| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] in point of clarification | | Date: | Wednesday, May 23, 2007 08:38:16 (-0400) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4792 (written by Peter) |
(Peter wrote:-) I said double entry bookkeeping wasnt an issue so why
should I try and
invent another system? Douglas proved that the problem was inherent in the
costing system not the bookkeeping system.
(Joe replies:-) Maybe I've misunderstood you, or you me. I didn't mean
that you should propose something different than 'double-entry' as a
'bookkeeping' system, (like a 'single-entry' bookkeeping system, perhaps.)
Rather that if you don't believe the proposed 'corrections' proposed by
Social Credit, (appropriately determined debt-free consumer 'credits'
distributed as (initially, anyways) 'augmentations' to ongoing consumer
incomes), would rectify the 'disproportionality' between overall costs
entering prices at final retail as per 'accounting' convention, and
overall money 'incomes' available to consumers from current sources to fully
liquidate those 'costs' in any same given fiscal period, are all that's
required, please tell us what else you think is necessary.
>
(Joe wrote:-) " ..if there was always sufficient OVERALL 'Credit' available
in the hands
of the public to repay it ( debt) as it is due, where's the problem?"
>
(Peter replied:-) I raised the point about the main 'money' supply, which
is the 'overall',
outside of the ND and CDP, which in the analogy relates to every day of the
year ( time) and not just the overlap of the forth year.
The 'credit', using it as a general term like 'appreciation' I should
imagine
grows at a rate similar in relation debt' as A in relation to the cost of
the A plus B. It is a manmade lie to assume that the debt today represents
the credit ( general term) as at today and what will be tomorrow.
Reality will have the monetary credit representing the ( non-static)
general credit as at today.
(Joe replies:-) If I've understood you correctly, I don't think I've any
problem agreeing with that. But do we not have, through the ND and CPD, the
means to distribute to the public this continuing growth in the 'real
credit' so that it can be always fully drawn upon to the limits of actual
productive capacity or satiation of consumer demand?
(Peter continues:-) The banks do have a function just as double entry
bookkeeping but the
reality is that these functionaries dont own the credit of society except
by subterfuge.
(Joe replies:-) I don't believe anyone here has ever suggested that they do
'own' the credit of society. As I understand it, perhaps the only way the
banks can appropriate anything 'real' from the 'credit' they've created is
in the case of borrower default. So far as I'm aware, with the ND and CPD
corrections in place their ability to engender such defaults through a
'credit contraction' in the general economy has been eliminated.
(Peter continues:-) There is a lot more to an economy than manufacturing
end products for
retailing to consumers. The ND and CPD will put the consumer in charge in
relation to this aspect of the economy. I am not aware of any further
'promise' by Douglas in this outside this area.
I make no appologies for Social Credit having a foundation. If its an
issue
are you going to propose a better one? (I hope you have a sense of humour)
(Joe replies:-) It's not an issue. Bring in SC and we'll all be ''laughing
all the way to the Bank."
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of clarification
>
>
> >
> > (Peter responds:-) The double entry bookkeeping is no more an issue
than
> > pen
> > and paper or computer programme.
> > We either devise a system based on a true and honest philosophy and
> > reflects
> > reality or we dont.
> >
> > (Joe replies:-) Well, if you don't think it's an issue, or 'the' issue,
> > go
> > ahead and propose such a system then.
> >
> > We already have 'double-entry bookkeeping', we know it works, and it is
> > certainly one of man's greatest achievements. One without which it's
hard
> > to
> > believe we could ever have progressed to the degree we have. If there
is
> > a
> > 'flaw' in it that needs correcting to make it work in concert with
modern
> > 'reality', we identify it and correct it. This is already being done on
> > an
> > ongoing basis in regards to its application in the 'micro-economy'. The
> > same could be done in the 'macro-economy' with respect to the social
> > credit
> > proposals. Which would correct its most major current flaw at that
level.
> >>
> > (Peter wrote:-) Time as debt is a
> > satanic bondage which is diametrically opposed to Christian faith and
> > philosophy.
