socred

"By an accounting method of analysis, the conclusion is reached that the value, at the current retail price-level, of goods produced far exceeds the flow of purchasing-power from permanent sources. In other words, recurring periods of business depression are shown to be the result of present financial and business policies." (C.H. Douglas, "Social Credit")

Really?? So if everyone saved all their income, there would be unparalled economic growth? Tell me, how would the companies producing goods and services sell their goods if nobody spent?

The money earned as income is costed into the cost of goods sold. If people saved their money for the "down times" they would instantly create the "down times" because the proportion of the money saved would immobilize the equivalent amount in goods and services.

The day that I lost the initial post was the same day my furnace and my hot water tank both went out. It was not a good day. I also had to shovel up a dead rabbit next door because there's no tenants, and something killed a rabbit by the gate, and I didn't want to look at it everyday. Freidman was very influential on monetary policies in the 80's. You can thank the Chicago school for the high interest rate policies of the 80's. Keynes was a fabian socialist who attempted to solve the gap that Douglas identified by "priming the pump". Douglas told Keynes that this policy was unsustainable and inflationary. Classicalists have a poor understanding of money and its role in the modern economy. Their analysis is heavily dependent on static supply and demand curves which are based upon relative prices, not monetary prices (i.e. they attempt to factor money out of the equation, so essentially they are based upon a "barter economy"). I absolutely do not believe money is a commodity. Money's sole purpose is to facilitate production and consumption. People do not value money for its own sake (unless you're a collector). People value goods and services which they can purchase with money. Money is a means to an end. I assume you believe in the quantity theory of money? I wrote a whole section refuting the quantity theory in my synopsis, but following is a link to a committee report to the Alberta government where Douglas refutes the quantity theory: THE ALBERTA POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEEREPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCE (March, 1945) Money is created as a debt. The quanity theory implicity assumes that money just "falls from the sky", and "circulates round and round". The reality is that money is created and destroyed through the process of loans and their repayment. As Douglas stated, "The fallacy in the theory lies in the incorrect assumption that money "circulates", whereas it is issued against production, and withdrawn as purchasing power as the goods are bought for consumption." This is another instance of economists having a poor understanding of the principles of accounting. The lower limit of prices are controlled by the cost of production. The upper limit is controlled by what it will fetch, or if you like, the laws of supply and demand. A firm cannot produce in the long run if their prices are below the cost of production, because it will be unable to repay its creditors. Central Banks attempt to manipulate the CPI with monetary policies. Central Banks do not have control over the money supply. They attempt to control the money supply through open market operations, but their "control" is very limited. The Bank of Canada admits this: "SOME PEOPLE ASK WHY the Bank of Canada can't directly increase or decrease the money supply at will, since it regulates the supply of paper currency in circulation. The answer is that the bank notes issued by the Bank represent only a small portion of all the money circulating in the economy at any one time." Canada's Money Supply I agree, and never meant to imply that it did. It also does not control the money supply directly. It's goal is "limited inflation". I wouldn't say this is THE source of poverty, because there will always be poverty. I would say this is A source of poverty, and probably the primary source in an industrialized economy. True, but I have yet to see anyone seriously refute Douglas's A+B theorem which is reproduced below: “In any manufacturing undertaking the payments made may be divided into two groups: Group A: Payments made to individuals as wages, salaries, and dividends; Group B: Payments made to other organizations for raw materials, bank charges and other external costs. The rate of distribution of purchasing power to individuals is represented by A, but since all payments go into prices, the rate of generation of prices cannot be less than A plus B. Since A will not purchase A plus B, a proportion of the product at least equivalent to B must be distributed by a form of purchasing power which is not comprised in the description grouped under A.” (C.H. Douglas, “The Monopoly of Credit”) Perhaps you would like to point out the error in reasoning in the theorem? They will drop, because a proportion of the new credits will go towards a price rebate, which lowers prices to consumers. The new money will cancel costs, so prices to consumers will drop. Use the example I gave in my previous post. Prior to the introduction of the price rebate, the good/service cost the consumer $100, after the price rebate the good/service cost the consumer $75. The price dropped by $25. Social Credit is not an attempt to "macro-engineer" the economy. There's no picking of "winners" and "losers", or attempts to manipulate consumption habits through taxation. All Social Credit does is determine a national balance sheet, and pay individuals a dividend and price rebate. The size of the price rebate is determined by individual's consumption and production habits. They are merely added together. There is no attempt to manipulate those habits. Social Credit merely ensures that consumers have the income to buy back all of their production. If the community produces x amount of goods and services, with an average price of y, then the cost of all goods is xy, and Social Credit ensures that the total incomes of individuals within the community equals xy. That's it. Absolutely not. They had a Central Bank who tried to make war reparations by monetizing that debt, which caused a fantastic inflation of prices. Absolutely, there is no sense printing a ticket (money) for something that does not exist. This merely inflates the money supply. The increase in money in a Social Credit economy is based upon scientific factors which Douglas identified in his A+B theorem. It's an accounting flaw that sees a fantastic shortage of money. You're argument will soon be, well, there's no shortage of money in Zimbabwe. That's true, but Douglas addressed this point in his testimony before the Alberta Agricultural Committee: "What people who say that forget is that we were piling up debt at that time at the rate of ten millions sterling a day and if it can be shown, and it can be shown, that we are increasing debt continuously by normal operation of the banking system and the financial system at the present time, then that is proof that we are not distributing purchasing power sufficient to buy the goods for sale at that time; otherwise we should not be increasing debt, and that is the situation." (p. 90) It will lead to decreased prices through the price rebate. Capitalists are always calling for a full employment economy - even classicalists. Capitalists know that a high unemployment rate with people unable to feed themselves will bring about revolution. Everyone gives up some liberty to engage in production. This is out of necessity. The ideal would be to have machines do all of production. However; if this ideal ever came into being under current the current system, we'd all die for lack of income. The goal is to free the individual from production to the greatest extent possible. Obviously, machines cannot do all the work now, but that is one of the main goals of technology: to increase the productivity of labour, which means it takes less labour to produce. People need to be given the opportunity to contract out of unsatisfactory associations, and the dividend gives people this freedom. I agree. I'm very much against mandatory public education, for many reasons, including the one you site. Prices will decrease. Not only will this increase purchasing power, but it will protect people's savings. I agree that the upper limit of prices is determined by what the market will bear. The lower limit is determined by the cost of production. Your implicit assumption in this statement is that there is a 1:1 ratio between income an prices, so any increase in income automatically bears the same increase in prices. The whole Social Credit premise, based upon Douglas's A+B theorem, denies such a relationship. Exactly, so there can never be an "objective" measure of value. Sure, and so long as the consumer percieves that the extra prices are more than compensated by the extra quality of the product you will remain in business. The point is that your revenues must exceed your costs, or you will not be in business very long. Take care.

