Fwd: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] MICHAELLANE
Just a small matter my ISP is soon to implement a program to screen out spam. The program associates text all in capitals, as in Michael's letter below, as spam and deletes it without sending it through to me. This one got through but a previous one was marked as 'SPAM'. It got through before the implementation of the program. (Incidentally, in 'netiquet' the use of capitals in this way is seen as shouting in anger, so if that is ever a writer's intention it is okay, but otherwise it can be misconstrued.) Jessop. -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] MICHAELLANE Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:46:05 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ok -- On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 17:38:21 OAssoci508 wrote: DEAR BILL, I JUST NOW PRINTED OFF YOUR NOTE AND HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YET. I HAVE ONE LITTLE GRIEVANCE, THOUGH. I DON'T MIND YOUR SHARING THIS WITH THE LIST, BUT I WOULD LIKE IT SENT INTACT AS I WROTE IT, NOT IN PIECES WITH YOUR ANALYSIS INTERSPERSED. COULD YOU PLEASE RESEND IT THAT WAY? THANKS. ALSO, I HAD ASKED FOR YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, AS I WANTED TO SEND YOU SOMETHING. DON'T FORGET. MICHAEL -- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:38:29 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [add to address book] Subject: MICHAELLANE To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Wally, Vic, and Bill: While I am waiting for Rodney Shakespeare to make a response, I thought I'd write to you three alone. I offered to Wally to help back him up in the discussion group, and he said that what was needed was to clarify the national dividend of social credit from the second basic income of Shakespeare's version of binary economics. I believe I did that. In the course of this, two matters came up that I wanted to address just to you three. One was Bill's statement that Douglas's essential observation (i.e., the A+B Theorem) was about the fact the people do not spend all of their income but save and/or invest it. While it is a true observation, I think I can confidently appeal to both Wally and Vic that this is not what gives us the A+B Theorem. The other was the question of setting profit margins. In The Use of Money Douglas says that if you just issue more tickets to make up the lack between the purchasing power available and the prices of the goods for same, . . . you get a rise in the prices of articles, . . . because there is nothing to prevent the prices being raised when the sellers find there is more money about. But you can produce exactly the same result by, let us say, halving the price of everything. That is to say, instead of doubling the amount of money on one side, if you halve the price of everything for sale on the other side, you will produce exactly the same result as if you had doubled the money without raising the prices. (p. 15) Now you cannot confidently speak about halving the price of everything if at the same time sellers can set the pre-halved price at whatever they want. In fact, it makes a mockery of the whole argument, because it would be just as vulnerable to sellers' raising prices as would issuing more tickets. This realization was a breakthrough in my understanding of Douglas, though you might say it should really have been obvious that the compensated price and halving the price are an abandonment of market prices. The seller gives up his right to charge what the market will bear in return for the advantage of participating in the program. It is a perfectly fair arrangement. Finally, I want to say that if social credit is compatible with market prices, then my entire approach to Rodney Shakespeare was in error. Indeed, I would then have to admit that he is right and that there IS no difference between what he calls a second basic income and a national dividend. After I feel I have concluded my assignment with Rodney, I will be unsubscribing to the list. It is an awfully mixed group and seems to scatter my energies too much. In addition, I am online only at work and am becoming uncomfortable receiving so many personal e-mails. I am sure the three of us will continue to correspond. MICHAEL LANE _ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plusref=lmtplus --- ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] P. W. Martin
Bruce, Thank you for your reply to mine, and sorry that I have not responded. I'm still mulling over it. Jessop - On Sunday 26 January 2003 10:57, you wrote: At 09:22 AM 25/01/03 +0200, Jessop Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] P. W. Martin Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:00:37 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You wrote:- quote To bring about an influx of new purchasing power in such a way as to offset this deficiency without risk of inflation, some measure of co-operation between the Government and the banking system is required. a possible line of action consists in what might be termed the'special financing of public works.' ... One question arises in my mind: Does it have to be 'new' purchasing power brought about by an incresae in the money supply, or should it be a judicious re-distribution of existing wealth? The tax