[GJM] John Bunzl, and Transfinancial Economics Pt 2.

[robert searle]

--- robert searle <dharao4 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear John Bunzl,
> 
>          I thought it might be a good idea to add
> further comment. I think there is one very serious
> problem with SP, and it is this. For the sake of
> argument, if a number of rich democratic countries
> were likely to simultaneously implement in this case
> the policy of radical reforms for corporations,
> and/or
> banks. They could quite easily remove their
> businesses, and capital  out of the respective
> countries (temporarily)BEFORE actual implemenation.
> They would probably go to some Third World country
> (where SP is not going to be seriously
> implemented).They would only return IF the new
> policies were dropped as soon as possible. In other
> words, "blackmail". Such a process could be
> repeated,
> and bring havoc to the money markets. If this were
> to
> happen it maybe that a compromise situation could be
> worked out.
> 
> I assume you have an answer for the above, and
> remember that capital is highly mobile. It just
> requires the authorized click of a button for it to
> be
> transmitted into some other account!
> 
> 
>        TFE Again/ Divide, and Rule Strategy.
> 
> 
> Another strategy which may be useful in the possible
> implementation of TFE is to get the Corporation
> involved in some in fighting between themselves.
> Such
> an approach could lead to a large number of them
> supporting TFE against the banks (a sort of top-down
> SP for Corporations marginalising the power of the
> financial institutions). The latter would still
> exist
> but their power to be the only creators of money
> could
> be reduced (yet, they could still receive greater
> super-normal profits than before as part of the
> negotiating process with rich democratic
> governments).
> 
> 
> The democratic governments could have new funding
> undertaken for programmes via an independent
> authority
> or  Central Treasury Bank. Banks could also create
> new
> non-repayable grants too (for non-governmental
> programmes ofcourse), and the interest on them along
> with loans would be self-created by some outside
> body
> (Auto-Profit).
> 
> There is a need for new strategies to be developed,
> and I feel (bottom-up)SP for radical financial
> reform
> is probably too simplistic for any serious change to
> occu. However, it is a very worthy concept, and
> deserves support...and should technically speaking
> work in most cases.
> 
> I do hope you make kindly respond, and I hope the
> above makes some sense..
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robert Searle
> 
> 
> Lets keep talking!!
> 
> 
>                
> 
> Dear John Bunzl,
> 
>          I have only just now come across your
> interesting post. Also, I must thank you for the
> manuscript you sent me. I will comment on it
> shortly.
> 
> First, your remarks on TFE. 
> 
> 
> i) I think that there have to more carrots than
> sticks
> to achieve reform of corporations, and banks.
> Simultaneous Policy though excellent as a bottom up
> approach. Yet, the process of financial, and
> corporate
> reform would take alot longer I suspect. Even if the
> most rich democratic governments of the world were
> to
> simultaneously endorse the implementation of
> interest
> free (and tax free) money reform which would involve
> the demise of commercial banks (unlike TFE though
> this
> is also possible as a future scenario) they would
> fight tooth, and nail (by using delaying tactics via
> the courts, and other legal "instruments"). Remember
> we are dealing with something very powerful here. It
> would be one hell of fight in spite of SP.......
> 
> You also indicate how can we be sure that the new
> unearned money would not be misused by the
> Corporations? The answer lies in how independent the
> Central Treasury (ie the government)Bank is of
> commercial interests. This would have to involve a
> genuine regulatory framework. Ofcourse, the
> Corporations would NOT get all this finance in one
> go.
> It would be transmitted in stages to ensure that it
> were correctly spent. Here, government agencies with
> real teeth could make sure this happens, or else the
> funding is suspended, or stopped altogether pending
> legal action. However, it is not in the interests of
> Corporations not to be compliant because they could
> loose big-time financially. It is simple as that. It
> is in their own interests that a tax, and interest
> free economy were to come about. The same is true of
> banks which neatly brings us to the next point which
> you raise.
> 
> 
> ii) The banks would NOT loose total control over the
> creation of money. They would probably be more
> powerful than they are now, but ofcourse future
> democratic governments would always have the capital
> to ensure bank regulations were in place, and were
> effective. It may be possible (though understandably
> outrageous to many) that like the Central Treasury
> Bank they could also create grants for various
> funding
> bodies (ie trusts, foundations..) and perhaps to
> certain NGOs en direct. They would profit by what
> might be termed grant interest created by a genuine
> indepedent body. This ofcourse is like the interest
> created on loans in the Auto-Profit concept of TFE. 
> 
> More controversially they could instead act as
> agents
> of democratic governments to undertake ALL the
> creation of grants (and loans ofcourse). For some
> this
> may be a step too far. Yet, we have to think
> differently from the mainstream if real progress is
> to
>  be made in interest, and tax-free monetary reform
> 
> There is still much research to be undertaken, and
> many possible options to look at.
> 
> 
>                 Your Manuscript.
> 
> Yes, I have read some of it. There is nothing really
> much to say other than that as far as I am concerned
> you are obviously RIGHT . However, the key problem
> is
> that politics, and politicians have lost all
> credibility in the eyes of the public.  SP is fine,
> and an "easy" means of changing specific policies.
> But
> in spite of any innovative ideas many people still
> feel disempowered by the present system altogether. 
> 
> Despite of what has just been said  SP could in the
> future help the introduction of TFE but I feel
> dealing
> directly with the rich democratic governments (via
> their economics advisors, certain academics,
> corporations, banks etc) is still largely the way
> forward whether we like it, or not. Ironically, it
> could lead to greater financial empowerment, and
> indeed, influence towards a more moral crusade
> against
> the power of the few. This forms part of the Level
> Playing Field of TFE....(ie. greater financial
> empowerment of NGOs). 
> 
> Finally,I was also interested to see in your
> manuscript reference to some Alice Bailey writings
> if
> I am not mistaken. You may find my other project of
> interest.
> 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. 
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk