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).
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 else do most 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 wealth enormously more.
As well, I don't buy the argument that interest
payments are 'for services rendered' or simply 'profit' unless we agree that
it is monopoly price gouging of the highest order, and/or excessive profit
maximization that should be described as immoral - lets call it
immoral unearned income.
One way or another excessive interest/profit
as has been the norm in this business have accumulated wealth and power to
a relatively few, who I 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 like stupid oxen for their benefit,
keeping our heads down 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
he suggests would result from issuing national dividends,
did accrued 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 wages usually 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 an opportunity
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 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 annum....every 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
>
>
> 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 annum....every 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 ==^^===============================================================