Actually, none of the oil and gas belongs to "Canadians". Resources belong to the provinces.

Hi Pliny: Again, sorry for the tardiness of my reply, but I did try to respond once before, and spent a half an hour composing a response only to lose it when I hit send, and have not had the time to deliver a proper response since. Yes. With freedom comes responsibility. There are similarities between Social Credit thought and libertarianism. This would be one. Agree to a certain extent. Keynes still has an influence on modern macroeconomics, but I'd tend to argue that Milton Friedman and the Chicago school also have quite a bit of influence on the policies of central banks today. Disagree. Pretty much everything in the Austrian theory is taught at universities today as "classicalism" or "neo-classicalism". Yes, the Austrians do not understand the gap between income and prices that Douglas identified. While the techniques of Social Credit are not radical, the changes that they would bring to society would be completely radical and liberating for the individual. Social Credit is consumer control of production. Keynes was the socialist attempt to silence Douglas. In fact, Douglas testified before Keynes at the MacMillan Committee on Industry and Finance. Social Credit does not endorse the monopolization of credit, in fact, one of Douglas's books is entitled "The Monopoly of Credit" and is quite critical of the monopoly of credit. The National Credit Authority is not a bank, and does not control the money supply. Banks would operate as they do now, and would create money in accordance with loans and their assessments of risks. The National Credit Authority would merely augment the current system by giving consumers money which did not derive from the productive system. Social Credit does not seek a more "equitable" distribution of wealth. The dividend would be paid to everyone equally regardless of income, and the price rebate would be given to everyone based upon what they spend in an equal ratio. There are no similarities between Douglas and Keynes other than the fact that Keynes recognized the gap that Douglas identified; however, he came up with a socialist response to it. I disagree. In pre-WWII Germany, there wasn't a shortage of money. Social Credit makes no claim to satiate demand. It simply rectifies an accounting flaw that Douglas identified in his A+B theorem. There's no feelings involved. I am certain that once the flaw is rectified that it will lead to increased prosperity and leisure time. That is the only possible outcome from the methods of rectification. Labour is a commodity? If people are forced to engage in the productive process in order to receive an income, even though technology is constantly displacing the need for labour, then income via wages becomes a "reward system". This is one thing the so called "capitalists" and "socialists" have in common - the call for full employment. Why is it fraudulent to rectify an accounting flaw and give consumers adequate income to purchase all of production? The ratio is determined by measuring aggregate production and consumption. Individual businesses only affect the relation as a part of the whole. If consumption is x and production is y, then the ratio is x/y. No, the difference between the price paid by the consumer, and the price received by the producer is made up by the National Credit Authority through the issuance of new credits. Prices have no bearing on the ratio itself except to measure the total money value of production and consumption. You take the amount of consumption in dollars and divide by the amount of production in dollars over an equivalent period of time, and then you have the ratio. what is" the relative value of a sunset, and say, the Venus di Milo might be assessed, on the one hand" If charge less in prices than your cost of production, you won't be in business very long, because you will be unable to pay your creditors. It can be a smart business policy if the consumer will pay the extra 3 cents in price. If he won't, then your company will fail to earn a profit and operate in the long run.

