| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers tomyquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The AbolitionofInterest on Loans)) | | Date: | Monday, March 31, 2008 14:34:00 (+1300) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5328 (written by Martin Hattersley) |
To all on the forum
I am taking a break and will be absent from
1st April until 18th April hopefully will get some climbing and trout
fishing in during that time
regards to all
Bill McG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Hattersley" <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers
tomyquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The
AbolitionofInterest on Loans))
> Hi, Bill -
>
> I see some possibilities.
>
> One would be to work within some small community, possibly a religious
> one,
> using home made money for internal transactions. The "Vers Demain" people
> think along those lines.
>
> Another would be to do what the island of Vanuatu is doing - have nothing
> to
> do with the Western financial system at all, and think completely in real,
> physical terms, as to what people really need for food, clothing and
> shelter.
>
> A third could involve public education. What is going on today seems to me
> to be a precise implementation of the process outlined in the "Protocols
> of
> Zion", which is available through Google on the Internet. I am sure we
> would
> be chastised for advocating "hate literature" - but to me, it describes
> precisely the processes that are going on, and the hatred is all on the
> other side!
>
> Otherwise, we wait for everything to collapse in bankruptcy and tyranny,
> and
> thereafter look for the return of Christ, either literally or
> figuratively!
>
> Cheers (sort of) -
>
> Martin Hattersley, 5929-189 St.,
> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
> Phone & Fax: (780) 483-5442
> e-mail <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers
> tomyquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The
> AbolitionofInterest on Loans))
>
>
> Hi Martin
> I agree in principle to your proposal, but we still have to
> overcome the problem of government legislation that would outlaw such
> practices. This happened in the American colonies prior to the American
> War
> of Independence when "colonial script" was criminalised. The resultant
> slump
> due to insufficient funding by reason of insufficient coinage to conduct
> commercial business caused such hardship that the colonies revolted. We
> must
> never forget that just about every government in the world has abrogated
> its
> responsiblities of money creation to the private system of banking, and
> those organisations are never going to accept any competition in the money
> creation area without a vicious fight. They are protected by governemnts
> who
> are effectively in their "back pockets" because of the immense amount of
> debt governments owe to that sector.
> I agree with you that we have to adopt a radical approach to
> circumvent the present debtor system. However getting that system
> established will be a stupendous well nigh impossible task ghiven the
> present hold the private sector has over money creation. I look forward to
> your ideass on this.
> Bill McGunnigle
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Hattersley" <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers
> tomyquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The
> AbolitionofInterest on Loans))
>
>
>> Hi, Joe
>>
>> I sympathize with your wish to find a way to "break through".
>>
>> I wonder whether one way is to forget about political action altogether,
>> at
>> least for a time, and create some viable alternative currency scheme. I
>> see
>> there's a group promoting "Calgary Dollars" (www.calgarydollars.ca) which
>> might be worth a look. Once people understand that money doesn't have to
>> come from bank loans, we could be on our way.
>>
>> Martin Hattersley, 5929-189 St.,
>> EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
>> Phone & Fax: (780) 483-5442
>> e-mail <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 10:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers
>> tomyquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The
>> AbolitionofInterest on Loans))
>>
>>
>> Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
>>
>> Thanks for your two replies, Bill. And for the information on some of
>> the
>> effects of the recent and continuing financial policy followed by NZ.
>> In
>> many ways, it seems to me your country is 'leading' where the current
>> regime
>> here in BC seems determined to follow. To our everlasting detriment too,
>> in
>> my opinion.
>>
>> But, while many in the Official Opposition here, and even a few in the
>> governing Party's rank and file "talk" of the need for a somewhat
>> different
>> course, when push comes to shove they ALL fall into line as if there were
>> NO
>> alternatives. Such is the power of mere 'figures' over 'things', (and
>> 'people'), I suppose.
>>
>> We can, of course, continue in our efforts to try to change minds, but
>> it's
>> neither an easy nor a very certain process. Kind of like being stuck in
>> quicksand, I think. We're going to struggle to get out, but the more we
>> struggle the deeper we sink. And we can quickly get over our head, if we
>> go
>> at it too hard, and then we're done for.
