Social Credit v. Federal Reserve

[missouriboy]

Suggested reading for those inclined to pursue ideas on improving the status quo...

Thinkers and philosophers have been searching for ways to unite the people of the world and stop a lot of the bickering and wars. Well, there is a topic nearly a hundred years old that might work, at least by uniting all the common folk against all the robber-baron banksters. It's about exposing the Federal Reserve-type money system that has grown worldwide now, and how it creates poverty amidst plenty. It's tragic how the people are being robbed blind by the fact that the banksters get to create the money needed by all, and charge us interest just for the mere existence of it. This makes for a two-class society, one composed of the super-rich banking elements, and the other being everyone else who are doomed to everlasting debt, because the money needed to pay that interest NEVER gets created! So the banksters keep on eternally collecting interest on debt that keeps on compounding ever larger and larger. And it's a scam that was designed that way on purpose!

Well, there is a solution to this travesty, conceived in 1918, and refined further ever since by some intellectuals in the Catholic Church. It's a system of money creation called "Social Credit" (not to be confused with Socialism, which is fully recognized as an equally bad scam). The Social Credit system would eliminate the bankster scam of perpetual interest paid to the elite, and would also eliminate poverty! How? It's amazing! But it's a heavy subject that cannot be glossed over lightly, lest we get the wrong impression.

There is a Catholic website in Canada with a wonderful 10-lesson course on the whole subject, including its history. I think it should be read by everybody who cares about human survival, and about existing with the quality of life we should all enjoy. The introductory web-page, with links to all 10 lessons, is here (http://www.michaeljournal.org/10lessons.htm). Read the Introduction first, then click on each of the 10 links in turn. Warning: this will take a long time, not just a few minutes, so be prepared for some college-level endeavor. Note also that the last two lessons are merely the Catholic doctrines that coincide with the proposal. As you read the Introduction first, you'll see a sentence that reminds you of a certain line in the Lord's Prayer: "Give us this day our daily bread..." (emphasis added). This reveals an essential clue to the whole concept, which may indeed seem quite radical at first. But what is the present system, of charging interest for the mere existence of money, if NOT radical?

Now, I'm not a Catholic nor am I even particularly religious. But I rate this idea among some of the best I've ever studied. Enjoy!

[Boreas]

British Columbia had a party called the Social Credit party. It is gone and now is morphed into the "Liberal" party of BC, which is actually quite right winged, and neo-liberal.

You pose an interesting question. I had never really heard of or possibly understood social credit until I came here. It is my understanding that it is a neoliberal/neoconservative approach under a different mask. I will read some of your information and think about this.

[Sanman]

Not to "steal your thunder", but for those who would rather watch a video than read, here are two excellent vids covering much of the same material...

Money as Debt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544
(the first 20 seconds is blank, but be patient)

The Creature from Jekyll Island - A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8484911570371055528

Of course, the reading material is much deeper in detail that these videos if you prefer having details.

[missouriboy]

Not to "steal your thunder", but for those who would rather watch a video than read, here are two excellent vids covering much of the same material...Thanks for the links.

I haven't watched the videos, but I assume they only describe the present system, and its history. Do they offer a solution?

The Social Credit link I gave describes in adequate detail where we are right now, the major flaws in it, and then proposes an alternative. It's this alternative system that's really the subject of this thread. Had you heard of Social Credit before? I had not, so I thought I would share it here.

Thanks again.

[Sanman]

G. Edward Griffin does indeed offer a solution, and there are many others associated who are actively trying to make a change. One such current attempt is Ron Paul's bill in congress, HR1207, to audit the federal reserve.

[bobk]

Thanks, man. I'll read it and report, not right away. As you say, it will require some time to digest.

[missouriboy]

British Columbia had a party called the Social Credit party. It is gone...It's GOOD that the party is now gone. Here is an excerpt from their brochure (http://www.michaeljournal.org/realsc1.htm) on the subject of parties:
...we cannot see a masterful idea like Social Credit - which transcends political parties and would enrich them all - being in some way confined in a political party. Social Credit is a universal. A political party is a part, a piece. To call a party "Social Credit" is to want to enslave a universal into a limitative.

