Money
The Cure
Over the years the bank has introduced more “convenience” for its customers (and
more importantly more opportunity for itself.) It has provided “paper” money
(to prevent holes being worn in pocket linings). It has introduces Bankers Drafts, Letters of Credit, Cheque
books, Overdrafts and finally Plastic cards. It has “actively encouraged”
companies to pay wages and salaries by direct transfer. All in the name of
convenience, but all having the effect of
removing, from the customer, the original metal tokens, and substituting
“token tokens” in their place. This has made disguising “notional” money very
easy, has enabled the bank to use more of it
and has built in another layer of hypnosis. It has also made the “end”
more inevitable and traumatic.
However, back to your ten pound loan. Let us look at the matter in a simplistic way.
Suppose that you are one of only two people in the world and you have both
deposited at The Bank a pound. This is a big enough amount necessary for the bank to lend you your 1 + 9 loan.
Unfortunately when you are faced with repaying your loan you will be in the
unfortunate position of having to pay back ten real pounds and fifty pence
interest . From where are you going to get them? The bank is the only source of
tokens. Granted the “Crown” mints the tokens, but the King/Government issues
them to banks only, so you will have to get the other person to buy something
from you at a greatly inflated price. But he will have to go and borrow from
the bank to do it. Fortunately the bank can offer him a 1 + 9 loan and this
will put him in exactly the same position as you. You will be in debt to the
tune of ten pounds and fifty pence each, but the bank, when the debt is paid,
will be nineteen real pounds better off
(nine pound and fifty pence each) and what is more they can not accept notional money, as you did,
because they are the only source of notional money.
The above example is much too simple, because more
people need to be trading and banking in order that real money can be
generated, but it is a good enough example of how each transaction creates a
real debt out of a notional one, and of
how the difficulty of finding sufficient real money for repayment is caused.
Right up to the early twentieth century borrowing was only done on a small
scale by most businesses and virtually not at all by individuals. The “mutual”
building societies were the nearest most people came to banking, and then they
were not in the majority. There was a belief that if you could not afford
something then you either “saved up” for it, or went without it. This belief
was wide spread throughout industry, business and the public, and did not
really diminish until after World War 2, when industry was so damaged that
rebuilding could not have occurred without loans.
However, the government was taxing everything in
sight (in order to fool the public they were worthy by spending the public’s
money) and as a result companies who borrowed for new machinery were obliged to
cut down on workers wages or on the number of workers, because sales of product
were lower than necessary to recoup their outlay. Increasing prices might have
worked if it had not been for others in the same boat trying to sell at
slightly reduced prices in order to gain more market share, in order to keep
afloat. It soon became apparent that the only thing to do was to expand the
business. This was the origin of the idea that to remain a viable business it
is necessary to continue to grow,
although in a steady economy this idea is absolute rubbish. The idea is
still prevalent today and due to the mess we are in it is sadly true. It worth
noting that throughout all this the unions did not aid the situation by
demanding higher wages and better conditions, which in turn meant more cost to
industry, or go out of business (which is what a lot have done) or be swallowed
up (“economies of scale” in the jargon) by competitors who borrowed money to do
the swallowing, in the belief that growing would solve their problems.
Perhaps this is the point to bring in another fact
that is hidden by hypnosis. The only cost in the production and marketing of
goods is labour. In fact there is no other cost, anywhere, other than labour.
What about the manufacturing machinery and the raw materials and the power and
the wagons and building the shops and factories etc. etc. ? Well, raw material
itself cost nothing. The cost is in the labour of getting the iron ore out of
the ground. Similarly the cost of coal and oil is nothing other than getting it
up to the surface. The cost of all raw materials is the same, purely the labour
of getting it. There is certainly
machinery used in the getting, but that machinery like all machinery was once
raw material, and has been transformed, through labour, into a finished
product. All production machinery and tools, for whatever industry or business
is nothing other than the sum of labour acting upon the raw materials used in
their manufacture. An addition layer of labour costs is added by each of the
white collar inputs. Designers, supervisors, accountants, sales and marketing,
even the canteen ladies. In fact everything that the accountants like to call
“overheads”. So the old idea of splitting production costs into “raw
materials/labour/overheads” is nothing but a convenience for hypnosis and we
are left with the inescapable fact that all cost is labour. The same is
obviously true of services, be they solicitor, window cleaner, beautician,
doctor etc. From the foregoing it is clear that one man’s raw material is
another man’s finished product. This, in turn, leads to the next part of the
hypnotic mess.
