|Subject:||[socialcredit] Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government - revised|
|Date:||Tuesday, January 15, 2008 01:56:48 (-0700)|
|From:||Wallace Klinck <wmklinck @....ca>
I think that the situation is fairly clear. Douglas would have the Compensated Price (i.e., "consumer discount") implemented at a level sufficient to ensure willing acceptance and participation by business. The objective of Social Credit, he said, was to create a new civilization based upon absolute economic security and the combination of the Compensated Price and National Dividend should be formulated best to achieve this end. Douglas strongly criticized the theory of "Rewards and Punishments" as a manifestation of Puritanism being incompatible with the Christian Ethic. Lower prices, alone, are of no avail to a person who has no income whatsoever to spend. It is expected and desired that there will be a move away from "work", activity done under the threat of economic privation and directed by external will. Indeed, it is highly desirable that there be a significant withdrawal from the service of Mammon. The pursuit of waste and war in the drive for financial survival and consequent empire-building in a quest for power, based upon compulsion, is what C. H. Douglas called "the tragedy of human effort." If we can afford a constant, indeed, escalating, program of destruction merely to provide more "work"--then surely we have untold latitude and potential for the introduction of increasing leisure. In accordance with Social Credit policy, advances in technological efficiency and productivity would no longer be subject to restriction and sabotage as has been true under the present financial-economic regime dominated by vested financial and commercial interests functioning in the context of accelerating inflation of prices and unrepayable financial debt.
History has demonstrated and recorded that those citizens of independent means have been at the forefront in making creative contributions to the culture and technology of society.
In a Social Credit dispensation, where the obsession with "work" as as a "moral" imperative has been eliminated, obviously a huge widespread incentive would be released to automate economic functions--not the least of these being menial and unpleasant tasks. More people would be liberated to find technological processes freed increasingly of the need for human input--and they would no doubt be intensely interested in, and motivated to discover and apply their creative imaginations to discovery and development of such processes. Wealthy people having received large incomes from invested money, i.e., industrial dividends and interest, have often been among the most truly creative and busy--although not always in a benign manner when dedicated to large schemes for humanity. Indeed, a case can be made in some cases that the wealthy who have been devoted more to leisure have been a less damaging influence than the "busy" rich. Drones, the vast "employed" are not frequently known for creative mental genius. I have not heard any news about the citizens of Alaska becoming indolent under their immensely popular Alaskan Dividend program which has disbursed some fairly substantial Citizens' Dividends. The Social Credit Consumer Dividend is not a "right" to be granted or withdrawn by the political elite (viz., the "State") but rather an constitutionally guaranteed inalienable inheritance, inherent in natural law, which is intrinsic to the very nature of reality. (Having said all of this, one can recognize that Douglas did provide, perhaps prudently, for a short-term limited period with some conditions attached to the introduction of the Social Credit measures. But this is a matter of strategy and not fundamental enduring principle or policy.) Actually, it has been anticipated that the introduction of consumer credits in support of lower prices and increased effective consumer buying power might lead to expanded economic activity shifting toward emphasis upon production for genuine consumer satisfaction--with productive resources being allocated increasingly toward this end. This is the prerogative of consumers in a consumber-motivated economy--in the context of genuine economic democracy as envisioned by Social Credit.
Finally, this discussion can be concluded, if not exhaustively, with the confident assurance that a general and disastrous withdrawal from the labour force is most unlikely, although creative energy will soon become redirected to more benign activity. If there were a substantial withdrawal from participation in production causing the rate of consumption to rise relative to that of production, the Compensated Price and the National Dividend would be reduced accordingly giving a rapid signal that more production and or efficiency were required to meet the freely expressed desires of the population. Social Credit contains within it, therefore, an intrinsic self-correcting mechanism or dynamic which would transmit the information required to signal the requirements for a proper balance between need or desire and adequate production. That there is still some need for the application of human effort to production is granted--but the salient fact is that its relative necessity is progressively being lifted from the backs of mankind and the financial system must be correctly altered to reflect the essential nature of this transition. Any wholesale withdrawal from creative participation in the productive system which preceded the advances in technology required to make such withdrawal possible, would provide a very rapid object lesson. The desire of most "normal" people is for expanded horizons of exploration and for a more stimulating and comfortable life and they will not be satisfied with less. It is the inherent nature of healthy-minded humans to be active, enquiring and creative--and Social Credit would provide an environment in which the creativity of the individual would be liberated and not stifled by fear and compulsion as so often occurs under the present oppressive system which has elevated external power over mankind instead of enhancing immanent sovereignty.
Hello Joe/Vic and others:
The price discount is based upon the scientific fact that the true cost of production is consumption over an equivalent period of time. The discount would require accurate statistics regarding consumption and production habits of the people who live in the community about to implement Social Credit, and this would require a body to calculate these statistics(whether it's called a "National Credit Authority", "Statistics Canada", "The Bank of Canada" etc.....).
