Thank you Wallace for that succinct and accurate
summation of the topics we have been thrashing around for some months. I endorse
all you have said. You have hit the core of the subject namely, there has to be
a radical and revolutionary rethink about the operation of the financial system
so that it operates for the benefit of all and not for the benefit of an
insignificant elite controlling the financial system. You have also exploded
the "work ethic" myth that bedevils the present system, and ensures that
income only goes to those enployed in "productive" work. It is painfully obvious
to all thinking people that with increased efficiency from technological
advances the percentage of people needed to provide the "necessities of life"
will occupy a progressively smaller and smaller percentage of the total
population. The present system wastefully transfers this responsibility
towards those who accept the minimum of monetary reward for those services,
hence the dangerous deskilling of the previously dominant "Western Bloc" in
industrial matters. Tragically the Western Banking System has been a prime mover
in this process. The final outcome must be a collapse of the world economy when
we reach the point where there are no more "minimum wage" people available. We
cannot accept any longer the monetary system that equates everything to a
financial base. We have reached the stage where we know the price of everything
but the value of nothing. The recent fiascos on the fluctuating cost of oil is
typical of that senario. It is ludicrous to think that a vital commodity like
oil is at the mercy of auctioners, gamblers on the stock
exchange and speculators in currency transactions. It has to change.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:56
Subject: [socialcredit] Re:
[Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government - revised
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
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"
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
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"
To: "vic bridger"
<email@example.com>; "Wallace Klinck" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
"Constance Fogal" <email@example.com>; "Wendy Forrest"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Diane Boucher" <email@example.com>;
"Don Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Jim Schroeder"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Michael Stephen Lane"
<email@example.com>; "Robert E. Klinck"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Bill Daly" <email@example.com>;
"Frances Hutchinson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Martin
Hattersley" <email@example.com>; "Therese Tardif"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Don Auchterlonie"
<email@example.com>; "Henry Raynel"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Anne Goss"
<email@example.com>; "Richard Cook"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Betty Luks"
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:21
Subject: Re: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: Banking and the Canadian Government -
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
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"
To: "Joe Thomson"
<email@example.com>; "Wallace Klinck"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Constance Fogal"
Forrest" <email@example.com>; "Diane
Boucher" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Don
Martin" <Donald.Martin@fsbdial.co.uk>; "Jim
"Michael Stephen Lane"
<email@example.com>; "Robert E. Klinck"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Bill Daly"
<email@example.com>; "Therese Tardif"
<firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Anne Goss"
"Richard Cook" <email@example.com>;
"Betty Luks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:27
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
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
On 11/01/2008, at 1:19 PM, Joe Thomson
> (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
> Or, if we followed the principle of
gradualism you mentioned, would we
> likely begin with some smaller amount, and
hope for broad merchant
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
You're subscribed to this list with the email email@example.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit