| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion | | Date: | Thursday, June 14, 2007 07:10:03 (+1200) | | From: | Peter <cymric @.......nz>
|
You might have a pet definition Joe of 100%, no one else seems to have. I
am not describing any existing system and the question was on a proposal
that has the same basis as the debt money system regards 'reserve' means of
debt being paid- it is covered by future created money ( new money
arriving). So really there is no difference and at the end of the day it
will be what the techocrats devise, all we are doing as far as I am
concerned is looking at the potentials and stats have everything to do with
it where accounting/records are concerned.
For example, the 'overnight cash rate' is a stat that compares timelots to
decide whether interest rates should go up or down.
Below is the piece I was looking for explain I believe the reason for
credits to industry, so us consumers dont have to need more debt to pay for
the industry in the goods price. Its on page 184 or there abouts in Warning
Democracy. As he said there are many ways of doing it and a discount is
one.
"It will at once be seen that this situation is intrinsically bound up with
the fact that effective demand starts from the banks and is regarded by them
as their property. A little consideration further, however, will make it
clear that any possible justification for this situation must rest on the
assumption that the bank system is a governing system possessed, either by
common consent or inherent virtue, of supreme economic sovereignty.
Now, as is fairly well known, this is not my view. But it is not very much
use holding such a view if the situation is inescapable as, of course, it is
not.
Ultimately, a properly co-ordinated system of credit issue and price
regulation, which will in effect place the point of issue of purchasing
power with the consumer, from whom fundamentally it arises, and to whom in
essence it belongs, is the only solution of the difficulty, but it is clear
enough that we are approaching, and that fairly closely, to a situation
threatening the productive system itself. With a view to meeting this
situation one of the first requisites is to deal with the immobilisation of
bank credits in fixed assets. There are many ways of doing this, and perhaps
one of the simplest would be the automatic writing up of the bank-credits of
any limited company to correspond with the increase in its fixed assets, as
certified by a chartered accountant during a given accounting period. The
effect of this, so long as the result was not defeated by rings of prices,
would be to lower prices by enabling competitive concerns to get a
proportion of their overhead charges out of prices charged for their
product. It would undoubtedly strengthen the hand of the manufacturer, and
in itself would do little to meet the twin difficulties of forced exports
and decreased human labour per unit of production, both of which are vital
to a comprehensive solution. But it would at any rate deliver us from the
mismanagement of the financial hierarchy, and in so doing would stimulate
the initiative of the class which appears to have the right type of mind for
the attainment of a more permanent solution."
I would consider it political madness to try for a discount on top of a
dividend simply because too many people even within social credit circles
would fight tooth and nail against it simply because they dont want the
lower class seeming to get something for nothing. ( this is the price of
having the movement swamped by people who want the money not the philosophy)
This class/self righteous attitude is akin to that of thinking social credit
is too good for mankind. The greens would spew for other mis-guided
reasons. If the manufacturer got credits, politically you balance the
'right' with the 'left' dividend as they would seem to be to the general
public. If the Social Credit movement had of started pushing the credits to
industry first and go those people on side who had influence and were the
major employers then the Union thing may have become a different kettle of
fish and in our cause. But history shows social crediters are pretty much
deadheads when it comes to politics.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion
> (Peter wrote:-) If term deposit use by banks are required to be subject to
> 100% reserve,
> couldnt this be achieved by only onlending at a rate less than that of
> which new deposits are incoming, and probably set by the stats of the
> last
> quarter?
>
> (Joe replies:-) No, they couldn't 'on-lend' anything and still be 100%
> reserve. They'd have to retain 100% of what they received. The stats of
> the last quarter wouldn't have anything to do with that. Nor would any
> inflow of 'money' from the ND and CPD as new deposits from customers.
> 100%
> reserve means just what it says it does, they couldn't 'lend', no matter
> where the 'money' came from. As soon as they did they would no longer be
> 100% reserve.
>
> (Peter:-) Any hick-up being covered by 'reserves' at the Central bank.
> So
> when a respective depositor is due his money it is met by funds that
> arrived that day, since it is all a matter of bookkeeping.
