eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 6721 to 6780 
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re François
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
RE: 100 percent re John Her
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: 100 percent re John Her
Re: 100 percent re Kenneth
Re: question regar Kenneth
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: Re: 100 percen Joe Thom
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: 100 percent re william_
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
RE: Signs of the T John G R
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: True belief ra William
The Heart of Frede Arian F.
Re: Signs of the T William
Student Debt in Ca Wallace
Student debt in Ca Wallace
Re: Signs of the T William
RE: Signs of the T John G R
RE: Student Debt i John G R
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i Kenneth
a "well-researched william_
RE: a "well-resear John G R
Re: a "well-resear Jamie Wa
Re: a "well-resear william_
Re: 100 percent re Brock Mo
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Student Debt i Wallace
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Why jobs disappear Per Almg
Re: Why jobs disap Wallace
Re: Why jobs disap william_
RE: Why jobs disap John G R
RE: Re: Why jobs d John G R
Re: Why jobs disap terence
 << Prev. 60 | Next 28 >>
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 6762     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:RE: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part II)
Date:Sunday, May 24, 2009  08:40:44 (+0000)
From:John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
In reply to:Message 6761 (written by GeorgeCSDS)

Replying to George on some points:
Yes, we care about the environment.  Our NZ party had extensive environmental policies before the Greens were invented. We believe that this and many other problems can not be solved satisfactorily until the monetary system is reformed. We also care about wars, mainly resulting from monetary problems.  If you understand Social Credit you will see this clearly.
Socialism is government control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I know they like to define it as "caring for people" and pretend that they have a monopoly of that.  In fact, when the chips are down, they invariably turn out on the side of the bankers and oppose any financial reform.
Social Credit would socialise the issue of the medium of exchange (only its issue) and leave the rest to private enterprise.
You appear to have missed the main point of Douglas' analysis, that industry does not pay out enough, in its normal functions, to buy its production. This "gap" can be filled by expansion of industry; exporting more than we import, (if everyone wants to do that, there is a cause for trade war and then real war); producing non-consumer goods, especially armaments. (which makes war still more likely); etc.
S C would overcome the problem by paying sufficient directly to consumers so that all worthwhile production can be consumed and production flow freely. We see some system that does this evenly to all citizens as the most desirable and fair method, hence the "dividend" approach.  But many also believe that problems like catching up on infrastructure and repayment of debt must be done before large amounts are paid out directly to consumers. (This approach is heatedly debated by some, as you will see.)
In the mean time, a universal income of any amount (as opposed to guaranteed income to those who need it), would have to be financed by considerably increased taxation, i.e. by socialistic restribution, and because of the deleterious effect on industry, we do not support that. Great idea, but totally impracticable in most nations at most times 
How would we assess the goods etc. available? Douglas suggested, and we accept, that a national credit authority should be set up, politically independent, to make the best guesses possible based on current data, and to authorise creation of the appropriate amount of new money to fill th need over the next period. (Perhaps six months. My personal guess.) Intelligent trial and error should appeal to an Engineer?
John R.


From: GeorgeCSDS@aol.com
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 14:45:27 -0400
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part II)

Conclusion of "Comments on Comments" regarding Signs of the Times discussion started in Part I

In a message dated 5/16/09 3:51:55 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:

HI Wallace
           There is a perfectly valid alternative to the dividend system
that was touched on by Douglas namely a supplementary price subsidy to keep
prices down  paid from the same source that would furnish the National
dividend. This of course would be outlawed by GATT, but nevertheless I
believe that GATT would find it difficult to oppose the move if it applied
to foodstuffs. Even GATT agreements cannot be enforced if a subsidy is
designed to alieviate starvation among people who cannot afford socalled
"market force prices " for food. I sincerly believe that Douglas intended
that both a dividend and subsidies should be used to enable people to access
the necessities of life like food, shelter and clothing if necessary. do you
have any opinion on that aspect of SC

Sounds a little socoialist to me.  ;-)

Said a man not dressed all that neat,
With shoes covering part of his feet:
    That Safety Net's a joke,
    For anyone who's broke.
Now me, I sleep in the street.

In a message dated 5/16/09 4:01:02 PM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

In-Reply-To: <002801c9d5fa$0c4c5840$8b82c67c@HomePC>
Hi William.

Certainly the "Compensated price" has not been fully explored as a means
of augmenting a deficient income. But it will not work where there is no
income at all :-(

As for orthodox economists, in general they go bananas when it is
suggested that goods can be sold at less than cost, which is what we
"risk" if it is suggested that we have retail prices reduced.

They generally have pat answers like the overriding need for "Hard
currency" that some east european nations had when they sold us cars at
less than cost for instance.

Radical solutions to common problems are hard for some to take in I fear


Of course, Universal Guaranteed Personal Income (UGI), democratically set, resolves that very real problem.  A Universal Guaranteed Personal Income is a form of National Dividend, or, perhaps, vice versa.

There once was an Economist who thought,
Which so outraged his peers that they sought
    To label him extreme
    (Which, to them, he did seem)
And have all his thought go for nought.

