| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Jessop Sutton -- responding to Vic | | Date: | Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:56:03 (+1000) | | From: | Vic Bridger <socred @.......au>
|
Dear Jessop,
The banks do not form part of the production process in so far as they
produce nothing but money. They do not produce any goods. They do provide a
service in the distribution process but certainly not in the same manner as
any other service industry. Without the distribution of what they produce
(money) other service industries and those involved in the real production
of goods would not exist under the current system. What this means that
unless banks are providing credit which when used becomes money the system
would collapse.
Yes, they do keep the wheels of commerce and industry flowing by creating
credit (money) and lending it out. Their "facilitating credit" as you put it
is vastly from the trader who facilities credit by allowing a client to pay
for the purchase of goods and services at a date later than the purchase.
The trader exchanges goods in return for money. The bank provides credit
(money) in return for payment in money.
The problem as we as Social Crediters see it is that not only does the bank
lend something which it does not have and lends it as if they are the owners
but they have a monopoly on the creation of the money supply. In this manner
they are able to determine who will get the credit and on what basis. This
gets down to the heart of the matter - Policy.
I am afraid that you are confusing administration of the banks with the
policy. The banks are most efficient in their operations and the bank clerks
and others employed in the banking system may be doing a very good job but
that is not the point. As Douglas pointed out that this was not the problem
and even that banks may be making exorbitant profits (as they still are) but
that is not the concern of Social Credit in the application of its
principles and policies.
What we are concerned with is the need for a correction in the financial
accounting system which allows the banks a monopoly on the creation of money
and does not allow for a proper distribution of that money. This is because
of the manner in which the economy operates in the creation of costs and
prices.
I have no idea why you introduced the idea of a conspiracy which are your
words. If there is a conspiracy which is the act of conspiring or a plot for
an unlawful purpose so be it. The use of such terminology tends to divert
attention away from the main issue.
As for shareholdings in banks I see nothing in this to have anything to do
with the matter. Shareholders may be interested in profits and dividends but
they have no say in the policy making of the banks. they certainly do not
have any say in the manner by which a bank may create money. The fact is
that banks are operating lawfully because they have been provided with a
charter and these charters extend back over 300 years. Although there have
been politicians who have spoken out against this no political party has
done so and probably because the majority of the politicians do not
understand, cannot understand, or do not want to understand and would rather
not become involved in any changes. I can tell you that there have been some
who have been elected to parliament and who after speaking out have lost
their endorsement for the next election.
In conclusion I suggest that you have a lot more learning to do, not just
with Social Credit but in general reading on world affairs. Become familiar
with the CFR, the Bildeberger Group, the actions taken by the IMF against
third world countries in their structural adjustments, the WTO, the World
Bank, the Aspen Institute. Discover why Columbia became so prominent in the
drug trade. Try to discover why it is so important that Iraq changes from
(or tried to) using US dollars to the Euro for their oil transaction.
Discover why it was important and the consequences of Venezuela changing
from supplying the US with oil and supplying China and the changes from the
US dollar to the Euro.
Are you aware that China is holding United States currency and Treasury
notes in a $1.900000,000,000 Treasury bond trap? Do you understand what
China could do and what would be the consequences? Do you understand what
happened with the attack on the Malaysian financial system? I doubt that you
do because you would not be asking the questions you do and making the
statements you do. I will leave you to reconsider your position as I feel it
is not possible to assist with any more explanations. I will send
information of your first request as to what evidence that the banking
powers are against Social Credit in a separate message
Vic Bridger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jessop Sutton" <sutton@kingsley.co.za>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Jessop Sutton -- responding to Vic
> On Saturday 16 Apr 2005 4:20 am, Vic Bridger wrote:
> > I am not sure whether Jessop is talking "tongue in cheek" but if not
then a
> > lot more study needs to be done.
>
> Jessop: No, Vic. I am not talking tongue in cheek. I am completely
serious.
> ========
>
> Vic says: "The financial and banking powers ARE against the introduction
of
> Social Credit which would reduce or even eliminate their power base.There
is
> sufficient evidence to substantiate this."
>
> Jessop: Could you cite some?
> ================
>
> Vic says: "They are not against it because of A MARKET FOR THEIR
PRODUCTION.
> The financial and banking powers do not produce anything but MONEY which
IS
> the source of their profit."
>
> Jessop: Vic, do the banks not just form part of the total
> production/distribution process in the same way as any other service
industry
> does? Doctors and hospitals keep the role-players in commerce and industry
> healthy, Vets keep their pets well and the people happy, Travel Agents
> facilitate bookings. Are those not all just sub-sets of the total economic
> activity? Are banks not just doing the same -- keeping the wheels of
commerce
> and idustry flowing by facilitating credit? Are bank clerks not just
ordinary
> workers participating in the economy in the same way as you and I ? Where
do
> we see the conspiracy in this? Of course they are a charge against
production
> in the same way as is the saw sharpener who contracts to sharpen the tools
of
> the wood-worker, but then so is the schoolteacher a charge against the
> productive effort of the nation. Are some of the services parasitical? --
in
> my opinion, yes. Life could continue without a short-term insurance
industry,
> but I am prepared to pay for the little security it does offer against
loss,
> even though I know I also pay for it in the prices of the goods I buy. All
> services are a cost factor in production.
>
> You can't really believe in a conspiracy of bankers making life difficult
for
> the rest of us, can you? I haven't seen the South African 'Who Owns Whom'
for
> a few years, but I remember that the commercial banks are owned by an
> intricate network of shareholders and share-holding companies
criss-crossing
> the JSE listed companies in an amazing way. Corporations hold shares in
banks
> while the same banks hold shares in those same companies. A director of a
> banking group may also be a director of a major producer or retailer. If
> there is profit in the shares, they will be purchased and owned. I doubt
if
> any of these people spend their time finding ways to resist something that
> would benefit the whole flow of commercial activity. I can't imagine that
you
> do, really?
>
> Jessop.
> ===================================
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email socred@ecn.net.au
> 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