Monetary Reform

>From: "Dan Parker"

>Reply-To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu

>To:

>Subject: Re: MONETARY: Fwd: from Victor Bridger

>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:15:42 -0600

>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,

[Bill Ryan replying] Dan, this is not a popularity contest. The goal is not to be the most successful demagogue. During the 1930s, in Germany, how many "agreed" with Hitler?

Even's group has quite a attributes that could reasonably be described as Nazi. So far as I know, they have never explicitly advocated that the Jews be exterminated. But they are most definitely Anti-Semitic in presentation.

Would you like me to point out the overtly Anti-Semitic elements of Salvation Island?

I should be glad to do so.

I think rejecting an undemocratic

>'high priest' approach worked very well in advancing the cause

>(and these are traditional catholics).

[Bill Ryan replying] Who, of course, as such, adamantly adhere to the "high priest" approach.

>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.

[Bill Ryan replying] And I have repeatedly informed you that there is an alternate explanation. Putting "of course" in your sentence doesn't change that. I've also suggested that the compound interest hypothesis is fallacious. Will you not even entertain the thought?

(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

> > further after this: into his part of the world

[Bill Ryan replying] No, he is not withdrawing into his part of the world. It was you who first said, "Please excuse me if I refrain from discussing this issue." I take it to mean that both you and he had made his closing remarks in that particular discussion.

, but that he

>made this last foray which encourages a look at the international level of

>monetary reform work.

>rgds

>Dan Parker

>----- Original Message -----

> From: William B. Ryan

> To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu

> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 8:30 AM

> Subject: MONETARY: Fwd: from Victor Bridger

> From : "Vic Bridger"

> To : "Dan Parker" , "'William B. Ryan'"

> CC : , , , , ! ;, , , ,

> 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]