From: Dick Eastman <oldickeastman@q.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:22 PM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Let's face the problem of usury? (from Dick Eastman) -- Plus items on "Tea-o-cons", Judeo-pornographic society, the continuing Gulf Oil crisis, Monsanto GM etc.
To:
Let's face the problem of usury!
| Note: The man pictured is Michael Hillegas, Pennsylvania, Treasurer of the United States from Jul. 29, 1775 to Sept. 11, 1789 -- the day that Alexander Hamilton became Secretary of the Treasury. Another note: Before 1949 all US Treasurers had been men. After 1949 all have been women. |
Lincoln greenbacks -- actually showing the then sitting President, Lincoln, and current Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase. "This note is a legal tender for all debts public and private except duties on imports and interst on the pubic debt and is receivable in payment of all loans made to the United States." ====================================================== From Richard Wilcox: US WEALTH INEQUALITY In my analysis, a key metric to judge the overall economic security and hardship level of a country is the percentage of the population living paycheck to paycheck. Anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck can tell you about the stress and psychological impact it has on you when you know your family is one sickness, injury or downsizing away from economic ruin. The employment company CareerBuilder, in partnership with Harris Interactive, conducts an annual survey to determine the percentage of Americans currently living paycheck to paycheck. In 2007, 43 percent fell into this category. In 2008, the number increased to 49 percent. In 2009, the number skyrocketed up to 61 percent. In their most recent survey, this number exploded to a mind-shattering 77 percent. Yes, 77 percent of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck. This means in our nation of 310 million citizens, 239 million Americans are one setback away from economic ruin. So when I hear the government and media tell me that 43.6 million Americans lived in poverty in 2009, while that is horrifying enough, I get extraordinarily frustrated knowing that even that sad statistic is putting a major positive spin on this economic disaster that is still far from over. While the economic top half of 1 percent now fears a "double-dip," the overwhelming majority of Americans are still in the same downward spiral they've been on. For one last missing piece to this equation, corporate profits are soaring while all this is devastation is occurring. Despite this economic crisis, it's not like our country doesn't have the money. A recent study done by Capgemini and Merrill Lynch Wealth Management found that a mere 1 percent of Americans are hoarding $13 trillion in "investible wealth." Yep, 1 percent of Americans are hoarding $13 TRILLION in "investible wealth," and that doesn't even factor in all the money they have hidden in offshore accounts. http://www.alternet.org/economy/148255/that_%27official%27_poverty_rate_it%27s_much_worse_than_you_think/?page=3 ===================== Read the book here: Clifford Hugh Douglas - Social Credit(1924) http://douglassocialcredit.com/index.php My simplified primer on Social Credit (2010) ======================== More Social Credit concepts -- "notes" from various sources The idea that unemployment is a defect of the economic system and that the present distresses of society flow from it, and can only he cured by its elimination, is both unscientific and incorrect. Unemployment is a good thing -- that is what technology aims for. The problem of households is not that they have too much leisure, but rather that they have too little purchasing power. Fifty years ago it was expected that by now robots here in the United States would be doing the work that the American citizen would have an incredible amount of leisure with which to develop his family and community and personal spheres. Certainly the technology to enable this to have happened did actually materialize, but unfortunately our distribution system, based on usury finance, did not permit it to happen. All of that leisure and and plentitude of the things making for a good life have been taken by the manipulations of speculators and monopolists who control through the credit monopoly which controls investment in corporations, corporations which find it easier to create destruction by catering wars than to create better products to please the American housewife etc. The best scientific engineering, organising and administrative brains are continuously endeavouring to achieve a given amount of work with a diminishing amount of human labour, and, that therefore, an increase of leisure is both certain and from their point of view, highly desirable. We observe that the modern production system in the US domestic economy produces more than is sold, although there are still numbers of the population in drastic poverty. Certainly it is wrong to conclude that there has been "overproduction," that output of the production system should he reduced in order that it may correspond with the amount that can be bought. The Social Creditor/Populist rightly insist that the amount that can he bought should be increased. Proposals for the use of Social Credit as a remedy for the present ills are not primarily concerned with the production side of business. Probably the greatest body of expert knowledge in the world is concentrated in the production system in one form or another and this body of opinion may be left to continue its undoubted success in the past. Where innovation is needed is in the token system that rewards productive behavior. Social Credit is an innovation in the distribution system that provides households with the purchasing power (ample "demand") to make it worthwhile to set these production systems in motion. Clearly the view that the economic system tends to satisfy everyone with optimal use of resources to provide goods meeting individual tastes with market price signals, is wrong. Too many of those tokens that are supposed to signal for production get drained off in the economic cycle and are not being replaced -- speaking both of interest payment leakages and so-called government bailout leakages. During the New Deal Franklin Roosevelt had the power from Congress to issue debt-free Lincoln-Chase fiat currency. Instead he sought to "prime the pump" with borrowed money. The money he confiscated from the public was used to bailout the millionaire railroad men who, because of the fall in transporation of goods due to the depression, could not pay off their debts in Wall Street. In the 1930s, just as in the late 2000s up to today the Federal government only cushions the financial and corporate elite from the effects of the depressions caused by depriving households of ample purchasing power to operate the economy. How should things be? Let the entrepreneur respond to true market signals in determining what to produce, which factors to use etc. But let us make sure that he is not stymied by an economic system that requires all businesses to pay "X + Interest" for production but only receive demand from customers totalling "X" so that businesses fail, jobs are lost, houses are foreclosed and cars are repossessed, belts are tightened and misery abounds. According to Douglas, the phrase "Poverty amidst plenty" has become enshrined amongst the cliches of the English language. Social Credit, however, is primarily concerned with the distribution and not with the administration or technique of production. The problem is people impoverished in the sense that cannot get hold of the plenty that technology and administration can easily make possible for them to have, cannot get hold of it because of a money and credit system that operates with a net drain of purchasing power in the cycle from payment for production to payment for product. Poverty consists of lack of money -- the essence of money is credit. Given the way credit now is distributed under the usury system, money will always fail to do what it is supposed to do. Economic production is interlocked with the distribution of money through the agency of wages, salary and dividend. The existing financial system stands or falls by the perfectly simple proposition that the production of every article distributes enough money to the general public to buy that article. The orthodox economist, appealing to Says Law of Markets, says it does, the Social Engineer, seeing the problem of interest payments that are not reinvested, says that they buying power to clear the shelves of ultimate goods priced at cost (labor wage, land rent, rewarding profit to the entrepreneur and interest to the financier) does not. The Socialist complaint against so-called capitalism is that money has been distributed inequitably. They say that everything paid to the entrepreneur is expoitation by the entrepreneur and the financier -- who they bunch together in one category and call the "capitalist." That is, they say that some people, the "Capitalists", get too much and some, the "Workers", get too little. Hence the Socialist is permanently committed to a policy of "soak the rich". In contrast, it is a primary tenet of Social Credit theory that though this unequitable distribution may exist, it is a secondary consideration to the fact that not enough money is distributed to buy the goods that are for sale, and that in consequence redistribution is not an economic remedy, whilst being a political irritant of a high order. Major Clifford H. Douglas, who separately from Arthur Kitson, developled the idea of National Credit, has this to say about opposition to the idea on slapdash condemnation that Social Credit involves allegedly terrible wrong of "people getting something for nothing:" The Social Credit dividend system is independent of employment, and depends fundamentally, only on production. If we can arrange that while the wage and salary pay roll becomes continually less, the dividend pay roll becomes continually greater and more widely distributed, we have dealt with the second half of the problem. There are two ways of looking at these aspects of the matter. The first is moral or ethical, and is probably the less important, since we are less sure of our ground. Due very largely to a mistaken and mischievous