As soon as you use the words Social Credit to name a political party, you exclude the possibility for the member of another party to declare himself in favour of Social Credit; it would be to declare himself for an opposing party. He will object to you that he cannot be at the same time for his party and the Social Credit Party.

Also, I have just reviewed the quotation that appears in your signature. It is amazingly descriptive of the proposed doctrine of Social Credit!

Thanks for posting. :)

[missouriboy]

G. Edward Griffin does indeed offer a solution, and there are many others associated who are actively trying to make a change. One such current attempt is Ron Paul's bill in congress, HR1207, to audit the federal reserve.I have now watched the ONE hour ELEVEN minute video of your second link; I assume that's the one by G. E. Griffin? Though 15 years old now (1994) it's an excellent presentation by a very dynamic speaker. I really enjoyed and appreciated seeing and hearing it. I don't recall any specific alternative given, only the fact that the present usury system must be eliminated for the survival of America "before it's too late. And there's still time left". And now there's 15 years less time left...

I'm also aware of Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed, which he introduces in every session of congress. This time certainly looks better, since it now has over 270 co-sponsors (last I heard anyway). This bill would not repeal the Fed money system, but would certainly be a good first step, by exposing what really goes on there. IF the audit were really honest and thorough. But if the government itself does the audit, it will most likely find everything "just swell"... remember Waco and the government's "investigation" of itself? And the exoneration of the government sniper who killed Vicki at Ruby Ridge? And the 9/11 Commission? Ad Infinitum.

[missouriboy]

Well, Ron Paul's FED audit bill now has 282 sponsors in the House, plus 23 in the Senate. And it seems if the audit happens, it could lead to abolishment, or nationalization, of the FED.

Keep watching, it's getting interesting.

[Naturist Mark]

The Fed is using Social Credit to dig Wall Street out of the hole it fell into, but of course has adapted it to serve the elites rather than the citizens.

Banks increase the money supply by making loans, but destroy it when it is paid back - including the increased amount paid in interest, which means that there must be an ever increasing pile of debt in order for the economy to grow.

Unless ... you charge NEGATIVE interest on certain loans.

Now there are no banks openly offering negative interest loans ... but the Fed has devised a work around. It offers interbank loans to its member banks that are effectively zero interest. The banks then redeposit the loans with the Fed, at 5% interest, rather than loaning it out to home buyers or businesses. This loan/deposit two step is the equivalent of a social credit dividend paid only to certain favored banks. It is free money to the banks that comes from nowhere - the money the Fed provides is not from deposits or reserves - it is created by bookkeeping entries, even the interest it pays on deposits is just created on the spot.

In Social Credit theory money is created out of nothing in order to balance consumption with production - a transaction that is inflation neutral as long as it is limited to the correct amounts - and is distributed equally to all citizens as a social dividend - since they are the collective "owners" of the economy. But this would not be acceptable in a plutonomy (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/01/08/plutonomics/) like ours, where 1% own the majority of everything. Social Credit may the the cure for the debt spiral, but in a nation dominated by elites it can't be allowed to be equally distributed, thus the Fed's adaptation of an effective negative interest loan that is only available to selected member banks rather than the social dividend that goes to everyone.

[missouriboy]

Social Credit may the the cure for the debt spiral, but in a nation dominated by elites it can't be allowed to be equally distributed, thus the Fed's adaptation of an effective negative interest loan that is only available to selected member banks rather than the social dividend that goes to everyone.Thanks for posting, Mark.

Social Credit isn't the only cure for the debt spiral; other remedies would also do that. In fact, the original Constitutional authority for the government to create money worked fine; there was no debt spiral until creation of the Fed in 1913. It's the bankster's greed of demanding interest just for the mere existence of money that has caused the debt spiral since then.

