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

 Message Index 
 Messages from 6721 to 6780 
SubjectFrom
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re Franšois
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
RE: 100 percent re John Her
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
RE: 100 percent re John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: 100 percent re John Her
Re: 100 percent re Kenneth
Re: question regar Kenneth
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: Re: 100 percen Joe Thom
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: Re: 100 percen Graeme T
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: question regar Jamie Wa
Re: 100 percent re william_
RE: question regar John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
RE: Re: 100 percen John G R
Re: 100 percent re William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
Re: Signs of the T GeorgeCS
RE: Signs of the T John G R
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Re: True belief ra William
The Heart of Frede Arian F.
Re: Signs of the T William
Student Debt in Ca Wallace
Student debt in Ca Wallace
Re: Signs of the T William
RE: Signs of the T John G R
RE: Student Debt i John G R
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i Kenneth
a "well-researched william_
RE: a "well-resear John G R
Re: a "well-resear Jamie Wa
Re: a "well-resear william_
Re: 100 percent re Brock Mo
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Signs of the T William
Re: Student Debt i Wallace
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Student Debt i William
Re: Signs of the T Kenneth
Why jobs disappear Per Almg
Re: Why jobs disap Wallace
Re: Why jobs disap william_
RE: Why jobs disap John G R
RE: Re: Why jobs d John G R
Re: Why jobs disap terence
 << Prev. 60 | Next 28 >>
 
socialcredit
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 6785     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
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


Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service