>>
>> I gather from comments expressed over some time now that many of us are
>> giving considerable thought to 'strategy'. Whether there should be some
>> better way of moving things along a little faster, or, at least trying to
>> stem the descent into the kind of world those who'd 'lead' us seem to be
>> determined to take us. Before we arrive where we clearly don't want to
>> go.
>>
>> To continue with the 'quicksand' analogy, the problem right now seems to
>> be
>> how we could provide a 'lifeline' ~ something we can hang onto, to keep
>> us
>> from sinking out of sight and able to continue the struggle to get out
>> of
>> the morass we seem to be stuck in.
>>
>> We all make our individual efforts, some very valuable ones in some
>> cases,
>> to further SC thinking. Some, like many of you in NZ, try to advance
>> through some form of 'organization', either primarily for 'study', or for
>> more direct political 'Party' action.
>>
>> While others try to initiate interest in the possibilities that might
>> ensue
>> from greater citizen participation in the democratic process. Through
>> binding CIRs, and a "Voter's veto", and a "Union of Electors", and things
>> like that.
>>
>> There's even a possibility that if SC could be explained in a way
>> understandable by those in academia, who, we suppose, are better trained
>> to
>> 'think' than the rest of us, that the possibilities might be more
>> thoroughly
>> examined by those who are believed to influence 'policy'. And
>> subsequently
>> by those we think we've elected to make it.
>>
>> And we continue, or at least some do, to try to attach ourselves to some
>> existing organization. And influence from within. Whether it be another
>> political Party, or a religion, or an environmental awareness body, or
>> whatever. So far, there's not been a great deal to show for these
>> efforts,
>> though it's still my belief that 'something' is always better than
>> 'nothing'.
>>
>> But the 'breakthrough' we need continues to elude us. Despite our best
>> efforts, the descent continues, and that 'lifeline' hasn't yet been
>> thrown
>> where we can reach it. Or hasn't yet even been made.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joe
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers
>> tomyquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The
>> AbolitionofInterest on Loans))
>>
>>
>>> Hi Joe
>>> Your critique of my comments is well made, indeed my comments
>>> about the misuse of double account book-keeping was very much a
>>> "tongue-in-cheek" statement. Nevertheless I will take issue with you
>>> about
>>> the effects on NZ of the so-called "reforms" perpetrated by various
>>> governments in the 1980's and early 1990's. The consequences to NZ have
>> been
>>> horrendous, particularly the selling off of state assets at bargain
>> basement
>>> prices.
>>> The two most damaging have been the selling of the telephone system
>> to
>>> Telecom which results in a continuous financial drain of some $800
>>> million
>>> on the NZ economy in dividends spirited away overseas by this foreign
>>> company, and a similar effect on the electrical distribution industry
>>> once
>>> totally state owned but now having some 55% of its dividends going to
>>> overseas concerns. This represents a continuous drain of $1billion (NZ)
>>> on
>>> our economy which has to be made up by bigger exports.
>>> Another "reform" was government abrogation of controlling interest
>> rates
>>> by the Reserve Bank Act. The only criterion for interest rates is set at
>> the
>>> inflation rate, and the bank rate is set by the Reserve bank govenor
>> without
>>> reference to the Minister of Finance. This has resulted in abnormally
>>> high
>>> interest rates in NZ, leading to pressure in the NZ dollar forcing its
>> value
>>> higher and higher on the international exchange rates as speculative
>>> money
>>> is deposited in NZ banks. This again results in a drain on the NZ
>>> economy
>> as
>>> dividends from those deposits bleed off overseas.
>>> From a foreign banker's viewpoint the "reforms" have been
>>> tremendously
>>> successful. NZ is now a "soft touch", financially, with money flowing in
>> and
>>> out of the country without any checks. It's consequences have led to
>>> progressive deskilling of the workforce, and a growing reliance on
>>> imports
>>> for such mundane materials as clothing, footware, domestic appliances,
>> motor
>>> vehicles and certain food items.
