>From: "Norman G. Kurland"
>Reply-To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu
>To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu
>Subject: Re: MONETARY: Fwd: Re Parker, Be back next Monday
>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:09:32 -0500
>
>Dan Parker,
>
>Sorry I have not had any time over the last few days to get into your exchanges with other social crediters. I have been preparing for a very important trip to the University of Dayton in Dayton, Ohio and will not return until Monday, November 4th.
>
>I admire your independent position and generally take your side against those who seem to be mobbing up against you.
[Ryan] Two our three discussants do not constitute a mob, Norm. Nor do mobs point out factual errors in reasoned discussion. They use other methods. No-one is criticising his right to speak. He has that right. Just as we have the right to reply. This is not Stalinist Russia, Norm, and you are not Stalin. "Democratic Centralism" is not our game, although it appears to be yours. You want to stifle all dissent within this group.
Stay in there because you are not alone. Please note that none of your opposition have anything constructive to say about the subject of broad-based capital ownership as a policy for achieving the widespread dispersion of economic power and more equitable distributions of capital incomes. Remember that the forum is being sponsored by the "Capital OWNERSHIP Group." Doesn't that reveal much about your opposition?
[Ryan] Just what does that reveal, Norm?
If
>they ignore the economic and political relevance of private property in the means of production as an alternative means for closing the purchasing power gap in the world
[Ryan] Who is ignoring what. You are assuming facts not in evidence. There are legitimate arguments for more broadly based capital ownership. "Closing the purchasing power gap" is not one of them except to the extent it increases the community's propensity to consume.
, why in God's name are they so rattled at those who take an alternative position? And while I agree with many of social credit's goals, particularly on money creation and its relevance to closing the purchasing power gap (unfortunately, by disconnecting each consumer's income from the his productive contribution)
[Ryan] How is the mere ownership of capital a " productive contribution"?
, it astounds me that the social crediters cannot see
>that money creation can also connect every person to capital incomes.
[Ryan] It is not ingored by Social Credit. It is one of its original proposals. And, Norm, this has been pointed out to you before. The following is excerpted from http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/draft_scheme.htm
"To summarise Clause 1(vi) is of central significance. The first step of the proposal is for all current wages and salaries in the local branch of the industry to be paid through the producers' bank. In this way the bank comes to represent in financial terms (financial credit) the labour power (real credit) of the industry. By issuing currency based upon the labour power of the industry, the producers' bank would gradually buy into control of Industry A. Worker-producers would control the bank, and through that the industry. As new money ceases to be created by absentee investors, the power of external capital owners is gradually reduced as their percentage share of ownership falls over time.
"Furthermore, employees leaving the industry would retain their voting power in the producers' bank, serving to create local industry- community links, a vital aspect of the Scheme. As producers' banks developed they would come to represent the community at large, rather than merely those employed in the various industries to which the banks were attached. As new processes and technologies were introduced, displaced worker-producers would retain their economic rights. As time progressed, the majority of shareholders in an industry would be retired workers or heirs of former workers. In this way share ownership would be spread throughout local communities, enabling producers' banks to replace payment for specific productivity by payments of dividends on communal work."
How to Save the Social Security System, also http://www.cesj.org/homestead/reforms/other/savingsocialsecurity-nk.html.
>For the logic of binary economics (which, unlike social credit, does not ignore concentrated capital ownership),
[Ryan] To repeat, Social Credit does not ignore "concentrated capital ownership." See the above.
Let me add here that Binary Economics appears to have been lifted, lock, stock and barrel - albeit in crude form - from earlier Social Credit material. Not only the rhetoric about "wage slavery," but the diffusion of capital ownership and even the A + B Theorem. It hardly constitutes original thought.
see A New Look at Prices and Money: The Kelsonian Binary Model for Achieving Rapid Growth Without Inflation. , also at http://www.cesj.org/binaryeconomics/price-money.html.
>
>Yes, Dan, there are many people in the world who spend their lives attacking others. They criticize other ideas without specificity and offer no better alternatives, or alternatives that show no evidence of gaining political respectability. That's not my game and it does not seem to be yours. Again, stay in there.
>
>Be back next Monday.
>
>Norm Kurland
>Center for Economic and Social Justice
>Web site: http://www.cesj.org
>
>"William B. Ryan" wrote:
>
> > --------- Forwarded Message ---------
> >
> > DATE: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:18:13
> > From: "Vic Bridger"
> > To: "William B Ryan"
> >
> > Hi William,
> >
> > Below is a response to Dan Parker. I have been bust and did not have time to respond before. I think this will be the last to him. I have sent it to you and you can forward it on if you wish as I am not a subscriber to the list.
> >
> > Dan Parker -
> > "C.H. Douglas was a monetary reformer. He proposed significant reformations of the money system".
> >
> >
> > Vic Bridger -
> >
> > C.H. Douglas was not a monetary reformer. Douglas castigated those who called themselves by that name. If Mr. Parker had read sufficient amounts of C.H. Douglas he would be aware of that. The question then is, "Has Mr. Parker read or understood what C. H. Douglas was saying. If not then no more be said. If he has read what C.H. Douglas said on monetary reformers and about the term "monetary reform", and still adheres to the claim that C.H. Douglas was a monetary reformer then he is deliberately attempting to mislead.
> >
> > C.H. Douglas did not propose significant reformations of the money system. What he did do was to point out the flaw in the financial accounting system and make suggestions for breaking the monopoly of credit by the banking system and measures to overcome the deficiency of purchasing power resulting from the flaw in the accounting system. Again the same questions as above apply.
> >
> > Dan Parker -
> >
> > "Recently, I quoted Charles Ferguson's (the person who coined the term social credit) description of a global society."
> >
> > Vic Bridger -
> >
> > Charles Ferguson may have used the term social credit but did not invent the words. His use of the two words together should not be construed to mean that he was the founder of the Social Credit analysis, the A+B Therorem, the underlying philosophy and the necessary policy to address the problems facing society as detailed by C.H. Douglas. C.H. Douglas was aware of Ferguson and quoted him. However the genius of C.H. Douglas exposed the flaw in the financial accounting system and established what has become known as Social Credit.
> >
> > If it is Mr. Parker's intention to suggest that Charles Ferguson (it must be, otherwise why mention it) was the founder of the Social Credit Movement it is mischievous and misleading and apparently designed to support his ideas of a world government. As I have said previously this is the complete antithesis of Social Credit philosophy which promotes the importance of the individual over the group. Decentralisation against Centralisation which is what a world government would be.
> >
> > If Mr. Parker wishes to pursue his endeavours he should do so under the banner of a monetary reformist and cease using the term social credit. If he believes Charles Ferguson to be the champion, then promote his ideas and stop attempting to muddy the waters by pretending to supportive of Social Credit as per Douglas. That is unless he has another motive for offering misleading comments.
> >
> > End.
> >
> > --------- End Forwarded Message ---------
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Get 250 full-color business cards FREE right now!
> > http://businesscards.lycos.com