|
Your argument that the banks do payout, from the
same pool of principle that everyone in business is fishing in, is the substance
of which orthodox thinking is based, ie it is the circulation of money through
many hands that makes the ( world go round) system work.
This fallacy is a weak case.
I have yet to hear or read from any monetary
reformer that the problem is that banks dont pay out, which of course is
ridiculous since everyone knows the staff arent there by charity (nor
bad-debters paying off their loans by sweat-equity).
It is always put that while the banks create the
principle, they dont create the interest, which naturally means its potentially
a game of musical chairs, which forces more borrowing to stay in the
game.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The State
Theory of Money
Not at all. The argument has been that banks charge interest etc. and
pay out nothing that will allow its payment. Look at the island
example. This sort of fallacy weakens our
case.
Regards. John
R.
From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject:
Re: [socialcredit] The State Theory of Money
Date: Sun, 13 May
2007 15:52:31 +1200
" I must quibble strongly" - the arguement isnt
that banks dont 'pay out', its that banks havent created the money for the
interest ( or paying principle more thyan once).
Your argument John requires banks to make
payments such as salaries and expenses in new money, not out of money in
circulation they have gained by business operations as all other businesses,
to hold water.
The argument that A cant pay A plus B is the
same principle as loan principle cant pay principle plus
interest.
The latter argument simply is only a ( lesser)
part of the problem and is all that monetary reformers are capable of
seeing, and the problem that is exposed by the A plus B theorem remains at
large.
I agree the 'pilgrim island' type
expositions leave a lot to be desired,for the reason I have just
referred to. I am not conversant with 'pilgrim' one but I can refer to
the Salvation Island one, by Louis Even in "The Money Myth Exploded"
which is really just a monetary reform presentation claiming to be Social
Credit, werein the villan is interest and thus a serious
misrepresenation of Social Credit as associated with Douglas. This is
the one that has been/is currently being circulated in
Pakuranga.
Regards 'grossly overestimating the gap' I
have problems with this since there is no commonly accepted benchmark to
make any call as to a gap being measured under or over.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:15
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The State
Theory of Money
While we have gone through all sorts of things as described by Wally
and Martin, our bright Minister of Finance (from whom we hold a letter,
since revised by him, stating that trading banks do not create money) has
dropped onto an even better gimmick. Claiming to budget at a surplus
while continuing to borrow billions annually. And with TV etc.
backing, most Kiwis believe him!
Surely this whole situation is very simple? Each nation is likely to
need an infusion of new money over any significant period of time, to let
its economy function effectively. Orthodox economists must also accept
this when they view the growth of money supplies over time.
So the question comes down to who and how shall this be created?
By some public agency, for the benefit of the people, or by private ones
to load them with further debt and profiteer from the process.
At the same time, I must quibble very strongly by the claim of some
Social Crediters that banks "create debt but never pay out (any of) the
means to repay (or service) it". The classical example is in
the Pilgrims' island example, where the bad banker consistently starves,
never even buying a solitary banana from the industrious islanders.
Unlike other businesses, they do not provide goods, and their services are
costed into the accounts of other concerns. But they do pay out
salaries, dividends, rent, power charges etc., and a defence to the above
statement would be that they pay out ALL their profits in some form
or other. Of course, while the process may be more involved, they
do, in effect, "save and reinvest". But I suspect this confusion is
the concept that has led many Social Crediters to grossly overestimate the
"gap" in any total economy at times.
Regfards. John
R.
From: Martin Hattersley
<hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The
State Theory of Money
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 11:43:06
-0600
>Niall Ferguson - who has published a well documented
history of the
>house of Rothschild and some interesting studies
on world politics
>from the economic point of view, makes a
comment in "The cash nexus
>- money and power in the modern
world" that it is the nations with
>the biggest national debts
that have shown the greatest economic
>development.
>
>Not that National Debts are a good
thing, but they do provide the
>liquidity that keeps the economy
moving!