In a message dated 5/17/09 1:10:14 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:

HI Ken
          Good points, but under SC everyone will have acess to a National
dividend which should give them some income. However this will not be
sufficient to provide all the necessities of life I am still workiong on the
problem of ensuring that everyone has a minimum sustainable income. This
cannot be a gauranteed minimum income provided by the government, that
cannot be accepted because it is too easy for unethical employers to
exploit. That was proven in the early days of the industrial revolution when
there was provision for those who could not obtain an income sufficient for
subsistance living to be compensated from a " Poor fund" maintained by the
local authorities from rates etc. All that happened was that employers
simply reduced wages to a minimum level so that all employees were forced to
get subsidies from that fund. Local authorities just increased rates to
provide for that fund. It was a blatent case of exploitation and eventually
the government stepped in and abolished the system under pressure from
manufacturers who were being assessed at ever increasing local rates. The
greed of the
early industrialists undermined the whole system. No government could ever
accept any form of gruaranteed income unless every bit of earnings from
every industry and commercial enterprise was considered GOVERNMENT INCOME
and the government than allocated this income to the enterprises on the
basis of earning capacity after taking a percentage from the bulk of the
income for its own purposes that would include allocating an income to every
citizen from those profits. I certainly could not accept this form of
socialist behavior because of its long term effects on the will of the
general population to work efficiently for the good of all. I don't have a
solution to the problem you have set me yet, perhaps some of the other
people in the forum can offer one.
       Bill McG

You say "I am still workiong on the problem of ensuring that everyone has a minimum sustainable income."  Bill!  You rascal you!  You're a "socoialist" in disguise.  You say "This cannot be a gauranteed minimum income provided by the government, that cannot be accepted because it is too easy for unethical employers to exploit...."  Without (re)going into the details now, that problem you sketch, along with many, many more, are essentially, trivially, and democratically resolved by the economic incentive created by a democratically set MAW (remember now, MAW = Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth limit, not minimum annual wage).  You say "... the will of the general population to work efficiently for the good of all."  Question: Have you been just leading us on all this time?  You can do this, Bill.  I know you can.  Your heart is in the right place, I think.

Economists come from the Left and the Right.
Either way, it's a terrible sight.
    Using arguments centuries old,
    Worse yet, confused when retold,
They're as much cause, as cure, of the fight.

In a message dated 5/17/09 1:10:38 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:

HI Ken
            Supplementary to my previous e-mail. What about GATT? would we
simply pull out of those agreements. I see no reason why not because we did
not agree to those provisions and were in fact quite adamantly opposed to
them, because they would interfere with our financial reorganisation in NZ
under SC principles. There would be intense economic pressure for us to stay
in those agreements

Who's "we," NZ or Humanity?

Mr. Smith's Invisible Illusion
Has grown to the present delusion:
    "Cooperation is attained
    When Competition's sustained."
Hence, the planet's confusion.

In a message dated 5/17/09 9:07:02 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

In-Reply-To: <000e01c9d68e$420a2130$4982c67c@HomePC>
Hi William.

I agree with you that in a civilised society a sustainable claim to our
sufficient, if not equitable share of what we are able to produce, is one
of the marks of that civilisation.

The eternal constraint upon that sufficiency is the effort made by
humanity in converting natural resources into consumable goods and

The question needs to be asked, how can we guarantee any particular level
in advance of knowing what it is we have available to distribute ?

One valuable contribution to this debate for me was the idea that in fact
a large proportion of what we had available was never monetised and made
available. An old SC insight, shared in medieval times even by some of the

The reason why I personally prefer the name "Dividend" is because it
implies something an individual is entitled to, not any sort of "handout".

Though I fail to understand why some people, and now you seem to ally
yourself with them, who totally denigrate the place of Government in our
attempts to make our individual needs constitute a market. Government
"owns" nothing, it is an essential link that is, or should be, of our

Although I think I understand the point you make about unscrupulous
employers ability to exploit a basic income, I believe you to be wrong.
Though it might take a little time for employees to throw off their victim
attitudes, a basic income would in fact hand them the most powerful anti
discrimination tool they have ever had.

For the first time it will allow a worker to refuse any employment on
conditions or remuneration that is not to their liking. For the first time
ever it will allow the classical theories of a market to apply. It will
allow the theories of supply and demand to apply without crushing the weak.

This depends of course upon our money system being reformed in a manner
that reflects our ability to produce. Without debt. For we must remember
that the product of industry is goods and services, not money. So how can
you argue that such reforms would mean that all this would belong to
Government ?

To repeat, Government own NOTHING. And how you can call such a possibility
"Socialistic" I do not know. For this argument destroys the bedrock of
Socialism totally, the Labour theory of value.

Such a possibility requires a political reorientation that is NOT being
proposed here.

One of the issues that I have had to counter over many years is the one
about "Handouts". Since at least the 1940s in my own party there have been
some who have agonised about the effect upon production if all had enough
to live on through their dividend.

Time has allowed us to hammer out the likely realities, Some WILL laze
their time away, the effects I feel would not last, for some do that now.
Most will turn to work that they find rewarding, with society probably
being better off with better quality goods, and more contented workers,
for what we propose prevents no one from topping up their dividend with
whatever the market can provide by way of opportunities.