Because companies were having to tighten their belts like never before there appeared, in the sixties, a philosophy of “cost reduction”. It was born in America and rapidly, like all unhelpful things, was imported, along with it disciples. It was seized by much of industry, who were already doing it slowly their own way, but not with the whistles and bells that always accompany American (usually foolish) endeavours. The basic tenet was to have brainstorming sessions to reduce costs. “Involve the workers. Make them think that it is in their interest to reduce costs, so that they are able to continue in employment” Many schemes involved fewer or cheaper raw materials. Some involved running machines faster than they were designed for. Some required completely new production techniques. Others involved completely new machines that would not only produce more in the same time as the old machines, but would require much less manpower to run them. Most of these schemes debased the product to a lesser or larger degree, and those schemes that involved buying new machinery only exacerbated the debt. problem.
What was never comprehended was that when ever cost
is taken out of a product someone somewhere loses his job. It matters not if
the cost is classed as raw material or
labour or overheads. Now, to the “captains of industry” the only job that
matters is their own, and so it would have been easy for them to shrug it off
as “the cost of progress”, if it had
ever crossed their minds, but they were, like us all, “asleep”. Just as were
the originators of the idea of “cost
reduction”. If this “hypnotic sleep” could have been broken, it would have been
comprehended that for every job lost there are less tokens in circulation
with which to buy the goods, (which have been reduced in quality, but
not in price). When appraised of this fact some merely opened an eyelid and
expressed the belief that it may affect others but “it will not affect
us”.
In fact, because of the mounting debt, prices were
going up as quality was going down. “Perceived” quality was maintained by the
use of clever packaging and
advertising. The use of meaningless slogans and endorsement by “celebrities”
being the main route. To confound the
issue still further those workers who were, through cost reduction, expected to
shoulder a bigger burden than before were rewarded by a slight increase in
wage. This, of course, encouraged others to want more and so the net labour
cost, nation wide, was reduced very little, but many people were out of
employment and needed hand outs from the state, which necessitated more taxes,
which lead to more demands for increased wages. This led to calls for cost
reduction and more sophisticated new machinery and we were on the debt
merry-go-round non-stop, right up to the present day. This country was the home of
the industrial revolution and led the world in manufacturing and
banking. Just look what banking has done for industry. How many thousands of
companies have closed their doors through it? How many thousands of workers
have suffered through it? And for what?
However, back to the story. In order to sell more
product more and more advertising was done, to persuade people to part with
what few tokens they had, and all manner of
“special offers” and “deals” were conceived. At the same time the bank
realised that it too could help itself enormously, by encouraging the general
public to spend tokens that they did not have, by ensnaring them into the net
of debt. For every pound lent they
received back ten. No wonder that they
can wipe off bad debts of millions without turning a hair.
The real
turning point for the general public debt came with the banks aim of creating a cashless society. In that way
money ceased even to be tokens and became, what for years it had been for
industry, just numbers on ordinary paper. First the credit card, to whet the
appetite, and then the debit card. All
designed to create, not convenience, but debt. The current figures quoted for
debt throughout the country defies belief.
Currently £493,613,164,472 in total, equal to £20,669 per adult (the
report does not say if this includes asylum seekers and illegal immigrants!)
Some of those, asleep like the rest, but with more
guile and greed than the rest, realised that, with all the credit created
“money” in circulation and companies crying out for investment through
shareholders rather than banks, if they could just “handle” some of it, and
take some “commission” for doing so, they could stop worrying about their own
financial position. From this was born the “financial adviser”. No experience or scruples necessary!
Suddenly every solicitor, building society, insurance agent, and bank (and also any little jumped up wide boy with
presence, a half decent suit and clean finger nails) became financial
advisers. Much unscrupulous “fleecing”
went on, until some slight order was restored, by the introduction, by the big
boys, of a self governing
regulatory body. As a result a
façade of respectability has been built and has allowed the big boys (the
banks, building societies and insurance companies) to do much of the advising.
It therefore comes as no surprise that
every so often a scandal erupts in the
“money markets” involving the
big boys and financial advice (from wheresoever it cometh).
The upshot of all this is that we are in such a
sorry state that debt has lost its significance. To the point that as I write
this the political party running the country are over £60 million in debt and
they do not seem to think they should resign en-mass in ignominy. The real
situation in the county as a whole is that the economy is doomed to collapse.
Margaret Thatcher claimed that she was
building a “service economy”, but being asleep she could not see that one can not
eat “service” nor drink it. Neither wrap oneself up warm in it nor burn it on
the fire. The country needs goods, and particularly the machines for making
goods. The country needs to be self sufficient and self contained as much as
possible and have surplus goods to “barter” for the rest. All we have in
the surplus category at present is debt, and that debt will eventually totally
demolish our country. The way take-overs and buy outs are going we could
eventually see our last factory wound
up by the last bank in the next thirty
years unless we are dragged into the unholy mess that is Europe, where similar
but bigger things lie in store.
The attitude of
the post war Labour governments, for reasons of electoral bribery, ( and
aped by Conservative governments until Margaret Thatcher’s era,) has been “I say, you out there. You do not
need to fend for yourselves, we will look after you from the cradle to the
grave. In order to do this we will redistribute wealth (but not yours of
course) and we will ensure that you are kept in good health, with lots of
social benefits and a comfortable pension when you retire.” Of course these
exact words were not used, but then this is the prime double-speak of politics. It is not pointed out that in
order to do this your wealth will be attacked, no matter what party is in
power. You will be taxed so heavily that you will be unable to make any
provision for your own and your families well-being , as any person living in
Reality would do automatically, and you will have to rely on the scant
provisions the state can provide after a massive percentage of what was taken
from you by the politicians has been squandered on profligate self aggrandisement and maintenance of power.
The outcome has been a steadily growing perception
that, providing one could “work the system”, there were rich, tax free,
pickings to be had in so many fields of “benefit”. It has culminated in such ludicrous situations as the one
recently reported in Cumbria where a company making pies was importing 400
workers from Portugal, whilst 1400 people in the area were registered as
“looking for work”. The pickings are so
good that it is almost impossible to
fight off “asylum seekers” and illegal immigrants. And no government dare tackle the root
problem for fear of losing face and power.
Since no government will tackle the cancer in out
midst then surely a new form of government is an absolute necessity to save not
only our country but the whole of
“civilisation” (what ever its colour or location).
Just after the 1914-18 war a gentleman called Major
C. H. Douglas conceived the notion that was to become the “Social Credit” movement. It was
unfortunately named because its “Social” part sounded far too left wing, whilst
its “Credit” part still had the echo of the moneylenders.
It was a system which rejuvenated the Canadian
province of Alberta at the height (or should it be depth) of the 1920/30s
depression, and transformed it from a poverty stricken, desolate, debt ridden
land to a province that was the envy of all North America. That is until the
generations that had grown up in the security of the system were finally
seduced back into hypnosis by the financier supported, double speak power seekers in 1971. For half a century
the banks had suffered tremendous loss of profit through what now referred to
as Financial Democracy. It was tried a couple of times in U.K. between the wars
by local authorities with excellent results. So much so that it was “sat upon”
by the financial establishment for obvious reasons.
What is involved is the issuing and using, by the
Government, or Local Council etc., of a
different type of token. These tokens are used for governmental/municipal expenses, for any form of outgoing. They are
readily seen as different, but are used and accepted by all as legal tender,
with the possible exception of the bank. These tokens pass from hand to hand,
shop to shop, until they fall into the hands of those who have the need to pay
the state/council/etc. rents or rates or taxes of any kind. These payments may
be made in these tokens, which are then destroyed. This ensures that these
tokens do not end up in some bank vault and give rise to more spurious money
(as described in the preceding section …”Money The problem”). The essence of the system is to keep money in
circulation to the value of the goods and services available.
Unfortunately here is not the place to go into
further detail but interesting reading can be found on the net, and here are
just a few sources. There are hundreds more.
http://pages.globetrotter.net/social_credit/social-credit-ring.htm
http://www.socialcredit.com/
http://www.douglassocialcredit.com/
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/calgary/womensocialcredit.html