>>> From my viewpoint, as a NZ citizen, I regard the actions of those
>>> governments as tacit treason. NZ was sold out to foreigners and the
>> process
>>> is still going on with prime real estate being hocked off to wealthy
>>> foreigners, and NZ citizens being deprived of the places of greatest
>> scenic
>>> beauty. There have even been attempts by these foreigners to try to
>>> impose
>>> raparian rights on their properties. It has taken a great deal of effort
>> on
>>> the part of many of us to prevent this usurption of citizens rights in
>>> NZ.
>>> It was particularly prevalent in areas where there is magnificent trout
>>> fishing. Our argument, recognised by the government, was that trout were
>>> introduced to NZ by government Research Dept, and therefore all trout
>>> were
>>> public property. The government formally recognised "the Queen's
>>> Chain"(22yds or 20m) as public land alonside all lakes and rivers. This
>>> stopped any further claims on exclusive fishing rights to rivers and
>> lakes.
>>> The same applies to salmon fishing in NZ. Salmon being an introduced
>> species
>>> too.
>>> The alterations to the NZ economy over the last 20 years have
>>> been
>>> very detrimental to NZ citizens. There is a growing gap in incomes, and
>>> we
>>> now have a growing group of people who never existed before namely the
>> very
>>> poor and destitute unable to feed themselves. The impression foisted by
>>> financial circles about NZ, and the reality to NZ citizens are two very
>>> different stories.
>>> However I have blathered overlong about a topic that concerns me
>>> very
>>> deeply. I appreciate your pithy and pertinent comments Joe, and look
>> forward
>>> to more of them.
>>> regards
>>> Bill McGunnigle
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
>>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 5:35 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers to
>>> myquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition
>>> ofInterest on Loans))
>>>
>>>
>>> > Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
>>> >
>>> > While there's certainly evidence enough of the mis-use of
>>> > "double-entry
>>> > bookkeeping" by those who want to "cook the books", so to speak, I'm
>>> > afraid
>>> > I'd have to disagree with you on the reason given for its 'invention'
>>> > below.
>>> > It is a very vital part of the world as we know it, and I doubt very
>> much
>>> > we
>>> > could come up with anything better and still maintain the amount of
>>> > personal
>>> > freedom we presently have, (even though that may be being increasingly
>>> > diminished by other means.) But that's not to say all things about it
>> are
>>> > 'perfect'.
>>> >
>>> > I'm curious about this statement, where you wrote:- "Governments are
>>> > dictated to by the Banking system through the IMF and
>>> > World Bank. Only governments that have be fortunate or canny enough to
>>> > avoid
>>> > indeptedness to those orgnisations have genuine control over their
>>> > destiny."
>>> >
>>> > We all know, I think, that New Zealand's government WAS ''dictated to"
>> by
>>> > the international bankers a few decades back. Indeed, your country
>>> > was
>>> > held
>>> > up as an example of what could happen in our country if our
>>> > governments
>>> > continued to run up their public debt the way you, and they, had been
>>> > doing.
>>> >
>>> > And there were documentaries shown here on TV on the "miraculous"
>>> > transformation of NZ after your Government adopted the 'slash and
>>> > burn'
>>> > policies to get your fair land 'back on track' financially. There
>>> > was
>>> > even
>>> > a mention of your then 'Social Credit' Party in one of them ~ and the
>> fact
>>> > that they'd solely advocated, in effect, telling the IMF and WB
>>> > international money men to "get stuffed" when they demanded the
>>> > changes
>>> > that
>>> > were subsequently visited upon you.
>>> >
>>> > Which brings me to a question:- Are there ANY governments in the
>>> > world,
>>> > except in what might be described as "pariah" countries, that have
>>> > been
>>> > "fortunate or canny enough to avoid indebtedness to those
>>> > organisations
>>> > (and) have genuine control over their own destiny"?
>>> >
>>> > The old Commuinist bloc comes to mind, and possibly now Venezuela, but
>> for
>>> > all the 'resources', both 'natural' and 'human' these lands often
>>> > possessed,
>>> > their citizens did not generally enjoy a very high material standard
>>> > of
>>> > living.
