A couple of points in response to Bill. Bill wrote: > I think you are merely playing with words and do not > grasp the fundamental basis of social credit. > Nothing has to be "grabbed back" from anybody. The > social credit is cancelled when it clears back to the > national credit account, which is limited only by > realizable productive capacity.
I think I need to just reiterate that I am not trying to second-guess Douglas or replace the whole Social Credit concept. I am merely trying to think in through in terms I could get across to a South Africa which at the moment thinks in other terms. They are talking about a BIG paid from taxes. I would try to get them to substitute BIG from taxes for National Dividend paid from Social Credit account. Other things could follow from that. Bill wrote:- > The way you phrase > it, it is merely another taxation and redistribution > scheme that "grabs back" from somebody to give "debt > free" to somebody else. Social credit is not a > "loan" that requires reflux. What I suggest is just a simpler way of allowing some to benefit from the diividend and others not. The BIG-lobby plumps for a pay-to-all-and-grab-back-from-some. An alternate way to achieve this (in order to satisfy that lobby) would be to pay out only to those not listed as Taxpayers. I would be quite happy to give indiscriminately to all, but we will never achieve that. In the South African political field we still have very strong feelings about the injustices of the past regime. There is still a strong desire for redress, which in effect means to withhold from the previously-privelleged and give positions, status, services, social security, etc., to the previously disadvantaged. We have an active Labour movement and a vibrant Communist Party whose constituencies are drawn from that previously-disadvantaged segment which constitutes about 90% of our population. Bill wrote: > P. S. Did you have a chance to ring up those fellows > regarding the availability of SA Reserve Bank Stock? > Why was the stock delisted and now only traded "over > the counter"? It seems to me that delisting removes > the bank one step further from the public, which I > think might be the intent. Firstly, the shares are ´auctioned´ once a month. At this months auction on the 22 September, there were no offers to sell (people are obviously hoping for the government to pass the members´ motion, which actually seems unlikely.) There were offers to sell ranging from R1.00 to R1.50, but of course, no sales took place. Secondly, the delisting took place for technical reasons. The rules of the JSE (Johannesburg Securities Exchange) require that a listed Company have a minimum of 20 Million share on the market; the Reserve Bank has only 2 Million and was not willing to increase that number. So they delisted. Their stated policy is that they are not out to make a profit, which is what shareholders would demand. Jessop. ---------------------------- --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
