Social Credit is not a monopoly of the State

Written by Louis Even on Monday, 10 October 2016. Posted in Social Credit

Social Credit does not mean replacing the banking monopoly by a financial monopoly of the state. It is not the government who would issue money according to its own whim and purpose.

To apply the Social Credit principles, a government would appoint members to a National Credit Office (which, to serve the needs of Canada, could very well be the Bank of Canada). These appointed members would be charged with assuring that the monetary system be in conformity with the objectives given to this Office by law ensuring that money would reflect the facts of production and consumption at all times. This means purchasing power that is guaranteed to each person through a periodical dividend and a discount applied on all retail prices, (to adjust them to the current total purchasing power of the consumers.) This discount is determined mathematically from one term to the next, according to the ratio of total consumption and production.

Once the discount is determined, the National Credit Office would proceed without any interference from the Government, operating only on the statistics (facts) of production and consumption. The Office does not dictate or control the facts (it does not tell producers or consumers what to do); it only observes and records. The facts are due to the buying input of free producers and consumers; they would be applied to all prices. Moreover these prices would not be fixed by the National Credit Office; they would continue to be determined by the producers themselves, according to the costs of production.

Just as justice is dispensed publicly, the National Credit Office would issue periodical statements of accounts for the nation; on which the amount of the dividend and discounts would be based.

As for the government, it would continue to receive permission to spend money for public works and services from the elected representatives of the people. Instead of taking into consideration the possibility of taxing the income of the citizens, governments and parliaments would take into account the country’s production capacity, its physical possibility that answers the public needs while continuing to answer private needs as well. In other words, governments and parliaments would base their decisions on reality: the National Credit Office would simply establish the circulation of credit in harmony with those decisions, for both private and public production and consumption.

It is impossible to find the least possibility of utilizing this mechanism for the benefit of a dictatorship. This is what makes the difference between Social Credit and socialism. Socialism sets up plans to which the citizens must conform and it is a system of constraint. Social Credit considers the citizens as shareholders in the production of the nation and does not dictate in any way. It simply shows the citizens a periodical statement of the national accounts and distributes dividends to them.

About the Author