>>> >
>>> > And it's arguable whether or not their individual citizen's actual
>> feeling
>>> > of personal 'well-being' in regards to the non-material aspects of
>>> > life
>>> > was
>>> > in any way superior to that which existed, or exists, elsewhere. I
>> don't
>>> > say it didn't happen, but we never saw any masses of people trying to
>>> > escape
>>> > INTO any of the old communist countries, did we?.
>>> >
>>> > And for all his huffing and puffing about "standing up to the
>> Americans",
>>> > and extolling the wonders of modern socialism, and even with gasoline
>>> > around
>>> > 17 cents a gallon US at the pumps in Caracas, El Presidente Chavez
>> seems
>>> > to
>>> > have a rather tenuous hold on office down there, (even without any
>>> > 'outside'
>>> > interference to dethrone him, which no doubt is also present.)
>>> >
>>> > So the question is, I think, and this brings me back to "double-entry"
>>> > accounting, "What's missing?" Why are so many things that COULD be
>> done,
>>> > in
>>> > lands certainly possessed of the physical resources to more than be
>>> > able
>>> > to
>>> > do them, UNABLE TO BE DONE? Why there, even where 'progress' is
>> sometimes
>>> > made, does the 'individual', ALL the 'individuals' in those lands,
>> seldom
>>> > exhibit much 'satisfaction' with it?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Joe
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
>>> > To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>> > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 5:54 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers
>>> > to
>>> > myquestions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition
>>> > ofInterest on Loans))
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Peter and Ardeshir
>>> >> Your arguments appear to be going around in
>>> > circles.
>>> >> In particular political systems have nothing to do with the control
>>> >> of
>>> >> the
>>> >> money supply unless they are prepared to actually control the
>>> >> quantity
>> of
>>> >> money (finance) in circulation. Double accounting is perhaps an
>> essentail
>>> >> tool to ensuring that modern accountancy ensures that all enterprises
>>> >> work
>>> >> at a "profit", but it is also a tremendous tool for concealing losses
>> and
>>> >> embezzlement from company servants and shareholders. I am still to be
>>> >> convinced that the tool was not invented for this purpose in the
>>> >> first
>>> > place
>>> >> by an enterprising "accountant", specifically constructed to create a
>>> >> mystique about simple book-keeping of accounts to confuse others.
>>> >> Be that as it may, the basic problem of the modern
>> "post-industrial"
>>> >> society in the west is that the finance available to the consumers in
>>> >> society does not match the finance absorbed by manufacturers
>>> >> producing
>>> >> the
>>> >> the articles needed for a modern civilization. The present system can
>>> >> only
>>> >> bridge this gap by increasing the amount of overall indeptedness for
>>> >> everyone. An ever decreasing minority become dept free during their
>>> >> lifetime, but the remainder of the world's population become ever
>>> >> more
>>> >> indepted to the system. Because the creation of "money" ie financial
>>> > credit
>>> >> lies basically in the hands of private multinational banking
>>> >> monopolies
>>> > the
>>> >> manipulation of the "money supply" is always directed to benefit
>>> >> those
>>> >> monopolies. The recent actions of the Federal Reserve with respect to
>> the
>>> >> collapse of the Berstein banking group is proof of this. Effectively
>> the
>>> >> Federal Reserve bailed the Bank out until it could be absorbed by
>> another
>>> >> banking group at a bargain basement price.
>>> >> Governments are dictated to by the Banking system through the
>>> >> IMF
>>> >> and
>>> >> World Bank. Only governments that have be fortunate or canny enough
>>> >> to
>>> > avoid
>>> >> indeptedness to those orgnisations have genuine control over their
>>> > destiny.
>>> >> The greatest example of this is the USA whose government has been
>> forced
>>> >> into making every effort to control the flow of oil in the world in
>> order
>>> > to
>>> >> protect the viability of the US dollar as a "reserve currency" used
>>> >> for
>>> > the
>>> >> purchase and transactions of world oil supplies. The wider needs of
>>> >> the
>>> >> US
>>> >> people with respect to industrial output etc have been grossly
>>> >> ignored
>>> >> resulting in a deskilling and deindustrialisation of the US economy
>> with
>>> >> consequent reduction in the gross incomes of most US citizens.
