Me:  Again you show your lack of knowledge and understanding of Social Credit theory. The entire problem with commercial/private banking ….is that it IS endogenous and consequently in control of the economy. THAT’S WHY A TRULY EXOGENOUS SOURCE OF CREDIT PRECISELY LIKE THE SOCIAL CREDIT NATIONAL CREDIT OFFICE/TRUE PUBLIC CENTRAL BANK IS SO ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! Would you please get that right in your mind…so that you don’t confuse people here with YOUR misconceptions and apparent unwillingness/inability to understand.

Me:  I’m trying to get people to recognize that the integrative mindset is necessary if one is to have a complete and clear understanding of any subject whether it is one’s self or a body of knowledge like economics and finance. Apparently you think that structural and intellectual compartmentalization and fragmentation are higher values than Wisdom which is the integrative process itself. Again, this would be YOUR apparent misconception and unwillingness/inability to understand.

Me:  Well then come here to learn…not to attempt (and fail) to de-bunk Social Credit theory with your own misunderstandings and/or my attempts here to forge an alliance via continually stressing the importance of taking the knowledge here and showing how the concept of Public Banking aligns seamlessly with the central banking concept envisioned by Social Credit…and then integrating those insights. Much of Ellen’s writing before she took up public banking was integrative/holistic in nature. She was on the right track then, and I think she can also see the Wisdom of such thinking regarding economic and monetary theories.

JR: Endo- ( from within ) -genous (generated or initiated in the case of banking.)

Douglas was adamant that this right should not be taken away from the banks, just that they should lose their monopoly of the process.
This group proposes no change in that regard, simply to use the power of States (which have no central banks) to reform the system.
John Herman, of ERA, believes the banking system should remain endogenous, i.e. they should have the right to initiate loans even if they have to draw equivalent reserves immediately upon doing so.

You are perfectly right in stating that full reform needs the use of a public body such as a central bank or a credit authority (I believe both).  But that is not part of the mandate of this group.

Me:  “Douglas was adamant that this right should not be taken away from the banks, just that they should lose their monopoly of the process.

You know, I don’t give a damn what Douglas, John Herman or anyone else said/says or didn’t say. Douglas did suggest a National Credit office as the sole lender/distributor of credit guided by the philosophy and aligned policies of Social Credit. That he did not insist upon and put a trinitarian template on Finance may have been a flawed inconsistency with his otherwise trinitarian thinking. I’m strongly suggesting a trinitarian model is necessary because history, the basically good but flawed and corruptible nature of Man and the template of my own Trinity including and encompassing Duality formula is a valid and general signature of completeness, wholeness and ethical ascension….and also suggests it (trinitarianism) is both the superior ethical and pragmatic one.

“But that is not part of the mandate of this group.”

Indeed. And I would suggest they consider it. Integration of truth(s), workabilities, applicabilities and the highest ethical considerations is both the process and the garnering of Wisdom. And Wisdom is equally as applicable externally/temporally as it is internally….otherwise it wouldn’t be Wisdom.

Me: Responding to Liamalone:

Liam,

Yes, from a strictly functional finance perspective the extraction of such huge profits from the flow of the economy, even disregarding the other contributing factors to “the Gap”, is becoming more and more obvious.

John’s viewpoint is actually tainted by lingering neo-liberal DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) and Keynesian orthodoxies which mistakenly think that all monies are able to nearly pay for all consumer prices and just need a slight tweaking. If this were the case national economies and the world economy would have been stable rather than having to continually deal with “the Asian flu” “the Southern hemisphere bankruptcies” etc. etc. Such theories actually served only to palliate and obscure the underlying validity of the Social Credit insight. And beyond that as I have come to understand the incredible power of the digital nature of both the money system and the Discount mechanism….it really doesn’t matter if the moment to moment gap is relatively small or huge and beyond 99.9% of those still adhering to the orthodoxy of equilibrium…because you could discount retail prices 40-50%, do absolutely no harm because the discount only occurs with actual sales and at the absolute end of the productive cycle of any enterprise’s retail product. Thus it could be used, along with the Dividend, to significantly increase the individual’s purchasing power via price deflation. That it would also consequently significantly reduce the private Banks’ consumer market is almost an after thought. Retail sale to an individual terminatedly ends a product or service’s costs so if the discount occurs at that point…and is fully rebated back to the participating merchants….no muss, no harm.

Me Responding to JR:  “As Douglas explained,  fresh money must come into circulation,  either as government deficit expenditure or as business expands,  both of which must be financed by fresh debt.”

Another example of misunderstanding Douglas and Social Credit and also having the taint of Neo-liberal and/or Keynesian orthodoxies. Why? BECAUSE NEITHER THE DIVIDEND NOR THE DISCOUNT ARE DEBT….THEY ARE GIFTS/GIFTING.

Me:   What the “pragmatists”, “realists” and cynics forget is that Social Credit was a world wide movement before WWII and also that the only way Social Credit ever was actually able to win politically was to include a heaping dose of religiosity/spirituality. But the above still insist that they will reach Valhalla via politics and reform.

Meanwhile the most important ingredient is awareness of the resolving power of consciousness and the integration of all of the lesser realities of Duality.

Me:  Excellent logical take down Liam. The truth, by his own admission, is that John was so startled, angered, overwhelmed, negatively effected (take your pick(s) by the Banking lobby’s deceitfulness in New Zealand that he has overreacted to it by counseling everyone not to be too enthusiastically hopeful when hope, as I pointed out in my previous post is the most important part of forming and maintaining a mass movement. He also accuses Social Crediters of orthodoxy when he is not even aware of his own mixing of recently invalidated theories with Social Credit. Furthermore, as Liam has pointed out he also fails in logic and also has no faith that others can understand it or use it to comprehend Social Credit and its A + B theorem. Calculus has been around for over 400 years. The problem is more that economists miss and/or refuse to look at and include in their calculitic models the cost inflationary nature of commerce itself….than that others can’t understand it (calculus and its insights). So John doesn’t believe in enthusiasm and hope, nor does he think people are smart enough to use or comprehend logic and calculus in order to understand A + B. So he is exposed as someone without any real faith in anything or anyone….and yet he lectures Social Crediters on failing to help others to understand..when as I pointed out integrating both hope and logic are the things that have awakened individuals enough to join a movement and elect a social credit government. His is a curious combination of cynicism and projection.

JR:   Steve, that is totally incorrect.  In Alberta, success was achieved by having access to a powerful medium of the time, radio.  Plus almost certainly hard work by Party members among people devastated by the Depression.  The Party there was later corrupted into  a mainly religious movement. This, not sitting on one’s backside writing irresponsible vagaries, is the path to progress.

Me:  Well of course a mass movement takes individuals to make it work. You act as if I didn’t know that. Your problem is you scotch the most important component for a successful one right from the start. Please do not lecture me on “work” while forgetting the value of its mental component, or on pragmatism…especially when all I’ve ever done is advocate THE INTEGRATION OF BOTH…AND ALL YOU’VE EVER DONE HERE IS CRITICIZE ME FOR IT AND SUGGESTED WE COULD GET FROM A TO B BETTER BY MEANS OF NON-INTEGRATIVE AND EMOTIONALLY SUPPRESSIVE MEANS.