> >
> > (Joe replies:-) If ALL 'debt' over time COULD be fully repaid, in other
> > words, if there was always sufficient overall 'credit' available in the
> > hands of the public to repay it as it's due, where's the problem? In
> > anything to do with modern 'money', or money substitutes, we are
dealing
> > with 'contractual' relationships, and how they can be improved in
general.
> > In respect to 'money' overall, how we can remove that accounting 'flaw'
> > which now often 'distorts' those relationships, to the point that they
> > cannot be fulfilled as agreed. To the detriment of one, or both, or all
> > parties concerned.
> >>
> > ( Peter responds:-) Douglas laid the philosophical foundation upon
which
> > policy
> > must comply and thus the technical means will be determined by. It
seems
> > that the reverse methodology is always being pursued, but never going
> > beyond
> > the techincal issues.
> >>
> > (Joe replies:-) I think there's a definite limit to most people's
> > patience
> > with endless discussions about 'philosophy'. Mine anyways. It's been
> > stated
> > numerous times what Douglas believed in. Where there are points of
> > contention we cannot readily resolve them, for we're unable to ask him
> > what
> > he really meant. And his successors, the 'Secretariat', have not always
> > been in agreement themselves.
> >
> > I would like to see how that 'philosophy' can be best applied. How we
> > might start that application, on a practical basis. In our times, under
> > our
> > current conditions, as they actually exist now. To do that, we have to
> > have
> > some idea of how the present system actually works. And it's readily
> > apparent we all have lots to learn, and fortunately, also to contribute.
> > For none of us here have a 'monopoly' of knowledge.
> >
> > So far, from all of the various proposals I've seen, (some of which
could
> > hardly be said to follow Douglas's philosophy in what they might lead to
> > for
> > the 'individual', at least in my opinion), what Bill Ryan has outlined
> > seems
> > to me to be the most practical. I've no doubt whatsoever there would be
> > considerable obstacles to overcome even to ever get anything like that
> > accepted.
> >
> > For one thing, I doubt those large Wall Street finacial houses that
> > participate in the Fed's 'open-market' operations, are going to be too
> > keen
> > to see the assured 'profits' they earn through 'churning', and
> > subsequently
> > 'trickle-down' into the economy as 'debt-free' money, be replaced by
> > 'consumer dividends'. Even gradually.
> >
> > Logically, they should, for in the end they'd benefit greatly from such
a
> > change, too. Though it's doubtful they would see it that way. But if
> > anything is 'doable' that I've seen so far, at least in regards to how
SC
> > might be started in the USA, that's it. In your country, and mine,
there
> > may be different routes to consider. But we can't do the job until we
know
> > what might work, and the reasons why it might not.
> >
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> >> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 1:26 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of clarification
> >>
> >>
> >> > (Peter wrote:-) The 'perfect analogy' is perhaps more cogent as a
> >> > demostration that there is
> >> > no debt in the natural world.
> >> >
> >> > (Joe replies:-) No, while I think you're right, "there is no debt in
> >> > nature", I believe the 'perfect analogy' of the Leap Year that Bill
> >> > cited
> >> > demonstates that it's unnecessary to 'record' everything in 'figures'
> >> > absolutely perfectly to be useful. That we can still always keep
what
> > we
> >> > have recorded accurate enough, (through periodic adjustment of those
> >> > 'figures'), for the actual, day-to-day purposes for which we want
to
> > use
> >> > them.
> >> >
> >> > (Peter continues:-) The other point is the current system and Social
> >> > Credit
> >> > (which is science
> >> > based on reality) can't both make the same claim. If they can then
> >> > Douglas
> >> > was deluded. These are philosophically opposites and a mere
technical
> >> > 'adjustment' to the current system doesn't balance opposites.
> >> >
> >> > (Joe replies:-) I don't know about that. In accounting a 'debit'
entry
> > on
> >> > one side of the ledger is balanced by a corresponding 'credit' entry
on
> >> > the
> >> > other, is it not? And if the two sides don't come to a perfect
> >> > balance,
> >> > we
> >> > look for reasons why. And often make accounting 'adjustments', when
> > and
> >> > where necessary, so they do.
