MONETARY: Usury is a problem

["Dan Parker" <danparker@socialcredit.com>]

First, I would like to apologize to list members for
what has become an unpleasant episode. However, I
think it is a duty to not shrink from confronting
that which would sow discord and confusion.

After this I look forward to continuing to work on the
positive aspects of monetary reform and toward Douglas'
idea of "the emergence into the full light of a day of such
splendour as we can at present only envisage dimly."
(C.H.Douglas: Social Credit (1924) p.215-217).

William, here is a statement that you made:
'The "effects of interest" have nothing to do with the A + B
Theorem nor any aspect of the Douglas theory.'

To which I replied - The Monopoly of Credit, Fourth Edition.
by C.H. Douglas Appendix I on detailing A+B theorum. p. 143
"Group B - All payments made to other organizations (raw
materials, *bank charges*, and other external costs)".

I elaborated on how this book went on to say bank charges, of
course, included interest.

Your response, to being demonstrably wrong, about a very basic
social credit matter, was not to insist on a typo, or even that
you had been mistaken. You had to admit the point, but then
just sailed along saying the interest part of Douglas' theories
were now unimportant, instead of non-existent.

On picking up the book Social Credit, and flipping through it,
I almost immediately found this bit on Douglas' description
of the effects of private banks creating most of the money
supply:

"Now the first point to notice is that the result of this
complicated process is exactly the same as if the Government
itself had provided forty millions, in Currency, with the
*important* exception that the public pays 4 or 5 per cent
per annum on the forty millions, instead of merely paying
the cost of printing the Currency notes." - p. 138, 139
Fifth edition, Social Credit by C.H. Douglas.

Now I've just pulled a quote proving you are wrong about
the unimportance of interest in Douglas' theories as well,
where he *specifically* says it is *important*. I don't expect
any straightforward admission from yourself that you were
wrong again, even though its right there, from the horse's
mouth, so to speak.

I have a copy of a letter by genuine socred expert Wally Klinck
here as well, where he states that both interest-free money, and
some debt free money are necessary for a proper money system.
The letter to the editor is about the A + B theorum.  The time
factor is of course also a consideration.

Or here from another letter Wally had published
"..a false economy which cannot function without unrepayable
debt, as receiving agencies to accommodate the debt mongering
*and usury* of the banking system.."

Or "the money supply injected...on an interest-free basis"
And Soddy "(the banks) have corrupted the purpose of money from an
exchange medium to that of interest-bearing debt" - These last two
are from the top issue of The Social Crediter in my pile of research
(Volume 77, no. 6).

Interest, or usury is a major concern of social credit. I don't
even have to dig for the references to it. It's everywhere,
a central concern, as it should be according to basic math and
common sense. Yet you clearly stated the effects of interest had
nothing to do with Douglas' theory, then backed off and said it was
unimportant when I proved you wrong.

I really don't know where you are coming from. That
you would send me attachments with two e-mails of insults
and expect me to open it seems strange.

The following is about disinformation tactics in general,
and this exchange can serve as an example. I do not know
William's motivations,  or whether his mistakes and credibility
concerns led him to follow the same procedures as a disinformation
agent, or if this was his intention from the start.

In any case, in the interests of making lemonade out of lemons,
this exercise is instructive for those who have not yet run into
the inevitable disinformation agent (which is quite common in
this line of work).

It's worthwhile to point out that much of the disinformation falls
along the lines of the big lie. Instead of making a mistatement
about some obscure part of a theory, a central tenet will be
misrepresented.

This can be done while affecting the attitude of the expert, and
accusing somone who understands the basics of being completely
ignorant of the subject matter.

The big lie can be effective, because most people have elemental
standards of decency that they project onto others. Consequently,
they cannot imagine anyone repeatedly misstating basic concepts,
while pretending to be an expert, while at the same time they
are admonishing someone giving the correct information, as being
someone who hasn't the foggiest idea.

I used to be susceptible to the big lie, but no longer.

So if there is something positive to come out of this entire
sorry affair, it is that those working for the good have hopefully
gained some immunity from the tactics of those who would defend
usury.

In stating 'The "effects of interest" have nothing to do with the
A + B Theorem nor any aspect of the Douglas theory', William mispresented
a central concern of social credit. In saying it was a minor part of
Douglas' theory when I proved him wrong, he was not coming clean.
In saying I haven't the foggiest notion about social credit, William is
again grossly mistaken.

The proof is above, and everyone that received these e-mails has
the proof that William clearly misstated a very basic part of social
credit. This is a done deal. It is not something under debate.

And it isn't just Douglas or social credit that expounds on the
obvious effects of usury.

"As a result of fractional reserve banking over 90% of our money
supply is loaned into existence by commercial banks and thus must
grow by enough to at least pay the interest on the loan by which
it was created. This gives a basic growth bias to the economy.
Fractional reserve banking also transfer to private hands the
state's traditional right to issue money, and does so in a way
that increases the cyclical instability of the economy. The
corrective call for 100% reserve requirements has been made
periodically not only by so-called 'monetary cranks'(Frederick
Soddy), but also by economists of impeccable reputation such as
Frank Knight and Irving Fisher." Prof. Herman Daly, co-author
of For the Common Good, former economist World Bank.

Again, I apologize for any unpleasantness, but in recognizing how
the big lie works, monetary reformers are less likely to be led
down the garden path, by those who intentionally or unintentionally
adopt such tactics.

dp




-----Original Message-----
From: William B. Ryan [mailto:w_b_ryan@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:14 AM
To: dan.parker@telusplanet.net; monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu
Cc: socred@ecn.net.au; oassoci508@aol.com; mike@mrowbotham.swinternet.co.uk;
socialcredit@fsbdial.co.uk; aopstad@telusplanet.net;
martinh@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca; wmklinck@shaw.ca; gkiriaka@ecn.ab.ca;
mklinck@hotmail.com; kwilde@ca.inter.net
Subject: Re: "usury" is not the problem

Yes, the syndrome of the self-inflicted lobotomy. See the attachment.
I take consolation in the fact that you yet haven't accused me of being a
member of Al-Qaida, lurking from a cave.
My intention is not to address the gaggle of "monetary reform" cranks, but
those who have been tempted but not yet seduced by their claptrap. And there
are some.
The "usury" thesis is demonstrably false.
By refusing to hear the arguments why this is so you are exhibiting the
characteristics of ideological paranoia.

>From: "Dan Parker"
>To: "'William B. Ryan'" ,
>CC: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>Subject: RE: "usury" not the problem
>Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:54:24 -0600
>
>William, if you are not a plant in the service of the evil
>that constitutes our current usury based monetary system,
>you are doing a very good impression of one.
>
>Please remove me from your future e-mailings.
>
>Thank you
>
>Dan Parker
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William B. Ryan [mailto:w_b_ryan@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 3:25 PM
>To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu
>Cc: dan.parker@telusplanet.net;
>Subject: "usury" not the problem
>
>
>[Dan Parker] "Removing the exponential driver that is compound interest
>from the system is also absolutely necessary in order to have a good
>money system."
>----------
>
[cut]


Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online
www.socialcredit.com