|
If we word it as you have, you would then
also say that the government puts the interest rates up when the whole
country uses the right term 'the RB' or Mr Bollard the Govnr of the RB and cause
confusion to those who dont know better and cause those who do to smile
within thinking you are twenty years behind the times. A Credit
Office/Authority is to be autonimous as the RB is so I cant under stand why you
want to use the word 'government' when you wouldnt when referring to the RB and
then be concerned about confusion.
When you use 'government' it says to me you
ignoring and/or reject the NCA proposal, and are going with those
monetary reformers who want govt in control.
The RB and the Police and others are also 'national
control systems' as well, but would you say the govt arrested someone
instead of the Police?
I couldnt accept your term in reply because it
would suggest to anyone reading it that I was supporting the govt control
of the money supply ( over the NCA) and because it was confusing as to what
Social Credit proposals are. Is this 'very little' for me
to worry about this while you are concerned about 'immense confusion'
that delights our opposition when I clarify it?
The 'opposition' will
remain opposition regardless of what we do or say, what we should be
concerned about is the general public who potential supporters and
that means more care in the choice or words.
Regards,
Peter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:50
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] more on
Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard Cook
Once again, definitions. I used small "g" for government. If a
national credit authority governs our money supply, obviously it is part of
the national control system, i.e. government. I'll leave the other point
alone because it was only an example of confusion, not really pertinent to the
main discussion. My main point is that immense confusion results when
people say the same basic thing but word it differently because they are
coming from different definitions or understanding of what they mean. And our
opponents simply love the fights that follow when didicated people get upset
with each other over very little.
Regards. John R.
From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
more on Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard Cook
Date: Tue, 21
Aug 2007 21:29:21 +1200
You misunderstand my comments John. I am
effectively objecting to govt itself ( a cabinet dictatorship) controlling
the money supply, not the using it to replace taxes. The national
credit office is supposed to be autonimous of govt, the basis of my
objection to the standard reformers desire and so it could be argued as to
whether the 'office' is in fact a public servant more than a govt
servant, based on who benefits the greatest.
I subscribe to new debt-free money being used
to retire taxing. A community can not rationally borrow from its own credit
in order to administer itself. The effectiveness of the
adminstration as assistent facilitor in the functioning of
the full economic-social enterprise is a factor in the credit of the
community.
I would rate the un-necessary burdon of
this via taxes on Joe Citizen the equivalent of the consumer paying for
the cost of the 'real' economy in the price of its goods.
Peter.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:40
PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] more on
Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard Cook
Thanks for that.
I think this is a classical example of highly intelligent people
stating basically the same thing, but arguing because they are coming from
different definitions. For example Peter's comment on government
controlling money. Social Credit could not function unless some government
agency, e.g. a credit authority, took control of the issue of money.
But of course, what he is objecting to is Government using new money to
replace taxation, which is another matter.
Obviously, all stock exchange transactions involve credit, even if
actual money plays only a small part. We need to distinguish between
credit and money, and probably the best distinction was used by our 1950's
Royal Commission. I believe it is commonplace logic which did not
originate with them. Banks create credit when they authorise
borrowing, i.e. grant an overdraft authority. No definition of money of
which I am aware lists this as money. But when a borrower exercises his
right by drawing a cheque (or making any other transfer out of his
account) and the money becomes a credit, a deposit, in someone else's
account, money is created.
This assumes that creditor's deposits with financial institutions are
part of the money supply, and this is used in every definition of the
money supply from M1 up. I doubt if any sane economist would define
money as only M0, notes and coins in circulation, since these days it is a
very small fraction of the total supply and decreasing.
So if money is taken from a credit account and paid into one in
overdraft to the equivalent value or more, that amount of money goes out
of existence. The amount of credit relating to the two accounts may
remain the same, if they retain the same overdraft limits as
before. There is no theorem (or hypothesis or theory) relating to
this process. It is a solid demonstrable fact. So if Michael
Hudson confines his comments to credit, he may even be right.
But they are certainly not pertinent to the functioning of the economy
which is carried out by money transfers in the final analysis.
That is not to say, of course, that a contraction of credit will not
harm the economy by causing a contraction of the money
supply.
Regards. John R.
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: [socialcredit] more on
Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard Cook
Date: Sun, 19 Aug
2007 23:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
>I invite commentary on this, what I
believe to be a
>Georgist absurdity, from Michael Hudson's posting
to
>gang8 yesterday:
>
>[Hudson] "I view 'the economy'
as divided into two
>sectors. The biggest sector as far as credit
is
>concerned over 99% is the market for
financial
>securities, mainly bonds, stocks and mortgage
loans
>and other packaged bank loans. Each day more than
an
>entire year's GNP passes through the New York
Clearing
>House and the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange."
>----------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>Yes,
there's a tremendous amount of churning,
>speculative purchasing
and selling of various forms of
>financial securities. Buying and
selling and buying
>and selling.
>
>But that doesn't
mean that "over 99%" of credit
>CREATED in the overall
economy--which the fallacious
>argument infers--results in the
inflationary run-up of
>asset prices as a result of that credit
creation, as
>the Georgist argument alleges.
>
>Almost
all of what Hudson is talking about actually
>offsets (or nets
substantially to zero in terms of
>profits and losses so
relatively little cash changes
>hands) day by day in the books of
the New York
>Clearing House, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
etc.,
>indicating very little net creation (or for
that
>matter contraction) of credit in the activity,
despite
>the huge volume of transactions.
>
>But we
would hope, should we not?, that the long term
>trend is always
capital gains, which is in principle
>indicative of the long term
strengthening of the
real
>economy.
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
>Shape
Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 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 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 cymric@xtra.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
