|
Hi Trevor,
I would be very happy to do that. But first I'd like you to do
something which I think will be of not only great benefit to you
personally, but indirectly to the NZ "Democrats for Social Credit" in
general. Go to the link that Bill Ryan has provided in his last message to
you and read "The Douglas System of Social Credit" in its entirety.
This is not not some ancient Social Credit 'propaganda', but a
transcription of the evidence given by Douglas, Aberhart, (before he became
Premier), two supporters of 'Douglas' Social Credit who were a little fuzzy on
some of the details, and a Prof. Elliot, who all appeared before a Committee of
the Alberta Legislature that was objectively investigating 'Social Credit'
in 1934. It was put out by the "King's Printer" for Alberta, not the
'Social Credit' movement.
In it you will find many of the differences between what Douglas actually
proposed, and some of the misinterpretations and misconceptions that were
held by others about what he proposed . Some which are still,
unfortunately, being passed off as Social Credit today. And why one
of them would be, as presently proposed by the Democrats, likely to be
'catastrophic'.
I should say I don't normally make such a suggestion as what I done have
above, I prefer to answer directly. But there is really no point in
endlessly covering old ground. I know you have, as do I, a long interest
in 'Social Credit' and the possibilities it could offer. We have much more
in common than what divides us. And that division is entirely
possible, I think anyways, of being rectified. Read what Douglas says
there, I feel it'll be well worth your time.
Regards,
Joe
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:44
PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Douglas's
discussion of his New Zealand proposals
Joe,
Could you clarify for this New Zealander those
proposals other New Zealanders have posted that you describe as less
appropriate than those proposed by Douglas, for NZ, in 1934.
From my reading of what Douglas wrote
I suggest he saw clearly that nothing could be achieved in beneficial
reform for all until the monopoly of what is now recognised as the debt
creating mechanism is addressed. To quote "But none of these
theoretical objectives can be properly attained so long as this monopoly of
credit (debt) remains unchanged." (italics
mine)
In the 1950's and 60s nearly 40% of the money
supply in all the developed economies consisted of notes and coin. That
percentage of interest free 'cash' money has now shrunk to less than
5% with the outcome that over 95% of developed countries money supply
consists of interest bearing debt created for the direct benefit of the
owners of the debt mechanism.
The need is for a parallel mechanism whereby
interest free credit is created and used to provide essential 'public
good' infrastructure as a countervailing process to progressively back
interest bearing debt out of the economy until such time as a point of
financial equilibrium is reached and the economy actually becomes self
liquidating. Initially the credit capital provided would be in the form of an
overdraft applicable to specific projects and as the level of debt in the
wider economy reduced as a result of this policy then the opportunity would
be available to reduce taxes, provide some form of dividend,
reduce local authority rates etc. to give greater discretionary
spending power to every one. Would that promote inflationary expectations? No
it wouldn't, simply because the fundamental driver of inflation, interest
bearing debt as the main component of the money supply, would no
longer be a factor in the equation. Or at least it would be a factor in
decline rather than is the case today in
ascedency.
All the debate in the world about National
Dividends, Just Prices and the A+B exposition of the gap between
prices and purchasing power will not progress anything until the
essential and fundamental driver of the problems Douglas (and all the others)
spent a lifetime studying is changed. That driver, as I have said before, is
the mechanism which injects purchasing power into the economy as an interest
bearing debt which profits those who own, operate and control the process at
the expense of the vast majority of the worlds populace.
Regards
Trevor Crosbie
Hamilton NZ
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:05
AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Douglas's
discussion of his New Zealand proposals
The following is extracted from "The Douglas System of
Social Credit" to which Bill Ryan has just provided a link (that works) in
his previous post. For those of you who do not have access to
that book other ways,. what's contained therein is a tract very well
worth reading in its entirety. It is interesting to speculate
whether what Douglas proposed back in 1934 would still have relevance to the
situation in New Zealand today, and form the basis for a solution more
appropriate than what some New Zealanders have proposed on here. Of
course, only they would know.
