|
Tudor Jones was talking about the whole economy and
the debt finance system in their impact on the individual price which are
unjust.
We should be only paying for the time energy and
resourses that are in the product we buy. The cost of the whole economy
and the debt finance system is included in all prices.
Clearly he points out that the debt money isnt true
money since it fails to cancell out the production. Thus money of another
kind has to be introduced to fulfill moneys proper role.
The fact that adjustments can be made to make the
system work and relieve people of having to work extra to compensate the
out-of-balance systems, the dividend and producer credits are proposed but that
doesnt mean that the replacement of the current biased and anti-social finance
creating system cant be changed as a further and logical step.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of
clarification
(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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