system should beseen primarily as a means of redistribution of wealth -- the provision of the legitimate needs of the nation which are not provided by 'business' in the normal pursuit of their own interests. Bear in mind that both Keynes General Theory reasoning and the Social Credit reasoning have creditary money as a given. If the assets for final settlement are fiat money, as with most modern monetary production economy, then the government budget is NOT like a budget of a commercial firm. At the outset, you can imagine a government just spending. The limit is not financial, but real: if the government spending plus private spending cannot be met within current capacity at current prices, then something has to give. And since pricing is in the hands of commercial enterprise in the systems we are talking about, what gives is prices. However, if the level of government spending never exceeded the excess capacity of the economy, not one iota of taxation would be necessary to avoid general price inflation, and since businesses would still be net debtors to banks, as long as the government regulates banks in such a way that they demand money, firms will continue to accept money because their creditors accept it, and everyone else will accept money because you can buy what you want from firms with it. Taxation, in a monetary production economy, permits governments to drain effective demand from the system so that private demand and social demand may both be accomodated. Taxation is a redistribution of wealth, but it is important not to be confused about what financial wealth is. Financial Wealth is when effective demand is swapped with someone else in exchange for power within the commercial economy. Taxation is a redistribution of wealth in the sense of reducing the scope for private power within the commercial economy at the expense of government power. The liberal ideology is that private enterprise somehow exists over and above the political system, and that it creates wealth that the political system appropriates. In reality, in most growing economies, economic growth is driven by increased resource use and by improved technology (soft -- organisational, and hard -- technical). Resources are not created by commercial enterprise, but simply harvested by them, and the technological base is a joint legacy of our society that cannot conceivably be distangled into distinct individual contributions. Just to reach back directly to William Ryan's point, the divergence between General Theory reasoning and Social Credit is the A+B theorem, which Keynes would argues is a flawed understanding of inadequate effective demand. Up to that point, on the nature of money and the importance of effective demand, they seem to be in broad agreement. Of course, this broad agreement may have been masked by the tendency to replace Keynes' General Theory reasoning with Samuelson's pseudo-Keynesian reasoning after WWII. ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Various postings
Vic, VB. The Compensated Price mechanism which allocates an amount for the purpose of reimbursing the retailer (the opposite of the retailer adding on VAT or GST) who has reduced his price by a given nominated percentage Thanks, Vic. That explains somethings. It can piggy-back on the existing VAT system. However, the question still remains --- somewhere the tax-collection system has to compensate the exchequer in order to balance the books. If the Douglases National Credit Office rakes off the Just Price windfall from companies before the tax calculation, the exchequer loses tax, and if the amount is taken after tax, it amounts to double taxation. That could not be acceptable. There are really no free breakfasts; the taxpayers have to finance any government (or pseudo-government-agency) handouts no matter what they are termed. I just don't see it. You wrote further: I am attaching a couple of excerpts via separate messages. I did not receive any attachments -- I think the List is set up to not accept attachments for fear of viruses? Could you send the attachments to me at my address -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? Thanks Jessop. On Sunday 02 February 2003 03:41, you wrote: Message 1. I have interspersed my comments after each of your questions. - Original Message - From: Jessop Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] effective demand On Saturday 01 February 2003 07:10, you wrote: Vic Bridger says: Confusion is entering with the use of falling prices. The reduction of a price by the application of the Compensated Price means that the price of a particular item is reduced and therefore purchasing power is increased. Both the statements by Michael and Bill contain the truth. It does not infer that with the application of the Compensated Price there would be a general falling of prices. However falling prices do mean that the consumer can receive the benefit of improved process and it also means that the effective price to the consumer is falling. ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] The Use of Social Credit
