|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
2 August 2013 Thought for the Week:
Money in its widest sense is the lifeblood of society. In so far as men are independent of money they live, as it were, directly. They see around them the whole furniture of nature: the seasons, the ups and downs of weather, the forces of water, light and air, the soil and its properties and so on.
But when he is obliged to work, not for subsistence, but for the money to obtain subsistence, he is no longer in a real world with its inescapable and accepted (natural) law. He is in an artificial world, a 'myth' world, created according to certain abstract ideas; and with this he has no part, no kinship." -
- Thomas Robertson in "Human Ecology: The Science of Social Adjustment" 1948
AT LAST PEOPLE ARE AWAKENING – BUT THEN, NOT BEFORE TIME!
To readers of On Target the following Youtube address on the history of the origin, the creation, of a nation’s money system will not come as surprise, but what they will note is that more and more academics are speaking out on the subject. While it took them ninety years to catch up with men such as Clifford Hugh Douglas, I guess we should be glad that they have made the effort.
“Private Central Banks can create an unlimited amount of money by monetizing government and commercial bank bonds. This money then becomes the Private Commercial Banks reserves on deposit at the Private Central Banks. Private Commercial Banks can then create 9 to 10 times that amount of money from nothing by monetizing personal and corporate debts such as corporate bonds and mortgages…”
Also: The Money Myth: Professor Jem Bendell at TEDxTransmedia2011 on the workings of the private creation of money from nothing:
WALLACE KLINCK OF CANADA COMMENTS ON THE VIDEOS
Banks may create money from nothing but they do it by monetizing real assets which are pledged as security and which could not be activated in the modern world without financial credit. The central flaw or evil of the existing financial system, is not that the banks play a facilitating role in issuing and destroying credit but that they claim the ownership of the credit they issue, and, thereby the right to ownership of the pledged assets enforced by the right of seizure or foreclosure upon the real assets of the borrower. They have, therefore, appropriated the communal capital and real credit of nations.
Of themselves, the banks create essentially nothing, other than accountancy services, yet claim effective ownership of the earth. Major (Clifford Hugh) Douglas explained virtually all of these matters approximately ninety plus years ago.
Money in the modern world is simply financial accountancy, which should convey correct information regarding production and consumption. The prevailing system of accountancy properly charges the consumer with capital depreciation, while wrongly failing to credit the consumer with capital appreciation, which latter, increasingly and greatly exceeds the rate of actual depreciation. We should have falling prices, increasing independent consumer income, and no overall need for consumer debt whatsoever.
Prof. Hormann is correct in stating that the financial system is one of expropriation, i.e., it is confiscatory, and one of its worst thefts is that of the leisure which would be possible of mankind, if not kept upon an ever inclining tread-mill of futile effort in attempting to liquidate exponentially expanding debt.
Correct also is the observation that accumulated debt represents purchasing power, prematurely collected from the people, through ultimate prices. While they do skirt around a number of valid issues, Professors Bendall and Hormann are hopelessly confused other than in their elementary explanations of the manner in which money is created and destroyed by the actions of banks in extending and cancelling loans.
Fundamentally, they do not understand the implications of the displacement of the need for human effort in the modern technological age, as regards the creation of financial cost and the appropriate mechanisms for achieving instantaneous, dynamic and universal distribution of the products of industry.
Financial Cost-Accountancy: Prof. Hormann obviously does not understand the price-making significance of conventional accepted rules of financial cost accountancy in the modern industrial and technological age. Both fall into the trap of attributing the causes of our financial problems to non-State creation of "money", and to interest charges added to loans. The banking system, for all its evil effects, provides a massive service of payments transfer, without which modern business could not survive.
What are some of these professed "money experts" proposing? That we should brand all the employees, high and low, of the banks as social parasites and have them liquidated? Or, simply institute a State credit monopoly and rehire them by the State - and pay their salaries from taxes? The core of the problem is not interest, per se, but the accumulation of unliquidated capital costs and the claim of the banks to ownership of the credit which they create and the assets behind said loans.
The primitive economy functioned better financially because production was hand-to-hand and capital costs were minimal whereas today they far eclipse labour costs.
The longer I live, and the more I study Douglas, the more I am convinced that he possessed a balanced intellectual stature which eclipses anything to be found today. As Alfred Orage said, in the many meetings he and Douglas had with bankers, financiers and business people, Douglas made them all look and act like children.
THE RISE AND RISE OF THE PRECARIAT CLASS
A United Kingdom social crediter, who shall remain nameless, forwarded the chart (below) with these words:
Chart can be viewed here at The Slog… The ones below the arrow at 7.5% unemployment (roughly the alleged US rate) marked with a red dot are those which have been following austerity policies recently, and/or work to a heavily Globalist Friedmanite economic model.
As you can see, those economies heading south are somewhat replete with red dots. The entire collection of peripheral, central and southern States within the eurozone are represented: and the more ‘help’ they’re being given by Brussels-am-Berlin, the higher their employment rate is.
Only sixteen countries on the planet in 2013 have below 5% unemployment. Only one is in the EU. None of them are pursuing either austerity or Friedmanite neoliberal economic policies. I venture to offer the opinion that what we have here is a failing model, and an urgent need for new ideas about how to stop a quickening spiral down the plughole.
SOVEREIGN DEBT: We are led to believe the answer to Debt is more debt!
But fact number six is the real mind-concentrator: together this lot account for almost exactly one third of global GDP.
But the UK Coalition’s leader says recovery is just around the corner, and his Chancellor says “the strategy is working”. My advice at this point would be, unequivocally, “Vote Labour” – but for one fact: they clearly don’t have a clue what to do either.
UKip? Don’t really see why we need them any more, as we’re obviously going to Brexit anyway. Well, I do see why the Newscories want UKip around – so they can do a deal, and replace Camerlot with themselves… the very people in the UK who most admire the economic model that got us into this less-than-sweet little jam. LibDems? Hahahahahaha…
To sum up: Despite this appalling outlook, we need to have a dogfight followed by a referendum about whether to leave easily the most underachieving trade group in the world; the US Congress has a bun fight 24/7 about the deficit; the biggest bureaucracy in the world, the biggest lender in the world, and the biggest debt collectors in history have (together as the Troika) made every debt situation in which they’ve been involved worse; not one MSM medium anywhere of which I’m aware is questioning the failure of Globalist mercantilism; everything tried – QE, (quantitative easing) austerity, and Zirp (zero interest rate policy) – has failed… but been repeated/retained; and despite the fact that fully one third of the world economy producers are drowning in debt, debt forgiveness is not on the radar, not even being suggested for the radar, and vociferously resisted by Berlin, Frankfurt and Wall Street.
Now does everyone see why, without radical creativity, the game is over?
Now does everyone grasp that, without a near 100% clearout of those at the top in global commerce, geopolitics, fiscal control, and energy, the game – once over – will simply turn into a frozen tableau…. followed by massive social unrest around the world?
Forget Left and Right – as terms, they no longer matter – and they get in the way. Leave the comfort zone of your tribes. Accept that the coming battle is between big controlling and small vulnerable. Look around for those with whom you can form a Coalition for Decency.
Then forget politics, and start trying to use our fiscal and economic power to rid us of these rats. They are carriers of Black Death. United we stand a chance – but engaging in divisive rhetoric and continuing to vote for idiots will get us nowhere other than under the soil.”
WALLACE KLINCK - A SANE FINANCIAL SYSTEM IS NEEDED
The above is a useful bar chart depicting a situation which should be cause for great joy, in an economic system overlaid by a sane financial system, that gave due attention to distribution, and did not depend upon incomes distributed via production. Any nation that needs ninety some per cent of its eligible workforce employed in production, to provide its required and/or desired goods and services, must be a very inefficient nation indeed.
If these unemployment figures were accompanied by parallel figures showing a commensurate increasing scarcity of goods and services, then, of course, they would be indicative of real economic malaise--but of course, we know that the exact opposite is true. Business has little, or no problem, in providing goods and services but has, rather, a problem in selling them, which were it not for new "money" created as rising bank debt would be impossible.
We are so indescribably rich in the real world and so desperately poor in the financial realm! Quite mad we are! Lunatics and scoundrels abound and control world events. As someone has said, “it does not pay to muzzle the ox that treadeth the grass”. Our task is to break the seals of ignorance so that sane policy may prevail, without the ox going on a blind rampage. Of course, richer nations with more technologically developed and capital-intensive production systems tend to be the most debt-ridden, because allocated capital charges are an increasing component of ultimate prices. The financial system sabotages the real economy.
Millions are working in an age of marvellous machinery the whole year round. The following information is pertinent to the current global political, economic and financial situation.
The Critical Moment: “A comparatively short period will probably serve to decide whether we are to master the mighty economic and social machine that we have created, or whether it is to master us; and during that period a small impetus from a body of men who know what to do and how to do it, may make the difference between yet one more retreat into the Dark Ages, or the emergence into the full light of a day of such splendour as we can at present only envisage dimly.
Social Credit Fragments, 2003-2005 Part II, by Michael Lane December 2005
WHAT OF THE PLIGHT OF THE PRECARIAT IN THIS 21st CENTURY?
Professor Guy Standing of Bath University wrote, “Broadly speaking, while the old classes persist in some parts of the world, we can identify seven groups.
Alongside the salariat, in more senses than one, is a (so far) smaller group of proficians. This term combines the traditional ideas of "professional" and "technician" but covers those with bundles of skills that they can market, earning high incomes on contract, as consultants or independent own-account workers.
The proficians are the equivalent of the yeomen, knights and squires of the Middle Ages. They live with the expectation and desire to move around, without an impulse for long-term, full-time employment in a single enterprise. The "standard employment relationship" is not for them.
Below the proficians, in terms of income, is a shrinking "core" of manual employees, the essence of the old "working class". The welfare states were built with them in mind, as were the systems of labour regulation. But the battalions of industrial labourers who formed the labour movements have shrivelled and lost their sense of social solidarity.
Underneath those four groups, there is the growing "precariat", flanked by an army of unemployed and a detached group of socially ill misfits living off the dregs of society.
A BASIC INCOME FOR ALL
A committee of citizens and BIEN-Switzerland are currently collecting signatures for a ‘popular initiative’, which if put to the vote and accepted by the electorate will introduce a basic income into the Swiss Constitution. 120,000 signatures will probably be needed so that the requirement of 100,000 validated ones is satisfied, and half way through the period allowed–which runs until October 2013–the committee has over 70,000.
The prospects are therefore good that a binding popular vote on this subject will be held in three or four years. Even if the electorate does not accept it the first time, the chances of success on a subsequent occasion will be increased. The signature campaign has aroused a great deal of interest and discussion in broad areas of public life.
WILL THE BASIC INCOME REVOLUTION COME FROM SWITZERLAND?
The name of the website is ‘Boiling Frogs: Baking crisis and slices of pain’, and the article was written by Stanislas Jourdan, 3rd June 2013. He writes:
A referendum within two years? But even though the press is now unanimous that they are on the verge to succeed, the activists now aim at collecting 130k signatures by August, just to make sure they reach the quorum. If this goal is reached, then the government will submit their proposal to the vote, where all Swiss electors will be invited to vote yes/no to the proposals of the initiative which aims at embedding the principle of a basic income into the constitution, like it already is the case in Brazil.
In general, such a referendum is organized within two years after the success of the initiative has been recognized by the authorities. But the activists are not too much in a hurry. “If the vote comes too early, this reduces the required time for People to get informed, reflect, and make their own judgement about the idea” Ralph Kundig, member of the Basic Income Earth Network branch in Switzerland (BIEN-CH) told me.
Though they did not launch the initiative, BIEN-CH decided to rally the efforts of their German-speaking counterparts.
