| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Finance: Credit "Crisis" and "Depression" | | Date: | Monday, December 1, 2008 15:18:21 (-0700) | | From: | Martin Hattersley <jmartinh @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 5739 (written by John G Rawson) |
I have always regarded the "Just Price" concept as being a percentage
discount from the price that would otherwise be charged to the consumer, as
businesses often do today. the difference being that the discount would be
paid by new credit issued from a National Credit Office, in accordance with
the needs of the economy, in order to balance financial demand for products
with available supply. It would be calculated on a macroeconomic basis, and
would not have to contain any element of price control of individual
products.
I see no difficulty in adapting existing sales tax mechanisms to reverse
themselves and pay such a discount - certainly likely to be a very popular
move.
The normal processes of competition should serve to prevent profiteering by
any particular business.
Martin Hattersley, 5929-189 St.,
EDMONTON AB CANADA T6M 2J1
Phone & Fax (780) 483-5442
e-mail <jmartinh@shaw.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John G Rawson" <johngrawson@hotmail.com>
To: "Socred elistas" <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 12:46 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Finance: Credit "Crisis" and "Depression"
This discussion is purely with the mechanism of paying it, for which I see
no problems and several solutions, but:Martin uses the term "just price"
which implies conmditions for its payment, i.e. a means of containing price
inflation. How do we establish "just prices" for a multitude's multitude of
items, each in different parts of a country each with different transport
costs, local taxes, etc?
Others insist that it shall be a discount of a certain percentage of the
price, whatever it is. Which, to me, in the sellers market that SC would
establish, would lay the situation completely open to profiteering.
A bureaucratic nightmare to beat all socialist efforts anywhere, or
uncontrolled inflation?
If someone can answer these points, I too will faour the system. But I've
been asking for these answers for decades now.
John R.> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:07:10 -0800> From:
william_b_ryan@yahoo.com> To: socialcredit@elistas.com> Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Finance: Credit "Crisis" and "Depression"> > It would be
equivalent to a "Goods and Services Tax" in reverse, but I would be
reluctant to accept a commingling of the tax and dividend systems. Too much
of an incentive to increase the tax rate to offset the dividend due the
people.> > At the very least money created by the Mint would need the
cooperation of the banks. During and after the Civil War, the banks refused
to accept deposits of Greenbacks, which greatly limited their acceptability.
The banks achieved complete victory with the passage of the Specie
Resumption Act, which mandated that the Greenbacks be redeemed by the
government in gold. This greatly enriched the speculators who had amassed
Greenbacks at steep discount.> > Legal tender status is not sufficient to
guarantee acceptability. The Greenbacks had legal tender status that was
eventually approved by the Supreme Court. Legal tender status did not
require the banks to accept them for deposit. It only required that
creditors accept them in payment for debt. But Alberta didn't even have the
legal authority to convey legal tender status to its notes.> > All money is
debt by its creator to its bearer. That will always be the case. It is a
subset of the more general concept of contract for future performance, which
fits very well with Douglas' "ticket" metaphor. See the Innes papers at >
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/innes/>; > > > > --- On Sun, 11/30/08,
Martin Hattersley <jmartinh@shaw.ca> wrote:> > Yes, I'm certainly in favour
of a "Just Price", which in Canada could easily be achieved through making
our "Goods and Services Tax" mechanism go into reverse as a subsidy on
prices, so introducing money into the economy in a way that actually
reverses inflation, that money being created by the Mint rather than the
banking system. > > The one essential thing we have to do is to create our
money supply without creating debt at the same time, and there's certainly
no sense in spending money on infrastructure (or wars) if what we get from
it all isn't anything we need. > > Martin Hattersley> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------->
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
_________________________________________________________________
Rental properties galore. Start searching now.
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eallrealestate%2Eco%2Enz%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Frsearch%3Fa%3Dbhp%26t%3Dren%26cu%3Frsf%3Dmsnz%5Ftextlink&_t=26000&_r=REANZ_tagline&_m=EXT
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1815 - Release Date: 11/27/2008
9:02 AM
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message