>
>If you're not familiar with Ferguson, I do
recommend him as a good
>read.
>
>Martin
Hattersley
>5929 - 189 St.,
>EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M
2J1
>
>e-mail:jmartinh@shaw.ca
>
>----- Original
Message ----- From: "Richard Cook"
><rickycook21@hotmail.com>
>To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
>Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007
7:09 AM
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The State Theory of
Money
>
>
>>Re: Wally's analysis, this is exactly
what happened with the U.S.
>>economy during the 1990s with
the Clinton balanced budgets coming
>>at the end of the
decade. "Fiscal austerity" pushed the federal
>>government
cost burdens down to the states which gained tax
>>revenues
from the "dot.com" bubble. But when that burst, the U.S.
>>economy went into recession after January 2000. What
suffered the
>>most was state and local infrastructure which
has deteriorated
>>sharply even to the point of starting to
sell off public highway
>>systems to private investors as in
Indiana.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From:
Wallace Klinck <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
>>>Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
>>>To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
>>>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The
State Theory of Money
>>>Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 00:34:14
-0600
>>>
>>>In Canada the Federal Government in
recent years has attempted, in
>>>compliance with misguided
ideological notions and technical
>>>misunderstandings
regarding the virtue of "balanced budgets" to
>>>curtail
and even to reduce its debt. This has put a further
>>>financial burden upon the Provinces which, in turn, have
attempted
>>>to download financial responsibilities upon
the
>>>municipalities--which have been attempting to pass
this burden on
>>>to individual citizens by way of
increased property taxation,
>>>multifarious user fees,
decreased social benefits and services,
>>>neglect of
infrastructure needs, etc. This has naturally and
>>>inevitably led to general resentment and discord. I
refer the
>>>reader to Major Douglas's article, "The
Fallacy of a Balanced
>>>Budget" where he points out that,
within the limits of orthodox
>>>financial cost-accountancy
conventions, a "balanced budget"
>>>means: 1) that the
economy is static, 2) that the financial
>>>implications
are that we consume our real capital concurrently
>>>whereas, in fact, it depletes or depreciates slowly over
the
>>>future, and 3) that all capital is actually, in
final analysis,
>>>owned by the issuer of credit, i.e., the
banking system. Because
>>>of the growing deficiency of
purchasing-power in the context of
>>>our faulty orthodox
monetary system, central governments tend to
>>>accept
increasing long- term debt in order to facilitate the
>>>operations of lesser governments but the central
governments meet
>>>opposition when spending programs and
debt service charges result
>>>in increasing tax burdens.
Without central government
>>>assistance, the private
sector is increasingly unable safely to
>>>meet the
necessity to accept expanding debt on its own without
>>>becoming increasingly insolvent. That is the dilemma
presented
>>>by orthodox financial policy and practice. It
is the reason that
>>>an external flow of consumer income
is required to be injected
>>>into the economy, without
being registered as new costs, in
>>>order to make the
system self-liquidating and allow it to function
>>>in a
viable
manner.
>>>
>>>Wally
>>>
>>>
>>>On
11-May-07, at 3:19 PM, william_b_ryan@yahoo.com
wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Money (dollars in bank
accounts of the Treasury) is
>>>>CREATED when the
government spends money
into
>>>>existence."
>>>>------------------------------------------
>>>>-------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Money
is created when any transactor deficit spends
>>>>with
bank credit. The theorem is that loans
create
>>>>deposits; the repayment of loans cancel
deposits. This
>>>>theorem is very significant in an
economy where most
>>>>transactions are conducted by the
transfer of
bank
>>>>deposits.
>>>>
>>>>This
is true whether the transactors are private
or
>>>>governmental institutions or
individuals.
