|Subject:||[socialcredit] Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government - revised|
|Date:||Saturday, January 12, 2008 01:21:40 (-0500)|
|From:||Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
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
And just where in Douglas does he say there should even be a National
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "vic bridger" <email@example.com>
To: "Joe Thomson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Wallace Klinck"
<email@example.com>; "Constance Fogal" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Wendy
Forrest" <email@example.com>; "Diane Boucher" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Don
Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Jim Schroeder" <email@example.com>;
"Michael Stephen Lane" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Robert E. Klinck"
<email@example.com>; "Bill Daly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Frances
Hutchinson" <email@example.com>; "Martin Hattersley"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Therese Tardif" <email@example.com>; "Don
Auchterlonie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Henry Raynel"
<email@example.com>; "Anne Goss" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
"Richard Cook" <email@example.com>; "Betty Luks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government -
> 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?