eListas - My Lists: socialcredit: Messages

Thanks, Joe. I think what you are referring to is the socialist concept of a Universal basic income, committed at a fixed rate, and paid out of taxation if necessary on the assumption that the "big bad business exploiters" could carry the cost. These people seem blissfully unaware that costs like this get passed on to the mug consumer like you and me. And them. And while I would normally hesitate to speak for Don, who may well read this, I can assure you he doesn't agree with this idea! A national dividend would depend on the state of the economy, as determined by a national credit authority.

On the other hand, you still have missed my point. The public would have the means to buy all the Fords and all the Toyotas. Many, many less twenty or thirty year old cars on Kiwi roads! Of course, if "black Africa" is also buying them freely, costs of production may drop considerably with increased rate. But the prices charged by intermediaries may rise unchecked ....

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: Mon, 28 May 2007 08:39:35 -0400

Hi John,

I'll give your latest the 'green' treatment down below.
(John Rawson wrote:-) Thanks, Joe. I think I covered a lot of your points elsewhere before reading this.

(Joe replies:-) I'll come back to you on that, if no one else comes in on it first.

(John continues:-) Just one point. I think we all have great difficulty thinking in terms of a SC society rather than the present, and I'll give you two examples:

1. Some Social Crediters object to the "discount", even though it obviously would have a price-reducing effect by subsidising payment, being referred to as such because they can't get away from the orthodox dictum that all subsidies must be paid out of taxation.

(Joe replies:-) Some 'Social Crediters' believe the National dividend would be paid from 'taxation', too. I have a purportedly 'Social Credit' promotional booklet here that I received a few years ago from Don Bethune, (not written by him, but by a so-called 'Social Crediter' in England) that clearly states that. They are wrong. Neither are paid from 'taxation'.

2. Competition (in an evolutionary sense) can only work in nature when there is a scarcity of some factor. Under SC there would not be a scarcity of purchasing power, so you need to explain a mechanism by which competition would continue to apply as a price-controlling factor. Not simply by claiming "it is reducing prices", but by producing a reason why it would continue to do so.

Why would you choose to buy a Volkswagen car rather than a Toyota or a Ford? 'Competition' does apply as a price-controlling factor. If Volkswagen comes out with something that appeals to the general public, and starts to gain market share over Toyota or Ford, and those manufacturer's vehicles are increasingly left sitting longer on their dealer's lots, what happens?

Generally it isn't long before Ford will be offering 'rebates' to effectively lower the price of its vehicles, and thereby stimulate sales. Nobody 'profits' until the sale is made, and they all have ongoing 'costs' that are eating into that potential profit the longer it takes for the vehicle to sell.

Toyota either follows suit, or sees its vehicles sitting still longer than they already are, and its dealers not ordering any more.

Ultimately, if both want to 'compete' with VW and profit more from manufacturing vehicles, they have to come up with something in their vehicles that appeals to the general public more than the VW does, and win back the market share they've lost. But in the meantime, the VWs are now selling and the other's current models aren't, so lowering the price is the alternative.

None of that changes when the CPD is brought in. The 'competition' as to 'price' and 'quality' and 'service' and everything else that exists now still exists. What is different is we've broadened the market, for all products, by making them 'more affordable'. If you get a heavy demand for Volkswagens, and there's only so much 'supply', the price of the Volks goes up. And the other car makers do exactly as they do now ~ lower their prices. But even so, the Volks is still cheaper and available to more people than it would be if the CPD wasn't applied.

Regards,

Joe
From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of clarification
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 12:08:08 -0400

Hi John,

I'll go back to replying in 'green' beneath your response below.

(John Rawson wrote:-) Whether I agree with it all or not, Joe, good reasoned argument. But I still don't see why the subject is worth discussion, if it is not going to be used in any practical sense. We could as usefully consider changing the name of a money unit to make it more "sexy" or some other academic discussion with no bearing on what we intend to do.

But it IS going to be used in a ''practical sense". It's the key to slowing down and reversing the present exponential growth of unrepayable debt. By distributing 'debt-free' credit to consumers this way we've enabled the financial system to be more completely 'self-liquidating' as we progress through time. And we've done it in a way that isn't self defeating through 'inflation'.

As "spending new money into circulation for public works" seems to have consistantly been over time, whenever that's been tried.

