|
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
No, I wouldn't say that's quite correct, Bill. To my
knowledge, there wasn't too much 'urging' on the part of the US for
Canada to develop the Alberta tar sands.
As I recall, and maybe some of those on this List
who are residents of Alberta and closer to the situation than I am can correct
me if I'm wrong, there had to be some pretty hefty inducements and investments
on the part of Canadian government(s) to even interest the oil companies
to go ahead.
It is not, so far as I'm aware, a very 'cheap' process to
extract this oil. The attraction for Canada, and Alberta, seems to me to
be the same attraction that drives most of the decisions made regarding any
resource exploitation ~ "jobs". Our politicos would sell their
souls to the Devil himself so long as those job creation numbers are rising
under their watch.
To say that the USA " wants to preserve its own
indigenous oil stocks", and use up ours and Mexicos instead doesn't really
seem to wash either. So far as I know, there is a considerable portion of
Alaskan oil production that's exported to Japan. I do believe there are
considerable proven potential oil deposits yet to come on stream in all three
countries. And even more areas, at least so far as Canada is
concerned, and probably the USA, too, where oil exploration hasn't been yet even
undertaken.
In addition, there is some indication that much we've
assumed about the formation of oil deposits may not be correct, and that there
may be some replenishment of fields thought to have been worked out. It
would seem there's an enormous amount we just don't yet understand about this
valuable resource.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:22
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article
by Richard Cook
Hi John and Joe
Thank you both for filling in gaps in my knowledge on Canadian trade. Am I
correct in assuming that. at present, Canada is being urged to develope
the oil shales and tar sands of Alberta by US pressure under the pretext
of an oil policy for the whole of North America? I get the impression that the
USA wants to import oil from Canada and Mexico to preserve its own indigenous
oil stocks. This would seem to be detrimental to both Canada and Mexico.
However I appreciate that both those countries are living with a ruthless
giant on their borders: not a happy situation even though that giant is
obliged to provide a large measure of military protection in
return.
regards
Bill McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:10
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Re: Article
by Richard Cook
Interesting point on Russia, Joe. Prices for export
logs here are "the pits", presently attributable to USA housing
decline. But before that a drop appeared to be due to a lot of
Siberian lumber coming out, probably simply wastefully cleared. One
could construe that the debts Russia has accrued since the change from
Comunism have resulted in a repeat of a former
situation?
Regards.
John R.
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:46:04 -0500
From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article by
Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Yes, I believe you're right, Bill, we
certainly can't ever 'win' in our trading arrangements. Not with the
'flaw' in the 'price' system remaining uncorrected. No one
can.
Canada traditionally has always done a lot
of trade with the USA, and has always been particularly vulnerable to
American 'protectionism'. The Smoot-Hawley tariff in the 1930's
literally wiped out most of the market for BC lumber in the US, as the
American government, quite naturally and properly, moved to protect their
own lumber industry and all the jobs and other benefits it
engendered.
The "Imperial Preference" trade agreements
negotiated with Britain and the other countries of the Empire literally
'saved the bacon' for that industry in those troubled times. Britain
became our number one customer for lumber, as the "Imperial" tariff
structure effectively excluded much lumber coming into British
markets from Scandinavia and the Baltic region of northern
Europe.
The Soviet Union however, operating under a
different system and 'exporting' for a different purpose, just lowered its
prices and kept its market share despite the tariff. Fortunately for
BC, the Russian lumber industry, like most of their industry under
Communism, was not operated very well and increasing volume shipped was
physically difficult.
But it wasn't only with Britain that our trade
increased because of "Imperial preference". We 'captured' markets in
Australia, India, South Africa, and the Caribbean British colonies,
too. All places that had been previously receiving lumber from
the USA .
After the War, a problem developed in that our trade
with Britain became increasingly unbalanced. They were not making
sufficient sales of British goods in Canada, despite devaluing the
pound, (more than once), to come close to what we were selling
them.
Many of the things Britain made and exported
to other Empire countries, were also being made in Canada by that
time. We didn't need their motor vehicles, smaller ships, commercial
and military aircraft, etc. All those things were being made here,
and could be in ever greater quantities. If only we had some market
other than our own to absorb them all at the 'price' it cost us to make
them. And therein seems to lie the 'problem', or a very large part of
it.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007
6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
thanks
for correcting me with regard to Canada being outside the Sterling area.