>>> >> Under the present system the quantity of indeptness has to
>> increase
>>> > in
>>> >> order to maintain the expansion of industrial output necessary to
>>> >> match
>>> > the
>>> >> needs of an increasing world population. Only some system that can
>> supply
>>> >> debt free finance can overcome the problem. Our problem is to
>>> >> convince
>>> > world
>>> >> leaders that this is the only sensible and most profitable way go
>>> >> forward.
>>> >> Our present system is a dead end towards the collapse of civilisation
>> and
>>> >> the world economy as we know it. Both of you recognise this basic
>> axiom,
>>> > now
>>> >> we need to find a way to propagate it to the general population.
>>> >> Bill McGunnigle
>>> >>
>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> >> From: "Peter Hogwood" <p_t_hogwood@yahoo.com>
>>> >> To: <chdouglas@yahoogroups.com>; <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>>> >> Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 4:40 AM
>>> >> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] Re: I await your answers to
>>> >> my
>>> >> questions (was: Re: Public-spirited Banking (was: Re: The Abolition
>>> >> of
>>> >> Interest on Loans))
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > But this reply of yours does not respond to what I had
>>> >> > asked. I had asked, in effect, why cannot profit be
>>> >> > calculated in a non-creditary system? I proved that it
>>> >> > CAN be.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You did not answer the question I had asked, while I
>>> >> > demonstrated that what you claimed - namely that
>>> >> > profit cannot be calculated in a non-creditary system
>>> >> > - was false. Please answer the question I had asked!
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] No, you didn't prove that. You gave a single
>>> >> > isolated example of where a chariot that cost ten
>>> >> > denarii to produce was sold for twelve denarii.
>>> >> > Isolated examples are always possible in exception to
>>> >> > the general rule.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Start with the assumption of a fixed number of gold
>>> >> > coins that support the entire volume of trade and
>>> >> > commerce. If the population is increasing and the
>>> >> > number of firms and transactions are increasing, it
>>> >> > has to be the case that, as a matter of statistics and
>>> >> > averages, that each individual firm is always
>>> >> > receiving back fewer gold coins than it is spending,
>>> >> > that, again as a matter of statistics and averages,
>>> >> > that each individual firm is booking continuously a
>>> >> > loss by any conceivable system of accounting.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You could imagine that there is a gold mining industry
>>> >> > that is supplying gold coins to the community. It
>>> >> > spends gold coins for goods and services from the
>>> >> > remainder of the community, and loans gold coins to
>>> >> > non-mining firms so they can conduct their business.
>>> >> > It follows that trade and commerce would be limited to
>>> >> > the number of gold coins that the mining industry
>>> >> > could supply, regardless of the real needs of trade
>>> >> > and commerce in an otherwise growing economy. The
>>> >> > economy would be severely constrained by the
>>> >> > limitations of finance.
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>> So what? Where exactly does the fractional reserve
>>> >> > system - or anything like it - enter into your
>>> >> > argument above?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [Reply]: Because fractional reserve banking allows
>>> >> > the flux of "tickets" from firms through their
>>> >> > spending to increase with the expanding needs of trade
>>> >> > and commerce.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Sure it does, but the same thing can be done without
>>> >> > fractional reserve banking - by the government of a
>>> >> > nation simply increasing the nation's money supply
>>> >> > commensurate with the expanding needs of the nation's
>>> >> > trade and commerce. Why should the BANKS, which are
>>> >> > often multi-national, and are NOT answerable to the
>>> >> > citizens of any nation, be allowed to increase the
>>> >> > flux of these "tickets", as you call them? Why should
>>> >> > not only a government answerable to the citizens be
>>> >> > allowed to do that?
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] In our system all firms are, again
>>> >> > statistically speaking, deficit spending in the
>>> >> > normally growing economy, yet are booking a profit
>>> >> > through the rules and conventions of double entry
>>> >> > accounting, with accommodation by the banks. In your
>>> >> > proposed alternative, only the government would be
>>> >> > allowed to deficit spend, which was essentially the
>>> >> > Soviet system. It was also a system where the
>>> >> > calculation of profit was impossible, which directed
>>> >> > production through elaborate Leontiefian-like
>>> >> > input-output tables. Whereas ours is entrepreneurial
>>> >> > driven, with informational feedback from final
>>> >> > consumers through free markets.