Puritanism, probably having a common origin with Marxism, there is a widespread idea that no one should obtain a living without working for it, and it is noticeable that those who do, in fact, obtain a very handsome living without working for it, are most vigorous in their determination that there shall be the minimum extension of the principle. The moral or ethical justification for a National Dividend however rests on the same basis (a sound basis) on which those fortunate persons who do obtain a living without working for it, ground their claim, that is to say, on the possession of property. The property that is common to the individuals who make up a nation is that which has its origin in the association of individuals to a common end. It is partly tangible, but is to a great degree intangible, in the forms of scientific knowledge, character and habits. The extent to which this national heritage can be made to pay a dividend in money to the general population from whom it arises, merely depends on the simple proposition that the money, if spent, shall be effective in acquiring goods without raising prices. To raise prices would reduce the purchasing power, not only of the fresh money, but of that which preceded it. If this provision can be met, that is to say, if there is undrawn upon productive capacity coupled with control of the general price level, then the mechanism of a National Dividend becomes fairly simple. In its simplest form, it is the issue of bonds to the general population, similar in character to those which are issued to them in return for bank-created money during a period of national emergency such as war. The exact condition's under which the bonds are issued is not an economic, but rather a political problem. Many factors enter into it, and it will, in all probability, be solved in various ways as the differing psychologies of peoples and their Government may direct. In combination with the regulation of the Price Level, it affords a complete flexible method of insuring that what is physically possible is financially possible. Its inauguration in a modern industrial State means the disappearance of poverty in the old sense of the word, from the population of that State. The monopoly of credit at present held by financial interests, that is to say, banking institutions and their affiliations is obviously so valuable that it would be too optimistic to suppose that it will be relinquished without a struggle. The primary weapon used in this war is misrepresentation. The socialisation of credit, so far from being an attack upon private property, is probably the only method by which private property can once again become reasonably secure. It is the alternative to ever-increasing taxation. It is a method by which everyone may become richer without anyone becoming poorer. It is, so far as I am aware, the only method by which the pernicious doctrine of "a favourable balance of trade" can be exploded. In consequence, it is the primary requisite to the removal of the fundamental causes of war. You are, however, unlikely to arrive at any conclusions of this character by reading criticisms of the theory, which originate from orthodox financial circles. -------------------- The business of "making money," and the business of making goods or growing food, have no ascertainable relation to each other. Of course, the manufacturer, the trader or even the farmer, sometimes talks about "making money". They never make money. They merely scramble for the money which is provided for them in varying quantities and under varying conditions by the bankers, with or without the assistance of the State. It is a little difficult to pin the banker down as to his own conception as to his position in the community. If he is accused of providing an unsuitable amount of money, and thus causing business depressions, or, to a less degree, frantic booms, he retorts that he is merely a businessman and knows nothing about economics, a claim which he can generally substantiate. The point on which he is quite firm is that the initiative of decreasing or increasing the amount of money in circulation is his prerogative, and that if production or consumption are out of step with it, that is just too bad. Now the tact that the banker can increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation with results which, though they may be satisfactory to himself are somewhat tragic to the community, has tended to obscure the fact that we have no record anywhere of a satisfactory distribution of consumable goods to the extent that they can be produced, except in a time of expanding capital production. The price values (cost-added mark-ups) of industrial assets, including interest on business loans, enter into the price of the goods which are sold. And the first objective of Social Credit is to provide sufficient money to meet these charges so the goods we produce can be sold at a price covers production costs. Social Credit both provides purchasing power so that sales cover costs incuding interest costs, it also eliminates the interest element that goes into ultimate prices of good because firms are more likely to fund production from profits without having to borrow in an economy where circulation is drained by interest payments and not replenished by anything other than more debt-financing. Social Credit greatly reduces reliance on usury to sustain national production. Below. Showing leakages and injections of purchasing power. What the text book graph shows as the "leakage" to the financial sector, labeled "saving" is really forced saving, windfall profit of creditors due to deflation, compound interest payments, interest payments above the principal of the original loans, and proceeds on the sale of foreclosed assets. This comes way short of Financial Sector investment in the domestic economy. This is the root of the A + B problem discussed by C. H. Douglas. Business is paying A + B to produce and households are only getting "B" with which to buy the finished production. This is the text book version learned in college economics courses. The wrong assumptions of usury apologetics are (1) that Savigs (S) is going to equal Investment (I) when in fact it is mostly interest that goes from Business and Households to the Financial Sector and not household savings. (2) that Investment (I) goes to the Business Sector, when in fact it goes to nations with a more "favorable" worker intelligence to worker pay ratio -- to where intelligent people are kept closer to a bare subsistence wage -- since Profit = Total revenue minus wage cost minus financing cost minus other fixed and variable costs of operation. The current system: Social Credit / "Lincoln" Treasury fiat Money Solution: Social Credit Reform will instantly lift the people of this country from the ever worsening Kleptastrophe -- the rigged game of the Crediter Class against the unsuspecting Debtor Class. The solution in the United States will look like this: What's your excuse for not knowing about Social Credit? Household's receive dollar amount "A" purchasing power for their contribution to production. But the prices of the things they have produced must be high enough to cover all costs which total "A +B" where "B" is what the producer has to pay back in interest to financiers who extended a business loan. The producer pays labor costs and materials costs and building rent and he makes profit or loss depending on his entrepreneurship -- but on top of this and taking from all of it, is interest that must be paid on the loan that under the usury system was absolutely required to set production in motion. Those interest payments take away from profit first, and then from wages and resource costs. They put firms out of business. The gap between "A" demand and "A + B" break even prices leads inescapably to underconsumption and deflation which increases debt burdens and ensures waves of bankruptcies. Social Credit simply supplies the deficient amount "B" to households as a lump some free and clear to households. That solves the problem two ways. First, it allows what Americans produce to be affordable to Americans and second it replaces usury by allowing American business to expand from its own profits (if the entrepreneur is making the product that consumers most value for the money) without having even good entrepreneurship punished by loss because of insufficient purchasing power. Firms have costs that must be repaid. These costs can ultimately be traced back to bank debt because all money originates as debt. Money does not "circulate" but instead operates in an accounting cycle, and B payments are monies on their way back to the bank, thus completing the cycle. Therefore, B payments do not exist as income to anyone. Income, by contrast, is flowing from the bank, and reaches individuals through the media. income and prices must be regarded as flows, and as Douglas stated: "The mill will never grind with water that has passed, and unless it can be shown, as it certainly cannot be shown, that all these sums distributed in respect of the production of intermediate products are actually saved up, not in the form of securities, but in the form of actual purchasing power, we are obliged to assume what I believe to be true, that the rate of flow of purchasing power derived from the normal and theoretical operation of the existing price system is always less than that of the generation of prices within the same period of time." (C.H. Douglas, "The Monopoly of Credit")of wages, salaries, and dividends. The margin of profit which makes it possible for a producer to go on producing, disappears unless the financial cost, and consequently the price of production, is allowed to rise steadily in relation to direct labour cost." Social Credit would neither create the goods nor the needs, but it would eliminate any artificial obstacle between the two of them, between production and consumption, between the wheat in elevators and the bread on the table. The obstacle today — at least in the developed countries — is purely of financial order, a money obstacle. Now, the financial system neither proceeds from God nor nature. Established by men, it can be adjusted to serve men and no more to cause them problems. To this end, Social Credit presents concrete propositions. Though very simple, these propositions nevertheless