>
> (Joe:-) But it wouldn't matter if the 'reserves' were at the Central
> bank,
> or in their own vaults. 100% reserve would forestall any 'lending'
> whatsoever, no matter whether funds were arriving that day or not. They
> have to still be able to 'create credit' in order to 'lend'. And if you
> replaced the 'debt-money' system in 'loans' to PRODUCERS with a
> 'credit-money' system of 'grants' to PRODUCERS (and/or the "Government",
> in
> its role as a 'producer'), how could you have CONSUMER control of 'credit'
> in the way Douglas's philosophy envisioned? The 'individual' consumer
> wouldn't be able to "...make his policy effective unto himself", (by
> deciding what he will, or will not, 'buy' through his "...ability to be
> able to choose or refuse one thing at a time"). He'd be subject to the
> whims of the 'producer' and 'government', in the exercise of their ability
> to decide what's "best for him".
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 6:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion
>
>
>> Bill said:
>>
>> "........The theorem that loans create deposits does not mean
>> that deposits come into existence entirely through
>> loans. It does not now mean it, nor has it ever meant
>> it."
>>
>> Peter- You are only correcting a claim that 'loans create ALL deposits'
>> which different.
>> Likewise banks say they 'lend deposits' when they could say more
>> realistically 'we create deposits' ( in fact 97%)
>> I fail to see any real point in this.
>>
>> "The consumer will take his National Dividend check
>> representing new money to his bank, and be given two
>> choices: to deposit it into a "current account," or
>> into a "term account.
>>
>> He will be encouraged to deposit it into a "term
>> account," inasmuch as his banker is required by his
>> regulators to keep on reserve only a predetermined
>> fraction of his term deposit liabilities. Otherwise,
>> he could not make loans."
>>
>> Peter- If current account deposits are not lent or money created against
>> them then I cant see the matter of 'reserve' would apply.
>>
>> If term deposit use by banks are required to be subject to 100% reserve,
>> couldnt this be achieved by only onlending at a rate less than that of
> which
>> new deposits are incoming, and probably set by the stats of the last
>> quarter? Any hick-up being covered by 'reserves' at the Central bank.
>> So
>> when a respective depositor is due his money it is met by funds that
>> arrived that day, since it is all a matter of bookkeeping.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 5:33 AM
>> Subject: [socialcredit] monetary "reform" confusion
>>
>>
>> > Well, in our system most transactions are conducted
>> > through the transfer of bank deposits. We think of
>> > "money" as being what we receive in our pay and
>> > dividend vouchers, which are in the form of bank
>> > deposits. They are generally acceptable throughout
>> > the economy in payment for goods and services.
>> >
>> > The question becomes, how do bank deposits come into
>> > existence?
>> >
>> > The theorem that loans create deposits does not mean
>> > that deposits come into existence entirely through
>> > loans. It does not now mean it, nor has it ever meant
>> > it.
>> >
>> > The consumer will take his National Dividend check
>> > representing new money to his bank, and be given two
>> > choices: to deposit it into a "current account," or
>> > into a "term account."
>> >
>> > He will be encouraged to deposit it into a "term
>> > account," inasmuch as his banker is required by his
>> > regulators to keep on reserve only a predetermined
>> > fraction of his term deposit liabilities. Otherwise,
>> > he could not make loans.
>> >
>> > So, one hundred percent reserves does not really mean
>> > one hundred percent reserves, even in the supposed one
>> > hundred percent reserve system. It means merely that
>> > one hundred percent reserves be kept against "current
>> > account" deposits.
>> >
>> > The "monetary reformers" are simply confused on this
>> > matter, having a very poor understanding of money and
>> > credit.
>> >
>> > -------original message--------
>> >
>> > Frankly, this is the sort of gibberish that does
>> > Social Credit no favours whatever. Note, for example,
>> > the comment about businesses borrowing .."if they do
>> > not have the capital ..." when the other day we were
>> > insisting that all new production must be financed by
>> > new credits.
>> >
>> > Bank loans precede deposits, bank loans or purchases,
>> > under the present system, increase the money supply.
>> > I can think of ways in which the lending can be
>> > controlled, as per Martin's earlier suggestion, that
>> > when they create money, they would be deemed to have
>> > used the national credit, a system hinted at in a
>> > lengthy way by part of what Vic wrote. Or perhaps the
>> > sort of system we envisage, that they are allocated by
>> > the central bank the right to create a certain amount
>> > over a certain time. Basically the same.
>> >
>> > But nobody has suggested a practical means of
>> > preventing them from creating money, if they are to
>> > provide anything like the services they now do.
>> > "Their own funds" or reserves currently serve to
>> > finance transfers to other banks resulting from their
>> > lending and the deposits being made with their
>> > competitors.
>> >
>> > Let's not worry about what someone "wrote". Let it
>> > not be a religeon based on the teaching of prophets,
>> > but an exercise based on precise logic.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> ________
>> > Looking for earth-friendly autos?
>> > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
>> > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message