| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic (Deus Ex Machina) -- responding to Trevor | | Date: | Wednesday, April 20, 2005 18:55:55 (+0200) | | From: | Jessop Sutton <sutton @...........za>
|
| In reply to: | Message 981 (written by Trevor Crosbie) |
Responding to Trevor.
Trevor, you wrote:-
"The only way forward is to back interest bearing debt out of the system by
using the power of credit, controlled by the people, to provide essential
infratstructure, free of debt, for future generations as a starting point
for the introduction of a Social Credit economy."
I see Bill Ryan has replied to this.
=============================
Trevor, you also says:-
"That process is driven by the need to service an ever growing level of
international, national, regional, company and personal debt - all owed to
the owner operators of the debt mechanism."
This often puzzles me. Why is interest charged by a banker for his services
seen as anything different than the 'imple markup applied by any industry to
provide a dividend to it's shareholders? Are the holders of shares in banks
less entitled to a return of their investment than are the shareholders on
one of the multi-national oil corporations? Or even, say, of the movie and
entertainment industries which provide a service to those who want to make
use of it, and a good return for those invested in the industry?
Here's a quote very much to the point from a recent e-mail by our Margeret
Legum, a lobbyist for a better deal for the poor:-
"If neither the world's consumers nor its farmers are doing well out of
agriculture, who is benefiting? It is our old friends the multinational
corporations and supermarkets. Mergers, acquisitions and interlinking have
reduced their number to about five groups that control most of the world's
staple food economy from supplying seed to buying produce, to processing and
selling. Since they are virtual monopolies they have a strong influence over
prices. They are exceptionally profitable." [SANE Views Vol.5, No.8, 19 April
2005.]
Are these multinationals more entitled to reward their investers than are the
banks? Bill Ryan not so long ago made the point excellently on this list that
interest is merely the banks charge for its services.
=============
Another thing, the way you put it in your e-mail, Trevor, makes it sound as
if the bank claims for itself the whole debt, ie., that if the bank advances
you credit of, say, $100,000, when you repay it the bank is $100,000 richer
than it was before the transaction. How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Jessop.
===========================
On Tuesday 19 Apr 2005 12:30 pm, Trevor Crosbie wrote:
Oh come on Jessop, the reason Douglas wrote extensively about monetary
reform was because he clearly saw a debt based system of providing
purchasing power to enable people to buy the goods and services others
produce as containing the seeds of its own destruction. That destruction is
manifesting itself in the current orgy of production as every nation
strives to become a better exporter of goods and services than its
competitor. That process is driven by the need to service an ever growing
level of
international, national, regional, company and personal debt - all owed to
the owner operators of the debt mechanism.
Once the entire process of production, distribution and consumption is 100%
financed by interest bearing debt the money power that Douglas wrote of
will have absolute power over every aspect and direction of the lives of us
all. 'Democratic governments' will simply be a powerless facade left in
place to provide an outlet for the frustration and anger of those who are
excluded from any real opportunity to use their talents and reach their
true potential. The real decision making will be in the boardrooms of
theose who own the debt and therefore hold our lives in their hands.New
Credit for new production suplied by the banks will actually be new
interest bearing debt. If you can't understand that simple fact you are
doomed!
The only way forward is to back interest bearing debt out of the system by
using the power of credit, controlled by the people, to provide essential
infratstructure, free of debt, for future generations as a starting point
for the introduction of a Social Credit economy. If that is not Social
Credit in the sense that Douglas saw it then I will quietly fade from the
scene and leave you all to your endless debate.
Regards
Trevor Crosbie
Hamilton NZ
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message