Re: MONETARY: Usury is a problem, a binary response

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

Norman, I am always happy to support any initiative that
deals knowledgably and honestly with the current means
of money creation.  To my mind, subsequent details must
be accurate to the reality of the situation to maintain credibility
in the face of what can be fierce criticism.  However, among
those working for positive economic change, I think we are
wise to downplay the differences in our proposals; in the service
of working on the ideas of progress, especially monetary reform,
that are held in common.

This is what will build the pressure necessary to
spur positive change in my opinion, without which few if any
of the details of any reform effort will be enacted.

I agree that the real, or administrative, costs of creating money
should be passed on to the user, as this will of course encourage
efficiencies.  If there is no interest, whether money is issued as
a share or as a debt has no mathematical bearing on the effects
of these symbolic units.

However, I do think some money issued as a dividend on a share, is
a good reminder of the populations right to their Cultural Heritage, and a
positive psychological boost.  However, given the choice of quibbling
over this issue now, or supporting another effort that seeks positive
change regarding the money system, the choice to make is obvious in
my opinion.  There is a growing movement towards a basic income in
some countries that could incorporate the concept of the Cultural
Heritage into binary economics (if I am correct in understanding that a
basic income is not a central plank of your model - even though
Rodney has it mentioned in two areas).

As a reminder, I am not, strictly speaking, a social crediter, as I
belong to a political party (which I see as a good platform for spreading
ideas, and nothing more).  I also questioned the compensated price
specifics, but only in the matter of *possible* efficiency increases, and
not the intent. There is a rather strong group of social crediters,
operating
out of Rougemont (sp?), near Montreal, who advocate two possible versions
of a compensated price that are based on percentage discounts, rather than
profits, as Wally Klinck and C.H. Douglas do.  I think the latter is
preferable,
as although the discount method simplifies matters, it does not account for
what will be widely varations in capital investment and disinvestment that
will occur among various mature and new industries.  So there is some
variance
on the details, even from those who consider themselves Douglasites.

Speaking of which, Wally Klinck wrote a piece which expressed a
beautiful vision, in which prices trended down to zero, as technological
and process improvements necessitate a larger and larger compensated
price.  This to my mind seems to be the most likely positive future for
earth,
at least for all basic needs and wants for a reasonable standard of living.
Automation will cause this, if we but let it, and all relationships that
currently
circulate around the money necessary to live will be re-oriented to higher
levels.  But again, I see it as pointless focus on debate too much, and in
the
process, not share the carrying of what is not exactly a light load.  And
again, I think the basic income ideas, perhaps strengthened a bit, in
Rodney's
take on binary economics could bridge this gap, for a significant step
toward
further improvement.

I saw that Wally's post addressed this list, and I hope to see it here, as
it
is an inspiring goal as any.  BTW, Wally has also helped out in many
monetary reform efforts that contradicted some goals of social credit,
i.e. one that advocated full employment.  I agree with Wally on this,
but I also participated in this effort, because it gave us a good platform
to
present the important plank of monetary reform.  If we would have stuck
by the details of our beliefs, we would have missed the chance for thousands
of free flyers on monetary reform.  I also had the chance to address
literally
hundreds of people, as I was running in cabinet ministers riding. Some of
these people became very interested in social credit.

Incidently, Ernest Manning also largely rejected social credit concepts,
and for any Douglasites, his endorsement will be a mark against your
specifics for progress.

For myself, I am going to work largely towards the C.H. Douglas version of
social credit, as expressed by Wally Klinck, but to always be ready to lend
support or a hand for any effort that is reasonably in line with a social
credit
plank.  Whether it be interest-free local currencies, or guaranteed annual
incomes, it is all good, and advances towards the goal, without locking it
in to a suboptimal routine. Evolution is constant I believe, and that even
the punctuated equilibrium theory would be more accurately stated as
fast progress that happened because of the slow progress than went before.