“In fact, the chancellor may speed up the process precisely to take by surprise the initiators, leaving them with fewer time than expected to run the campaign and find the necessary funds for it.” he explains, though he remains optimistic: “on the other hand, if the delay is short, we will benefit from the wave of sympathy generated by the Minder initiative”.
Unions and political parties: Contrary to many initiatives, the one on basic income has not gathered a lot of support from unions and political parties. Apart from the trade union SYNA and some sections of the Greens, leftists organizations have remained shy regarding basic income. Some of them clearly opposed the idea, arguing that basic income would decrease wages, mentioning a “bonus for laziness.”
Even Myret Zaki, a prominent journalist who makes a living from denouncing finance, said basic income was “a demagogic project which creates a mentality of rentiers.”…” Read further…
A PERSONAL BASIC INCOME FOR ALL
Geoffrey Dobbs wrote on C.H. Douglas’ 1924 specific proposal for a National Dividend, “though never as an inflexible objective or a panacea, always as part of a package accurately designed to cancel debt, prevent inflation, and to decentralise financial control of production to the consumers.”
The important point that Geoffrey Dobbs noted was that Douglas’ proposals were based on Real Wealth not just on Political Debate. He continues:
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE MONEY SYSTEM AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION
by C.H. Douglas. First printed in the “New English Weekly” 1932(?)
The following article needs to be studied in depth. So, get your thinking-cap on and your brain into gear. Once you have grasped the concepts, you will not look at the world in the same light ever again. Douglas wrote:
“There is probably no aspect of the economic life of the nation which has been the subject of greater misunderstanding than that which I have chosen as a title for my address to you to-night. In the past, authority and economic privilege have been so inseparable that it has unconsciously come to be assumed by the great majority of people that they are:-
(2) Possibly arising out of this idea is the allied idea that what is called “profit” is in itself a wrong thing, and that a system which produces for profit, is condemned on those grounds alone.
(3) The subject is commonly approached as though profit were an artificial thing, simply dependent upon some system, most usually referred to as the capitalist system. The first point on which to be quite clear is that the modern system of production, at any rate, quite inevitably, makes a high profit.
(4) What it fails conspicuously to do is to distribute that profit, even to the capitalist.
(5) In order to understand this most important point, I should like you to substitute for the word “profit” the phrase “the unearned increment of association.” Now what do we mean by this? I think that I can put it into terms which will be grasped at once by a railway audience, and particularly by railwaymen who have experience on railways in new and rapidly developing countries. Consider the case of a railway in a new country. Almost invariably it starts from some town on the coast, which has been developed so as to become a centre of population and of importance. The line is pushed out into the hinterland, and, immediately, land on either side of the railway line jumps enormously in value.
(6) When we bring a number of men together in a factory and link their efforts by real capital (by which, of course, I do not mean money, but tools and processes, and organisation, and scientific knowledge, and many other things) we do so, because by bringing them together to use these things, their production is enormously in excess of what it would be if they worked separately, and the fact that this idea is unquestionably and fundamentally sound has nothing whatever to do with the alleged annexation of the whole of this profit or unearned increment by something called the capitalist, assuming that he does, in fact, annex it, which is increasingly doubtful. The point that I am concerned to make is as to the existence, actual or potential, of this real profit.
(7) Now, one of the factors, and only one of the factors, in obtaining this real profit, is administration, and I should define administration as being a concerted attempt at co-operation for the attainment of a given policy.
(8) Before turning to the problems involved in the distribution of this unearned increment, when we have succeeded in obtaining it, I should like you to consider our actions at the present time in the light of this idea. Are we either pursuing the objective of maximising the unearned increment of production preparatory to distributing it, or are we, in fact, aiming at something entirely different? I think you will agree on examination that two completely opposite and mutually incompatible policies are at work in industry at the present time. Let us consider, for instance, the railways. What is the object of a railway?
