Showing posts with label national dividend. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national dividend. Show all posts

Monday, 6 January 2014

A brief outline of Social Credit

      
 
FOREWORD
What is Social Credit about ?
Social Credit comprises interlocking concepts of economics and politics which deal with the just relationship between man and the Society in which he lives.
Philosophy
It is based upon a philosophy of Christian principles, and encompasses:
1. The supreme importance of the individual.
This regards institutions as subservient to man and exist for service to man, and not the other way around.
This position can only be sustained by:
(a) Economic freedom through the sanction of sufficient purchasing power;
(b) Political freedom through the sanction of the responsible vote.
(c) Maintaining the correct relationship between the individual and the group (institutions).
2. The individual in society
(a) The cultural heritage.
All social production originates in a common cultural inheritance of past inventions and the accumulation of technological innovations and is increased by the increment of association. The cultural heritage plus unearned increment of association (i.e. the benefit gained by working together), requires a national dividend to distribute benefits gained. (Christian doctrine of grace). Thus economic organisation (industry, commerce, finance) should be at the service of consumers through consumer control of production through the money vote.
(b) Political freedom.
This should provide for the ability to contract in or contract out by making political organisations at the service of groups through voters' control over representatives.
(c) Economic security
This means that individuals in society must have sufficient purchasing power to provide effective demand in order to consume what they produce.
Both 2 (B) and (C) together represent a maximum decentralisation of policy.
3. The philosophy is incarnated through the policy.
Policy
The policy involves a change in the financial accounting system to reflect the truth and reality in the economic system. At the same time, a change is required in the political process to reduce and reverse the increase towards centralisation which increases control over the individual in society. Details may be obtained through available literature. Study courses are available from The Social Credit School of Studies Inc.
Summary
Social Credit stands for optimum economic and political freedom for each individual by ensuring (a) consumer control over production — i.e. economic democracy; (b) voter control over policy — i.e. political democracy. Social Credit stands against the political party system, the existing financial system, and the concentration of power over individuals, whether economic or political, or in any other form.
 
Victor J. Bridger
The following article (and the foreword above) is written by Mr. Victor J. Bridger, a long-standing Social Crediter of Australia, who came to our Congress in Rougemont in September, 2004. Mr. Bridger — an excellent teacher to popularize Social Credit — has been involved with the Social Credit idea for over 50 years. After having seen the enthusiasm and determination of the participants at our Congress, he said: “I think that this is the first time in my life that I can foresee the implementation of Social Credit.”
by Vic Bridger
Many times Social Crediters, when discussing some aspect on Social Credit, have been confronted with a question such as, “Can you give it to me in a nutshell?”
Obviously, to compress into a very brief statement something that, although not difficult to understand, runs counter to many of the accepted ideas that people have about economics, politics and social problems, is fraught with danger. The purpose of this very brief silhouette against a background of a very large canvas should be sufficient to show a picture which can be understood by those who are quite unfamiliar to the thoughts expressed.
To begin with, it will be seen that to comprehend Social Credit that, although there is one main stream, there are tributaries that flow from it. To commence with, there is the philosophy of Social Credit, and following this, is the policy of Social Credit. The philosophy contains those beliefs that are considered to be a part of reality, those things that are considered to be beyond question if we are to accept the existence of certain natural laws, and that those laws are absolutes in that they cannot be broken by man.
The policy of Social Credit contains the positive lines of action that must be taken to achieve the results or obtaining the objectives bound up in the philosophy. Douglas referred to Social Credit as The Policy of a Philosophy and as being “something based on which you profoundly believe — to be a portion of reality.” To explain this requires certain definitions and some explanation of these. 
 
        
Definition of Social Credit 
 
                
Sometimes the words Social Credit have provided confusion to people who have not considered their meaning. It has been said that it sounds like some form of socialism, and in fact has been termed by some unknowingly as Socialist Credit. Of course nothing could be further from the truth as it will be shown that Social Credit is the very antithesis to socialism. The derivation of the word “social” comes from the Latin “socius” meaning sharing, and is basis of the meaning of the word association. “Credit” has its origin  in “Credo — I believe”.
Some Social Crediters have expressed a meaning to Social Credit that it is “the belief inherent in society that its individual members in association can produce the results they want if the results are physically possible.” Note that a key phrase has entered here — “physically possible.” That places a limitation upon the results that may be produced.
Dr. Tudor Jones, onetime Chairman of The Social Credit Secretariat defined Social Credit as: “The efficiency, measured in terms of human satisfaction of human beings in association.” He further defined “efficiency” with its correct meaning as “the power to produce an intended result,” and went on to point out that it had to be decided upon by anyone wishing to understand Social Credit, whether or not people had such a power. In other words, is it true that individuals associating together to produce a result they want was possible or not. If it was not accepted, then there was no point in investigating Social Credit any further. If, however, it was agreed that people working together could achieve a desired result, it could then be stated that people working together could achieve more than working on an individual basis. This brings us to one part of the philosophy which is expressed in the term, the increment of association.
Since the beginning of man there has been a gradual increase in the discovery of tools and materials, and ways of using them for mutual benefit. This has proceeded to the present day, and the increase in technology and the handing down of the knowledge of how to use it is referred to as the cultural inheritance. It is something that belongs to no one particular individual, but all mankind. 
 