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> > It says nothing about justices of the peace having
>>> >> > jurisdiction over any other cases. (Or are you
>>> >> > claiming it does? If so, where does it say anything
>>> >> > like that?)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If what the articles says is true, then Justice
>>> >> > Mahoney had no jurisdiction over the case involving
>>> >> > Jerome Daly.
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] The court did indeed have jurisdiction over
>>> >> > the underlying matter brought by the bank. Mahoney
>>> >> > went far beyond his jurisdiction in pontificating on
>>> >> > federal law. The quotation from the Minnesota law
>>> >> > library was not all inclusive but merely an excerpt.
>>> >> > Appeal was brought on the grounds that Mahoney had
>>> >> > exceeded his jurisdiction in his ruling and decree.
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Did you READ the page referenced to "Zurn v.
>>> >> > Northwestern National Bank", at:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > <
>>> >> >
>>> >
>> http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969ZurnvNorthwesternNationalB
>>> > ank.pdf
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ...? It says nothing about the case of the First
>>> >> > National Bank of Montgomery Jerome Daly vs. Jerome
>>> >> > Daly.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Nor does the material referenced for "Daly v. Savage
>>> >> > State Bank", which can be found at:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >
>> http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969DalyvSavageStateBank.pdf
>>> >> >>,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ... mention anything about the First National Bank of
>>> >> > Minnesota.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Thus it is obviously deceptive, to say the very least,
>>> >> > to claim that the case of First National Bank of
>>> >> > Montgomery Jerome Daly vs. Jerome Daly were declared a
>>> >> > nullity.
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] Again, you are obviously not a lawyer and
>>> >> > know nothing about legal procedure. Daly was involved
>>> >> > in several similar foreclosures in which he was
>>> >> > involved either as a defendant or lawyer representing
>>> >> > others, from Mahoney's court, that were grouped
>>> >> > together by the appellate courts.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "Ultimately, the decision of the justice of the peace
>>> >> > court was nullified and Daly was subsequently
>>> >> > disbarred."
>>> >> > http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/newsletter/0711.html
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Yes, I have heard this specious argument before, many
>>> >> > times. It's still unconstitutional, though, isn't it,
>>> >> > for anyone other than Congress to issue US money. The
>>> >> > US Constitution says, "Congress shall have the power
>>> >> > ... To coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof."
>>> >> > Note the word "Money". The word is NOT "legal tender".
>>> >> >
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] Notice that the constitution does not say
>>> >> > EXCLUSIVE power. Please learn to read. And note that
>>> >> > the Federal Reserve is a creature of Congressional
>>> >> > legislation. Banks are licensed by state and federal
>>> >> > governments.
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If I were to issue money, in any form, even electronic
>>> >> > form, and call that money "US dollars", I would be
>>> >> > considered a counterfeiter, would I not? And I would
>>> >> > be called a counterfeiter even if I were to back up
>>> >> > every cent of the electronic money I issued with REAL
>>> >> > money kept at my home, which anyone holding my
>>> >> > electronic money could have on demand. Yet banks issue
>>> >> > such electronic money every day! What's the difference
>>> >> > between me and the bank, then?
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] One difference is that the banks are licensed
>>> >> > by the state or federal governments to be in the
>>> >> > business of banking. You are not.
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> > That is not altogether true. People aren't allowed to
>>> >> > issue a nation's money without being called
>>> >> > "counterfeiters".
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] People who are not licensed as banks might be
>>> >> > called that.
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But by calling the money they issue "US dollars", the
>>> >> > banks are CLEARLY engaged in counterfeiting ... or at
>>> >> > the very least in a scam (i.e, a deception, a
>>> >> > dishonest scheme and a fraud perpetrated upon the
>>> >> > general public, who indeed are caused to believe that
>>> >> > the money issued by the banks are US dollars).
>>> >> > -----------------------------------------------
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [Reply] You have clearly never read your deposit
>>> >> > contract with your bank. Please point to even a
>>> >> > single statement in that contract that is deceptive.