Sorry to be a nuisance, but my system won't open .pdf files. Could you 'copy 'n paste' the text into the body of an e-mail for me? Thanks Jessop. - On Wednesday 05 February 2003 20:44, you wrote: Attached is a reformatted version of the original that Wally forwarded to me. It was about 350kb in Wally's version. I've converted into a file of approximately 16kb that is able to be relayed through Topica. Here Douglas refers to the diagnosis and treatment of trade depression. He also uses the term socialization of credit. The date is 1935 somewhat after the election of the Alberta Social Credit government in August of that year. ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===
[SOCIAL CREDIT] A wish-list for our country
My wish-list is based on suggestions I have made to leaders of political parties, other individuals and institutions, over the years. I do not think the aims are far removed from the aims of Social Credit, SANE, and other contributors to this list. My suggestions are 'raw', as they would be coming from a layman, but I have tried just to use a 'common sense' approach, starting from scratch without heeding accepted 'knowledge'. I am no Descartes, but he seemed to have a good idea, starting with the assumption that he knew nothing at all, and everything had to be discovered through pure logic. Jessop. 1. Our democracy should be 'synthesised' from the bottom upwards, and not 'analyzed' from the top downwards. For the people to have meaningful say, local communities/clans/wards/districts should freely (without pressure from political party hierarchies) have their own local authority (even chieftancies where these exist and are accepted**), send their own delegates to the next level of government (divisional or regional). They should retain the right to recall a delegate at any time. Delegates at regional level choose their delegates to Provincial/State/County level (retaining the right to recall). Delegates at Provincial level choose their delegates to the National Government. 2. Maximum power allowed by the constitution is exercised (retained by, not devolved to) at each level of government. 3. The local community/clan/ward/district has full responsibility for the poor in the community, and all welfare and state-largess is dispensed through the local office. 4. The local community is assisted to set up industries and employment opportunities within its own area of jurisdiction. It is also responsible for civil-defense and law enforcement locally. It is responsible for maintenance of roads and infrastructure. Assistance is rendered where required by the next-higher level of government. 5. This opens the way for a financial system to be modelled for the local community (Aart de Lange of the SANE network has suggested an 'own currency' at lower levels than National.) 6. Local government 'creates' jobs where they do not arise naturally from the agriculture and industry in any local area. For this purpose National Government, in command of the Mint and the Central Bank, makes debt-free money available, filtering it down through the appropriate levels of government. But for all 'unemployed' for whom work cannot be created, and for all 'unemployable', aged persons, and indigent persons, there is a social pension or grant, sufficient to support life, but less than wages earned in 'government' jobs. Such government jobs will be provided in the development and improvement of infrastructure (I call it Roman Roads Work) which will benefit the community, the region, the province, the country as a whole in the long term. Possibilities lie in building dry-stone walls to replace fencing, eradication of alien vegetation, repair and maintenace of roads, building catchment dams for local irrigation, maintenance of hospital and school buildings, development of common recreational areas. 7. The way in which the debt-free money is created in my tax proposal not different to the Social Credit idea: with authority from the National Government taking account of the National Balance Sheet, the Central Bank creates credit for the purpose. The 'credit' is dispensed through regional branches of the Central Bank form where it is made available as cash for the payment of 'unemployed workers' doing 'government projects'. 8.The tax system is used to redirect wealth form well-off communities to serve the more impoverished communities. 9. The tax system will be as proposed in my separate document entitled 'The Good Tax.' The tax + the Social Credit money is levied on the Credit created for the normal 'demand economy' by the Central Bank. The levy for tax + Social Credit money is charged out to the Commercial Banks at 0% interest, and is recovered by the Commercial Banks from borrowers, also at 0% (the capital portion is of the loan is subject to interest payments to the Commercial Bank, which constitutes the Commercial Banks' profit margin. 10. No further taxation takes place at any level in the passage of manufactured goods, imported goods, mined products, farm produce, from primary source to the final consumer. Salaries and wages therefore do not have to be inflated to compensate for personal or employees tax (take-home pay must be the same as in the existing system.) Companies do not have to make provision for company tax or dividend tax, therefore mark-up will be lower. There will be an extra-ordinary levy on profits above a legislated maximum for any industry or enterprise in the pipeline from primary producer to final seller. This money will be available for government for redistribution through 'government works' and social grants.