It was a stupid oversight on my part, because Canada's major trading
partner has always been the USA, and hence used the same currency. ( I
believe at a fixed ratio set by the Canadian government). Canada was
never in the same position as NZ who at one stage had as much as 90% of
its overseas exchenge with Britain, but you are quite right when you
observed that "Imperial Preference" helped to bolster a considerable
amount of trade between Canada and Britain. After WW2 the loss of
preeminence for Sterling as a trading currency came about as a result of
the "Bretton Woods" conference which, while establishing the World Bank
and IMF ostensibly to "stablise" trade, also established the Dollar as
the trading currency for Oil. This immediately placed pressure on the
Pound Sterling as a trading currency. The USA could do this because it
was still then a net exporter of oil and could control the amount of oil
flowing onto the world market. Western Europe, including Britain, was a
net importer and was vunerable to oil price fluctuations. The US
hierarchy recognised that oil would become the single greatest and most
important trading commodity after WW2. Having all oil trade dependant
upon the supply of US Dollars onto the world trade market has enabled
the US to offset inflationary trends at home by manipulating the
oil supply. Price increases demanding more dollars. The
British government were not unhappy with this arrangement because
it took pressure off Sterling so that it did not have to remain at a
relatively high value with respect to other currencies. Nevertheless
Sterling is tied rigidly to the Dollar and the two currencies support
one another in International trading.
We, in new Zealand now have a very
large percentage of our trade with Australia now as a consequence of our
free trade agreement between the two countries. Trade with Britain has
been reduced to about 10% of our total trade now. Our major trading
partners after Australia are Japan, Taiwan, China, India, South
east Asia, and the USA. This leaves us vunerable to the
machinations of the IMF and World Bank instead of the Bof E. You
can't win can you?
regards
Bill Mc G
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007
3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Thanks again for shedding some further light on
an area that needs illuminating. My understanding is that Canada
never was in the 'Sterling area', as were most other
independent Dominions of the Empire, and most of the Crown
Colonies, etc.
Even though our trade with Britain and other
Empire jurisdictions was substantial, and protected due to
"Imperial Preference" trade agreements, we were in the 'Dollar
area'.
Canada, for whatever reasons, perhaps to show we
were 'independent' of British Government foreign policies, or maybe
under pressure from Washington, resisted efforts by Britain to form a
more cohesive intra-Empire trading 'bloc' after World War
Two.
I believe that was something Winston Churchill
was pushing for, but Ottawa wouldn't go for it. It would be
another one of those interesting speculations to ponder "what if" that
had happened. For the Empire was physically even more
internally 'self-sufficient' in regards to resources and
markets than America, or the Soviet bloc, or a united Europe.
Doubtless ''financial'' considerations played a large role in
scuttling that idea. Though the personality and mind-set of
Churchill and some of the other British proponents might have been
detrimental to the idea too.
I'll have to go through what you've written
further, Bill, and try to piece together how the 'competition' you
mention fits into it. Out of time right now.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 20,
2007 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
What you
have postulated is essentially correct. However the BofE never held
substancial amounts of NZ currency. NZ pounds were changed
into Pounds Sterling in NZ by the NZ Reserve
Bank. NZ companies were required to purchase Sterling from the
Reserve Bank in order to undertake overseas purchases, thus NZ
currency never reached Britain. I believe
the pressure from the Bof E was from British Banks that,
up until the advent of the Labour
government, had monopolised loans extended throughout the NZ
economy. They found themselves in direct competition with a
government backed bank that could afford to offer loans at 0.5-1.0%.
Obviously they could not allow any other British Empire "colony" to
follow NZ's example, because a substantial
amount of Britains overseas earnings came from Banking "investments"
in the form of loans to all Empire colonies, hence the pressure. I
am sure something similar was directed towards Canada and Australia
to force them to remain within the Sterling area prior to 1939.
The position of the Bof E
acting as the the holders of overseas exchange for Empire and
Commonwealth gave it a unique position as banker for the Sterling
area. It could therefore exert pressure on those countries by
withholding the
exchange reserves it held in safekeeping for
Sterling area countries. I am sure the BofE would have acted in this
way no matter what, once it became apparent that the NZ government
had determined to become the master of its own currency and foreign
exchange rate. It was a necessary step for the Bof E to maintain its
financial control of NZ's developement against NZ government efforts
to become autonomous.
This is my interpretation of the
actions taken by the Bof E in 1938. Nevertheless I concede that
there are still too many "What ifs" and " If only's" in the whole
senario. That all the negotiations have been embargoed until 75
years after the event doen't help matters either. Furthermore I
suspect that once the time expires they will be reembargoed for a
further 75 years. This seems to be a
common factor in these events.
regards
Bill McGunnigle
--- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 21,
2007 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Many thanks for providing the background
details in regards to the New Zealand experience.