                
The objective of Social Credit 
 
                
Clifford Hugh Douglas
The founder of Social Credit
When asked to define the objective of Social Credit, he replied: "What are we aiming at? What are we trying to get? We are endeavouring to bring to birth a new civilisation! We are doing something that really extends far beyond the confines of a change in the existing financial system. We are hoping, by various means, chiefly financial, to enable the human community to step out of one type of civilisation into another type of civilisation, and the first and basic requirement, as we see it of that, is absolute economic security."
This quotation from Douglas, together with the definitions we have given, gives us a clear idea of the concept of Social Credit.  The statement that we are endeavouring to bring to birth a new civilisation establishes three important points:
1. That Social Credit is an evolutionary, not a revolutionary Movement. It does not destroy to create anew; it brings in natural sequence a new birth from the old.
2. That it is a reform of the existing national financial accounting system — a reform that will enable a new civilisation to come into being.
3. Two objectives of this reformation are the provision of economic security and political security.
A survey of these points confirms the view that, on the practical side, Social Credit is described as a policy of a philosophy, and this presupposes four things:
1. A belief to work from — i.e. A philosophy;
2. An objective to work to — A policy;
3. A knowledge of the wrong in the thing to be reformed — incorporating both philosophy and policy;
4. A means of righting the wrong so as to attain the objective. The technical knowledge for implementing a policy. 
 
                
The philosophy of Social Credit 
 
                
Major Douglas has stated that “Social Credit is the policy of a philosophy.” This philosophy is represented by the beliefs we hold  and the implementation of the policy to reach the objective. This policy embraces the examination of the system we wish to correct and the action we take towards our conscious and recognised objective.
What, then, are the beliefs which form the basis of Social Credit philosophy?
Briefly, we can say that it is founded on a belief in the supreme value of human personality, and that the self-development of the individual to his highest possible perfection is the main reason and aim of all social organisation.
It believes that systems are made for men, and not men for systems, and that no worthwhile civilisation can be developed that does not provide for the fullest measure of freedom for the individual.
Whilst it emphasises the self-development and importance of the individual, it also encourages the fullest measure of co-operation. But it must be the free and willing "co-operation of reasoned assent;" the co-operation of inducement, not the enforced co-operation of regimentation or legal or economic compulsion.
Summed up, it is the belief in the self-development of diversified individuals in freedom and security, with security as the basis of freedom. It embraces all the fundamental freedoms — freedom from want and fear; freedom of choice, of action, of speech, of worship.
The beliefs we have mentioned also indicate the objective of Social Credit. That objective is a new civilisation. a civilisation based on economic security, a civilisation in which all the fundamental freedoms are realities, a civilisation of prosperity, culture, happiness and peace.
It is the civilisation visualised by the prophet Micah 2,000 years ago. "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not rise up against nation, neither shall they learn war any more; but they shall sit, every man under his own vine and under his own fig-tree, and none shall make them afraid." 
 
                
The policy of Social Credit 
 
                
Let us now turn to the policy that arises from this philosophy of Social Credit, remembering always that policy is action directed towards a conscious and recognised objective.
When we quoted Douglas as saying that the first and basic requirement of a new civilisation was absolute economic security, it must be evident to us, that in demanding a new civilisation, we must be profoundly dissatisfied with the present one, and that, in stating its basic requirement as "absolute economic security," we must be experiencing economic insecurity.
As we are convinced that we do not have economic security, we have to ask WHY?  And so we must commence from this point.  This immediately puts us into the realm of economics, and gives direction to our policy to achieve our ends.
What, then, is economic security? It is the possession, or the means to possession, at all times for all people, of adequate food, clothing, shelter and the amenities of modern civilisation. Without this, there is no economic security and only a restricted freedom.
The CAPACITY to give absolute economic security resides in the immense powers of production made possible by science and invention. The TITLE to absolute economic security resides in the possession of a sufficient income at all times to buy the goods and services that make it possible.
As we live in a monetary economy (and there is no need to change this), economic security resolves itself into the possession of sufficient money incomes for everybody at all times, irrespective of employment.
This being so, we have next to ask —where do incomes come from? The answer is quite simple. All incomes as purchasing power are distributed into the hands of consumers through the operations of industry.  All purchasing power arises in production.
It takes the form of wages, salaries and dividends paid directly to individuals engaged in industry or indirectly from them, through services and taxation, to those not so engaged. There is no other form of purchasing power in the community than this. 
 
                
Industry and banking 
 
                
Now let us go a step further. If industry distributes all incomes as purchasing power, where does industry, in its turn, get the money to do thi<%18>s<%0>? A brief examination will show that industry is financed from savings or from loans or overdrafts from the banking system.
But as savings, which are really unused purchasing power, had their origin from previous bank loans to industry in other cycles of production, it is correct to say that industry functions almost entirely on loans from the banking system.
It must be remembered that the banks have discretionary powers to call in loans and overdrafts even before the goods they brought into existence have been sold, and they sometimes exercise this power with disastrous effects on the community.
The banks only lend money as a repayable interest-bearing debt, with number one priority over the assets of the borrower, so it is clear that the banks entirely control production in this way.
We have already seen that the money flowing through industry is the only source of purchasing power, so it is also clear that the banks, in controlling production, automatically control consumption as well.
That is to say, the whole economic system is dominated by the banks and, consequently, they dominate the lives and destinies of the people, and dictate the policies of governments. History proves this conclusively.
Now let us go still another step further and ask where do the banks get the money they lend to industry, and which gives them control of the community.
The answer is again quite simple: THEY CREATE IT. In the terse phrase of the English economist, Hawtrey, “They create the means of payment out of nothing." The money so created is called bank credit.
Banks do not lend the money deposited with them by their clients as most people suppose. Every bank loan or overdraft is an absolute creation of new credit and this credit functions as money.
When cheques are drawn against this credit, they come back into the banking system and form deposits. Practically all deposits are created in this way. Instead of deposits being used bv the banks to create loans, as is generally believed, the loans make the deposits.
The actual creation of bank credit is an almost costless operation as it consists merely of written entries in bank ledgers or computers, and made effective by written entries in cheque books, or credit cards. Banking, is mostly bookkeeping. Finance is mostly accountancy, and money is mostly figures.
Though bank credit is supposed to be issued against the security of the borrower, it is really issued againat the productive capacity and the real or "social" credit created by the community as a whole.
The banks, however, treat this community credit as though they are the sole owners, and are thus in the unique position of being able to lend something they do not own, and of being well paid for it.
As banks have the sole privilege of creating and issuing money in this way, they thus constitute a monopoly of credit that functions as money which keeps the whole community, to whom the credit rightly belongs, in subjection through debt. This monopoly of credit or money creation is the greatest power ever vested in any institution in the history of the world. 
 
                
Effects of the monopoly of credit 
 
                
Let us now examine the effects of this monopoly of credit on Industry and the community. We find that industry performs three functions:
(1) It produces goods and services.
(2) It distributes the purchasing power to buy its products.
(3) It establishes the prices at which its products are sold.
Industry, to be successful, must get back from the public in the prices of its goods more than it pays out to the public in the course of their manufacture. Otherwise, it could not make a profit.
Now prices consist of all money costs of production, plus the percentage loaded on as profits. Amongst these costs are such items as interest paid to the banks on overdrafts, and money set aside as depreciation on plants and buildings.
Though these costs, representing profits, interest and depreciation, are all loaded into prices, the money to liquidate them is not distributed to the public neither as wages, salaries, nor dividends.
Therefore, prices are, and must always be, greater than the money available to buy them. In other words, there is always a disparity between the flow in the generation of purchasing power and the generation of prices in any one productive period. As can be seen, this is due to accounting all costs into prices without making provision for liquidating all of them.
This is the flaw in the finance-economic system, and is the main cause of all the economic troubles in the world. It is directly traceable to the use of debt for money and to the policies and practices of the monopoly of credit. Under the present financial system, there is no sound means of bridging the gap between purchasing power and prices.
The disparity between purchasing power and prices is further accentuated by SAVINGS. If money distributed as purchasing power is not so used, but is saved and re-invested to produce more goods, its function as purchasing power is lost; it becomes capital.
The disparity thus becomes greater than ever, and this disparity is represented by goods unsold, or goods that have to be sold by another form of purchasing power than that released in their production.
As a matter of fact, the surplus represented by this disparity can only be sold by one means, and that is by mortgaging future purchasing power; in other words, by DEBT.
There are several ways of doing this.
(1) Increased borrowing from the banks for new production.
(2) Time payment, hire purchase, cash orders, bills, promissory notes and other similar devices.
(3) Spending by governments of loan monies on public works.
All these methods are based on debt to the banking system, and lead to intolerable burdens of public and private debt and ever-increasing taxation.  They must eventually culminate in the breakdown of the economic system and the moral of the community.
We agree with Douglas when he states: "There is no single cause operating in the world today which is of such importance and is so fraught with the possibility of world disaster, as is the disparity between purchasing power and prices."
Let us follow logically the results flowing from this disparity.  It must be evident at the outset that in every cycle of production a proportion of the goods must remain unsold.
As further cycles are completed, the unsold portions must pile up till it is useless and dangerous to produce more for the time being, so banks restrict credit, production slows down, and men are laid off.
When men are laid off, wages cease, purchasing power further diminishes, less goods are sold, credit is further restricted or called in and cancelled.  There is a rush to sell below cost and bankruptcies occur.
Standards of living now fall rapidly; there is further unemployment; dole conditions and acute depression appear; governments start relief works, and the banks readily lend them the credit they refuse to industry.  Debt and taxation grow apace.
Still much of the surplus goods remains unsold, and we have starvation and poverty in the midst of abundance.  Goods are wantonly destroyed by deliberate sabotage, and production is forcibly restricted. With mass unemployment everywhere, we are told to work harder, save more, and spend less.
Parallel with these manifestations is the struggle to find markets abroad for the goods that cannot be sold at home. As all nations are doing the same thing, and are in the same economic plight from the same cause, this leads to commercial hostility, international friction, and finally and inevitably, to WAR.
The sum of all these results of the disparity between purchasing power and prices culminating in war is the world disaster foreseen by Douglas. Only the accuracy of the Douglas analysis could make such a prophecy possible, and only the results could so confirm the analysis. 
 
                
The Social Credit remedy 
 
        
Having examined the system and discovered the flaw in it, what is the Social Credit remedy?  The remedy must be capable of application, and is based on the fact that the powers of production are now so efficient through science and mechanism that we have emerged into an age of potential plenty that will give a very high standard of living to all.
That is to say, it is physically possible to provide the things that will ensure absolute economic security to all.  This being so, the factors to be considered are as follows:
1. That the power to produce must be balanced with the power to consume.
2. That the monopoly of credit must be terminated, and the right to issue and control all money and credit be vested in a statutory body as representing the people.
3 That savings shall not be diverted from their proper function, i.e., purchasing power.
4. That money and credit be a means of distribution only, and not a commodity to be bought and sold at interest.
5. That provision of purchasing power must be made for those not employed or displaced from industry by labour-saving machinery.
With regard to the last factor, Social Credit is convinced that science and invention will continuously reduce employment. It welcomes this development because it ushers in an age of leisure that will stimulate culture and self-development.
To resolve these factors, Major Douglas has laid down three embracing principles of social and economic reconstruction having an universal application, and out of which can be evolved practical proposals suited to the needs, conditions, and social organisation of each country that decides to adopt them.
Broadly stated, they are:
1. That there must be at all times an equation between purchasing power and prices, and that credit must be recalled only as goods are consumed.
2. That industry must be financed by credits created for that purpose, and not by savings.
3. That a social dividend shall progressively replace wages and salaries as men are progressively displaced from Industry. 
 
