(John Rawson wrote:-) Joe, your first point is unfounded
and ridiculous emotionalism. Unless you accept that the slave state
already exists. If so, who do you prefer to be the slavemasters, elected
people you have a chance of sacking, or faceless permanent ones behind the
scenes?
(Joe replies:-) The "slave state" already
exists. The present financial system is a near perfect means for
making people "work".
I don't prefer to have any "slavemasters". Whether
they be 'elected' and the visible faces of those who really pull the strings,
who are certainly NOT we who elected them, or the actual string
pullers themselves.
Nor do I want to see the
"State" be in a position where it, or any agency within it,
can deny its citizens the means of full access to that for which
they've already worked unless they work some more
first.
I personally prefer to be in the "aristocracy of
production", recognising full well that it is a 'priviledge' to remain
there. And to be able to continue to willingly serve the
larger "democracy of consumption" of which I'm also a
part. So long as my efforts in that endeavour are
useful and needed. If they're not, then I don't think I'd have too much
difficulty finding something equally enjoyable to do.
This does not, of course mean that everyone could just
stop working, and go off and do their own thing whenever they pleased.
Or would. Rather it is the difference between "contract under duress"
~ association agreements freely entered into, but whose
terms are enforceable by some penalty on violation; and being "under duress to
enter the contract" in the first place.
People have to work, at something.
It's part of the nature of every human. But "work" is simply a
means to an end, not the end itself. And "issuing money" to pay for
infrastructure as you say your Reserve Bank did, even if it were desirable and
there were no other considerations, is still making your citizens
"work" again to be able to fully claim that which they've already worked
for.
The ND and CPD are not making them do anything.
But what they choose to do, in the future, if it's in any ways useful
and adds to the "real credit" of the community, (as any sensible
'infrastructure' naturally would), will be reflected in a larger ND and CPD in
that future.
(John continues:-) For your second one, you
are confusing "cancellation" with "repayment". The former reduces debt,
the second increases it. Whatever way new money is put into circulation,
sooner or later it meets overdrawn accounts and is cancelled out of
existence.
(Joe replies:-) Your Firms cannot
fully cancel existing costs through prices and repay the loans that
initiated those costs unless your Consumers have the means to fully
pay them.
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
