(Trevor wrote:-) Thanks for the response - I
think!
(Joe replies:-) We may argue back and forth
here, Trevor, (as you've probably noticed by reading some of the other
debates!), but I think we're all 'friends', and trying to understand something
of great importance a little better. None of us "knows it all'', but if we
persist in our efforts we can all learn a great deal from one
another.
(Trevor continues:-) This week I have limited
time available and really need to focus on what you have said before I reply,
however, the provision of employment one is simple. The application
of technology (especially in manufacturing) has for decades
been displacing people from the productive sector. There is a new
meat processing plant planned for Hamilton that will replace an existing
one employing 400 staff. It will employ 320 and its output will increase by
some 20%. One example of many!
Work does not set one free - indeed work is the
greatest barrier to individual development and freedom ever invented. In the
future I envision an era where the total productive capacity is regulated by
the needs of society for the goods and services produced rather than driven by
the demands of an economic system that can only continue on the back of ever
increasing debt based consumer consumption. The associated costs in terms of
resource depletion and the growing numbers of people who simply
are unable to service the growing levels of debt will become a
burden to large to ignore.
(Joe replies:-) No problem agreeing with
all that.
(Trevor continues:-) The answer is to put 'money'
into programmes to re-educate people into the constructive use of increased
leisure time, provide support for local/regional
leisure/recreational/educational facilities and (on the basis of
the output of an efficient productive sector) provide a National Dividend
as proposed by Douglas.
(Joe replies:-) Here's where we begin to
differ. I would say the answer is to NOT 'put money' into the first
two things, at all. Unless there is a clear indication from
the people that they want them, and are willing to pay for them. To
simply have someone 'at the top' deciding 'what's good for people', and what
'money' is going to be created and 'put into' is what we should be trying to
get away from. If we stick to ensuring there is always sufficient
'effective demand' in the hands of consumers to match the potentialities of
production, (through the 'dividend' and the 'discount'), we don't have to 'put
money into' anything to make work, or play, to keep people occupied.
People will decide themselves, as individuals, and in free association with
one another, what they want to do with their time. And what they
want to contribute towards. Or don't. And they WILL be fully
occupied, at both 'work' and 'play', believe me! Why is there such
reluctance to 'trust the people' ? You call yourselves
'Democrats', but how do you define 'democracy'? The 'rule of the
majority', exercised by an 'elite' who acts in 'the name' of the people, and
knows what policy is "best for them''? Or the ability of each
of us, as individuals, to make OUR policy effective in relation
to ourselves? To be individually 'sovereign' ~ to issue our
orders, through the medium of 'money', and see that they're carried
out. Is not this latter what we should be striving for?
The key, as Wally said, is to make the modern
financial system 'self-liquidating', which it currently isn't. We
correct that by making the appropriate accounting adjustments at the
'national' level through having a National Capital Account out of which the
appropriate amounts of new credit needed can be paid TO CONSUMERS in the form
of the 'national dividend' and the 'compensated price discount'. When the
system is made 'self-liquidating' in this manner we are continually
'crediting' consumers with 'capital appreciation', (the increase in the 'real
credit' of society ~ its ability to increase efficiency through
'progress'), which is generally far in excess of the 'capital depreciation'
we're continually indebting people at present to try to pay
for.
(Trevor continues:-) This is an adjunct to
production based on need would be, I suggest, the need to develop a
system of price justification and oversight to ensure there is stability and
fairness in the market place.
(Joe replies:-) In a normally competitive
'free-market' economy there is no need for any such thing. It is
self-regulating. You only need such a system where there is a
'monopoly'. Social Credit has always been against 'monopoly' in all its
forms, though we recognize that there are many areas of the economy where a
'monopoly' exists because it would not be practical to have it
otherwise. In such instances, and 'banking' is one such instance, among
many others, we regulate in the public interest. You aren't going to
tell me that the Dominion of New Zealand could not regulate 'monopolies',
(including 'banking'), that are within its sovereign jurisdiction, are
you? I know the powers of national governments seem to have been greatly
diminished in this so-called 'globalised' world of ours, but I think your
government, as does ours, still retains THAT much authority.
(Trevor continues:-) Essentially the 1st
step is backing the current levels of debt out of the economy because
that is the key to gaining public confidence and acceptance of the
need to change the debt based foundation of the present system. It is a
case taking a step back in order to take 10 steps
forward.
(Joe replies:-) Go the way you're proposing
and you'll be taking 10 steps backwards for every one forward! If indeed
you advance at all! You can't defeat a 'monopoly of credit', the most
pernicious, anti-social monopoly of all, by making it more absolute. You
are proposing 'interest-free' money that is still 'debt-based'. When you
should be proposing 'debt-free' money, (in the appropriate amounts, paid
directly to CONSUMERS, through the means of the 'discount' and the
'dividend'), to eliminate the constant need for ongoing and ever growing
unrepayable debt, and the interest that must be paid on it. You are
mistakenly trying to deal with an 'effect', while leaving the 'cause'
untouched. To believe that you can get out of debt by getting further
into it is akin to a belief in 'borrowed prosperity'. You are, at best,
only delaying the inevitable 'day of reckoning'. And ensuring it
will be worse when it comes.
Best wishes,
Joe
Courtenay, British
Columbia
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
