| Subject: | [socialcredit] Fw: Wikipedia Article on Social Credit | | Date: | Saturday, June 14, 2008 07:19:54 (-0700) | | From: | william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
|
--- On Sat, 6/14/08, Wallace Klinck <wmklinck@shaw.ca> wrote:
> From: Wallace Klinck <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
> Subject: Wikipedia Article on Social Credit
> To: "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> Cc: "William B. Ryan" <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> Date: Saturday, June 14, 2008, 3:19 AM
> Here is an extract from very recent correspondence between
> Jim
> Schroeder, David Kendall and myself. David has played a
> major role in
> editing the article with input from Jim and myself
> (concepts,
> quotations, citatiions, etc.). My understanding is that
> David comes
> from the State of Washington. I understand that further
> editing of
> the Wikipedia piece is intended.
>
> Hello All,
>
> Having begun to look at the Wikipedia article, Social
> Credit
> there are from the outset several initial observations
> which should be
> made.
>
> 1) Bill Ryan has correctly pointed out on Elistas that the
> Stingel
> book is titled Social Discredit and not Social Credit. I
> think this
> work is more important for what it reveals rather than
> having any
> significant value as a serious critique of Social Credit,
> per se.
>
> 2) Re the first of the three points listed with bullets,
> the policy of
> Social Credit is not to provide a basic income for the
> individual.
> The policy is to provide by absolute right of inheritance
> an
> unconditional Consumer (or National) Dividend commensurate
> with the
> ability of the economy to provide such. There is no limit
> to the
> Dividend except that which statistical analysis indicates
> is the case
> during any given period of time consequent to a periodic
> statistical
> determination of the deficiency of national purchasing
> power. Using
> the term "basic" brings into the arena a
> judgmental question which by-
> passes and/or overrides the empirical and objective nature
> of such a
> determination. The provision of the Dividend (in
> combination with
> Compensation of Prices) is not determined in amount by any
>
> subjectively determined state policy. It is determined by
> objective
> economic reality with respect to the relative rates of
> total national
> production and consumption statistically determined in
> monetary terms
> for any selected time period. The policy is, thereby, to
> confer upon
> each citizen an inalienable beneficial share in the
> communal capital--
> not directly but through increased purchasing power and
> access to
> consumer goods. The proportionate size of the Dividend is
> related to
> the degree to which non-human factors of production replace
> human
> effort in the production process. Obviously, most income
> would be
> unearned in conditions of near total automation. Re the
> third of the
> three points, the object of Social Credit is not to
> determine the
> appropriate amount of "credit in circulation."
> The use of the word
> "circulation" is suggestive of the "velocity
> of circulation" theory
> which posits, falsely from a Social Credit standpoint, that
> an
> increase in "velocity" or rate at which money
> changes hands increases
> its purchasing power. This is quite the opposite of the
> Social Credit
> position which discusses money in terms of a creditary
> system wherein
> money is issued and destroyed by the banking system. Money
> is created
> and issued via bank loans for production and cancelled upon
> the
> repayment of these bank loans when recovered in retail
> prices via
> consumer purchases. (The advent and expansion of bank
> loans for
> consumers in no way invalidates this explanation.) Money as
> bank
> credit flows and ebbs. It is issued and cancelled with
> respect to
> each program of production. It is constantly being created
> and
> destroyed. A central cause of the economic problem is,
> however, that
> money is collected via retail prices in respect of capital
> in a
> manner which is too rapid and falsely represents that
> capital is
> depleted or depreciated much more rapidly than is the
> objective case.
> "Money" should be correctly issued for production
> and cancelled in
> regard to consumption. Under the present faulty system of
> cost
> accountancy, however, due to the premature cancellation of
> credit in
> respect of capital, the consumer is, essentially, charged
> in retail
> prices for capital depreciation but not credited against
> this with
> capital appreciation. The national "inventory"
> of capital
> accumulates much more rapidly than it depreciates.
> Realistically, we
> should have falling prices in combination with increasing
> incomes
> independent of employment, per se. Insofar as savings are
> reinvested
> in new capital, this creates new financial costs and is a
> major factor
> in creating an actual deficiency of purchasing-power.
> Money cannot
> pass from vendor to vendor bounding all over as new
> purchasing-power
> because each business must short-circuit it by paying off
> his bank
> loans (or restoring his capital reserves) whence it is
> cancelled as
> purchasing-power. The whole notion of a permanent
> circulating money
> supply is fanciful nonsense. The modern economy functions
> on bank
> credit which serves the function of money (which
> originates in that
> bank credit) and is quite ephemeral--not
> "circulating" but being
> constantly created and destroyed. THESE, I BELIEVE, ARE
> VERY SERIOUS
> ERRORS WHICH ARE IN URGENT NEED OF CORRECTION.
>
> I note that it is stated that Ezra Pound offered his
> services as a
> leading figure to the Social Credit movement in Alberta.
> Can this be
> documented? This is not, I take it, a confusion regarding
> the offer
> of John Hargrave, the colorful British Social Credit
> technician and
> advocate who did actually come to Alberta and flamboyantly
> offered
> his services in a leadership role. (?) I do not recall
> writing
> anything about Ezra Pound offering his services to the
> people of
> Alberta. Although Pound played an undisputed major role in
> the
> literary world and inspired a number of prominent writers,
> his ideas
> about Social Credit were flawed. While he stated support
> for
> Douglas's ideas, he seemed preoccupied, no doubt
> sincerely, with
> questions concerning "usury" (although he was
> certainly aware of
> Douglas's A + B Theorem). In any case, Douglas was
> opposed to finance
> induced centralized power whether in private institutions,
> governments
> fascist, socialist or communist. internationalist, etc.,
> and Pound's
> unfortunate flirtation with Italian fascism seemed to
> reveal a serious
> misapprehension of genuine Social Credit, perhaps
> especially of its
> philosophy. (See the attached PDF for a more detailed
> discussion of
> Pound and Social Credit.)
>
> I will continue to review the article. You will note that
> I have
> included Vic Bridger and Frances Hutchinson as recipients
> of this
> message.
>
> Sincerely
> Wally
|
Fw: Wikipedia Arti
Reply to this message