| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: the goldsmith "fraud" story | | Date: | Wednesday, June 18, 2008 09:44:11 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
Richard, I've inserted some brief comments [Comment] below:-
Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is certainly not bizarre and I am puzzled why you think so. If somebody
figured out a clever way of organizing the economy, but is doing it in an illegal
and immoral way, then one should put a stop to his activity under his aegis, but
this does not necessarily mean that the way of organizing the economy has to be
abandoned. It may be decided that this is a good way for democratically designed
and transparent institutions to run the show.
------------------------------------------------------
[Comment] I'm sorry but this appears to be contradictory. If it is decided
that it is a "good way...to run the show" by "democratically designed and
transparent institutions" how can it also be inherently an "illegal and immoral"
practice if performed by "clever" people for private gain? I think it becomes a
matter for regulation and not prohibition.
-
I do not necessarily favour 'hundred percent reserve banking'. This would depend
on a number of other variables, but certainly the credit creation system, as it
is today, could be utilized in more appropriate fashion for the benefit of
society without the many drawbacks of the current set-up. Please refer to the
latter chapters in my book New Paradigm...
------------------------------------------------------
[Comment] Will you please briefly summarize how this could be done? Thanks.
-
On usury: your abuse of those who considered it bad and thus virtually all
religious texts who ban it is inappropriate.
------------------------------------------------------
[Comment] Usury is condemned but it does not appear that interest per se is
condemned. It appears that, as in modern English, interest and usury are
separate words with distinct meanings in the Semitic languages in which the
Scriptures were written originally. The knowledge of this appears to have been
lost in the Middle Ages until its revival during the Reformation:-
"John Calvin's letter on usury of 1545 made it clear that when Christ said 'lend
hoping for nothing in return,' He meant that we should help the poor freely.
Following the rule of equity, we should judge people by their circumstances, not
by legal definitions. Humanist that he was, Calvin knew there were two Hebrew
words translated as 'usury.' One, neshek, meant 'to bite'; the other, tarbit,
meant 'to take legitimate increase.' Based on these distinctions, Calvin argued
that only 'biting' loans were forbidden. Thus, one could lend at interest to
business people who would make a profit using the money. To the working poor one
could lend without interest, but expect the loan to be repaid. To the
impoverished one should give without expecting repayment."
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/jones.usury
"The Quran forbids usury, not interest. Quite a few states in USA have laws
against usury. Usury is defined as excessive interest. A Dictionary defines usury
as 'an excessive or inordinate premium for the use of money borrowed',
'extortionate interest', or 'the practice of taking exorbitant or excessive
interest.' The Arabic language also makes distinction between interest (Fa'eda)
and usury (Reba). The Quran forbids Reba or usury."
http://www.submission.org/islam/interest-usury.html
-
Usury has significant flaws as it is not in line with economic principles. You
may not have noticed, but it is a concept derived purely from mathematics,
without any reference to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics which determine
the actual functioning of our world, and without reference to ethical principles
which we can institute in response to our innate sense of justice. This is why
those who introduced usury first (the Babylonians) also offered the right answers
to deal with the inevitable problems a system based on usury will create (such as
jubilees etc). I recommend you read Michael Hudson's work on the Babylonians on
the latter point.
------------------------------------------------------
[Comment] If there is compounding debt, one logical way to deal with it is to
periodically cancel it, which would be a type of accounting adjustment imposed on
and to the detriment of creditors. The question is: What is the underlying
cause of the compounding debt? There is a highly sophisticated though poorly
understood alternative to the fallacious "debt virus" theory that it is caused by
interest (that you seem to favor) called the "A plus B theorem," which I would be
glad to discuss with you. In the understanding of the theorem, the monetary
authority (or central bank) would grant credits to final consumers. This would
offset the compounding increment (which has nothing to do with interest per se)
in such a way that it does not harm creditors. You will see that the theorem is
the theoretical repudiation of Say's Law.
-
You are still evading the issue. The deposits are fictional. Yes, they are true
liabilities of the bank, no doubt about that. But who deposited them? Why can
they be called deposits? This is the crux of the fraudulent system.
------------------------------------------------------
[Comment] This is purely a linguistic argument, the existence of deposits
infers that someone must have deposited them, that I do not find persuasive.
|
Re: the goldsmith 
Reply to this message