                
The application of these principles 
 
                
It will be seen that these principles cover the defects in the existing system, and that within them a solution is provided that is both preventive and remedial. How can we put this solution into practical effect?
The first step will be the establishment of a National Credit Authority to take complete control of the money system and put the affairs of the nation on a proper accountancy basis. This would restore money power to the people and do away with the monopoly of credit by private interests.
The National Credit Authority would then ascertain from all available sources the financial and economic position of the nation as a business concern, and draw up a correct Trading Account and Balance Sheet of the Nation.
As we are a progressive people, with national wealth continually increasing, there would be a considerable credit balance in every accounting period, representing the profit of national appreciation of wealth over national depreciation.
Credit would be issued against the profit balance to establish an equation between purchasing power and prices, pay a social dividend, or meet any commitment deemed necessary for the safety or welfare of the people of Australia.
Once we have established the control of our national credit, the power to do things would no longer be determined by money conditions. Under Social Credit, "what is physically possible is financially possible."
Now let us indicate more definitely how this credit will he used.  It is essential that it must be used to prevent inflation, and that it will be applied in the spirit of co-operation. Douglas made certain suggestions for implementing a Social Credit policy, and whilst these are shown here, there may be other ways of accomplishing it.
To ensure this co-operation, businesses would be invited to register with the National Credit Authority to trade on mutually agreed margins of profit according to the nature of the business concerned.  The profit would be high enough to encourage ample production, but not high enough to permit exploitation.
This arrangement would control prices in a more scientific way than the present method of price fixing, but, in addition, the technique of Social Credit provides a regulating factor that makes price control absolutely effective.
This factor would ensure that the money or credit issued against the profit balance in the nation's books would not only increase purchasing power, but, at the same time, reduce prices.
An example will illustrate how this could be done.  Supposing the price of an article was $8, and the purchasing power available was $5. The disparity is $3. Credit could be issued to reduce the price by $1.50 and to increase the purchasing power by $1.50.  Purchasing power and prices would then be $6.50, and the required equation would be made.
The money to reduce prices would be in the form of a discount known as the Just Price or Retail Discount (like a sales tax or GST in reverse), and the money to increase purchasing power would be in the form of a social dividend to individuals and paid irrespective of employment. Both would come from the national profit already mentioned, and would provide the means of economic security.
The Just Price or Retail Discount would apply only to ultimate consumable goods sold by retailers.  At every accounting period, the National Credit Authority would publish the discount rate, and retailers, after charging all their costs into prices, would then sell their goods, less the amount of the discount.  They would actually sell them at less than their established selling price.
The retailers would then present their authorised vouchers to their local banks which could credit them with the discounts allowed. The banks, in their turn, would be reimbursed by the National Credit Authority out of the national profit.  The banks would be adequately compensated for the services rendered.
A portion only of the national profit would be used in this way; the balance would be used to pay the social dividend and any other services considered expedient.
By this method of selling below the normal selling price ,the consumer's money would have increased its buying power, and all goods could be sold without loss to the producers.  Inflation would be impossible, and all the economic uncertainties of boom and slump incidental to the present "trade cycle" would disappear, The economic system would be stabilised.
Under Social Credit, borrowing for national purposes would be unnecessary; public works could be constructed without debt.  The national debt could be gradually paid off,  and taxation, as a means of revenue, eliminated.
The most effective "planning" in the world is adequate money in the hands of consumers. Having effective demand in this way, they could give the necessary orders, and industry would be enabled to function to the limit of producer capacity or to the limit of consumer demand, whichever occurred first.  The standard of living would thus rise to untold heights.
With economic security assured, the struggle for markets abroad and the conditions that lead to depressions at home would be ended, and the new civilisation of freedom, peace and prosperity would be, at long last, brought to birth. 
 
                
Conclusion 
 
                
The application of science and technology to production now enables mankind to ensure a reasonable sufficiency of material needs to all, without continuing economic servitude. But the existing financial system is fundamentally flawed. It is endangering the planet through ruthless exploitation of its limited resources in pursuit of financial profit and the will for power.
Competition between ever-growing trade blocks backed by military might threatens global destruction. At the heart of this complexity of interrelated problems lies the monopoly of credit creation by the international banking system.
The prerequisite to resolution of these problems is the elimination of this monopoly of financial power, and its control by national governments through a properly constituted statutory authority, a National Credit Authority, answerable to parliament but immune from political manipulation. This Authority would maintain the national accounts of production and consumption in both physical and monetary terms (as is already done by the Bureau of Statistics in calculating gross Domestic Product and Gross National Product), and regulating the issue of credit in accordance with the performance of the economy. It would operate in the interests of the citizens, and with compatible arrangements for mutually complementary international trading.
The means to that end are known and available. There is growing international recognition that such change is necessary.
Victor J. Bridger
This article was published in the August-September, 2004 issue of “Michael”.
   
 
 

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

Synopsis of Social Credit

 

The following is a collaborative effort between Wally Klinck and myself (The blogger of Social Credit blogspot).

Introduction

The term Social Credit, as a formal name, originated from the writings of the British engineer and originator of the Social Credit movement, Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879-1952), who wrote a book by that name in 1924. Douglas, a civil engineer who had pursued his higher education at Cambridge University, had published previously, most notably in the British intellectual journal The New Age whose editor, Alfred Orage, became converted to Douglas’s ideas and, subsequently devoted The New Age and latterly The New English Weekly, after a ten year sojourn in the United States, to promulgation of those ideas until his death on the eve of his BBC speech on Social Credit, November 5, 1934, in the “Poverty in Plenty” Series. Douglas’s first book Economic Democracy was published in 1920, shortly after his article “The Delusion of Super-Production” appeared in 1918 in the English Review. Among Douglas’s other early works were The Control and Distribution of Production, Credit-Power and Democracy and Warning Democracy and The Monopoly of Credit. Of considerable interest is the Evidence that he presented to the Canadian House of Commons Select Committee on Banking and Commerce in 1923, to the British Parliamentary Macmillan Committee on Finance and Industry in 1930, which included exchanges with economist J. M. Keynes, and to the Agricultural Committee of the Alberta Legislature in 1934 during the term of the United Farmers of Alberta Government in that Canadian Province.