In addition to fixing that, Social Credit would also mitigate poverty by providing everyone with enough money for the bare necessities of life, up to some so-called "poverty level." Not ALL money created would be distributed this way. The total money created would equal the value of all production, not just the amount needed for survival, and would be vastly more than the amount distributed as the "dividend." Those who desire more than the dividend would have to earn it in the workplace, or marketplace, by participating in creating the production that drives total money creation... in other words, get a job.

I agree with you that overcoming the resistance of the "elite" (read "banksters") to switch systems would be nearly impossible now, because it would require the elimination of their private-playhouse cash cow, the one we euphemistically call The Federal Reserve.

I also feel dubious about any bureaucracy created to determine the proper amount of money, because it would be subject to the same inescapable human traits that cause the foibles of the present system: Greed and Power!

So what are we to do? The economic survival of this country, and perhaps the whole world, at least demands getting back to the constitutional wisdom of interest-free money creation. After that, we could take another look-see.

[Sanman]

Money as Debt II specifically addresses the interest and money supply issue... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doYllBk5No (part 1 of 8)... 2-8 can be foud from there.

[missouriboy]

The following quote is a commentary written last April in reaction to all the huge government bailouts, and to the futile efforts to get our now-dead credit-based economy going again. It was in no way associated with Social Credit, but it sure touches on the reasoning behind it. Enjoy...
UNDERSTANDING WHAT MONEY REALLY IS
by Tony Blizzard

They come up with every way imaginable to solve the credit problem. Every one of them is floating some way to make more/new credit. This means a different way to lend credit into circulation. Why do they insist on saving credit when it is money that is needed, not credit?

When will they, and the average Joe, realize that it is nothing short of insane to lend a nation's medium of exchange into existence as credit to someone other than the borrower? Creating the medium of exchange by lending it into existence is creating profit for those who don't need it and making life miserable for those who need honesty in money so they can live.

Proper money is spent or given into circulation, there to stay until it wears out and is replaced. It is no one's credit. Do you call a quarter "credit"? The purpose of money is to make exchanges between people easier, not harder. And not to the profit of the creator/lender by stealing the wealth created by the borrower. It's so simple that only those in insane asylums apparently can see the logic of it. Like the old joke wherein the inmate remarks that he may be insane but he's not stupid, seems we have way too many "sane" but stupid people running the economic show. Sane is in quotes because I don't believe that anyone who wants money lent into existence with demands to repay it (extinguish it out of circulation) is sane.

The first thing that a sane government would do would be to outlaw forever the world's primary evil of compound interest. There is absolutely no reason on Earth that can justify compound interest. Nothing is more devastatingly criminal than compound interest. It's the reason you pay $750,000 for a $200,000 house. Simple interest is bad too. In fact, simple interest charged on the creation of the medium of exchange will destroy the world just as will compound interest. It just takes longer.

Now is a good time to forever get rid of the "money" lenders who own the temple and its priests who demand the last farthing from the widow. Demand that government take back its primary reason for existence and stop creating treasury bonds to give to the privately owned Fed and sell to everyone else who doesn't need any more profit and instead start creating United States money bills and then spending and giving them into circulation until there are enough circulating to bring business and jobs back into the U.S. so that families can have their lives back.

Let Congress, the executive and even the judiciary know in no uncertain terms that if they value their jobs (and perhaps even their lives if things get as bad as some economists are predicting) they will save the world by getting rid of compound interest and those who profit from it.

If it's going to be them or us, well, there's a lot more of us.Well, it sounds like he's saying a whole lot of the same things I said in my first post above back in July. True, this piece was published back in April, but I just came across it here in November.

[industry7]

I think the treasury should loan out money directly to consumer level banks. The treasury prints up some money for the principle of the loan, and charges a certain amount of interest. The private banks tacks on an extra percent or two (or whatever) based on how much they need to bring in to cover expenses and make a profit. When the bank is repaid they pay the Treasury back, who then "destroys" the principle amount to prevent inflation. The interest brought in by the bank is fed back out to employees and shareholders, and the interest brought in by the treasury is fed back out to all the American people in government spending.