>>> >> > Also, perhaps you never noticed that banks do not call
>>> >> > their deposits "US dollars" but "dollars," which
>>> >> > represent a general consensus as to value. I can
>>> >> > create a limited form of money by tendering a
>>> >> > promissory note denominated in dollars. It is limited
>>> >> > in the sense that it is not as generally recognizable
>>> >> > as are bank deposits, and therefore could not
>>> >> > accommodate trade and commerce to the same extent.
>>> >> > -
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Peter Hogwood
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --- Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@mac.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On 21-Mar-08, at 2:29 AM, Peter Hogwood wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > Ardeshir, my replies are inserted [Reply] below:-
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> It has to do with accounting and numbers. The
>>> >> >> fundamental
>>> >> >> >>> question is how could profit be calculated in a
>>> >> >> non-creditary
>>> >> >> >>> system? It can't be in a non-creditary system,
>>> >> >> which is the point.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Why ever not?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Suppose there were only gold coins in
>>> >> >> circulation, and no bank
>>> >> >> >> notes at all, like in Roman times. A manufacturer
>>> >> >> of, say,
>>> >> >> >> chariots could use gold coins to buy everything
>>> >> >> he needs: his
>>> >> >> >> lumber, his hardware (axles, nails, and so on),
>>> >> >> the firewood for
>>> >> >> >> his fires, his tools, etc.. Suppose he makes
>>> >> >> chariots and sells
>>> >> >> >> them. Suppose it costs him ten denarii per
>>> >> >> chariot to buy
>>> >> >> >> everything he needs to make the chariots, and he
>>> >> >> is able to sell
>>> >> >> >> each chariot for twelve denarii. Then his profit
>>> >> >> would be
>>> >> >> >> calculated as being two denarii per chariot,
>>> >> >> wouldn't it?
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> If not, why not? ( Note that no credit is
>>> >> >> involved in this
>>> >> >> >> calculation. )
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> A commodity-like money operating in accordance
>>> >> >> to the quantity
>>> >> >> >>> theory just wouldn't work. There is no possible
>>> >> >> way for profit
>>> >> >> >>> and loss to be accurately calculated in such a
>>> >> >> system.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Why not, given the example I just gave above?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > [Reply]: Gold is in relatively fixed quantity. A
>>> >> >> commodity money
>>> >> >> > based on gold could not expand to accommodate
>>> >> >> increasing trade.
>>> >> >> > With increasing transactions involving more and
>>> >> >> more people and
>>> >> >> > firms, as a statistical matter individual firms
>>> >> >> could not possibly
>>> >> >> > be receiving back in reflux to their spending more
>>> >> >> than they are
>>> >> >> > spending, because their spending is accumulating
>>> >> >> into more and more
>>> >> >> > balances which are in subtrahend to system flow.
>>> >> >> The reflux to
>>> >> >> > individual firms in sales would always be falling
>>> >> >> in respect to
>>> >> >> > their spending, an impossible condition involving
>>> >> >> perpetual loss in
>>> >> >> > terms of any conceivable system of accounting. The
>>> >> >> Roman
>>> >> >> > civilization was precluded from developing a mass
>>> >> >> production
>>> >> >> > economy because double entry accounting had yet to
>>> >> >> be invented, and
>>> >> >> > creditary instutions like modern banks that
>>> >> >> accommodate expanding
>>> >> >> > trade could therefore not exist. For this reason
>>> >> >> Roman civilization
>>> >> >> > was doomed to subsist on slavery and plunder.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But this reply of yours does not respond to what I
>>> >> >> had asked. I had
>>> >> >> asked, in effect, why cannot profit be calculated in
>>> >> >> a non-creditary
>>> >> >> system? I proved that it CAN be.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> You did not answer the question I had asked, while I
>>> >> >> demonstrated
>>> >> >> that what you claimed - namely that profit cannot be
>>> >> >> calculated in a
>>> >> >> non-creditary system - was false. Please answer the
>>> >> >> question I had
>>> >> >> asked!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> Basic model of the modern economy:
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> Firms pay out, in return for goods and services
>>> >> >> received,
>>> >> >> >>> generally recognizable creditary instruments, or
>>> >> >> "tickets," which
>>> >> >> >>> they redeem over their sales counters for
>>> >> >> produced goods and
>>> >> >> >>> services. Inasmuch as tickets printed by the
>>> >> >> individual firms
>>> >> >> >>> themselves would not be generally recognizable,
