"William B. Ryan" wrote:
[Ryan] I have inserted comments below.
----------
>From: "Dan Parker"
>Reply-To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu
>Subject: MONETARY: Usury is a problem
>Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 02:36:32 -0600
>
>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:
>
>From you point 2, below
>
>Victor stated below:
>
>'Douglas makes no mention of debt-free purchasing power'
>
>From vol 6. No 4. of the Australian Social Crediter.
>(I had thought previously maybe you had wrote this
>from the SCSS).
>
>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.
>
>This writer elaborates here:
>
>Under the Social Credit proposal ALL new money created
>for the purpose of the National Dividend and Compensated
>Price mechanism would not be borrowed but be created and
>applied to those two proposals.(emphasis in the original)
>
>Dan adds: The phrases "not be borrowed" and "would *not*
>come into the system as a debt" means debt-free. Note:
>Douglas advocated issuing the dividend through the post
>office,
[Ryan] The post office is a possibility. There is a post
office conveniently located in every community. Formerly, many of
them performed a financial function, i.e. the postal savings banks.
----------
[Parker] ...not the bank
[Ryan] This is what Douglas said in The Approach to Reality:
"Now, I will let you into a secret. Nobody for any practical purpose
is going to produce a Final Social Credit plan. I will tell you who is
going to bring in Social Credit, and that is the bankers..."
He added, "...and we are going to make them do it."
----------
[Parker] (which intimates he agrees with the
>debt-free statement above - as indeed he knew the math)
[Ryan] The "math" you are referring to is not Douglas' math,
but the math of an ignoramus who insists that 2 + 2 = 5.
----------
[Parker] >
>But we know Douglas considered the interest angle
>important, and as an engineer would know the mathematical
>expression for compound interest (i.e. the effects of
>interest).
[Ryan] Douglas was a bona fide engineer, not a phony like your
friend John Turmel. You are assuming that "as an engineer" he
would "know" what John Turmel does.
----------
>
[Parker] >To recap:
>
>"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.
>
>A social credit expert, Wally Klinck, agrees with what is
>really an obvious mathematical reality under the system of
>interest we have when he stated "But interest-bearing
>debt money issued against real wealth, the physical costs of
>which are actually met as production proceeds, does not liquidate
>the financial costs of this production. It transfers as
>an inflationary claim against future cycles of production".
>
>Knowing the mathematical formula for compound interest, I
>will go with Wally on this one.
[Ryan] The text quoted above is not as precise as it could be.
It is not fully consistent with Douglas' theory.
----------
[Parker] >To illustrate a disagreement you had with another
expert,
>and Douglas himself
[Ryan] Not Douglas.
----------
[Parker] in this case, I will pull up an e-mail
>that you haven't answered me on yet. It is on a rather
>important issue regarding the compensated price.
>
>Dan wrote: My main issue was with compensated price was the
>government fixing prices as a percentage of profits,
>and how this would be hard to enforce".
>
>To which Victor replied: That is a new one on me. Where did such
>an idea come from?
>
>Dan quoted in reply: "under the Companies Acts, should contain
>an additional item showing the average profit on turnover, and
>that these prices shall, as far as practicable, be maintained
>at a figure to include such average profit where this is agreed
>as equitable for the type of business concerned (the suitable profit
>being, of course, largely dependent on the velocity of turnover)."
>
>Draft Scheme for Social Credit in Scotland, Appendix Social
>Credit.
[Ryan] The quote above from the Draft Scheme says nothing
about fixing prices. It says that prices "shall be maintained."
They will be maintained through the policies of Social Credit. For
example, the Dividend and Compensated Price.
English is your first language, isn't it, Dan?
----------
>
>Victor wrote: 1. There is a difference between "interest" and the
>"effects of interest". This may appear to be pedantic but a
>little thought will reveal the difference. William Ryan is correct.
>Interest is a B Payment and as such is a cost that enters into price
>at the time the price is set, and for which no equivalent amount of
>money has been distributed at that time.
