Showing posts with label social credit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social credit. Show all posts

Wednesday, 24 November 2021

Seven Basic Differences between Modern Monetary Theory or MMT and Transfinancial Economics or TFE

                                             Transfinancial Economics


Basic Definitions  







Modern Monetary Theory 





MMT  believes that the government is the issuer of currency and as such can create new money as public expenditure without raising taxation. Tax is only used for reducing inflation if necessary at some point in time. Something like this already exists as deficit spending when governments need more finance and this is done by borrowing and/or creating new money. MMT is essentially a precursor to TFE which is far more advanced. The former could though act as a stopgap for the research and devlopment of the latter.






Transfinancial Economics





TFE is a futuristic economics which can exist within a more ethical and reformed democratic market/capitalist economy where emphasis is on green products and services. Since  most financial transactions are done electronically/digitally it means that they can be tracked,  and controlled in real-time or near real-time. As most goods have ID barcodes, or some other relevant code such data could be collected centrally by an Inflation Authority and create Big Data in real time of what is going on in the economy 24/7 and what should be done if problems arise. More importantly, flexible electronic/digital price controls could be used to control inflation when necessary rather than taxation (used only when it is absolutely necessary) and this means that more and more money could be safely phased into the economy  without fear of  hyperinflation as prices can be instantly capped at a touch of a button on a huge scale. This is revolutionary. 







Essentially TFE is similiar to Clifford Douglas and his economic theory of Social Credit  (not to be confused with the dystopian Chinese system of the same name) which like MMT can be seen as a precursor. Moreover, Douglas did not live in the computer age, and if he were around today he would probably have appreciated TFE.






The Key Differences..... MMT and TFE





POINT ONE



i) MMT uses taxation as a means of controlling inflation. However, price controls may be necessary at a later stage.



ii) TFE uses highly flexible eletronic/digital price controls as the key tool for inflation. Taxation is avoided as far as is possible. Moreover, these controls virtually monitor the entire economy. They are not just simply targeted at some very small groupings of products and services. This is important to understand.  




POINT TWO


Unlike MMT TFE would have a far more advanced understanding of the economy in actual real time, or indeed, near real time. As such it would have a highly accurate understanding of the potential risks involved in creating and electronically transmitting new money into the economy. MMT on the other hand would probably rely on highly questionable conventional economic data (ie. indicators) to reach decisions about creating new money. 




POINT THREE



Unlike MMT TFE as indicated already but worth stressing again is that the former would not have a complete understanding of the economy in real-time, or near real time in its present model. However though the TF economy would be monitored in a highly advanced way uncertainty cannot be totally ruled out. 




POINT FOUR


Unlike MMT TFE has the speed to instantaneously control inflation as indicated above. With MMT though such a approach does not exist and may not be accurately targetted. 




POINT FIVE



Unlike MMT TFE could give us a far more accurate assessment of whether inflation taxation is needed or not. Thus, it could actually predict with a good degree of accuracy as to when such tax could prove to become too heavy for consumers and hence, avoid serious problems on a national scale. 




POINT SIX


 It is important to say that with the right algorithms inflation checks can maintain the value of money in real-time at the point of sale. This is something MMT cannot do.




POINT SEVEN 


Unlike MMT TFE believes that special banks or certain arrangements could be made for private or private/public banks to create new money as something non-repayable if the need arises. Thus, government is not the sole source in being able to do this.


Also, it should be finally added that though transaction data can give us an excellent understanding of the workings of the economy in real time there are other "economic indicators" like those in the so-called   Real Time Economy or RTE, and Faster Indicators using a variety of economic activities which can be tracked and monitored. 



















on No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Social Credit: A Simple Explanation

 

January 28, 2015 / Blogger Ref  http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics   
225px-C_H_Douglas.jpg

(Left. The founder of the Social Credit movement, Major Clifford Hugh Douglas 1879-1952)

Social Credit addresses a fundamental flaw in our
economic system, the gap between a plethora of
products and the lack of money in purchasers hands. 

by Oliver Heydorn Ph.D. 
(henrymakow.com) 

   Social Credit refers to the ideas of the brilliant Anglo-Scottish engineer, Major Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879-1952).
   Douglas identified what is wrong with the industrial economy and also explained how to fix it.
    The core problem is that there is never enough money to buy what we produce. In essence, people don't earn enough to afford the plethora of available consumer goods and services.
   This gap is caused by many factors. Profits, including profits derived from interest on loans, is only one of them. Savings and the re-investment of savings are two others. The most important cause, however, has to do with how real capital (i.e., machines and equipment) builds up costs at a faster rate than it distributes incomes to workers.
    The economy must compensate for this recurring gap between prices and incomes. Since most of the money supply is created out of nothing by the banks, the present financial system fills the gap by relying on governments, firms, and consumers to borrow additional money into existence so that the level of consumer buying power can be increased.
    As a society we are always mortgaging our future earnings in order to get enough purchasing power so that we can pay present prices in full. Whenever we fail to borrow enough money, the economy stalls and the government may even start a war to reboot it. To the extent that we succeed in bridging the gap, we contribute to the building-up of a mountain of debt that can never be paid off.
     Filling the gap with debt-money is also inflationary, wasteful, and puts the whole society on a production-consumption treadmill. It is the prime cause behind social tensions, environmental damage, and international conflict.
     All of this dysfunction is tolerated because the banks profit from it. Compensating for the gap transfers wealth and power from the common consumers to the owners of the financial system.

bridgegap.jpgFILLING THE GAP DEBT-FREE
    Douglas proposed that instead of filling the gap with debt-money, the gap could and should be filled with debt-free money.
     This money would be created by an organ of the state, a National Credit Office, and distributed to consumers. Some of it would be issued indirectly in the form of a National Discount on all retail prices, while another portion would be issued directly in the form of a National Dividend.[1]    
     Since the productive capacity of the modern, industrial economy is enormous, an honest representation of our productive power would allow us to enjoy an abundance of beneficial goods and services along side increasing leisure. Our economies could become socially equitable, environmentally sustainable, and internationally concordant.
     Unlike some other monetary reform proposals, Social Credit does not advocate the nationalization of the banks. It is completely opposed to any scheme that would see us jump from the frying pan of a self-serving private system into the fire of a complete state monopoly over money and its issuance. The latter would be a fine basis for the introduction of a totalitarian society.
   Social Crediters, by contrast, stand for the decentralization of economic and political power in favour of the individual. Social Credit's proposal for an honest monetary system is not socialist but rather anti-socialist. It is completely compatible with a free enterprise economy (incorporating free markets, private property, individual initiative, and the profit motive) Cf. .http://www.socred.org/blogs/view/why-social-credit-is-not-socialism.
    Getting an understanding of Social Credit is well worth the effort, as it may just manage to save civilization.
------
Heydorn pic1.jpg
        Oliver Heydorn (olheydorn@yahoo.ca) is the founder and director of The Clifford Hugh Douglas Institute for the Study and              Promotion of Social                 Credit: www.socred.org
         He is also the author of two recent books on the subject (available via amazon)  Social Credit Economics
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2015/01/social-credit-a-simple-explanation.html#sthash.C8GlkSGp.dpuf
on 1 comment:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 19 October 2015

A "Modernisation" of Social Credit?









Robert Searle

5/13/14



Dear All,

             I am the originator of a system known as Transfinancial Economics. It was created independently of Social Credit, which I discovered later on. The similiarity between TFE, and SOCRED (a good abbreviation!) took me by surprise a number of years ago. I suppose the former could be seen as a "modernisation" of Social Credit. Clifford Douglas was way ahead of his time. However, there are  some basic differences between TFE, and SOCRED.

i) TFE recognizes the huge importance of the fact that the present financial systems is essentially a highly complex network of IT Systems, and that money is essentially in the main electronic data transmitted from one account to another. Ofcourse, Douglas lived before the advent of accessible technologies (eg. computers, and mobile phones) but would have probably approved of my approach. However, he was well aware of tabulating machines which existed in his day.

ii) TFE believes that the "only" way forwards is to work with certain banks, and corporations. Douglas seemed to be against such a pragmatic approach.


iii) TFE is open to the idea of a Universal Dividend, or Basic Income.


