[SOCIAL CREDIT] reply to Joe2
Joe, these are interesting quotes from Douglas. You juxtapose them against my statements. None of the Douglas quotes contradict my statements. I've interjected some commentary below: -- C H Douglas, The New and the Old Economics : ~ The method by which most modern financing is done, under cover of a smoke screen, provided by comparatively small subscriptions from the public, is that the financial institution actually creates the money, taking debentures on the new factory as security. Here Douglas disputes the standard explanation that investment derives from savings from earned income. It is a statement of fact. -- .But there are two practical objections, leaving aside any question of ethics. The new money, or credit, is claimed by the financial institution as its property, and therefore when it is lent, creates a debt against the public. Statement of fact. It is not an argument against banking. -- .Secondly, there is no provision in this method of financing for the money required to pay the interest on the debentures, which in fact can only be paid, if it is paid, by the issue of fresh money to pay it, which, under existing circumstances, comes from the same source, that is to say, the financial system. Statement of fact. This does not mean that debt compounds because of interest. Nor does it mean that you borrow money to pay interest. You borrow money for new investment. That presumably increases the earnings of those who borrowed previously. -- From this point of view, it is the difference between usury and profit ~ a difference clearly drawn in the Middle Ages. Statement of fact. Remember this was written in the 1930s, some fifteen years after he started. It is in the context of the A+B theorem, which assumes that income is normally insufficient to amortize debt, not because of interest, but because of labor displacement. The whole situation is usurious because it is impossible for debtors in the aggregate to receive sufficient income to amortize their debt. Eliminating interest does not resolve nor touch the matter. That's why you will never find a recommendation from Douglas to that effect. -- C H Douglas, The Breakdown of the Employment System ~ As the situation stands at present, the banker is in a unique position. He is probably the only known instance of the possibility of lending something without parting with anything, and making a profit on the transaction, obtaining in the first instance his commodity free. Statement of fact. Douglas does not here call for the abolition of banking. -- C H Douglas, Economic Democracy~ Broadly, remuneration, or the system by which the amenities of civilization are placed at the disposal of the individual, is of three varieties; payment by financial manipulation (profit)... etc. Payment by financial manipulation, whether through the agency of profit (other than that earned by personal endeavour), stock manipulation, or otherwise, is quite definitely anti-social. It operates to neutralise all progress towards real efficiency by diluting the medium of exchange Yes. Remove the aspect of financial manipulation from profit and interest. Leave the reward for personal endeavour. You do that with a monopoly through oversight and control. -- C H Douglas, Macmillan Report ~ During the period covered by the curve, in which the bankruptcies have risen from about 900 per annum to nearly 7,000 per annumevery large bank in Great Britain has maintained or increased its dividend, has enormously expanded its premises, and placed large sums to its visible reserve, and created still larger invisible reserves, and this in spite of the enormous losses alleged to have been made in respect of loans to industry. Yes, banking, being the most pervasive monopoly, will do better than other businesses during tough times. Again, statement of fact. Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 ==^ 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] reply to Joe2
Statement of fact. This does not mean that debt compounds because of interest. Nor does it mean that you borrow money to pay interest. You borrow money for new investment. That presumably increases the earnings of those who borrowed previously.(Bill). Call me a "crank" well-meaning or not, Bill, but over time debt has compounded, or where elsedomost massive government debts all over the world stem from?Relevant to this connection is that graduated taxes are almost useless in distributing wealth more equitably, since on the top end interest (and compound interest on top of that) accumulates and concentrates wealthenormously more. As well, I don't buy the argument that interest payments are 'for services rendered' or simply 'profit' unless we agree that itis monopoly price gouging of the highest order, and/or excessive profit maximization thatshould bedescribed as immoral - lets call it immoral unearned income. One way or anotherexcessive interest/profit as has been thenorm in this business have accumulated wealth and power to a relatively few, whoI don't think are too stupid to not see its effects,but on the contrary will want to continue seeking those effects.Namely to keep us working likestupid oxen for their benefit, keeping our headsdown to the grindstone, keeping us too 'busy' to think about anything else. I don't think Douglas' A + B Theorem does have to exclude the importance of interest, since similar positive benefits hesuggestswould result from issuing national dividends, didaccrued to NewZealanders during the time their interest rates were being kept at only 1%. (I believe the bankers still stayed in business :) Now you can call me simple minded too, but is not simply so that paying interest is besides paying the wagesusually the highest outlay a producer has, and so he cannot keep his prices low/affordable?. And is interest to be paid on mortgages not the highest household expense for most ordinary families, and so workers/trade unions have to ask for higher wages? And now you can call me silly as well, but would dividends paid to individuals and producers not simply be anopportunity for the monopoly bankers to raise interest rates higher? Regards, Ekky Irion From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe, these are interesting quotes from Douglas. You juxtapose them against my statements. None of the Douglas quotes contradict my statements. I've interjected some commentary below: -- C H Douglas, "The New and the Old Economics" : ~ "The method by which most modern financing is done, under cover of a smoke screen, provided by comparatively small subscriptions from the public, is that the financial institution actually creates the money, taking debentures on the new factory as security. Here Douglas disputes the standard explanation that investment derives from savings from earned income. It is a statement of fact. -- .But there are two practical objections, leaving aside any question of ethics. The new money, or credit, is claimed by the financial institution as its property, and therefore when it is lent, creates a debt against the public. Statement of fact. It is not an argument against banking. -- .Secondly, there is no provision in this method of financing for the money required to pay the interest on the debentures, which in fact can only be paid, if it is paid, by the issue of fresh money to pay it, which, under existing circumstances, comes from the same source, that is to say, the financial system. Statement of fact. This does not mean that debt compounds because of interest. Nor does it mean that you borrow money to pay interest. You borrow money for new investment. That presumably increases the earnings of those who borrowed previously. -- From this point of view, it is the difference between usury and profit ~ a difference clearly drawn in the Middle Ages. Statement of fact. Remember this was written in the 1930s, some fifteen years after he started. It is in the context of the A+B theorem, which assumes that income is normally insufficient to amortize debt, not because of interest, but because of labor displacement. The whole situation is usurious because it is impossible for debtors in the aggregate to receive sufficient income to amortize their debt. Eliminating interest does not resolve nor touch the matter. That's why you will never find a recommendation from Douglas to that effect. -- C H Douglas, "The Breakdown of the Employment System" ~ "As the situation stands at present, the banker is in a unique position. He is probably the only known instance of the possibility of lending something without parting with anything, and making a profit on the transaction, obtaining in the first instance his commodity free." Statement of fact. Douglas does not here call for the abolition of banking. -- C H Douglas, "Economic
