I have been forwarded some extracts from an e-mail I
am led to believe originated with you. To wit:-
JT, please stop insulting our intelligence. A perceptive reading of Douglas'
writing, extended by people with the intellectual H.P. of Marshall Hattersley,
would show you that "taking control of the Money Power" was in
a prerequisite to introducing a Social Credit economy, where the economic life
blood would be managed by a financially competent government"
and, previously, though it's not made clear from the extract
forwarded to whom you are referring:-
"In a previous e-letter he
had referred to a derogatory comment that C.H.
Douglas had made about
politicians low level of integrity, and extrapolated
this to mean that
Douglas was clearly opposed to Parliament ever being able
to be trusted with
the mechanism to create the national money supply."
At first I didn't consider what had been
said really worth answering, and communicated that to the
forwarder. However I have reconsidered, for there are some
fundamental issues here that need to be
First of all, as that forwarder also observed, what
you've written above seems to leave open the question as to whether you
know the difference between "Parliament", and a "Government'', i.e. the
particular 'political party' commanding the majority of seats in a Parliament at
any particular time.
For your information, "Parliament" already has possession of
the mechanism to control the national money supply. It's called the Bank
of Canada in this country, and, I believe, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand
in yours. Here, it (re-)acquired complete ownership of the said
mechanism shortly after its inception as our central bank by an Act of
Parliament in the mid-1930's.
Whether such 'ownership' implies control is open to question,
but in an admission before a Parliamentary committee many years ago,
Graham Towers, first Governor of the Bank of Canada, confirmed publicly that
"Parliament" can command the Bank to do anything it wishes it to do.
Be that as it may, to give a "Government", i.e. the
particular 'political party' commanding the largest number of seats in a
"Parliamnent", the uninhibited ability to use such a power (for what would
be perceived as, and no doubt would be, its own political advantage),
would be tantamount to HM the Queen using her power to dismiss a "government"
(solely for her perceived personal advantage).
You might correctly say no modern monarch would ever dare do a
thing like that, and I completely agree. But no modern monarch has the
'monopoly of credit' to maintain herself on the Throne, and that's what
you would invest in the 'gang' that happens to hold the "Government", and
wants to remain as such. See the difference?
Surely even "monetary reformers" in your country
can't be so naive as to believe the "NZ Democrats for Social Credit", as
high-minded creatures of personal integrity they may be, wouldn't be
governed by the first law any elected politician seems to follow if ever elected
to office? That of personal political ''survival".
And that having any 'political party' running a "Government" with its
hands on the (monopoly) ability to create credit would be a highly dangerous
threat to individual liberty.
And all the more so, if, in effect, 'actual' control of the
mechanism resides elsewhere and remains hidden, And those now so
clearly 'visibly' in charge, i.e. the 'elected' government, get to bear
the blame for anything that goes wrong, and prostrate themselves trying to cover
up 'their' mistakes for anything that invariably will (be caused to) go
wrong. I find it hard to conceive of a worse situation, or what that might
eventually lead to.
You should be aware that Douglas disparaged 'political
parties", all of them, even "Social Credit" political parties, and refused to
endorse any of them. Again, for very good reason, as the following extract
from a letter he wrote in 1936 shows:-
"....I might say that every day that passes confirms my opinion of the
radical unsoundness of party politics, and of the undesirability of associating
Social Credit with them anywhere. Party politics is a device for establishing
the truth of the axiom that the whole is greater than the part. The world
financial monopoly has one policy everywhere and permeates all parties; and only
one policy (please note, not necessarily one tactic or one strategy) can hope to
be effective against it."
But beyond all that, do you honestly think that having the
"Government" assume complete control over the creation of credit is going to
solve anything? Tell me now, how are you going to deal with the 'negative'
side of this great 'positive' device of governmental ''credit-issue", assuming
it be such?
That 'negative' side is "price-making" , or don't the Monetary
Reform crowd feel that's any of their concern? Or do they even consider it
in their various deliberations? From a recent post on 'Elistas' from one
of your fellow countrymen it seems your 'Democrats' don't.
Where is your mechanism for crediting 'consumers' with capital
appreciation that is their just due? You can't just do it through the
'National dividend' alone, can you? Not without the risk of causing
inflation, the same as 'spending' newly 'government' created money for
'infrastructure' will bring on. Yet the Compensated Price Discount is
almost seemingly out-of-hand 'politically' discounted.
How are you going to give the public lower prices through
improvements in process without business profits shrinking? To the
point all the perversions of uncorrected modern finance have already wrought
continue unchecked ~ increasingly shoddy products, never ending 'outsourcing',
vicious, dog-eat-dog, no-holds-barred competition to attain some 'necessary'
bottom-line financial result, and ever greater business consolidations as we
move towards ever more and larger (global) 'monopolies' ? Have a
'command and control' economy, with the 'Government' as commander?
What did Douglas think of THAT?
How do you stop this newly spent "Government-created" money
for "infrastructure" from raising consumer prices? A raise that
invariably masks 'inflation' in the guise of 'prosperity' (briefly, before it
reveals itself again for what it really is). Do we endure the
short-term 'pain' of that for greater long-term 'gain' from the created
infrastructure later on? Or is that long-term 'gain' ever going to
materialize to OUR credit? Or be perpetually deferred, just
like now, so you can continue to 'create employment', and have a
'favourable balance of trade'? Why does 'interest' draw so much press from
you, but never the need for a proper set of National Accounts to reflect the
realities extent in the nation as a whole ? Shouldn't we start
It seems to me, Don, that your fixation with 'control'
by the "government" and the perceived evils of "interest" are
blinding you to looking at the whole practical object of Social
Credit. Do you even remember what that is? You can go look it up, if
you've forgotten. But let me tell you, in my blissful ignorance, what I
believe it is NOT. It is NOT having any ''Government" assume a more highly
concentrated 'monopoly of credit' than already exists in the present banking
system. If you can't understand that then I'm sorry to say your
intelligence very much should be insulted. Right to the point of
stimulating it to try harder to understand it, which I'm sure you could do,
judging from your many previous accomplishments.
Yours in (genuine) Social Credit,