eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 5203 to 5262 
Re: More re Say's william_
RE: Re: Replying t John G R
Summarising John G R
Re: Summarising Jamie Wa
Re: Summarising Joe Thom
RE: Summarising John G R
RE: Summarising Henry Ra
Re: Summarising Joe Thom
Re: Regarding "int Jamie Wa
Re: Regarding "int Joe Thom
Re: Regarding "int Martin H
RE: Summarising John G R
RE: Summarising John G R
Re: Summarising Joe Thom
Re: More re Say's william_
Re: Summarising William
Gordon Brown at WE Eric Enc
Re: Gordon Brown a Martin H
Re: Gordon Brown a William
RE: Gordon Brown a John G R
Re: Regarding "int Jamie Wa
Re: Regarding "int Joe Thom
Re: Gordon Brown a William
Back up Gordon Bro Eric Enc
Re: Back up Gordon William
Re: Back up Gordon Eric Enc
What is the actual william_
RE: What is the ac John G R
Re: What is the ac Joe Thom
Re: What is the ac Joe Thom
RE: What is the ac John G R
Re: What is the ac William
RE: What is the ac John G R
Re: What is the ac Joe Thom
Re: What is the ac william_
Re: What is the ac Joe Thom
RE: What is the ac John G R
Re: What is the ac Wallace
Re: What is the ac Joe Thom
RE: What is the ac John G R
The Use of Social william_
Re: The Use of Soc Joe Thom
RE: The Use of Soc John G R
Re: The Use of Soc Joe Thom
RE: The Use of Soc John G R
Re: The Use of Soc william_
The "Gap" John G R
The 'Gap' Martin H
How To Start A Ban Eric Enc
Re: The 'Gap' Per Almg
Re: How To Start A Per Almg
Re: How To Start A Per Almg
MADAGASCAR : a soc Franšois
Responding in an e Terence
 << Prev. 60 | Next 60 >>
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 5219     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:RE: [socialcredit] Summarising
Date:Saturday, January 26, 2008  21:49:28 (+0000)
From:John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
In reply to:Message 5218 (written by Joe Thomson)

Thanks, Joe.  Since neither you nor anyone else has objected to my summary of Douglas' proposals, I presume they are correct and we can move on to the points you raise.
I agree  about crises and any swing to SC. Hopefully, despite the obvious worldwide conspiracy to keep our ideas out of the mainstream media,  we can keep some organisation going so that at least some of the public come our way instead of to some totalitarian answer when it comes.
I am interested in your idea of protesting about taxation. Personally I am happy to pay taxes for services provided by Government, just as I am about paying for a good product elsewhere or for insurance cover etc.  I believe most people have this attitude.  When it comes to unnecessary bureaucracy and paying interest on our national debt, that is a different matter. But the first is a human problem that could be countered under the present system, and SC as per Douglas would do nothing to counter the secoind. So why protest about something essential?
On point two, no, borrowing for infrastructure would not imediately show any increment in production, and therefore would not alter the Balance Sheet at all. (But I agree the nation should be credited with the asset.)
I am sure we would have to pay more to get people to do unskilled jobs, and that is part of our Party policy. But a government strapped for cash because of objections to the tax level and the cost of borrowing would still have to aim for the cheapest possible job in things like health, education etc. The system currently is pushing hard towards privatisation.  Even water supplies seem to be under threat. And in this country at least the move has been disastrous, for example instead of cheaper elecrticity it is now costing much more.
Finally, although you haven't raisedthis point, I give an abbreviatesdquote from an article by Manahan in the latest Aus. Social Crediter.  "The lower limit of price is (scst of production plus reasonable profit) but the upper limit ... is what goods will fetch on the open market." It worries me that people can not see that, if consumers have the means to purchase all goods available, the situation will become one of a "seller's market", where the latter could apply. Everyone seems to just claim it "won't happen" as though the Almighty will decree otherwise because we are Social Crediters.
Regards.   John R.

