Me: Why not make the discount at retail sale 50%? That way both individual potential purchasing power and business revenue will be doubled. And because retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire legitimate economic/productive process, the terminal summing point for all costs and so prices for every consumer item and finally the terminal expression point for all forms of inflation a 50% reduction in retail price actually painlessly and beneficially integrates price deflation into profit making systems.
JS: Hi Steve 😊,
Me: There’s no need to quibble over numbers. You could just as easily make the Dividend $1500/mo with a 33% discount/rebate that would enable everyone to purchase $1995/mo, or make the dividend $1600/mo with a 25% dividend and then everyone can purchase $2000/mo. All of the “knock on” benefits of reduced transfer taxation for the individual and enterprise could thus still be implemented.
JS: Hi Steve,
Me: Well, good luck getting social credit going without showing large bi-partisan constituencies like workers and businessmen exactly how social credit is going to benefit them.
AW: Hi Steve,
I have to acknowledge that what you say does make a lot of sense at least on paper but I am not sure how it would go in the real world. I am sure there could be a few variables out there that could put pressure on these numbers. I believe the safest and wisest way to approach this would be on more on a scientific basis.
We could do this slowly in a number of increments until we get the magic number that works. Waiting for the result of each increment will give us the opportunity to observe its effect on the economy first so we can act accordingly. If for example we get our figures wrong in these small increments it can be fixed easily without to much damage to our credibility. By going slowly the population will see that the foundation we are working on is strong and that it is credible. The continued rising growth of affordability without excess inflation will do wonders, I’m sure.
There is also the issue of wasteful production Jim has mentioned about. I’m sure we could regulate what products are able to utilise this discount rate on. So in other words blatant wasteful production could be penalised by reduced discount or none at all. I am sure that over a period of a few years the desired changes for quality long life products will be a reality and with it more leisure time and a more sustained environment.
Me: Thanks for replying Andrew. I can understand caution, but the fact remains social credit has gone absolutely no where since WW II started and distracted everyone, Keynes became the fall back position of finance to it and Douglas and social credit got virtually erased from history.
AW: Thanks Steve,
You are speaking my language. Yes, Social Credit has almost become an extinct tiger that has so much potential. Yet, no one knows this more than the private banking system themselves. They really feel threatened by Social Credit because it has all the tools needed to eventually dismantle them. They have managed to silence us and keep us in check all these years. This needs to change.
As you say just using the National Dividend and The Retail Discount alone it is possible to remove debt, which I believe Douglas intended to do anyway but at a slower rate.
I am in total agreement with you that the private banking system needs to be taken out of the equation and replaced with Social Credit banks or a National Public Bank owned by the people via a central bank aligned with the workings of Social Credit. (We used to have one in Australia)
I believe Social Credit is already workable right now, it just never had the ability show its potential that’s all, but there is nothing wrong in trying to improve it if possible. The action of setting up a network of Social Credit banks in the community could be one of them. The action of removing the private banks right to create money as debt could be another.
But first of all we need to rewrite the description of Social Credit so that it can be easily understood. I believe this should be the first priority as we are losing so many potential people through lack of understanding. Then we need to rethink how we can promote it with social media and other venues. When the people understand how Social Credit Works it will be impossible to remove it from them.
JS: Hi Andrew and Steve,
Me: The truth is no matter what numbers one puts out or doesn’t put out at all the orthodox and consciously opposed to monetary gifting are going to try to slam it. That’s precisely why you need to make short pungent videos and use obviously self interested numbers to grasp the populace’s attention and keep it. Even advise people to ignore the contrarily self interested protestations of the economic and financial elites. Does everyone need to have a full intellectual understanding of social credit? Of course not. And when they say social credit is socialism just point out that re-distributive taxation is the essence of socialist economic policy and that a sufficient dividend and discount/rebate would enable us to get rid of the great deal of such for both businesses and individuals, and retort that “Freeing both enterprise and the individual from socialist re-distributive taxation….that’s a funny kind of socialism/communism….wouldn’t you say?” Boldness, the willingness and ability to look at and strategically utilize illogic as a means of exiting the hypnotic effects of orthodoxy and old/current paradigm thinking are in facr signatures of imminent and accomplished paradigm change. We need to go for it!
