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

 Message Index 
 Messages from 6721 to 6780 
SubjectFrom
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re Franšois
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 >>
 
socialcredit
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 6764     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part
Date:Monday, May 25, 2009  13:40:00 (+0100)
From:Kenneth Palmerton <kenpalmerton @................uk>

In-Reply-To: <004501c9dce3$c5a98d40$e182c67c@HomePC>
Hi William.

That is exactly the same problem that many of us have here in the UK.

That and when the Greens have their sustainability, there is still social 
work to be done.

Ken.

-------- Original Message --------

From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:51:52 +1200

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 ----- 
  From: John G Rawson 
  To: Socred elistas 
  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=eml
cntustrav00000002) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit


--
*Included Files:*
am2file:001-HTML_Message.html


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