Michael goes on to indicate that a people's dividend to increase purchasing power for people in need of money to buy a decent standard of living can be created the way bank loans create money. Such people in need would receive the money from government -- not from a bank or a loan. ---------------------------
[reply] It doesn't have to be the government. It could be the banks. -- So where would the government get the money to pay the dividend? --------------------------- [reply] It is not a physical thing that has to come from anywhere. -- Michael indicates government would create the money, like the banks do, but there would be no loan to repay. Only a government whose constitution allows such debtless money can do this. That rules out Alberta, and the fifty states of the USA. Alberta tried to tax bank profits to supply the money involved. The courts stopped this method. If they had not, it is doubtful that bank profits could have paid a big enough dividend to raise the living standards of people in need -- remembering that the dividend must stimulate production enough to put real food on the table. --------------------------- [reply] Perhaps someone more familiar with Alberta than I am, such as Chick Hurst or Wally Klinck, will comment. This is my understanding: It was not a tax on profit, for that would require some method to determine profit. It was to be a tax on banks, the presumption being that banks create money. It is far easier to implement Social Credit with the cooperation of the banking system. Otherwise, there is inevitable and perpetual confrontation. -- Michael does not go on to describe how central government will create debtless money and avoid its inflationary effect. The Social Credit doctrine in this matter is to continue our practice of taxation to do this. --------------------------- [reply] I don't think Michael said that "central government" would create "debtless money." Nor does taxation come into play. Most Social Crediters are for minimal government with minimal taxation. Also, your characterization of "debtless money" and "its inflationary effect" indicates to me that you are still hung up in thinking about money in quantitative terms: So much production on one side of the scales; so much money on the other. Inflation is not generally a case of "too much money" chasing "too few goods." It is usually a cost-accountancy issue in modern industrial economies, as described by Douglas in Part II, Chapter III of *Social Credit*: "The condition which is produced by a policy of restricting the amount of money in circulation can be grasped without difficulty, if it be remembered that it must involve a numerical decrease in both the total figures of cost and the total figures of price for a given period of production. The only portion of the total costs which can be decreased without loss to the producer are those represented by wages and salaries, the remainder being fixed charges based on the capital costs already incurred. Wages and salaries costs are purchasing power, and collectively are much less than collective prices. Imagine both collective wages and collective prices to be diminished by an equal amount x. "This may be written: "Costs = purchasing power; "Costs are < prices; "Therefore: costs/prices < 1; "Therefore: costs - x/prices - x < costs/prices. "An addition to both the numerator and denominator of the fraction, such as is brought about by a rise of wages, accompanied by a rise in price, has, of course, the opposite effect; it brings the ratio of purchasing power to prices nearer, though never to unity, with the result, seen in Germany in the inflation period, of immense, though unstable, economic activity, accompanied by great hardship to the professional and rentier classes, both of whom have claims to consideration, and a most undesirable concentration of economic power, resulting infallibly in the enslavement of the artisan." This analysis is perfectly consistent with the empirically derived Phillips Curve. The Social Credit solution is not to force up wages arbitrarily through union pressure, the strong arm of the government or "easy money" policies, but to increasingly supplement wages with the dividend, thereby adding to the denominator without simultaneously adding to the numerator of the fraction. The fraction is thereby brought closer to unity without inflation. And Rodney Shakespeare take note: Increasing corporate dividends through distributed ownership schemes will also add to the numerator what it adds to the denominator, so therefore cannot be the ultimate solution to the "gap" between "prices" and "purchasing power." -- On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:40:11 John Gelles wrote: > I agree with Michael Lane [cut] _____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================