imply a real revolution. Social Credit brings the vision of a new civilization, if by civilization one can mean man's relationship with his fellow men and the conditions of life making easier for each one the blossoming of his personality. Under a Social Credit system, we would no longer be struggling with problems that are strictly financial, which constantly plague public administrations, institutions, families, and which poison relationships between individuals. Finance would be nothing but an accounting system, expressing in figures the relative values of goods and services, making easier the mobilization and coordination of the energies required for the different levels of production towards the finished good, and distributing to ALL consumers the means to choose freely and individually what is suitable to them among the goods offered or immediately realizable. For the first time in history, absolute economic security, without restrictive conditions, would be guaranteed to each and everyone. Material poverty would be a thing of the past. Material anxiety about tomorrow would disappear. Bread would be ensured to all, as long as there is enough wheat to make enough bread for all. Similarly for the other goods that are necessary for life. Each citizen would be presented with this economic security as a birthright, as a member of the community, usufructuary throughout one's life of an immense community capital, that has become a dominant factor of modern production. This capital is made up of, among other things, the natural resources, which are a collective good; life in society, with the increment that ensues from it; the sum of the discoveries, inventions, technological progress, which are an ever-increasing heritage from generations. This community capital, which is so productive, would bring each of its co-owners, each citizen, a periodical dividend, from the cradle to the grave. And seeing the volume of production attributable to the common capital, the dividend to each one ought to be at least sufficient to cover the basic necessities of life. This dividend would be given in addition to those who personally take part in production, without prejudice to wages, salaries or other forms of reward. An income thus attached to the individual, and no longer only attached to his status of employee, would shield him from exploitation by other human beings. With the basic necessities of life guaranteed, a man can better resist being pushed about and can better take up the career of his own choosing. Freed from urgent material worries, men could apply themselves to free activities, which are more creative than commanded work, and strive towards their own development by the exercise of human functions superior to the purely economic function. Getting the daily bread would no more be the absorbing occupation of their lives. But, however logical, social and respectful of the human person the Social Credit propositions are, they radically break off with notions generally received and considered as tangible and intangible. That is why Social Credit cannot result from a simple change of party in power. One does not impose a new civilization by an election. One must first make it known, make it wanted, make it sought after by the population. And since this is a question of a Social Credit civilization, let us say that one must first develop a Social Credit mentality, win people over to a standpoint favourable to the vision presented by Social Credit. Therefore the problem is not of boosting a political party, but of making Social Credit known, loved and wanted. Besides, the very conception of a party is at variance with the philosophy of Social Credit. Political parties exist to try to take power, and are on the move only when the race for power is opened. As for Social Credit, it would distribute power as widely as possible among all members of society: economic power, by a purchasing power guaranteed to each individual; political power, by making the Members of Parliament the real representatives of their constituents, and no more the servants of a party. It is a must for the electorate to learn to express their common will at all times. The decisions affecting the lives of the citizens are made between elections. To content oneself with voting for a party candidate, then to passively accept anything which is decided upon without the advice from those who must bear the cost of decisions, is political childishness. The real beneficiary it should he noted, is the consumer who gets lower prices. While a scientific regulation of the price level so that goods can be taken off the market by the available purchasing power as fast as they are produced is an essential component of a scientific money system, it does not deal with the second aspect of the problem, which fundamentally is related to the change over from manual production to power production. Probably over 80 per cent. of the total number of issues of purchasing power distributed in our existing financial system, is distributed through the agency of wages and salaries and it is obvious that this assumes that 80 per cent. at least, of the population will be maintained on a wage or salary basis. But there is no ground for the common assumption that such a percentage can, or will be maintained in normal times, and every ground for assuming that it will decrease continuously. On the other hand, the dividend system is independent of employment, and depends fundamentally, only on production. If we can arrange that while the wage and salary pay roll becomes continually less, the dividend pay roll becomes continually greater and more widely distributed, we have dealt with the second half of the problem. ======================== The British Columbia Social Credit Government - the most influential Government for 36 years of British Columbia history. THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN ORGANIZED SOCIETY AND AS A DIVINELY CREATED BEING WITH BOTH SPIRITUAL AND PHYICAL POTENTIALS AND NEEDS, HAS CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS WHICH MUST BE RESPECTED AND PRESERVED. THE MAJOR FUNCTION OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IN ORGANIZED SOCIETY IS TO SECURE FOR THE PEOPLE THE RESULTS THEY WANT FROM THE MANAGEMENT OF THEIR PUBLIC AFFAIRS AS FAR AS SUCH RIGHTS ARE PHYSICALLY AND MORALLY RIGHT. SECURITY WITHIN FREEDOM. MATERIAL SECURITY ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH. WHATEVER IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE AND DESIRABLE AND MORALLY RIGHT SHOULD BE MADE FINANCIALLY POSSIBLE
I BELIEVE THAT SOCIAL CREDIT IS THE BEST ANSWER FOR ALL OUT ECONOMIC CHALLENGES AND GOALS, AND I AM DETERMINED TO STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH OUR MEMBERS AND OUR PARTY IN THIS GREAT FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY AND FINANCIAL FREEDOM. I WILL ALSO ENDEAVOUR TO ASSIST AND COOPERATE IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE WITH THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD IN ANY WORK NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THIS CAUSE AND FULFILL THIS TASK. Chinese summary: http://www.bcsocialcredit.bc.ca/zongman.gif =================================== Some items from the Alberta Social Credit organization: Dividends: The Alberta Social Credit Government will issue dividends to each citizen of Alberta over the age of consent and based upon certain residency requirements. Price Rebate: The Alberta Social Credit Government will issue a price rebate to consumers at the point of retail based upon the quantification of aggregate production and consumption statistics within the province of Alberta. The size of the rebate will be determined by these statistics based upon the ratio of consumption to production. Buy Back Alberta Company: The Alberta Social Credit Government would establish a holding company with the mandate of increasing Albertans' ownership of Alberta's natural resource and other key industries. The company would invest in existing and new ventures to ensure Albertans have controlling interest in these ventures. The Alberta Social Credit Government would institute complete disclosure of all provincial finances including the Heritage Trust Fund, government crown corporations and all government investments. These disclosures would be made in the Legislature with a complete accounting available to all Albertan Owned: The Alberta Social Credit Party believes, and the Alberta Social Credit Government will continue to hold the belief, that the Heritage Fund belongs to the people of Alberta and not the government. Separate Crown Corporation: The Alberta Social Credit Government would set up the Heritage fund as a separate crown corporation thereby limiting the involvement of the current government. Set Annual Deposit Percentage: The Alberta Social Credit Government would institute a policy of depositing a set percentage of government natural resource income each year into the Heritage Fund. Yearly Dividends: The Alberta Social Credit Government would pay a yearly, tax-free dividend from the earnings of the Heritage Fund to every Albertan who votes at each provincial election. This dividend would be based upon a formula set out in the budget of the Heritage Fund and be issued on a set date. Model - Alaska Permanent Fund: The Alberta Social Credit Government would model other aspects of the Heritage Trust Fund managing principles after the Alaska Permanent Fund. This would include raising oil and gas royalties to a level commensurate with the rates charged in Alaska, Norway, and other jurisdictions. Residency Voting Period: The Alberta Social Credit Government will increase the six-month residency time required to vote for new Albertans before they can vote and qualify to receive yearly dividends. Referendum and Dividends: The Alberta Social Credit Government will provide Albertans the choice at each provincial election to decline their dividend and instead direct these funds to a government-spending category of their choice. High School Completion and Dividends: As an incentive to complete high school, the Alberta Social Credit Government will enable 18 year-old Albertans who graduate from high school to commence receiving yearly dividends upon graduation instead of requiring them to wait until they vote at the next provincial election.
