I anticipate with interest the exchange that will
develop between you and Bill over this one.
Keith
--- Richard Cook <rickycook21@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In my opinion it is absolutely fruitless and a waste
> of time to use labels
> like "fascist" to discuss any aspect of monetary
> research or proposals. It
> resembles a smear campaign. Ideas should be
> discussed impartially and on
> their merits. Mussolini "made the trains run on
> time." So I suppose trains
> and watches are "fascist?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>
> >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy?
> >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 02:18:37 -0400
> >
> >Very interesting! The implication for Douglas that
> Ryan notes is
> >paralleled by the "creditary" theory developed by
> Meakin and Gardiner--both
> >of which I have found to be very persuasive. On
> the other hand, the point
> >made by McGunn. is reinforced in the work of
> Alexander Del Mar. In
> >particular, I have his 1896 book History of
> Monetary Systems which is
> >primarily a history of coinage that emphasizes the
> consistency over time of
> >particular coins and their direct link to a
> recognized political authority.
> >A notable example is a gold coin (solidus?) that
> was the standard of value
> >throughout Europe until the fall of Constantinople.
> From the introductory
> >notes to my 1983 re-issue of his book, it is
> evident that Del Mar was a
> >justifiably recognized authority on the history of
> the precious metals and
> >of coinage. This one is the last of his books on
> the subject, which number
> >six in total--plus many articles. So, there was
> plenty of quite recent
> >scholarship to the contrary that Innes could have
> used.
> >
> >I just happened to have the Del Mar book on my
> shelves when starting to
> >read Zarlenga's Lost Science of Money, having
> spotted it in the window of a
> >used book store not many months previously. I read
> it in conjunction, and
> >found that Stephen made very extensive use of Del
> Mar, resting much of his
> >argument on the work of the latter. Although there
> seems to have been a
> >perception of common interest between Zarlenga and
> Meakin-Gardiner while
> >the former's work was in progress, publication and
> review shattered it, for
> >they found that they were not on the same track at
> all. Ryan's observation
> >about Douglas and Innes is reinforcement of the
> point.
> >
> >There is interesting anecdotal linkage here to the
> element of what Ryan
> >calls fascism in proposals for monetary reform like
> those of Zarlenga. The
> >reissue of the Del Mar book that I have was an
> intiative of The National
> >Poetry Foundation, University of Maine at Orono, in
> The Ezra Pound
> >Scholarship Series. Pound was imprisoned for many
> years by the United
> >States because of his support for ideals of the
> Mussolini regime in Italy.
> >He was visited frequently in prison by Eustace
> Mullins, a youthful admirer
> >who researched the origins of the Federal Reserve
> System as a staff member
> >at the Library of Congress. This was published in
> 1952, and the copy I have
> >was re-issued in 1954 as The Federal Reserve
> Conspiracy. It was put into
> >my hands by the former leader of the Social Credit
> Party of Canada, John
> >Blackmore, but I had never read it until I found
> that Zarlenga was basing
> >much of his argument upon it. At the time he
> published the book, Mullins
> >was also serving as chief of research for the
> Unamerican Activities
> >campaign of Joseph McCarthy. This link led me to
> review a lot of conspiracy
> >literature, some of which I had read and discounted
> long in the past. As I
> >passed on these bits of info to Stephen, he became
> upset with me and
> >accused me of wanting to destroy his position,
> which was not the case.
> >
> >(I have read the subsequent exchanges under this
> head, those between Martin
> >and Ryan, and the substantial essay by McGunn. of
> this morning. This seemed
> >like the most appropriate place to insert my own
> comment.)
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:26 AM
> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy?
> >
> >
> > > Then I take it you do not agree with this from
> Innes'
> > > 1913 paper
> > > http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/innes
> > >
> > > "...there is overwhelming evidence that there
> never
> > > was a monetary unit which depended on the value
> of
> > > coin or on a weight of metal; that there never
> was,
> > > until quite modern days, any fixed relationship
> > > between the monetary unit and any metal; that,
> in
> > > fact, there never was such a thing as a metallic
> > > standard of value."
> > > ------------------
> > >
> > > Here's the thing. Douglas' theory makes no
> sense
> > > whatsoever from the orthodox money is a medium
> of
> > > exchange perspective. His theory makes perfect
> sense
> > > from the creditary perspective expressed by
> Innes.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- William Hugh McGunnigle
> <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > With due respect the Innes papers were designed
> to try
> > > to demonstrate that there was no control of
> coinage in
> > > the dark ages. They ignored to a large extent
> the fact
> > > that monarchs used the "tally stick" to keep
> track of
> > > finances and these were used for "tax
> assessment".
> > > Coin value was related to these. I therefore
> stand by
> > > my previous statement that, although it appeared
> that
> > > coinage was not really under control there was a
> rigid
> > > value system related to weight of Gold, Silver
> and
> > > Copper metal in coins. The methods of assessing
> coin
> > > purity had been established long before the
> advent of
> > > the Roman Empire by Archmeides of Greece.
> Although it
> > > appeared crude by modern methods of assey it was
> still
> > > adequate for practical purposes. Contrary to
> popular
> > > belief the men who did this type of assey work
> were
> > > skilled and generally honest because they were
> > > appointed by Royal decree. The penalty for
> incorrect
> > > assey was death. Innes work, while skilled and
> > > undoubtedly honestly conducted, suffered from an
> > > obvious bias. He was selective in his choice of
> > > primary sources and tended to ignore sources
> that
> > > contradicted his basic premises. In all fairness
> he is
> > > not the only historian to do this, but he is
> open to
> > > strong critisism because of it. I personally
> cannot
>
=== message truncated ===
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message