| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions | | Date: | Saturday, December 22, 2007 15:43:12 (-0700) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <jmartinh @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5168 (written by John G Rawson) |
Certainly in Alberta here, where house prices have shot up 50 - 100% in two
or three years, the major influence has been the leverage available when a
$350,000 house can be purchased with a 5% down payment, balance over 25 and
sometimes even 35 years. That means that well over $300,000 on each new home
has been added to the money supply by credit creation by a chartered bank.
It shows how bank credit creation can lead to "bubbles" - and the current
rash of foreclosures in the U.S. shows how bubbles can burst. Competition
between builders does not seem to have much effect on the price - it's the
easy credit that does it.
It seems to me also that speculation, particularly in currencies, financed
again by bank created credit leverage, makes the current ups and downs of
exchange rates - with their impact on business profitability and
employment - far more severe than they otherwise would be. The Canadian
dollar rising from $0.63 to $1.10 against the US$ has made a great dent in
the Ontario auto industry.
I'm not sure how well Douglas's proposals deal with this phenomenon.
Martin Hattersley, 5929-189 St.,
EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
Phone (780) 483-5442
e-mail <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G Rawson" <johngrawson@hotmail.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions
Gotcha, my friend. You have added to the confusion on this issue.
Somewhere we read that the buyer will get a discount back after the
purchase. Here you say the retailer's prices will be lower if he works the
scheme because he gets the payment. (Which is obviously the way to go if it
is to be used.) The whole scheme had been clouded by mystic statements, with
nobody prepared to state plainly, step by step, how it would work.
However, I take it we have established firmly that it will not be a "just
price" scheme, contingent on prices not rising. That concept has been around
as long as I can remember, and I wonder where this traditional SC term comes
in if not here.
But you have not countered my assertion of the danger of price rises in an
economy where all goods etc. can be sold, as opposed to the present one that
forces srtong competition. All you have done is give an opinion to the
contrary without underlying reasons.
Our present experience in this country shows that demand inflation is
possible in one sector even now, in our case housing. While concurrently we
have an increasing number of hungry people. Yes, here.
And all the best for the festive season to ye!
John R.
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:12:44 -0500From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.caTo:
socialcredit@elistas.comSubject: Re: [socialcredit] John Rawson's Questions
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
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.6/1192 - Release Date: 21/12/2007
1:17 PM
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 19208 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
|
Re: John Rawson's 
Reply to this message