Coming to a town near you, like it or not!

[Banditbandit]

The system we (the world) uses now is compounding "Social Debt". ( results in continuous wars booms bust and damn it unnecessary mass death)

To date, this is my preferred "alternative" ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit judge for your self and tell me, if I am wrong?

Douglas Credit - nowe there is an idea .... Neither leftwing nor rightwing - outsidde the box ...

I've always like the concept - and I've always agreed with the idea that the total amount of goods in society must be equal to the total amount of money available to purchase those goods. Or, to rephrase it, a businessman who produces goods puts into circulation the eact amount of money needed to produce those goods (materials, labour and other costs) - the businesman has spent an amount of money to make his goods (has taken the money out of his bank and put it into circulation by spending it) ... this is true for services as well as goods . soe needs to be the amount of money in circulation for peope to purchase those goods. But a whole host of factors mean that there is never quite enough money to equal al the goods in circulation ...

Because money only has a semiotic, or symbolic, value, (it's a symbol of exchange) the answer is to add more money into the system so there are enough symbols to match the solid reality of the available goods and services.

.

I'd love to know what sort of system your fave "socialist" webels would prefer.

Actually, Douglas Credit works just as well under a truly socialist/communist system as in the so-called western free market economies - as there still needs to be an equality between the symbols in circulation and the goods and services available to purchase ... there is probably a better chance of making it work in a truly socialist sciety than in our western democracies .. and it would even work in Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat/anarchist society .. just that the symbols of exchange might be called something other than "money" ...

They all support the current "social debt" system because remember, he who pays the piper calls the tune!

Yes .. they seem to not accept that money is simply a symbol of exchange ... but also the hegemonic processes push people to adopt the current system without question.

Remember Bob Jones and his New Zealand Party, supposedly ousting Muldoon?

All he really achieved was to remove Bruce Beatham and the Social Credit party as a viable alternative to National and Labour! (21% of the vote 2 seats)

Muldoon stayed on as a politician on the public tit until he retired and Bob Jones quit as soon as Beatham was a gone burger! (monetary mission accomplished)

Boh Jones wanted Roger Douglas and Co in .. he got that ... Social Credit was a side issue for him.

The electorate was then hungry for proportional representation and as an alternative to FPP they bullshitted the electorate into accepting MMP.

MMP is the one that best suits the needs of the politicians rather than the electorate ... hook, line and sinker. IMHO (Progress?)

Hang on - The country wanted some form of proportional voting ... and choose MMP. The major parties of the day were against MMP . and did talk about how to get their message across ... but after the first referendum vote the major parties decided that it might be political suicide to go against the wishes of the people at that time .. so they backed off coing ouut too strongly for FFP ... and left that to Peter Shirtclife and his mates ..

[oldrider]

Fair enough! Like a game of rugby, we all see the same game but from a different place in the park so I guess that can account for a different aspect on the game!

[oldrider]

Years ago I read one of these and it did help me to simplisticly understand what C H Douglas was on about, I post it in the same light.

I didn't know some of this stuff was available on the net! http://michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

As Banditbandit says, it doesn't matter which ism you follow, (Communism Capitalism etc) it won't work if you don't get the money system to support it!

That's what Rothschild was on about, the secret of their success! Give me control of the finances of the world, I care not who makes the laws!

[mashman]

Actually, Douglas Credit works just as well under a truly socialist/communist system as in the so-called western free market economies - as there still needs to be an equality between the symbols in circulation and the goods and services available to purchase ... there is probably a better chance of making it work in a truly socialist sciety than in our western democracies .. and it would even work in Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat/anarchist society .. just that the symbols of exchange might be called something other than "money" ...

I understand how it works and on the face of it looks much better than what we have. However the problem with capitalism isn't what the money represents, it's the money itself. Sure money has been misrepresented when holding it up to Social Credit, but they both inherently have the same problem.

A good/service/production has a value. That value is X based on scarcity/time/materials etc... used to produce. The first "problem" is who is going to value the "resources". The second "problem" is where are the profits going to go? It doesn't all go into the National Dividend, so we're going to have to produce more money. The profit/earnings becomes dead money, granted ready to be used at some point, but it does not have to be used. It'll sit in the "bank" doing nothing. So more money is produced. So for every $ of dead money you're going to have to print another live 1 as it has technically gone out of circulation. Sure you could put an expiry date on the money to stop this, but then all you're encouraging is rampant consumerism. We'll end up with production driving consumption again.