Douglas’s prolific writings spawned a worldwide movement, most prominent in the British Commonwealth but with beachheads in Europe and activities in the United States where Orage, during his sojourn there, promoted Douglas’s ideas. In the United States, the New Democracy group was headed by the American author Gorham Munson who contributed a major book on Social Credit titled Aladdin’s Lamp: The Wealth of the American People (New York: Creative Age Press, 1945.). While Canada and New Zealand had electoral successes with “Social Credit” political parties, the movement in England and Australia was primarily devoted to pressuring existing parties to implement Social Credit: this function was performed especially by Douglas’s Social Credit Secretariat in England and the Commonwealth Leagues of Rights especially in Australia. Douglas continued writing and contributing to the Secretariat’s journals, initially Social Credit and shortly thereafter The Social Crediter (which continues to be published by the Secretariat) for the remainder of his lifetime, concentrating more on political and philosophical issues in his later years.

Political History

In the early years of the movement in the UK there was strong pressure from trade unionists for the Labour Party to consider adopting ‘social credit’ ideals and policies. The Labour leadership proved hostile, however, essentially because its doctrines of Fabian socialism, with its hierarchical view of state-socialism, economic growth and full employment, were incompatible with such ideas as National Dividends and an end to wage/salary slavery. Certain British Labour economists expended considerable effort in an effort to discredit Social Credit. One of the leading Fabians is said to have declared that they didn’t care whether Douglas was technically correct or not—they simply did not like his policy!

In 1935 the first “Social Credit” government was elected in Alberta, Canada under the leadership of William Aberhart. “Bible Bill”, as he was also known, was a high school mathematics teacher and radio evangelist who was given a book on Social Credit, titled The Meaning of Social Credit, written by the English author and actor Maurice Colborne, and decided Douglas’s theories were exactly what Alberta needed to escape the depression. Douglas, having counseled the previous United Farmers of Alberta Provincial Government was sought as an advisor to Aberhart, but withdrew shortly after due to disagreements, or misunderstandings, in policy and strategy. Under the pressures of dealing with the extreme conditions of the Great Depression and being unable to understand Douglas’s advice Aberhart sought the assistance of a representative of orthodox finance to put the Provinces finances in order. The difficult and strained correspondece between Aberhart and Douglas was published by Douglas in his book The Alberta Experiment (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1937).

The Premier wanted to balance the provincial budget, and Douglas stated that the concept of a balanced budget was completely inconsistent with the use of Social Credit, because of the arithmetic impossibility, under the existing rules of financial cost accountancy, of balancing all budgets within an economy simultaneously. (“The Fallacy of a Balanced Budget,” The New English Weekly, July 28, 1932, pp. 346-7) In a letter to Aberhart, Douglas stated, "This seems to be a suitable occasion on which to emphasise the proposition that a Balanced Budget is quite inconsistent with the use of Social Credit [i.e., Real Credit—the ability to deliver goods and services “as, when and where required”] in the modern world, and is simply a statement in accounting figures that the progress of the country is stationary, i.e., that it consumes exactly what it produces, including capital assets. The result of the acceptance of this proposition is that all capital appreciation becomes quite automatically the property of those who create an issue of money [i.e., the banking system] and the necessary unbalancing of the Budget is covered by Debts."

Two other expert Social Credit technical advisors, L. Denis Byrne and George F. Powell, were sent from the United Kingdom by Douglas, but all attempts to pass Social Credit legislation were ruled ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada and Privy Council in London. In desperation, William Aberhart attempted to implement the monetary theories of Silvio Gesell by issuing a form of scrip known as "prosperity certificates", which depreciated in value the longer they were held. Douglas, however, was not impressed by Gesell's theories and openly criticized them. "Gesell's theory was that the trouble with the world was that people saved money so that what you had to do was to make them spend it faster. Disappearing money is the heaviest form of continuous taxation ever devised. The theory behind this idea of Gesell's was that what is required is to stimulate trade - that you have to get people frantically buying goods - a perfectly sound idea so long as the objective of life is merely trading." (" The Approach To Reality")

The Alberta Social Credit Party, under Ernest Manning who succeeded Aberhart after his untimely death, slowly departed from its roots and became popularly identified as a right wing populist movement. Meanwhile, Douglas published in the Secretariat’s journal “An Act for the Better Management of the Credit of Alberta” (The Social Crediter, February 8, 1947). Subsequently, in the same journal, he wrote a critical analysis of what went wrong with Social Credit in Alberta (“Social Credit in Alberta”, August 28/September 4-11, 1948) in which he said, “The Manning administration is no more a Social Credit administration than the British government is Labor”. Social Credit also formed governments in British Columbia, Canada, but again the party had little in common with Douglas and his theories. Social Credit Parties also enjoyed some national electoral successes in Canada, with support from Western Canada and more notably from Quebec. Social Credit parties also had some electoral successes in New Zealand.

Political Theory

Douglas opposed the formation of Social Credit Parties, because he felt that a group of elected amateurs should never direct a group of competent experts in technical matters. ( “The Approach to Reality,” Address at Westminster, March 7, 1936.) The goal of politicians should be to pressure the experts to get the policy results desired by the populace, but the experts are ultimately responsible for achieving those results. “The proper function of Parliament, I may perhaps be allowed to repeat, is to force all activities of a public nature to be carried on so that the individuals who comprise the public may derive the maximum benefit from them. Once the idea is grasped, the criminal absurdity of the party system becomes evident.” ("The Tragedy of Human Effort,” Address at Central Hall, Liverpool, October 30, 1936.) Therefore, Social Credit supported by effective public demand could be implemented by any political party, and once implemented, achieving a realistic integration of means and ends, party politics would cease to exist. Douglas defined democracy as the “will of the people”, not rule by the majority. It is the right of the individual to choose freely one thing at a time, and to contract out of unsatisfactory associations. Traditional ballot-box democracy is incompatible with Social Credit, and Douglas advocated what he called the “responsible vote”, where anonymity in the voting process no longer existed. "The individual voter must be made individually responsible, not collectively taxable, for his vote." ("Realistic Consitutionalism")


The establishment of the supremacy of common law is essential to ensuring the rights of individuals are protected from an all powerful parliament. Douglas believed that the constitution was an organism, not an organization. He also believed that the effectiveness of the British government was structurally determined by its application of the Christian concept known as Trinitarianism. "In some form or other, sovereignty in the British Isles for the last two thousand years has been Trinitarian. Whether we look on this Trinitarianism under the names of King, Lords and Commons or as Policy, Sanctions and Administration, the Trinity-in-Unity has existed, and our national success has been greatest when the balance (never perfect) has been approached. ("Realistic Constitutionalism")

Economic Theory

Douglas disagreed with classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo who divided the factors of production into land, labour and capital. He also disagreed with Marx who claimed that labour created all wealth. Douglas believed the “cultural inheritance of society” was the primary factor in production. Our cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization. Consequently, we do not have to keep “reinventing the wheel”. “We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.” (“The Monopolistic Idea,” Address at the Melbourne Town Hall, Australia, January 22, 1934.)

