|
What you objected to was me making my definition
clear claiming it was causing confusion.
Is it true or false that the Douglas porposal is
for the National Credit Office, determining the volumn of national credit,
is to be outside the control of the govt?
YES or NO?
That's how simple it should/could be.
My original comment you responded to was
about propaganda to support those who advocate the govt controlling
the nations credit.
There is no suggestion in that I advocate govt
control in the first place. I then following your comment stating my
position ( definition) re the Douglas NCO. That was my
'definition' as to why I called the other as good for
'propaganda'. You clearly werent happy the first time I gave my clear
definition. Neither have to found fault with my interpretation of the
Douglas proposal.
I think the bone of
contention is you want to associate the word 'govt' with the
definition of NCO which is contrary to the critical aspect of Douglas
definition. Your beef seems to be with him not me.
Lets see your colours and then we will know if we
do intend the same thing. Then your point might be
clearer.
Peter.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 8:19
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] more on
Michael Hudson's harangue of Richard Cook
Peter, I'm happy with any definition you care to use, PROVIDED you make it
clear what your definition is. To me, the RB and the police may not be
Government, but they are certainly government agencies, part of the government
of this country. And yes, if you are arrested you face charges by
"the Crown", the peak of government.
So I am not going to get in another pointless argument where we probably
intend the same thing in most cases, but are coming from different
precepts. In fact, you have made my main point even clearer, and
thanks for that.
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: Fri, 24
Aug 2007 10:58:41 +1200
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
