|
(John Rawson wrote:-) "What is the point in even discussing the "just
price" concept if, as I think you advocate, the discount is going to be paid out
for every purchase, whether the price is "just" or not? A workable
answer would go along way towards converting this sceptic!"
(Joe replies:-) I think maybe the best way to
answer that is to first quote from the 'experts'.
From Tudor Jones' "textbook", titled
"The Elements of Social Credit", chapter XX, page 119:-
"Since the money units per price unit distributed
in unit time are not all available for the discharge of prices (i.e.,
for the purchase of goods) some other form of money must be distributed to
make good the deficiency if goods are to be sold (i.e., distributed).
To a limited extent, this money is distributed in the form of export credits and
advances for capital production in one form or another i.e., mortgages
against future appearance on the market of saleable goods for consumption.
Without being strictly a measure of it, the rate of increase in public and
private indebtedness to the bank is an indication of this
deficiency.
"All money is bank indebtedness. The
community is therefore in debt for all its money, and all its money will
not buy current production, let alone its existing property. The just
price is the price at which the community as a whole can buy the
community's production as a whole: and the price at which the community can buy
its production is the just price. This is a fraction of financial
cost, and bears the ratio to financial cost which consumption bears to
production; total national consumption including capital depreciation and
exports, while total national production includes capital appreciation and
imports. That is, the Just Price per ton = Cost per ton (Financial cost) X
(Cost value of total consumption) / (Money value of total production).
"Providing this price adjusting factor IS applied
to every sale of goods, it does not matter HOW it is applied. This
statement is of sufficient importance to justify a moment's examination.
If a vendor of goods receives a rebate equivalent to the factor, his goods are
not saleable unless he passes it on to the consumer. Unless he does so,
THE FACTOR IS NOT APPLIED. It is not a price-adjustment unless it
adjusts the price to the pocket of the consumer - that is to say the
consumer in the large: potential consumers of potentially consumable
goods. The requirement of saleability is that there shall be effective
demand, and demand becomes effective by being backed by the money units of the
price figures. The number of WAYS is probably very large in which a steady
flow of purchasing power as could be maintained of such volume as to make the
the flow of money through industry or otherwise to individuals the same as the
flow of money prices. ALL money NOT lent but GIVEN to the community and
NOT REPRESENTED as an increase in the community's debt to the banking system
would tend to the equalisation of the price flow and the purchasing
power flow. However spread out, a price inflation, however secured, might
cancel the purchasing power of such a "gift". Then it would not be a
"gift" but merely a monetary illusion. Things cannot be done without doing
them. And what we are speaking of here is the true adjustment of
prices. Categorically, the necessary condition is the creation of NEW
MONEY NOT REPRESENTED AS DEBT to the banking system or to any other system. The
cases in which such a creation would be in fact a mere pretence are
legion. Money is only money when it is functioning as money.
Anything, no matter what it is made of, that discharges prices is functioning as
money."
End of quoted part.
There are a number of things that passage tells
us. Tudor Jones is obviously talking about "consumer goods" in spite of
some possible confusion over his use of a per ton price in the
formula. Undoubtedly this would refer to the price per ton of coal as then
widely used ("consumed", by a final retail "consumer"), for domestic (household)
heating purposes in Britain. Not coal used in industry.
The 'rebate' to the vendor that's only effective if
the price to the consumer is actually lowered is one method of application of
the CPD. It may well prove to be better to have the vendor sell at his
regular price, and then pay the 'rebate' to the consumer instead,
after the purchase has been made. There are arguments to be made for
and against either method, but either one would do the
job.
Note there is nothing in this piece trashing the
idea that "all money is bank indebtedness", nor suggesting this should be
changed except as to the 'augmentation' to consumers of "new money not
represented as debt." There's also no specific suggestion
that anything be ''given'' to 'producers'. And that the "gift"
of money in such a way that DOESN'T lower 'consumer' prices, but tends towards
'inflation', is not a "gift'' but a 'monetary illusion'.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 8:56
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of
clarification
Joe, tell us one thing. What is the point in even discussing the
"just price" concept if, as I think you advocate, the discount is going to be
paid out for every purchase, whether the price is "just" or not?
A workable answer would go along way towards converting this sceptic!
Regards.! John R
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point
of clarification
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:53:03
-0400
>
>
>(Peter wrote:-) The issues not
corresponding between us is that you believe
>the ND and the
>
CDP are the total remedy, ie that the Douglas school can be reduced to
the
> theorem; and secondly that the banks can only appropriate the
collateral on
>default;
> and financial credit ( representing
real credit) is the same as bank
>credit.
>
>(Joe
replies:-) I do believe that the ND and CPD, or any other as
yet
>unspecified methods that do the same thing, i.e. put the
appropriate amount
>of 'debt-fee' credits (credits not 'costed' into
production) into the hands
>of CONSUMERS, is probably the largest part
of the total remedy. .
>
>I believe the 'theorem' is an
illustrative device. And there is a great
>deal more to Douglas Social
Credit than just that, though it is very
>important in understanding
the financial aspects of the subject.
>
>As to the 'banks', if
they do appropriate what is not rightfully theirs by
>means other than
borrower default, ( admitedly defaults that currently are
>largely
often the result of changes in their ongoing, overall lending
>policy
made by those Banks), how else are they able to do
that?