Balanced Budget: The Alberta Social Credit Government would institute mandatory yearly balances (projected and actual) and budget provisions for the provincial government. Budget Surpluses: The Alberta Social Credit Government would deposit a fixed percentage of budget surpluses into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. Government Spending:
The Alberta Social Credit Government would reform their accounting whereby all government purchases of capital (land, buildings and equipment) would be accounted for as an asset and depreciated yearly as an expense instead of expensing the entire cost in the year of purchase. No Water Tax: The Alberta Social party opposes any tax on water. Political Tax Contribution Limits: The Alberta Social Credit Government would restrict political contributions. Only contributions from individuals would be allowed. Progressive Individual Taxes: The Alberta Social Credit Government will create a more equitable tax collection based on ability to pay by restoring to Alberta the progressive system of income taxes as exists in all other Canadian jurisdictions. Comprehensive Efficiency Review: The Alberta Social Credit Government would institute independent, annual efficiency reviews in all government departments to maximize efficiency and minimize government waste. Corporate Taxes: The Alberta Social Credit Government will balance corporate taxes to a level commensurate with the income generated from individual taxes. No Education Tax for Low Income Property Owners: The Alberta Social Credit Government would eliminate education taxes for low-income property owners. ====================== Austrailia | Economics and Social Credit | Politics and Social Credit | Philosophy and Social Credit Millions of people in the world do not realise that there are alternatives to the economic and political system under which they live. A brief outline on these questions may provoke some thought and a desire to acquire further knowledge. Social Credit is Consumer Control of Production through Sovereign Credit Generating Sufficient Demand to Buy Production under a free market profit and loss system without usury. C. H. Douglas: OBJECTIVE: Social Stability by the integration of means and ends INCOMPATIBLES: Collectivism, Dialectic, Materialism, Totalitarianism, Judæo-Masonic Philosophy. Political Ballot-box democracy embodies all of these.The policy of Social Credit contains a strategy to create social conditions favourable to the policy of the individual. Accepting this as a correct approach to the social problems that exist, Social Credit represents the systematic advocacy of the of the maximum liberty of the individual limited only by his not encroaching upon the functional activities of his fellows. In other words it is the "social stability by the integration of means and ends". If this is accepted as an objective to strive for and is in the interests of the individual and the society, which he forms, why is there such opposition to it? Douglas is quite emphatic about the reasons. It is the will to power exercised through the control of the money system and this is the basis of the Policy of Social Credit. It is a Policy designed to incarnate or to put into concrete form the means by which the social problem can be addressed. It is a Policy designed to balance the scales, as it were, so that the individual in association can obtain the benefits of his association with his fellows. Power is in the nature of Reality. Power has been defined as the capacity to act, to exert influence, control, to impose one's will. Power is exerted by human beings over other human beings and is the capacity to impose a line of action upon individuals. Centralised power requires the sanctions of administration. This simply means that centralised power has the sanctions of the police and the military. The pressure of administration is probably the greatest in the field of finance, with all it's manifestations – debt, taxation, the control and issue of finance, the terms on which we get it, and the conditions under which it is taken away. Once we grasp this in essence, the subject of power is the central question concerning man in the world and living together in society. When placed alongside the concept of Social Credit which comprises interlocking concepts of economics and politics and which deal with the Just Relationship between man and the society in which he lives, the reality becomes clearer. . . .
It is this relationship between individuals and groups to which Douglas refers as being a priority. Unless it is recognised that the individual is more important than the group, which has been formed by individuals, no action will be successful. "Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic". Note carefully that the systems he referred to covered all of those systems that have been formed by Man, and if formed by Man, they can be altered by Man. He went further in his explanation of that statement by saying: "Accepting this statement as a basis of constructive effort, it seems clear that all forms, whether of government, industry or society must exist contingently to the furtherance of the principles contained in it. If a State system can be shown to be inimical to them - it must go; if social customs hamper their continuous expansion - they must be modified; if unbridled industrialism checks their growth, then industrialism must be reined in. That is to say, we must build up from the Individual, not down from the State".
The failure to understand what is happening is reflected in the inability to understand what Douglas was saying when he wrote in The Social Crediter February 9, 1946: "If a man, presently at Crewe, says he wishes to go to London, and then insists on entering a carriage labelled Wigan, you will probably be tempted to call him, "incompetent", "inefficient". But you may be quite wrong. The man may really have intended to go to Wigan, and have told you he was going in the other direction, to avoid argument as to the relative attractions of Wigan and London. When, therefore, you notice that affairs in this country are getting steadily worse; that badly as they were managed after 1918, they are incomparably worse managed from your point of view now, it is not wise to assume that your affairs have been handed over to a collection of nitwits, because if you have any experience of affairs you will have learnt that Cabinet posts at £5,000 per annum (approx. $10,000 in 1946 was roughly equivalent to $200,000 on today's salary) do not come into the grasps of nitwits. The qualities, which got them there may not be -almost certainly not - the qualities, you consider suitable to their position. But you must remember that you did not put them where they are, although perhaps you think you did". "Taking their key words, 'Full Employment', 'Austerity' (austerity was the key word during the war, today it is 'saving' because we are allegedly living beyond our means and living on borrowings from overseas) and 'Unlimited Exports', as signposts, it is really not difficult to see why the train is going to Wigan (a hellish coal-town) when you suppose that everyone wants to go to London". "and Wigan? Wigan is merely Big Business as Government". Who is responsible for putting the Multilateral Agreement on the agenda? Who is responsible for putting the Fifth protocol on the agenda? Who is responsible for putting the GST on the agenda? POWER AND FREEDOM Whose power and whose freedom? In Triumph of the Past Michael Lane writes an excellent article titled "Power and Freedom". He draws together a number of significant revelations by Douglas on philosophical thoughts. On the question of "Wigan" he says: "If we don't like where we are going, why are we going there? Britain had been moving steadily toward more centralized power for fifty years. Both the consistency of the facts over time in Britain and parallel facts in otherwise unlike countries (Germany, Russia, the United States) led Douglas to infer the existence of a Promoter. That is, if for centuries we never went to Wigan and never had the least interest in going to Wigan, then all of a sudden not only are we going there but we have no choice in the matter, it is reasonable to infer that someone wants to go to Wigan". "War is a puzzle just like Wigan". As Douglas said: "I suppose that about two thousand millions of individuals are affected by the present war. I should place the number of individuals who would be quite unable to say with approximate accuracy what it is about at roughly nineteen hundred and ninety nine millions, so that we are left with this simple alternative. Either the total population of the world likes war without knowing what it is about; in which case it is obviously absurd to do anything to abolish it, or, on the other hand, we can find the causes of war if we examine the actions of a minority hidden amongst less than a million individuals" (Programme for the Third World War, p. 32). If people associate to obtain benefits that they could not achieve on their own, why do they allow someone to deny them? There is nothing to be gained in treating the symptom instead of attacking the cause. There is nothing to be gained to complain about the effects without discovering the cause. There is nothing to be gained by spending time and money on matters such as monetary reform of altering the financial system unless there is a guarantee that such a policy will reflect the philosophy of providing economic and political security. RECOGNIZING THE PROBLEM Douglas wrote in The Social Crediter February 7, 1948. "…it must be recognised that the practical problem which we have to face is not intellectual, it is militant. Mere conversion to an understanding of the A + B Theorem, the creation of credit by the banks, the foreign Acceptance swindle, and the whole network of International Finance by itself, leads nowhere. Probably ninety per cent of the adult population of this country suspect that they are being swindled. Even if they understood exactly and technically how they are being swindled, it would make little difference. But it does make a great deal of difference if they know who is obstructing the rectification of the swindle, and who is the major beneficiary. The general population of the country has been completely misled as to the identity of its enemies, and has turned on its most effective leaders, who were far from perfect, but were incomparably better than the mixture of Trades Union careerists and alien schemers who now afflict us. Witness the state of the country, and the worse future with which we are threatened. For all these reasons and others, we conceive it to be our vocation to indicate, without prejudice but without favour, those whom we conceive to be the enemies of our culture and ideals; to unmask their aims". Douglas never failed to continue stressing the importance of the individual against the group ideal. Nor