Everyone is "living on credit", because all money is created as a debt.

Yes, distributed to individuals as a price rebate and a dividend. Who's talking about "value"? Accountants determine costs, and hence, the lower limit of prices everyday. I know when I'm talking to a libertarian, and the Austrian School of Economics is based on so many fallacies that I don't have the time to describe them all. I would suggest that more economists, like Ludwig, take at least an introductory course in cost accounting to see how prices are actually determined in the business world. I will give you a quote by Douglas on "values": "But when asked to define the various defects in the money system, it is remarkable to notice with what monotonous regularity these ideas of "justice" and "value" are paraded. It is claimed that money is defective because it is not an accurate measure of value, or that it results in an unjust "reward" for labour, but when such critics are asked to suggest a method by which the relative value of a sunset, and say, the Venus di Milo might be assessed, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, what is the "just" return for a given amount or variety of labour, their answers are not usually helpful from a practical point of view. Reams of paper and many valuable years have been expended in endeavouring to define and standardise this thing called "Value," and with it, the methods of relating goods and services to the standard when obtained. The line of thought which is usually followed, is something after this fashion. "Money is a standard or measure of value. The first requisite of a standard or measure is that it shall be invariable. The money system is not giving satisfaction, money is not invariable, therefore, the problem is to standardise the unit of money." As a consequence of this line of argument, a dazed world is confronted with proposals for compensated dollars varying from time to time in the amount of gold they contain in accordance with the price index, or even with card money out of which holes are punched to represent its adjustment to the physical realities of economics. Nor is the misdirection of thought confined to professional economists. Almost the first idea which seems to present itself to physical scientists whose attention is directed to this problem, is in the nature of a search for some adaptation to finance of the centimetre-gramme-second system of units. Yet perhaps the most important fundamental idea which can be conveyed at this time, in regard to the money problem - an idea on the validity of which certainly stands or falls, anything I have to say on the subject - is that it is not a problem of value-measurement. The proper function of a money system is to furnish the information necessary to direct the production and distribution of goods and services. It is, or should be, an "order" system, not a "reward" system." THE NATURE OF MONEY The National Credit Office would not determine prices. You are confusing microeconomics with macroeconomics. Individual firms would still determine what price they sold their product at in the same way they do now. And they would receive from the consumer the price they charged if the consumer decided to buy their product. The consumer would pay less than the full amount based upon the ratio of consumption/production, and the difference would be given to the consumer by the National Credit Authority. The ratio would simply be mulitiplied by the price the firm is attempting to sell their good at. It's simply a ratio. If one company sells their goods for less than another, it will still be less when the ratio is applied. The Credit Authority doesn't dictate what price any company charges for their product, that is up to each company. It simply determines a price rebate ratio which it applies to all prices of those companies who choose to register with the authority. Even registration is optional.

Exactly.

What you believe, and what is the truth are obviously two mutally exclusive things. Let's break down what you state. So? How does that make me anti-Jewish. The holocaust was the best thing to ever happen to Zionism. The question posed is whether Zionism is the best thing for Jews? Nothing intellectually dishonest about what I said. The fact that Eichmann went to Isreal to investigate the establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine is an historical fact. It's also an historical fact that the state of Israel was establish shortly after the end of WWII based upon what the Nazis did to the Jews. Ergo, "one could argue Nazism was the best thing ever to happen to further the Zionist agenda. The facts are indisputable, and it's highly doubtful that Isreal would exist today if it were not for the holocaust. 4 I never said killing Jews made the Zionists rejoice with joy. That is something that you've simply added and that is intellectually dishonest. I simply said the holocaust and the Nazis were the best thing that could happen to further the Zionist cause (which is true). I also said that Eichmann was himself a Zionist because he wanted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine (again, factually correct). The Nazis did have Zionist ambitions before the war, and that is why Eichmann was dispatched to Palestine to determine if a Zionist state could be established there. Again, this is an historical fact. Perhaps you better check your "facts" before you accuse me of "false facts". In fact, this is rather comical, but I'm glad you took the time, because I do enjoy this. "In 1940, Lehi proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany. It offered assistance in "evacuating" the Jews of Europe, in return for Germany's help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine. Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik was sent to Beirut where he met the German official Werner Otto von Hentig. Lubenchik told von Hentig that Lehi had not yet revealed its full power and that they were capable of organizing a whole range of anti-British operations." Contact with Nazi authorities Again, you better check your "facts". "Eichmann was then assigned to investigate possible "solutions to the Jewish question." He visited Palestine in 1937 to discuss the possibility of large scale immigration of Jews to the Middle East with Arab leaders. British authorities, however, ordered him out of the country. " Adolf Eichmann Do you not believe that people "conpired" to establish a Jewish state in Israel? I would suggest that if you don't, you are in fact "metally handicapped", or ill. Of course they had to conspire to establish the state, if the nobody conspired to establish Israel, it could have never been formed. Ergo, there is a Zionist conspiracy to establish a Jewish state in the land known as Israel. I think that's pretty much common sense, which it seems that you lack. What connection to Israel do convert Jews have that convert Christians don't? You need to take a course in deductive logic. If I say all grass is green, does that mean that everything green is grass? You really need to take a course in logic, because that's not what I was implying. I implied that Jews are given preferential treatment in becoming a citizen of Israel based upon the right of return law, and that's also a statement of fact. Again, better brush up on the deductive logic. Same fallacy as the "grass is green". LMFAO. I would suggest at least starting with a university course in reasoning. I've never had so many belly laughs, but I'm sure you believe the blather that you've written, so let's look at what you state. You state that Eichmann's only goal was to kill Jews. Then why would he go to Palestine to talk to Arabs about shipping Jews there? Was he going to kill the Jews and then transport them to Palestine? Or was he going to ship them to Isreal, and then transport the SS there to kill them? The "source" for what statements? Which particular statement is sourced by this individual? I've never even heard of him. You know what they say about opinions. I referenced it every time I quoted it. And it's referenced in this post again. This is a comical joke. Again, click the link below for the reference. You will see that it is not a KKK, Stormfront or Arab site. Adolf Eichmann Why is it odious and "despicable"? I never said it was good for them. You certainly like to use strawmen in your arguments. Another reason for an introductory logic course. Really, the site referenced is wikipedia. Would you like another? No other state in the world besides Israel grants citizenship to all members of a specific religion. While the majority of people living in certain Muslim states may indeed be Muslim, those states do not grant citizenship to all Muslims around the world. And there is no Christian state that grants citizenship to Christians around the world. That phenomenon is exclusive to Israel. I'm a Christian, does that automatically guarantee me citizenship to England? No you've twisted what I said. I've implied no such thing. What I've stated are undeniable facts. One must ask themselves, why does Rue deny facts, falsify my statements, make untrue accusations and outright lies? What is Rue's agenda? What purpose does this serve? I thought this was a thread about the holocaust? If you want to start a thread comparing Judaism and Christianity, I'd be more than happy to post.

You're free to feel any way you desire. There is a difference between feeling and action.

We should allow people to injure others they might disagree with? Isn't that exactly what the Fascists and Communists did?

They should be free to express themselves, and the world is free to judge them for their expressions.

Thank you. War is a horrible thing, and lot's of horrible things happen during wars. I just wish we weren't so quick to rush into them, but I think a main cause of war in the modern world is economics.

