(Trevor wrote:-)
"It is not logical to have governments hamstrung in carrying out their
responsibilities to those who they purport to represent by adhereing to and
defending the right of the private owners of the debt mechanism to dictate the
terms and conditions on which 'money' is made available for public
provision."
(Joe replies:-) I quite agree. But
the methods by which this private 'monopoly of credit' is to be ended, as
proposed by the NZ Democrats and other 'Social Credit' political parties
elsewhere, (including here in BC, when they still had this issue in mind, and
weren't just trying to survive as a viable 'party', as they are at
present), is what I would question.
(Trevor continues:-) "There is a vast
difference in outcome between issuing new currency (printing money) and making
available a measured amount of interest free funding for specific
infrastructural assets that will contribute to increased productive capacity
and a better lifestyle for everyone."
(Joe replies:-) It seems to me, strictly
from what I've observed here and elsewhere, that the ''vast
difference'' seems to be largely made up by the amount of
'inflation'. True enough there's likely to be a difference between the
way a responsible government, such as the NZ Democrats, would act in
this regard when compared with such as Zimbabwe's current regime, say.
But you are still going to get 'inflation'. Unless you've got some
way of controlling consumer prices in mind. Douglas makes a comment in
one of his earlier books about how the construction of a new 'railway bridge'
raises 'the price of bacon' in the local butcher shop. In other places
he goes into a great deal more detail about this. But regardless of
whether the money is introduced 'interest-free' or not, when it's done the way
you propose (for capital works) it seems to always raise 'consumer
prices'.
(Trevor continues:-) "The process of using
interest free funding for essential infrastructural assets must initially be
targeted at backing debt out the economy and thus creating
greater stability in the financial system and a stable foundation
for the policy of a philosophy as envisaged
by Douglas."
(Joe replies:-) How are you going to "back
debt out of the economy" this way if it leads to a rise in 'consumer
prices'? You haven't made any use of new credit to lower prices, (as per
the 'compensated price discount' ), nor
have you moved to address the problem revealed by A+B. While admittedly
'saving interest' currently paid to private bankers, is all the money
generated by the economic activity related to the new interest-free
'infrastructure' going to be used to repay existing debt? Or will those
receiving it be more likely to then be able to incur new debt? What do
you do when the initial round of creating 'essential' infrastructure is
completed? 'Interest-free' or not, won't you find yourselves in a spot
where you have to keep repeating the process to continue to provide
'employment'? Don't get me wrong, I detest the current methods by
which governments finance as much as you do. But those are just some of
the questions I'd have about what's proposed.
All the best
Joe
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
