We are aware of and respect Vic Bridger's views.
But without some practical means of putting the policies into effect, the
ideas and the policy simply form a base for nice friendly (or even unfriendly)
debate. Little or no advance has been made in promoting the ideas that way, as
can be observed readily. In countries where there is no organisation, they
simply are not heard by any but the very few.
In Douglas' time, when people attended meetings and the media were not so
controlled, it might have been possible to use "people power". But even the
communists, with their fantastic organisation could not marshall this. The only
"people" that got power were gangs of thugs, and the danger of using "people
power" could be even greater than political organisation.
No advance can be made through the old political parties, because their funds
depend on doing what they are told by those able to supply them.
If, no when, Mr. Bridger objects to this statement, let him spell out in detail
the alternative practical methods he would use.
As I stated earlier, there is no disagreement on basic policy and philosophy.
But implementation requires a practical approach that is not needed for pure
discussion.
John R.
>From: "Vic Bridger" <socred@ecn.net.au> >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com> >Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Re: a question from Joe Reply to Vic >Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005
12:18:34 +1000 > >I believe those who advocate a Social Credit political party
have missed the boat. Apart from the fact that Douglas spoke and wrote
disparagingly against all political parties as structured he was even more
vehement in his opposition to a "Social Credit" party and for a very good reason.
> >Because of the opposition by the very power that Social Credit opposes it
is beyond doubt that if ever a Social Credit party did obtain government those
powers would ensure its failure because any and all mistakes that occurred would
be blamed on that government, even if it was not their fault. >
>In addition it is extremely naive to believe that by being elected to Parliament with a majority (which hardly ever happens) and forming a government under current structures, that the government will be able to achieve its objective of destroying the money power. I suggest a reading of the question and answer by Douglas in his address at Westminster on March 7, 1936. > >Finally, a true Social Crediter would not even consider forming or being a member of a Party labelled "Social Credit". I note from some of the comments on this list that they have been "Social Crediters" for X amount years. I would suggest the truth is that they have assumed that nomenclature because some of the ideas have appealed to them. Most of the discussions I have witnessed are concerned with "Monetary Reform", "Monetary Techniques", "Banking Private or Centralised", "Finance", "Government creation of
Credit" and so on. > >Douglas went to great lengths to explain the difference
between electing a Member of Parliament who claimed to be an expert and those who
were first rate experts. The proponents of a Social Credit party have not
accepted Douglas's maxim that a government should not be elected on the basis
that they are experts and know what is best for everybody but that once elected
they should do as they are told and instruct the first rate experts to obtain
that which they are instructed. After all, if those alleged "Social Crediters"
are not aware of it then they should do some homework and realise that it is the
public service that runs the country whilst the government makes decisions which
in the main have nothing to do with obtaining benefits for those who elected
them. > >I also object to people naming others as "Social Crediters" as though
this provides some
credence to their comments with respect to their knowledge and understanding of
Social Credit. I have seen three names thrown up on this list in the last couple
of days and I would completely deny that any of those mentioned were Social
Crediters. >Vic Bridger > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John G Rawson >
To: socialcredit@elistas.com ; ownership@cog.kent.edu ;
austrianschoolofeconomics@yahoogroups.com ; ijccr@yahoogroups.com ;
distributism@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:48 AM > Subject:
RE: [socialcredit] Re: a question from Joe Reply to Vic > > > Just two points. No
matter what track a Social credit government took, it could never "spend without
limit" because it would be subject to limits imposed by the credit authority. And
this would NOT be a politically influenced organisation n like the US Supreme
Court, it would be completely
independent in the tradition of the Bruitish system. John R. > > >From: "William
B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com> >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com >To:
ownership@cog.kent.edu, austrianschoolofeconomics@yahoogroups.com,
ijccr@yahoogroups.com, distributism@yahoogroups.com, socialcredit@elistas.com
>Subject: [socialcredit] Re: a question from Joe Reply to Vic >Date: Sat, 9
Apr 2005 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) > >Douglas consistently attacked the 'money power'
and >rightly concluded that the gateway to a Social Credit >system was through a
mechanism that injected, by way >of a national credit office, a measured amount
of >'new' purchasing power into the socio economic >infrastructure - for the
benefit of all rather than >for the advantage of the few. >----------------------
>----------------------- > >Yes, but by attacking the 'money
power' he wasn't >saying that the 'money power' should be centralized >into one
all encompassing 'money power.' He >consistently opposed the 'nationalization' of
the >banks. Government (what we ordinarily call >government - Douglas said
finance is a government >that exerts control over us) presently if only
>potentially has regulatory and oversight authority >over the banks. There is
also a free press through >which we, like Douglas, may "attack" the banks and
>the government. > >The "mechanism that injected...a measured amount of >'new'
purchasing power" was not through government >spending, for that would have
removed checks on >government--the necessity to tax or borrow in order >to spend.
