Subject: Print Rubles! Pay Workers!
>Article #94006 (94763 is last): >From: email@example.com >Newsgroups: sci.econ >Date: Fri Sep 25 18:58:58 1998 >Step Number One: Immediately default--not repudiate--foreign >debt. The resolution of the debt can be worked out later. Russia >is not Guatemala. An American gunboat will not sail up the Volga. >This will immediately accomplish two things: the hemorrhaging of >Russia's financial system will stop; and Russia's foreign credit >will vanish--foreclosing the temptation to go further into debt. JCT: Unnecessary if you do Step 2 right.
>Step Number Two: Immediately print rubles to pay workers in State >industries, including the Armed Forces. For those "privatized" >industries which have not been paying workers, immediately put >them into State trusteeship, print rubles, pay workers. Matters >of "ownership" can be worked out later. JCT: Print rubles and lend them interest-free to industry. Print rubles and pay government workers but make sure to raise an equivalent amount of taxes.
>Step Number Three: Most goods in Russian shops are imported, >which will not be replenished. Immediately impose price controls >and rationing, ban hoarding. Remove controls as Russia begins to >produce her own goods in her own factories by her own workers. >http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7018 JCT: Unnecessary if you do Step 2 right. Of course, doing Step 2 will inevitably provoke the cry of inflation from orthodox economists:
>From: Edward Flaherty <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Date: Mon Sep 28 10:39:09 1998 >>Step Number Two: >Foolish. Printing currency in the amounts necessary to accomplish >the above goals will result in hyperinflation. Workers won't >really be getting paid since their rubles will have no >purchasing power. >I don't know what the solution to Russia's problems is, but I do >know what it isn't. Edward Flaherty JCT: Typical. Economists never know what to do right but always claim to be experts on what to do wrong.
>From: email@example.com >Date: Tue Sep 29 18:23:22 1998 >Edward Flaherty raises the spector of "hyperinflation" if Russia >prints rubles to pay workers. What is the situation in Russia? >Industry is paralyzed. Workers haven't been paid in months. >Seventy percent of the goods in Russian shops are imported. >The privileged rich who have money can buy the imported goods. >The great majority of the population can barely subsist. >Inflation is the least of the threats facing Russia. >It is my understanding that if enough rubles are printed to pay >owed wages, the monetary base will increase by some fifty >percent. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I am off by an >order of magnitude, that if enough rubles are printed to fully >pay workers, the monetary base will increase not by fifty >percent, but five-hundred percent. It would seem that prices >might inflate by five-hundred percent. So what? >It will put money into the pockets of ordinary workers so that >they might have the *chance* to purchase *some* of the imported >goods, albeit at "inflated" prices. Right now, they can't >purchase *any* of these goods, because they haven't got any >money. >Domestic industry will begin to find that they can actually >*sell* Russian made goods for money, rather than attempted >barter. Firms will begin to earn profits and ramp up production. JCT: Actually, they will be facilitating barter with money.
>Prices will no doubt rise, but again, so what? Production will >become production for mass consumption. >Russia is now at an historical fork in the road; the direction >that Russia decides to take might determine the course of >civilization for centuries to come. >Seven years ago, Russia cast off the demon that was Communism. >Now, she must have the courage to cast off the international >monopoly of debt-based finance that was imposed by Western >"experts." >This magnificent world-within-the-world that is Russia, this >empire of hundreds of races and cultures, spanning eleven time >zones encompassing vast natural resources--can become a beacon >for the rest-of-us, showing the way to a prosperous tomorrow. JCT: Great points though you still need to rebut the threat of hyperinflation.
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Grinch) >Date: Wed Sep 30 16:55:00 1998 >>Edward Flaherty raises the spector of "hyperinflation" if Russia >>prints rubles to pay workers. >As usual, Prof. Flaherty is quite right. JCT: Actually, as usual, Prof. Flaherty is quite wrong.
>>What is the situation in Russia? >It's not an either/or choice. Run the monetary printing presses >and you get hyperinflation added to all the other problems, not >as a substitute for them. JCT: One of the big lies of Economics rears its ugly head. I've pointed out several times that there are two kinds of inflation. I call more money chasing goods Inflation Shift A. I've also pointed out in http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm that there is a second Inflation Shift B which most orthodox economists seem incapable of grasping. In http://turmelpress.com/np2.htm is an article from the Nov 28, 1985 Charlotte Observer titled "Argentinian provinces turn out their own money." It notes that:
"They're printing up their own money, to the chagrin of the national and international banking authorities. The Argentine government is not smiling, and world bankers are worried that other cash-starved states will copy Salta's financial extravaganza and jeopardize Latin efforts to curb inflation and pay huge foreign debts. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the world's main financial inspector for debt-ridden countries, was concerned enough to bring up the issue in recent talks with the Argentine government, said sources in Argentina and Washington. The IMF does not comment on negotiations with individual countries. The government of President Raul Alfonsin says the provincial bonds are expanding the country's money supply and are undermining efforts to remove Argentina from the list of world inflation leaders. Earlier this year, Argentina had a 1,000% annual inflation rate. Since then, inflation has dropped to 3% a month, a record low in recent history."
JCT: Today, inflation in Argentina is 1.1%. I've often challenged any economists including Prof. Flaherty to explain why all that new money made inflation go down instead up up as feared and being a believers in Shift A inflation and incapable of grasping Shift B inflation, none left the arena of debate with his tail between his legs. And of course, after reading my bankmath, if you believe that inflation must only be Shift A, then you'll never be able to understand how adding money into circulation could reduce Inflation Shift B. Of course, many have criticized me for not being an economist but why should it be so hard to believe that all the economists of the world are wrong and one engineer is right when engineers are at the top of the technology totem pole looking down while economists are at the bottom looking up? I would further refer you to my debates with Prof. Flaherty in http://turmelpress.com/dvirus.htm with particular attention to the Flaherty's contradictions. I particularly like the part in "Antidote to debt virus" where I try to get him to say whether loans are newly created money or old savings and he answers "both" thereby demonstrating the "doublethink" of economics, the brainwashing that allows one to believe two contradictory statements to both be true at the same time. So, ignore the cries of inflation from the "dismal science" crowd and find out how Inflation Shift B works to realize that you can create money without it being inflationary. And the way to do that is to operate the money system like a casino bank where liquidity is only issued in exchange for collateral, or work as you suggested. There is now sweeping the world such an interest-free banking system done by private individuals called LETS though there is no reason governments can't make use of the software too. It permits multi-party barter which should be very agreeable to most Russians. See: http://turmelpress.com/letssites.htm Finally, I do expect someday soon to receive the last-awarded Nobel Prize in Economics for my Miracle Equation explaining why Shift B is the real culprit. After all, once the riddle is solved, why would there be any need for any more? -------------------------------
TURMEL: Print Rubles! Pay Workers! #2
From: "Michael L. Coburn" <email@example.com> Newsgroups: sci.econ, alt.politics.greens Date: Fri Oct 9 13:36:09 1998 John Turmel wrote in message <firstname.lastname@example.org>. >>>Step Number One: Immediately default--not repudiate--foreign debt. >>JCT: Unnecessary if you do Step 2 right. >MLC: Unnecessary? But there is a better workaround in transfering all >the weapons of mass destruction to the control of the the country who >underrights the value of the new rubles which might just as well be >dollars or francs as to be gold or bottles of vodka. JCT: I'd rather they issued new money based on new production and get rid of nuclear weapons, not give someone else the capability to destroy us all. Remember how the Chernobyl accident in Russia ended up with radioactive fallout eventually being blown to North America. No one can use those weapons without effects at home so what's the purpose in anyone having them?