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] History of Co-op Social Credit in Alberta
On Sunday 16 February 2003 21:33, Chick Hurst you wrote: The problem of course is that we have been fighting over the purity of the theory, or the exact following of the theoretician and/or the theory, and what exactly they were trying to get across, rather than learning from each and all and advancing them. --- That is my perception also. It reminds me of Christianity, where the theologians spend so much time arguing doctrine that they really miss the simple truth that forgiveness is offered freely to all who ask and in the process they have split the Church thirty-thousand ways (some say forty-thousand, and growing.) Aren't we over-complicating something that should be quite straightforward? We want to take out of the economy, out of the common wealth of the Nation, a certan value and re-insert it where it will achieve a social purpose. Whether we call that value a tax, or social credit, or debt-free money is surely academic? Normal 'tax money' taken out of the economy -- out of the production/distribution processess -- and administered by a Central authority for the good of the population at large, becomes 'tax' or 'national dividend' according to how it is finally used. Doesn't it become a simple bookkeeping entry to write off a portion that is not recoverable? The main problem to me seems to be how to limit the size of government and its internal requirements which places the main burden upon the citizens. So, forms of government and the wealth-pool of the nation are intimately connected. If we can have a form of government where the money of the wealth-seekers does not dictate fiscal policy, we will start to see light. Maybe I'm wrong, but I need to be convinced. The 'Co-operatives' set-up in your post sounds not unlike my 'wish-list' -- if a local governement serving a district or clan-area could be constituted along those lines, what else would they need to serve the community? Chick, would I be free to forward your post to others who may be interested? Regards to all, Jessop. - There are many points in Alberta's history that must be considered as well as the development of the foundation on which Alberta Social Credit sits. The writings of Charles Dickens' in such stories as A Christmas Carol and how he described Scrooge are representative of the system under which the people lived at the time. Victor Hugo's, Les Miserables is another, and we could mention several, good descriptions of the oppression that had been imposed upon the citizenry at the hands of the establishment. In the 1800s there were several movements that all understood the real root of the problems and the additional oppression that was manufactured to keep the masses under the control of the aristocracy and the political and business establishment. The Co-operative movement, Communism, Monetary Reform or Social Credit, and so many others were spawned by that oppression and the daily struggles of the masses. It would not have and did not matter what the theories, proposals or paradigms that were proposed, the establishment would not only never agree on, nor allow, but would mount any kind of campaign to discredit it. The truth is that all of the work, the research and the subsequent theories, had great potential benefits. The problem of course is that we have been fighting over the purity of the theory, or the exact following of the theoretician and/or the theory, and what exactly they were trying to get across, rather than learning from each and all and advancing them. What we should have been doing is taking all the good aspects from each and putting them all together to build one theory or a new and improved flex-theory that would be able to fit the needs of people and to change with the times and conditions, if necessary. Instead we have argued semantics even though there were, and are, so many similarities and/or similar objectives and/or because each theoretician wanted the glory of being able to claim the position of being the best theory and its supporters would be in the position of authority or power. In recent communications the argument has been made that Communism, Marxism, and Socialism all held the position of restricting property rights and could confiscate property at any time. There was distinctly a neglect to mention that the same can be said about a Monarchy. Under British Common Law, of which Canada is still subject for some reason, the Crown still holds that position and, in a supposedly free country, the same situation still exists. The criticism has been that under those systems or theories, the power is centralized oppression in the hands of a chosen few self appointed dictators or dictators elected through a quasi-democratic fashion but there also is a neglect to mention by many that the Corporate Establishment, possibly better known as
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Some questioning -- and a reply to Chick's response
what is advocated by Social Credit would of course eliminate the burden of the interest that the society must suffer, not only in the running of their affairs but also in the taxation that robes them of their operating capital. Chick Hurst - Original Message - From: Jessop Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 10:25 AM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Some questioning Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same door as in I went. But leave the Wise to wangle, and with me The quarrel of the Universe let be: And, in some corner of the Hubbub coucht, Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee. I begin to sympathize with old Omar Khayyam. I shall leave the experts to wrangle over the bookkeeping issues and just raise some issues that occupy my mind. I came in as a layperson, and I remain a layperson with a lot of questions unanswered, the main one being Will it, can it, work? Here are a few layman's points:- 1. Can it be that 'one size fits all?' The situation