DM: I think we ride the coattails of the UBI push and add the thought that our approach provides the mechanism to pay for it without having to incur public debt and kick that can down the road too.
As for the CP, it is a critical component too because it provides the needed money at exactly the point it is needed. Who can’t get behind the idea that we collect a sales credit instead of paying a sales tax, and that this actually betters – not worsens – our collective weal? If we convince them of the existence of a gap, then this point won’t be resisted either.
The only comment I will make is that perception is reality – even if it is not the truth. We can’t argue the simple fact that again and again, the canards keep getting thrown at SC. If a frontal assault doesn’t work, go guerilla. That is why I say ride the coattails of Public Banking. It is like Warburg told his cronies at Jekyll Island, “Don’t worry, we’ll fix the rest of it later.” It took the bastards half a century to unwind Glass-Seigel but they were patient. Walk, crawl, run. That’s what I say.
Me: I would suggest that Public Banking and Social Credit integrate their efforts, but that we keep in mind that Social Credit is the deeper, more pragmatic program and point of view. Not for any egotistical reason, but simply because Public Banking is only dealing with the major structural problem while Socail Credit or an innovated and even more synergistically powerful version thereof deals with both the more underlying and encompassing aspect of the problem, namely the the current monopolistic paradigm of Debt/Burden/Additional Costs Only. Structural reform is good. Paradigm change is a rare, utterly significant and permanently progressive historical event.
DM: And there is another factor. People today are radically different from those half a century ago. We are all much more stressed and therefore intolerant. We also no longer trust politicians or our institutions. The mindset today is much more selfish. We need to emphasize “what’s in it for me?” because that is what people generally think. We’re already on the cusp of what Plato told us was the weakness of democracy; that eventually it devolves to us all voting ourselves some free money. After TARP and bankster bailouts, how could it be otherwise? I want my bailout too! That’s what people think so USE IT!
Just where are you suggesting this “boldness” in the manner you’ve proposed take place? The USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand? Where? Who’s going to go first? I personally can’t see the citizens of any of the latter three realms responding favorably to being that ‘bold’. And that’s based on observing historical precedent of the ‘on-the-ground’ experience with Social Credit in each of those latter three countries.
As Jim has mentioned, the good people of Alberta once bought in to the leader of a well-organised SC group preaching a similar “boldness”, back in an era where it seemed much more appropriate than it might today. His sermon sounded real good back then ~ $ 25 a month dividend, at a time when a good wage for many would be around $ 3 a day, and many made far less than that. If they still had any income at all. And a restriction on prices, too. Many had nothing to lose ~ they’d already lost it, or were on the verge. But the leader of that group, one William Aberhart, found on taking office that he not only couldn’t deliver, but he really didn’t have a clue how to deliver either. And he had the one real expert ‘on tap’ ~ Douglas himself. Whose advice he couldn’t understand, nor see how he could reconcile what he’d promised with it.
Since that time there have been numerous other calls for “boldness” in Canada. I still have a somewhat dated mail-out from the “White Berets” , a Quebec based Catholic Social Credit advocacy group~ one of many I’ve seen that used to go out to every household in Canada. It called on the then Canadian government, headed at the time by Jean Chretien, to immediately initiate a National Dividend payment of $ 800 a month to every Canadian.
Prior to that, the old Social Credit Party of Canada, which actually once had a considerable presence in the Canadian Federal Parliament, often used to make similar “bold” proposals, albeit of a lower figure, but relevant proportionally to the incomes of the times. It all came to naught. Undoubtedly to an ever shrinking minority, what was proposed “sounded good”. To everyone else it sounded, well, simply goofy.