There may be other differences of a "minor" nature, but one needs to examine Social Credit more carefully.








johnwiparr

5/13/14

Dear Robert,
I cannot speak for Social Credit as a whole- each of us perceives it uniquely- but I think you have got a good idea there.  I can't say I agree 100%, but there seems to be certain similarities, more so than with many other economic ideas.
Social Credit is concerned primarily that the association we call the economy should work to the highest satisfaction of the individuals composing it, as indicated by each of those individuals.  We say that it is not doing this, since, due to the nature of the cost-accounting system, the economy is incapable of distributing in full what it produces, since the rate of flow of costs, and thus ultimate prices, is greater than than the rate of flow of incomes. 

The discrepancy between these flows is made of several things, but the main reason to sum it all up is the development of capital, and the replacement of humans by machines in production.  Hence, included in prices is the "wage of the machine," which is not previously distributed, yet must be accounted for in prices.  The floating universal price subsidy - the compensated price- and the national dividend from new money we propose would reflect the increasing obsolescence of people in production, and of the right of people to be able to purchase all production without needing to work harder than is physically necessary.
We also propose that the banking system should be able to create as much money for production as there is production potential.  No more, no less.  Should enough people be employed via production loans, and incomes become greater than prices, the floating price subsidy would become a tax.
I believe you do have similarities with our proposals.  Your inflation controls seem to be, in some of its forms, very similar to our compensated price.  It sounds a call for more money to be distributed for worthy causes, and that there be no limit on money except what is physically possible.  And no doubt a basic income could be applied, as you say.
We would rather see the new issues of money be distributed direct to citizens, in the form of basic incomes and lower prices, rather than in respect of government programs and grants.  Citizens, with independent financial means, freed from wage and salary slavery, and able to fully exercise their monetary vote, could devote their money and time to more worthy causes- of which, I am certain, sustainability would be one.  We prefer that to government spending (except when approved by democratic mandate) because it would represent merely the furtherance of centralized control over peoples' lives, and in interests not necessarily those of the individual.
I am not completely certain that I represent the position of Social Credit fully and completely- I am still learning.  Others on this board, I think, would be able to give you more insight and reply.  But I hope this has helped.
Sincerely,

John Parr


- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Social Credit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to social-credi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



oliver.heydorn

5/13/14

I just wanted to point out that the contemporary call advanced from many different quarters for a universal, or basic, or citizen's income is not the same thing as Social Credit's call for a National Dividend.

Unlike the typical basic income proposal, the National Dividend is indexed to the productivity of the economy. That is, it would not constitute a guaranteed amount, but would depend on how much additional purchasing power is required to offset the operating costs of real capital and other legitimate production costs for which no or insufficient purchasing power is being distributed to consumers. Thus, it is likely to differ from month to month but would be increasing (in terms of its relative purchasing power) in an economy that was steadily progressing by incorporating more and more real capital and less and less human labour.

Secondly, unlike the typical basic income proposal, the National Dividend is not to be financed via redistributive taxation or by an increase in public debts but by the creation of fresh money (debt-free money, if you like) to bring the capacity to consume in line with the capacity to produce (to the extent that the latter has been actualized in any given period). Redistribution does not increase the aggregate purchasing power and is a political, economic, and social irritant and increasing the public debt is simply more of the same madness in which the world is presently drowning.

I have not yet had a chance to examine 'Transfinancial Economics' but, if it would be open to providing people with an income whether they are employed or not, I hope it is open to such an income in the Social Credit as opposed to the conventional sense.

Parr seems to have a fairly decent understanding for someone who is relatively new to the subject.
- show quoted text -



Steve Hummel

5/13/14

John and Robert,

I agree that there are many similarities between Social Credit and TFE, and you Robert should be complimented for comprehending that fact and that you had the openness of intellect to do so. Presently, very few economists have such intellectual openness and that lack of intellectual wholeness is part and parcel of the problems with economics and economic theory.

