| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook | | Date: | Monday, December 24, 2007 10:25:09 (-0700) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <jmartinh @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5181 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Alberta's Social Credit Government, thinking always in terms that what was
physically possible should be made financially possible, spent an enormous
amount of effort in trying to find a method to "unlock" the tar sands before
processes were developed to do this. The fact that the oil was there was
well known for a long time: the difficulty was, and still is, how to find an
economical way to extract it.
Until oil prices rose, and conventional oil became harder to extract, the
whole business of developing production from the oil sands in this very
remote region wasn't economic, and I have never seen much evidence of US
firms pushing their way in. Now, of course, they are much more interested,
not only in the production, but in doing the processing in the US - again,
for the purpose of giving their people jobs!
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: Sunday, December 23, 2007 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
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 -----
From: William Hugh McGunnigle
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: John G Rawson
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: William Hugh McGunnigle
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: Joe Thomson
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: William Hugh McGunnigle
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: Joe Thomson
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: William Hugh McGunnigle
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
From: John G Rawson
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 269.17.8/1195 - Release Date: 24/12/2007
11:19 AM
--
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: Re: Article by
Reply to this message