>
>Dan replies: A B payment that enters into a price is something
>that is integral to the A + B theorum. No question about it.
>If there were no interest, this effect, or price entry, would
>not take place, and would not consquently need to be liquidated
>by increased purchasing power.
[Ryan] In this regard it is no different than any other B payment.
>
>I am interested in social credit, but only so far as it is consistent,
>and makes mathematical sense.
[Ryan] The A + B Therem is conistent and makes mathematical sense.
The problem is your lack of understanding of mathematics. You
are not alone. It is a difficult subject to grasp, particularly in
regard to the A + B Theorem. Most people will never grasp it, nor
do they need to.
The Dividend and Compensated Price are fully consistent with the Theorem.
They are not consitent with the "usury" argument.
----------
[Parker] As for the jargon, I will not explain the
>concepts to the public by saying a person's money to spend is not
their
>purchasing power, and that these are different concepts.
What? A person's money to spend is not his purchasing power?
It encourages
>a high priesthood approach to what can sometimes be a difficult topic
>for the uninitiated, and fails in what is Job 1 in my opinion, which
>is public education.
It is not education to tell them that 2 + 2 = 5 or the earth is flat.
>
>Regards
>Dan Parker
>
>
>
-------------------
>From: "Vic Bridger"
>To: "William B. Ryan"
>Subject: Re: Dan Parker
>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:15:01 +1000
>
>Hi William,
>His message is below. I have emphasised the comment.
>Vic
>PS His diatribe in response to mine to him again enphasises that
like Kurland he has his own agenda and will not accede anything. I do not
intend to respond to his last message which is full of holes, and incorrect
interpretations as well as using the DRAFT scheme to support his argument
shows he knows little about Social Credit. The Draft was just that
and was an example of what could be done in a particular place at a particular
time. Douglas said that that there could be other methods but the underlying
principles of Social Credit do not change.
>
>Dan ParkerI: 22/10/02
>I did refer to usury as an evil, and indeed it is one. Theft is
>wrong, no question about it. That we live in a world with
>many evils is an obvious fact. Cybernetics founder Norbert
>Wiener commented on this by stating that the rule of
>ruthlessness must prevail, where there is no rule of law.
>No great leaps of logic here. The solution, in my opinion,
>is that of an effective world government, and I am active
>in this field.
[Ryan] The bit about world government pretty much says it all,
doesn't it?
----------
[Parker]>
>If you feel more comfortable subscribing to the absolute
>relativist position, where there is no wrong and right, well,
>that's your perogative. However, if this belief causes you
>to infringe on the rights of others, then those others have
>the right, and the duty, to defend themselves.
[Ryan] When you put it into terms of good against evil, rather
than engineering, you can justify doing anything in the name of good against
evil. You can lie to defend yourself, as Dan does. It is the
"right of defense" as he puts it. You can ally with the Devil himself,
as Churchill said he could do in the war against Hitler. Hitler believed
it too. Hitler was the extreme example of that type of mentality.
You can bomb cities and kill their entire populations, as Churchill did.
You can wipe out entire races if they are "evil," as Hitler did.
But you are good. You are above it all. You listen to the Devil
and think you are doing the work of God. It is the Sin of Pride.
----------
[Parker] >
>I glanced through what you have written, and don't see
>any areas where an enlightening discussion seems
>possible.
[Ryan] His knowledge is perfect and complete. Even if all
the angels came down from heaven to tell him otherwise, he wouldn't listen.
----------
[Parker] >
>Again, please remove my personal address from any e-mail
>that you might send out.
>
[Ryan] He's treating other viewpoints, the opinions of others,
as something repugnant and offensive. He's afraid that if he sees
them in print, merely words on paper about economics, not pornography,
he is in danger of becoming corrupted by it. Since he already knows
the perfect truth, anything else could only detract from it.
----------
[Parker] >Thank you
>
>Dan Parker
>