| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Re: the goldsmith "fraud" story | | Date: | Monday, June 23, 2008 20:21:12 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5401 (written by Joe Thomson) |
I seem to have not received the beginning of this particular correspondence.
Are we referring to the origin of banking as presented in, among other sources, long standing textbooks?
Surely there is no attempt to debunk this very obvious progression?
Regards.
John R.
> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:51:56 -0700
> From: thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: the goldsmith "fraud" story
>
> (Richard Werner):- I now understand your reluctance to recognize the
> fraudulent historical origin of banking and continued dubious practice
> today. First you need to become aware of this reality. I explain it in
> chapter 12 of New Paradigm.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> (Bill Ryan):- [Reply] I have read it and continue to read it. Thank you
> for writing it and making it available.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> (Joe Thomson asks):- Would it be possible to reproduce "chapter 12 of New
> Paradigm" in whole, or the relevant parts of it here, so that we all might
> read it? Or would this violate the copyright? Perhaps, considering the
> very interesting discussion you've been having with Richard, he might give
> permission, since it might help to further explain his position?
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:43 PM
> Subject: [socialcredit] Re: the goldsmith "fraud" story
>
>
> Richard, I've archived some of our interesting dialog at
> http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/werner/goldsmith.txt
> To keep this conversation from becoming interminable, I've attempted to keep
> my replies inserted below [Reply] very brief and to the point:-
>
> Bill
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> William,
>
> You are falling for the propaganda of the bankers. Usury means interest. The
> Bible forbids it. The bankers managed to convince the Bible scholars between
> the 16th and 17th century to suddenly see things differently, and came up
> with the idea of distinguishing 'excessive interest' from 'interest', and
> only calling usury the former. Convenient. A fairly see-through plan, but it
> has worked.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] Whether or not the Bible actually forbids it is open for
> discussion. But this seems suspiciously like the anti-semitic conspiracy
> theory that the Jewish bankers conspired with the Calvinist reformers and
> Cromwell to introduce the fractional reserve banking system for some
> nefarious purpose. I'm not even sure that the goldsmiths were Jews or
> descended from Jews. The Jews had previously been expelled from England and
> I do not think they had re-entered in great numbers by the seventeenth
> century.
>
> I quoted from two citations, the first from a scholar at Utah State
> University summarizing Calvin's letter from 1645, and the second from an
> Islamic scholar at an Islamic website, that say that there were two words in
> the Semitic languages that were translated into English as the one word,
> "usury." This goes to the argument that the Bible was written originally in
> Aramaic, then translated by a non-native Aramaic speaker or speakers, first
> into Greek, then from Greek to Latin. So errors were introduced when first
> translated into Greek nearly two thousand years ago, that have been carried
> forward into the modern translations that we now use.
> -
>
> You certainly seem to have bought it, as you seem to think the modern
> distinction is the accurate one. You also seem to think that before medieval
> times people had it right, but the knowledge was temporarily
> lost. ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] Actually, much knowledge from antiquity was lost by the Middle
> Ages, which is one reason why they are sometimes called the "Dark Ages."
> -
>
> Actually, the further one goes back in time the clearer it becomes that
> virtually all cultures and civilizations banned interest/usury. (e.g. Hindu
> Sutras, Buddhist Jatakas, etc.).
>
> Obviously the biggest problem with this elastic and convenient new
> interpretation is that the distinction is entirely flexible concerning what
> is considered excessive and what not...
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] It would certainly require value judgments on particular
> circumstances.
> -
>
> the present-day 'expert' interpreters of the Bible would no doubt say that
> no interest charged nowadays is 'excessive' hence there is no usury at all!
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] There are indeed extreme ideologues who say there should be no
> intrusion into the market whatsoever. I do not believe in laissez faire in
> matters of finance. I believe that the free market in goods and services
> requires public oversight and regulation of the financial sector so that the
> natural monopoly of finance is not abused.
> -
>
> Interesting that you seem to think the Koran allows interest. I know quite a
> few Muslims who spend more time reading it than I do, and perhaps than you,
> who think about this differently, based on their reading of the Koran.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] My citation was from an Islamic website.
> -
>
> Your interpretation is not convincing, though. Why would Islamic Banking
> then exist? (Although it is anyway only a fig leaf, similar to the invention
> of discounting in Europe several centuries ago to circumvent the ban on
> interest/usury).
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] Economic progress required subterfuges to get around the pinheaded
> legalists. Discounting was effectively charging interest, but the legalists
> were too stupid to know that. The same is true in Islamic communities
> today, which seem to have a preponderance's of pinheaded legalists. "Islamic
> Banking" in the pure sense cannot exist, since a mass production economy
> that does not charge and collect interest is an impossibility except in the
> minds of ideologues.
> -
>
> Actually the Bible is also quite clear about it: any kind of interest is
> forbidden, see e.g. Deuteronomy 23:19: "Do not charge your brother interest,
> whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest."
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] It does not say that any kind of interest is forbidden. 23:19 goes
> on to say, "unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon interest."
> -
>
> The subtle distinction between usury and increase can be made, but this is
> not fruitful, since the Bible condemns both: Ezekiel 18:8: "He that hath
> not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath
> withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man
> and man."
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] From "John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes":
>
> "Increase — Illegal interest.
>
> "Iniquity — Injustice of every kind."
>
> http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&b=26&c=18
> -
>
> That's of course also why the Jubilee cancels ALL debt, not just the debt
> with 'excessively high interest' or debt to the poor, but also the loans
> from the professional 'money lenders' (bankers). This is also the case in
> the Babylonian debt amnesty.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] It was, for the time, a rationally applied accounting adjustment to
> compensate for exponentially expanding debt that was however harmful to
> creditors, regardless how they obtained their relationship with debtors,
> whether just or unjust. Some of the debt was undoubtedly just, which means
> its cancellation was unjust to the creditor. It is however possible to
> apply an adjustment in such a way that it doesn't harm creditors, so that
> trade and commerce might continue without disruption. I wish you would take
> up my offer to discuss the Douglas A + B theorem which is predicated on
> something other than the fallacious "debt virus" theory that you favor.
> -
>
> Jesus was also pretty clear about his views of bankers and their fraudulent
> activity: he threw them out. (In ancient times, bankers operated not only in
> temples, but often as part of the temple administration - temple banks -
> which were a commercially attractive proposition for those who controlled
> the temple, since they could not resist the temptation to expand the role of
> deposit-taking to one of fraudulently creating fictional deposits).
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] I don't think the money changers were bankers in the modern sense.
> They were people who were haggling and selling the temple tokens that were
> acceptable for sacrifice within the temple. Their haggling was undignified
> within the temple, so Jesus threw them out. They had no relationship to
> fractional reserve banking.
> -
>
> Concerning the crucial issue of deposits: you wrote: " the existence of
> deposits infers that someone must have deposited them". Do I understand you
> correctly that you are saying that all deposits have actually been deposited
> by someone?
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] That is not my position; I was summarizing a portion of your
> argument.
> -
>
> If so, then you seem blissfully unaware that through credit creation
> individual banks have the ability to create new money out of nothing,
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] The theorem that I accept is that loans create deposits.
> -
>
> and this takes the form of creating fictional deposits which were not
> deposited by anyone. The fiction is, of course, that the bank pretends to
> have 'deposited' the money, but the reality is that nobody, not even the
> bank actually made a payment for the deposits when they come about through
> credit creation. Yes, the bank writes the figures into people's bank
> accounts, but this is not equivalent to 'making a deposit', because no money
> is transferred from anywhere else in the economy to this deposit account.
> Hence no money was actually deposited. These fictional or counterfeit
> deposits
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] They are neither fictional or counterfeit.
> -
>
> are then presented by the holders and their banks - who are the accountants
> and settlement system of the economy - as being totally equivalent to
> deposits that were actually paid up.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] They are completely equivalent to any other deposits inasmuch as
> all of them are equivalent and fungible liabilities of the banks.
> -
>
> Since the public is not aware that fictional deposits have been created (in
> large scale), the public has been misled about the working of the financial
> system. This is why I argue that the practice of banking is based on what
> historically was a fraudulent process, and which has not materially changed
> today (although the banking laws, sponsored by the bankers themselves,
> ensure that technically this formerly fraudulent process is now not
> illegal).
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] Since the inception of the process it has never been fraudulent in
> law or in fact. When granting loans, the goldsmiths did not give warehouse
> receipts signifying that so much gold denominated in pounds was being held
> in deposit in their vaults, but promissory notes promising to pay so much
> gold denominated in pounds on demand. These were contracts calling for
> future performance.
>
> Innes informs us that trade and commerce was primarily creditary or
> contractual, rather than monetary in the commodity sense, from the earliest
> times. See the Innes essays at
> http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/innes/
> -
>
> Since you were unaware of this fact I now understand your reluctance to
> recognize the fraudulent historical origin of banking and continued dubious
> practice today. First you need to become aware of this reality. I explain it
> in chapter 12 of New Paradigm.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [Reply] I have read it and continue to read it. Thank you for writing it
> and making it available.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Download today! Free Windows Live software. Chat, search, share pics and more. |
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