did he lack the courage to point the finger at those whom he considered were the instigators of programmes or policies that were not in the best interest of the individuals in society. It was to be expected that this would attract an attack upon him and Social Credit because those in opposition to the philosophy and policy of Social Credit were not prepared to face the truth. Opposition could be found in personal attacks involving his ideas, his literary style as well as his personal stature and appearance. Most if not all attacks on his works were based on false presentations of his statements and incorrect quoting. In The Social Crediter October 16, 1948 he again reiterated his conviction relating to priorities; "There is a certain body of opinion which is under the impression that we have abandoned the financial aspect of Social Credit. In this connection, we are reminded of a pungent criticism made some years ago, that the great disadvantage under which the Social Credit movement then laboured, was that it was largely composed of Socialists who wanted nationalisation of banking. "People who hold this type of opinion have not taken the trouble to grasp the fundamental subject matter with which we have always been concerned, which is the relationship of the individual to the group. Thirty years ago, that relationship was predominantly a financial relationship. Quite largely through the exertions of the Socialists, strongly assisted by the highest powers of International Finance, the Central Banks have become practically impregnable, and the sanctions, which they exert, have shifted from the bank balance to the Order-in-Council. "It ought to be, but unfortunately it is not, apparent to everyone who takes an intelligent interest in these matters that the fundamental problem has been greatly complicated by the developments of the past twenty years; and that the immediate issue is in the realm of Law and military power, not of book-keeping. That does not mean in the least that book-keeping is one penny the less important than it was when we directed attention to it; but it does mean that it is the second trench to be taken, not the first. For that, we have to thank in great part, the "obsession" with nationalised banking". Today we do not have the emphasis placed on nationalising of the banks, but rather the constant call by some to take the monopoly of credit/money creation from the banks and hand it to the government. This would result in a handing control from one source to another without any change in policy and would lead to even greater disaster and control. After all, it is the government that allows the banks the latitude they have today whilst pretending to promote greater competition. The deregulation and all of its wondrous consequences are still to be realised as of benefit to the individual in our society. Yet it has allowed for greater profits reduced services, increased charges etc. In the 1999 May/June issue of The Australasian Social Credit Journal we drew attention to the increasing use of "consumerism" as a means of control, because that "consumerism" is based on increasing debt. To put it another way, the emphasis on consumerism is an increase in the acceptance of materialism in contradiction to what may be referred to as an increase in the quality of life. People have been blindly and willingly led into an acceptance of those things, which they mistakenly believe, are signs of prosperity much the same way as one could expect of well-fed slaves. The individual in society has accepted the need to work longer hours and the need for a two-income household. We say individual because that is the reality. It is not society that has dictated the rules. It is that someone or a collection of them who have dictated the terms and it is the individual collectively in society who have accepted these terms. In Programme for the Third World War, Douglas wrote: "Now, once you have surrendered to materialism, it is quite true that economics precedes politics, and dominates. It is not in Bolshevism, Fascism, the New Deal and P.E.P or the London School of Economics, or the Fabian Society that we shall find the origins of what we are looking for. These are ostensibly political systems and derive from, rather than give birth to, economics. While this is obvious and axiomatic, it is not so obvious, although equally axiomatic that the principle works both ways. That is as much as to say, if you can control economics, you can keep the business of getting a living the dominant factor of life, and so keep your control of politics - just that long, and no longer". No one would seriously argue that at the present time the "business of getting a living is the dominant factor of life". How did this situation arise? Who is responsible for the economic conditions that prevail that forces farmers off farms, or create the necessity for "downsizing", or to put it very simply removing the means of obtaining a living by reducing employment? We are not here arguing on the necessity for employment but rather the control that is exercised through the reality that under our existing economic and financial system, employment is the only means available to the masses to obtain money that is required for living. We have politicians continually boasting how many jobs have been created, which are in the main, only part time or casual jobs. We have politicians continually calling for the creation of new jobs. Yet, not one politician has declared the necessity to accept technological advancements or increases in productivity and have the benefits passed to those who have been sacked, fired from their jobs or "downsized" to use the euphemism. Emphasis is on the need to work for the "dole" which is a means to have the community divided against itself because of the fiction that it is the 'employed' who are paying taxes who are keeping others on the dole. It is a very neat philosophical approach to "kill two birds with the one stone" as the saying goes. On the one hand the unemployed have no option but to accept the handouts and the conditions that go with them. On the other hand the employed are continuing their efforts to maintain the business of getting a living and paying their taxes, which is an added penalty, and which places further constraints on their ability to live. | (end of excerpt from http://www.ecn.net.au/~socred/lectures.htm ) Also from ecn:
In order to be able to buy something it is necessary to have money. The ways to obtain money are to be employed and obtain a wage or a salary, or to be able to save some money, have an inheritance, or make a winning. For the majority it is by means of employment. Now, there are two ways in which we can discuss employment. One is from a long standing moral imperative, "If a man will not work neither shall he eat' - defining work as something the price of which can be included in all costs and recovered in price. It completely denies all recognition to the social nature of the heritage of civilization, and by its refusal of purchasing power, except on terms, arrogates to a few persons selected by the system, and not by humanity, the right to disinherit the indubitable heirs, the individuals who compose society. [C.H. Douglas, The Control and Distribution of Production 1922] In other words, employment is used as a system of government. The other way is to view employment from the economic aspect. The illusion of 'full employment' The essence of the 'unemployment problem' has been put succinctly by Douglas as follows: "The paramount difficulty of the industrial system is commonly expressed as that of unemployment. Therefore the suggestion involved is that the industrial system exists to provide employment, and fails. Those engaged in the actual conduct of industry, however, are specifically concerned to obtain a given output with a minimum of employment, and in fact a decreasing amount of employment. Consequently, those who are talking about industry and those who are conducting industry have in their minds objectives which are diametrically opposed and incompatible."[C.H. Douglas - The Monopoly of Credit, 4th edition, 1979, Bloomfield Books, Sudbury, Suffolk] And again: "...the best brains of this and every other country in the industrial and scientific field are working as though they recognised their objective to be the replacement of human labour by that of machines, although it is quite possible that very few of them do. To put the matter still more baldly, these best brains are endeavouring to put the world out of work, to create what is miscalled an unemployment problem, but what should be called a condition of leisure." [C.H. Douglas, Warning Democracy, 1930] The only times this century when the 'unemployment problem' was 'solved' came during the two world wars when the industrial nations were fully engaged, not in beneficial production for their peoples, but in the most colossal orgy of mutual destruction in history. Not only was there no unemployment, there were manpower shortages as more and more recruits were called up to replace the losses, and more and more women entered the munitions factories or worked on the land. And the 'balance of trade' was temporarily very favourable indeed - the export, at enormous cost in human lives, of bombs and shells, tanks and aircraft, submarines and torpedoes. And there was never any 'shortage of money' to impede the war effort. As is now also evident from the large defence cuts arising from the 'peace dividend', a substantial proportion of the workforces in the developed economies have been or still are engaged in the presently unavoidable but socially wasteful business of producing munitions of war, most of which never reach open markets. But of course they 'provide jobs' and incomes. The impact of technological advances on productivity leads logically to the conclusions that in the long term unemployment will remain a permanent feature of the industrial scene and that in consequence employment is progressively failing as a social mechanism for distributing incomes. So what is the alternative? The inescapable conclusion is that incomes from employment have to be supplemented by incomes not derived from employment, that is to say, an unearned basic income for all over and above earnings, the cost of which does not appear in the costs of production. However startling that conclusion may appear at first sight, there is nothing new in it, the justification for it on both philosophical and pragmatic grounds having been well enunciated by Douglas years ago. There have been others since Douglas who have made similar observations, one of whom was Professor Robert Theobald when writing in his Free men and Free Markets commented: "Our present socio-economic system only remains valid so long as it is possible for the overwhelming proportion of those seeking jobs to find them and as long as we can assume that these jobs will provide