I think this reinforces the point I made about people having emotional
difficulties in learning new facts about money.
This is not my correspondence, but may I butt in with just three points, which
can be "backed" at length if necessary, and almost certainly will be by
others.
1. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, name me one nation which
issues its own money instead of borrowing it from the banks.
2. Banks never lend their deposits, which are their liabilities. There is some
recycling of money through the banks, but at source, practically all money is
created by the banking system.
3. Social Credit seeks to balance existing wealth with sufficient purchasing
power to buy it, not to issue money against non-existent wealth. (Though even
that might work where people are being paid not to produce, or production is
lagging for lack of sales.)
John R.
>From: Deus Ex Machina <vicc@cia.com.au> >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com >To: socialcredit@elistas.com >Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Replying to Tim Knight >Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:54:32 +1000 > >
> William B. Ryan wrote: > > > > Now, in the era of central banking, the central
bank issues checks that are > > redeemable in only another form of the bank's own
credit instruments, > > Federal Reserve Notes, which are likewise legal tender
for "all debts." So > > while technically the notes and member bank deposits are
carried on the its > > books as "liabilities," the bank is not required to part
with anything of > > value when "redeemed" other than exchange for another form
of the bank's own > > credit instruments. That makes its credit instruments
effectively
> > "debt-free" to their issuer. All Social Credit would do is have the central > > bank issue checks representing "debt-free money" to final consumers > > equitably, rather than to privileged Wall Street insiders, as at present. > > > > It is not, in the final analysis, a radical departure from present practice, > > with the following qualification: The economic stimulus from the new money > > would percolate up, rather than trickle down. That would have profound > > effect in terms of empowering the consumer. > >the notion that money can be created an given to consumers without >concomintant value creation is nothing but a subtle form of socialism. > >in our society the goverment controls the creation of money. everyone >else must create value in order to exchange for money. banks loan >out received funds against
collateral the borrower provides. > >the effect is that in fiat money, the
actual production of value >in the community becomes the backing behind money. SC
adds nothing >whatsoever to the equation aside from breaking the link between
value >creation and money. SC would rapidly lead to serious inflation by
>injecting money into the system with no productive capaticity to back it. >
>its a delusionary idea which is why it has never gained any traction and
>never will. > >Vic > >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