Could it be that what your first Labour
Government was attempting was tantamount to a continual
'devaluation' of the New Zealand pound? (I don't know the
answer to that, quite honestly, but it would seem to me
that might be the case.)
If that were so, then perhaps your main
trading partner, Britain, ran the risk that what had been
acquired by the BofE in New Zealand denominated funds through
trade balance settlements, (instead of a transfer of actual gold
or silver), might quickly become progressively worthless as
effective demand for further NZ goods?
If such were the case, and its holdings of
foreign exchange reserves in NZ pounds were substantial, wouldn't
it be likely that the BofE would naturally try to discourage the
new found 'financing' method for Government infrastructure for
that reason alone, if none other?
Now I don't have the answers to that, and
maybe I'm way off track even in considering the issue that
way. And if I am, I hope anyone with greater
knowledge in these matters will come in and set me straight.
But at the moment, that's what comes to mind.
If your first Labour Government could
have gone instead to some variant of the CPD mechanism,
which, in effect, makes each unit of NZ currency held capable of
purchasing 'more' in NZ goods and services, I wonder how the BoE
would've viewed that? Other considerations aside, wouldn't
it be possible you might have had quite a sudden 'trade boom'
with Britain and found funding infrastructure a lot easier?
It's always interesting to speculate what
might have happened when we ask "what if" or "if only" we'd done
something differently, but really, all things are so
interconnected it would be almost impossible to ever
know.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December
19, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
Further to John Rawson's remarks on the use of Reserve Bank
Credit for infastructure building works by the 1935-1949 Labour
government of New Zealand, from my
historical research into that government, The Bank of England expressed great disapproval of
this method of financing New Zealand's internal infrastructure
developement. It, therefore, took the unprecedented step in late 1938, supported by the
British government, threatening to freeze all of New Zealand's
overseas exchange funds to which it had security rights, (New
Zealand was part of the Sterling area then) unless it
discontinued the practice. This put a temporary hold on the
practice, but, in 1939, with the outbreak of WW2, the Bank
of England was in no position to continue to hold that threat
over NZ, because NZ was a reliable supplier of essential raw
material for the war effort. Consequently despite the enormous
amount of expense, relatively speaking, that the war cost NZ,
the bulk of the war debt for NZ was to its own Reserve Bank at a
nominal interest rate. NZ had a balance of payments surplus
during the war years because of this. Demand for NZ products
after WW2 continued to exceed supply and it was not until the
1970's that NZ started to experience balance of payment
deficits. Significantly the end of the 1st labour government in
1949 saw the downturn in the balance of trade with the advent of
a series of National governments that steadily reduced the
strict monetary exchange rules enforced by the 1st Labour
government. However, ironically, it was the 3rd Labour
government 1972-75 that removed exchange rate controls,
and it was from that point onwards that NZ began to
experience serious balance of trade deficits. The swing to the
extreme right during the 1980's and 1990's completed the
exchange rate "liberation", and NZ has never been able to post
an overall balance of trade surplus since then.
I trust this amplifies some
of the detail around the question
regards
Bill Mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December
20, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Thanks Joe.
The first parts remain theory
either way for me and I keep an open mind until someone comes
out with hard facts.
But your comment on NZ is wrong. There
was no debt attached to the use of Reserve Bank credit for
Government operations. It was new money issued for the
purpose, non-repayable. For local bodies and the Dairy
industry, yes, you are right. But the interest charged
was only 1% and the finance probably would not have been
available elsewhere. Making this repayable meant that more
could be issued as it was returned, or alternatively made the
debt bearable if it was not. . This distinction is in accord
with our present party policy here.
I notice Richard has
not replied to your comment on inflation, so try this
translation. "No more inflationary than any other issue
of new money from any source." That would, of course, include
money issued by a Credit Authority as per Douglas
recommendation.
The issue over government use of new money
has nothing whatever to do with (demand pull) inflation. If it
is confined to the amounts needed to balance the prices of
goods, there should be none under either system. The
critical point is that, in a dictatorship, Government spends
all new money into circulation and therefore determines what
shall be produced. We saw that in Soviet Russia., and to
some extent in Nazi Germany, both of which seem to have
operated a form of monetary reform. In a democracy, the
public would be given at least some of the new money to spend
into circulation so that they get to determine what goods
shall be produced per economic democracy. 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.
It is a
pity if great ideas are made ridiculous by slavish adherence
to totally impractical concepts
Regards. John
R.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:03:47 -0500
From:
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
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 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
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: Re: Article by
Reply to this message
