socred

And this is the reason you will never have an honest debate on this subject. Look at the reasoning: "If you 'question' the holocaust in any way, you are an 'anti-semite". Of course, anyone with any intelligence knows that the truth is arrived at through a dialectical process of debate. What the Jews want to do is silence all debate on this subject. My only question is what is the political motivations for this course of action? And are all the people who value freedom going to allow them to get away with it?

Hi Pliny: I apologize for the tardiness of my reply, but I've been extremely busy over the last month, and haven't spent much time on the computer This is factually incorrect. The process of the creation and destrution of money as described was evolved by private commercial banks before there existed any central banks. Fractional reserve banking came into existence prior to central banking. As a proponent of Social Credit I do have a problem with Central Banking policy because of a factual, not merely "perceived", accounting error. This again is factually incorrect. Until the advent of central banks, commercial banks did issue bills of currency, but even when they did, these bills, only represented a fraction of the money in existence. Most money simply existed as a number in a bank account, and transactions were mostly carried on by cheques, which merely involve the debiting and crediting of accounts (i.e. no bills, or gold, changes hands). Once a country had a central bank, commercial banks no longer issued bills, and ALL the money created by private commercial banks was simply numbers in bank accounts. At no time during the gold standard was all the money in existence "backed by gold". Again, I apologize for the tardiness of my reply.

The punishments would be the same as if you broke any other laws, fines, probation and possible jail time.

It certainly is my place to tell you what is and isn't immoral. That is what freedom of speech is all about. It isn't my place to impose my morality on you through force of law.

Before we go any further, I want to ensure that there is an understanding of where money comes from. Central Banks create cash and coin. Commerical banks create the majority of the assets used as money. Cash and coin only represent 10% of the money supply. Commercial banks create money through loans. Everytime a bank loans somone money, they are creating money. Everytime the principle of the loan is paid back, banks are destroying money. That is how money is created and destroyed. All money is created as a debt. Whether it's commercial banks creating a deposit through a loan (debt), or the Central Bank creating cash through open market operations, or commercial banks borrowing reserves from the Central bank. All money is borrowed into existence, and hence; is created as a debt. This has to be fully understood before we can continue to discuss this subject. When the world was on a gold standard, the majority of money was created by commercial banks. Gold, the reserve at the time, only represented approximately 10% of the money supply. Commercial banks create money by keeping only a fraction of it in reserve relative to their deposits. Consequently, when the world was operating on a supposed "gold standard", the majority of money was simply a number in a bank account. The process by which banks create money is described in the following worksheet from the Federal Reserve: MODERN MONEY MECHANICS

The Isrealis are always the victim. Isn't that how it always works?

Sex between minors should be illegal (period). After you reach the age of consent, it is not up to the government to make consenting sexual activities illegal. However; that does not make certain types of sex "moral". However; morality is an issue between oneself and God.

Very true. "A common cause of confusion to those unfamiliar with the technique of finance can be found in the excusable assumption that a statement which is true and obvious in regard to individual experience of money matters is equally true in regard to the money matters of a nation. There are at least two assumptions made by those who argue in this way. The first is that the process by which a community obtains money is fundamentally similar to the process by which an individual obtains money. The second is the idea, alternatively, that money is limited in quantity by the laws of nature, or that it is always exactly equal in amount to the price values of the goods which it is supposed to represent. Now, as a matter of fact, no one of these common assumptions is justified, as can easily be seen by anyone who will take the trouble to give the matter a little thought. All individuals obtain money by getting it from somebody else, i.e., so far as individuals are concerned, money is quite correctly defined as a medium of exchange (although not an invariable medium of exchange). But in the case of a sovereign community, this never is and never has been the case. Whether the power be delegated, as in the case of Great Britain to the Bank of England, or not, a sovereign community has the power of actually creating money--it is self-financing, a situation which in fact places the community and the individual in a position of technical opposition, the community and the individual always being on opposite sides of the ledger." The Fallacy of a Balanced Budget

