|
HI George and John
Some years ago the NZ minor parties formed themselves into a coalition to
fight general elections, The NZ Green party were part of that group, and I
remember quite clearly that during a social get together one of the Greens
asking me about SC environmental policy. I had a copy of our manifesto with
me and showed them our policy after reading it the "Greenie" said to
me "This is better than what we have". TO which I replied, " Well it should be,
because we have been working on it for 20 years. You've only been around for 6
Years. We have had time to cross the T's and dot all the I's". The upshot of the
action was that the NZ Greens simply adopted our policy statement entirely
without any altrerations. THe only problem with the "Greens" in NZ is that they
are unable to accept that a change in the way money is controlled is an
essential aspect of any effective environmental programme. "Orthodox" economic
theory cannot find any way of justifying environmental protection because
it does not have a direct obvious financial "profit". This is the great
stumbling block for the Green parties as they are presently constituted,
consequently their programmes cannot be implemented because they are unable to
conduct the necessary financial reformations needed to implement those policies.
It is one of the reasons why I am an SC supporter and not a "Greenie". WE accept
that both are necessary.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Signs of the
Times / (Comments on Comments, Part II)
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?
Regards.
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
:-(
Ken.
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.
fright.
blight.
plight.
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
services.
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
bookmen.
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
making.
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.
Ken.
"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 :-(((
Ken.
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
:-(
Ken.
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:
HI KEN
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
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
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…
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: Signs of the T
Reply to this message
