***>This is ridiculous. You haven't even seen the book, but say it cannot be a work of scholarship for the reason that you think you know the author's political orientation and it doesn't agree with yours. Scholarship indeed! <***
No, it's more than that, Keith. He can write a 798 page book purportedly on the "lost science" of money without mentioning Douglas and social credit, come on. I am not claiming that by these short emails I am writing a comprehensive work of scholarship. But Zarlenga does claim that his book is scholarship. There's a lot of background information to this some of which I mentioned regarding the conflict between social credit and the Georgists that goes back to their conflict with the greenbackers and the populists. And now they are trying to say that George was a greenbacker. As to the "scholarship" angle I am partly relying on what Geoffrey Gardiner said about the book. And now this very day I read this from Michael Hudson: "As for Stephen's book I can't answer, as he's not speaking to me any more when I told him I couldn't quote his Chapter 1 because it was a messy hodge-podge, self-published, with too many sentences in capital letters with too many exclamation marks. So I'm not sure what the greenback story is."
***>That is another ridiculous "principle". By the same reasoning, it isn't possible to discuss Douglas and Social Credit without bringing into it the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion". I haven't noticed that you have been anxious to do that. <***
That is correct, you cannot discuss Douglas without mentioning the "Protocols." I can direct you to the archives of this list where I have mentioned them on more than one occasion in that context. So your statement that I haven't been "anxious" is quite incorrect. His (Douglas's) recklessness in that regard is most definitely a downside in making the case for social credit.
***>A reckless statement (the latter), given that it seems to be based heavily on a few cryptic comments from me, plus a strongly biased view of your own. <***
No, it's based on a lot more than that. Yes, I am biased against the Georgists and those in the twenty- first century who can still spout that line. They can spout it because there's a lot of money to be made in spouting it. They have tens of millions in their endowments to pay "researchers." They can't spend it all hopping about like "foundation" heads. It wouldn't look right. I really don't think the present day Georgists�I mean those official ones at the foundations�take seriously any of it.
***>I have read the book, and it offers little support for your theory. <***
What specific theory is that?
***>It does, however, cite one of George's books, which, on examination, does endorse the theme that the monetary system should be a public function rather than a private privilege. <***
Did you actually examine the book itself, or simply take it at face value Zarlenga's excerpts outside the context of the book? George wrote millions of words in that ponderous verbose nineteenth century style of his. Zarlenga dredged up a few paragraphs that apparently support the greenbacker thesis. The point is that George and his movement were most definitely in political conflict with the greenbackers of that time, as they most definitely opposed and tried to undermine social credit of eighty years ago and apparently are doing so now, if Zarlenga's book is any indication from what I have learned, for admittedly I haven't read it. They (meaning the Georgists) do have long memories. Now they claim to support the national dividend. That is a revelation of theirs within the past ten years or so which they would fund with their "single tax." In any case, Douglas was opposed to the greenbacker argument that money should be printed and spent by government because of the supreme power it would give government. But the "single tax" is a tax, not a proposal to print money.
***>It is not my style to interrogate new acquaintances with hostile questions. I wait until they have given me reason to complain about deliberate deception. <***
Then you would never make it as an investigative reporter, for I have given you grist to chew on. In any case, he would cut you off in an instant if he suspected even the hint of hostility (should we infer from that he is paranoid?) as he has now done with Hudson. He never so much as gave me the chance to be cut off. He never gave me the courtesy of replying to even one of my emails.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
--^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
