Reince Priebus, 44 ans, sera le secrétaire général de la Maison-Blanche. Orthodoxe pratiquant (à l’Eglise grecque), Priebus anime le groupe des Républicains orthodoxes. Il est particulièrement préoccupé par le sort des orthodoxes dans le monde. Se pourrait-il que l’Amérique songe enfin à enrayer le nettoyage religieux des Chrétiens au Moyen-Orient?
President-elect Donald Trump has named Reince Priebus, an Orthodox Christian, as his White House chief of staff come January 2017.
The forty-four year old Priebus has a long history in politics, and is a personal friend of House speaker Paul Ryan, which is expected to help in garnering legislative victories for the Trump administration, The Guardian
Priebus has served as state treasurer and Republican party chairman in Wisconsin, and took up the post of Republican National Convention chairman in 2011, becoming a loyal Trump campaign adviser and helping to garner broad support that led to his victory.
More importantly, the soon-to-be chief of staff is an Orthodox Christian, and through his efforts with fellow Orthodox Republicans, the need for defending religious freedom in places of high risk for Orthodox Christians was added to the Republic Party platform, according to the Greek Archdiocese’s official site
Christos anesti! I want to wish Orthodox Christians around the world a happy and blessed Easter. As our church has done for generations, we celebrate the resurrection of Christ and the love of God in providing a savior. Just as the first Christians praised God at the sight of the empty tomb, we too praise our good and merciful God today for his victory over the grave. Christ’s sacrificial work provides an example for us all, and we join with the Psalmist in saying ‘You make known to me the path of life.’ Easter is a time for the celebration of new life, and I pray we will all draw on that new hope throughout the year,
and on his personal Twitter
account he exclaimed: “To my Greek Orthodox friends, Kalo Pascha and Christos Anesti!”
29 janv. 2016 – … the real economy, the State, the Cantons, taxpayers and traditional … François de Siebenthal: Money creation management by the Swiss .
In Douglas’ speech, “Authoritative Democracy” (1935), he writes:
“Unless we are profoundly mistaken, we believe that such a [monetary – OH] system would involve three main characteristics. First, a scientific regulation of prices, secondly, the public control, though not necessarily the public administration, of the creation of credit for production, and, thirdly, the distribution of an increasing and universal National Dividend, so that every British born subject would become a shareholder in Great Britain, and, perhaps, ultimately, in the British Empire.”
This parallels point by point Douglas’ laying out of the Three Social Credit Principles in his Swanwick address (1924):
To summarise the matter, the principles which must govern any reform of the financial system, which will at one and the same time avoid catastrophe, and re-orientate world economic policy along the lines of the third alternative, are three in number:–
1. That the cash credits of the population of any country shall at any moment be collectively equal to the collective cash prices for consumable goods for sale in that country, and such cash credits shall be cancelled on the purchase of goods for consumption.
2. That the credits required to finance production shall be supplied, not from savings, but be new credits relating to new production.
3. That the distribution of cash credits to individuals shall be progressively less dependent upon employment. That is to say, that the dividend shall progressively displace the wage and salary. Cf. http://www.alor.org/Canada/IntelligenceServiceCanada.htm
Point #1 in both excerpts involves the Just Price, National Discount, or compensated price discount as a basis for bringing the flow of consumer purchasing power into an automatic and self-liquidating balance with the flow of consumer prices.
Point #3 refers, of course, to the National Dividend.
But clearly, Social Credit has more to do with the financial system than just with issuing ‘debt-free’ credit to or on behalf of consumers; it is also concerned with the production side of the equation.
More specifically, Point #2 in both excerpts indicates that Douglas wanted to ensure that there will always be sufficient producer credit to finance, in the form of loans, whatever useful productive capacity a country possesses (this would make financing from savings unnecessary) and that the creation of credit for production would be under some kind of public control. Having the National Credit Office create the money needed to finance production and then having the private banks function as on-lenders is one way, and probably the easiest way, of exercising this public control over the creation of credit for production that Douglas called for. It is not the only way. However, if private banks are going to be allowed to continue to create credit, it seems to me that you will still need a public authority, like the NCO, to ensure that the banks are not abusing this power for private gain. That public authority would have to oversee what is going on and have sufficiently waiting sanctions to correct the banks if they stop serving the SC financial policy and start serving themselves at the expense of the common good. Creation of credit for consumer purchases, speculative purposes, and funding markets in exotic financial instruments with little or no connection to the real world would have to be prohibited.
At one and the same time, what Joe has said is equally true and important: we do not want to centralize total control of the money supply in the hands of a public or private authority. It is one thing to create the money supply; it is another thing to control the issuance of it. If the NCO is to create the nation’s money supply it cannot, within certain functional limitations, have any right to refuse any request from private banks for funds so that they can make loans to viable companies. In other words, the NCO would have to create producer credit on demand and would not have any right to control the quantities or the purposes for which such credit were issued. As long as the banks are not financing illegal activities and can pay back their advances (which presupposes that the companies they lend to are profitable or at least breaking even), the NCO would have to forego any control over the policy of production.
The bottom line is that there are dangers and risks no matter what sort of system you introduce and the best way forward, in my opinion, is a system of checks and balances involving both public and private entities.