| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government - revised | | Date: | Saturday, January 12, 2008 10:00:20 (-0500) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
Hi Jim/Vic and all,
I think the question here is whether Douglas was using the supposed
macro-economic 'balance sheet' and 'capital account' mechanisms literally or
figuratively. Traditional Social Credit ideology seems to have long held it
was the former.
Bill, I believe, is quite possibly challenging that conception. And if so,
probably not without good reason.
Though I have no desire to try to second guess Bill, if you refer back to
"The Alberta Experiment", and go through the Appendix that reproduces the
voluminous correspondence between Aberhart and Douglas after the election of
Aberhart's government, there is a letter from Douglas in which he states,
(page 146 ~and I have only quoted the relevant parts):-
(Douglas:-) "I regard the survey of production, resources, etc., to which
you refer, as being quite secondary...... .....and consider that the
existing data is quite sufficient for the purpose of inaugurating a sound
Social Credit system ...."
This would seem to me to indicate that a national 'balance sheet' in the
nature of a limited company's balance sheet, (only changed to exclude
'money' from the Assets side), would possibly be more figurative than
literal.
If, as Bill has previously explained, there is already new "debt-free"
credit being introduced into the economy 'at the top', there certainly must
be some existing mechanism by which the need for such new credit is
assessed. And, I would think, the quantity determined. If this is so, and
other considerations have been dealt with, why do we have to multiply
something beyond that which is necessary? Could not the same existing
mechanism be used to inject new 'debt-free' credit 'at the bottom' ~ direct
to Consumers? How do we know what is sufficient? Simply by observation.
Isn't that how we're only ever going to know anything?
Now those are not my only concerns regarding the Discount. If it is to be
introduced solely on the basis of data rigidly entered onto a 'National
Balance Sheet' the following questions might be asked.
1.) Over what period will such a Balance Sheet be kept? Monthly, quarterly,
half-yearly,or yearly? Many businesses charged with providing the
supposedly necessary data would have difficulty doing so on any less than a
yearly basis.
Yet to be of real advantage the Discount, I would think, should be adjusted
over much shorter periods. Monthly, at least, might prove to be far more
ideal. But has anyone thought about the sheer volume of data that would
have to be processed and entered each month to enable that to happen if
we're rigidly tied to an actual 'Balance Sheet?
2.) If the period were longer, quarterly, say, what might happen if the
public held back its spending in the latter part of the quarter in
anticipation of a greater possible Discount in the next quarter?
While over time it would likely all even out, this is hardly conducive to
keeping production proceeding at a steady pace. We saw evidence of just
what I'm referring to here in BC's lumber industry when it entered into an
agreement with the USA and our Government to adjust Crown stumpage prices
upwards if certain export levels of lumber going to the USA were exceeded
quarterly.
The industry ran wide open in the first half of the quarter, and slowed to
a virtual crawl, or stopped completely, in the second half. To try to
preclude any rise in stumpage rates through overshipping. It was a terribly
inefficient way to conduct business, or, for those employed, to maintain
steady incomes. Might a similar thing in reverse take place if the Discount
were fixed over longer than a monthly period?
3.) How would we 'value' the Cultural Heritage? Much of that is analogous
to "goodwill" in a business. But it is not 'acquired' goodwill, but rather
'inherent'. What figures are going to be used on such a proposed 'National
Balance Sheet' to accurately quantify that?
Those are just a few questions, but unfortunately all I have time for at the
moment.