People just couldn’t see how you could pay everyone a dividend without taking what you’d be paying from someone else. It just sounds too good to be true ~ and you can tell them all the stories about Jesus and his ‘loaves and fishes’ you want, and ‘grace’ and all that, and even if they go around proudly ‘wearing’ their Christianity, when push comes to shove they’re still not going to believe you.
If you don’t believe me, then ask yourself how many ever see the irony in how any government that supposedly has to borrow money from banks to function can turn around and bail out those same banks when they get in trouble? How many of the general public could explain that, or even understand it?
Now I’m not completely discounting the idea of “boldness”. For I do think something ‘bold’ is going to be necessary to ever get the foot of Social Credit back in the public’s door. And that something, in my opinion, could be the Compensated Price Discount. Getting something started like that alone is going to take considerable “boldness”. But it has a chance. And no real competition. And I think it’s going to be far more marketable alone than trying to peddle the whole works all at once initially. Because it addresses the primary problem that those politically active on both the ‘left’ and ‘right’ are increasingly complaining about. AFFORDABILITY.
If we go that other route, pushing the same old kick we’ve been on about for years, and it, by some miracle, ever does catch the attention of a large body of the public again , I believe we’re going to find we’ll quickly run into a great many obstacles we’ve so far ignored.
Ones that will prove collectively almost impossible to overcome while trying to hold the fleeting attention of our erstwhile supporters. If you go back and read Douglas’s “Draft Plan for Scotland”, you’ll notice some of them, I’m sure. To wit, the ‘land issue’, for one. Try to sell that notion to people who have convinced themselves the secret to financial success is to buy (a house) low and sell it high. Or anything else, for that matter. That’s not something you can accomplish instantly.
And then there are other problems. Perhaps not so much in the USA, because you have a large domestic market that can already absorb a lot of your own production. But in the three Dominions mentioned above? They do NOT.
The vast majority of their production is destined for export, and the physical ‘plant’ in each of them has been scaled up for that purpose. In a overwhelming number of instances what exists now simply couldn’t be operated practically on a smaller scale. How are you even going to sell the notion that it could to the owners and operators of that plant? That may not seem important to you, but even if we had a government with a knowledgeable, beneficent, absolute dictator at its head, that’s going to be an enormous challenge. Your ‘paradigm shift’ won’t be well received by those currently controlling finance internationally. Nor if it can be caused to fail by them.
JS: Actually, Steve, you don’t know if they’d be better off with the type of discount and rebate you’ve discussed because you have nothing to support it.
Me: Not correct. You’ve apparently forgotten one thing I got from the social credit group here when I first came acrossed it 8 years ago. And that is that retail sale is the terminal ending point of the entire economic/productive process. So if you implement the 50% discount/rebate policy at that point it will absolutely invert inflation into deflation. Put that together with the fact that competition IS in effect between and within business models throughout that entire process and so “garden variety” inflation will not and competitively cannot excede a relatively low single digit number, and also understand that hyper-inflations do not and CANNOT occur without certain prior disastrous circumstances like a war which destroys most of the means of production and a central bank that is compliant in leveraging up speculators who short the currency which kicks off the actual hyper-inflation…so a 50% discount AT THE END of the entire process at retail sale….WILL ELIMINATE INFLATION and WILL MATHEMATICALLY INTEGRATE BENEFICIAL PRICE DEFLATION INTO PROFIT MAKING SYSTEMS. Of course you’ll need sin taxation and the threat of expulsion from the discount/rebate program to discourage the greedy, anti-social and unappreciative businessmen who will try to commit creeping inflation or extreme price deflation on the part of monopolistic enterprise, and perhaps tax encouragements for businesses not to inflate their prices except for genuine increased costs….no system is perfect not even one that has experienced a new paradigm, but the reality that the new paradigm creates UNMISTAKABLY IN THE TEMPORAL UNIVERSE…cannot be denied BECAUSE EVERYONE EXPERIENCES IT….like the ability to purchase twice or thrice as much with the same level of income as they did the day before the new paradigm occurred.