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:34:44 -0500
From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Summarising

Interesting summary, John.  I think, though, you might be making the same mistake we all seem to make when looking into to the future.  We tend to mix the conceptions we have of things now with the things that would change under Social Credit.  This is doubly complicated because Social Credit, while quite revolutionary, will likely have to be introduced gradually.  Despite the predictions of the current financial system's imminent collapse,  and the "hope springs eternal" crowd's hope for one.  
 If you look back at every successive 'credit crunch' since the end of World War II, each was touted as the beginnings of the financial meltdown that would usher in a new Great Depression worse than the one of the '30's ~ but it hasn't happened.  Yet. 
And even if such an event did come to pass, it's highly unlikely that there'd be an instant embrace of Social Credit as THE solution out of it. There seems to be a very crowded and diverse 'solutions' market out there, and while we're definitely still in it, we are by no means in any preferred position over our competitors.
When you write, near the end of your summary,  the points you number 1, 2, and 3, you are looking at Social Credit from an 'orthodox' view, I think.  And superimposing Social Credit on top of it.  That's not a criticism, really, for we're all guilty of doing that to a degree.  I may be making the same mistake myself in writing some of what follows. Certainly there will be those who'll likely say so.  But here's how I see it, currently, anyways.
 If the CONSUMER is properly credited through the CPD's  lower prices and the National dividend with the calculated excess of total capital appreciation over total capital depreciation on an ONGOING BASIS, where is the problem in taxing?  Which, in any democracy,  the Government still has to come "to the people" for.   And "the people"  can still organize,  protest and resist the payment of, no?
   Just because, in many places, we "don't", doesn't mean to say that for ever and always we "won't".  It took a lot to get the Barons of old steamed up enough to impose the Magna Carta, and the American colonists to stage their own 'tax' revolt, and even the Californians to enact "proposition 13".  But for better or worse, the power remains with "the people".  And that's how it should be, shouldn't it?
Same with the business of the Government's borrowing.  The 'borrowing', if it's for good reason, would be reflected in a further appreciation of capital on the National Balance Sheet, would it not?  And WHO would then be credited with this 'capital appreciation'?  Resulting in?   Potentially a greater National dividend and/or a larger Compensated Price Discount.  No? 
And the same with your number 3.  There is NO shedding of responsibilities.  As now.  There is NO necessity, "FINANCIALLY", for the hospital cleaning contractors to beat the crew's wages down to get their own profit up.  They may find they have to pay MORE to the crew to even get the job done, but it will be done, and done properly.
There's more, but I'm out of time.  Later.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:25 PM
Subject: [socialcredit] Summarising

I believe it is time to summarise key points that have emerged over the course of long discussions:
In terms of Douglas analysis of individual businesses,  this must be taken as factual.  Were it not, someone would have shown the data to be fallacious long ago.
When it is applied to the whole economy, because other factors may come it, the model becomes theoretical. But many points of evidence suggest it is more correct than the orthodox theory, none the least being the fact that  banking systems in modern times have increased money supplies comparatively astronomically without causing the equivalent disastrous inflation that orthodox theory would predict.  It has only occurred at a lesser level.
EFFECTS. Douglas predictions that the tendency towards a deficiency of purchasing power would cause periodic financial collapse, struggle for markets and even war appear to have been justified.
1. A system of national accounting for each country, to determine how much new money would be required over a following period carried out by a government agency, (note small "g"), a national credit authority, independent of political institutions, which would also create the necessary credits and distribute them as:
a. Subsidies (if this word grates, please provide an equivalent within present accepted lantguage) to reduce the cost of all comsumer goods (?and services), local or imported, at retail point, without any price control mechanism, and,
b. A national dividend, its value obviously dependent on the state of the economy as per the national balance sheet, to be paid equally to every adult citizen. 
Presumably the authority would decide the proportion to go each way.
It is accepted that no retailer will raise prices to higher levels, despite the fact that they would continue to be subsidised at any level. (Because we say so, presumably.)
It is also accepted (I believe reasonably) that sufficient people will desire to better themselves by working to produce goods etc., or will simply work for the good of the community because they enjoy so doing.
No new credits will be issued to central or local government agencies, which will continue to rely on present methods of finance:
1. Taxing, i.e. taking back from the people money distributed as above, and/or,
2. Borrowing, (leaving the lending institutions able to dictate at least some aspects of policies), and/or,
3. Shedding their responsibilities to private enterprise so that a "user pays" system operates. With divisions of standards of education and health services betwen rich and poor, and situations such as already exist in Britain and this country (NZ) where patients risk infection (and death) because hospital cleaners now exist to show a profit rather than to clean hospitals.
If I have erred in facts quoted, please correct me.  Undoubtedly the inferences based on them will occasion debate, but please, lets iron out any factual detail first.
John R.

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at 
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 
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

Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service