|
Some points on Vic's post, and others.
William and Vic have been mutually supportive for
some time,
going back to at least 2000, when they held forth
on their
version of social credit on, I think, a colorado
university forum.
So Vic's stance does not come as a
surprise.
C.H. Douglas was a monetary reformer. He
proposed significant
reformations of the money system. There is no
loss of meaning
in using the shorter form, any more than to say a
person who lays
bricks should not be called a bricklayer.
While William may lambast
long time Douglasite Louis Even for his Salvation
Island (and
probably other works that focus on debt) - by his
own admission
William has not been able to successfully
communicate his ideas
to any outside his circle. Although the Even
group disagrees with
my political party, and I with what I think is
their excessive tie-in
with religiousity, I know good when I see it.
They also have over
500 subscribers to their newsgroup. And its
not watered down stuff.
The proof being in the pudding, I think rejecting
an undemocratic
'high priest' approach worked very well in
advancing the cause
(and these are traditional catholics).
I notice William tentively questioned Wally
Klinck's assertion about
the necessity of debt-free money, but studiously
avoided Wally's comment
on the exponentially driven deficiency of
purchasing power, which of
course can only happen through compound
interest. (Bankruptcies
etc alleviate this driver, albeit though much
unnecessary suffering).
So I have to question anything here regarding
selective choices,
particularly since William took it upon himself to
comment on a
post that wasn't addressed to him. Debt-free
money issuances
and compound interest were at the heart of our
original disagreement.
For the world government comment, the World
Federalist Movement
has been open enough to publish my comments stating
that fundamental
economic and monetary reform are necessary for any
peaceful global
society; to the point of allowing me to call the
current 'democracies'
feudalism in disguise, and the money system
fraudulent; when it was
advocated all that was necessary for world
government was to extend
the models of western society to the rest of the world.
Recently, I quoted Charles Ferguson's (the person
who coined the term
social credit) description of a global society,
which sparked an interesting
discussion on whether it was necessary for the
world to have to go through
a federation stage or not, to reach something like
that envisioned by Ferguson.
Avoiding what is going on in this arena is not the
answer to what is happening.
I am glad Vic has decided to withdraw into his part
of the world, but that he
made this last foray which encourages a look
at the international level of
monetary reform work.
rgds
Dan Parker
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:30
AM
Subject: MONETARY: Fwd: from Victor
Bridger
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]
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. Click Here
|