| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part | | Date: | Tuesday, May 26, 2009 15:31:49 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 6764 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
HI Ken
I believe the 'greenies' are idealistic "cloud cokooland dreamers"
who have not come to terms with the basic inequalities of life. They seem to
think everyone is basically good and honest, and will always act in a way
that will benefit everyone around them. I am cynical and know that is not
true especially in the financial sector. FInanciers don't care about
anything but their 'profit', and they don't care if people suffer as a
result of their manipulations. They have created a monetary system that
enables them to "control ' the way the "wealth ' of the world is used and
distributed. It is a wasteful and dangerously exploitive system that is
doing immense damage to living conditions and environmants throughout the
world. Only a new way of using money will solve the problem hence the need
for monetary reform before ity is too late. Greenies don't seem to realise
that the vast bulk of the worlds problems are caused by the inequitable
financial system, until they do all their policies are simply hot air and no
different from the political policies of the other political parties on the
planet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part
> 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
>
>
|
Re: Signs of the T
Reply to this message