|
Thanks for your response Bill,
I think we can see a colouring of the 'work ethic'
in chamelion fashion with the changing times. I think that the Social
Credit 'work ethic' was to reflect the time and opportunity and affordablity of
the indivdual, thanks to technological slavery, if the financial system
reflected reality and wasnt an imperialistic tool, the most emcompasing and
globalistic of all time. The 'work' part would come to represent
'individual initiative' as idealised by Douglas. Which doesnt release man
from his responsibilities to provide a home, protection etc in the first
instance one little bit.
When man become seperated from his labour or skill
( and lost control of 'ethic') in the developing industrial revolution hand in
hand with the development of national banking power the slave kind of work ethic
become a part of culture. Today double mindedness ( contradictions of
reality) is common place. I cant remember the phrase Douglas used, might
have been 'mezmerised' and in order to turn society back around it required a
demezmerising of society. And understanding the A plus B theorem
has little to do with achieving that.
I remember a joke Shelly Berman ( he was a male so
I dont know the correct spelling of his first name) made when he was doing a
line on air travel. A man asked the hostess how long it would take to get
to where-ever the touchdown was, and she replied to scare the hell out of him as
a joke, " I dont know we've never made it yet". How many times over
today is the world not going to make it to its future? Yet all the worlds
systems are run by the products of the universities which would be universally
consistent today and no one suggests reviewing the programming they have nor the
fact that they arent accountable to anyone. We know how policy can be
controlled.
Wars and the collapse of national industry in two
world wars hasnt hurt the elite but increased their control. They met in
Switzerland and worked out how their power would function while they played
one side off against another, even trading armaments during war. They made
China what it is at the wests expense. They can do the
same tomorrow in Vietnam and China loose its sales accordingly if they want
to. I think China is only capable of defending its control of the value of
its currency. It isnt likely to shoot its best customer. Too
many countries would be hurt by a collapsed dollar, so running it down a little
actually causes nations to conform similar to the bogus threat of 2yk back in
2000. They have no option but to care and do something to help the
dollar.
I no longer see it a so theatening. The US
and the EU have agreed to a trade and finance union, which was almost totally
unreported a couple of months ago, and this alone makes it unlikely that
China will become the new village bully. If they boycote Chinese goods and
twist the arm of those dependant on them for trade, who will china sell its
goods to- bankrupt Africa? Secondly once NAFTA goes through into a
political union and the Amero replaces the dollar it will represent
Canadian resourses and cheap Mexican labour by the millions and much of that can
supply troops in great numbers in Iraq and anywhere else well into the future,
as Bush has claimed they will continue this war for years. So they
are about to find another gear not cut down one. Even if a major incident
sees the US under marshall law the Tzar of war in control in Iraq is an
authority unto himself and therefore desnt depend on Congress which will be
superceded under nafta political union anyway. I suspect the Tzar is
authorised by the power of the Presidential executive ( absolute for 90 days
after which time Congress can end it if they have the numbers) and thus the
Pentagon could be directed by the Tzar for 90 days from Iraq. Its so
simple to arange an incident to bring down marshall law which would end the 90
days limitation. The process can continue regardless of what the American people think or like. The word
'americans' standing for US citizens could become as relevant as the word
'prussian' today in a very short time and they cant see its at the
door.
Bush is currently trying in internationalise the
responsibility of managing the Iraqi situation and that is likely to be paid for
by Iraqi oil since they are failing to meet their responsibilites, so the line
goes. This international 'responsibility' thing may include, subtly, the
health of the dollar since it is its war. The pay back may be a
set price and supply of Iraqi crude oil in the future. One could then
say, the US has no option but to stay in order to honour the pledge, It has gone
too far by design.
I believe in the Roman Empire of old the
armies abroad had to create their own economies to sustain their theatre of the
empire.
Peter.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:26
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] U.S.
Economics Test
Hi Peter
Thanks for
your comments, however it seems that others are reluctant to present their
comments either for or against the views I forwarded. It interested me top
observe that you equated Social Credit with Christian Philosophy. That was one
of the reasons why I became part of the movement in the first place. It was a
massive step for me because I had been raised in the Methodist/Presbyterian
thinking mode that worships the "Work Ethic". That hurdle prevented me from
understanding much of the deeper implications of monetary reform and the
Social Credit movement. It was not until I realised that the "Work Ethic" is
not only obsolete in a post industrial world but is also a dangerous handicap
to human progress. The concept stifles initiative and forces people into a
negative feedback cycle. I believe many of the modern problems, eg Drug
taking, are a direct result of that cycle.