This is from the link that Oldrider threw up. It's worth a wee read as it explains the banking system and Social credit quite well. It also explains "my idea" right up to point of "5. Arrival of a refugee". Instead of managing themselves by resource, they decided that they needed money and it all went tits. The happy ending being Social Credit to save the day. But what happens when they're down to their last dozen trees? The price of a spinning top will be astronomical. The solution being to print more money so that the spinning top can be bought. Does that stop the last dozen trees from being chopped down? No. And once that happens, how does the chippy earn his money? An RBE would tell the others to get fucked, there's nearly no trees left, we need them for essentials and essentials only and with any luck that'll give the time for more trees to return... and if it's a financialless RBE (is there any other way?), then his life will not be impacted by becoming unemployed. Praprs he'll retrain.

blah blah blah... a symbolic exchange mechanism just doesn't work on the scale we're talking about these days and irrespective of how it is created, money still flows up.

[Banditbandit]

A good/service/production has a value. That value is X based on scarcity/time/materials etc... used to produce. The first "problem" is who is going to value the "resources".

No . the valuie of the item is the cost of the labour to get it (here si where I would put a "profit" for the bisiness owner - his paymnt for his work) ... plus the orher costs (fuel, electricity machnery running costs) ... if this is a piece for further productrion then it becomes part of the cost of the next step ... whether or not the resource has any value depends on its use value, not its symbolic monetary value.

The second "problem" is where are the profits going to go? It doesn't all go into the National Dividend, so we're going to have to produce more money.

Yes - which is where the "priting money" stuff comes from .. yes it is necessary to print money.

The profit/earnings becomes dead money, granted ready to be used at some point, but it does not have to be used. It'll sit in the "bank" doing nothing.

Yes - this is why I said "a whole host of factors mean that there is never quite enough money to equal all the goods in circulation"

So more money is produced. So for every $ of dead money you're going to have to print another live 1 as it has technically gone out of circulation. Sure you could put an expiry date on the money to stop this, but then all you're encouraging is rampant consumerism. We'll end up with production driving consumption again.

No .. the problem is how much money to print .... how to calculate the exact value of the goods in circulation availabel to be purchased, so that there is an exact amount of money in circulation ... purchasing power must equal available goods . otherwise you get all the negative things that happen in our economy now .... and it must be an exacvt equation or the system wil not work. You do not have to know how much dead money there is - you only have to kno the value of goosds to be purchased (a hard one I admit) and thje total amoutn of money in circulation ...

See, I can't afford to buy that new bike because I don't have enough money ... when there are too many people with not enough money goods do not move (are not sold) bad for the manufacturer ... no income ... must lay off staff (now there is even less money in circulation) ... THis is not rocket science ...

"Consumerism" as you put it is not necessarily "a bad thing" .. over consumption certainly is ... but rampant consumerism occurs when the symbols circulating in the economy outweigh the goods available to be puchased ..

This is from the link that Oldrider threw up. It's worth a wee read as it explains the banking system and Social credit quite well. It also explains "my idea" right up to point of "5. Arrival of a refugee". Instead of managing themselves by resource, they decided that they needed money and it all went tits. The happy ending being Social Credit to save the day. But what happens when they're down to their last dozen trees? The price of a spinning top will be astronomical.

Naaa .. see that is the law of supplyy and demand .. but if the total of the value symbols circulating in the economy equals ths value of the goods available to purchase then supply and demand does not apply. Value is not placed in that context.

The solution being to print more money so that the spinning top can be bought. Does that stop the last dozen trees from being chopped down? No. And once that happens, how does the chippy earn his money? An RBE would tell the others to get fucked, there's nearly no trees left, we need them for essentials and essentials only and with any luck that'll give the time for more trees to return... and if it's a financialless RBE (is there any other way?), then his life will not be impacted by becoming unemployed. Praprs he'll retrain.

Hmmm ... the trees aere growing in value - why cut them down all at once? There has NEVER been a biological species which has any kind of value go to extinction ... (are farm animals on the verge of extinction? Hell no. Are wild animals? Hell Yes!!!) there have been species with no value go to extinction .. if soemthignis worth money it is worth conserving .. if it has no value who gives a fuck ... and itr dies ... If the trees are so important the chippy will replant .. ensures on going supply ..

blah blah blah... a symbolic exchange mechanism just doesn't work on the scale we're talking about these days and irrespective of how it is created, money still flows up.

WTF ???? Money is a symblic exchange mechanism ...

[oldrider]

While we are on this subject, some of you may be interested in just who C H Douglas was: http://michaeljournal.org/douglas.htm (about one page of reading!)

His legacy was still alive when I was a young just married man struggling to find my way politically and I found him rather compelling.

[mashman]

No . the valuie of the item is the cost of the labour to get it (here si where I would put a "profit" for the bisiness owner - his paymnt for his work) ... plus the orher costs (fuel, electricity machnery running costs) ... if this is a piece for further productrion then it becomes part of the cost of the next step ... whether or not the resource has any value depends on its use value, not its symbolic monetary value.

Those extras are a part of the etc... I added above. Why produce anything if it will have no value? And what happens when the value of what has been produced devalues and is sold off cheaper than it was originally produced for (not the actual costs, but the projected sale price)? i.e. selling off stock that you can't shift to make way for new stock.

Yes - which is where the "priting money" stuff comes from .. yes it is necessary to print money.

Yes - this is why I said "a whole host of factors mean that there is never quite enough money to equal all the goods in circulation"

Yes, I get that bit... and yes I understand that any form of economic model that requires money to be used as a token will require said tokens to be "produced". Capitalism does that too.

No .. the problem is how much money to print .... how to calculate the exact value of the goods in circulation availabel to be purchased, so that there is an exact amount of money in circulation ... purchasing power must equal available goods . otherwise you get all the negative things that happen in our economy now .... and it must be an exacvt equation or the system wil not work. You do not have to know how much dead money there is - you only have to kno the value of goosds to be purchased (a hard one I admit) and thje total amoutn of money in circulation ...

See, I can't afford to buy that new bike because I don't have enough money ... when there are too many people with not enough money goods do not move (are not sold) bad for the manufacturer ... no income ... must lay off staff (now there is even less money in circulation) ... THis is not rocket science ...

"Consumerism" as you put it is not necessarily "a bad thing" .. over consumption certainly is ... but rampant consumerism occurs when the symbols circulating in the economy outweigh the goods available to be puchased ..

That's not a problem at all. If the good has the value and it has been produced, then surely the money has to be printed to purchase that good. In other words the producer logs on to a system, types in the details of the good and adds the value it was produced for and value it is to be sold for et voila. The problem comes when the good is sold for less that you stated that it would be sold for. Even then it needn't be a problem as there will just be more money in circulation thatn there should have been. No biggy... unless it leads to rampant consumerism that is.

If the bike isn't produced you can't have it either. Anyhoo, do you have a point there? coz that's a risk that any financial based economy can suffer from. Tis fuckin bonkers considering that production is supposed to be undertaken on the basis of there being a need for a good. As you say, supply and demand. But that's bullshit as we don't work that way. We assume that there's a demand and we supply, otherwise businesses wouldn't fail.

I never said that consumerism is a bad thing. Over consumption can only work if there has been over production in the first place... and given that your entire financial economy is going to work based on the production of goods, I can't see that being "tempered" with any form of sense or reason where money accumulation is still the goal instead of producing what people need and then offering them toys.

Naaa .. see that is the law of supplyy and demand .. but if the total of the value symbols circulating in the economy equals ths value of the goods available to purchase then supply and demand does not apply. Value is not placed in that context.

I almost agree, however supply and demand would boil would merely shift focus to supply goods because of the demand for money.

Hmmm ... the trees aere growing in value - why cut them down all at once? There has NEVER been a biological species which has any kind of value go to extinction ... (are farm animals on the verge of extinction? Hell no. Are wild animals? Hell Yes!!!) there have been species with no value go to extinction .. if soemthignis worth money it is worth conserving .. if it has no value who gives a fuck ... and itr dies ... If the trees are so important the chippy will replant .. ensures on going supply ..

I wasn't going all green and environmental, more Rapa Nui... but I did enjoy your little rant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapa_Nui_people...

WTF ???? Money is a symblic exchange mechanism ...

Like totally yah ha... and much much more, as will continue to be the case should it be THE mechanism of exchange.

[oldrider]

An answer to two common accusations. (The extremes of communism and capitalism)

One accuses the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few as leading to Communism. This is true, because this concentration leaves the mass of have-nots easily open to communist or socialist propaganda. Or because the State intervenes with the goal to break the monopoly and nationalize big industry and this leads to State Socialism. But one should not conclude from this that sound capitalism is wrong. Indeed, it is the present financial system that leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, thus vitiating capitalism and opening up the way to Communism.

One also accuses the present capitalist system of creating new artificial needs in order to sell its abundant production and thus leading to consumerism and materialism, just as efficiently as the atheistic and materialistic laws of Communist countries would do.