in South Africa (let alone Zimbabwe) seems vastly different than America, Canada, England, Australia. Can Social Credit be set out in a 'system' that satisfies all? 2. Steve pointed out that the whole world lies at the mercy of the multi-national corporations. Can a system that suits them suit a rural clan in a tribal area in KwaZulu-Natal where the adult literacy rate is probably less than ten percent (latest statistic is that 80% of all South African adults are functionally illiterate), and women-folk look after to the 'agriculture' while their menfolk are away working in towns and cities? Where a whole family lives off an old-age pensioner's social pension equal to about R20 per day (coffee at the Seattle Coffee Shop in the city costs R7 -- R10); where grandmothers are left raising infants whose mothers have died of AIDS, and who struggle to access the meager grants available to them (we do not blame the government, they are doing their best in the face of small budgets and lack of infrastructure. There are no banks anywhere near accessible to the people who have to walk long distances to get to a remote trading store.) 3. Where does the Social Credit come from in a country like Zimbabwe where there is a very definite negative growth in the National Asset? We can blame the government, but the people are poor and still need to eat, they still need access to money to buy grain products which are priced according to International Dollar prices. Can there be an one International Social Credit in our global village? 6. Someone has raised the question of the association with 'Christian'. I think the mention of 'Christian' came about because I said I had come to the list starting from the Christian perspective -- not the 'evangelizing perspective', but from the idea that American Democracy, which is now the model for the world, comes about because of a wrong practice in Christianity suggesting that democracy is a party-based thing (the Christian Church was never meant to be a mass of thirty-thousand denominations). I say there is nothing democratic in the system because the individual has no voice in the presence of powerful interests that back parties and put their own people in office. The world's banking systems evolved in that milieu to serve the interests of the large and powerful traders. I could go on, but many on this list are probably more up on the African problems than I am, so I end by asking the same questions as at the beginning: Will it, can it, work? Can one size really fit all -- or does there have to be a separate solution for us in Africa? In a separate e-mail, I would like to set out what would be my wish-list for our own country. Jessop. - ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Thoughts
On Friday 21 February 2003 02:05, you wrote: MB: Churches will also adopt such principals. Hierarchies will be replaced by assemblies of lay deacons who are hired by their congregations. Bishops will not administer property or institutions, but will stick to teaching and ministry. Freed from the responsibility to worry about not offending donors, they can attack income inequality. Such a move by the high churches - especially the Church of Rome, will lead to religious unity in Christendom, as well as provide a model for non-Christian faiths. Chick: As for the churches, I think you will find greater resistance to fiddling with the churches than you do or will with business. And there is an old saying that, Hell will freeze over before you will get unity in Christendom and most especially, I would suggest, not the Church of Rome. Now thy might if all Christians were to pledge allegiance to the Pope but anything else, I would suggest, is beyond even a pipe dream. - Jessop here. Michael Bindner is not far off the mark (my mark, that is.) The Christian circles I move in are not aligned to any denominations, and just meet in homes in the area, without clergy and property, without reference to any church-specific dogmas and doctrines. In my own booklets and website I have termed it 'Church Without Churches.' This is a world-wide happening today. So, in this sense, the Church is ahead of government and society. This is in fact part of the total picture I see: The Christianity of the people, like the government of the people, exists in the most primary groupings of society, the individual in his/her family, and then then moving outwards from there to the immediate neighbourhood, and then district, then region, then province, then central government (for the function of government think of Plato's Guardians rather than rulers of the people). In the case of the Church, thinking in terms of 'levels' it is not for levels of administration, but for communication and wider intercation only -- truth is found in free and open discussion between people, never in closed societies. Everything works upwards. In government, the top strata should be minimal, controlling national defence, re-direction of revenues collected to meet the needs of the the people where most needed, international trade agreements, international co-operation (UN etc.), foreign loans and investment. If revenue for government is to be by way of taxation, then it should be collected at the lowest point feasible and possible, and a defined portion sent upwards to support higher levels of assembly. If it can be a 'non-tax' nation-state, then the top level must send it down to the lowest level at which it can be spent and administered for the needs of the people. I just have to get my mind bent round the idea that the only function of tax is to extract 'excess capital from circulation if it becomes necessary.' I still see it as a necessary redistribution of spending power taken, unfairly even if legitimately, from the economy by the big-business operators, far in excess of their real needs. (But I recognise the danger of alienation of the wealth-creators in society.) There is certainly no thought that the local Church group has any 'higher' levels to support. Any money they have in common can be well spent supporting local evangelism, and the needy in it's area, and genuine missionary work to people who have not heard the gospel. I am not entering into a discussion on religion. I only discuss this view of the Church to show its 'location' in the life of the nation. Jessop. --- ==^^=== This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Thoughts/lessons from history and indigenous economics for t