In my opinion, once the "authority" in charge of calculating these statistics is operational, the price rebate can be implemented based upon those statistics, and I do not see any need to "gradually" introduce the price rebate mechanism, since it's based upon scientific principles of the true cost of production and accurate statistics.
The dividend is another matter, and I do believe that some degree of "gradualism" is necessary to introduce this mechanism: firstly, because I have yet to see where Douglas gave a scientific methodology to determine the exact size of the dividend, and secondly, because people have been so indoctrinated with socialist ideology that when given the dividend, they will tend to see it as a right without responsibility. I think we can agree that rights entail certain responsibilities. My fear would be that there would be a mass exodus of people from the productive system, because they would no longer feel the "need" to work, and the system would fail in a short period of time. I think we can all agree that we are still at a stage in technological development where a certain amount of work is still necessary.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Thomson" <email@example.com>
To: "vic bridger" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Wallace Klinck" <email@example.com>; "Constance Fogal" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Wendy Forrest" <email@example.com>; "Diane Boucher" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Don Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Jim Schroeder" <email@example.com>; "Michael Stephen Lane" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Robert E. Klinck" <email@example.com>; "Bill Daly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Frances Hutchinson" <email@example.com>; "Martin Hattersley" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Therese Tardif" <email@example.com>; "Don Auchterlonie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Henry Raynel" <email@example.com>; "Anne Goss" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Richard Cook" <email@example.com>; "Betty Luks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government - revised
No, I don't think it's "jumping the gun" at all, Vic. Not in the context in
which it's being discussed here. Which concerns what Bill has suggested ~
ONE possible way the Dividend and Discount might be introduced. Through
And just where in Douglas does he say there should even be a National
Though I've no desire to quibble over semantics, I don't recall ever seeing
him use that word. Which to me, in this country anyway, seems to
connotate some all -powerful, centralised body charged with rigidly
following some pre-determined "Plan".
From the link provided in Bill's previous reply, that seems to have been the
underlying failing of Communism.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression Social Credit was for
'inducement' rather than 'compulsion'. That people, including retail
merchants affected directly by it, would embrace it because they AGREE with
its being advantageous to them.
Now in light of what Bill has suggested just recently re:-"gradualism", and
what he has written previously about the statistical mechanisms inherent in
a National Credit Office already being largely in place (in the Federal
Reserve, in the USA), I certainly don't believe there is any "jumping the
gun" in soliciting his opinion on the questions I've asked him.
No Social Crediter, certainly not myself, nor would I suspect Bill either,
is losing sight of the "first trench to be taken". But it certainly does no
harm, in my opinion anyways, to have some idea just what we're going to do
that's actually prudent and practical if we ever succeed in taking it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "vic bridger" <email@example.com>
To: "Joe Thomson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Wallace Klinck"
<email@example.com>; "Constance Fogal" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Wendy
Forrest" <email@example.com>; "Diane Boucher" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Don
Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Jim Schroeder" <email@example.com>;
"Michael Stephen Lane" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Robert E. Klinck"
<email@example.com>; "Bill Daly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Frances
Hutchinson" <email@example.com>; "Martin Hattersley"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Therese Tardif" <email@example.com>; "Don
Auchterlonie" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Henry Raynel"
<email@example.com>; "Anne Goss" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
"Richard Cook" <email@example.com>; "Betty Luks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government -
Isn't this just jumping the gun? Surely details can be debated AFTER
the hurdles have been breached. Next thing there will be mounting
discussion on whether the National dividend should be 5% or 10% or
some other unknown or whether the discount should be 5% ,10% or 25 %
or nothing. I would have thought that one would build the house before
starting to furnish it. When a national Credit Authority is
established and when that body has produced a proper and correct set
of financial accounts on the economy and when the Balance Sheet has
been achieved and when that information is available to whatever
Authority is charged with the responsibility to distribute a dividend
or discount perhaps then it may be possible to entertain thoughts on
what % may apply. Much will depend upon a host of other factors
applicable at the time.
On 11/01/2008, at 1:19 PM, Joe Thomson wrote:
> (Bill Ryan wrote:-) "The more prudent course of action is based on
> principle of gradualism, where the Dividend and Discount are
> introduced in
> relatively small amounts at first, and gradually increased over
> time, so we
> might deal appropriately with unforeseen consequences that will
> (Joe replies:-) Douglas, in his 1930's "Draft Plan for Scotland",
> recommended that the initial amount of the Discount, (at that time),
> shouldn't be less than 25%. And the "Goldsborough Bill" from that
> same era
> proposed an initial amount of 15%. Both of these amounts are
> discounts. Though both were proposed in a time of prolonged
> Depression, and
> the latter is not far from what we are currently charged, in this
> in Sales Taxes.
> Do you think either amount would be appropriate as an initial
> today? Would the same reasons Douglas gave for making it 25% to
> start with
> still be relevant, (to ensure broad based participation amongst
> Or, if we followed the principle of gradualism you mentioned, would we
> likely begin with some smaller amount, and hope for broad merchant