(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