The worst aspect of all this
revolves around obsolete thinking in the highest levels of our society who
cannot or will not accept that they cannot control all human thinking. They
exploit human weaknesses through advertising and hate propaganda, but do not
understand that restictive practices cause rebellion. Even military might such
as possessed by the USA cannot hold down the whole world. I was aware of the
ramifications of the US defence strategy 2000, but two of my papers on the
implications of the Iraq and Kossovo campaigns pointed out the excessive
amount of troops and corresponding expense that would be incurred to
maintain stability in those areas if those US troops remained for any length
of time. The USA can only conduct its present policies if the world continues
to support the US Dollar as the major reserve currency. One country
namely China has moved into a position industrially where it can challenge the
US Dollar. India is similarly placed. If either of those two countries decided
to demand that to trade with them you must buy Chinese Juan or Indian
Rupees the bottom would drop out of the dollar market and the USA would
have to borrow extensively to cover its deficit spending. US military
adventures throughout the world would become impossible. they simply could not
afford it. This "War on Terror" is a last ditch effort to shore up the dollar
by armament spending, and a very cynical one at that. The same technique used
by Hitler before WW2 to restore German industry. That also sparked a
similar movement in Britain called "Shadow Factories" whose sole purpose was
to develope and manufacture armaments. We seem to be going through the same
cycle again, but this time there are no defined front lines, and no definite
"enemy". I hoped that my children and grandchildren would never experience
another world war, but it seems they are going to experience something far
worse. Total international chaos with unrest in every part of the world and
everyone suspicious of his or her neighbour. All because we have leaders
wedded to a monetary system that cannot cater for the needs of this modern
world without creating vast debt and misery for the vast bulk of our
population.
regards
Bill
McG
Peter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:08
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] U.S.
Economics Test
Hi Everyone
Taking up points raised by Bill Ryan and John Rawson I ask the question:-
"If the banking system is becoming more and more centralised into fewer
and fewer private hands, is this in the long term interests of the world's
general populace?"
The monoply exerted by the banking system on the world's money supply at
present is being radically misapplied as witnessed by the vast amount of
poverty in countries like Indonesia where there is vast wealth of
resources being exploited for the benefit of those outside Indonesia.
Surely concentration of the control of the world's money supply into one
single privately owned bank would really ascerbate that
problem?
Does anyone agree
with that analysis? or am I missing something in the arguments being
presented?
Bill Mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007
10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] U.S.
Economics Test
Thanks for making that clearer, Bill. That, of course, is why I
object to the term "fractional reserve" for the system, and why I
suspect the bankers encourage its use. "Nil reserve banking" or
"creation banking" (pity the latter is clumsy) would be a better
description.
Regards. John
R.
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] U.S.
Economics Test
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:45:48 -0700
(PDT)
>John, Douglas' point is correct. Beyond
regulatory
>requirements, a bank needs reserves only to
cover
>deposits lost to other banks, as they are
lost.*
>Banks of course individually gain and lose deposits
to
>other banks, but if a bank has no net loss of
deposits
>as it is granting loans, it has no need for
reserves
>to cover them. A perfectly coordinated banking
system
>has no need whatsoever for reserves, exactly as if
it
>were one large monopoly bank with many branches.
As
>the banking system becomes increasingly
coordinated,
>the need for reserves is
diminishing.
>
>* Simple withdrawals are similar.
Individual banks
>do not issue their own banknotes and coins,
but must
>purchase them from the central bank. If deposits
of
>banknotes and coins equal withdrawals of banknotes
and
>coins, there is no need for reserves to purchase
them.
> Regardless of the volume of
transactions.
>
>
>--- John Hermann
<hermann@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> By Mr.
McMaster: Q. So they pay three per cent and
> >> invite
the public to deposit by advertisements just
>to
>
>> get a smoke screen?-
> >>
> >> A. I
should say that.
> >
>
>That is not correct.
Banks and other depositories
>invite the public to transfer
their deposits from
>transaction accounts to interest-bearing
accounts
>because the latter generally have a reduced
reserve
>requirement (in the U.S. we find that term
deposits
>have zero mandatory reserve requirement). This
action
>effectively frees up reserves, which may be used
by
>commercial banks in support of additional lending
to
>the public.
>
>In regard to this method of
acquiring excess reserves,
>the interest paid to depositors is
generally a lower
>cost to a bank than is the cost of borrowing
the same
>quantity of reserves from within the financial
system.
>This explains the incentive for banks to
offer
>interest-bearing deposits to the
public.
>
>John
Hermann
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Moody
friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play
Sims Stories at Yahoo!
Games.
>http://sims.yahoo.com/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 wmcgunn@maxnet.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 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
