Provincial or State, as in the individual states of the US or Australia, or not sovereign and are therefore different from a federal or sovereign jurisdiction as a State or Country.
The Statutes of Westminster were passed in 1931 in the House of Commons in Britain and many people were under the understanding that this legislation gave the individual provinces of Canada sovereignty and thereby the power to create and control their own credit and money. Thirteen pieces of legislation were passed in Alberta that were all declared ultra-viras by either the Canadian House of Commons or the Supreme Court of Canada. The result was the creation of the Alberta Treasury Branches and the Heritage Fund which the Conservative government changed to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund in 1976. The Heritage Fund was started in 1949-50 when the final of the debt was paid off. There was a challenge to both the Social Credit government and the Conservative governments on their right to own the Alberta Treasury Branch and it was determined that, although it does not fit into the legal ownership requirements of the chartered banking system, a province has every right to own whatever they wish. In Canada an individual, or corporation, can not own more than ten percent of a Bank and that is what they challenged them on. Because the ATB is not a Chartered Bank it does not have the same credit granting privileges as a Bank but is also not limited to the same cash or "real money" requirements that a Credit Union does. Any other suggestions as to the capabilities of the ATB would only be conjecture or supposition without being able to be on the inside. Chick ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:44 AM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Rodney Shakespeare take note! > Michael goes on to indicate that a people's > dividend to increase purchasing power for > people in need of money to buy a decent > standard of living can be created the way bank > loans create money. Such people in need would > receive the money from government -- not from a > bank or a loan. > --------------------------- > > [reply] It doesn't have to be the government. > It could be the banks. > -- > > So where would the government get the money to > pay the dividend? > --------------------------- > > [reply] It is not a physical thing that has to > come from anywhere. > -- > > Michael indicates government would create the > money, like the banks do, but there would be no > loan to repay. > > Only a government whose constitution allows > such debtless money can do this. That rules out > Alberta, and the fifty states of the USA. > > Alberta tried to tax bank profits to supply the > money involved. The courts stopped this method. > If they had not, it is doubtful that bank > profits could have paid a big enough dividend > to raise the living standards of people in need > -- remembering that the dividend must stimulate > production enough to put real food on the > table. > --------------------------- > > [reply] Perhaps someone more familiar with > Alberta than I am, such as Chick Hurst or Wally > Klinck, will comment. > > This is my understanding: It was not a tax on > profit, for that would require some method to > determine profit. It was to be a tax on banks, > the presumption being that banks create money. > > It is far easier to implement Social Credit > with the cooperation of the banking system. > Otherwise, there is inevitable and perpetual > confrontation. > -- > > Michael does not go on to describe how central > government will create debtless money and avoid > its inflationary effect. The Social Credit > doctrine in this matter is to continue our > practice of taxation to do this. > --------------------------- > > [reply] I don't think Michael said that > "central government" would create "debtless > money." Nor does taxation come into play. > Most Social Crediters are for minimal > government with minimal taxation. > > Also, your characterization of "debtless money" > and "its inflationary effect" indicates to me > that you are still hung up in thinking about > money in quantitative terms: So much > production on one side of the scales; so much > money on the other. > > Inflation is not generally a case of "too much > money" chasing "too few goods." > > It is usually a cost-accountancy issue in > modern industrial economies, as described by > Douglas in Part II, Chapter III of *Social > Credit*: > > "The condition which is produced by a policy of > restricting the amount of money in circulation > can be grasped without difficulty, if it be > remembered that it must involve a numerical > decrease in both the total figures of cost and > the total figures of price for a given period > of production. The only portion of the total > costs which can be decreased without loss to > the producer are those represented by wages and > salaries, the remainder being fixed charges > based on the capital costs already incurred. > Wages and salaries costs are purchasing power, > and collectively are much less than collective > prices. Imagine both collective wages and > collective prices to be diminished by an equal > amount x. > > "This may be written: > > "Costs = purchasing power; > > "Costs are < prices; > > "Therefore: costs/prices < 1; > > "Therefore: costs - x/prices - x < > costs/prices. > > "An addition to both the numerator and > denominator of the fraction, such as is brought > about by a rise of wages, accompanied by a rise > in price, has, of course, the opposite effect; > it brings the ratio of purchasing power to > prices nearer, though never to unity, with the > result, seen in Germany in the inflation > period, of immense, though unstable, economic > activity, accompanied by great hardship to the > professional and rentier classes, both of whom > have claims to consideration, and a most > undesirable concentration of economic power, > resulting infallibly in the enslavement of the > artisan." > > This analysis is perfectly consistent with the > empirically derived Phillips Curve. > > The Social Credit solution is not to force up > wages arbitrarily through union pressure, the > strong arm of the government or "easy money" > policies, but to increasingly supplement wages > with the dividend, thereby adding to the > denominator without simultaneously adding to > the numerator of the fraction. The fraction is > thereby brought closer to unity without > inflation. > > And Rodney Shakespeare take note: Increasing > corporate dividends through distributed > ownership schemes will also add to the > numerator what it adds to the denominator, so > therefore cannot be the ultimate solution to > the "gap" between "prices" and "purchasing > power." > > -- > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:40:11 > John Gelles wrote: > > I agree with Michael Lane [cut] > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. > http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus > > ==^================================================================ 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 ==^================================================================
