|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] Looking For Info|
|Date:||Friday, January 9, 2009 22:56:02 (+0100)|
|From:||Per Almgren <almgren_per @.....com>
|In reply to:||Message 5888 (written by Joe Thomson)|
Joe Thomson skrev:
> (John Rawson wrote:-) Yes, Joe, the money was issued, not lent into
> circulation. And yes, we did lead the world out of the slump. Along,
> of course, with Nazi Germany, which used similar methods to build
> autobahns etc. which unfortunate coincidence gives our opponents a
> chance to link us further with anti-semitism.
> (Joe replies:-) Linking "us further with anti-semitism" would be the
> least of my concerns over this method of approach, John. You may not
> be aware of it, but what you are proposing is the building of a
> totalitarian "slave state", not a one in which "individual" freedom
> will be allowed to develop and flourish. That the "slaves" will be
> well fed and quartered, while they're needed, is of little
> consequence. They're still "slaves", beholden for their continued
> sustenance to "servitude" to the "State" and the "system" it imposes
> on them.
In my opinion this writing of "slave state" is not what John describes.
My impression now is that there is to much arguing of what Douglas have
expressed in a special situation in this list and I think that if Social
Credit should be of any use in the future, it must be allowed to adjust
to realities of to-day. If no new thinking is accepted, there is not
much use to discuss, it would just be a seminar of history, not a forum
for promoting useful ideas for practical use in the society.
> This is the very antithesis of "Social Credit". It is "Fascism"
> without the more odious facets of that failed system fully revealing
> themselves. Which they soon would, if ever it were imposed. It is
> interesting that we have been duped into calling this 'anti-semitism'
> considering where such a policy likely originated.
This could not be called Fascism in the common meaning of the word.
> (John continues:-) And, of course, your argument that new money has to
> be repaid means that any used for the National Dividend etc. would be
> in the same category, which is ridiculous.
> (Joe replies:-) It is "repaid", John. It cancels that portion of
> /existing/ debt charges that could not otherwise be repaid. Without
> creating ANOTHER debt charge in the process. It is an "accounting
> adjustment" carried out in the economy as a whole to more fully allow
> the overall costs of production to be FINANCIALLY, as well as
> 'physically', self-liquidating with consumption.
> (John continues:-) An independent Credit Authority would assess how
> much new money needed to be put into circulation during the ensuing
> period without causing demand inflation. What that money was to be
> used for would be a political decision, even if it only considered a
> divarication between discount funds and those for a dividend. Or
> reducing taxation.
> (Joe replies:-) I can generally agree with that provided it be
> realized this "new money" is applied to reducing prices to Consumers
> FIRST, not to funding other things which have additional "costs".
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John G Rawson <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
> *To:* Socred elistas <mailto:email@example.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 08, 2009 1:07 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [socialcredit] Looking For Info
> For the first parts, you have valid points. I have never debated
> whether or not some form of price control might be necessary. But
> based on the rather inane information that had previously been
> circulated, I could not see how this particular mechanism could be
> practicable. Your new information at least clears part of that
> Yes, Joe, the money was issued, not lent into circulation. And
> yes, we did lead the world out of the slump. Along, of course,
> with Nazi Germany, which used similar methods to build autobahns
> etc. which unfortunate coincidence gives our opponents a chance to
> link us further with anti-semitism.
> And, of course, your argument that new money has to be repaid
> means that any used for the National Dividend etc. would be in the
> same category, which is ridiculous. An independent Credit
> Authority would assess how much new money needed to be put into
> circulation during the ensuing period without causing demand
> inflation. What that money was to be used for would be a political
> decision, even if it only considered a divarication between
> discount funds and those for a dividend. Or reducing taxation.
> The Ottawa agreement did nothing to increase trade or spending
> power. All it did was to close shop against other nations. And
> one of its minor sidelines was to force us to buy useless strains
> of forest seed from you rather than the USA. The Douglas fir
> appeared to have come from somewhere inside the arctic circle,
> because the lengtrh of day effect made it bud burst far too early
> in the spring so that it got frost-burned in our much milder
> climate in the central Nth. Is. Then it hardened off about
> Christmas and ceased growing through all the warm summer and
> autumn period. I remember a compartment in Kaingaroa Forest
> planted with both this strain and a normal one from Washington or
> wherever. The boundary looked like a sudden cliff face as the
> canopy dropped from one to the other.The only point I was making
> over food subsidies was that we had a humanitarian government that
> helped both public health and a major industry by the use of
> debt-free credit. Rooseveldt's New Deal did something the same
> thing on borrowed money. War expenditure finallly brought us right
> out, and as a point of interest NZ (with strict import controls)
> came out of the war with zero overseas debt. (And a bureaucracy
> subsidised less healthy white floured bread, not wholemeal!)
> But the government didn't "have to" subsidise food. People were
> starving and it used one method to help them. Coming from a
> (broke, ex-serviceman's) farm, I never went hungry. But I knew men
> my age whose developmenmt was stunted for that reason.
> It seems we may have to revisit times like that before enough
> people will again consider monetary reform. in any shape, SC or other.
> John R.