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me that this is done pretty well all the time
> >> > 'micro-economically' in every business now. To try to keep the
> >> > 'figures'
> >> > as
> >> > representative of 'reality' as we require them to be for whatever
> > purposes
> >> > that we want to use them. Why should it be any different in the
> >> > 'macro-economy'?
> >> >
> >> > I think this leads back to the question of whether, under a 'social
> >> > credit'
> >> > system, private banks would still retain the ability to 'create
> >> > credit',
> >> > as
> >> > they do now.
> >> >
> >> > Only with what they do create being 'augmented' in its 'reflux' by
> >> > necessary
> >> > periodic 'adjustments' through payouts of additional 'debt-free'
> >> > Consumer
> >> > credits through the ND and CPD. Rather than as now, largely through
> >> > issue
> >> > of ever more credit recorded as further, and repayable in the future,
> >> > 'debt' .
> >> >
> >> > Or, alternately, whether the ND and CPD are to be the ONLY sources
of
> >> > 'new
> >> > credit', with the private banks to become merely 'on-lenders' of
their
> >> > customer's deposits (derived from this 'credit'), or funds they have
> >> > accumulated of their own, or can borrow elsewhere from other
> > institutional
> >> > lenders.
> >> >
> >> > Personally, I'm still inclined to believe the first alternative above
> >> > would
> >> > be the easiest to initiate and would work best at present. That it
> > would
> >> > progressively lead towards where I believe we want to go ~ to a
genuine
> >> > and
> >> > practical 'economic democracy'. But there seems to be a case that
> >> > can
> >> > be
> >> > made for the latter, too. Though I'm not quite able to embrace it
> >> > from
> >> > what I've seen and understand of it so far.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
> >> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 9:58 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of clarification
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The 'perfect analogy' is perhaps more cogent as a demostration that
> > there
> >> > is
> >> >> no debt in the natural world. There is no cost to the adjustment (
> > time
> >> >> lots) that enslaves much of the world.
> >> >> The other point is the current system and Social Credit (which is
> > science
> >> >> based on reality) cant both make the same claim. If they can then
> >> >> Douglas
> >> >> was deluded. These are philosophically opposites and a mere
technical
> >> >> 'adjustment' to the current system doest balance opposites.
> >> >> Peter
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> >> >> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> >> >> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:07 AM
> >> >> Subject: [socialcredit] in point of clarification
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > "I am saying that orthodox thinking can't see any
> >> >> > 'gap' because they believe the velocity of money
> >> >> > ensures that there is a balance. But we know that
> >> >> > it's the steady inflow of new money borrowed that
> >> >> > fills the 'gap', which Douglas has referred to as ever
> >> >> > increasing debt. The steady inflow, effected by the
> >> >> > interest rate mechanism, also pays the interest as
> >> >> > well as the theorem gap. The basis of denial is the
> >> >> > same for both of them."
> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In point of clarification:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Banks are banks, in the sense that loans create
> >> >> > deposits and the repayment of loans cancel deposits.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Banks are also businesses, in the sense that interest
> >> >> > received plus fees and other charges constitute their
> >> >> > gross sales, against which expenses are charged in
> >> >> > determining their profits. So banks also have A + B
> >> >> > payments, as does every commercial enterprise.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The "gap" is the result of an decreasing ratio of A to
> >> >> > B with labor displacement, in banking together with
> >> >> > other commercial enterprises, causing the "reflux"
> >> >> > from A to insufficiently amortize A + B as charged
> >> >> > against sales at the point of retail, through time.
> >> >> > So debt compounds in respect to physical production,
> >> >> > distorting contractual relationships.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The solution is simply a matter of accounting
> >> >> > adjustment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The perfect analogy is to the calendar. It is
> >> >> > impossible to devise the perfect calendar, since
> >> >> > earth's rotation about the sun cannot be divided into
> >> >> > an exact number of whole days.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So we adjust the calendar through leap years from time
> >> >> > to time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >
____________________________________________________________________________
> >> > ________
> >> >> > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> >> >> > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> >> >> > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
> >> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > 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 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 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 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 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message