I would say this about the directness of the dividend and nature: Nature is in a state of feedback/constant association with its component parts, however it receives its source of energy from an external source. We as individuals perfectly reflect this same relationship/circumstance The directness of the dividend is what approximates a natural economic equilibrium, and the discount is what mathematically maintains it through time and circumstance
- show quoted text -



Robert Searle

5/14/14

Thank you all for your comments. Yes, TFE is certainly very much like SOCRED. The article which "clinched" this was discovered in the Michael Journal, the link to which I would like to give out.

on 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

The Social Credit National Dividend and Compensated Price and capital investment by Wallace Klinck

  thecross-roads.org/Blog

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics
 
Douglas made very clear that his proposals are appropriate to the modern capital intensive economy and have little to offer for a primitive economy.  I believe that when approached by representative of a poorly developed country he advised that they should concentrate on formation of a real, i.e., physical capital base and then he might be able to assist them.  His analysis of the modern credit system as it works with industrial cost-accountancy confirms this to be the case. Obviously Social Credit does not apply to barter economies or exchange systems, per se.  The unique aspect of Social Credit is that it is distributive.


If industrialized nations were to get their own financial affairs in proper order they would be in a much better position, were this so desired, to assist other less fortunate countries benignly rather than in exploiting their resources as they now do as they engage in an intensifying quest for lower production costs so to compete in world export markets.  You are correct that a Social Credit “Dividend” can only be paid where sufficient product is available and this can only occur in an increasingly capital-intensive economy where efficient “tools” make it possible.  This is a circumstance which is simply a fact of reality.  Perhaps others may be overly optimistic about the prospects for Social Credit in some less advanced nations, although some living examples have demonstrated the realization of surprisingly rapid industrial advancement under favourable conditions.

Regarding the issue of Consumer Dividends and implementation of the Compensated Price in the modern economy, certain axioms attach to the Social Credit analysis and corrective prescriptions, among which are:
(1) all things physically possible and desired must be financially possible, 
(2) the true cost of production is consumption, 
(3) physical cost is less than computed financial costs, 
(4) “money” is simply an order system of effective demand, i.e., a ticket or “counter” system and is a matter of accountancy having necessarily, and preferably, no physical substance in itself, 
(5) new production must be financed by new credit, 
(6) finance must reflect reality.


When a program of capital goods production is pursued it is financed by new credits issued in the form of bank credit.  These credits are not a gift and must enter costs and prices by which they must be recovered from consumers and returned to the issuing bank for cancellation.  The bank claims ownership of said credit.  Consider what happens:
The new production credits which are used to pay out incomes are paid in advance of new consumer goods but constitute an expansion of demand units which dilutes current purchasing-power in respect of existing goods.  They cause an inflationary rise in the price-level.  But do they cause greater consumption of actual physical  goods?  No.

When we produce new capital goods what are we doing?  We are increasing or enhancing the real credit of the nation.  What does this mean?  It means that we are increasing the ratio of production to consumption and by definition the real cost of production is being reduced.

How are we to compensate the rising prices which have resulted from the issue of new production credits which the banks claim wrongly as their own?  How to “expiate” this crime—this theft by the banks of the communal credit?  We cannot simply add further consumer credit by way of Dividends the money value of which would be simply be lost by an expansion or inflation of figures.

Douglas claimed that money can be issued either to increase of decrease prices.  It is all a matter of accountancy.  So, if we issue credit to reduce prices by means of consumer Price Compensation in combination with payments of consumer credits in the form of Consumer Dividends directly to citizens, we can effect falling prices and increased purchasing power to reflect accurately the increase achieved in the communal credit in accordance with Douglas’s “natural law of cost”, i.e., the overall consumption/production ratio.

