"Doc" <doc@qld.gov.au> wrote in message
news:pu5h82plt3f6i3cg4ueur37ptpd9410u0f@4ax.com...
(snipped)
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 01:05:39 GMT, "Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au>
Thanks for the admission that I am correct. Did you really have to
spoil it by identifying yourself as an apologist for the banks with
the attempted whitewash that followed?
You misunderstand me. I studied what you are studying thirty years ago.
I'm probably the only person in Australia who has read the Minutes of
Evidence of the 1937 Royal Commission on Banking and Finance...all the way
through. Two volumes, over 1000 pages each. I still still have them.
I had the exact same attitude you have to Bankers. It made me very bitter.
Then after a few years I gradually started to see the difference between
having an ideal of what is*right* and what actually happened, and why.
What is * right* is based on Christian ideology against Usury. This gave
Christians a big lag behind the Jews when the Industrial Revolution came
along. Before then the whole world's economy was RURAL or Village Craft.
This is why all those other countries you mention were, to them at the time,
rich. All they traded was commodities and small hand-made craft items,
spices from the east etc.
The Industrial Revolution changed all that. For the first time in history
a few people of genius, all within a triangle of wet cold land between
Edinburgh, Oxford, and Cambridge, started inventing things that changed the
RURAL life to INDUSTRIAL. Woolweaving engines and Steam engines, Steel
smelting foundries needed vast sums of money. So who was around to think up
ways of providing it...or creating it...our old Usurious friends of course.
The Uriah Heaps. But it wasn't new, just that it was PRESCIENT for the
times. Banks existed in Venice and Holland for trading but not in
Britain...they used private money lenders and goldsmiths for safekeeping.
The Uriah Heaps, the Goldsmiths, got in first and established Banks through
their knowledge of goldsmithing.. The early birds got the worms. And like
Topsy it just growd until the Christians could see no other way of doing
things either. They still dont.
We can get all scewed up about how it all began and how the Christians were
so moral about money lending at interest but this system was an ad hoc way
of getting things done quickly to take advantage of new ideas. There had
to be an incentive to get people to risk their savings on things that had
never been done before. But even all the savings in England could not
provide the capital needed. It had to be created by Credit.
Now *this* is the way the world is run and to try and change it now would
starve billions and few people would understand, or forgive you, for
wrecking their livelihoods because you feel betrayed about what is right and
wrong.
Yes, I have read all the Social Credit literature. I know how the
Commonwealth Bank first started and the troubles it had with other Bankers
for keeping interest rates down. I have Blainy's "Gold and Paper" and
most of the post war-writings on Banking. Ben Chifley is my only political
idol.
But you will one day have to acknowledge that rightness and wrongness in
Political Science (sic) and Economics are sort of ...you know...negotiable.
Certainly study the history as an academic study but be wary about trying to
change it. Marx had those ideas too and look what has happened with his
ideas.
The Muslims have the same moral outrage about interest on money too and
look how rich they are. They only know how to lodge their saving with
Americans because they have no faith in their own abilities to provide for
their people. They will go backward fast. Especially now as new technology
will make their one sellable commodity near obsolete.
They will depend on monies saved in American Banks at interest!
.
|
