|
There seems to be some difference of opinion as to
whether, under a 'social credit' system, private banks would continue to 'create
credit'.
Bill Ryan has stated recently (again) that the
theorem "loans create deposits" would continue. And under a 'Social Credit'
system private banks would still 'create credit' as they now do.
Vic Bridger has told me privately
'off-list' prior to that that it would not. That the only "new credits"
created would be the amounts distributed through the National Dividend and
Compensated Price Discount.
Amounts which would be determined 'after the fact',
through the information derived from a proper set of 'national accounts'
recording the production and consumption that had taken place over any
chosen previous period.
That the present 'private banks' would only , in
future under a 'Social Credit' system, lend their customer's
deposits. Or their own funds, or money they had borrowed from
elsewhere. That this would be adequate to finance any ongoing needs for
credit, since with the ND and CPD in place bank account balances would
continually grow.
Vic envisions a "People's Bank" being set up
to keep the 'national accounts' and make the necessary 'distributions' of
'debt-free' new credits to consumers. It would not 'lend' to
'producers', or anyone else.
Though Vic did not say so, other
'authentic' Social Credit literature, (not written by Douglas
himself, though), often seems to envision the 'Government' getting its
hands on 'some' of these 'new credits' directly, (not through taxation), to fund
its needs. Either entirely, or partially, depending on the perception of
the author.
Now I am certainly not qualified to say who is
correct. For I have gone back and tried to apply what Vic has told me to
what Douglas has written himself and it certainly could be interpreted
the way he has said. At least I think it could.
Alternately, what Bill has said and developed in
his study of the subject seems to fit with Douglas, too. And in some ways,
considering things as they are, is possibly a more practical way to look at it,
and to move forward. If there is any practical way to move forward.
What troubles me about the 'traditional' (Vic's)
appoach is something which I can't quite 'put my finger on'. Not
yet. Yet, rightly or wrongly, my 'intuition' tells
me there's something missing.
What I think it is involves that statement
repeated in Social Credit writings that 'credit' is "the belief in the
beneficial outcome of some line of action", or "faith" ~ "The substance of
things hoped for, the evidence of that not seen".
Now if this is true, and I believe it is,
could we really only 'loan' what already exists, i.e. a "customer's
deposit"? And could we really only base 'financial' credit on what has
ALREADY happened? Does there not have to be that 'faith', (that
'belief' in the beneficial outcome of some line of action ~ in the
'future'), that would preclude the ONLY 'new credits' coming from the National
Dividend and Compensated Price Discount?
Or am I imagining things, and way, way off
track?
Joe
| 
Question from the 
Reply to this message