I will look over your paper, and comment, as much as my still nascent
knowledge about binary economics will allow.

rgds
Dan Parker
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>


> Dan, I want to publicly acknowledge and thank you for becoming the first
> Social Credit signatory (to my knowledge) to the "Statement of Shared
> Vision: Toward a More Free and Just Global Economy" developed by Shann
> Turnbull and me.  Our objective is to bring together social creditors,
> binary economists and all other movements committed to ending world
poverty
> essentially (though not exclusively) through the democratization of the
> money and credit systems of the world.  I hope other advocates of Major
> Douglas' ideas follow your lead and at least consider joining the ranks of
> over 6,500 people in 32 countries by clicking on
> http://www.cesj.org/about/programs/declarations/sharedvision.htm.
>
> Your exchanges with Rodney Shakespeare reflect not only a seriousness of
> thought but also I think we're on the same wave length on many basic
issues,
> including (1) the role of the state in "creating money" for growing the
> economy in sustainable ways that balance aggregate demand with aggregate
> supply and avoid price inflation and (2) "interest-free" money within a
> process where the "service costs" of the money-creation process (e.g.,
> printing, regulatory and administrative costs) are passed on to the users
in
> the form of taxes or reasonable transaction fees.  If not, please correct
> me.  I also share your moral opposition to usury, but this needs a deeper
> discussion on the subject, a subject that my colleague Michael Greaney has
> developed in several of his papers.  On the issue of "debt-free" money, I
> presume you are not opposed to "asset-backed" money (i.e. real wealth, not
> gold), and that you acknowledge that modern money by its nature is an
> instrument of the credit system (i.e., a social tool that is critical for
> facilitating transactions in a sound market economy.)
>
> If my perception of your views are at least somewhat accurate, then I
would
> welcome your comments (and those of other Social Creditors) on my paper,
"A
> New Look at Money and Prices: The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving
> Growth Without Inflation."  (Please click on
> http://www.cesj.org/binaryeconomics/price-money.html)  This paper was
> published this year by the Journal of Socio-Economics and is an appendix
to
> the recently published book, "Seven Steps to Justice" by Rodney
Shakespeare
> and Peter Challen (New European Press, London).
>
> Dan, as you may or may not know, Louis Kelso, Frank Capon (then Financial
> Vice President of Du Pont of Canada and as I recall the president of the
> Canadian association of chartered accountants) and I spoke before the 1969
> Alberta Social Credit League convention held in Calgary.  While people
like
> William Ryan may blow his lid on this, we were escorted from the lobby to
> the stage behind a cowboy band playing, "When the Saints Go Marching In."
> (See the Albertan, November 21, 1969, "Socreds told of economic
> revolution.")  In no small measure our invitations were due to the
> initiatives of the late Jim O'Dell of Barrhead, Alberta, who for years was
a
> one-man lobbying force for Kelsonian ideas in Alberta.  The political
> groundwork for our involvement with the Social Credit movement was an
> article published by Ernest C. Manning, the former Premier of Alberta in
his
> article, "Widespread share ownership -- bulkwark against state socialism"
in
> the August 1969 issue of Canada Month magazine, which was a virtually
total
> endorsement of Kelso's binary economics, the Kelso-Adler principles of
> economic justice and plan for what we now call "Capital Homesteading.
(I'd
> be happy to send copies of these by fax or mail to people interested in
this
> history.)
>
> Arrogant, abusive and negative thinkers stand in the way of the solidarity
> needed to bring economic and social justice to the world.  They waste time
> that you and I would rather spend in solving problems.  That's why I
welcome
> your positive, open-minded and common sense approach to ideas, and look
> forward to continuing a mutually respectful exchange and eventually
building
> a united political front among binary economists, social creditors and
> others committed to restructuring the economic order to achieve a more
> participatory and effective economic democracy for individuals everywhere.
>
> Yours in Peace through Justice,
>
> Norm Kurland
> Center for Economic and Social Justice
> Web site: http://www.cesj.org
>
>
>
> Dan Parker wrote:
>