Douglas also criticized classical economics because it was based upon a barter economy; whereas, the modern economy is a monetary one. To the orthodox economist, money is a medium of exchange. This may have once been the case when the majority of wealth was produced by individuals who exchanged it with each other, but in the modern economy, where production is split up into multiple processes, wealth is produced by people working in association with each other. For instance, any automobile worker does not produce any wealth by himself ; the wealth that is produced (i.e., the automobile) is only produced in conjunction with other auto workers, the producers of roads, gasoline, insurance etc. Therefore, wealth is a pool upon which people can draw, and the efficiency gained by individuals co-operating in the productive process in known as the “unearned increment of association”—historic accumulations of which constitute what Douglas called the Cultural Heritage. The means of drawing upon this pool are the tickets distributed by the banking system.

Money originally came from the productive system, when cattle owners punched leather discs which represented a head of cattle. These discs could then be exchanged for corn, and the corn producers could then exchange the disc for a head of cattle at a later date. The word “pecuniary” comes from the Latin “pecus,” meaning cattle. Today, the productive system and the distributive/monetary system are two separate entities. Douglas was one of the first to understand that loans create deposits, and he gave a short mathematical proof of this in his book Social Credit. Bank credit comprises the vast majority of money, and is created every time a bank makes a loan. Douglas was also one of the first to understand the creditary nature of money. The word credit derives from the Latin “credere”, meaning to believe. “The essential quality of money, therefore, is that a man shall believe that he can get what he wants by the aid of it.” (C.H. Douglas, “Engineering, Money and Prices,” Paper read at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, April 22, 1927, reprinted in Warning Democracy, 1935, p. 15)

Money should not be regarded as a commodity but rather as a ticket, a means of distribution of production (“The Use of Money,” Address in St. James’ Theatre, Christchurch, New Zealand, February 13, 1934, p. 11, 13.) “There are two sides to this question of a ticket representing something that we can call, if we like, a value. There is the ticket itself--the money which forms the thing we call ‘effective demand’—and there is something we call a price opposite to it.” (“The Use of Money,” op cit., p. 15) Money is effective demand, and the means of reclaiming that money are prices and taxes. As real capital replaces labour in the process of modernization money should become increasingly an instrument of distribution.

Douglas also claimed the problem of production, or scarcity, had long been solved. The new problem was one of distribution. Douglas criticized the banking system on two counts: 1) for being a form of government which has been centralizing its power for centuries, and 2) for claiming ownership to the money they create. The latter he claimed was equivalent to claiming ownership of the nation. (“Dictatorship by Taxation,” An Address delivered in the Ulster Hall, Belfast, November 24, 1936.) Money, Douglas claimed, was merely an abstract representation of the real credit of the community, which is the ability of the community to deliver goods and services, when, and where they are required.

The first article to appear in the New Age, edited by A.R. Orage, titled “A Mechanical View of Economics” appeared in January, 1919. In this article, we get a glimpse of Douglas’s concerns in regards to the methods by which economic activity is measured when he says, “It is not the purpose of this short article to depreciate the services of accountants; in fact, under the existing conditions probably no body of men has done more to crystallize the data on which we carry on the business of the world; but the utter confusion of thought which has undoubtedly arisen from the calm assumption of the book-keeper and the accountant that he and he alone was in a position to assign positive or negative values to the quantities represented by his figures is one of the outstanding curiosities of the industrial system; and the attempt to mold the activities of a great empire on such a basis is surely the final condemnation of an out-worn method."

Just over a year later, in his book Credit-Power and Democracy (1920), we see Douglas's critique of accounting methodology as it pertains to income and prices in his famous “A+B theorem”. This was not a theory but a theorem. Quoting from the fourth, Australian Edition of 1933:

"A factory or other productive organization has, besides its economic function as a producer of goods, a financial aspect—it may be regarded on the one hand as a device for the distribution of purchasing-power to individuals through the media of wages, salaries, and dividends; and on the other hand as a manufactory of prices—financial values. From this standpoint its payments may be divided into two groups:
Group A - All payments made to individuals (wages, salaries, and dividends).
Group B - All payments made to other organizations (raw materials, bank charges, and other external costs).

Now the rate of flow of purchasing-power to individuals is represented by A, but since all payments go into prices, the rate of flow of prices cannot be less than A+B. The product of any factory may be considered as something which the public ought to be able to buy, although in many cases it is an intermediate product of no use to individuals but only to a subsequent manufacture; but since A will not purchase A+B; a proportion of the product at least equivalent to B must be distributed by a form of purchasing-power which is not comprised in the description grouped under A. It will be necessary at a later stage to show that this additional purchasing power is provided by loan credit (bank overdrafts) or export credit.”. (C.H. Douglas, Credit-Power and Democracy, Aust. Edition, 1933, pp. 22-23)

The theorem itself demonstrates that total prices rise faster than total incomes when regarded as a flow. Douglas proposed to eliminate this problem by giving “debt-free” credits to consumers in the form of a price rebate and a dividend, called formally a Compensated Price and a National (or Consumer) Dividend. A National Credit Office would be charged with the task of calculating the size of the rebate and dividend by determining a national balance sheet, and keeping track of aggregate production and consumption statistics. The price rebate is based upon the observation that the real cost of production is the mean rate of consumption over the mean rate of production for an equivalent period of time. The physical cost of producing something is the materials and capital that were consumed in its production, plus that amount of Labor consumed during its production. This total consumption represents the physical cost of production. Since less inputs are consumed to produce a unit of output as technology advances, and total production increases relative to total consumption over time, the real cost of production is falling over time; hence, prices should be falling with the progression of time.

