| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: [SPAM] RE: [socialcredit] Definition of usury. | | Date: | Thursday, June 26, 2008 09:28:34 (+0200) | | From: | Per Almgren <almgren_per @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5410 (written by John G Rawson) |
John G Rawson skrev:
> Perhaps. But don't forget banks have costs too. Salaries, rent,
> fleet, electricity etc. I'm sure they reinvest some of their intake,
> *but to assume none of the interest charged comes out becomes
> purchasing power is ridiculous.*
> Regards.
> John R.
>
I am *not* forgetting that the banks have costs and I am *not* supposing
that none of the interest paid becocomes purchasing power, I am
considering the part that is not used for purchasing, see my second
paragraph. It is the part that is not used for purchasing that causes
the main problem. A smaller problem, but not to be neglected, is that
income from just owning means that you will get that money without
actually producing anything, thus make the average price level higher
than it has to be, but not increasing the gat between they who have a
lot of money and those who doesn't have.
Per Almgren
>
> > Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:53:43 +0200
> > From: almgren_per@telia.com
> > To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Definition of usury.
> >
> > Joe Thomson skrev:
> > > (Martin wrote:-) Something that concerns me about Douglas is the
> fact that
> > > he appears to wish
> > > to superimpose his Social Credit remedies on a banking system not
> > > fundamentally changed from the present. As I see it, the toleration of
> > > interest (reward without risk), is in fact a means by which those
> who issue
> > > credit become more and more wealthy at the expenses of the public,
> the value
> > > of whose money is steadily eroded by inflation.
> > >
> > > (Joe comments:-) I think what you're saying about Douglas above
> may well be
> > > true, Martin.
> > >
> > > But is there really "reward without risk" for those who "issue
> credit" if
> > > the value of the public's money is steadily eroded by inflation?
> > >
> > > For is not the "public's money" the same money by which you say
> the issuers
> > > of credit will become "more and more wealthy"?
> > >
> > > And if it is, and it's being steadily eroded by inflation over time in
> > > terms of what it'll buy, there's certainly a "risk" present there,
> too, I
> > > would think.
> > >
> > The interest paid is actually causing the inflation since there is only
> > two types of costs includid in the price of goods and services.
> > One is the payment for labor, the other is payment to those who owns
> > money, either in the form of interest or in the form of profit.
> >
> > *If not all of the received income is used directly for purchasing
> goods
> > or services*, or given to other people who uses it directly for
> > purchasing goods or seriveces or given ... and so on, then the rest of
> > the money is either witheld (hoarded) or lended or "invested" in some
> > kind of "papers" that give a return, i.e. shares or bonds.
> >
> > Since the group who paid the costs for interest and profit doesn't get
> > the total sum back in form of wages and salaries they will have less
> > money than before unless they in one way or another borrows more money
> > from somebody outside this group. As times pass by they will get more
> > and more indebted and/or experience a rising rate of unemployment. (In
> > this description a person could belong to both groups if he or she
> > both get interst and a salry or wage.)
> >
> > The same problem occurs if people starts to save part of their wages
> and
> > salaries. What is then actually happening is that their personal
> > situation gradually move their "point of gravity" from the working
> group
> > to the owning group. For most of them, it won't improve their
> economical
> > situation. The cause of this is that the cost part of interest of goods
> > and services will rise as fast as this move goes on.
> >
> > In order to be a winner in this type of interest and profit system,
> your
> > part of the total invested and lended sum must be grater than yor part
> > of the total income from wages and salaries. Many years ago, I checked
> > this from a representative sample (about 13 000 housholds) of the
> > Swedish population from official statistics. The result was that only
> > two percent of the total population actually was to be found among the
> > winners. That means that a lot of people supports the present system
> > although they actually are among the losers, but they themselves
> > apparently think that they belong to the winners group. It also shows
> > that the skills and interst in mathematics among the population is
> quite
> > low and such calculations are of course not teached in the schools.
> >
> > If people and businesses get more and more indebted they simply have to
> > rise their prices for work or products they sell, or to increase the
> > volumes which again can't be done without increasing their loanes
> and so
> > on until the environment as we see it collapses and with it the present
> > type of economy.
> >
> > Per Almgren
|
Re: [SPAM] RE: [so
Reply to this message