The government that can spend without >limit can purchase everything, including
you and me. > >What Douglas proposed were macroeconomic
accounting >adjustments (dividends - retail discounts credited to >the benefit
of consumers) through the National Credit >Account--analogous to the position of
the United >States Supreme Court in its relationship to the >substantially
"privatized" legal system. > >It is the equivalent to the concept of the single
>firm's capital account applied to the economy as a >whole, through which we
are all beneficiaries by >right of citizenship. >- > > > >--- Trevor Crosbie
<tamac@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > Re: [socialcredit] a question from Joe Reply
to > > VicDear JIm, > > There have been considerable numbers of postings > > that
have clearly stated the central, primary and > > essential issue and unless there
is agreement on it > > and the methodology needed to change it then we will > >
all do what
thousands of genuine reformers have been > > doing for centuries. That is to
waste huge amounts > > of time and effort on debating remedies to > > ameliorate
the effects because it as certain as > > night follows day until the privately
owned, > > operated and controlled debt creation mechanism > > which today
provides nearly 100% of most countries > > money supplies is parallel by a
countervailing > > mechanism then the progress, prosperity and peace > > that the
vast majority of homo sapiens seek every > > day of their lives will remain an
unattainable > > mirage on a distant horizon. > > Douglas consistently attacked
the 'money power' and > > rightly concluded that the gateway to a Social > >
Credit system was through a mechanism that injected, > > by way of a national
credit office, a measured
> > amount of 'new' purchasing power into the socio > > economic infrastructure - for the benefit of all > > rather than for the advantage of the few. > > You are unfortunately locked into a mindset that is > > as redundant as politicians who still, like the New > > Zealand Finance Minister, insist that the banking > > system does not create debt but simply lends its > > depositors funds and I have a letter from him > > stating just that. You display an abysmal lack of > > knowledge on what the realities are of the present > > structure of economics, politics and society and as > > such constitute, through your contributions, a real > > and continuing barrier to understanding and > > progress. > > Yes, you are completely wrong in your interpretation > > of what Don Bethune and I have
contributed but you > > are also, I fear, woefully astray in some of your > >
interpretations and assumptions over much of what > > Douglas wrote. > > I too am
busy with other things and I am damned if I > > going to sit around night after
night responding to > > people who are to blind, obtuse or stupid to see > >
anything other than the notions that they have > > preconceived to be the truth,
the whole truth and > > nothing but the truth. > > Peace be with you > > Trevor >
> Hamilton - New Zealand. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From:
Jim > > To: socialcredit@elistas.com > > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 6:26 AM >
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a question from Joe > > Reply to Vic > > > > > >
There's so much activity on this board, I
don't > > know where to begin. > > > > Tim: > > > > I am working on an essay on
Social Credit, and it > > involves my interpretation of Douglas' A+B theorem. > >
I'm sorry I ended our debate, but I've been busy > > with that among other
things. I will send my > > interpretation of A+B to you when I'm finished, and >
> you can comment from there. > > > > > > > > Don, and Trevor: > > > > I have not
got a clear understanding of what > > you're advocating, but from what I can
understand, > > you are advocating the government to issue credit > > for public
works projects, or government services. > > Is this correct? > > > > If this is
correct, then I must conclude that this > > is just a form of communism. From
what I gathered > > from Trevor, these
services would be "cost free" > > because the service would be provided by
government > > created credit, and would be costless (i.e. there > > would not be
a debt, and therefore; not be repayable > > via taxation). > > > > There are real
costs to anything (with the > > exception of perhaps the air we breathe). Douglas
> > did not state that goods or services should be > > provided at zero cost.
