| Subject: | [socialcredit] Joe's Question | | Date: | Monday, December 3, 2007 08:10:36 (-0800) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
"For me, the question remains why should a policy that
really bears the Banks no harm whatsoever, and in fact
would be of as much benefit to them as to the other
sectors of our economy, be so adamantly opposed by
them?"
------------------------------------------------------
I think the answer to that question is that Social
Credit policy has usually been presented to them as if
it were something that would harm them, rather than as
an additional tool that would increase their
prosperity, along with increasing the prosperity of
the rest of the economy.
The dividend and retail discount programs would be
funded not by the individual banks but by the central
bank, so there is no financial cost whatsoever to the
individual banks.
The central bank is not organized as a profit-making
institution; its grants of credit are simple
bookkeeping adjustments that serve to increase the
rates of profit of firms and banks in reflux from
final consumers.
With increasing profits is increasing production into
final consumption. The costs bases of goods and
services are thereby brought into unity with effective
demand.
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 Ryan
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
|
Joe's Question
Reply to this message