Proper financial accountancy must always reflect physical reality, automatically, constantly, dynamically and simultaneously insofar as this is possible without confusing or mixing the relevant figures attaching to successive costing cycles.
on No comments:
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, 5 August 2015

Social Discredit

              
CANADIAN SOCIAL STUDIES
VOLUME 38, NUMBER 1, FA

Janine Stingel. 2000.
Social Discredit: Anti-Semitism, Social Credit and the Jewish Response.

Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Pp. 280, $39.95, cloth.
ISBN 0-7735-2010-4.
website: http://www.mqup.mcgill.ca/ Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics



Peter Seixas

University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia.


There is a tendency for Canadians today to understand anti-Semitism as simply one more form of ethnic discrimination and prejudice that might take its place next to anti-black, anti-aboriginal or anti-Asian expressions and actions. While these forms of prejudice have much in common, each also has its own particular content rooted both in distinctive mythologies and in the differing histories of their victims and perpetrators in Canada and beyond. Anti-Semitism in Canada in the 1930s and 1940s involved an image of Jews as international conspirators, secretly plotting world domination through an inchoate combination of international banking, communism and Zionism. In the mythology, based on the forged but widely circulated Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Jews thus posed a threat to national sovereignty, property, peace and prosperity.
In the 1930s, Social Credit doctrine made its way from its originator, Liverpool's Major C. H. Douglas, to the Canadian West. As Janine Stingel demonstrates, Social Credit was "wholly dependent on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory" (p. 13). Anti-Semitism was not a coincidental adjunct to this right-wing populist movement, but resided at the core of a paranoid vision of bankers and money-lenders swindling honest Canadians out of the wages of their toil. Depression-era Alberta was fertile ground for such a message, particularly when it came through the medium of a popular radio-preacher turned politician, "Bible Bill" Aberhart. Alberta thus became home to the only North American jurisdiction with a government that officially endorsed anti-Semitism.
Stingel's Social Discredit is constructed as a parallel history of two organizations: the Social Credit Party in Alberta (and beyond) and the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). The reorganization of the CJC in 1934, in response to heightened levels of nationally organized anti-Semitism, roughly corresponded to the origins of Social Credit in Canada (in 1935). The inclusion of the CJC enables the author to tell not just a story of Jews as victims, but to also give them voice as actors in response to discrimination.
That voice, as Stingel tells it however, was neither strong nor effective. The CJC leaders' first impulse was to proceed with a "positive" campaign, in the belief that moral suasion and education were the "key tools" (pp. 33-34). Thus, rather than seeking legal measures to bar public expressions of hate, the CJC published reports on the status of Canadian Jews, demonstrating that they were not all financiers. By the end of the war, with a new kind of knowledge about the potential impact of anti-Semitism, the CJC stepped up its campaign, shifting to "a broad-based appeal against all race hatred" (p. 87). Yet, it remained focused on the attitudes of non-Jews and, according to Stingel, "this assumption would greatly impede its public relations work regarding Social Credit's anti-Semitism" (p.87).
In the immediate post-War years, anti-Semitic expressions from Social Credit actually increased. Stingel chronicles several meetings between Social Credit and the CJC leaders which resulted in private expressions of sympathy ("some of my best friends…") followed by public statements that further raised the threat of international conspiracy. Even when leaders were demonstrating their commitment to disavow anti-Semitism, they ended up reinforcing it.
"'Max,' Social Credit leader Solon Low said to CJC agent Max Moscovich in 1946, 'you've known me most of my life-I am definitely not anti-Semitic'" (p. 105). Low promised to ensure that anti-Semitic statements would be eliminated from the Social Credit paper. A few weeks later he gave a national radio address on CBC:
Do you know that the same group of international gangsters who are today scheming for world revolution are the same people who promoted the world war? Do you know that these same men promoted and financed the Russian revolution? Are you aware that these arch-criminals were responsible for the economic chaos and suffering of the hungry thirties, for financing Hitler to power, for promoting World War Two with its tragic carnage? Do you know that there is a close tie-up between international communism, international finance and international political Zionism? (p. 105).
While Low did not mention Jews by name, anti-Semitic mythology was entirely intact. In the face of what was either Social Credit's deliberate duplicity or uncomprehending blindness, as Stingel tells it, the CJC continually failed to mobilize effectively.
By 1947, when the Congress finally started to move towards legal and electoral action, there were other more potent challenges to Social Credit's anti-Semitism. "Little did [the CJC] know that Social Credit's anti-Semitic foundations were already beginning to crumble" (p.121). There was intensive pressure from the regional and national press for the Social Credit leadership to disavow anti-Semitism publicly and to bar its most virulent proponents, like Norman Jaques, from its press. Party leader and Premier Ernest Manning went far enough in his purge of anti-Semitism, that splinter groups accused him of "selling out to the Zionists" in a bitter factional war.
Stingel concludes that "it was Social Credit, not Congress, that ultimately solved the Social Credit problem" (p. 161). The CJC's campaigns were "problematic…at best…grossly ineffective at worst" (p. 163). Yet the appeal of and public tolerance for anti-Semitism decreased in the late 1940s. "By early 1949 Congress could safely relax its vigil on Social Credit" (p. 175).
Social Discredit is traditional organizational history in that it is based heavily in the archives of the two organizations, on the public press and on the organizations' own media. We spend a lot of time reading about who said what to whom at which meeting. Finally, having followed the leaders of the two organizations through a decade and a half, with Social Credit continuing to spout conspiracy theories and the Canadian Jewish Congress continuing to be ineffective, Stingel does not really offer an explanation—at this level—of why the change in Social Credit came between 1947 and 1949. Apparently the answer does not reside in the speeches and press releases. However, if the causes of change lie elsewhere, in the larger story of the shaping of a vigorous anti-Soviet Cold War ideology and on the renewal of Western prosperity (p.189), the reader cannot help but feel a bit disappointed at having followed the organization men from meeting to meeting in such detail for two hundred pages.