the jobholder with a reasonable income. If this condition is not met, we are no longer justified in assuming that those without jobs are lazy or worthless, or in only paying them minimum incomes on a charity basis. Our present system of income distribution cannot continue if the goal of full employment ceases to be feasible or desirable. What is the present response to the threat of growing unemployment? It is generally agreed by labor, management and government, that the only practical answer to the problem of the worker elbowed aside by cybernation is to push him back through legislation. Indeed, it is proposed that through the use of retraining schemes the worker should be pushed back in just as many times as he gets elbowed out of the system." ===================== Social Credit was been New Zealand's third party for 60 years, but has never won the chance to impliment its program. The New Zealand Social Credit Party (sometimes called "Socred") was a political party which served as the country's "third party" from the 1950s through into the 1980s. The party held a number of seats in the New Zealand Parliament, although never more than two at a time. It has since renamed itself the New Zealand Democratic Party, and was for a time part of the Alliance. The party was based around the ideas of Social Credit, an economic theory established by C. H. Douglas. Social Credit movements also existed in Australia (see: Douglas Credit Party & Australian League of Rights), Canada (see: Canadian social credit movement), and the United Kingdom (see: UK Social Credit Party) although the relationship between those movements and the New Zealand movement was not always good. Before the founding of the Social Credit party in 1953, there was the Social Credit Association. The Association focused most of its efforts on the Country Partyand New Zealand Labour Party, where they attempted to influence policy. Roly Marks stood as a monetary reform candidate for Wanganui in the 1943 general election, and was later made a life member of the League. Social Credit claimed that the first Labour government, which was elected at the 1935 election, pulled New Zealand out of the Great Depression by adopting certain Social Credit policies. Several followers of Social Credit policies eventually left the Labour Party, where their proposals (for example, those of John A. Lee for housing) were strongly opposed by the "orthodox" Minister of Finance, Walter Nash and other prominent Labour Party members. In 1940 Lee, who had by then been expelled from the Labour party, and Bill Barnard formed the Democratic Labour Party. However the new party got only 4.3% of the vote in the 1943 general election, with both Lee and Barnard losing their seats. The Social Credit Party was originally established as the Social Credit Political League. It was founded on 10 January 1953, and grew out of the earlier Social Credit Association. The party's first leader was Wilfrid Owen, a businessman. Much of the early activity in the party involved formulating policy and promoting Social Credit theories to the public. Social Credit gained support quickly, and in the 1954 elections, the party won 11.13% of the vote. The party failed to win seats in parliament under the first past the post electoral system. The party's quick rise did, however, prompt discussion of the party's policies. In 1960 P. H. Matthews replaced Owen as leader. It was not until the 1966 elections, however, that the party won its first representation in Parliament. Vernon Cracknell, an accountant, won the Hobson electorate in Northland, a region that had been a stronghold of the Country Party. Cracknell narrowly defeated the National Party's Logan Sloane, the incumbent, after having placed second in the previous two elections. Cracknell did not prove to be a good performer in Parliament itself, however, and did not succeed in advancing the Social Credit manifesto. Partly due to this, and partly due to an exceptionally poor campaign, Cracknell was not re-elected in the 1969 elections, returning Sloane to parliament and depriving Social Credit of its only seat. The following year, a leadership contest between Cracknell and another prominent Social Credit member, John O'Brien, ended in disaster, with brawling between supporters of each candidate. The damage done to the party's image was considerable. O'Brien was eventually victorious, but his blunt and confrontational style caused him to lose his position after only a short time in office. He split from Social Credit to found his own New Democratic Party.
O'Brien's replacement was Bruce Beetham, who would become the most well known Social Credit leader. Beetham took over in time for the 1972 elections. Despite a relatively strong showing, Social Credit failed to win any seats, a fact that some blamed on the rise of the new Values Party. While the Values Party did not win any seats, many supporters of Social Credit believed that it drew voters away from the older party. In the 1978 by-election in Rangitikei, caused by the death of National Party MP Roy Jack, Beetham managed to defeat National's replacement candidate and win the seat. Beetham was more successful in parliament than Cracknell had been, and gained Social Credit considerable attention. He also put forward a New Zealand Credit and Currency Bill, intended to implement many Social Credit policies. The Bill was criticised by some of the more extreme Social Credit supporters, who claimed that it was too weak, but was nevertheless strongly promoted in parliament by Beetham. The Bill quickly failed, although this was not particularly unexpected - it had been put forward primarily for the purpose of drawing attention, not because Beetham believed it would succeed. Beetham retained his seat in the 1978 general election. He was later joined by Gary Knapp, who defeated National Party candidate Don Brash in the 1980 by-election in East Coast Bays (caused by the resignation of the sitting National MP). Knapp, like Beetham, was highly active in parliament. Led by Beetham and Knapp, Social Credit became a popular alternative to the two major parties. Political scientists debate how much of this was due to Social Credit policies and how much was merely a "protest vote" against the established parties, but one poll recorded Social Credit with as much as 30% of the vote. By the 1981 elections, the party's support had subsided somewhat, and Social Credit only gained 20.55% of the vote. As expected, the electoral system did not translate this into seats in parliament, but Social Credit did retain the two seats it already held. A year later, it officially dropped "Political League" from its official name, becoming merely the Social Credit Party. During that parliamentary term, Social Credit's support was damaged by a deal between Beetham and National Party Prime Minister Robert Muldoon. In exchange for Social Credit support for a controversial construction project, Muldoon undertook to back Social Credit in certain matters. This did considerable harm to Social Credit's popularity, as Muldoon's government (and the construction project itself) was opposed by most Social Credit members. To make matters worse, Muldoon did not deliver on many of his pledges, depriving Social Credit of any significant victories with which to mitigate its earlier setback. In 1983, Beetham suffered a minor heart attack, causing him to lose some of his earlier energy. He also became, according to many Social Credit supporters, more demanding and intolerant. This reduced Social Credit's appeal to voters. In the 1984 elections, Beetham lost his Rangitikei seat to a National Party challenger, Denis Marshall. Knapp retained his East Coast Bays seat, and another Social Credit candidate, Neil Morrison, won Pakuranga. Despite still holding the same number of seats, Social Credit won only 7.6% of the total vote in 1984, a substantial drop. Some commentators attributed this to the New Zealand Party, a right-wing liberal party that opposed Muldoon's government. The New Zealand Party may have taken some of the protest votes that Social Credit once received. It was from this election that the term "Crimpoline Suit and Skoda Brigade" was coined for Social Credit (by defeated National Party Pakuranga MP Pat Hunt).
At the party's 1985 conference, the Social Credit name was dropped, and group became the New Zealand Democratic Party. The Democrats did not retain any seats in the 1987 elections. Although several Democrats were elected to parliament as part of the Alliance in the 1990s, the Democratic Party has not had independent representation in parliament since 1987. The Social Credit name did not vanish immediately, however. In 1986, the year after the party was renamed, Bruce Beetham was removed from the leadership of the Democrats and replaced by Neil Morrison. Beetham was extremely bitter about his dismissal, and led a short-lived splinter group which readopted the Social Credit label. It failed to win any seats, however, and quickly vanished. Before the 2005 election the Democrats renamed themselves to the New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit, reincorporating the Social Credit name. While the early international Social Credit movement was associated by some people with anti-Semitism, it is far from certain the New Zealand movement displayed this aspect in any significant numbers or for any significant period of time. The history of anti-Semitism and the New Zealand Social Credit political movement was unique to the history of the country. Anti-Semitism has largely been absent in New Zealand, even in the Victorian period, as evidenced by the election without comment of a Jewish prime minister in the 1870s. The early Social Credit movement diverged from its international brethren. In New Zealand, Social Credit concentrated solely on the economic theories of the international movement without its attendant racial theories. In a twist of history, the New Zealand faction of the League of Rights, unlike similar organisations in Australia and the United Kingdom, was structurally and historically unrelated to Social Credit. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, it began to infiltrate Social Credit in order to have a wider platform for their views. This attempt was curtailed when it became identified and those members of the party were purged by Beetham. In further twist of history, after the purge, politicians with League connections were to be found not in Social Credit but in the National Party, notably cabinet ministers George Gair and Ben Couch in the Muldoon administration. Even these connections with the League were transient, Gair indeed abhorred anti-Semitism and had not realised this undercurrent of the League when he first associated with it. Indeed the autonomous existence of the League of Rights in New Zealand only occurred because anti-Semitism was not afforded a position within Social Credit.
