From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject:
[socialcredit] Question from the Confused
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:37:37
-0400
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