The price rebate (Compensated Price) is designed to realize this fact. The Dividend is based upon the fact that Labor is being displaced in the productive process due to increases in productivity. Since Labor is being replaced in the productive process, people should be free to consume while enjoying an increasing amount of leisure as machines displace them. The Dividend would give people this freedom. Further, Labor displacement in the productive process implies that overhead charges {B}Bare increasing in relation to income (A), because “B is the financial representation of the lever of capital” (C.H. Douglas Credit Power and Democracy, Aust. Edition, 1933, p. 25). This means that any attempt to stabilize or increase income is met with rising prices. If A is constant or increasing, and B is increasing due to technological advances, then A+B (prices) must also be increasing. From this perspective, inflation and unemployment are trade offs (re the Phillips Curve), unless prices are reduced from debt- free monies that do not derive from the productive system.

The cause of these “B” payments, or overhead charges, is described by Douglas in his pamphlet entitled, "The New and The Old Economics" when he says, “I think that a little consideration will make it clear that in this sense an overhead charge is any charge in respect of which the actual distributed purchasing power does not still exist, and that practically this means any charge created at a further distance in the past than the period of cyclic rate of circulation of money. There is no fundamental difference between tools and intermediate products, and the latter may therefore be included.” The cyclic rate of circulation of money measures the amount of time that it takes for a loan to go through the productive system and to come back to the bank. This can be calculated by determining the amount of clearings through the bank in a year divided by the average amount of deposits held at the banks (which varies very little). This number will give you the amount of times money must turnover in order to produce these clearing house figures. Douglas estimated the cyclic rate of circulation of money to be approximately three weeks. As Douglas said in his testimony before the Alberta Agricultural Committee of the Alberta Legislature in 1934, “Now we know there are an increasing number of charges which originated from a period much anterior to three weeks, and included in those charges, as a matter of fact, are most of the charges made in, respect of purchases from one organization to another, but all such charges as capital charges (for instance, on a railway which was constructed a year, two years, three years, five or ten years ago, where charges are still extant), cannot be liquidated by a stream of purchasing power which does not increase in volume and which has a period of three weeks. The consequence is, you have a piling up of debt, you have in many cases a diminution of purchasing power being equivalent to the price of the goods for sale.” (p. 90)

We see the major consequence of the problem that Douglas identified is exponentially increasing debt. Other less noticeable consequences are that society is either forced to engage in production that the consumer does not want, or production he cannot purchase. The latter represents a “favorable balance of trade”, meaning a country exports more than it imports. The former represents excessive capital production and/or military buildup. The problem with pursuing a favorable balance of trade is that not every country can pursue this objective at the same time, since it is necessary for a country to import more than it exports if another exports more than it imports. The long-term consequence of this policy is a trade war, ultimately resulting in real war. Hence, the Social Credit admonition, as expressed by the Social Credit Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, led by John Hargrave, that “He who calls for Full-Employment calls for War!” Excessive capital production is only a temporary fix because the cost of the capital ultimately shows up in the cost of consumer goods, or taxes, which only goes to further exacerbate the gap between income and prices at a later date. Military buildup necessitates either it’s use, or stockpiling of weapons leading to inventory accumulation.

Philosophy

Douglas warned against viewing Social Credit solely as a scheme of monetary reform. He described Social Credit as a policy of a philosophy. He coined this philosophy “practical Christianity.” Douglas believed there was a Canon which ran through the universe, and Jesus Christ was the Incarnation of this Canon. However, he also felt that Christianity remained ineffective so long as it remained transcendental. Religion, which derives from the Latin word relegare, meaning to “bind back”, was supposed to be a binding back to reality. Christianity was only effective to the extent that it was rooted in existence. Although Douglas defined Social Credit as a philosophy with Christian roots, he did not envision a Christian theocracy. Social Credit society recognizes the fact that the relationship between man and God is unique. Therefore, it is essential to allow man the greatest possible freedom in order to pursue this relationship. If people are given the economic security and leisure achievable in the context of a Social Credit dispensation, most would end their service to mammon and use their free time pursuing spiritual, intellectual, or cultural goals leading to self-development. Douglas did not believe that religion should be thrust upon anyone through force of law or external compulsion. He emphasized that all policy derives from its respective philosophy and that “. . . Society is primarily metaphysical, and must have regard to the organic relationships of its prototype.”

Douglas said that Social Crediters wants to build a new civilization based upon absolute economic security for the individual—where “. . . they shall sit every man [individual] under his [her] vine and under his [her] fig tree; and none shall make them afraid.” (Micah iv, 4 quoted on the cover of the Douglas Quarterly Review, The Fig Tree, New Series. 1954-55.) In keeping with this goal, Douglas was opposed to all forms of taxation on real property. This set Social Credit at variance from the land-taxing recommendations of the Henry George School.

Douglas opposed what he termed “the pyramid of power.” Totalitarianism reflects this pyramid and is the antithesis of Social Credit. It turns the government into an end instead of a means, and the individual into a means instead of an end—Demon est deus inversus—“the devil is God upside down.” Social Credit is designed to give the individual the maximum freedom allowable given the need for association in economic, political and social matters. Liberty in politics is dependent on the metaphysical concept of free will, for what use is the purpose of liberty if man is not free to choose? Social Credit rejects dialectical materialistic philosophy. Douglas divided philosophy into two schools of thought that he labeled the "classical school" and the "modern school", which are broadly represented by philosophies of Aristotle and Bacon respectively. Douglas was critical of both schools of thought, but believed that "the truth lies in appreciation of the fact that neither conception is useful without the other". (C.H. Douglas: Social Credit. ISBN 0-087968-107-1, p. 6) Social Credit philosophy is best summed by Douglas when he said, “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.” (Economic Democracy, Fourth Revised and. Enlarged Edition, 1934, p 18.)

