[GJM] William Ryan

[Peter Hogwood]

I have noticed a tendency of self-styled geniuses, who
in their minds have invented something they think will
save the world, particularly in monetary reform
circles, to display a paranoiac suspicion that people
around them are conspiring against them.  It goes with
the territory, it seems.

In this case, Chris, you are reading far too much in
my email protesting the actions of the putative IJCCR
moderator, Colin C. Williams.  Williams never usually
read any of the list messages, and never took part in
the discussions.  Never once in his years as moderator
did he ever do anything to promote and encourage or
guide the discussions.  In other words, he did not
normally ever perform even the most routine functions
of moderator.  This was just a power trip on his part,
as well as his action in totally shutting down the
list, a year and a half later, for reasons he did not
even try to explain.  He said he was turning it into
an announcement only list, for whatever reason, though
not a single announcement has been posted to date.

I had followed the discussions on the list for several
years, particularly since my friend, Bill Ryan, was
sometimes participating.

I subscribe to a great number of lists to which I
routinely do not post.

In this instance, I had forgotten I had not actually
previously posted to this particular list, when I
reacted in anger to the arbitrary action against Bill
Ryan.

That's all there is to it, despite your fervent
imagination in reading something into it that isn't
there.

Peter Hogwood


--- chris cook <cojock at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> William
> 
> > Fine. But what you're saying, Janos, is that posts
> containing ad hominem attacks against me will be
> > accepted. There have been several in rapid 
> succession.
> 
> Janos has, I am sure, drawn the same conclusion as
> everyone else as to the identity of Peter Hogwood
> after reading Peter Hogwood's first post on IJCCR
> immediately following the rejection by the moderator
> of all three of William Ryan's three existing IJCCR 
> email addresses
> 
> > > As for myself, this is my final posting.
> > >
> > > I depart the loony bin.
> 
> Your "final" posting, when Peter Hogwood had never
> made a previous IJCCR post? I rest my case.
> 
> All of this detracts from the first rate response
> you just made to Rodney.
> 
> I agree with your analysis of the existing system:
> however, I differ from both you and Rodney in terms
> of your assumptions and the consequences of them.
> 
> Your assumption appears to be that Credit is Money;
> ie Money is an Object or Token. As I understand
> Social Credit such was Colonel Douglas's assumption.
> 
> In my view Money is a Relationship, not an Object,
> and  Credit - or "time to pay" - is implicit in this
> relationship, which also requires an abstract Value
> Unit.
> 
> Wherever there is a barter network, such as the WIR,
> or proprietary systems such as Bartercard, where
> credit is granted bilaterally from seller to buyer,
> then the result is a monetary system requiring a
> Value Unit.  This is essentially the "Clearing
> Union" as advocated by Keynes at Bretton Woods.
> 
> So while Credit may be Money, created privately by
> credit institutions/Banks, or publicly by
> Treasuries, it need not be Money.
> 
> Such "Money as Debt" (whether created by Private
> Banks, Central Banks or Treasuries) is only one of
> the financial claims that together comprise
> "Financial Capital".
> 
> The other financial claim is "Equity" typically that
> comprised in shares with Par Value (eg £1.00) in a
> Joint Stock Limited Liability Company - the
> "Corporation".
> 
> This entity is so engrained in our consciousness
> that the very distinction between "Public" and
> "Private" assumes the latter to mean "owned by a
> Corporation".
> 
> But that need not be the case.
> 
> There is no reason at all why  public assets  should
> not remain in public ownership  and  rights to the
> production or use value of these assets sold to
> investors by "unitising" them through the use of
> trust or partnership-based vehicles instead of
> Corporations. Indeed Canada's capital market - as
> you will know - is now divided between conventional
> listed shares in Corporations, and listed "units" in
> gross Corporate revenues through "Income Trusts".
> 
> This opens up the possibility of  "unitisation" into
> redeemable units of production/ use value
> denominated not in "Money as Debt" but in (say)
> kilowatt hours, or square metre days. 
> 
> I believe that this technique of "asset-based"
> financing (based upon ownership as opposed to a
> "deficit-based" claim over someone else's ownership)
> opens up new forms of "fungible" "money's worth"
> with a value in exchange, and that this exchange
> will take place on a "Clearing Union" platform.
> 
> Banks as Guarantors
> Credit is a necessary part of the Monetary process,
> and credit or "time to pay" has no cost in itself.
> The true economic function of a credit intermediary
> - aka a Bank - is in fact its implicit guarantee of
> the borrower's credit.
> 
> A Bank's "interest" charge covers - as you
> accurately analyse - the "interest" it pays to
> (equal and opposite) depositors, its operating
> "costs" (in "money's worth" of labour, energy,
> goods, whatever), and any default costs. It then
> hopes to make a "Profit" for the benefit of its
> rentier shareholders.
> 
> A Bank's implicit guarantee is backed by regulatory
> capital set by the Bank of International Settlements
> in Basel.
> 
> The problem has been that Banks have been routinely
> outsourcing this guarantee:
> 
> (a) permanently - through "securitisation";
> 
> (b) temporarily - through credit derivatives; and
> 
> (c) partially - through credit insurance by
> "monoline" insurers;
> 
> resulting, when mixed into toxic cocktails of
> structured products, in the current "Credit Crash".
> 
> An Alternative Financial System
> The solution I advocate, and am working to
> introduce, comprises two mechanisms, neither of
> which requires legislation.
> 
> Firstly, a mutualised guarantee of bilateral credit.
>  This guarantee would be  backed by  provisions made
>  by both Buyer and Seller (analogous to Keynes'
> proposal that payments be made in respect of
> positive and negative trade balances of "Bancors")
> of "money's worth" into a "Default Pool".
> 
> A Service Provider (ie a bank) would no longer put
> its proprietary capital at risk, but would manage
> credit creation (by setting guarantee limits) and
> also manage defaults, and operate the accounting
> system of this "Guarantee Society". It would be paid
> for this service, of course.
> 
> Secondly, conventional secured credit would be
> replaced by investment in land, energy assets, and
> other productive assets by "unitising" and selling
> forward the production into redeemable units, and
> these would be shared proportionally between the
> financiers and the users of the finance in what I
> call a "Capital Partnership".
> 
> A bank's role here is that of an "Investment Bank",
> bringing investors together with investments - a
> "service provider" , again neither creating credit
> nor putting capital at risk to do so.
> 
> In the case of a Guarantee Society, the accounting
> requirement is for a "Shared Transaction
> Repository", or database of Accounts Receivable and
> Accounts Payable: in the case of a Capital
> Partnership, the requirement is for a "Shared Title
> Repository".
> 
> In neither case is there any "profit" or "loss".
> 
> A Guarantee Society is therefore banking without the
> bank as intermediary, and operating on a "Not for
> Loss" basis.
> 
> Capital Partnerships allow the possibility of direct
> investment in productive assets, with the
> possibility of the creation of a "National Equity"
> consisting of the networked pool of productive
> assets, and a "National Debt" consisting of the
> networked pool of mutualised credit.
> 
> Such is my analysis. You may consider it "wacky" and
> that is your privilege, but it based upon actual
> knowledge and experience, up to and including the
> highest level, of global market operations, for what
> that's worth.
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Chris Cook
> 
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs