|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Joe's Question|
|Date:||Saturday, December 8, 2007 21:26:30 (-0500)|
|From:||Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|In reply to:||Message 5121 (written by william_b_ryan)|
" I think it is a mistake to assume that the bankers
understand the Douglas theory. Very few Social
Crediters have understood the theory. It is difficult and subtle." ~ Bill
"One of the barons of Bay Street, Sir John
Aird, was reduced to pleading the "we do not want theories introduced into
banking. If you get into theories you are on dangerous ground." ~ excerpted
from "Chapter Three: William Irvine
and the Farmers in Politics"
(Joe asks:-) I wonder, would the attitude amongst bankers today likely be
the same as that expressed by Aird above?
Or would today's top bankers be more receptive to 'theories', (maybe
especially right now!), than they were then. And the Douglas theory in
particular if it were put forth in a less "difficult and subtle", but still
correct, manner than Douglas managed to do?
If it were put to them ~ if it could be ~ in such a manner that it couldn't
help but be properly understood, and they still rejected it, might this not
put them in a spot where they'd clearly have to explain 'why'?
What if that 'why' turns out to be the same reason given by Sidney Webb when
Douglas explained his scheme to him and answered every 'technical'
objection? Only to be told the 'soundness' didn't matter, "....it's its
object I don't like."?
Well, I for one sure hope it could be put to them in such a manner, and
attitudes have changed.