Here again, one must not accuse the capitalist economy in itself, but the financial system, of which the controllers refuse to distribute purchasing power in other ways than employment in production: no job, no money. Progress, which should be a blessing by freeing man from the need for employment becomes on the contrary, a curse, a problem, when the income disappears along with employment. Then one will look for solutions in the production of new material goods. Yet, these new goods have to be sold and to this end, artificial needs must also be created. People must be convinced that they need these new products, which contributes to outright materialism. The dignity of man is ruthlessly sacrificed to the necessity of keeping production going, even though the production already made is more than sufficient to meet the basic needs of all. It is certainly a drive towards materialism. It also contributes to the unnecessary waste of resources and destruction of the environment.

In a Social Credit financial system, human greed would still exist, but it would not be stimulated or imposed by the necessity of purchasing power tied to employment. The social dividend to all would dissociate purchasing power from employment in production and would lead society in the way opposite of materialism.

French philosopher Maritain, said that progress that is used wisely, should not lead to a civilization of work, but to a civilization of contemplation.

Would not this new humanism, allow man to free himself from materialism and to "enjoy the higher values of love, friendship and contemplation?" Would it not be well served by the adoption of the Social Credit financial proposals?

These proposals were conceived in 1917 by Scottish engineer Clifford Hugh Douglas, but were persistently refused and fought, even by university professors and other members of the elite. (why? FFS)

Centralist governments struggle to find common ground between the two extremes but always fail because the current social debt financial system determines that they fail before they even begin!

A and B fighting for the benefit of C ... we can forgive A and B for they know not what they do but C are the true 1% that are killing the world we live in!

Simply disenfranchise "C" .... and change the world forever.

[mashman]

In a Social Credit financial system, human greed would still exist, but it would not be stimulated or imposed by the necessity of purchasing power tied to employment. The social dividend to all would dissociate purchasing power from employment in production and would lead society in the way opposite of materialism.

Simply disenfranchise "C" .... and change the world forever.

How can purchasing power not be tied to employment?

Or remove the mechanism that gives them their power. What's your objection to a Resource Based Economy, one without a financial system?

[Banditbandit]

How can purchasing power not be tied to employment?

Or remove the mechanism that gives them their power. What's your objection to a Resource Based Economy, one without a financial system?

The social welfare system is one way that purchasing power is not tied to employment

oh, it may be tied in that you only get it if you are NOT employed .. it's a link ... but if you lose your job you don't lose your purchasing power .. just most of it ...

And yeah .it's an important consideration because as unemploymetn increases the economy slows (yeah, it's way two way impact) .. as less people have money to spend, other jobs are lost, shops close ... and unemployment increases ... if you maintain a minimum level of purchasing power through social welfare there is a smaller impact on the economy ... if GodZone really did cut the dole there would be a BIG increase in unemployment ..

[gwigs]

The truth about unemployment..

[mashman]

The social welfare system is one way that purchasing power is not tied to employment

oh, it may be tied in that you only get it if you are NOT employed .. it's a link ... but if you lose your job you don't lose your purchasing power .. just most of it ...

And yeah .it's an important consideration because as unemploymetn increases the economy slows (yeah, it's way two way impact) .. as less people have money to spend, other jobs are lost, shops close ... and unemployment increases ... if you maintain a minimum level of purchasing power through social welfare there is a smaller impact on the economy ... if GodZone really did cut the dole there would be a BIG increase in unemployment ..

Where does the money for social welfare come from. Is it tied to employment?

It's only an important consideration because of money. It's that simple. Remove money from your scenario and what are you left with?

[scumdog]

The truth about unemployment..

Well according to Jason Read it is....

[Edbear]

Well according to Jason Read it is....

Anyone using expressions such as "The Ruling Class" or "The Elite" to run down the Governments must of course be telling the Gospel truth and it must not be questioned as it is absolute fact.

You must understand, there is a shadowy group of unkown and unknowable persons behind the scenes in all the Western countries who pull the strings of all in power and have this ultimate conspiracy to rule the world and eliminate all in opposition.

[Scuba_Steve]

Anyone using expressions such as "The Ruling Class" or "The Elite" to run down the Governments must of course be telling the Gospel truth and it must not be questioned as it is absolute fact.

You must understand, there is a shadowy group of unkown and unknowable persons behind the scenes in all the Western countries who pull the strings of all in power and have this ultimate conspiracy to rule the world and eliminate all in opposition.