| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic (Deus Ex Machina) -- responding to Trevor | | Date: | Saturday, April 23, 2005 23:17:41 (-0500) | | From: | AMI <ami @.......net>
|
Dear Don,
Thanks for your email, and I can understand why you get upset with this
essentially fraudulent albiet legalized practice.
We are hoping to see you in Chicago at our conference Sept. 29 - Oct.
2nd.
Best,
Stephen Zarlenga
AMI
donzbeth@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> Hi Trevor, Congratulations on responding to Deus with such a concise and
> accurate description of the 3 century development of what has become the
> world's biggest, semi legal scam. Like yourself, I cannot understand how
> any fellow human being who graduated from primary school with ticks for the
> three "R's", and who has access to the Internet and presumably a local
> library, can really believe that the claimed,repeated lending of a deposit
> over and over again, to different borrowers at the same time; is not a
> charade for the dumb proletariat, to protect politicians in bed with the
> banks and TNC's from a public explosion of indignation.....Reminds one of
> Lincoln's very relevant quote that if the public really found out what the
> banks were doing to the country, there's be a revolution before breakfast.
> (In colonial jargon 3 R's = Reading, Riting & Rithmatic.)
>
> While out of good taste, I have not mentioned the alternative option that
> Deus's claimed refusal to accept that banks actually do create a money
> substitute called credit (really interest bearing debt) out of nothing and
> then hire it out to the country at all levels from the state downwards, may
> not be so much an inability to understand, as a desire to metaphorically
> muddy the water to suit a quite different objective, but most readers will
> on their own initiative take a cool, steady look in that direction.
>
> Sorry for having been provoked into being so blunt.
>
> Don Bethune of Godzone
> ###############################################
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Crosbie [mailto:tamac@xtra.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, 22 April 2005 20:36
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic (Deus Ex Machina) --
> responding to Trevor
>
> 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.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email donzbeth@ihug.co.nz
> 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