>>>Step Number Two: Immediately print rubles to pay workers in State >>JCT: Print rubles and lend them interest-free to industry. >>Print rubles and pay government workers but make sure to raise an >>equivalent amount of taxes. >MLC: The tax thing is what is important here. JCT: The tax thing gives any new currency its value and maintains its inflation-free property. No chips issued from the cage until someone produces work and everyone knows that the work is paid for by the taxes.
>>JCT: Of course, doing Step 2 will inevitably provoke the cry of >>inflation from orthodox economists: >MLC: I hope they cry real loud. There are a lot worse things than >inflation. Getting nuked for instance. JCT: My point is that there cannot be any inflation if the money is issued for value like in a casino cage.
From: Edward Flaherty <email@example.com> >>>I don't know what the solution to Russia's problems is, but I do >>>know what it isn't. >>JCT: Typical. Economists never know what to do right but always >>claim to be experts on what to do wrong. >MLC: The economics profession has been the handmaiden of the wealthy >for so long that they probably can't adjust to reality. JCT: I honestly don't think that most economists intend the havoc they have wrought. They're brainwashed to accept a bunch of contradictions over many years and the double-think damage happens to seem permanent.
>>JCT: Actually, they will be facilitating barter with money. >MLC: Well, that is what money is for..... JCT: Except that money burdened with interest causes an automatic shortage of money called poverty which many confuse with scarcity and it causes inflation they claim to be fighting with it.
>>JCT: Actually, as usual, Prof. Flaherty is quite wrong. >MLC: Actually, he's right. He just overreacts to inflation. For him >it is probably like being burned in hell JCT: No he's not right if the money is issued in direct exchange for work on a one-to-one basis. Again I cite Argentina as an example of a massive infusion of money resulting a massive reduction in Shift B inflation.
>>I particularly like the part in "Antidote to debt virus" where I try >>to get him to say whether loans are newly created money or old >>savings and he answers "both" thereby demonstrating the "doublethink" >>of economics, the brainwashing that allows one to believe two >>contradictory statements to both be true at the same time. >MLC: This question is not phrased properly and so you allowed his >escape. The question should probably be posed as: >"Is the existence of savings necessary to the creation of new loans >because of any fact or observed experience, or is this necessary only >because "Daddy said so". JCT: Since they are lending out new chips, there's no reason for them to demand the deposit of old chips beforehand. It's just as if the casino cage said that they won't issue new chips until someone deposits their old chips to their safety deposit account. There is no rational reason to link the issuance of new chips to the deposit of old ones in a casino other than to fool people like Professor Flaherty into believing that they're lending out old chips (at the same time).
>>Finally, I do expect someday soon to receive the last-awarded >>Nobel Prize in Economics for my Miracle Equation explaining why Shift >>B is the real culprit. After all, once the riddle is solved, why >>would there be any need for any more? >MLC: I WILL review your stuff. I MAY agree about the prize. it >probably depends on my ability to understand what you have written. >Perhaps I can use it to write stuff that Joe Six-pack can grasp in a 2 >minute sound bite, and perhaps not. We'll see. JCT: Any Joe Six-pack who has played in a casino should have no trouble understanding why chips don't inflate. It's people who are brain-damaged by the pseudo-science of economics who will never catch on until the LETS interest-free banking system is world-wide. I say pseudo-science because no self-respecting science would use a variable as its measuring unit. Only Economics has a variable rubber ruler currency with which to measure things which does explain why there has never been a successful economist. They get Nobel prizes for coming close.
From: Nikolai Chuvakhin <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Mon Oct 12 10:47:59 1998 >Without a massive downsizing of the Russian government and equally >massive deregulation of the Russian economy, there is no hope for >Russia's economic revival. JCT: And yet, Argentinian provinces corrected their economic problems without having to downsize government by paying their employees with government bonds. Actually, in the world of the future, the government that spends the most will be government delivering the most services to their citizens. The Ontario Government's credo that less civil servants will provide better service has not worked, especially in snow-storms.