He stated that financial > > cost is not an accurate reflection of real cost, and
> > tried to alleviate this discrepancy with his > > compensated price
principle. > > > > Government projects have a real cost. The labour > > and
capital used to build the project. The same can > > be said for government
services. There has to be an > > accounting method to tally these costs. These >
> aren't
costless. The method currently employed is > > flawed, but to suggest that
Douglas was advocating > > costless goods and services is a perversion of his > >
works. > > > > A costless good is equivalent to: "from each > > according to
their ability, to each according to > > their needs". You would soon find the
money that > > was created wasn't worth the paper it was written > > on. Taxation
is the price of government goods and > > services, and thus; represents the cost.
To suggest > > that government can merely "print" the money, and > > render their
goods and services "costless" is a > > fallacy. There are real costs to consider.
To > > negate those costs is communism, in my opinion. > > > > Now maybe I'm
misunderstanding what you're > > stating, but from what I've gathered, this is
what > > Trevor and yourself are advocating. Please clarify > > your position if
I'm wrong. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Jim > > ----- Original Message ----- > >
From: Timothy Carpenter > > To: socialcredit@elistas.com > > Sent: Friday, April
08, 2005 10:10 AM > > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] a question from Joe > > Reply
to Vic > > > > > > Dear Vic, > > > > <Vic>The second is with the provision of the
> > CPD, how much it would be and where would the money > > come from and how
this may affect the total money > > supply and therefore the possibility of
inflation. > > > > We know the means by which the CPD would be > > established,
and we know where the money would come > > from - exactly the same place that it
comes from > > when a bank
creates money. The control of the money > > supply over the past 100 years has
relied on various > > means. Reserve ratios, a Statutory Deposit > > requirement,
Capital ratios etc. etc.</Vic> > > > > Are you saying that the money Banks first
> > create to loan to businesses is repaid (i.e. > > Cancelled) in part using the
money created via CPD, > > and that part is in proportion to the growth of the >
> economy as a whole (or as measured by the mechanisms > > for determining the
CPD)? If so then the remaining > > debt repayment comes from sales and thus this
is > > cancelled too, while other companies not borrowing > > to expand just have
increased sales and greater > > profit. Does this not mean that although some
money > > 'hits the mark' and is cancelled, a not > > insignificant
percentage of the percentage lands in > > the accounts of companies who are not
expanding and > > borrowing. Surely this does not result in all the > > money
going back to the bank for cancellation? > > > > <Vic>The mechanics of where the
money would > > come from to reimburse the retailer is discussed > > above. There
are variations as to how the discount > > could be applied, one of them being as
just > > described. another would be to supply the consumer > > with a voucher
but that would be too cumbersome. The > > reimbursement to the retailer could be
a direct > > refund on the basis of information supplied by the > > retailer and
operate like a VAT or GST in reverse. > > The mechanism for doing this is already
in place so > > that instead of the retailer sending in a return to > >
the government and paying the government for the VAT > > or GST collected the
government would reimburse the > > retailer. This could be done either by a
cheque or a > > credit to the retailer's bank account. > > > > Nothing is set in
stone and there may be other > > or better ways but the principle would be the >
> same.</Vic> >=== message truncated === > > > >
>__________________________________ >Yahoo! Mail Mobile >Take Yahoo! Mail with
you! Check email on your mobile phone. >http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're
subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe,
send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information,
visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Shop 'til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're subscribed to this list with the email socred@ecn.net.au >To unsubscribe, send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe, send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
