|
Hi John,
In regards to your later post,
haven't answered your questions because I haven't had time to until
now. You wrote:-
Then we might have an explanation of how the former idea could
operate without an army of public servants to set the price levels for every
item in every district in each country, or alternatively how the second
could operate in an conomy where there was financial demand for all goods
and services without simply subsidising runaway demand inflation through
profiteering?
You do not need an "army of public
servants to set price levels". Price levels are set exactly as they are
set right now.
The only difference is the
merchant is getting his profit from two sources instead of one, assuming, of
course, that we are going to credit the Merchant AFTER he has lowered his
price to the consumer at the point of sale.
Rather than the alternate method
of giving a rebate on the regular price to the customer, again, AFTER the
sale.
That first method could easily be
done now, in most cases, through the same electronic POS terminal that credits
the merchant's bank account with any debit or credit card
sales.
We are not, in my opinion anyways,
unduly concerned about 'profiteering'. Even if some merchants did raise
their prices, the price to the consumer is still lower than it would've been
without the discount in place.
And in the overall economy,
it is the rate of profit we want to maintain at least to a level
sufficient to be able to more fully amortize bank loans, if we're to ever get
away from the present constant increase in unrepayable
debt.
And competition does work in
keeping price levels in check, provided any tendency to form organized 'price
rings' or 'cartels' amongst groups of merchants is penalized. Which it
could easily be by withdrawing discount priviledges to any offenders.
Remember, participation in the
whole CPD scheme is entirely voluntary. But any merchant that didn't
participate would certainly have difficulty matching the discounted prices at
the outlets of those that did.
Right now, any merchant who
accepts Visa or Mastercard in payment for his wares, for which he pays
those Credit Card companies a percentage of the sale, has to agree
NOT to discount his prices to anyone who offers to pay by
cash.
Violation of that agreement
would result in termination of that merchant's arrangements to accept those
cards, and a consequent loss in sales from those who want to pay that
way. All it takes is one complaint from a customer. So I don't
believe for one moment there would be any great problem with
'profiteering'. What works one way, would certainly also work the other,
I believe.
And I should think in these times
of consumer awareness any tendency to 'price fix' would be reported to the
relevant authorities.
Do you inagine all retailers would be as honest as
you?
No, no one is as honest as me! My
sign over the door reads, "Why be cheated, chisled, and gouged elsewhere?
C'mon in!"
Wouldn't even you be tempted to raise your prices a little to what you
felt gave you a fair return?
Absolutely. To
whatever I felt was a fair return. I'm not running a
charity. I'm in business to make a buck, and when I can't make one, I
won't be in business long. Neither will anyone else. I don't go to
work every day to purposefully 'lose' money, (though sometimes I wonder,
especially this time of year!), I could do that sitting home all day typing
this stuff on the computer, or many other equally 'financially'
unremunerative activities.
But look at it this way. If
my sales volume increases, though broadening my market to include those who
can not now afford to buy my lumber, but with the discount could, why would I
need to raise prices?
I'm already going to get a
profit that's larger from increased sales. Part of which comes from the
customer, and the other part from the discount. I might find I could
even lower prices, since my turnover has increased.
Regards,
Joe
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:58:00 -0500
> From:
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
>
> Thanks, Martin. I
wouldn't expect "any experiments that have taken place
> before Douglas
to be able to make use of his techniques." That would be
> expecting too
much, indeed. But what about after Douglas?
>
> In looking for
something else, I came across this passage from Douglas in
> "The
Development of World Dominion". It's numbered 120, on page 98 of that
>
book, and dated, Dec. 17, 1949. Which is when I believe it first
appeared
> in TSC. It states:-
>
> "Probably not many of
our readers see Mr. Manning's paper "The Canadian
> Social Crediter",
but for the benefit of those overseas who do we may issue
> a note of
warning against the technical inaccuracies which are beginning to
>
reinforce its politics. For instance, the Keynesian fallacy adopted by
Mr.
> Vincent Vickers that "spending new money into existence" is a cure
for the
> flaw in the price system is being rather subtly substituted
for the
> application of new money to the reduction of prices AT THE
TIME OF PURCHASE.
>
> " "Time" is one of those subjects that
seems to offer great difficulties to
> most people, but it does not
appear too much to ask for the consideration of
> the difference
between, say, paying out new money for a hydro-electric
> scheme which
will "sell" nothing for five years, and paying out the same
> amount of
money to reduce the cost of power.
>
> " Of course, the
international finance groups have no objection whatsoever
> to the
former course ~ it is almost as good a method of raising prices and
>
promoting loans as having a good war.
>
> "The most charitable,
and probably in the main, correct explanation of the
> disappearance of
everything but the name of Social Credit from the Alberta
> Government
is that its executives have entirely "lost the thread of the
> story";
that beyond wishing to retain office, they have no policy."
>
> I
find that passage quite interesting, in that aside from any
differences
> between the ASCP and Douglas, he states quite clearly that
"spending new
> money into existence" as many so-called 'Social Credit'
Parties, and others,
> have advocated and still advocate, "as a cure for
the flaw in the price
> system" is a Keynesian fallacy. Do you think
it's a 'fallacy', Martin, or
> was Douglas all wrong?
>
>
Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Hattersley"
<jmartinh@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
>
>
> > Joe -
> >
For a precedent that I think holds water, look at the Giro of Venice,
>
which
> > lasted for 600 years using nothing but "money of account",
which actually
> > kept its value better than gold. The Venice of the
middle ages was one of
> > the great trading cities of the
world.
> >
> > I think it's a bit much to expect any
experiments that have taken place
> > before Douglas to be able to
make use of his techniques. All that we can
> > claim for them is
that, even if not perfect, they were a better way of
> > handling the
money supply situation that what we "enjoy" at the present
> >
time.
> >
> > Martin Hattersley, 5929-189 St.,
> >
EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
> > Phone (780) 483-5442
> >
e-mail <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
> >
> > ----- Original
Message -----
> > From: "Joe Thomson"
<thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> > To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
6:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard
Cook
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (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.
> >
>
>
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 jmartinh@shaw.ca
> >
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> >
> >
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming
message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version:
7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date:
>
19/12/2007
> > 7:37 PM
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> >
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: John Rawson's 
Reply to this message
