(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
Reply to John Raws
Reply to this message