Psst, read what I write. First off, show me where I said either the JDL or the ADL represents all Jews? Secondly, the "they" I was referring to was anyone who wants to limit our freedom of speech: once again, another innuendo. By the way, if you had read post # 175, I had addressed this already. What I find quite comical is the baseless assumptions that are made about me.

What clear anti-Jewish agenda? Specifically, show me something that is "anti-Jewish"? Specifically, who was hurt by what David Irving and Ernst Zundel said?

I'm not the one doing the dancing or making baseless innuendos. I never voted. Why would I vote on something which the answer to the question is obvious?

Anyone who thinks that the names of 6,000,000 Jews were written down as they were killed and calculating the number of Jews killed was merely a matter of adding up the names on some magical list is an imbecile.

Can you say "oxymoron". What's an "historical fact"? As Napoleon once said, "history is a set of lies agreed upon".

You're correct, I never denied that that the holocaust happened, and I've never stated how many Jews I believe were killed in WWII (probably between 300,000 and 6,000,000). One death is too many. What many people forget is that approximately 80,000,000 people were killed in WWII. One of them was my uncle, who was killed Christmas day in Orotona Italy, and was shot in the head by a Nazi sniper. They cannot find anything that I've said where it demonstrates that I hate Jews, because I don't hate Jews. What I hate is laws which are designed to limit our freedom of expression in such a way that nobody can investigate the truth about a subject, because the "truth" has been codified. Now anyone who questions that "truth" goes to jail. Sounds a bit like Soviet Russia does it not? And if you defend people's right to free speech, even if they could be entirely incorrect, then you're an "anti-semite". Just like people who question the motives of political Zionism are labelled an "anti-semite". When did Zionism and semitism become equal, let alone Zionism and Judaism. This is a political ploy, and organizations, which do indeed conspire, such as the ADL and JDL are leading this charge. Someday, it may be illegal to question the actions of the government of Isreal because that is "hate speech".

What specifically in my overall views makes them "despicable"? I give you credit for valuing a fundamental freedom that associations which claim to represent you want to take away from people. Maybe you should be lobbying the ADL and the JDL to repeal these laws in countries like Canada and Austria? I understand that you are a lawyer.

You're telling me that American, British, Canadian, Australian, Soviet.... troops saw 6 million people dead? Are you claiming they went and counted the bodies, and counted 6 million people? Are you claiming that in the bodies they found they were able to determine which ones were specifically Jewish? Of the bodies they found, how many were determined by a medical examiner to have been posioned by gas?

That's not what I said. I quoted a specific post in this thread and responded to it. It's not based upon my subjective feelings, but based upon years of experience. And this thread only goes to demonstrate it even further. LMFAO What "anti-semetic slur"? Please show me this "anti-semitic slur"? Are you referring to my statement "What the Jews want to do is silence all debate on this subject."? I didn't say "all Jews". If I say, "Germans were Nazis", does this mean that all Germans were Nazis? Obviously all Jews don't want to silence debate on the subject, that is why Orthodox Jews went to Iran to join a conference on the subject. I admire them for that. LOL, have you read anything that I've posted outside of this thread? Nothing I've said is "race baiting", but I'm sure you're blinded by your own hate that you see it as such. I simply pointed out the fact that there are Jews who want to silence all debate on the subject of the holocaust, and the promotion of holocaust denial laws by organizations such as the JDL and ADL demonstrates that fact. Look yourself, I've posted all over this community on a variety of subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with Jews or the holocaust.

Actually, the word "them" refers to anyone who wants to limit our freedoms. Organizations such as the ADL and the JDL have conspired to accuse anyone who questions the holocaust as being anti-semetic. In fact, they've conspired to create laws to have these people put in jail. Jews should never be arrested because they are Jews. They should be arrested if they commit a crime. I'm not the one casting innuenedos.

You tell me the political motivation for arresting people for merely expressing their opinion? When someone makes the claim that the number of people killed during the holocaust is less that 6 million, how is that a crime? Can you say "begging the question"? Happens all the time. Exactly, how did it happen? Show me the evidence that 6 million people were killed, and I'm not just talking a page of names of people killed, I'm talking about evidence that exactly 6 million peoeple were killed during the holocaust. I'm willing to look at anything you show me. I don't care if you're Jewish, Hindu, pink or brown.