(9) That seems to be a simple enough question, but there are quite a number of answers which could be given to it at the present time. If you asked an intelligent child, he would give you, in effect, probably the most intelligent answer which could be given, and that is that the object of a railway is to deliver transportation service; but if you were to ask a truthful employee of a railway, he might say, “The object of a railway is to pay my wages”; and if you were to ask a truthful financier, if there is such a thing, what the object of a railway was, he would reply, “To make profits,” and by profits he would mean money profits.
(10) Now, two out of three of these answers quite definitely assume that a railway makes money, using the word “makes” in the same sense that we use it when we say that a brick-making machine makes bricks.
(12) Now the next point which I think it is necessary to examine is whether a policy such as I have suggested is laid down by the existing financial system and a policy of making a railway the most effective instrument for transportation can be pursued at one and the same time, and I will say at once, before going further, that, I do not think that this is possible. Remember that the over-riding policy - that is to say, the policy without which, under existing circumstances, the railway cannot continue to exist at all, is to obtain wages, salaries, and dividends from the public.
(13) If less money can be obtained from the public for the transportation service, then less money can be paid to the employees of the railway, or to the share-holders. Not only that, but less money can be expended by the railway in improving and maintaining its rolling stock, its organisation, and its equipment generally.
(14) The situation which is created is, I think, entirely beyond dispute. It is a situation which involves quite fundamentally an antagonism between such a thing as a railway organisation and a public. The over-riding interest of the railway company, considered as an organisation, is to get the maximum amount of money from the public. The over-riding interest of the public, consider3d as an organisation, is to get the maximum service from the railway, with the minimum amount of payment in money.
(15) I do not suppose that, as individuals, there is a single member of the public who does not hold the railway service, particularly in England, in the most whole-hearted admiration, nor do I suppose that, as individuals, there is a single member of the railway organisation who does not fundamentally regard himself as a servant of the public. (Remember this was in the 1930’s … editor)
(16) For reasons into which it is not necessary to go at the moment, the financial cost of any service, such as that of the railways, has a tendency to rise above the ability of the public to pay the prices demanded. The result of this is to stimulate the public to find an alternative source of the same service, as, for instance, road transport, at the present time.
(17) Accepting the foregoing statement as being reasonably beyond effective contradiction, which I think is the case, is it possible to find, without over-simplification of the problem, any root cause of this radical divergence between the interest of the railway, considered as an organisation, together with its ‘employees, and the interest of the public?
Certainly I have no doubt whatever that there is such a root cause, and it is not really very difficult to discover. Put into general terms, it is that there is no provision in the operation of a railway for the monetisation, in the first place, and the distribution of that monetisation in the second place, of what we referred to as “the unearned increment of association.”
(18) It is quite a fallacious argument, although I have heard it advanced, to say that the public receives this unearned increment by getting more value for the same money. If the Great Western Railway were to put on an express train from Snow Hill to Paddington at 10 o’clock, which would enable me to get back to London tonight, that train would have to pay for itself by collecting more money from the public than would otherwise have been collected, and there is nothing whatever in the organisation of the Great Western Railway Company which will enable it to distribute new money equivalent to the service performed by the new train.
(19) If I have made myself at all clear, you will, I think, have begun to -see that all questions of the administration of a railway, such as nationalisation, are completely outside the over-riding necessity of, as the phrase goes, “making a railway pay,” and making a railway pay simply amounts, in the last analysis, to obtaining more money from the public than is distributed through the wages, salaries, and dividends paid out by the railway.
If we universalise this, we can see that the proposition is an impossible one if we regard
money as being a fixed thing over which we have no power of expansion. But we know quite well that money is no such thing. It is no more fixed in amount than the number of tickets which are issued by a railway company are fixed in amount.
We are exactly in that position to-day in the industrial world. Our equipment is wholly adequate, our public is clamouring for the goods, but in between the two stands a ticket office, and that ticket office is the banking system.
I have no doubt that the first step towards dealing with this question is to bring that ticket office under control, not necessarily by nationalising it, but by putting it into such a position that it must obey instructions in regard to the control and the issue of what is called: “credit.”
LETTER TO POLITICIANS
Illegal boat people arrivals:
- - Louis Cook, Numurkah Victoria
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|