"Now New Zealand, from which I have just come, had a
monetary inquiry, and the
monetary inquiry was, for reasons connected
with the debt, the large debt to
London, practically incapable of
discussing the existing monetary system, so
that the line I took with
New Zealand was this: "We will assume that the
existing monetary system
is perfect, and we will make suggestions for the
amelioration of the
existing situation within the lines of the existing monetary
system, and
we will see how they work."
Broadly speaking, the suggestions were
something like this (and I shall have
much pleasure in depositing an
actual copy with the prime minister for the use
of this house): "We know
quite well that the core of this problem is in the
disparity between the
real wealth available and the monetization of that wealth;
that it is
within the power of monetization of real wealth that this power of
credit lies. Now certain institutions alone have the power of monetizing
wealth,
and we will take that power as it stands, and we will go to the
banks and say:
`Now you have the best possible precedent in the Bank of
England for limiting
your dividends to 6%--which is the dividend
invariably paid by that bank. We
will by our law-making powers
limit your dividend to 6%. Then we will ask you
to do this, and if
you do not do it we will ask you your reasons for your
objection; we
will ask you to make a return of the whole of your assets both
real and
personal, at their market price at the present time and at the price at
which they are held on your balance sheet for the purpose of your annual
balance
sheet'."
REAL VALUE OF BANK ASSETS
I may say in
digression that there is very little doubt that if we had any
conception
of the market price of the assets held by the financial institutions
we
should be very much surprised at the real profits that they are making.
There
is an enormous difference between the disclosed value of the
assets either held
by banks or held in lien by banks, in many cases
under a lien which never can be
realized, and the figures under which
these assets are held for balance sheet
purposes.
We say: You
will make this return, and where it is found that the disclosed
market
value of your assets is in excess of the value for which they are held
for balance sheet purposes, we will not take those assets from you, we
will not
tax you even on those assets; but we will merely ask you very
kindly to exercise
your exclusive rights of monetizing that value, and
we will transfer that
monetized value to a suspense account. We will use
that suspense account for
providing every individual of the population
of New Zealand over 21, with shares
in public issues of debenture stocks
or preference stocks which will be paid for
out of this suspense
account, and will be ear-marked as not good security for
loans and
non-transferable. We will allot those shares to the individual so long
as he is a naturalized or natural-born subject of New Zealand, thus
providing
those individuals with the beginnings of a dividend share in
all undertakings,
without having taxed anybody to provide the purchasing
power. In addition to
that we will go to the insurance companies and we
will ask them for the same
returns and we will monetize that
return. The difference of those values
through the newly formed
New Zealand Reserve Bank, we will apply to the
retirement of the
overdrafts and the loans of agricultural and other producing
concerns,
so that these farmers and agriculturists who have become practically
hopelessly in debt to financial institutions may have those overdrafts
and loans
retired without the taxation of anybody. The money which
is created by the New
Zealand Reserve Bank for that purpose will be
automatically retired by the
payment of those overdrafts, on the well
known principle that the repayment of a
loan destroys a
deposit.
Under those conditions you will immediately make it possible
for a number of
producing organizations which are now moribund, and
which cannot meet their
interest charges, to go back into production and
employment. And on the other
hand, by the other suspension account to
which I referred, you will begin, and
will proceed at no small rate to
provide every individual with a stake in all
undertakings in a way which
is not a tax on other people, but with the necessary
purchasing power to
buy the productions of the country, without it being
necessary for them
to pass through the turn-stiles of the factory, as we may
say.
That does not meet certain other difficulties which arise
under these existing
financial systems but it does directly focus the
attention of the public upon
that locus of the difficulty, and it does
bring up in our opinion for public
discussion this question of the right
to monetize, or still more important, not
to monetize, existing real
wealth. That, under existing conditions, seems to me
to be one way to
attack this citadel of real wealth. When that citadel falls (as
it must
fall, I feel confident, in a few years' time, but it is better perhaps
that it should fall by successive steps, than by a catastrophic shock)
it will
undoubtedly involve certain measures for the control and
reduction of prices,
measures with which I think you are all probably to
some extent familiar in this
house. But none of these theoretical
objectives can be properly attained so
long as this monopoly of credit
remains unchanged."
Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email tamac@xtra.co.nz
To unsubscribe, send a message to
socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
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