Regards to all,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim" <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
To: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>; "vic bridger"
<socialcredit@ecn.net.au>
Cc: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>; <socialcredit@elistas.com>; "Wallace Klinck"
<wmklinck@shaw.ca>; "Constance Fogal" <conniefogal@telus.net>; "Wendy
Forrest" <forrwen@gmail.com>; "Diane Boucher" <cresoc@ccapcable.com>; "Don
Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Michael Stephen Lane"
<outoftheashes@prodigy.net>; "Robert E. Klinck" <robert.klinck@gmail.com>;
"Bill Daly" <b.daly@woosh.co.nz>; "Frances Hutchinson"
<f.g.hutchinson@btinternet.com>; "Martin Hattersley" <jmartinh@shaw.ca>;
"Therese Tardif" <thtardif@hotmail.com>; "Don Auchterlonie"
<jimjamdon@hotmail.com>; "Henry Raynel" <henry.raynel@actrix.co.nz>; "Anne
Goss" <ag.socred@btinternet.com>; "Richard Cook" <rickycook21@hotmail.com>;
"Betty Luks" <betty@alor.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government -
revised
> Hello Joe/Vic and others:
>
> The price discount is based upon the scientific fact that the true cost of
> production is consumption over an equivalent period of time. The discount
> would require accurate statistics regarding consumption and production
> habits of the people who live in the community about to implement Social
> Credit, and this would require a body to calculate these
statistics(whether
> it's called a "National Credit Authority", "Statistics Canada", "The Bank
of
> Canada" etc.....).
>
> In my opinion, once the "authority" in charge of calculating these
> statistics is operational, the price rebate can be implemented based upon
> those statistics, and I do not see any need to "gradually" introduce the
> price rebate mechanism, since it's based upon scientific principles of the
> true cost of production and accurate statistics.
>
> The dividend is another matter, and I do believe that some degree of
> "gradualism" is necessary to introduce this mechanism: firstly, because I
> have yet to see where Douglas gave a scientific methodology to determine
the
> exact size of the dividend, and secondly, because people have been so
> indoctrinated with socialist ideology that when given the dividend, they
> will tend to see it as a right without responsibility. I think we can
agree
> that rights entail certain responsibilities. My fear would be that there
> would be a mass exodus of people from the productive system, because they
> would no longer feel the "need" to work, and the system would fail in a
> short period of time. I think we can all agree that we are still at a
stage
> in technological development where a certain amount of work is still
> necessary.
>
> Take care,
>
> Jim Schroeder
>
> http://social-credit.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> To: "vic bridger" <socialcredit@ecn.net.au>
> Cc: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>; <socialcredit@elistas.com>; "Wallace
Klinck"
> <wmklinck@shaw.ca>; "Constance Fogal" <conniefogal@telus.net>; "Wendy
> Forrest" <forrwen@gmail.com>; "Diane Boucher" <cresoc@ccapcable.com>; "Don
> Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Jim Schroeder"
<jschroeder@shaw.ca>;
> "Michael Stephen Lane" <outoftheashes@prodigy.net>; "Robert E. Klinck"
> <robert.klinck@gmail.com>; "Bill Daly" <b.daly@woosh.co.nz>; "Frances
> Hutchinson" <f.g.hutchinson@btinternet.com>; "Martin Hattersley"
> <jmartinh@shaw.ca>; "Therese Tardif" <thtardif@hotmail.com>; "Don
> Auchterlonie" <jimjamdon@hotmail.com>; "Henry Raynel"
> <henry.raynel@actrix.co.nz>; "Anne Goss" <ag.socred@btinternet.com>;
> "Richard Cook" <rickycook21@hotmail.com>; "Betty Luks" <betty@alor.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government -
> revised
>
>
> > No, I don't think it's "jumping the gun" at all, Vic. Not in the context
> > in
> > which it's being discussed here. Which concerns what Bill has suggested
~
> > ONE possible way the Dividend and Discount might be introduced. Through
> > 'gradualism'.
> >
> > And just where in Douglas does he say there should even be a National
> > Credit "Authority"?
> >
> > Though I've no desire to quibble over semantics, I don't recall ever
> > seeing
> > him use that word. Which to me, in this country anyway, seems to
> > connotate some all -powerful, centralised body charged with rigidly
> > following some pre-determined "Plan".
> >
> > From the link provided in Bill's previous reply, that seems to have been
> > the
> > underlying failing of Communism.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression Social Credit was
for
> > 'inducement' rather than 'compulsion'. That people, including retail
> > merchants affected directly by it, would embrace it because they AGREE
> > with
> > its being advantageous to them.