This way, the more business Americans engage in, and the more credit American businesses take out and repay, the more money the American government can spend on improving people's lives without increasing taxes.

[missouriboy]

I think the treasury should loan out money directly to consumer level banks.Seems like your thought is in direct conflict with the theme of this thread, since lending money into existence AT INTEREST is what we already have now. From the post directly above yours...
Proper money is spent or given into circulation, there to stay until it wears out and is replaced. It is no one's credit. Do you call a quarter "credit"? The purpose of money is to make exchanges between people easier, not harder. And not to the profit of the creator/lender by stealing the wealth created by the borrower. It's so simple that only those in insane asylums apparently can see the logic of it. Like the old joke wherein the inmate remarks that he may be insane but he's not stupid, seems we have way too many "sane" but stupid people running the economic show. Sane is in quotes because I don't believe that anyone who wants money lent into existence with demands (interest) to repay it (extinguish it out of circulation) is sane.( Emphasis added.)

[industry7]

Seems like your thought is in direct conflict with the theme of this thread, since lending money into existence AT INTEREST is what we already have now. From the post directly above yours... ( Emphasis added.)

Sorry if I was a little off topic. I've been reading about more and more about this social credit thing, and it's not making sense to me. Maybe someone could help clarify? Like right off the bat, this all seems to be concerned with retail prices/sales. However, most of the production in America is not for consumer goods. Consumer goods are mostly imported from other countries like China (toys), India (clothes), Japan Korea (cars, electronics), etc. So does that mean that we mail the producer's rebate check overseas? That doesn't seem like it would really help our economy very much to be sending even more money to foreign countries who have a favorable trade balance over us.

[missouriboy]

Sorry if I was a little off topic. I've been reading about more and more about this social credit thing, and it's not making sense to me. Maybe someone could help clarify? Like right off the bat, this all seems to be concerned with retail prices/sales. However, most of the production in America is not for consumer goods. Consumer goods are mostly imported from other countries like China (toys), India (clothes), Japan Korea (cars, electronics), etc. So does that mean that we mail the producer's rebate check overseas? That doesn't seem like it would really help our economy very much to be sending even more money to foreign countries who have a favorable trade balance over us.You bring up some good points about the "producer's rebates". I admit I don't understand that part very well. However, I'll speculate this much: the social credit system of creating and allocating money was conceived nearly 100 years ago, long before our production labor was "off-shored" to the countries you mention. So yes, outsourcing labor is a recent monkeywrench in the works that changes the modern picture.

I don't think of social credit as being "concerned with retail prices/sales" so much as being concerned with who/what has the responsibility to create our legal tender, and the major error of permitting that entity to charge interest on that money for its entire span of existence. Have you read the ten chapters at the link I gave? I haven't read them since last July, so I'm probably due to review them again. But I won't have time until after I finish my income tax returns (so that our government will have the wherewithal to make another year's interest payment on our own money!).

[Naturist Mark]

Sorry if I was a little off topic. I've been reading about more and more about this social credit thing, and it's not making sense to me. Maybe someone could help clarify? Like right off the bat, this all seems to be concerned with retail prices/sales. However, most of the production in America is not for consumer goods. Consumer goods are mostly imported from other countries like China (toys), India (clothes), Japan Korea (cars, electronics), etc. So does that mean that we mail the producer's rebate check overseas? That doesn't seem like it would really help our economy very much to be sending even more money to foreign countries who have a favorable trade balance over us.

There is a discussion of Social Credit and Foreign Trade here: http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty43.htm

Short version: rebate checks are not sent out of country. Foreign trade stays in harmony with social credit, even if trade is with a non-social credit nation so long as there is a balance of trade (unlike the US which has a massive trade deficit).

They claim that under social credit there will automatically be a magic balancing of trade. Cool. I guess.

I find social credit theory fascinating, even if I remain a bit dubious about it.