Monetary Reform

[Ryan] These are policy changes within the existing system. Significant changes would be, for example, abolishing the fractional reserve system and interest. Douglas advocated neither.

Douglas disassociated himself from the "monetary reformers." It was his polite term for the cranks.

Moreover, finance was just one aspect of Social Credit.

It was a question of priority.

>From: "Dan Parker"

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

>Subject: Re: MONETARY: Fwd: Re Parker

>Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:24:52 -0700

> > 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.

>I wonder what anyone with knowledge of the money system would say

>if you said you'd like to propose some insignificant changes to the money

>system.

>These insignificant changes would involved breaking up the monopoly of

>credit by

>the banking system, advocating debt-free injections of money in the form of

>guaranteed income for all, and creating a process to issue more debt-free

>money to significantly lower prices across the country. The mathematics of

>compound interest

[Ryan] It is this more than anything else that categorizes you among the cranks. Particularly since you refuse to even hear the opposing arguments. The "mathematics" are as valid as 2 + 2 = 5.

would also have to dealt with for a successful result, but

>it is not necessary to look at this angle to judge possible credibility

>issues

>regarding the 'signifcance' issue.

>I'll bet if you take just *one* of these changes, and you approach one

>hundred,

>honest people who know how the money system works, I have a hard time

>believing anyone would describe the proposal as an insignifcant change to

>how the

>money system works.

>Try it. Ask someone if it would be an insignificant change to the money

>system

>to give everyone a debt-free national dividend, *or* significantly discount

>all

>consumer prices by debt-free injections of money, *or* change the entire

>ownership

>of the most powerful institution in the country. If they allow that one of

>these

>changes might be significant, inform they don't know what they are talking

>about.

>That they haven't the foggiest idea. Inform that all the changes taken

>together do

>not involve a significant change to the money system. See where that gets

>you

>in having knowledgable, honest people support your concepts.

>Additionally, if you are communicating with someone that had some knowledge

>around monetary reform, and stated that Douglas' proposals did not involve

>reforming the money system, you would lose them (and justifiably so). Quite

>frankly, I would be very nervous if someone had power in my country, and

>they insisted Douglas' changes were insignificant, and that monetary reform

>should not be used to describe reforming the money system, because Douglas

>had a dispute with those going by this name, in his time.

>And once again, I am a member of a political party, which is forbidden

>according

>to official social credit doctrine. But we know Douglas himself overlooked

>this

>when he eventually came to Edmonton to try to work with Aberhart. I presume

>he also approved the arrival of Brynes (sp?) and Powell to attempt to do the

>same

>thing. Some good came out of the Alberta Social Credit Party. The

>alternative

>of course was to not get involved, and have a Social Credit Party spring up

>that

>had absolutely nothing to do with social credit, as in B.C.

>This is the first post I have looked at from this source in days. It will

>be the

>last, as I think the credibility issue has been dealt with.

>rgds

>Dan Parker