|
HI All
John
Rawson's point about infrastructure developement was one of the favourite ways
that socialist governments maintained full employment. The mistake those
governemnts make is that they borrow the moneu needed for those works against
future employment benefitting from those works. there is only so much
infrastructurasl work under the present financial stucture that can be done
before this method of maintaining full employment incurs so large a government
debt that much of the governments income from taxation etc is simply used up in
debt servicing. At that stage the whole mess collapses. This is the fallacy of
socialist approaches ro the financial debt problem of the common people.
Effectively the government goes bankrupt, and all the socalled benefits
disappear virtually overnight. The way that the western governments have been
attemptijng to overcome this problem is by investing in large armament
programmes and exporting these arms to various trouble spots in the world.
Unfortunately it now appears that these trouble spots have reached saturation
point and the very warfare created by these unrestricted arms sales is now
spilling over into the western countries that sold them in the first place. Very
much a case of the Biter being bitten. The great depression of the 1930's was
only really stopped by WW2. Sadly we appear to be going down the same road
again. The US involvement in Vietnam supported the arms industry and bolstered
US industry The UK and France sold massive quantities of arms to Iran, Iraq,
many South American countries and various republics in Africa during the
1980-2000 time period. Britain felt the effect of this in the Faulklands war. US
arms manufacturers sell to many countries that can afford their prices. so do
Chinese and Russian interests. AT some stage the balloon will go up and the vast
supplies of conventional weapons now held in reserve will be dragged out and
used, because the armaments industry can only survive if its products are used
up. At present thsy are not being used up and we are feeling the effects of the
slow down in manufacturing rates creating a recession in trade. Many western
countries actually lent oput massive amounts of aid to underdeveloped countries
with the expressed purpose of enabling them to purchase arms. This has led to
masssive indebtedness among many western countries particularly France,
the UK and USA. Although many of the old communist bloc countries of
Eastern Europe are also in the same boat, due to their idealogical export of
weapons to various resistance groups. WE must also not forget the immense volume
of weaponry that has flowed into the private armies controlled by the mafia and
drug cartels. Paid for by drug addiction in the west. We have some very
formidable enemies against monetary reform in the last two alone as well as the
International banking organisations.
Bill Mc
G
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the
Times / (Comments on Comments, Part II)
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
