Why? Mostly because they are still in orthodox sway to monetary and economic myths like Say’s Law, the quantity theory of money and the velocity of its circulation. Also they see it as a challenge to their power in their (inevitably losing) power struggle with Capital, and also as a challenge to their (diminishing) union constituency. In Douglas’s day the socialists were more adamantly opposed to Social Credit than were the Bankers. One of the major Fabian Socialist leaders of that day, I believe his name was Sydney Webb, was attributed as saying, “I don’t care if Douglas is right or not, I simply don’t like his policies.” If there is one thing more adamantly and stubbornly right than a zealous libertarian capitalist, it is a stubbornly right and zealous Marxist. Both are blinded by current orthodoxy…and by their own agendas of power. And neither looks at the fact that individual labor costs (even including management and business owners and stockholder’s incomes) are only a subset of total costs for every enterprise. Do the calculus on that flow and you have A + B.

QE is Social Credit for the Banks.

MMT is Social Credit for the government.

Corbyn’s “QE for the people” is really just QE for government with some infrastructure thrown in which I wouldn’t oppose at all because increasingly western nations are falling apart infrastructure wise, but such indirect policies that go into commerce first just increase and re-initiate A + B ….and thus never have full and direct policy reach to the individual. Only a costless free gift that goes directly to the individual via a dividend and a discount to retail prices can avoid/overcome  A + B.

We need Social Credit for the individual, structural Public Banking to compete with Private Banking and Public Banking elevated to a central Banking entity which truly acts in the interests of the individual, the free flowingness of the system and that would calculate the dividend and discount percentage.