Me: “What Social Crediters are seeking is equilibrium between aggregate incomes and aggregate prices. There’s absolutely no guarantee that the size of the dividend and price rebate you suggest will bring about that equilibrium. ”
JS: Douglas was not against balancing the books. He said they can’t balance under the current accountancy. His solution, which involves a dividend and price rebate created with debt free credits, would balance the books, thus creating equilibrium.
Me: “But doubling purchasing power either doubles consumption, ceterus paribus, or it also causes inflation. Those are the two options.”
JT: Steve,As Jim has said, we have no way of ‘knowing’ that the citizens of those three countries would be better off with the kind of dividend and discount policy you’ve suggested. We can imagine they would be, but we really don’t know. And the amount you’ve suggested, at 50%, is only for the FIRST month. What are you going to use to base the amounts that should be paid in the second and succeeding months? You have to have something equivalent to a national Capital Account to base these payouts on, and the accounting used has to be not only consistent, but originally based on realistic figures.
A trade magazine I receive once had a chart in it that graphed the Canadian economy, sector by sector. Taking all the sectors as a whole it stated that in ‘normal’ times our economy operated at around 76% of its actual productive capacity, on average. In a ‘boom’ period this moved up to around 85%. This would indicate, roughly, that a conservative estimate of the size of the SC consumer income ameliorations might be 15%.
This in itself is a substantial augmentation to average incomes. If it were even that high. Because into the calculation would have to be allowances for projected effects on the type of production we’re making. It isn’t just as simple as picking a nice sounding figure out of thin air, in the hopes it’ll excite enough people to get on the bandwagon and start beating the drums and tooting the horns. Admittedly, they’d make a loud sound, but it’s far more likely to just be noise, not music. And very quickly everyone is covering their ears, rather than clapping for an encore.
Me: When the moons of jupiter were observed with a telescope the Copernican cosmological paradigm change was confirmed and instantaneously its efficacy and undeniable reality became apparent. The recognition of the powerful significances of the point of retail sale and direct and reciprocal policies crafted around it (specifically that retail sale being the terminal expression point of all forms of inflation, a high percentage discount/rebate policy at that point means you can integrate price deflation beneficially into profit making systems and thus you can inject virtually as much money into the system as is necessary to produce an abundant system for all) …..is the invention of the telescope for economics and money systems.
JS: Hi Steve,
JS: My analogy explains your position aptly. You have no scientific evidence to support your claim for a 50% price rebate anymore than the scientific discovery of Jupiter supports the claim that there’s life and civilizations on Jupiter.
Me: Not correct. The fact of the ending/tipping point of the entire economic process at retail sale makes it a repeatable scientific fact.
JT: Steve,The fact that the “small, gameable percentage” , whatever amount it turns out to be, is DEBT FREE IS a major paradigm change. It’s a start away from the present ongoing overall build up of unrepayable debt.
DM: Ah but there CAN be an argument about that! You confuse truth with belief. What you say may be true and those of us who understand the mechanics of SC know that a huge discount could be introduced that would work as you say. BUT… If nobody believes you, then to them, the truth is a lie. Their belief is in error but because it is their truth, it becomes an impenetrable fortress. You could more easily change that mind with a modest change that would have a minimal impact so that one could test its effects. It is like demanding that a person tear down their house and rebuild it because of poor insulation and windows, when you could demonstrate the benefit by advocating new windows instead. The house would improve modestly and your demonstration would cause them to start to see that perhaps razing the house would be a good idea after all. They could salvage the windows and use them in the new house next year!
That is how you need to tone down your rhetoric and that is how this SC forum needs to see the benefits of getting behind Public Banking. They strengthen our hand!
Me: Not if it’s guided and based on monetary grace as in gifting instead of private for profit banking.
JT: Hi Dean,Can you actually verify this part of what you wrote? :- “Public central banks are indeed no guarantee that they will be run in the best interests of the public. The Bank of Canada is one excellent example. It used to, but no longer does.”
Now perhaps I’m wrong in my interpretation of this, and you meant something different from the way I’m reading it. But I rather think that you might have swallowed some of Paul Hellyer’s propaganda about how he thought the Bank of Canada used to act, but no longer does.
