|
It has been my (mis?-) understanding that under
Social Credit the private banks would continue to 'create credit' as they do
now. As 'debt', the principle amount of any individual
loan which, as and when re-paid, will be cancelled.
That the current 'problem' in the total
repayment of bank created 'credit ('debt') is due mainly to
"the progress of the industrial arts" involving a progressive 'generic'
displacement of labour. Causing these 'debts', taken totally, over
each cycle of production, to not presently be completely
'self-liquidating' in the aggregate.
At least not without having to engage in
further 'capital production' (of goods not coming within the immediate buying
range of the public), or engaging in a frenzied necessity for ever greater
exports, (for 'money'), to enable them to (currently) be so. Both often
detrimental in several ways to society as a whole.
Social Credit's solution would be to augment the
amount of this overall inadequacy in consumer incomes over each chosen
'cost-accountancy' production cycle through the distribution of sufficient
'debt-free' credits to make that productive cycle capable of being fully
financially 'self-liquidating'. That this would allow bank 'debt' to be
completely, or at least far more completely than is currently the case,
amortized.
Now I am informed that under Social Credit that the
ONLY 'new credit' that would come into existance will be through 'debt-free'
distributions to 'Citizen/Consumers' by way of the National Dividend and
Consumer Price Discount, and these will be determined by having a proper set of
National Accounts kept by a National Credit Authority, and distributed by a
proposed "People's Bank". That there would be NO private 'credit
creation' by the individual Banks as at present. And these Banks then,
having seen their 'deposits' grow from the creation and distribution to the
public of these 'new credits', will in future only lend their customer's
deposits.
I do not doubt that Douglas could be interpreted
this way, since he has been, and by those who've made a long-time study of his
works. My own feeling is that there is something in this interpretation
that has been overlooked, though I'm not qualified to put just what it is in a
manner that might be understood. And I may very well be wrong, and what's
been proposed might well be just what he intended. Any comments that might
settle this issue once and for all?
Joe
| 
Conflicting Ideas?
Reply to this message
