| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic (Deus Ex Machina) -- responding to Trevor | | Date: | Friday, April 22, 2005 20:36:17 (+1200) | | From: | Trevor Crosbie <tamac @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 1007 (written by Jessop Sutton) |
I am truly amazed at your lack of understanding of the basic concept of debt
creation - without extensively revisiting the history of where money comes
from and where it goes the basic fact is this:
Over three hundred years ago the concept used by the goldsmiths to 'create'
receipts on the gold they held on behalf of their clients was extended or
transferred or adopted for use as the foundation for what we now call 'the
money supply'
It comprised the notes and coins 'manufactured' by the treasury and the
'credit' issued by way of loans through the banking system. The mechanism
used to create the credit which the banks lent out to approved clients was
controlled and operated by private interests as a profit making enterprise.
Today that profit making enterprise has spread its influence around the
world and dominates and restricts the ability of representative governments
to fullfill the needs and expectations of those who vote them in to that
role. Douglas correctly identified the money power as the root cause of the
issues he raised in most of the books and pamphlets he wrote. He
unfortunately in later years linked the problems of money (debt) to some
form of Jewish conspiracy when in actual fact the involvement of prominent
Jewish families in banging and finance stemmed from the fickle finger of
opportunistic fate in similar vein to the adoption of the a debt based
mechanism as the foundation of economic activity, originally in England and
now around the globe.
Until the debt based foundation of national economies is changed there can
be nothing as certain as the prediction that the same issues that have made
media headlines for the past 50 years will continue to make them for the
next 5 decades. Debating the effects of the problem without recognizing and
rectifying (reforming) the cause is the history of politics for centuries -
its time for a real change.
Regards
Trevor Crosbie
Hamilton NZ
p.s. From Jessop - 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?
TC Replies - The example I use is a bank created debt of 100k - over the
life of the loan the capital is repayed plus the interest. That interest can
be as much as 4 times the original debt. The interest acrues to the owners
of the mechanism which created the debt. If it is a government who borrows
that 'money' from the bank who operates the debt creation mechanism in order
to build a road or a hospital or a school or a railway or anything that can
be seen as something individuals in society as individuals cannot build for
themselves, then the people, through the taxes and charges imposed by
'their' government will pay once twice or three times over for 'their'
infrastructure rather than just once. What is more inflationary Jessop,
paying 100k for a sewerage scheme or paying 2,3or 400k for it?
TC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jessop Sutton" <sutton@kingsley.co.za>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic (Deus Ex Machina) -- responding
to Trevor
> 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.
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message