| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] more on Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard Cook | | Date: | Saturday, August 25, 2007 16:34:00 (+1200) | | From: | Peter <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4998 (written by Martin Hattersley) |
Sounds good at first Martin, but the negatives are firstly people are
cynical about statistics since they can be cultivated to read anything one
wants them to read and secondly it still leaves the question open as to who
plays with them and thirdly its doesnt clarify that govt wont get their
grubby little fingers on it.
We havent replaced the term A plus B theorem, nor Dividend and other Douglas
terms so why do we have to find another for the National Credit Office?
This term is a 'who' term, the 'statistical control of credit' sound like a
'how' term.
Its a bit of a hot potatoe, I've always imagined Douglas winced himself when
he coined that title.
Peter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Hattersley" <hattersleyjm@interbaun.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] more on Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard
Cook
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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