> >
> > Now in light of what Bill has suggested just recently re:-"gradualism",
> > and
> > what he has written previously about the statistical mechanisms inherent
> > in
> > a National Credit Office already being largely in place (in the Federal
> > Reserve, in the USA), I certainly don't believe there is any "jumping
the
> > gun" in soliciting his opinion on the questions I've asked him.
> >
> > No Social Crediter, certainly not myself, nor would I suspect Bill
either,
> > is losing sight of the "first trench to be taken". But it certainly
does
> > no
> > harm, in my opinion anyways, to have some idea just what we're going to
do
> > that's actually prudent and practical if we ever succeed in taking it.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "vic bridger" <socialcredit@ecn.net.au>
> > To: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> > Cc: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>; <socialcredit@elistas.com>; "Wallace
> > Klinck"
> > <wmklinck@shaw.ca>; "Constance Fogal" <conniefogal@telus.net>; "Wendy
> > Forrest" <forrwen@gmail.com>; "Diane Boucher" <cresoc@ccapcable.com>;
"Don
> > Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Jim Schroeder"
> > <jschroeder@shaw.ca>;
> > "Michael Stephen Lane" <outoftheashes@prodigy.net>; "Robert E. Klinck"
> > <robert.klinck@gmail.com>; "Bill Daly" <b.daly@woosh.co.nz>; "Frances
> > Hutchinson" <f.g.hutchinson@btinternet.com>; "Martin Hattersley"
> > <jmartinh@shaw.ca>; "Therese Tardif" <thtardif@hotmail.com>; "Don
> > Auchterlonie" <jimjamdon@hotmail.com>; "Henry Raynel"
> > <henry.raynel@actrix.co.nz>; "Anne Goss" <ag.socred@btinternet.com>;
> > "Richard Cook" <rickycook21@hotmail.com>; "Betty Luks" <betty@alor.org>
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government -
> > revised
> >
> >
> >> Isn't this just jumping the gun? Surely details can be debated AFTER
> >> the hurdles have been breached. Next thing there will be mounting
> >> discussion on whether the National dividend should be 5% or 10% or
> >> some other unknown or whether the discount should be 5% ,10% or 25 %
> >> or nothing. I would have thought that one would build the house before
> >> starting to furnish it. When a national Credit Authority is
> >> established and when that body has produced a proper and correct set
> >> of financial accounts on the economy and when the Balance Sheet has
> >> been achieved and when that information is available to whatever
> >> Authority is charged with the responsibility to distribute a dividend
> >> or discount perhaps then it may be possible to entertain thoughts on
> >> what % may apply. Much will depend upon a host of other factors
> >> applicable at the time.
> >>
> >> Vic Bridger
> >>
> >> On 11/01/2008, at 1:19 PM, Joe Thomson wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > (Bill Ryan wrote:-) "The more prudent course of action is based on
> >> > the
> >> > principle of gradualism, where the Dividend and Discount are
> >> > introduced in
> >> > relatively small amounts at first, and gradually increased over
> >> > time, so we
> >> > might deal appropriately with unforeseen consequences that will
> >> > inevitably
> >> > occur."
> >> >
> >> > (Joe replies:-) Douglas, in his 1930's "Draft Plan for Scotland",
> >> > recommended that the initial amount of the Discount, (at that time),
> >> > shouldn't be less than 25%. And the "Goldsborough Bill" from that
> >> > same era
> >> > proposed an initial amount of 15%. Both of these amounts are
> >> > signifigant
> >> > discounts. Though both were proposed in a time of prolonged
> >> > Depression, and
> >> > the latter is not far from what we are currently charged, in this
> >> > country,
> >> > in Sales Taxes.
> >> >
> >> > Do you think either amount would be appropriate as an initial
> >> > Discount
> >> > today? Would the same reasons Douglas gave for making it 25% to
> >> > start with
> >> > still be relevant, (to ensure broad based participation amongst
> >> > merchants)?
> >> > Or, if we followed the principle of gradualism you mentioned, would
we
> >> > likely begin with some smaller amount, and hope for broad merchant
> >> > acceptance?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
|
Re: Fwd: Banking a
Reply to this message