On Sunday 23 February 2003 11:07, Wally Klinck wrote: Wally comments in reply to Sue's questions and observations: I would sincerely suggest that before you engage in all sorts of speculations and imaginings about Social Credit that you do a thorough reading of authoritative Social Credit literature--with priority given to the works of the late Major Clifford Hugh Douglas's books and essays. This would allow you to understand the subject from its foundations and to draw conclusions based upon knowledge of fact rather than uninformed speculation. It would permit you to get to the core of the subject and save much wasted time and effort on your part. - I wouldn't interfere with the functions of this list even if I had the power to do so, but I do find that a lot of time is taken talking about 'who said what' when I really think that is irrevelant. What is important is whether the idea put forward is plausible, workable, necessary, and therefore worthy of pursuit. I don't think we all have to be schooled in the nuances of what Maj Douglas really said or had in mind, neither are we hooked by the term Social Credit unless it describes something logical and understandable which can be implemented. In the same way, I am an ardent Christian, but I don't put forward ideas because 'Jesus said it.' I put forward ideas because they seem to me to be universally true. I suppose what I am looking for is for some one who will say I have given this a lot of thought, and this is what I have come up with.' That would be refreshing. I believe that all the understanding necessay for that to be done has already been aired on the list since I joined it not so long ago, so where does the learning end and the action begin? Someone ended a post to the list with the wirds 'Keep it simple.' I believe this is what we need, because people survived quite well in cultures before the complicated government and finacial systems evolved under able hands of empire-builders and global traders. Much of that simplicity I see buried deep in (under) the learning revealed here. Can we have it brought out in its simplest forms? I fear that someone oneday will ask me to sit down and be quiet, but until that happens, I will have to 'prophesy' what I have to 'prophesy.' Jessop. --- ==^^=== This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^===
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
I think my response to yours would be embodied in the following (rather lengthy) posting to the SANE Network. Substantially I agree with the Pope statement, but I do not see the philosophy is embodied in the organisation he heads. The Pope and Cardinals, Bishops, etc is a political entity (hierarchy) in the same way that President Bush and the high-ups head the Republican Party. Further, the 'church-party' headed by the Vatican is no more 'the Church' than is the party in the Whitehouse the American people. I consider both to be an imposition upon the people they claim to serve. I go along with this statement by Douglas:- It must be insisted that Christianity is either something inherent in the very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting opinions, largely discredited, and thus doubtfully on a par with many other sets of opinions, and having neither more nor less claim to consideration. Jessop. --- Let me come clean! I approach all things spiritual, political and social from my personal Christian understanding. Not long after I was converted to God and Christ from practical atheistic communism (not that I was deep in the philosophy), I began to see that the Church cannot be 'owned' by an hierarchy with head quarters in Rome, nor an hierarchy with head office in Pretoria, Canterbury, or in the Southern states of America. The Church is owned by no-one but God because he owns each individual that is part of the Church. Therefore each one of us is responsible only to God, but we are placed in 'support groups' while we are on earth, and those consist of, first, parents, then family, then neighbourhood, then clan, then tribe, then nation, then state. The support group exists for the individual, but without individuals making their natural contribution to the whole, there can be no support group. So the individual is responsible only to God, but conducts himself/herself in such a way that strengthens the group, enabling it to function. The authority over the group rests only in God, but is expressed through the common voice of all the people of God. But, because God keeps himself invisible, men take control and start to dictate. They do this firstly as an individual, and then the leadership ability in the individual attracts lackeys and fellow-travellers who see in it an advantage for themselves. So a party (or king and council) is formed which quickly moves away from a role of 'protector' to that of dictator --- sometimes under the pretense of 'democracy.' But we know from Plato that 'democracy' doesn't actually work because it soon gives rise to anarchy, which again soon sees a battle between leaders -- and emerges once more (under the guise of democracy) as a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy) because the party with the greatest resources in money will win. So the Church, when visible, is a local meeting of believers, and is ruled by God -- the Spirit of God. When men take prominent positions -- firstly in the guise of 'guardians' (of doctrine and of people) -- they soon taste the benefits to themselves of status, prestige, reverence, and financial reward, and become an hierarchy of control interposing themselves between mankind and God. And the