Vince,
My response may be a little different but will endeavour to be brief as
possible ands hopefully still get the message through.
1. From the realistic point of view the system is run according to financial
rules which have blinded most to reality.
(a) Debt is a man made institution. There is no such thing as debt in
nature. A farmer cannot water his crops with next month's or next year's
rain.
(b) The provision of finance should be related to real things and not
used as a commodity in itself.
(c) The provision of finance is dependent upon a policy of "full
employment". To obtain money one must be employed (forget about the dole,
pensions etc. which are only a redistribution of an existing shortage.
(d) A policy of full employment necessitates a throw away society. Thus
planned obsolescence and the wastage of the earth's resources. It is
interesting to note that the Socialists and the so-called environmentalists
never attack the policy of full employment.
(e) A simple hypothetical example shows the stupidity of the current
system for which orthodoxy has no answer. If all energy, including solar,
and all technology could produce everything the people needed with only a
small fraction employed, eg., if in a population workforce of 10 million
only 10,000 were needed to push buttons and run robot machines to produce
everything that was needed, and only the 10,000 received an income how would
the 9,990,000 live? How would they be able to purchase what had been
produced. You could go further with the absurdity and ask what if no one had
to be employed, but the only way to obtain the production was to have money?
Machines are not paid wages.
(f) The standard of living for the individual is governed by the ratio
of consumer-production to capital production. (Capital here refers to
physical production, not finance-capital)
(g) Douglas encapsulated this very clearly: "I do not regard it as a
sane system that before you can buy a cabbage it is absolutely necessary to
make a machine gun" - (C.H. Douglas)
(h) Keynes recognised what Douglas was saying and perverted the Social
Credit proposals by introducing his deficit budgeting prime pumping idea.
(i) To answer your question how have we ended up with this situation.
Two reasons (i) because there are and have been for some time those who
would deny the Social Credit proposals and thus diminish the Social Credit
(ii) Because we have, i.e., the majority of people have allowed it to
happen.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:56 PM
Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit
> Since the birth of the industrial age labour has progressively become a
> diminishing factor in the productive process. It has been referred to as a
> mere catalyst. Our material necessities could be adequately provided for
> with an increasingly small portion of the total population engaged in the
> workforce. However, the system dictates that one must become a cog of the
> industrial process before one can have an income. But, the income the
system
> distributes cannot buy the total goods that are available. The system
again
> dictates that we must make more (even though we have enough) in order to
> consume what has already been made. What a crazy mess we’re all in!
>
> I would like to hear a Social Credit response to my comments above. Why is
> there an anomaly in the system? On the one hand man-power has been
displaced
> by solar-power and yet if you don’t work you don’t eat. On the other hand
if
> we all work we can’t buy what has been produced except by working even
more.
> How have we ended up in such a situation?
==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
==^^===============================================================
