| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part | | Date: | Wednesday, May 27, 2009 16:13:12 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 6771 (written by John G Rawson) |
|
Hi John
MY cynism is long standing and developed from the
age of about 15. BY 18 my father remarked." I have never before heard anyone of
your age make such cynical remarks. I hope you don't stay that way." I think he
was quite shocked at my attitude. Life has honed it espcially since 1996.
I don't altogether believe it is a good way to look at life because it tends to
make you be suspicious of everyones actions even close and trusted friends and
relatives. It is not a good outlook to have unless your friends can snap you out
of it from time to time.
Bill
McG
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:35
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Signs of the
Times / (Comments on Comments, Part
Bill, you are cynical. And I tend to agree.
But bear in mind
that, with the best intentions in the world, a businessman under the present
system may have to choose between going bankrupt and harming the
environment.
For example, take the case of a farmer with a huge debt load
who just can't afford to fence off his stock from internal
streams.
Regards.
John R.
> From: wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 15:31:49 +1200
>
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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
Download the new Windows Live Messenger! Looking for a fresh way to share photos?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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