Re: MONETARY: Social Credit and Political Parties: Principles go by wayside in quest for Power

["Dan Parker" <danparker@socialcredit.com>]

>So far as the A+B Theorem is concerned, Bill Ryan and Vic Bridger are quite
correct:  >Interest is simply one component of cost subsumed under "B"
payments.

There is a real communication problem here.  The position
advocated by Bill Ryan and Vic Bridger, was that "the effects
of interest have *nothing* to do with the A + B theorum, or with
Douglas's theories". This statement, or ones very close to it, have
been reiterated several times, including the post that you are replying
to here.

What the argument came down to was that 'adding interest to B payments',
and 'interest having an effect on B payments' were two fundamentally
different
concepts (as advocated by Vic Bridger).  To add something, and it not have
an effect on that thing is as ludicrous a statement, in my opinion, as to
say
Douglas's proposed reforms to the monetary system were insignificant.

Do you agree or disagree with the accurate statement of what Bill Ryan
said, and what Vic Bridger agreed with?

Incidently I made the point that interest (and its effects) was one, and
not the only reason, for the shortage of purchasing power, in more than
one instance; as it is a pretty basic socred cocept.

Again, Alberta Social Credit has no chance of holding power, so
it is safe from this, but at the same time supplies such things as web
sites, and
board rooms for seminars, which are used to educate the general public.
I did the same thing with the Canadian Action Party, and Ken Shipka
and myself opened the eyes of a lot of neophytes thereby.  I would say
the discussion around social credit here, as a result of the same kind of
power dynamics, has degenerated into something far less than the
educational efforts of the ASCP or CAP that I have seen.

rgds
Dan Parker