The following may be of interest, and relevance, and comes from the Wikipedia entry on Social Credit

Social crediters and Douglas have been criticized for spreading antisemitism. Douglas was critical of "international Jewry", especially in his later writings. He asserted that such Jews controlled many of the major banks and were involved in an international conspiracy to centralize the power of finance. Some people have claimed that Douglas was antisemitic because he was quite critical of pre-Christian philosophy. In his book entitled Social Credit, he wrote that, “It is not too much to say that one of the root ideas through which Christianity comes into conflict with the conceptions of the Old Testament and the ideals of the pre-Christians' era is in respect of this dethronement of abstractionism.”[58]
Douglas was opposed to abstractionist philosophies, because he believed that these philosophies inevitably resulted in the elevation of abstractions, such as the state, and legal fictions, such as corporate personhood, over the individual. He also believed that what Jews considered as abstractionist thought tended to encourage them to endorse communist ideals and an emphasis on collectives over individuals. John L. Finlay, in his book, Social Credit: The English Origins, wrote, “Anti-Semitism of the Douglas kind, if it can be called anti-Semitism at all, may be fantastic, may be dangerous even, in that it may be twisted into a dreadful form, but it is not itself vicious nor evil.”[59]
In her book, Social Discredit: Anti-Semitism, Social Credit and the Jewish Response, Janine Stingel claims that “Douglas' economic and political doctrines were wholly dependent on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory."[60] John L. Finlay disagrees with Stingel's assertion and argues that, "It must also be noted that while Douglas was critical of some aspects of Jewish thought, Douglas did not seek to discriminate against Jews as a people or race. It was never suggested that the National Dividend be withheld from them."[59]










on No comments:
Labels:

Monday, 23 March 2015

The Social Credit proposals explained in 10 Lessons

Blogger Ref http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics
 
français

and viewed in the light of
the social doctrine of the Church
A study prepared by Alain Pilote
on the occasion of the week of study
that followed the Congress of the Pilgrims of Saint Michael
in Rougemont, September 5-11, 2006
 