people blandly accept it because responsibility passes from themselves -- but does it? Plato's solution to this -- which he admits will not actually work -- is that 'guardianship' of the nation or state should be in the hands of those born to the task, who do it not for gain or recognition, but because they are naturally equipped to do it and their inner nature compels them to give themselves to a task which they actually do not want! They own no personal wealth, but are maintained by the people (they share in the National Dividend!) Plato (Socrates) terms them guardians because they are not 'rulers' but are there to adjudicate between individuals involved in internal conflicts, and to provide security from outside aggression. The 'ideal guardian' in Plato's analysis ends up with the full attributes of a benevolent God. He sees that, in the absence of such a person (or persons, for he lived in an era when there were multiple gods), a 'captain' would be appointed but whose captaincy would immediately be challenged by others who want the position for themselves. Therefore, in the absence of that 'true ruler', his Republic would not work. But this is the primary concept in Christianity. Christ is the head of the Church and no one else can exercise authority over it. While some will teach and and encourage, no one is to be boss over the rest, and all group actions are undertaken after discussion in open forum of all members present. Membership does not describe a name on a list; all believers assembling together are members of Christ and of each other. In society and government today, in the absence of that sense of belonging to God inherent in the
[SOCIAL CREDIT] Debt free money and a simple tax system
have to come through the Reserve Bank? Present Tax incentives to companies would be replaced by direct grants from the fiscus. Non-earners who do not now pay tax may need assistance in the form of social pensions Beneficiation, Wholesaler mark-up and Retailer mark-up can be lower because no Tax provision More money could be spent on control over SPENDING since no money is spent on tax collection Jessop Sutton. E-mail me: Jessop
[SOCIAL CREDIT] The anomaly that social credit seeks to redress - poser for Mich
Michael I'm afraid you'll need to explain a bit further because I can't see how this is how economy works -- at least, not in the way I interpret my own experience. If we do a Standstill at Time 0 :- I am paid at Time 0 I go across the road and buy a chair at Time 0 The chair was completed in a factory at Time -1 The boards were planed at Time -2 The trees were felled at Time -3 The chair arrived at the dealer, and was price-marked at Time 0 The time of my wages and the time of setting the price is the same - Time 0. All pthere events in the production-distribution chain took place at lower levels in the wages cycle. We could also make the case of expenditure on short-life perishable goods which accounts for a large proportion of my wages. Cabbages picked in the field this morning are moved by cold-chain to arrive on the shelves this same day -- Time 0. I take my Time 0 wages across the road and stock up my fridge for the week. There is no time lag -- goods are harvested at wages of Time 0, distributed at wages of Time 0, bought at wages of Time 0. In either scenario, the time of my wages (Time 0) and the time of pricing the goods is the same. Therefore any discrepancy in my buying power is not due to any lag between the two events. However, there is a factor which accounts for part of it: My wages have been pegged for twelve months whereas the price of the chair is influenced by a flow of time for Time -3 to Time 0, the least of which influence is defrayment of capital expenditure on machinery. The chief causes will have been other price increases in the production-distribution line: bank charges, service charges, shifts in tax rates, social responsibility/donations to charities, theft, waste, and mark-down compensation factors, and -- more often than not -- a stroke of the accountant's pen bringing the article to 'market related prices.' The latter is easy to do at producer level where there is no single purchase price with which to compare selling price and therefore mark-up percentage. The same goes for any service or financial industry where high prices are always rationalised by 'provision of improved service', whcih are unasked for but which the producer, wholesaler, and retailer pays meekly and recovers from the final consumer. Banks, IT Sevices, Insurance companies, Consultants, are major players in that field. If I was buying a chair completed at a mid-point of my wages cycle, the price may coincide with my pegged wage; otherwise it is either above or below my ability to buy it. Capital investment does play a part, but mainly at the beginning of an era such as when mass-produced tractors replace horses; or at a time of re-tooling after an earthquake or major fire; or at a time of rebuilding after a war or of intensifying production in preparation for war. At other times the process of capital-items replacement forms a fairly constant curve, not too different than other inflation factors. Increasing competition has a big responsibility for price increases, particularly in the service and financial sectors. As the market becomes more crowded there may be an initial tendency for prices to fall, but soon some sort of unconscious colusion sends them up again as the industry 'agrees' to recoup business lost (more, smaller, slices from the same cake) through higher charges. But there are also factors which tend to increase the buying power of my wages, all of which are devices to sell off over-production:- End of season sales; short-life perishables marked down to prevent excess waste; special offers -- Buy two get one free; buy now, pay later interest free (seen in the car industry recently). These do present the danger taht I might buy what I don't need because of the tempting price I could go on, but I think you will have got the gist, and I