Depreciation is included in the B part of the A+B theorem, however; the reason there is a chronic shortage of purchasing power is not because we are charged with capital depreciation, but that we are not credited with capital appreciation. In the modern economy the ratio of capital appreciation/captial depreciation is always >1. If you're looking for the "cause" of the B payments: “"I think that a little consideration will make it clear that in this sense an overhead charge is any charge in respect of which the actual distributed purchasing power does not still exist, and that practically this means any charge created at a further distance in the past than the period of cyclic rate of circulation of money. There is no fundamental difference between tools and intermediate products, and the latter may therefore be included.” (C.H. Douglas, "The New and The Old Economics") It's an attempt to equalize income and prices. That is one cause of inflation, but it's not the systemic cause. To quote from post #58 "Further, Labor displacement in the productive process implies that overhead charges {B}Bare increasing in relation to income (A), because “B is the financial representation of the lever of capital” (C.H. Douglas Credit Power and Democracy, Aust. Edition, 1933, p. 25). This means that any attempt to stabilize or increase income is met with rising prices. If A is constant or increasing, and B is increasing due to technological advances, then A+B (prices) must also be increasing. From this perspective, inflation and unemployment are trade offs (re the Phillips Curve), unless prices are reduced from debt- free monies that do not derive from the productive system." The Central Banks are not entirely in control of the money supply, and the economists who advocated the use of interest rates to control the money supply (i.e. Milton Friedman) have admitted this fact. They try to control the money supply with interest rates, but they don't have an absolute control over the supply of money. Very few transactions take place with the use of fiat money (i.e. cash and coin). Businesses accept it as payment for goods and services everyday. In fact, the majority of money is just an "electronic blip", and the majority of transactions take place with the electronic transfer of funds, which merely are debit and credit entries to people's accounts. The gold that was used as money was not used for jewellry at the same time. Every economist in the world defines electronic blips as money, because they function as money. What do you mean by "value" printed on the Canadian currency? It has a number on it, but that number only has "value" in relation to how many goods and services it can acquire, which means its value is inversely proportional to prices. Belief is what makes it money, it's value is dependent on prices. Prices are dependent on many things, but the primary thing they are dependent on is cost of production, because if the price falls below that, the production stops (at least in the long term). Both of those things would be relative to effective demand. We don't "pick" how much money we put in our account. However; the number you put in your account is relative to the price level. If prices are low, that may be "a lot" of money, but if prices are high, that may be "very little" money. Compare the value of the yen to the value of a canadian dollar. The confidence is instilled from our belief that it will be accepted as money, and our practical experience certainly plays a role in this belief. If we experience the fact that stores accept our money in exchange for goods and services, then we believe that what we posess is money. You're already using x as money, which is merely a number in your bank account, why wouldn't you use the additional y? If someone said to you that I'm going to increase your bank account, you're telling me that you'd say no? However; the option to opt out would always be available. Yes and no. Depends if everyone did it simultaneously. If everyone tried to convert their deposit into fiat currency, the banks would only be able to supply approximately 10% of your deposit with fiat currency. The banks bank on the fact that very few transactions involve the use of currency. That is how they are able to create money. Only approximately 10% of the money suppy is composed of cash and coin. The remainder is merely a number in a bank account. Never, since the advent of fractional reserve banking in the Middle Ages has your bank account represented cash or gold in the bank. Cash, and gold previously under the gold standard, are reserve currency. Banks only hold a "fraction" of that currency in reserve. Under the gold standard, most money was a number in a bank account, and if everyone demanded gold for their deposit, the banks would be unable to supply it. This is why the banks put a moritorium on withdrawls at the outbreak of WWI. Not at all. In fact, you seem to have a fair bit of intelligence, but most people do not understand money and banking. Not because they are stupid, but merely because they have not been taught how it works. No problem, but I have met people who try to discredit what you say because of a typo. At the time Douglas did most of his writings the world was still on the gold standard. The US did not abandon the standard until 1972, and Canada was off and on since 1919, but fully abandoned it in 1972 as well. Managing the economy in what way? By determining the amount of credit necessary to clear all costs of production? This is "managed" in any system, whether its done by the banks or a "National Credit Authority". Or are you suggesting that banks aren't "managed"? Then everyone should be able to create money? You're telling me that you make all your payments by cash? I have taken a couple of accounting courses, but I'm a buyer with a degree in economics. I do not consider numbers to be superior to things in themselves, in fact, quite the opposite. I consider money to be merely an abstract representation of reality, and reality should always dictate the abstract. This is why I said you can have a shortage of labour, a shortage or raw materials, a shortage of equipment, but you can never have a shortage of money. Money is just an abstract way of accounting for these things. The goal of Social Credit is to allow the abstract to be a true representation of reality.

