|
Message 1025
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | [socialcredit] The Fabricated Franklin | | Date: | Saturday, April 23, 2005 08:35:40 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
[Stan wrote] Benjamin Franklin explained who has the
right to issue bona-fide money and the practical
example how it could [have] happened:
"...The very notes of the transaction promise to pay
stipulated production, and, as much as the promise of
any man to deliver is good, and certainly as the
promise of no other man to deliver that production is
any better, these bona-fide notes may too, be
circulated about the community as currency..."
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/principal---historic-parable-of-perfect-economy.html
--------------------------------
---------------------------------
[My reply} Except Ben Franklin never said it. It is
a complete fabrication typical of the pinheaded crowd
that pushes it. Franklin didn't say a single word of
it. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Mike Montagne, the "owner" of the cited website,
styles his essay the "Parable of Perfect Economics,"
which he has copyrighted.
It is a work of utter fiction that fraudulently puts
words into the mouth of this founding father of the
American Republic. It is a plagiarism of a
fabrication dating from the latter half of the
nineteenth century, pushed by greenbackers of that
era.
What Montagne has done is change the greenbacker let
government spend money into circulation argument,
supposedly advanced by Franklin, into a LETS
argument--let everybody spend his own money into
circulation.
Montagne's essay deceptively contains fabrications
placed into the mouths of Jefferson, Lincoln, etc.,
also plagiarisms from the greenbackers (Montaigne is
not an original thinker nor is he an original
propagandist), deceptively lending credence to
otherwise logically tenuous theory. It is an
effective propaganda technique that he has learned to
a T. He is lying to the intellectually gullible. I
will not speculate on his motives.
Franklin, specifically, following John Law, actually
favored paper currency issued as loans (at interest,
by the way--the people who equate "usury" with
interest are pure cranks) by land banks, as outlined
in his pamphlet, *A MODEST ENQUIRY INTO THE Nature
and Necessity OF A PAPER-CURRENCY.*
"Upon the Whole it may be observed, That it is the
highest Interest of a Trading Country in general to
make Money plentiful; and that it can be a
Disadvantage to none that have honest Designs. It
cannot hurt even the Usurers, tho' it should sink
what they receive as Interest; because they will be
proportionably more secure in what they lend; or they
will have an Opportunity of employing their Money to
greater Advantage, to themselves as well as to the
Country."
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/franklin-1729.txt
Notice here that Franklin did not condemn lending
from savings, but said that credit expansion would
lower the rate of interest, encouraging trade and
commerce, benefiting everyone, including the
"usurers."
You will find no discouragement to saving or thrift
or lending from savings in the ACTUAL words of Ben
Franklin.
-
"In addition to the State issues, a number of public
banks began issuing loans in the form of paper money
secured by mortgages on the property of the
borrowers. In these early cases the term 'bank' meant
simply the collection or batch of bills of credit
issued for a temporary period. If successful,
reissues would lead to a permanent institution or
bank in the more modern sense of the term. One of the
best examples was the Pennsylvania Land Bank which
authorized three series of note issues between 1723
and 1729. This bank received the enthusiastic support
of Benjamin Franklin who in 1729 published his Modest
Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper
Currency. His advocacy did not go unrewarded as the
Pennsylvania Land Bank awarded Franklin the contract
for printing its third issue of notes."
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/northamerica.html
-
--- Stan Szopa <sszopa@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> At 23:35 on 22 Apr 2005 "Max" <max@ocdbgroup.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> "...Yes. And it is not clear to whom goes the
> benefit
> of the first-issuer-seigniorage. i.e. the very first
> who spend the new complementary currency is willing
> to
> get it back in exchange of services or goods
> (circularity)?..."
>
> Stan:
>
> Benjamin Franklin explained who has the right to
> issue
> bona-fide money and the practical example how it
> could
> happened:
>
> "...The very notes of the transaction promise to pay
> stipulated production, and, as much as the promise
> of
> any man to deliver is good, and certainly as the
> promise of no other man to deliver that production
> is
> any better, these bona-fide notes may too, be
> circulated about the community as currency..."
>
>
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/principal---historic-parable-of-perfect-economy.html
>
> More from the above Internet site:
>
> "...How could he account for the prosperity in the
> colonies?
> With conviction, Benjamin Franklin answered
> immediately:
> "It's quite simple. We have created our own
> currency."