People rail about how much is paid out in 'interest'. On the 'National Debt', and such like. But here is the effective solution to preventing one of the major causes of otherwise unrepayable, interest-bearing, 'private debt' from being constantly transmuted into permanently unrepayable, interest-bearing, 'public debt'. (Unrepayable, that is, without all of the worst features that attend our 'fiscally-responsible' Governments' present attempts to repay it.)

If a system is proposed, as I thought for years it would be, that the discount would only be paid it the price was "just", i.e. it worked as a price control mechanism, then I could see the need for the concept.

But only you, as an individual, can determine that in the sense you are using the term. And you do, already, by having a free choice in whether to buy or not.

Broadly speaking though, considering at any point in time the aggregate price values of all articles for sale at retail to consumers, those prices as a whole certainly can't be 'just' unless there is an equivalent amount of 'money' available to consumers as a whole to pay them, without the necessary incurrence of more overall 'debt' to do so. The CPD enables this to happen.

Also, note the fact that making provision to distribute all production would drastically reduce the competitive nature of the present system, i.e. you need to prove that consumer choice would remain effective, (if it is now).

No, I don't think so. If anything, it would likely increase the competitive nature of the present system. The competition would be not only in regards to 'price', as now, but towards providing better 'service'. The lack thereof at present is one of the largest consumer complaints with many retail outlets, particularly the 'big-box' ones, according to a recent survey I've seen.

Those who oppose us sometimes claim that Douglas' writings are "obscure". In most cases I believe this is wrong. Very "wordy" at times, because he attempted to cover every possible objection in the process, but clearly showing the principles if you worked at them. But this seems to be an aspect that he either did not explain properly or else expressed in two different ways for two possibly different situations. But his followers seem determined to keep this concept truly buried under a jungle of rhetoric, as did the example you forwarded.

And I believe any concept can be put into relatively simple terms that ordinary people can understand. All that is needed is an ability to comunicate coupled with complete understanding of the subject by those communicating.

One of the best explanations of it I've seen as I believe it relates to 'modern times' is Bill Ryan's recent post "Money Creation", where he addresses Richard Cook's well considered questions.

The difficulty, I think, is not that there isn't always a complete understanding of the subject by the communicator, but that most of us, (myself very much so included), lack a complete enough background in what we need to know to always immediately fully comprehend the importance of what's being communicated.

This is admittedly always going to be a problem in trying to get Social Credit ideas accepted 'politically', as per the 'political Party' route. But that certainly doesn't mean that it's 'impossible' to proceed that way, though other methods might be far more effective. We would need to concentrate on gaining the 'results' most people want. And bringing consumer goods and services 'prices' more in line with consumer 'incomes' would be one major result I can't imagine anyone being against.

In my own opinion,   any analysis published on Social Credit for broader circulation in the future needs to have included in it a basic but comprehensive 'primer' on both 'double-entry accountancy' and 'banking'. And I don't mean just what's going to be found in any textbooks explaining those subjects, as might now exist.

Regards,

Joe

From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] in point of clarification
Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 00:10:57 -0400

Hi John,

Will reply in 'green' beneath yours below.

(John Rawson wrote:-) Thanks, Joe, but I didn't ask for a lot of convoluted rhetoric that defines what it is but makes no effort to establish its significance. I ask again, if we are to make no effort to ensure that "just prices" apply, what is the point in discussiong an airy-fairy concept with no applicability in practice?

Well, it seemed to me there was some question as to "what it (the "just price") is", and I believe Tudor Jones, as Douglas's long time associate and immediate successor defined it with some authority as it relates to Social Credit. I thought he established it's signifigance quite well, if you read carefully what he wrote.

I think the way you're looking at it is in regards to what's a "just price" for any individual article, and how is it determined that it is "just". And I believe the answer to that rests with you, and everyone else, as individual 'consumers'.

Social Credit presumes you have a 'free will', and when given the opportunity, will exercise it. You determine whether the price, (of any particular article that you're a prospective buyer of ), is "just", or not.  By your willingness to pay it, or not.

Looked at in that sense, you're a whole lot more likely to believe any article that's 'lower priced' is a more "just", i.e., 'judicious' purchase, to you, than the same article is if it's 'higher priced', aren't you?