I'm not the one who complained to the mods about the thread placement. I think you're the one who needs to take the world in.

Where you going?

That sounds like the MO of a "rat".

All production has a cost, whether the production is done by the government or the production is done by private industry. My statement was merely a critique of "ballot box democracy". I never said that capital costs weren't included in the price of consumer goods. I said the cost was delayed through time. It may take decades before the cost of a capital project is depreciated and consequently shows up in the cost of consumer goods through depreciation expense. That's not what it says at all. It says that prices grow faster than incomes. The Central Bank attempts to control how many tickets are in the system by attempting to control interest rates. The Central Bank does not have direct control over how many tickets are in the system, because the Central Bank creates but a small portion of the money supply. Most money is created by commercial banks through loans to businesses and consumers. It is unstable because they do not understand the systemic cause of inflation, and it's not "too much money chasing too few goods". Unfortunately, they believe another economic fallacy known as the "quantity theory of money". It's not necessary to buy all production, but the POTENTIAL to buy all production is necessary. Otherwise, people may want the production, but are unable to buy it merely for want of "tickets". 90% of the money supply is "credit". Very few transactions take place with the use of cash and coin. Not only is this statement factually incorrect, since the vast majority of money is credit, but the essential nature of money derives from the latin "credere" meaning to believe. I work for "money" because I "believe" that I will be able to go to some shop and the shop will accept my money for their goods and services. This is a question of faith, and if people had no faith in the money, it would stop acting as money. How do the government or the banks earn the confidence that their tickets will be accepted in trade for anything? What intrinsic value does money have? You can't eat money, you can't live in money. Unless you collect money for its own sake, money's only value is in relation to how many goods and services it can purchase. In other words, it's "value" is totally dependent on prices. You would if the tickets themselves did not purchase goods and services, then the tickets would be "valueless", and it would not matter if you had 1 or 1 million. The tickets only value is in relation to how many goods and services you can buy with them, so the more tickets you have, the more you can purchase, so of course you're not going to trade 1 ticket for 2, because 2 tickets buys more goods and services than 1. The same confidence that is imbued in money now, the willingness of people to accept it in trade for goods and services. You seem to think that these "tickets" would somehow be differentiated from the current money we have now. Most money is a number in a bank account, and these tickets would be no different. The dividend and price rebate would simply be credited to your bank account, and instead of having x amount of money, you would have x + y. The only "fiat" money in existence is cash and coin created by the Central Bank. As I've stated earlier, this "fiat money" comprises a very small percentage of the daily transactions in any economy. In other words, most money is NOT fiat money. Not exactly sure the meaning of this question? You'd receive any statutory holidays the government wanted to create. Last I checked, a nation is comprised of individuals. I don't confuse anything, it seems you're confused by virtue of being unable to see the forest through the trees. Aggregate production and consumption habits are merely compiled by addition of individual production and consumption habits. It is the individuals actually doing the consuming and producing. A "National Credit Authority" let's call it, would simply compile statistics and issue credits based upon those statistics. It in no way would attempt to 'control' production and consumption habits as the central banks do now. Where would money come from then? I already explained it to you with the fallacy of prices based on the erroneous theory of "marginalism". By the way, I found the attack on a typo "petty". Perhaps I should attack your post for your spelling of "theorem"? I never said it was the ONLY reason they stop producing, but it certainly is A reason. Unfortunately, most economists don't understand the first thing about accounting. No firm in the world uses marginalism to determine marginal costs. Costs are determined using GAAP, not through the determination of "opportunity costs". Which is? Where did Douglas talk about "fiat"? Where did Douglas talk about "re-education"? Exactly, it's an aristocracy of producers. Money does not derive from the productive system: it derives from the banking system, and if any individual were to create his own money, he'd be charged with counterfeiting. Because you wouldn't consider it doesn't mean that it's not true. I've never seen a city with a vacancy rate of 0%, yet I see people without homes. There's vacant homes, and people who want to live in them, but can't for simple lack of money. Most money is credit, and most transactions take place with the use of electronic transfer of funds or cheques. Absolutely no cash changes hands, but are merely debit and credit entries in people's accounts. As I've stated above, you've demonstrated no such thing. But I do wish you well. Take care.

