|Subject:||[socialcredit] Re:Peter on liquidation of feudal estates|
|Date:||Wednesday, April 18, 2007 21:38:42 (-0400)|
|From:||Keith Wilde <keithwilde @.........ca>
Thanks for this Peter. Very interesting. I opened only just now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] fascism
> re " the sanctity of old private property"-
> "The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England brought a refined system of
> commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to
> facilitate and govern it. . . Several elements of historical Jewish legal
> practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among
> these is the written credit agreement - shetar, or starr, as it appears in
> English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien
> on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the
> modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to
> proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. . .
> Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all
> property, movable and immovable" was a weapon of socio-economic change
> that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid
> wealth in place of land holding. . . . Jewish Law, wherein personal debt
> superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land."
> "Foootnote 11: H.C. Richardson, The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94
> (1960) (Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal
> land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class).
> Footnote 15: CF. 1 F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, supra note 3 at 469...
> (alien to English law for creditor not in possession of land to have
> rights in it)."
> "The Shetar's Effect on English Law", The Georgetown Law Journal; V. 71, P
> 1179 - 1200); Judith A. Shapiro.
> ( invasion and piracy almost exstinct, thuggery continues but 'debt' still
> rules- Peter H)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "keith wilde" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] fascism
>> Responding to Joe's questions/comments:
>> --- Joe Thomson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> (Keith wrote:-) "In adding to the list, I'm
>>> thinking of attitudes toward the sanctity of old
>>> private property, often obtained through invasion,
>>> piracy or other thuggery."
>>> (Joe asks:-) Could you please elaborate a bit on
>>> that, Keith? Do you mean
>>> 'land', or other types of property?
>> Keith responds:
>> I was thinking initially of issues between landowners
>> and industrialists in Britain, landowners being an
>> aristocracy descended from Norman invaders of many
>> centuries previously. The similar principle of
>> conquering and claiming founded many fortunes in the
>> era of colonial expansion into the New World (thinking
>> of Simon Schama's TV series on History of Britain).
>> The residue was not merely land, but also substantial
>> accumulations of gold, etc. from profitable
>> exploitation of both lands and slaves. Closer to our
>> own space, the conquest and appropriation of North
>> America by European peoples generally, and in
>> substantially unequal claims by some. And in very
>> recent times, the seizure of public assets by
>> oligarchs in the former Soviet Union and their
>> conversion to private property that will be the
>> foundation of a new aristocracy. Add to that the ever
>> more widely understood principle that the way to get
>> rich is to get big special privileges from government,
>> whether it be grants of land and mineral rights, trade
>> marks, copyrights, patents and other monopoly
>>> (Keith continues:-) "....it does
>>> shift monetary policy significantly into the hands
>>> of government. And as
>>> noted, that would be a movement toward democracy. I
>>> wonder what have been
>>> the musings of social credit writers over the years
>>> about the probable
>>> temptations and vulnerability to corruption via the
>>> national credit
>>> (Joe replies:- ) That would be like wondering if
>>> the people who work for
>>> Statistics Canada now ever 'slew' the 'figures' to
>>> give a purposefully
>>> manipulated meaning to various ongoing developments.
>>> Do they? I don't
>>> really know, but I suppose it might well be
>>> possible. Maybe by omitting
>>> certain data that should be relevant an 'intended'
>>> result could be arrived
>> (Keith again)
>> Well, yes they do, and heavily in the way you suggest.
>> This is due to political influence rather than that of
>> individual researchers, for the most part (the latter
>> not being very able to do anything significant in the
>> way of gathering big data bases without material
>> support). There are lots of kinds of information that
>> economists would like to have, working in and on
>> behalf of governments, but StatsCan does not gather
>> it--for political reasons. This is especially true
>> concerning the incomes and wealth of the
>> controlling classes--corporations as well as
>> individuals. Data series also get dropped, not because
>> researchers are not longer interested, but because the
>> numbers could be used to embarrass privileged
>> interests. Environmental data are another source of
>> contention. It took years of campaigning by interested
>> analysts before government would permit StatsCan to
>> gather them, and even then reports based upon them
>> become vulnerable. You doubless have several
>> complaints yourself of data that StatsCan should be
>> gathering but is not. Coming closer to our subject,
>> data gathering is subject to skewing by large-scale
>> exigencies of government management and policy. I'm
>> thinking here of post-war adoption of Keynesian full
>> employment policies and the national accounting
>> systems that were required to implement them. I once
>> did a study of dairy policy, and to get myself
>> oriented to it, I looked through all the data
>> publications about dairy factories in Canada from the
>> earliest years available. (It was interesting to learn
>> that until well into the 20th century, Canada's
>> biggest agriculture export was cheese.) There was lots
>> of interesting detail in these annual compilations,
>> but as years went by, some of the series I had been
>> following were dropped and the reports became
>> noticeably thinner. After while I recognized that the
>> data collected and especially the ways it was
>> assembled and reported were becoming more and more
>> attuned to national income accounts and to magnitudes
>> of interest to macroeconomic management. I can imagine
>> that a similar transition, perhaps even more
>> fundamental, would occur if instead of a Keynesian
>> Revolution there were to be a social credit one.