>
>(Peter continues:-) In regards the latter issue, I
pointed out the
>difference and you agreed
> then further down
you made them the same.
>
>(Joe replies:-) I thought that you
might be talking about the difference
>between what the banks
currently 'monetize', and what could be 'monetized'.
>
>
>(Peter continues:-) I dont accept the CDP as that was a single
option that
>got a economy started down the social credit track. The
Just Price (
>credits to industry) needs to go with the dividend. The
CDP is largely an
>alternative to the dividend.
>
>(Joe
replies:-) Now we're getting to the real differences between
your
>interpretation of Douglas and mine. As I understand the matter,
the "Just
>Price" is simply the aggregate price at which all the
articles in any given
>period of production COULD be sold without
anyone incurring any further
>debt, i.e., purchased from the amount
paid out as total incomes in that same
>period.
>
>As if
all 'costs' were current 'labour costs', which undoubtedly in
Medieval
>times, or the pre-Industrial Revolution era anyways,
("...when all craft was
>handicraft...") they nearly all were. That's
what I take that term "Just
>Price" to mean, though I certainly could
be wrong..
>
>And the effect of the CPD in a modern, industrial
economy would be to help
>induce the same situation as regards 'costs'
coming into prices at the
>point of final retail vs. 'incomes'
available to consumers to totally
>liquidate them over whatever period
of time has been chosen. It augments
>'consumer' incomes by lowering
the prices of consumables, while helping
>industry maintain sales and
a rate of 'profit' necessary to completely, or
>at least more fully,
amortize bank debt. And, best of all, because it
>'lowers' prices, it
forestalls 'inflation'.
>
> I'm not aware of anywhere in Douglas
where he specifically prescribed
>"credits to industry", or 'producer
credit', in regards to his mention of
>the 'Just Price'. Where could I
find that?
>
>I do not agree that the CPD was "largely an
alternative to the dividend."
>It's my own belief that initially it
would be far more important than the
>dividend. And that as we
progressed we would need both together to do
the
>job.
>
>It is a mystery to me why so many Social
Crediters always seem to have so
>much problem with the CPD. What is
probably, (in my opinion), the most
>simple and potentially
politically saleable aspect of the whole Social
>Credit
program.
>
>Some to the point where they want to ignore it
completely, or write it off
>as "too complicated", or "unworkable". I
think this is a very big mistake.
>I personally believe it has the
best chance of anything to capture the
>public's imagination if it
were 'packaged' correctly.
>
> Everyone short of the very
wealthy all "know" two things about 'money'.
>The first is they never
seem to have enough of it. And the second is that
>nearly everything
that's 'priced' in it that they need or want is too high.
>You'd have
a far harder time making them believe you could just 'give'
them
>'money' than you'd ever have making them believe you could get
them 'lower
>prices'.
>
>
>
>(Peter
continues:-) Without the Just Price mechanism then the
whole
>foundation of production prior to the finished stage is running
on bank
>debt and so the dividend has
> to be greater to pay the
banks for their false claim of ownership of
the
>credit.
>
>(Joe replies:- ) How does what you call
the "Just Price mechanism" go about
>changing this? And even if the
dividend did have to be greater to do as you
>say, where's the
problem? It helps to fully move needed and desired goods
>from
'production' through to final 'consumption'. Isn't that what
we're
>trying to do? Why should we be concerned whether it's greater
or lesser, so
>long as that job is done?
>
>(Peter
continues:-) The dividend is supposed to be the heritance of
the
>people not the false
> claim of the banks as
well.
>
>(Joe replies:-) That's like saying there's some
intrinsic 'value' in
>'money'. It's simply a 'ticket', whether it
comes to you as a 'wage' you've
>worked for, or a 'dividend' based on
our cultural heritage and ongoing
>increments of
association.
>
> When it delivers to you the 'goods', (and
'services', and, I suppose beyond
>that, any 'securities' that might
increase your future 'well being', or at
>least a sense of it), what
more use is it to you? Let it go back to the
>banks and be cancelled
out of existence, it's done what it was supposed to
>do. It's made the
'figures' fit the 'facts'.
>
>
>(Peter continues:-) There
are huge time delays from the first stage of
>industry, such as
mining
> or farming to the retail, and the balancing mechanism at the
end do not
> preempt the time advantage the banks have over us. That
is why they will
> still own time, every day, in the analogy.
>
One of the key aspects of the A plus B theorm is the mystery of time
in
>economics.
>
>(Joe replies:-) I agree with you that
'time' is of critical importance. But
>the primary object of all
production, I think, is 'consumption'. Consumer
>demand is what drives
the economy. So at the end of the road is that final
>consumer. And
it's his 'demand', if it's an 'effective demand', that
>initiates the
whole process. No matter how many stages it has to go
>through, from
'raw material' to consumable product, or how long it takes.
>If his
'real' demand can, if it's something that's actually
physically
>possible, always be made 'effective' financially, do we
have to worry about
>how many 'stages' in between borrow and repay
their loans? I don't think
>so.
>
> > ----- Original
Message -----
> > From: "Joe Thomson"
<thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> > To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007
12:38 AM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of
clarification
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> > > (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
> > >
> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > 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 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