If you think that democracy is rule by the majority, then you are simply advocating a system of "mob rules" to which I want no part . John Stuart Mill addressed the "tyranny of the majority" in his essay "On Liberty". Individual rights must be protected, and that is why we have constitutions which bind politicians. The role of government should not be to enforce the majority's morality, but simply to protect our rights and freedoms. As soon as government deems itself the arbiter of morality, we are destined towards tyranny.

Because they aren't censoring the right to make the movie, they are just removing tax payer funding from the movie. In my opinion, we should not be subsidizing any movies.

People are not considered adults until they are 18. Once they have reached the age of consent, I don't care what they do in their bedrooms. I still have every right to consider homosexuality immoral, I don't believe I have a right to make it illegal (assuming the two consenting partners are of the age of consent).

Israel ranks 69th in foreign aid received in 2007 just ahead of "rich" countries like Chad. Economic aid - recipient 2007 In GDP/person it ranked 36th. GDP - per capita (PPP) 2007 Just behind the economic "powerhouse" Spain. It ranked 5th in military spending per GDP. Military expenditures - percent of GDP 2007 What a wonderful country!

"The basic facts The U.S. current account deficit: • Large and getting larger: -5.7% in 2004, -6.2% in 2005? • Unprecedented historically. The Reagan deficits peaked at 3.5%. • Large absolutely. $670 billion in 2004. About 12% of non–US gross saving, about 50% of non–US net saving. The appreciation and depreciation of the dollar: • Appreciation against major currencies by 34% from december 95 to february 02, then depreciation by 31% from february 02 to april 05. • Against the euro by 40% from december 95 to march 02, then depreciation by 39% from march 02 to april 05" The U.S. Current Account Deficit and The Dollar

There is something wrong with their sexuality. That doesn't mean that the government should punish them for their sexuality, but it certainly shouldn't condone it either.

A sober post. I believe the bulk of the problem right now is the US government deficit, which has reached record levels because of the war in Iraq. I also believe that the current account trade deficit that the US continues to run with the rest of the world is a contributing factor.