>>>>
>>>>If you'll look at
the diagram archived
at
>>>>http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/conrad-borrowing-2005.gif
>>>>
>>>>from
my good friend, Bud Conrad, you'll see that
the
>>>>largest amount of bank credit is represented
by
>>>>consumer debt, the second largest is
federal
>>>>government debt, the third largest is
business debt,
>>>>and the smallest is state and local
government debt.
>>>>
>>>>The theory that
you outline is very close to the State
>>>>Theory of
Money concept that has recently been revived
>>>>by the
multi-millionaire Warren Mosler. The term
was
>>>>originated by the German economist Georg
Friedrich
>>>>Knapp, a favorite of the Nazi's, who
experimentally
>>>>tested the theory at Theresienstadt,
in prototype of
>>>>their plans to control conquered
peoples and races.
>>>>
>>>>In point of
fact, the Fed holds only a relatively
>>>>small
percentage of federal government securities.
The
>>>>large majority are held by domestic and
foreign
>>>>commercial banking
institutions.
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>On
May 10, 1:14 pm, "The Trucker"
<mik...@verizon.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>For
years I have been trying to explain this stuff in
>>>>a
way that even the minimally aware can understand
it.
>>>>Perhaps the best way to look at it is to (in you
mind)
>>>>coalesce the Fed and the Treasury into a
single
>>>>harmonious group. That is the reality anyway.
These
>>>>two institutions work hand in hand to do the
job of
>>>>government finance and monetary
control.
>>>>
>>>>Money (dollars in bank
accounts of the Treasury) is
>>>>CREATED when the
government spends money into
>>>>existence. The Treasury
accounts in the central bank
>>>>(spelled Fed) are NEVER
overdrawn or insufficient.
>>>>
>>>>The
problem then becomes the control of all this
money
>>>>that has been created and thrown into the
helicopter
>>>>blades of government to come to rest we
know not
>>>>where. If the money is allowed to slosh
around in the
>>>>economy for too long then the amount of
actual dollars
>>>>will grow too large and the value of
the dollars will
>>>>erode. That is why we have taxes and
the sales of
>>>>various types of "interest" bearing
mattresses called
>>>>government bonds. What else will
the rich people who
>>>>already have all the money they
could ever use do with
>>>>this extra money but to put it
into bonds?
>>>>
>>>>That is what keeps
dollars scarce and keeps them worth
>>>>something; this
sale of bonds and this taxation. If
>>>>interest rates on
the bonds are very low and there is
>>>>inadequate tax
revenue then the amount of real live
>>>>spendable money
increases and the currency is
>>>>devalued. That is what
has been happening since 2000.
>>>>And if short term
rates are kept low and government
>>>>borrows on the sort
term (lots of 6 month bonds) then
>>>>both money and
bonds continue to lose value. Over time
>>>>this _SHOULD_
attend to trade imbalances.
>>>>
>>>>The
time of reckoning is put off by the current
bond
>>>>holders. If they refuse to buy more bonds at
low
>>>>interest rates then the value of the bonds
they
>>>>already own at low interest rates will
deteriorate
>>>>even more than that value has currently
deteriorated.
>>>>You must always remember that the only
thing you can
>>>>get for a bond is money. And if the
value of the money
>>>>has eroded then so too has the
value of the bond.
>>>>
>>>>I keep using
the word "value" and it is time to
>>>>address what it
means. Value is measured in one's
>>>>control of labor
and natural resources. Money buys
>>>>both land and
resources. As these prices rise we are
>>>>actually
witnessing the decline of the value of the
>>>>dollar.
The apparent stock market rise is also a part
>>>>of
that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>>______________Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile
search
>>>>that gives answers, not web
links.
>>>>http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>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
wmklinck@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
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>More
photos, more messages, more storage—get 2GB with Windows Live
>>Hotmail.
>>http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>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
>>hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
>>For more information,
visit
>>http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>
>>
>>--
>>No
virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database:
>>269.6.8/800 -
Release Date: 11/05/2007 7:34
PM
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 cymric@xtra.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 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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