From: email@example.com Date: Mon Oct 12 20:16:38 1998 >Some of the most crucial of these technologies were double-entry >accounting, fractional reserve banking, and Newton's calculus. JCT: Fractional reserve banking is silly and has existed to provide a cover for financial slavery for thousands of years. Canada has now dropped its reserve requirements with no increase in our debt slavery problems and LETS is a zero reserve system too. It doesn't deserve to be listed with double entry accounting and calculus.
From: Edward Flaherty <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue Oct 13 14:35:19 1998 >There's no "double-think" about it, at all. It depends entirely on >how finely one wants to examine bank accounting. >When viewed transaction-by-transaction, repaying loan principal and >interest destroys money. That's the first part. JCT: Repaying loan principal destroys money, repaying interest does not destroy money. If you'll check the blueprint, you'll notice that the interest pipe is not connected to the drain, it's connected to the reservoir of bank accounts.
>However, the bank will eventually have to pay expenses, dividends, or >buy other assets with the freed reserves created in the first part. >When they do this second part, "new" money is created without any >additional loans being necessary. JCT: Banks do not create new money when they pay their expenses since the funds come from the reservoir of accounts that the interest went into. Only new loans create new money.
>Take both transactions together and money isn't destroyed; it merely >flows through the bank like it does through any other business. JCT: See what I mean by Flaherty's contradictions. It's right that money is not destroyed and "merely flows through the bank like it does through any other business." It stays in existence as it goes into the reservoir and then comes out unlike loans whose payments go down the drain and whose issuance comes from the tap.
>But that's the part you ignore since it contradicts the Debt >Virus hypothesis and your own bank plumbing story. JCT: First you stated that "repaying interest destroys money" and now you've stated that the "money isn't destroyed." I find it neat the way you can contradict yourself one statement right after the other and not even see it. I'll just rely on the the second statement in your contradiction is correct to help my argument that The Engineer's bank plumbing "blueprint" (not "story") is also correct.
>Yes, by all means, let's ignore the ample empirical evidence that >printing currency excessively generates inflation. JCT: I never said that printing currency excessively does not generate inflation, the Shift A kind. I'm only pointing out that the inflation the world is now suffering is the Shift B kind. See: http://turmelpress.com/bankmath.htm
>Let's ignore the experiences of the American colonies, the >Continental Congress, JCT: In most years that the American colonies were using "Continentals," there was no appreciable inflation. After England introduced a lot of counterfeit, there was an inflation.
>the Weimer Republic, JCT: Sure, if they issue a lot of currency after a war which has destroyed the consumer goods industry and there's nothing left to buy but weaponry and huge debts to pay, the Weimar Republic suffered Shift A inflation. But that was a situation where people with wheel-barrows full of money went to stores with empty shelves. The problem with the world today is people with empty wallets going to stores overstocked with production they can't sell. Quite a big difference.
>Brazil, and many other governments -- all of whom printed copious >amounts of cash to pay their bills and then sat back and wondered >where all the inflation came from. JCT: I don't know about Brazil and I won't comment on other governments you didn't name but I'd bet that the Brazilian interest rate was higher than the inflation rate and remember that inflation is generated by the interest rate. I'm still waiting for you to explain the Argentinian empirical evidence of Shift B inflation. Despite the fears of you A shifters that inflation would go up in Argentina with the issuance of all that new provincial LETS currency, inflation actually went down and is still down. Don't quote me examples where Shift A inflation may have occurred until you explain why Shift A inflation did not occur in the empirical example I cited from today's real world over over-abundance.
>If you wish to read some thorough critiques of the Debt Virus >hypothesis, see a short, non-technical version at >http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty/antidote.html >Or, if you want the full-blown technical analysis, then see >http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty/virus.pdf JCT: And if you want to read his critiques of my Shift B plumbing analysis, you'll find all his contradictions at: http://turmelpress.com/dvirus.htm #4 and #6.
From: Charles Anderson <email@example.com> Date: Tue Oct 13 17:04:11 1998 >By using the hyperinflation example, you are extending the argument >beyond bank money into the domain of derivative money (i.e. Central >Bank Notes). Can I therefore conclude that you are of the opinion >that "money in excess of trade needs" can take the form of either >central bank notes or bank deposits. I agree with your comments, but >I would be interested if you would apply the same model to an economy >operating under normal inflationary conditions. Chas JCT: Central bank notes comprise a few percent of the monetary mass compared to bank credit, a trivial consideration. But I wonder which of Prof. Flaherty's contradictory statements he agrees with unless he agrees with both.
From: Edward Flaherty <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue Oct 13 22:23:16 1998 >Not entirely sure what you mean by 'trade needs.' Persistent >inflation is due to persistent money supply growth above the growth >rate of national output (real GDP). JCT: You're simply assuming Shift A and cannot even bring your mind to attempt to conceive of how Inflation Shift B works.
>'Money' in this sense refers to any widely-used medium of exchange, >so it includes checking balances and currency. JCT: This is obviously true though for some reason, Chas seems to think that paper money differs from bank account credit money. He's seems more confused than Prof. Flaherty. -------------------------------
TURMEL: Print Rubles! Pay Workers! #3
From: "Michael L. Coburn" <email@example.com> Date: Thu Oct 15 16:22:57 1998 >>JCT: No one can use those weapons without effects at home so >>what's the purpose in anyone having them? >MLC: It matters not what WE want. It matters what the Russians want >and what is possible. Many of us would like to see all weapons of >mass destruction eliminated. JCT: Somehow, I think the majority of Russians would be just as happy getting rid of nuclear weapons as the majority of us. Unfortunately, the minority rule everywhere. But not for long.
>MLC: We don't disagree here, but I have a different way of keeping >track of what work has actually been accomplished. JCT: I can't think of an easier way than the way casinos do it. Count the chips in circulation and that's the work that's been accomplished and deposited with the cage.
>> JCT: My point is that there cannot be any inflation if the money >>is issued for value like in a casino cage. >MLC: Exactly: No argument here. JCT: But why can't economists grasp that our money system could inflation-free just like one-to-one casino banking is? What is is about casino banking that they find so difficult to understand? Or is "Assume inflation" just another of their tenets?
>> JCT: Except that money burdened with interest causes an automatic >>shortage of money called poverty which many confuse with scarcity and >>it causes inflation they claim to be fighting with it. >MLC: To some extent you are correct. IT is a question of degree. JCT: Of course, the results can be altered by more or less foreclosure, more or less new loans, but over one cycle, the degree would be exactly I/(P+I), the Miracle Equation.
>> JCT: No he's not right if the money is issued in direct >>exchange for work on a one-to-one basis. Again I cite Argentina as >>an example of a massive infusion of money resulting a massive >>reduction in Shift B inflation. >MLC: This is where we may disagree. Work, in and of itself, does >not necessarily produce anything of trade value. JCT: Perhaps but very few people spend their time working to produce value no one wants to trade for. In my understanding, I think it would be fair to "assume" that "work" must be implicitly of value to somebody or else it's leisure.
>When we tax natural resources directly (land, and the minerals and >fuels and water and trees) then the production of trade goods is >assured by work. JCT: That's goods. Services are also work.
>>JCT: Since they are lending out new chips, there's no reason for >>them to demand the deposit of old chips beforehand. >MLC: There IS a reason. It is just that the reason does not actually >hold up to scrutiny. JCT: Then there's no valid reason.
>Your analogy with the casino breaks apart here, however: >The rationale for current savings is based on the idea that savings >should be rewarded as such savings represents a deferral of >consumption into the future and that such savings leaves more for >others to consume AND that such savings is the basis of investment. JCT: The deferral of consumption is the pretext for being rewarded by I've always pointed out that since the Rothschilds and Rockerellers aren't deferring their consumption because they own too much to consume and hence any reward for not consuming what they cannot even consume is a scam. Savings may be the basis for some investment but the problem I'm arguing against is making savings the basis for new loans of new tokens. That is silly.
>Neither of these arguments make any sense. JCT: Oh. Okay. Glad to see you think they don't make sense too.
>In the first instance we are simply enslaving future people to >deliver goods unto us without our labor. JCT: I agree that interest is unearned enslavement of future generations.
>In the second instance we are merely insisting that we should be >additionally rewarded BECAUSE we saved. JCT: I think getting back what you saved should be sufficient. And most people don't realize that as the technology gets better and better, your savings will buy you more and more. So they've got people looking for more money for their support when they should be looking for more support for their money.
>The whole thing is a scam because NEW chips may be issued based >upon a reasonably enforcible agreement in regard to the future >delivery of goods and/services. JCT: Actually, new LETS chips are issued basedupon a reasonaly enforcable agreement in regard to the future delivery of goods and services with no problem since that delivery of goods and services was matched by their previous delivery of goods and services to the borrower.
>The issuance of such chips will not decrease the value of current >chips so long as the contract of delivery is enforced. (i.e. there >will be no devaluation of the current chips and of the savings of >such chips). JCT: True and you can go to any casino to witness that the issuance of chips never decreases the value of current chips since the contract of delivery is enforced.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu Oct 15 17:51:21 1998 > Edward Flaherty <email@example.com> wrote: >>Yes, by all means, let's ignore the ample empirical evidence >>that printing currency excessively generates inflation. >Whoa, >Not all of the above were government caused inflations were they? >The German inflation of the 20s was not caused by a government >printing press, but by the privately owned banks of Germany was it >not? Do you have any evidence that it was the German government? JCT: Good point. I'm ashamed that I missed it. Governments don't print their own money or they all wouldn't be in debt. Goverments give the licence to print money to banks then get in line with the rest of us to borrow it and be indebted.
>If we had an inflation in the U.S. now who would you blame? Congress >or the Fed? The Fed is not the Government, it is a group of private >banks. Certainly William Greider in "Secrets of the Temple" blamed >the Fed, while the out-of-power politicans blamed Congress for the >last great American inflation. JCT: But because the Federal Reserve Board is appointed by the Government, people refuse to believe that it is not a Government Agency. I try to point out that it is not listed in the Government pages of the telephone book but in the White Pages but as long as the Presidents gets to appoint it's directors, that's all people need to think it is a federal agency, unlike Federal Express. Regardless, the Bank of Canada is a goverment agency and performs the same scam on us so the issue of whether it's a government bank or a private bank that is screwing us seems non-relevant. -------------------------------
Subject: Print Rubles! Pay Workers! #4
From: Shawn Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu Oct 22 10:11:00 1998 >OK, you count the chips and you then know how much currency is >floating around, do you have a checking account? You can buy >things without currency then, can't you? JCT: Here's someone who thinks that currency in his checking account is somehow different from currency in his wallet because it's of a different media. Many casinos in Las Vegas use wooden chips while others use plastic chips. No one treats them very differently and no one should treat computer blips in their checking accounts any differently than they treat paper or metallic chips in their pockets.
>>JCT: But why can't economists grasp that our money system could >>inflation-free just like one-to-one casino banking is? What is is >>about casino banking that they find so difficult to understand? Or is >>"Assume inflation" just another of their tenets? >Did it ever occur to you to wonder why we got rid of the gold >standard? JCT: What has yellow rock got to do with my statement? People who think money is best made with yellow rock are still in the dark ages. The best money has no intrinsic value. That's why computer blips in a usury or LETS banking program work so well. But bringing up things that have nothing to do with the topic seems to be an oft-used ploy by guys who don't know what they're talking about. And we are quite off the topic here. The topic related to the suggestion that Russia print up new rubles to pay workers with. I pointed out how Argentinian provinces successfully turned their economies around by paying all their government workers with small denomination government bonds that acted as de facto currency in a community where there was insufficient federal currency to facilitate trade. Every jumped on the proposer with the standard bug-bear of inflation fears. I pointed out how inflation did not rise in Argentina when all the new currency went into circulation and actually went down. I also suggested that those who wished to understand why adding currency can make inflation go down look into the second possible inflationary shift that is not taught in Economics courses. So now that I've dealt with the inflation fears about paying workers with new rubles, again we are faced with the issue of whether Russia should follow the Argentinian example or will doing so cause problems due to different inflationary inputs? Remember also that "Inflation" was the cry every Socred ever faced when proposing government print and spend currency. Most don't know it yet but the Argentinian experiment is the best proof that their "funny money" label was not only inaccurate but unjust. Unfortunately, I anger may Socreds when I point out that certain feedbacks they had developed to counter the imbalance between money and prices will not longer be needed once LETS balances the two from the start. Imagine working all your life to try increase the money supply to balance the prices based on debts and find out that there's no reason anymore to use their solution when another system eliminates the imbalance at the start. Sure a lot of Socreds are sore at my message because I tell them that though their engineer, Major Douglas, was good, the LETS engineer was better. It offends many when I tell them that though Douglas identified the interest as one of his imbalanced B prices in his A/(A+B) equation where A is the money supply, my equation A/(A+I) identified only the interest as the one price imbalance. Too bad. It was Douglas' one error which allowed economists to argue that he was wrong in general. He was not wrong, he was just less than optimal. He was going to balance the interest component of prices and would have negated its effects quite adequately. But balancing the problem cannot be as efficient as not allowing the imbalance in the first place. So Douglas was wrong only in overstating the imbalancing inputs, not wrong in diagnosing the illness and prescribing within his medicinal blend the one true magic bullet for the disease. But on the plus side for Social Crediters, I was the leader of the Social Credit Party of Ontario at the time I threw my support and engineering seal of approval to the LETS software at its inception. I called myself "The Social Credit Engineer" in those days and I hope Socreds will someday learn to be proud of the fact that a Social Crediter is responsible for financing LETS social credits. Though many "learned" members of the Social Credit Secretariat have denounced me for Quebec's stance that credits can only social without interest and proclaimed that abolishing interest on credit is not on their agenda, I'll bet that they've lost their way and the Social Credit taught in Quebec. My grandfather Adelard, a Canadian Social Credit pioneer, insisted that credit could never be social if you paid back more than you got. Friendly credit was the only way to go. "Money has no babies," and "Interest is theft" make it pretty clear that Quebec Social Credit Theory had no time for interest. Even Douglas inveighed against the unnatural nature of interest and I doubt that he himself did not see the "abolishing" effect introducing a large measure of interest-free government currency into circulation would have. So I think those in the Social Credit bureaucracy who argue for keeping interest better realize that there is a whole congregation of Socreds who do not believe usury is justified in any social credit system. I find it presumptuous of them to insist that I not refer to LETS Greendollars or Timedollars as systems of social credits. I think my Social Credit credentials are at least as good and probably a very lot better than theirs so I continue to state that any system of value- tokens is a system of social credits according to the Canadian Social Credit definition, if not theirs. So there are lots of monetary reformers out there who will soon come to realization that LETS is the fulfillment of all their dreams. If Argentinian provinces could run their systems of social credits successfully, I have no doubt the Russian governments could too. So, again, after dispelling the fears of inflation due to monetary increase, the question remains whether Russia should follow the Argentinian example and print enough rubles to pay all their workers?
Send a comment to John Turmel