Both. I'm wondering if you think the original post is a synopsis, or if you're referring to post #54, which is actually a synopsis of Social Credit thought. The original post is a discussion on Douglas's A+B theorem, which is but a small part of Social Credit. The consumer never has enough income to buy all of production. There may be periods of time where he has enough income to purchase all the consumer goods coming onto the market (these periods exist during times of heavy investment in capital goods), but eventually the cost of the capital will make its way into the cost of consumer goods, so the effect is only delayed. The definition of money that Social Crediters use is the same that Professor Walker used: "money is any medium which has reached such a degree of acceptablility that, no matter what it is made of, and no matter why people want it, no one will refuse it in exchange for his product." Social Crediters do not believe a central authority should control the money supply. Individual producers and consumers should control the money supply. The amount of money made available would be completely dependent on individuals production and consumption habits. Centralization of authority is the antithesis of Social Credit ideology. An independent arm of the government would be given the task of creating a national balance sheet, and calculating production and consumption habit, and this in turn would determine the size of the price rebate and dividend, but the process itself would be an accounting function, not a political one. The necessity for government programs would wane under a Social Credit system. Many of the programs are designed for wealth distribution, and this would not be necessary once individuals were given sufficient purchasing power. Secondly, the biggest contributor to government taxation would be eliminated - the government debt. Social Credit does not seek to eliminate fractional reserve banking. Commerical banks would still be able create money as they do now. This is the best system available for ensuring risks are taken and new investment unfolds. The Social Credit system merely "augments" the current system. If one were to eliminate fractional reserve banking by forcing banks to hold 100% reserves, banking would cease to exist. This is the fallacy of the "law of supply and demand". Below the cost of production, firms simply stop producing, because they have no ability to change their fixed costs. These costs are "capitalized". If firms find that consumers don't have enough money to buy their goods, they initially try to lower their variable costs, which is mostly labour, by laying off workers, then they simply stop producing. This is what happens in every recession. Economists could have saved themselves alot of headaches if they had asked an accountant how costs are determined instead of inventing their own ideas based on the theory of "maginalism" which no firm in reality ever uses. People would be allowed to save in a Social Credit society, but there would be less "incentive", because the artificial fear of scarcity would be removed. To quote Douglas: "The persistence of the idea that monetary saving has a physical counterpart in physical accumulation will no doubt exercise the attention of historians of the present period. Since money is normally distributable only through the agency of wages, salaries and dividends, it being assumed that the interest on Government loans is provided by taxation, the whole of these wages, salaries and dividends must have appeared in the cost, and consequently in the price of articles produced. It does not appear to need any elaborate demonstration to see that any saving of these wages , salaries and dividends means that a proportion of the goods in the prices of which they appear must remain unsold within the credit area in which they are produced and are therefore, in the economic sense wasted. The investment of the funds so saved means the reappearance of the same sum of money in a fresh set of prices, so that on each occasion that a given sum of money is reinvested, a fresh set of price values is created without the creation of fresh purchasing power." (C.H. Douglas, evidence submitted before the MacMillan Committe on Finance and Industry reprined in The Monopoly of Credit 4th edition page 143-144) The ABILITY to clear all production must exist (i.e for every cost there must be income available to defray it); however, that does not mean that all production will be cleared. Is your company a "democracy"? When it makes decisions, does it hold a vote by all its employees? An "aristocracy of producers" is exactly what we have now. However; we do not have a democracy of consumers, because the monetary system is controlled by a "monopoly of credit" (i.e. the banking system). Most of the assets listed have a objective value based upon GAAP. Those assets would also be depreciated according to accounting principles. Some values like Human Potential, Policy and Organization might not be easily calcuable today, but the easiest way to find out is when the productive system can no longer keep up with effective demand. Then you have found your "productive capacity". "money is any medium which has reached such a degree of acceptablility that, no matter what it is made of, and no matter why people want it, no one will refuse it in exchange for his product." Money can be disc of leather, gold, pieces of paper, or electronic blips on a computer screen (in fact it has been all of these). Most money today is credit, which derives from the latin "credere" meaning to believe. "The best definition of money with which I am acquainted is that of Professor Walker, which is that "money is any medium which has reached such a degree of acceptablility that, no matter what it is made of, and no matter why people want it, no one will refuse it in exchange for his product." You will see that this definition rules out any physical properties in respect of money. The properties that are left, therefore, are not physical. They can be summed up in the word "credit," which is, of course, derived from "credere," to believe. The essential quality of money, therefore, is that a man shall believe that he can get what he wants by the aid of it. This is absolutely the only quality that it is required to possess, although, of course, certain minor attributes, such as convenience, have a bearing on the decision as to what particular description of money, if it fulfils the major requirements, is likely to come into the most general use. The cheque, no doubt, owes its popularity to this latter attribute." (C.H. Douglas, "Warning Democracy") Money does not have "intrinsic value", and is not a "commodity". It is also not a "measure of value". "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." (C.H. Douglas Social Credit) Absolutely not, and I agree! Making money scarce does not create prosperity either. We, and our cultural heritage, create prosperity by working in association with each other. However; there should always be enough income to purchase all of production. I agree. And I will also state that you will never have political freedom until you have economic freedom. Have a good day.

My political and economic leanings should be apparent from my nic. I tend to agree with alot of things the libertarians say, except their conception of money is archaic, and I'm certainly not a follower of Ayn Rand and "objectivism".

All "reasonable" doubt should have been removed, but that does not mean that all doubt has been removed. Ask Millgaard. Even with the stringent standard of all "reasonable doubt" its still possible to convict an innocent man. I'm not advocating killing innocent people, that's ridiculous and an attempt to twist what I said. There will always be a very remote chance that someone who is innocent gets killed under the death penalty, because no system is perfect. However; it would be very remote, so I'm willing to take that risk in order ensure that I'm not keeping sub-humans like Picton alive at my expense. If you want to continue this discussion, I would be more than happy in another thread, since this is a thread about smoking in cars, and I don't want to degrade it.

I'm not the least interested in what most describe you as.

Yes, I'm overwhelmed by your intelligence because you do not support the death sentence. Please enlighten me on your liberal ways.