>>> >> >> and therefore
>>> >> >> >>> would not be tradeable, banks accommodate the
>>> >> >> process by
>>> >> >> >>> exchanging their generally recognizable
>>> >> >> "tickets" in the form of
>>> >> >> >>> deposits for the individual "tickets" of the
>>> >> >> firms, a service for
>>> >> >> >>> which they charge a fee called interest,
>>> >> >> inasmuch as it is a
>>> >> >> >>> function of time. These "tickets" are contracts
>>> >> >> involving credit
>>> >> >> >>> and debt, pure and simple.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> So what? Where exactly does the fractional
>>> >> >> reserve system - or
>>> >> >> >> anything like it - enter into your argument
>>> >> >> above?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > [Reply]: Because fractional reserve banking allows
>>> >> >> the flux of
>>> >> >> > "tickets" from firms through their spending to
>>> >> >> increase with the
>>> >> >> > expanding needs of trade and commerce.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Sure it does, but the same thing can be done without
>>> >> >> fractional
>>> >> >> reserve banking - by the government of a nation
>>> >> >> simply increasing the
>>> >> >> nation's money supply commensurate with the
>>> >> >> expanding needs of the
>>> >> >> nation's trade and commerce. Why should the BANKS,
>>> >> >> which are often
>>> >> >> multi-national, and are NOT answerable to the
>>> >> >> citizens of any nation,
>>> >> >> be allowed to increase the flux of these "tickets",
>>> >> >> as you call them?
>>> >> >> Why should not only a government answerable to the
>>> >> >> citizens be
>>> >> >> allowed to do that?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Is it conceivable to you that the bank was
>>> >> >> seeking possession of a
>>> >> >> >> house worth less than $100? If the house was
>>> >> >> worth more, then a
>>> >> >> >> Justice of the Peace would, according to the
>>> >> >> first-quoted passage,
>>> >> >> >> have no jurisdiction over the case.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > [Reply]: You are clearly not a lawyer and know
>>> >> >> nothing about the
>>> >> >> > law. I would even question your your ability to
>>> >> >> read a simple
>>> >> >> > declarative sentence.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> What evidence do you have for making such
>>> >> >> statements?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > The $100 limitation has to do with civil disputes
>>> >> >> between parties
>>> >> >> > involving monetary claims, or minor criminal
>>> >> >> matters. JPs are
>>> >> >> > involved in approving various writs and warrants
>>> >> >> that do not
>>> >> >> > involve monetary claims. The claim in this case
>>> >> >> was not for money
>>> >> >> > but foreclosure and the sheriff's sale of
>>> >> >> collateral, something
>>> >> >> > apparently handled by JP courts in Minnesota.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The article you quoted says,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [QUOTE]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The 1967/1968 Minnesota Legislative Manual states:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> "Justices of the peace are elected for two-year
>>> >> >> terms in townships
>>> >> >> and in cities and villages which do not have
>>> >> >> municipal courts.
>>> >> >> Justices of the peace have jurisdiction over actions
>>> >> >> arising within a
>>> >> >> county when the amount involved does not exceed $100
>>> >> >> for civil cases,
>>> >> >> and when the punishment or fine does not exceed $100
>>> >> >> or three months'
>>> >> >> imprisonment in criminal cases."
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> [END QUOTE]
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> It says nothing about justices of the peace having
>>> >> >> jurisdiction over
>>> >> >> any other cases. (Or are you claiming it does? If
>>> >> >> so, where does it
>>> >> >> say anything like that?)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> If what the articles says is true, then Justice
>>> >> >> Mahoney had no
>>> >> >>
>>> >> > === message truncated ===
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >
>> ____________________________________________________________________________
>>> > ________
>>> >> > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>>> >> > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>>> >> >
>> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >> > 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 jmartinh@shaw.ca
>> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1348 - Release Date:
>> 28/03/2008
>> 10:58 AM
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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 jmartinh@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1349 - Release Date:
> 29/03/2008
> 5:02 PM
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message