The argument about who will do the dirty jobs also engaged our thoughts.
With a reformed money system it would be possible to offer financial
rewards sufficient to make it attractive, and until someone came forward
to do them under conditions that were acceptable. Why should a brain
surgeon be paid more that a road sweeper? as society needs both of them,
and with an enhanced financial reward for keeping our roads clean we may
even come to respect them more :-))

Its a complicated debate William, and I don't think we have exhausted all
the possible ramifications such reforms could bring, good and bad.


"The reason why I personally prefer the name "Dividend" is because it implies something an individual is entitled to, not any sort of "handout"."  But wouldn't a rose, by any other name, smell as sweet?  Excellent arguments for a Basic Income!  BIEN and USBIG couldn't do better!

Just think of the millions unemployed,
Whose lives are seldom enjoyed.
    The Economists say: "So what?
    They deserve what they got.
And besides, inflation's destroyed."

In a message dated 5/17/09 9:07:16 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

In-Reply-To: <002a01c9d691$886ce650$4982c67c@HomePC>
Hi William.

Quite frankly I think that GATT is a noose about our necks.

Its a total denial of economic democracy :-(((

Those Grandees who pontificate now about "Free trade" should be compelled
to study what "free trade" actually is, or rather was.

As written into treaty now violates every principle that was once
understood as free trade.

But again I think the fault lays with we who have forgotten what we once
knew, and how to make our voices heard :-(((


What?!  Economic Democracy?!  Now you're talkin'.

Just what did humanity do
To deserve an Economist or two?
    We'd be better sans any;
    Instead we've got many.
No wonder the Economy's so skew.

In a message dated 5/18/09 2:10:02 AM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:

HI Ken
     I don't have any quibble with your arguments, but I do have a long
standing objections to :Socialism because I believe it is unworkable, and
gives the impression that everyone should have free access certain
necessities of life without contributing to society as a whole. I, like you,
have an inbuilt resistance to government "control" over every aspect of our
lives particularly its ineffective management of finance.
   Bill McG

Now, neglecting the crucial question of what, specifically, IS Socialism (remember; it does have at least 57 varieties), may it simply be observed that society might be/would be much better off (everything considered) if a few "lazy bums" were just plain "handed out" the "necessities of life without contributing to society as a whole."  After all, some "lazy bums" are not inclined to just lie down and starve to death.  They can and some do cause society all kinds of trouble.  But the valid arguments of a valid BI also significantly ameliorate even this small problem.  And as indicated elsewhere, a functioning Socioeconomic Democracy would vastly reduce "governmental 'control' over every aspect of our lives...."  If this reduction in government control of every aspect of your life really is important to you, I strongly recommend you try to think about Socioeconomic Democracy.

Economists live in a Strange Wonderland.
They talk of an Invisible Hand.
    While no one can see it,
    They seem to agree it
Somehow makes just Everything Grand.

In a message dated 5/18/09 10:15:45 AM, kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

In-Reply-To: <001f01c9d77c$ca812e70$c882c67c@HomePC>
Hi William.

My rejection of Socialism is not on the basis that it cannot work, but
that the price in Human liberty is too high.

As for the failure of MOST Governments to regulate our finance, I believe
that is down to too many of our legislators being bought and paid for by
the money power :-(


Again, a functioning Socioeconomic Democracy would vastly reduce "governmental 'control' over every aspect of our lives...."  But don't take my word for it; think about it.

It seems each Economist vies
To tell the most ludicrous lies.
    If they say it with Math,
    Then they're on the right path
To get the well paying Nobel Prize.

In a message dated 5/20/09 1:51:13 PM, wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz writes:

         Thank you for clarifying that for me Ken.
           Bill McG

And thanks from me for clarifying what many current Social Crediteers do.

Could there be an Economist so rare
As to design an Economy that's fair?
    "But why should we? they say.
    "Who would give us our pay?"
Then away from the suffering they stare.

Let me, finally, repeat some of the unnecessary and painful problems Socioeconomic Democracy can and will significantly reduce or fully resolve.  The discussion of how and why this is so appears in the last chapter of the book Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced Socioeconomic System (Praeger, 2002).

These problems include (but are by no means limited to) those familiar ones involving: automation, computerization and robotization; budget deficits and national debts; bureaucracy; maltreatment of children; crime and punishment; development, sustainable or otherwise; ecology, environment, resources and pollution; education; the elderly; the feminine majority; inflation; international conflict; intranational conflict; involuntary employment; involuntary unemployment; labor strife and strikes; sick medical and health care; military metamorphosis; natural disasters; pay justice; planned obsolescence; political participation; poverty; racism; sexism; untamed technology; and the General Welfare.
The admittedly sometimes somewhat stressed,
stretched and strained limericks from:

The Economists: a Book of Limericks (CSDS, 1987)

Recession-proof vacation ideas. Find free things to do in the U.S. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at 
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com 
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit 

Find someone to light your fire this winter at Match.co.nz Brrr... its getting cold out there…

Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service