas., though I would accentuate the
>absolute brilliance of his analyses. But I suggest many of his followers
>have been even more flawed in trying to assert that everything he said was
>inflexibly correct, despite radical changes in social conditions. And
>despite the fact that he himself recommended somewhat different approaches
>for different countries.
>
> Well, I think that's correct. There would likely be different
>approaches in different countries. For instance, to take Bill Ryan's
>proposal, I don't really know whether there would be anything that
>corresponds to the Federal Reserve's 'open market Committee', and the
>method it currently uses to inject 'debt-free' money into the US economy,
>in your country or mine. So what may be a feasible 'first step' in the USA
>might not be applicable in the same way elsewhere. The 'principles' might
>have to be applied differently, but they are still the same.
>
> But let's have a look at the USA scene, where the AMI want all debt-free
>money chanelled into infrastructure and Richard Cook would pay it all out
>as income to citizens. Are these really so different?
>
> Radically different.
>
> Both would bring in the fundamental reform of breaking the private
>monopoly of money creation.
>
> You can do that right now. But it's 'how' you do it, and 'why' you're
>doing it, that's the important thing .
>
> Both would benefit individual citizens immensely.
>
> No, they would not. Social Credit would be of benefit to citizens
>immensely. The AMI ideas will almost certainly lead directly to what
>Social Credit stands against, in my opinion. You will have an 'illusion'
>of prosperity, beneath which lurks everything that will rob you of your
>money (purchasing power), and your freedom.
>
> Both could have faults, e.g. encouragement of unnecessarily grandiose
>public works on the one hand, or, (if payments were also made in respect of
>infants) encouragement of baby-farming and child abuse on the other.
>
> Isn't the overriding need to get on with the main aim and do something?
>
> Yes, once we understand and agree on what we really want to achieve.
>
> And isn't it likely that, as in so many things, the greatest benefit
>lies in compromise?
>
> That depends on just what is being 'compromised'.
>
> Could we not, for example, hold a binding referendum (with options
>clearly and equally explained) and let the public choose the method? Would
>that not fit completely into the underlying philosophy of Social Credit?
>
> No, it would not. That choice of 'method' is exactly what the public is
>being asked to choose right now, and look where it's got us. The choice is
>one of alternate 'Policies'. 1. Are systems made for man?, or, 2. Is man
>made for systems?
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>
> From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger
> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:08:36 -0400
> >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
> >both.).
> >
> >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
> >masters'.
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Richard Cook" <rickycook21@hotmail.com>
> >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >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
> >U.S.
> > > 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
> >in
> > > 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
> >to
> > > acquire currency to use in foreign trade.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> > > >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > > >To: <socialcredit@elistas.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
> >always
> > > >smaller than the amount of goods and services that can be made
>available
> >to
> > > >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
> >banking
> > > >system. This compounding problem is the reason why resource rich
> >countries
> > > >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: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> > > >To: <socialcredit@elistas.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 <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> 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
> > > >>utopia.
> > > >>
> > > >>"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
> > > >>here."
> > > >>
> > > >>(End of quoted part)
> > > >>
> > > >>Joe
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>__________________________________________________
> > > >>Do You Yahoo!?
> > > >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > >>http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list
>are at
> > > >>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > > >>You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> > > >>For more information, visit
>http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list
>are at
> > > >http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > > >You're subscribed to this list with the email
>rickycook21@hotmail.com
> > > >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.
> > > http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline
> > >
> > >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are
>at
> > > http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> > > You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> > > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> >http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> >You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
> >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Live Search delivers results the way you like it. Try live.com now!
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
>You're subscribed to this list with the email rickycook21@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search
=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email henry.raynel@actrix.gen.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/761 - Release Date: 14/04/2007
9:36 p.m.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/761 - Release Date: 14/04/2007
9:36 p.m.
|
Reply to this message