Re: MONETARY: Usury is a problem

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

I want to congratulate Dan Parker for his extremely restrained and civilized
response to William Ryan's ad hominem and unwarranted personal attacks in the
postings on COG's Monetary Discussion Group.  This is not Ryan's first display
of outrageous behavior.  He did the same in the discussions in the Economics of
Ownership Group.  He shows utter disrespect for the dignity and seriousness of
other discussants.  He even engaged in libelous remarks against one of my
colleagues, Michael Greaney, and never apologized when confronted with evidence
of his libel.  In a courtroom he would be ousted for contempt of court.  To me,
the marketplace of reason is sacred turf and people who try to bully their way
in this marketplace are committed a treason against the advance of the truth.

Yes, Ryan deserves to be heard if he plays by the rules of fair debate, but not
if he engages in intellectual anarchy and libelous behavior.

The moderator of this panel and/or COG should intervene, set and seek consensus
from participants for the rules of the group, and then enforce the rules before
Ryan drives more people out of the discussion.

Thanks again, Dan, for doing what's right.

Norm Kurland

Dan Parker wrote:

> 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