|Subject:||[socialcredit] The Guernsey "Magic Money" Story, yet again|
|Date:||Monday, February 9, 2009 11:19:34 (-0800)|
|From:||william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
But Ken, the Guernsey "magic money" story appears to be a mythology concocted
decades after the alleged facts by greenbacker propagandists. There is an actual
document appended to the Grubiak *Guernsey Experiment* book that contradicts the
story told by the Grubiaks in that very same book.
This is what I wrote to this list on April 27, 2005:
"There is, however, the last appendix to the Grubiak book, purporting to be the
reprint of a document. It is headed: 'Historic Reply of the STATES of GUERNSEY
to the Privy Council, justifying the Guernsey Experiment. Here published, for the
first time in full, since 1829.'
"But when you actually do read the document in the appendix, as I have, you'll
find nothing whatever about any 'experiment.' What you will find is merely
justification by Guernsey to the Privy Council for going into debt, and their
plan for amortization. In the excerpt below, the famous 'market' of the story is
specifically mentioned, but the only word associated with it is 'debt,' not a
word about printing and spending 'money' into circulation 'debt- free to pay for
"'THE words of the second Order in Council have already been cited. The right of
levying the duty on spirituous liquors is granted for ten years; a condition is
annexed purporting that the States shall not exceed their annual income, and on
the contrary, that out of the produce of the duty, one thousand pounds shall be
applied annually to the extinction of the debt; that condition is naturally in
force for the same period, and far the same period only, as the grant to which it
is annexed; it is necessarily so limited, because the means by which it is to be
fulfilled, the produce of the duty, ceases at the end of the ten years for which
the duty is granted. THE States are bound to prove that they have complied with
the conditions of that Order; they did so comply, when wishing to erect a new
Market, they applied for and obtained the order of 10th October 1820, which
imposed on them, at their own request, the further obligation of an annual
payment of four
hundred and fifty pounds far ten years.'"
"Look, it's not remarkable that various corporate entities, including
governmental entities, especially in the early nineteenth century, issued
securities which they tendered directly to vendors and were accepted by vendors
in payment for things. Not far from where I sit is a museum, at
Washington-on-the- Brazos, the place where the Texas declaration of independence
was signed in 1836, on one wall of which is framed a 'stock certificate,' issued
by the township, which circulated as money in the township, according to the
caption. That's what creditary or 'negotiable' contractual agreements do--they
can be transferred from party to party through endorsement, explicit or implicit.
They've been so used for centuries, if not millennia. They are instruments of
debt that are assets to their holders. Being assets, they can be traded."
Of course the "Guernsey story" is correct, included as it is in the Channel
Islands story as a whole.
What on earth do you mean that "No one has come up with the missing
The total description of the proceedings of the Two main States, the Parliaments
of Jersey and Guernsey, is a matter of public record, available, certainly in the
last century, in English. Prior to that written in the local languages,
reasonably well accessible if you have a command of modern French :-)
The fact that no one, to my knowledge, has extracted from this mass of
documentation what is of interest to modern day monetary reformers is down to
lethargy, mine mainly :-((((
The information that would be of use to us is scattered through a multitude of
Even the fact that you, and many others keep referring to the "Guernsey
experiment" is down to a PART of all this being known to British Nineteenth
Century Chartists. Who drew close comparisons, in particular, between the funding
of a major market hall in Glasgow, and a similar exercise in St.Peter Port in
Guernsey. One of which was amortised from revenue in less than Five years, the
other, the one in Glasgow, which was not paid for by the time it was demolished a
Hundred and Fifty odd years later :-(
Great shame the "Money Masters" team shot their footage outside the wrong market
hall :-))) They were warned :-)
As I think I have told you my own reading has taken me back to 1720 in Jersey.
The records are all in the public domain.