Monetary Reform

From :   "Vic Bridger" <socred@ecn.net.au>

To :   "Dan Parker" <dan.parker@telusplanet.net>, "'William B. Ryan'" <w_b_ryan@hotmail.com>
CC :   <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 the problem
Date :   Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:26:47 +1000

Dan,

I am sorry to correct you again but you do not seem to understand the difference between money and purchasing power. Apart from your attempt to use the "Draft" scheme which was a simple example of how something could be done at that particular time (1920s) and for a particular place and a particular set of conditions and does not constitute the totality of Social Credit.

Your reference to <> >"From vol 6. No 4., the Australian Social Crediter.> (I had thought previously maybe you had wrote this > from the SCSS)", is incorrect in so far as the title of the publication is The Australasian Social Credit Journal. What was written was:

"Debt Free and Interest Free

"The reference by Douglas to the National Debt is simply a recognition that all money comes into existence as a debt under our current system. His idea for the National Dividend would be that it would not come into the system as a debt.

"For many monetary reformers and indeed many who classify themselves as Social Crediters have and still are confused over the difference between what is meant by debt free and interest free money. Douglas never argued against the charging of interest but this does not, at the same time support the notion of what may be described as usurious interest rates. This is an entirely different question."

How is it possible to explain to you that we are not talking about all new money but that which would apply to the National Dividend and the Compensated Price? I fear this is not possible because to repeat the quote that you have lifted from the above article:

"Under the Social Credit proposal ALL new money created for the purpose of the National Dividend and the Compensated Price would not be borrowed but be created and applied to those two proposals."

Now, if you can apply yourself to this it is quite clear that no mention is made to the introduction of any new money for any other purpose or to put it as simply as I can, it would not be universal where ALL new money was created debt-free or interest-free.

As for the interest factor anyone who has an understanding of Douglas' writings would know two things, (a) he was not against interest charges (b) the importance of the interest factor was that it is part of the B Payments (not its effects either). Your muddying the waters by suggesting that it was a matter of dispute and discussing simple and compound interest does not detract from (a) and (b) above.

Your reference to Douglas re the government issuing currency etc. is not only irrelevant to this discussion but also taken out of context. The Chapter was discussing "Why Taxation is Heavy" If you had quoted in full the readers of your posting would have agreed that Douglas was explaining about the banks taking up Treasury Bills or War Loans (1914-18) and that the interest payments by the government came out of taxation and in addition the interest factor had an effect on prices (i.e. through B Payments).

I suggest that before you make accusations such as "Victor, before giving quotes from experts, and Douglas himself that contradict your statements", that you quote fully and not attempt to justify your erroneous claims by making spurious claims.

I note that you have stated: "The solution, in my opinion, is that of an effective world government, and I am active in this field".

This illustrates that you have a philosophy the complete antithesis to that of Social Credit. Obviously you have chosen to "lift" some ideas from Social Credit policy and implant them into your agenda. Therefore I see no point in any further discussion.

This is definitive.

Vic Bridger

> Victor, before giving quotes from experts, and Douglas
> himself that contradict your statements, I feel compelled
> to say if my answers have been brief, it is because
> I think this is not time well spent. I am also reposting
> an e-mail where you were quite clearly wrong about an
> important matter of the compensated price, and which
> you haven't answered me on, to show that experts can
> sometimes be very mistaken.
>
> Please excuse me if I refrain from discussing this issue
> further after this:
>
[cut]

MONETARY: Fwd: from Victor Bridger