| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] more on Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard Cook | | Date: | Friday, August 24, 2007 12:51:57 (-0600) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <hattersleyjm @.........com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4997 (written by Peter) |
Peter & John -
Can't we say "Statistical control of the money supply". It follows the idea
that "Government should be of laws, not men".
Martin Hattersley
5929 - 189 St., NW
EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
(780)483-5442
e-mail: jmartinh@shaw.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter" <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] more on Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard
Cook
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 -----
From: John G Rawson
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: John G Rawson
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 hattersleyjm@interbaun.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.6/971 - Release Date: 24/08/2007
2:59 PM
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 15102 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message