| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook | | Date: | Friday, December 21, 2007 00:59:38 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
Thanks Martin and Joe.
Martin, yes, of course the mechanism you suggest would work. But I was dealing with the implications of doing this, not the method. If government is to continue spending at its current rate, where will the replacement of this tax money come from? Remember, if Government uses no new credits to finance its operations, we are back to the situation where "Government can have no funds other than what are raised by taxation or borrowiing". Is the Nation going to continue its slide into everlasting debt, or are taxes to be raised further? (Please, we'll leave out the orthodox alternative of ordinary kids only getting meagre education, and people dying for lack of health treatment, etc. mAnd you suggest denying it the chance to pay off its debts without some extreme and undoubtedly risky repudiation.)
Douglas stated on one occasion at least that "All taxation is robbery". Presumably he did have alternative ideas for the funding of necessary amenities.
Joe, your comment to Bill outlines the standard opposition to Social Credit policies that we have had to deal with for years. In fact, inflation here over those years was very low. Ironically, it is since governments have become worried about it and tried to stop it that prices have skyrocketed. You are treating inflation as always of the demand-pull variety, when the A+B model itself shows that that is incorrect. Inflation is rising prices. That is how it is measured, therefore that is what it is. Bank propaganda claims that it results from increase in the money supply, whereas in fact the money supply has to rise to accomodate already rising prices unless there is to be a recession. Under the present system, it can only be increased through further borrowing and escalating debt.
The Douglas analysis demonstrated an incipient shortage of purchasing power to buy the products of industry. Demand-pull inflation can only occur when the flow of new money is more than enough to fill this "gap". And in terms of demand inflation, leaving out future effects of increased debt under the present system, the effect on the market would be the same wherever the money came from. A dollar doesn't know whether it came onto the market through government finance, a national dividend or borrowing to produce armaments. It is still one dollar of buying power. One paid to a retailer as a "discount" would suffer the same fate as any other. Sudden death if his account is in overdraft. Recirculation further if it is used to purchase goods or invest in capital goods, or savings to be loaned elsewhere.
And you have not answered my questions because I think you have missed the key point behind them. Competition works under the present system because of shortages of money to buy goods. Social Credit is committed to give people the necessary purchasing power to buy all of production, and at that point competition, to some extent at least, would cease, particularly in the case of more popular goods. And if a diswcount is paid regardless of the price level, prices will rise.
If you think about it, economic democracy demands that some less popular goods remain unsold. In a free market this can only be achieved by producing them to see if the poublic will buy. So this basic concept also is one that must be treated with just a little caution rather than an over-simplified mad rush to justify vague theories.
Formation of a Party for political action has dangers because any human organisation tends to become corrupted over time. But it also has two advantages:
1. When you go to promote policy and ideas to the general public instead of simlply arguing fine points with the converted, you tend to think a lot more deeply about the implications of what you are promoting, and,
2. You get at least some publicity to the general public, which appears to be completely lacking where this step has not been taken.
Perhaps I've spread this discussion a bit too wide, but to me the whole scene forms a pattern.
Regards. John R.
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:32:53 -0500
From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
(John Rawson wrote:-) That would, of course, include money issued by a Credit Authority as per Douglas recommendation.
(Joe replies:-) No, not if it was used to 'lower' consumer prices first. As per the CPD. There you've increased credit issue and put money into the hands of the consumer without raising prices. While at the same time business profit can be maintained as each cycle of production can be made more fully financially self liquidating. I think that's called 'prosperity'.
(John continues:-) . However, in the modern high taxation state, it would be ridiculous to pass all new money to the public and then simply tax a large proportion back from them before it could be spent.
(Joe replies:-) But you're not doing that, John. Think about how the CPD works. Using one possible mechanism, no new money passes to the public until AFTER the sale has been made, and the goods are in their hands. Then they get the rebate, and have effectively got the goods at a lower price. So you're not "taxing it back from them before it could be spent" in that instance, are you?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger |
|
RE: Re: Article by
Reply to this message