(There may be exceptions~ there obviously are some people, (who've somehow managed to accumulate more money than brains), that may want to pay a 'higher' price for the same article they could've got for a 'lower' one, simply to ''show-off '' or "flaunt" their 'wealth'. They believe they are impressing someone, and that's somehow important to them. Some women, and no doubt some men and kids, too, who frequent those 'exclusive' stores, particularly in the "rag-trade" (fashion garment industry), would be one example.) Shoes would be another. If that's what they want, so be it. The CPD will aid them, too.)

The CPD (or "Just Price" mechanism), enables that price to be lower, to you, without equivalent loss to the producer and purveyor, no matter where you choose to shop, as long as it's at any merchant who chooses to participate in the program.

(John continues:-) Sorry to be so direct, but this is exactly the sort of question our opponents would be entitled to ask, and one I could not answer in the matter of seconds available. So I would feel most uncomfortable in leading with something that would rapidly put me on the defensive in a skirmmish I could not win.

It's OK in this sort of discussion field, but there is a real world out there the moment you are a Candidate (or other speaker) reasoning with, say, a couple of hundred wharfies, or farmers. Or sawmillers!

Not sawmillers, John. There's no 'reasoning' with them! Not even one of their own can do that! Any group of people dumb enough to continue to try and make a profit out of an expense are beyond reasoning with!

Truth aside, (the one above, I mean), I've never been a 'Candidate' for public office, nor had any occasions where I've had to speak in public to a large audience. So I could only imagine the experience.

Putting myself in your shoes, since you've had those experiences, I believe, and saying that I were a Kiwi candidate for your NZ "Democrats for Social Credit, (God help the 'Democrats'!) , I think the concept of the CPD would be far easier to put across than some of the other things your Party have advocated.

I'd have real trepidation trying to make a case for the Reserve Bank 'spending money into circulation' for funding 'infrastructure' the way I've seen it proposed, for instance. Especially if my opponent had any knowledge of 'finance' at all. It wouldn't be hard for him to ask some politically 'unanswerable' questions in regards to that.

But as regards the CPD, I think there's a pretty good chance one could get on 'solid ground' pretty quickly, and stay there.

Now I don't know the situation in NZ, but right now, in BC, there is a recurrence of the question of whether the 'minimum wage' should be raised. It's currently at $ 8.50 per hour, (after a new employee has worked 500 hours at a 'training wage' of $ 6.00 per hour), and the NDP opposition wants it raised to $ 10.00.  The BC Liberal government wants it to remain as is.

And there are all the 'usual' arguments from those labour-oriented on the 'left' in favour of raising it, and from those (supposedly) business -oriented on the 'right' opposed.

The general public, most of whom are neither on the 'left', nor the 'right', but squarely in the middle, listen to both sides, and know both sides are, for the various reasons they've given, both right.

They know that no one here can live 'independently', at any 'western' standard of living, on $ 8.50 per hour, (especially when that's usually for less than a 40 hour week).

They also know that "all costs enter price". And they, as well as those receiving the $ 1.50 per hour increase, will be the ones who'll be 'paying' those increased costs-cum-prices. And that things are already pretty costly, without making them more so.

Still, they have sympathy for those stuck at the bottom. They "know" there'll be no happy resolution, whether the wage goes up or not. One more of the many reasons why they've become disillusioned with ALL politicians, who they see as simply "in it for themselves", and completely unable to make meaningful changes beneficial to all.

Now as a Province we have many powers, but we are not 'sovereign' in our control over currency and credit and banking, etc. Not in the same way you are as a Dominion. But supposing we were, or that this whole issue were a NZ one rather than a BC one. Can you not see the possibilities of a 'solution' in the CPD? A solution with benefits for ALL. A solution that is completely 'in line' with the thinking of the majority, in that it increases the 'purchasing power' of ALL while diminishing it for NONE. It accomplishes what an increase in the minimum wage cannot do. Surely anyone desiring to win election that's worth electing could find a way to put that concept across? It's elementary simplicity compared to some of the other stuff.

Regards,

Joe

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: Fri, 25 May 2007 00:11:10 -0400

(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 -----

From: John G Rawson

To: socialcredit@elistas.com

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 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 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 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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit

Services:	Home, List Hosting Services, Industry Solutions
Your Account:	Sign Up, My Lists, My Preferences, Start a List
General:	About Us, News, Privacy Policy, No spam, Contact Us


The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net

HOME SERVICES SOLUTIONS COMPANY