|
Restore
to the people by Louis Even Master or vassal? If the owner of a house could not enter nor
leave it without first asking and paying for permission from a private
agency to do so, would he, in fact, be the master of his house? If he
could not till his fields, sow nor reap, without first obtaining and
paying for permission to do so from this same agency, his title of lord
and owner of his property would mean nothing. He would not be a property
owner but the vassal of this private agency. In a previous article, we demonstrated how
the productive capacity of a country is a national good, a community
wealth. Douglas called this real credit, for it is the basis of
confidence that the country can support life. This real credit is as
great as is the country's capacity to furnish promptly, efficiently, and
completely all that is necessary to meet the private and public needs of
the population. However, this productive capacity, which is
the fruit of life in society (something which is a composite of
present-day achievement and the tremendous heritage of knowledge and
perfecting of techniques which have been handed down to us from previous
generations), cannot be turned to the benefit of society unless a very
complex and diversified system of activities is set in motion. And the
instrument which sets these activities in motion is money. Money or
financial credit might be called the control lever which sets in motion
and guides production. Now the people of the country are not the
masters of this control lever. The people are obliged to leave the
machinery of production running at only a fraction of its capacity —
and this in the face of great and growing want — or they must go to a
private agency and pay for permission to use this productive machinery
to meet their needs and wants. This is very much the case of the house
owner we mentioned above, or of the farmer cultivating his fields. The
people are vassals to a private agency, that is, to the banking system
which is made up of private companies, because money takes its origin
from the banking system, and cannot be had without plunging into debt
those to whom it is given for purposes of production. Varied ownership, yet a national good The means of production can be owned by the
individual, by a co-operative, by a company, by a public body, or by any
other legal body. But regardless of the owner, it remains sterile if it
cannot count on the aid of other forms of production. The modern
production machine is essentially a co-operative affair. Its
effectiveness depends upon life in community, upon the coordinated work
of men living together and engaged in a diversity of activities, upon
the existence of consumers, without whom production has no purpose. Now, it is this aspect of pertaining to the
community which makes of real credit a truly social credit which should
give to the community the right to mobilize its productive capacity in
order to meet the needs of the community. Moreover, the community is not
just an abstraction; it is made up of all individual citizens.
Accordingly, they should be able to tell the productive machinery of
their country what they need and want. All should be able to obtain some
share of its fruits. As Pius XII said in a radio
message on June 1, 1941: “The
national economy, which is the fruit of men working together in common,
tends to no other end than to insure, without interruption, those
material conditions under which the individual life of each citizen can
most fully be developed.” Who should control credit? Since financial credit, money, is the
accepted instrument for commanding production, money should belong to
the community and its members, just as does the productive capacity of
the country. Who should possess this instrument of
giving orders to production? Logically, those who have wants and needs,
since the end of the productive system is to fill needs and wants. There exists both public and private wants.
Orders to fill private wants should come from individuals, from families.
It is not the business of any other public body to decide what the
individual should ask for in respect to food, clothing, and lodging. It
is the individuals themselves who know best what are their needs. For public needs, the orders should come
from public bodies ordained for this purpose, each within its own field
of jurisdiction. A well-ordered monetary system The productive capacity of a country, since
it is common property, should somehow or other be placed at the service
of all, and not be monopolized by any particular individuals. It is the
work of society to establish an orderly system to that end. It will be a
monetary system, since money is the means whereby the productive system
is controlled. This is another way of saying that every
citizen as a member of society should be permanently endowed with a
certain sum of money which will make it possible for him to order from
the productive system that which he wishes. The productive system will
furnish it to him, and so each individual will contribute to directing
the country's production towards the satisfaction of the needs of all
who live therein. But how much should each individual get? In
a country like Canada, which is capable of satisfying more than just the
essential needs of its people, the amount set for each one should be
sufficient at least to obtain what is essential. In fact, it could even
be more, to the end that he might more effectively “develop fully his
individual life”. And it is for the individual to use,
according to his own desires, this guaranteed revenue which certain
French economists called “the national dividend”, because it is the
claim to a legitimate share for each one, since each is a co-heir of a
great common capital which has become the preponderant factor in
production today. As for public needs, public bodies will get
the credits they need to draw on the country's capacity to produce
because they are the elected bodies of the people. Evidently, what is
used by public bodies cannot supply the wants of individuals. For this
reason, the citizens must be able to decide through their
representatives what share is to go to public bodies. And this decision
must not be based on taxes nor borrowing, but on the basis of the
urgency of a particular work and the availability of the supplies to
carry out that work. Where to get the money? Now
the objection will be raised: “This is all very nice, but where is the
money to come from, money for those dividends and for public spending so
that production can be mobilized?” The reply: “From a national monetary
office which will work according to the country's production capacity.”
The productive organization furnishes the goods; the monetary
organization furnishes the money with which to finance the production
and distribution of the goods. Changing a mentality In order to correct these conditions, the
prevailing mentality with regard to money must be changed. The money system up to now has been one
that commands instead of serving. It has been considered as something
sacred before which all must genuflect; in reality, it is nothing more
than a system of accounting which is supposed to reflect faithfully the
realities of production and consumption. We have also come to consider money as
wealth, whereas, in fact, it is nothing in itself. All the money in the
country could be burnt today without diminishing by one iota the wealth
of the country. But if you burn down a forest, you destroy real wealth.
A simple decision can restore the burnt money. But it takes from sixty
to a hundred years to replace the forest. Money is simply a title to
wealth, a claim on goods with which to satisfy our needs. And since each
person has this right from birth, why is it so absolutely necessary that
this "money" be earned? A right which is possessed does not
have to be earned. This is acknowledged in the case of the capitalist
who bequeaths his money to another; the heir has a right to the
dividends from this money which he has in no way earned. Why then deny
this same right to all the coheirs of that tremendous wealth which has
been handed down to men from generations of progress? He who works directly in the exploitation
and further development of this common heritage has a right to
compensation for these efforts. But he and others, apart from this
right, have the right from birth to a share in the revenues from this
common heritage. The monetary system is not in itself a
system of rewards and punishments; it is a system of service, a system
to make possible the mobilization of our productive capacity and to
distribute the products thereof. And so that the monetary system may be in
harmony with the productive system, it must follow closely the rhythm of
the productive system; new credits (money) must be issued for new
production, and money must be recalled as products are consumed or
depreciate. Justifiable
demands This is why the Social Crediters of the “Michael” Journal ask that
the Bank of Canada — a national organism set up for this purpose —
to advance new credits without interest for new production, such as
developments for provinces, municipalities, school commissions, etc.
There would be repayments spread out over a period of years, as is the
custom at present, but without the addition of interest rates which
increase the amount to be paid very considerably, sometimes doubling it. The same method of financing should also be
applied to the production of goods for private needs. The producer
should automatically be supplied with the credits he needs in order to
produce what is needed by the private consumer, and of which he is
physically capable of producing. Then the consumer should be financed so
that he would be able to acquire the goods which are available, and
which he needs. Then the money should return to the source from which it
came. With money thus adjusted to production and
consumption, inflation and depressions would be things of the past. It
is the existing system which produces the inflation of prices when, in
fact, these prices should decrease along with easier and more rapid
production. And it is the existing system which creates unemployment
when there are still so many private and public wants to be met. Louis Even This article was published in the May-June-July, 2002 issue of “Michael”.
|