>
> Quiet fell like a great wind suddenly stopping for
> no
> seeming reason. All attention focused intensely, on
> his next words. After a moment, Franklin continued:
> "If for instance one man raises fowl, and another
> raises feed, and the first entertains the
> possibility
> of doubling his current production, he may approach
> the second, not wanting to raise so much feed
> himself.
> He may say to the feed grower, 'I want to increase
> my
> production next year, but for lack of resources, I
> am
> disinclined to raise so much feed as I will need.
> Having such plentiful resources to cultivate and
> harvest feed, are you conducive to raising so much
> feed for me, in exchange for so much of my
> production?'"
> "When the parties reach agreement, their contracts
> are
> evidence of their debts to each other. The very
> notes
> of the transaction promise to pay stipulated
> production, and, as much as the promise of any man
> to
> deliver is good, and certainly as the promise of no
> other man to deliver that production is any better,
> these bona-fide notes may too, be circulated about
> the
> community as currency."
> "The cultivator of the feed for instance may write a
> note against the fowl to be delivered to him, to pay
> for a doctor to take care of his family. The doctor
> may pay for goods with the same note, at the local
> store. That store then, will ultimately collect the
> fowl originally promised to the cultivator."
> "When the production is delivered, the respective
> notes are fulfilled, marked as such, and no longer
> represent production to be collected. The money
> passes
> from circulation."
> With no more ado, Benjamin Franklin had just
> submitted
> the mathematic solution of inflation, deflation,
> impeded prosperity — and multiplication of debt
> inherent to every circulation subject to "interest."
>
> He came from a continent of abundance, but he had
> just
> described the foundations of a singular system
> which,
> anywhere it is adopted, would provide for a populace
> to prosper to the full extent of available
> resources.
> Instability and obstruction do not exist, because
> they
> are not imposed. Wealth is distributed to every
> producer of wealth, to the full extent of their
> production — without restriction of production or
> extrinsic cost imposed upon production. Such
> societies
> as adopt the structure of this one true, free
> enterprise alone, can prosper to the full extent of
> their ambition to toil over resources..."
>
> "Max" wrote:
>
> "...As an example, we will start some experiments in
> some municipality in the South in Autumn and we want
> to try to issue SIMEC in different ways because not
> all the villages have the same problems. To be more
> specific: the Major can issue SIMEC by giving it as
> a
> Basic Income to the poorest families. Or by
> crediting
> it to housewives for their domestic work. Well,
> there
> are many possibilities but all that will be told
> directly to the citizens who must agree in the kind
> of
> seigniorage redistribution chosen..."
>
> Stan:
>
> Giving the currency as a Basic Income is not the
> best
> way to introduce the new currency. To preserve
> dignity
> of poor people and maintain respect to the new
> currency it can not be given as a charity.
>
> It has to be call citizen dividends (and has to be
> given to all community citizens poor and rich with
> an
> explanation where they are coming from) not as a
> Basic
> Income.
>
> Here are the sources for citizen dividends:
>
>
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/robertson204.htm
>
> "...Important common resources include
>
> * Land (its site value).
> * Energy (its unextracted value).
> * The environment’s capacity to absorb pollution
> and waste.
> * Space — for road traffic, air traffic (e.g.
> airport landing slots).
> * Water — for extraction and use, and for
> waterborne traffic.
> * The electro-magnetic (including radio)
> spectrum.
> * Genetic resources.
> * The value arising from issuing new money..."
>
> There will be no abuses of the new money issuance
> and
> no conflicts between citizens about who should get
> more or less.
>
> Best regards,
> Stan
>
>
> --- Max <max@ocdbgroup.net> wrote:
> > I answer to you below:
> >
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:50:38 -0700 (PDT), Stan
> Szopa
> > <sszopa@yahoo.com>
> > wrote :
> > >
> > > Stan:
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > When I was looking for “the relative
> seigniorage”
> > > explanation, I found this:
> > >
> > > “…Further, since participants are given créditos
> > only
> > > when they join the club, there is a dynamic
> > constraint
> > > which forces them to sell in order to be able to
> > > purchase goods in the future. In the Argentine
> > > exchange clubs, many participants came in pairs,
> > with
> > > one charged with searching out goods to buy,
> while
> > the
> > > other stayed at a display stand to sell the
> goods
> > they
> > > had brought…”
> > >
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
Reply to this message