Our regular readers know that every issue of this journal contains articles about the Social Credit financial proposals, which are more timely than ever to solve today’s economic problems. This Social Credit idea may raise many questions among our new readers, and one article is certainly not enough to answer all these questions, or to give a clear understanding of the whole concept of Social Credit. Besides, most people simply do not have the time to read long books on the subject.
So, here is the solution: the Social Credit proposals explained in 10 lessons, each one being the logical continuation of the previous one. The first lesson begins with principles, and from there, we lay the foundations to have a full knowledge of all that Social Credit implies. Here is the list of the ten lessons:
Lessons 9 and 10: Social Credit and the social doctrine of the Church (which explains, among other things, the four basic principles of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church and the study of Social Credit by nine theologians).
These lessons were published in the “Michael” Journal from the September-October, 2006 issue to the November-December, 2007 issue. There are of course available on this website, but we have also made a 150-page booklet that contains the 10 lessons, that you can order from our office at $11 each (postage included) if you live in Canada, $12 for the U.S.A., and $14 for overseas. Good reading !
Introduction
Social Credit is a doctrine, a series of principles expressed for the first time by Major and engineer C. H. Douglas in 1918. The implementation of these principles would make the social and economic organism effectively reach its proper end, which is the service of human needs. Social Credit would neither create the goods nor the needs, but it would eliminate any artificial obstacle between the two of them, between production and consumption, between the wheat in elevators and the bread on the table. The obstacle today — at least in the developed countries — is purely of financial order, a money obstacle. Now, the financial system neither proceeds from God nor nature. Established by men, it can be adjusted to serve men and no more to cause them problems.
To this end, Social Credit presents concrete propositions. Though very simple, these propositions nevertheless imply a real revolution. Social Credit brings the vision of a new civilization, if by civilization one can mean man’s relationship with his fellow men and the conditions of life making easier for each one the blossoming of his personality.
Under a Social Credit system, we would no longer be struggling with problems that are strictly financial, which constantly plague public administrations, institutions, families, and which poison relationships between individuals. Finance would be nothing but an accounting system, expressing in figures the relative values of goods and services, making easier the mobilization and coordination of the energies required for the different levels of production towards the finished good, and distributing to ALL consumers the means to choose freely and individually what is suitable to them among the goods offered or immediately realizable.
For the first time in history, absolute economic security, without restrictive conditions, would be guaranteed to each and everyone. Material poverty would be a thing of the past. Material anxiety about tomorrow would disappear. Bread would be ensured to all, as long as there is enough wheat to make enough bread for all. Similarly for the other goods that are necessary for life.
Each citizen would be presented with this economic security as a birthright, as a member of the community, enjoying throughout one’s life an immense community capital, that has become a dominant factor of modern production. This capital is made up of, among other things, the natural resources, which are a collective good; life in society, with the increment that ensues from it; the sum of the discoveries, inventions, technological progress, which are an ever-increasing heritage from generations.
This community capital, which is so productive, would bring each of its co-owners, each citizen, a periodical dividend, from the cradle to the grave. And seeing the volume of production attributable to the common capital, the dividend to each one ought to be at least sufficient to cover the basic necessities of life. This dividend would be given in addition to those who personally take part in production, without prejudice to wages, salaries, or other forms of reward.
An income thus attached to the individual, and no longer only attached to his status of employee, would shield him from exploitation by other human beings. With the basic necessities of life guaranteed, a man can better resist being pushed about, and can better take up the career of his own choosing. Freed from urgent material worries, men could apply themselves to free activities, which are more creative than commanded work, and strive towards their own development by the exercise of human functions superior to the purely economic function. Getting the daily bread would no more be the absorbing occupation of their lives.
Note: The text of the following 10 lessons is essentially taken from Louis Even’s writings: In This Age of Plenty (a 410-page book), What Do We Mean by Real Social Credit? (a 32-page brochure); and A Sound and Effective Financial System (a 32-page brochure).
The full text of these three books are available on our website (www.michaeljournal.org), and you can also order them from our office in Rougemont: $25 for the book "In This Age of Plenty", and $3 for each of the two brochures. (All prices include shipping and postage.)
 
Back to What's new
Back to the Michael's homepage
on No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)