Critics to A+B and Rebuttal

Critics to the theorem argue there is no difference between A and B payments, and Social Credit policies are inflationary. These criticisms are based upon the quantity theory of money, which states that the quantity of money multiplied by its velocity of circulation equals total purchasing power. Following is a brief explanation of the quantity theory of money:
"MV=PQ:

where

M=quantity of money in the hands of the public

P=average level of prices

Q=quantity of output (that is real national product or real national income).

Thus, PQ = national product, measured in nominal (dollar) terms

And V = income velocity of money, that is, the average number of times that the money stock (M) is spent to buy final output during a year. Specifically, V is defined as being equal to PQ/M

Suppose that the money stock is $20 billion. Assume that, in the course of a year, the average dollar bill and the average chequing deposit are spent twelve times to purchase final goods and services. In other words, V is 12. Then, total spending for final output is $20 billion times 12, or $240 billion. In turn, this total spending (MV) equals the total quantity of goods and services (Q) times the average price (P) at which they were sold.

But how can the same dollar be used over and over to purchase final goods? Very simply. When you purchase groceries at the store, the $50 you pay does not disappear. Rather, it goes into the cash register of the store. From there, it is used to pay the farmer for fresh vegetables, the canning factory for canned goods, or the clerk's wages. The farmer or the clerk or the employee of the canning factory will in turn use the money to purchase goods. Once more, the same money is used for final purchases. The same dollar bill can circulate round and round." (Blomqvist, Wonnacott and Wonnacott, "Economics First Canadian Edition" ISBN: 0-07-54815-X: p. 247-248)

It was written in a committee report to the Alberta government in regards to the quantity theory of money: “The fallacy in the theory lies in the incorrect assumption that money "circulates", whereas it is issued against production, and withdrawn as purchasing power as the goods are bought for consumption. “ (“The Alberta Post-War Reconstruction Committee Report of the Subcommittee on Finance") Because all money is created as a debt that needs to be repaid, money does not circulate, but instead operates in an accounting cycle. If a retailer receives money from a customer for its product, the total sum of this money is neither profit, nor income. A retailer has debts to repay, or it must replace working capital. These sums are subtracted from revenues when determining profits. Neither is the profit entirely income; taxes must be paid, and a portion may be re-invested back into the business. Therefore, of the money received from the customer, the retailer may find that only a very small percentage is actually distributed as income that can then be spent on goods or services, the rest is either used to repay debts, replace working capital, or re-invested back into the firm. The fallacy is that the same dollar bill can "circulate round and round"; in reality, money is created as a debt that needs to be repaid. Every loan creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan destroys a deposit. Therefore; money does not "circulate round and round" but is created and destroyed through the creation of loans and their repayment.

Other critics argue that if the gap between income and prices exists as Douglas claimed, the economy would have collapsed in short order. They also argue that there are periods of time in which purchasing power is in excess of the price of consumer goods for sale.

Douglas replied to these criticisms in his testimony before the Alberta Agricultural Committee when he said, "What people who say that forget is that we were piling up debt at that time at the rate of ten millions sterling a day and if it can be shown, and it can be shown, that we are increasing debt continuously by normal operation of the banking system and the financial system at the present time, then that is proof that we are not distributing purchasing power sufficient to buy the goods for sale at that time; otherwise we should not be increasing debt, and that is the situation." (p. 90)

Incomes are paid out to workers during a multi-stage program of production, and according to the convention of accepted orthodox rules of accountancy, said incomes, are part of the financial cost and price of the final product when it is ready for use at the point of retail sale. For the product to be purchased with incomes earned in respect of its manufacture, all of these incomes would have to be saved until the product’s completion. In the real world earned incomes are largely, and necessarily, spent on past production to meet the present needs of living, and will not be available to purchase goods completed in the future –goods which must include the sum of incomes paid out during their period of manufacture in their price . Because the cyclic rate of circulation of money takes less time than the cancellation of the costs that the money created, orthodox economics can only allow access to the final products of industry by the mechanism of increasing consumer debt that constitutes a mortgage against future incomes. This does not liquidate the financial cost of production inasmuch as it merely passes charges of one accountancy period on as mounting charges against future periods. In other words, supply does not create enough demand to liquidate all the costs of production: Social Credit denies the validity of "Says Law" in economics.

Literary Figures in Social Credit

As lack of finance has been a constant impediment to the development of the arts and literature, the concept of economic democracy through Social Credit had immediate appeal in literary circles. Names associated with Social Credit include Charlie Chaplin, William Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Herbert Read, Aldous Huxley, Storm Jameson, Eimar O’Duffy, Sybil Thorndyke, Bonamy DobrÈe and the American publisher James Laughlin . In 1933 Eimar O’Duffy published Asses in Clover, a science fiction fantasy exploration of social credit themes. His social credit economics book Life and Money: Being a Critical Examination of the Principles and Practice of Orthodox Economics with A Practical Scheme to End the Muddle it has made of our Civilisation, was endorsed by Douglas.

Summary

In Social Credit terminology, the words “Economic Democracy” do not mean worker control of industry. They mean conditions of consumer sovereignty wherein the consumer establishes the policy of production through exercise of his money-vote, fully provided with adequate purchasing power. The policy of production is so to be removed from the banking institutions, the government and industry. Social Credit envisages an “aristocracy of producers, serving and accredited by a democracy of consumers.” (C. H. Douglas) The true purpose of production is consumption and production must serve the genuine, freely expressed interests of consumers. Each citizen is to have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital—conferred by complete and dynamic access to the fruits of industry assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price.Social Credit is distributive and its policy is to disperse power to individuals. “The only safe place for power is in many hands.”