========================== When I was a young man, "Red" meant Marxist/Communist and Progressive "Fellow Travellers" and dupes. Today the pro-war pro-Rothschild Neo-cons call themselves Red State. ========================================================== Items on various subjects From: Richard Wilcox Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:20 AM Subject: Did they really kill the well from hell? BP Bottom Kills the Well from Hell; But Which Well Did They Really Kill, And Is It Really Dead? (A very technical analysis which I have not the time to really comprehend, but it boils down to killing a dummy well while the real gusher keeps gushing. I personally have no idea what is true. But BP, OBAMA, and the US Zionist Media cannot be trusted. Here is what one commenter wrote: "This is more than most people can digest. Bottom Line?: The blown out well is still gushing oil and the Corexit dispersant is still being mixed at the aperture or hole in the ground? How long can this go on without being noticed? Will they put a Corexit pipeline in place with a direct connection to a Corexit plant on shore? If this is the case then this mass death will have to spread to the Atlantic.") http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/bp-bottom-kills-the-well-from-hell-but-which-well-did-they-really-kill/ George Carlin and Bill Hicks tell it like it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3xxwQvVnE Eight US Universities say yes to Jewish Apart-hate Lawrence Davidson argues that by signing student exchange agreements with Israeli universities that practice apartheid, eight US universities, including Harvard, Columbia and Michigan, are lending themselves to the destruction of the very educational virtues they claim to cherish. http://www.redress.cc/americas/ldavidson2010092 Tea-o-Cons Keith Johnson talks about the latest trojan horse affecting the "truth movement"–The Tea Parties. http://theuglytruth.podbean.com/2010/09/26/the-ugly-truth-podcast-sept-27-2010/ VIDEO: The Tea-o-cons http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=556 John Williams on the future of hyperinflation in the US http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/9/25_John_Williams_files/John%20Williams%209%3A25%3A2010.mp3 WIDE AWAKE RADIO with CHARLIE McGRATH http://www.renseradioarchives.com/wideawake/ Citizens seeking answers to aluminum contamination concerns http://www.mtshastanews.com/opinions/x1950206316/Citizens-seeking-answers-to-aluminum-contamination-concerns Monsanto's aluminum resistant seeds http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=14393 WORLD PREMIERE: WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING? http://www.atlantapremiere.com/ Observations On A Damaged Society Clandestine Weather Modification At All Costs By Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri http://www.rense.com/general92/obs.htm Judeo-pornographic society or Islam? Which is closer to your values? your ideals? Why do evangelical and tongues-and-faith-healing TV evangelists side with Zionism -- the Religion of the Pharisees? -- why do they accept the lie that God wants them to murder Moslems for Israel? US. Sectretaries of the Treasury -- a subject needing more research. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander Hamilton, New York | Sept. 11, 1789 - Jan. 31, 1795 | Washington | |||||
| | |||||||
| Oliver Wolcott Jr., Connecticut | Feb. 3, 1795 - Mar. 3, 1797 Mar. 4, 1797 - Dec. 31, 1800 | Washington John Adams | |||||
| | |||||||
| Samuel Dexter, Massachusetts | Jan. 1, 1801 - Mar. 3, 1801 Mar. 4, 1801 - May. 6, 1801 | John Adams Jefferson | |||||
| | |||||||
| Albert Gallatin, Pennsylvania | May 14, 1801 - Mar. 3, 1809 Mar. 4, 1809 - Feb 9 , 1814 | Jefferson Madison | |||||
| | |||||||
| George W. Campbell , Tennessee | Feb. 9, 1814 - Sept. 26, 1814 | Madison | |||||
| | |||||||
| Alexander J. Dallas, Pennsylvania | Oct. 6, 1814 - Oct. 21, 1816 | Madison | |||||
| | |||||||
| William H. Crawford, Georgia | Oct. 22, 1816 - Mar. 3, 1817 Mar. 4, 1817 - Mar. 3, 1825 | Madison Monroe | |||||
| | |||||||
| Richard Rush, Pennsylvania | Mar. 7, 1825 - Mar. 3, 1829 | J.Q. Adams | |||||
| | |||||||
| Samuel D. Ingham, Pennsylvania | Mar. 6, 1829 - Jun. 20, 1831 | Jackson | |||||
| | |||||||
| Louis McLane, Delaware | Aug. 8, 1831 - May 29, 1833 | Jackson | |||||
| | |||||||
| William J. Duane, Pennsylvania | May 29, 1833 - Sep. 23, 1833 | Jackson | |||||
| | |||||||
| Roger B. Taney, Maryland | Sep. 23, 1833 - Jun. 24, 1834 | Jackson | |||||
| | |||||||
| Levi Woodbury, New Hampshire | Jul. 1, 1834 - Mar. 3, 1837 Mar. 4, 1837 - Mar. 3, 1841 | Jackson Van Buren | |||||
| | |||||||
| Thomas Ewing, Ohio | Mar. 5, 1841 - Apr. 4, 1841 Apr. 5, 1841 - Sep. 11, 1841 | W.H. Harrison Tyler | |||||
| | |||||||
| Walter Forward, Pennsylvania | Sep. 13, 1841 - Mar. 1, 1843 | Tyler | |||||
| | |||||||
| John C. Spencer, New York | Mar. 8, 1843 - May 2, 1844 | Tyler | |||||
| | |||||||
| George M. Bibb, Kentucky | Jul. 4, 1844 - Mar. 3, 1845 Mar. 4, 1845 - Mar. 7, 1845 | Tyler Polk | |||||
| | |||||||
| Robert J. Walker, Mississippi | Mar. 8, 1845 - Mar. 3, 1849 Mar. 4, 1849 - Mar. 5, 1849 | Polk Taylor | |||||
| | |||||||
| William M. Meredith, Pennsylvania | Mar. 8, 1849 - Jul. 9, 1850 Jul. 10, 1850 - Jul. 22, 1850 | Taylor Fillmore | |||||
| | |||||||
| Thomas Corwin, Ohio | Jul. 23, 1850 - Mar. 3, 1853 Mar 4, 1853 - Mar. 6, 1853 | Fillmore Pierce | |||||
| | |||||||
| James Guthrie, Kentucky | Mar. 7, 1853 - Mar. 3, 1857 Mar. 4, 1857 - Mar. 6, 1857 | Pierce Buchanan | |||||
| | |||||||
| Howell Cobb, Georgia | Mar. 7, 1857 - Dec. 8, 1860 | Buchanan | |||||
| | |||||||
| Philip F. Thomas, Maryland | Dec. 12, 1860 - Jan. 14, 1861 | Buchanan | |||||
| | |||||||
| John A. Dix, New York | Jan. 15, 1861 - Mar. 3, 1861 Mar. 4, 1861 - Mar. 6, 1861 | Buchanan Lincoln | |||||
| | |||||||
| Salmon P. Chase, Ohio | Mar. 7, 1861 - Jun. 30, 1864 | Lincoln | |||||
| | |||||||
| William P. Fessenden, Maine | Jul. 5, 1864 - Mar. 3, 1865 | Lincoln | |||||
| | |||||||
| Hugh McCulloch, Indiana | Mar. 9, 1865 - Apr. 15, 1865 Apr. 15, 1865 - Mar. 3, 1869 | Lincoln A. Johnson | |||||
| | |||||||
| George S. Boutwell, Massachusetts | Mar. 12, 1869 - Mar. 16, 1873 | Grant | |||||
| | |||||||
| William A. Richardson, Massachusetts | Mar. 17, 1873 - Jun. 3, 1874 | Grant | |||||
| | |||||||
| Benjamin H. Bristow, Kentucky | Jun. 4, 1874 - Jun. 20, 1876 | Grant | |||||
| | |||||||
| Lot M. Morrill, Maine | Jul. 7, 1876 - Mar. 3, 1877 Mar. 4, 1877 - Mar. 9, 1877 | Grant Hayes | |||||
| | |||||||
| John Sherman, Ohio | Mar. 10, 1877 - Mar. 3, 1881 | Hayes | |||||
| | |||||||
| William Windom, Minnesota | Mar. 8, 1881 - Sep. 19, 1881 Sep. 20, 1881 - Nov. 13, 1881 | Garfield Arthur | |||||
| | |||||||
| Charles J. Folger, New York | Nov. 14, 1881 - Sep. 4, 1884 | Arthur | |||||
| | |||||||
| Walter Q. Gresham, Indiana | Sep. 25, 1884 - Oct. 30, 1884 | Arthur | |||||
| | |||||||
| Hugh McCulloch, Indiana | Oct. 31, 1884 - Mar. 3, 1885 Mar. 4, 1885 - Mar. 7, 1885 | Arthur Cleveland | |||||
| | |||||||
| Daniel Manning, New York | Mar. 8, 1885 - Mar. 31, 1887 | Cleveland | |||||
| | |||||||
| Charles S. Fairchild, New York | Apr. 1, 1887 - Mar. 3, 1889 Mar. 4, 1889 - Mar. 6, 1889 | Cleveland B. Harrison | |||||
| | |||||||
| William Windom, Minnesota | Mar. 7, 1889 - Jan. 29, 1891 | B. Harrison | |||||
| | |||||||
| Charles Foster, Ohio | Feb. 25, 1891 - Mar. 3, 1893 Mar. 4, 1893 - Mar. 6, 1893 | B. Harrison Cleveland | |||||
| | |||||||
| John G. Carlisle, Kentucky | Mar. 7, 1893 - Mar. 3, 1897 Mar. 4, 1897 - Mar. 5, 1897 | Cleveland McKinley | |||||
| | |||||||
| Lyman J. Gage, Illinois | Mar. 6, 1897 - Sep. 14, 1901 Sep. 14, 1901 - Jan. 31, 1902 | McKinley T. Roosevelt | |||||
| | |||||||
| Leslie M. Shaw, Iowa | Feb. 1, 1902 - Mar. 3, 1907 | T. Roosevelt | |||||
| | |||||||
| George B. Cortelyou, New York | Mar. 4, 1907 - Mar. 3, 1909 Mar. 4, 1909 - Mar. 7, 1909 | T. Roosevelt Taft | |||||
| | |||||||
| Franklin MacVeagh, Illinois | Mar. 8, 1909 - Mar. 3, 1913 Mar. 4, 1913 - Mar. 5, 1913 | Taft Wilson | |||||
| | |||||||
| William G. McAdoo, New York | Mar. 6, 1913 - Dec. 15, 1918 | Wilson | The Baruch minion controlled Treasury during World War One | ||||
| | |||||||
| Carter Glass, Virginia | Dec. 16, 1918 - Feb. 1, 1920 | Wilson | |||||
| | |||||||
| David F. Houston, Missouri | Feb. 2, 1920 - Mar. 3, 1921 | Wilson | |||||
| | |||||||
| Andrew W. Mellon, Pennsylvania | Mar. 4, 1921 - Aug. 2, 1923 Harding Aug. 3, 1923 - Mar. 3, 1929 Coolidge Mar. 4, 1929 - Feb. 12, 1932 | Hoover | |||||
| | |||||||
| Ogden L. Mills, New York | Feb. 13, 1932- Mar. 3, 1933 | Hoover | |||||
| | |||||||
| William H. Woodin, New York | Mar. 4, 1933 - Dec. 31, 1933 | F.D. Roosevelt | |||||
| | |||||||
| Henry Morgenthau, Jr., New York | Jan. 1, 1934 - Apr. 12, 1945 Apr. 12, 1945 - Jul. 22, 1945 | F.D. Roosevelt Truman | This man poisoned Franklin Roosevelt, fashioned the Morganthau Plan. | ||||
| | |||||||
| Fred M. Vinson, Kentucky | Jul. 23, 1945 - Jun. 23, 1946 | Truman | |||||
| | |||||||
| John W. Snyder, Missouri | Jun. 25, 1946 - Jan. 20, 1953 | Truman | |||||
| | |||||||
| George M. Humphrey, Ohio | Jan. 21, 1953 - Jul. 29, 1957 | Eisenhower | |||||
| | |||||||
| Robert B. Anderson, Connecticut | Jul. 29, 1957 - Jan. 20, 1961 | Eisenhower | |||||
| | |||||||
| C. Douglas Dillon, New Jersey | Jan. 21, 1961 - Nov 22, 1963 Nov. 22, 1963 - Apr. 1, 1965 | Kennedy L.B. Johnson | |||||
| | |||||||
| Henry H. Fowler, Virginia | Apr. 1, 1965 - Dec. 20, 1968 | L.B. Johnson | |||||
| | |||||||
| Joseph W. Barr, Indiana | Dec. 21, 1968 - Jan. 20, 1969 | L.B. Johnson | |||||
| | |||||||
| David M. Kennedy, Utah | Jan. 22, 1969 - Feb. 11, 1971 | Nixon | |||||
| | |||||||
| John B. Connally, Texas | Feb. 11, 1971 - Jun. 12, 1972 | Nixon | |||||
| | |||||||
| George P. Shultz, Illinois | Jun. 12, 1972 - May 8, 1974 | Nixon | |||||
| | |||||||
| William E. Simon, New Jersey | May 8, 1974 - Aug. 9, 1974 Aug 9, 1974 - Jan. 20, 1977 | Nixon Ford | |||||
| | |||||||
| W. Michael Blumenthal, Michigan | Jan. 23, 1977 - Aug. 4, 1979 | Carter | |||||
| | |||||||
| G. William Miller, Rhode Island | Aug. 6, 1979 - Jan. 20, 1981 | Carter | Before taking this positiion Miller was chariman of the Fed during the double digit inflation of the late 70's before Volker. | ||||
| | |||||||
| Donald T. Regan, New Jersey | Jan. 22, 1981 - Feb. 2, 1985 | Reagan | Previously key Wall Street player in setting up conditions for the S & L scandal -- | ||||
| James A. Baker, III, Texas | Feb. 3, 1985 - Aug. 17, 1988 | Reagan | |||||
| | |||||||
| Nicholas F. Brady, New Jersey | Sep. 16, 1988 - Jan. 20, 1989 Jan. 20, 1989 - Jan. 17, 1993 | Reagan G.H.W. Bush | |||||
| | |||||||
| Lloyd M. Bentsen, Texas | Jan. 22, 1993 - Dec. 22, 1994 | Clinton | |||||
| | |||||||
| Robert E. Rubin, New York | Jan. 10, 1995 - Jul. 2, 1999 | Clinton | |||||
| | |||||||
| Lawrence H. Summers, Massachusetts | Jul. 2, 1999 - Jan. 20, 2001 | Clinton | |||||
| | |||||||
| Paul H. O'Neill, Pennsylvania | Jan. 30, 2001 - Dec. 31, 2002 | G.W. Bush | |||||
| | |||||||
| John W. Snow, Virginia | Feb. 3, 2003 - June 29, 2006 | G.W. Bush | |||||
| | |||||||
| Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Illinois | Jul. 10, 2006 - Jan. 20, 2009 | G.W. Bush | |||||
| | |||||||
| Timothy F. Geithner, New York | Jan. 26,2009 - Present | Obama | |||||
__._,_.___ | . | ||||||
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment