| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Signs of the Times / (Comments on Comments, Part | | Date: | Tuesday, May 26, 2009 14:53:00 (+0100) | | From: | Kenneth Palmerton <kenpalmerton @................uk>
|
In-Reply-To: <001001c9ddf4$645a7ba0$a082c67c@HomePC>
Hi William.
Agreed :-(((
And why the anti war movement will not listen to this analysis I do not
know :-(((
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:23:22 +1200
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 -----
From: William Hugh McGunnigle
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
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 -----
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 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