>> StatsCan would be charged with a new set of data
>> gathering tasks, but would almost certainly have to
>> start from where it is at the moment.
>> (Joe)But in a ''National Credit Office" under SC to
>>> what end? Where, or
>>> what, would be the 'incentive' to 'corruption'?
>> (Keith) I don't know; am not sufficiently well
>> acquainted with the detail of what it is expected to
>> do to exercise imagination in that direction. But the
>> adoption of a Douglas approach to economic management
>> is not likely to end the political pressures on a
>> statistical agency, from various sources.
>> (Joe) Do the SC principles,
>>> properly applied, actually shift 'monetary policy'
>>> more into the hands of 'government'. Or 'consumers'?
>> Well, I don't see how they can be applied without
>> first getting the Credit Authority up and running, and
>> that seems to entail a statistical bureau. And the
>> need for it won't go away, even after the dividend and
>> discount get operating sufficiently that a shift
>> toward consumer sovereignty becomes apparent. Or am I
>> missing something big?
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "keith wilde" <email@example.com>
>>> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 7:26 AM
>>> Subject: RE: [socialcredit] fascism
>>> > Re John Rawson's question: Do you mean
>>> > rather than "confusion"?
>>> > As a newcomer to the subject matter several years
>>> > I was initially puzzled by Bill Ryan's insistence
>>> > making a distinction between social credit and
>>> > reformers". It didn't take too long to understand
>>> > objection to putting so much decision power over
>>> > resource allocation into the hands of government,
>>> > hence his shorthand epithet of "fascist". The
>>> > question that has remained, for me, is the degree
>>> > which the social credit solution is different. (Is
>>> > 90 or 180?) It has often seemed to me that Bill
>>> > regards them as virtually polar opposites,
>>> > in more than one respect. (In adding to the list,
>>> > thinking of attitudes toward the sanctity of old
>>> > private property, often obtained through invasion,
>>> > piracy or other thuggery.) Instead of direct
>>> > on infrastructure, the social credit solution
>>> > have a government office to calculate the precise
>>> > amount of new claims to goods and services that
>>> > be distributed to keep the system churning without
>>> > inflation. I haven't been able to spend the time I
>>> > would like to in contemplating just how big a
>>> > bureaucracy that would entail, but it is not too
>>> > difficult to imagine that it would be less
>>> > than a public works department. Nevertheless, it
>>> > shift monetary policy significantly into the hands
>>> > government. And as noted, that would be a
>>> > toward democracy. I wonder what have been the
>>> > of social credit writers over the years about the
>>> > probable temptations and vulnerability to
>>> > via the national credit authority?
>>> > On another point, John's observation about AMI's
>>> > interpretation of deposits and reserves is
>>> > interesting and seems plausible to me. I look
>>> > to other comments.
>>> > Keith Wilde
>>> > --- John G Rawson <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> > ---------------------------------
>>> > Where has the confusion betwen Social Credit and
>>> > monetary reformers come in? All would curb the
>>> > monopoly of credit creation by the banks, all
>>> > balance the increase of money supply against needs
>>> > goods to avoid inflation.
>>> > Douglas, basically, would leave the banks creating
>>> > money, and in view of their nature this might be
>>> > unavoidable anyway. That is their function, which
>>> > appears could be impossible to stop. (But it could
>>> > managed by specific controls of the actual money
>>> > volume, and Martin has come up with the only
>>> > way of doing this that I have seen.) But D. would
>>> > have a credit authority also issue some new money
>>> > be paid to the consumer in some form, hence
>>> > democracy". He saw full central control of
>>> > money-issue as giving central government too much
>>> > power.
>>> > Others such as the AMI would channel money through
>>> > government (central and local) spending for
>>> > infrastructure. While this may give government
>>> > power, I still do see control of the nation by
>>> > representatives as better than the present control
>>> > unelected bankers, as effectively so in all or
>>> > "democracies". Fascism, or more correctly Nazism,
>>> > consisted of puppet rulers acting on behalf of
>>> > industrialists and bankers. This was the group
>>> > put Hitler into power in Germany. Without pointing
>>> > finger, there is very litle difference between the
>>> > Nazi regime and some notable examples now.
>>> > The AMI appears to have fallen for the
>>> > fallacy that banks lend their deposits, which are
>>> > their reserves but their liabilities. Banks gain
>>> > assets by creating the money to purchase them.
>>> > reserves are needed for interbank transactions,
>>> > lending, on which the only controls are willing
>>> > borrowers and the risk of any one losing reserves
>>> > outstripping the others in lending. (I am again
>>> > quoting findings of our Royal Commission, not
>>> > theory.) In effect, the days of "fractional
>>> > banking are dead, and I believe the term lives on
>>> > because it is useful to confuse reformers. Should
>>> > AMI become powerful, it may be interesting to see
>>> > banks reverse their "lending of deposits"
>>> > and admit that they don't, as part of a counter to
>>> > reformers' arguments!
>>> > In passing, our NZ Party believes that times have
>>> > changed since the time of Douglas, with government
>>> > assuming so many more functions, that we have
>>> > a blend of the two approaches.
>>> > Regards. John R.
>>> > ---------------------------------
>>> > From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> > Reply-To: email@example.com
>> === message truncated ===
>> 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
> 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