(John Rawson wrote:-) So the whole reform constitutional argument is based on the clause "To coin money"? It could be claimed logically that, since coinage was the only form of money then, this was intended to cover all money?
(Joe replies:-) But it wasn't the only form of 'money' then, John.
(John Rawson:-) I note again your reaction to the Guernsey story, but you have never given hard facts for your attitude. So far there appears to be more evidence for this event than against.
(Joe replies:-) That story was thoroughly vetted on here, or the predecessor list, quite some time ago. The ''States Notes", if I recall correctly from what was determined in examining the issue then, were redeemed by import duties. They weren't 'debt-free' money.
(John Rawson:-) After all, why should anyone invent such a happening in such an unusual place otherwise?
(Joe replies:-) There was a lot of propaganda put forth by various 'monetary reformers', John. BC's own G. G McGeer, a former Vancouver Mayor, who was later a MLA, a MP, and finally a Senator, was one latter day one. He was aided and abetted by still others who'd previously created 'facts' out of fiction to further their own ends. The myth might grow and grow, but it's still myth.
(John Rawson wrote:-) And would you argue that the actions of New Zealand's first Labour Government in funding much of infrastructure, state housing for homeless, and the dairy industry with Reserve Bank credit at 1% is a myth?
(Joe replies:-) They 'primed the pump' with deficit financing. That's all they did. It relieved unemployment, and stopped the deflationary spiral that you were in.
In a deflation it's hard to sell anything other than essentials, for why would you want to buy anything today if you felt you could get it cheaper tomorrow? And when prices have to be lowered below financial cost to move existing product, there's no inducement to produce any more.
So your government turned that around, and when prices started to come up, then there's an inducement to buy before they go higher. It's a quick fix, but it doesn't really solve the problem. And when it's carried on for any length of time you'll get an 'inflation' that'll negate its benefits. It is a crummy substitute for Social Credit properly applied.
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