suppose the only difference it would make is that the Compensated Price could be changed from being a gift to the retailer to being a straight gift to the consumer who is unable to buy the necssities of life from his own wage packet. All others can take care of themsleves. Jessop. -- On Thursday 06 March 2003 16:00, you wrote: Dear Friends, Vince asks how the anomaly that social credit seeks to redress has come about. I suspect he will get a range of answers even from social crediters, and I invite him to choose the best one. Here is mine in two paragraphs: 1. Production occurs in multiple stages (e.g., logs, boards, furniture). The nature of technology, if it is not interfered with, is to spare labor and pay out less money. This would lead to a perfectly natural price fall in the ultimate product. But multiple-stage production means that less money paid out at one state translates into a reduced consumer price only at a subsequent stage when the product goes to market. In other words, if technology is not interfered with, income will fall ahead of
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Keynes' D1 + D2: Further to the A+B Theorem and Just Price
There are times when I think I have the A + B theorem, and then I lose it again. It becomes very confusing to a non-academic, but that shouldn't be so because it affects us all equally. Can I just ask a couple of questions? 1. Supposing that new credit (new money) is authorised or issued only by a Central Bank which is a department of government, then when a loan to a commercial bank is repaid, is the debt cancelled out so that the money supply in the country is once more reduced by that amount? Or does it stay on the books as 'old money' to be lent out again? Can there be a 'bookkeeping' choice of one or the other? 2. Suppose that Central Bank receives a 'requisition' from government for an amount that will be paid out for either Just Price or for National Dividend, or simply for use as revenue in place of taxes, can it be written off in Central Bank's books as an unrecoverable debt so that once more the debt is contraed and ceases to exist, ie. money supply is once more reduced? 3. The wealth accumulaters can not possibly buy consumer goods for all their buying power, presumably there will simply never be enough goods in any accouning period for them to buy even if they could consume it. Does it just grow until the 'end of the world' when it is wiped out? (This is a serious question, because the whole system sounds very much like a pyramid scheme where the last people to come in lose all because there is no further investment inwards to pay them out. Or it sounds like a house of cards that can collapse at any moment.) 4. Can it be 'historically legitimate' at any stage for a state simply to dispossess some and pass it to others in order to restore a proper balance between rich and poor, so that all have sufficient income once more to buy the national product? For instance, can it possibly be seen as good, in retrospect, for the government of Zimbabwe to have dispossed landowners in order to redistribute land? Or (less emotive) was it perhaps good for the Hitler war to have destroyed the economies of Europe; did it bring about a new and better situation after the forced reconstruction? I suppose I am asking, Are wars and catastrophes perhaps necessary to bring about new beginnings? Are we trying to solve a problem that is actually out of our control but which nature knows full-well how to deal with? (I do not intend that to be any more 'religious ' than did Darwin with his natural selection.) 5. Suppose 'credit', which is virtual money, could be given a use-by date, would that destroy all incentive to produce? It would certainly solve the problem of wealth growing beyond the capacity to spend it. 6. Practically, in a developed economy, how does unearned income relate volume-wise to earned income? Unearned income being, I suppose in this case, only growth in value of landed property, or antiques -- and Porsche motorcars. (Dividends and interest are unearned but are included in B?) 7. What happens when a country devalues (or revalues) its currency? I presume this reflects in the underlying state of its National Balance Sheet? 8. I presume the market capitalisation of the shares listed on the stock exchanges are a component of the National Balance Sheet -- what happens when the market loses up to as much as 30 or 40 percent of its value almost overnight? That means the capital component of production is sharply decreased, but it doesn't always bring about a drop in dividend payments. It is often sentiment, or a movement of capital to a better investment region withouth reflecting the underlying fundamentals of the companies. I'm sorry, it may sound as if I'm being satirical, but I'm not. These issues seem to very relevant. Jessop. --- On Thursday 13 March 2003 12:16, you wrote: In The General Theory, Keynes suggests that Douglas expressed mere mysticism. No doubt Keynes was well aware of the actual nature of the A + B Theorem. He chose not to challenge the system. Beatrice and Sydney Webb, fellow Fabian Socialists, had said that they were not concerned about the technical correctness of Douglas's ideas; they simply did not like his objectives. Again, the hostility to Christian philosophy and it's policy of decentralization of decision making to the indiviual. I believe John Mitchell, erstwhile Chairman of the Social Credit Secretariat, related how at a British engineering society function (I understand, it was) Keynes, upon being introduced by the Chairman as the world's greatest economist demurred, saying essentially, No, I am not--but (pointing to Douglas at his side)he is with us today. The following is presented additional to Bill's presentation below as a assist to further understanding of the the A + B Theorem and Just Price: THE REMEDY from The Struggle for Money by H.M.M. All money and credit distributed as income is only income once--i.e., at the point in the productive chain where it is
