| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger | | Date: | Monday, April 16, 2007 13:14:06 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
Reply to Joe:
I appreciated your discourse Joe, and find no reason to
argue with you. Indeed I thought that the general tenor of my last missive
covered all your points. Quite obviously I have failed, in print, to convey
the message that you have expressed so effectively. I will need to chose my
words more carefully in future.
regards
Bill McG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger
>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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message