Namely that it financed the Government of Canada, (and even the Provinces, so some of his supporters aver), long term, essentially ‘interest free’. That this propaganda has been picked up and spread far and wide by those promoting ‘public banks’ does not make it anymore true than some of the other examples given by them that have been explored and debunked previously on Social Credit Lists. Ones like the Guernsey States Notes, for instance, and Lincoln’s Greenbacks.
So far as I’m aware, from what I’ve read on the subject, this supposed action of the Bank of Canada was never actually the case. I could well be wrong, but I haven’t yet seen anything that leads me to believe I am. And this is why I’m asking what I do in my first sentence above.
I’m not saying that, under its charter, the B of C couldn’t do that. It could. Only that, to my knowledge, it didn’t .
And, though this is just an un-expert assumption on my part, for probably the same reason the Commonwealth Bank in Australia, which seems to have done that once, to a limited degree, stopped doing it.
Namely, that it rendered the ‘value’ of the currency of any country doing such a thing at an unacceptable risk of not being able to be accurately determined internationally. And therefore of far less use, or in some cases actually even useless, in conducting international trade.
This comes back to part of my objection to what Steve has proposed with his 50% discount.
We, in this country, nor Australia, nor New Zealand, nor, albeit perhaps to a lesser degree, the USA, are presently internally physically ‘self-sufficient’. That we all COULD BE, to a far greater extent than we are now, is unquestionably true.
Your point that public banks didn’t REALLY finance those countries…because they still relied largely on re-distributive taxation in order to do so….is quite correct and points out the importance of recognizing that not just more thrifty public banking is important, but THE PARADIGM of FINANCE of DEBT/BURDEN/ADDITIONAL COST ONLY….and that combined with the ending, summing, terminal expression and tipping/paradigm changing point of the abundant discount/rebate policy at retail sale that integrates price deflation into profit making economic systems….IS the final realization of the problem solved.
JT: Steve,Again, it takes TIME. And in the meantime? Lets suppose you make the discount 50%, are successful in selling the notion to the public, and get it enacted through a Citizen Initiated Referendum, or through a Parliament or Congress. You’ve just arbitrarily picked an attractive figure, and it’s attracted. It’s not based on the realities of WHAT is being produced, or WHERE, or consumed, or maybe anything other than the assumption that it’ll be good for everyone because it sounds good.
What’s likely to happen the minute it comes into effect? We don’t know, we can only imagine, but in all likelihood at that rate there’ll be a rush to buy up consumer goods that were previously unaffordable. Store shelves will quickly clean out. And it’ll take TIME to replenish them. And will the discount on the replenishment be the same? Lets say you say it is, because you’re not tying it to anything other than it sounds good.
Now you run into an interesting situation. Lets say the public that didn’t camp out overnight in front of the store doors so they could be first in, like they do now on a Black Friday, still wants, or in some cases even needs, goods that are no longer there.
Lets also say, as would likely be the case, that some of those who bought the 50% discounted goods, didn’t really want or need those goods, but by getting the drop on the rest of the herd they now have something they can sell to them for, lets say, substantially more than they paid for them.
They’re still less than they would have been sans any discount, but far less than the 50% off they got. In that case the sale at final retail ISN’T the end of the transaction at all, is it? You have a ‘black market’, and how do you deal with that? Rationing? How popular is that going to be? Take a page from how the Communists dealt with it, in places like Viet Nam, et al? What you’re really going to engender is chaos. Stores won’t know whether the public’s initial desires will be repeated, or whether their future customers might have made purchases from the black marketeers. If they overstock, they might get stuck with stock they can’t sell. They err on the side of caution, and then there’s shortages. And who really knows what effect this has on the discount, because you’ve nothing to tie it to, except some figure that sounded good.
Me: I understand what you’re saying Joe, but IMO these are a lot of unlikely problems and unnecessary fears. The technology of abundance is readily available.
JT: Steve, it DOES if you make the discount initially too high. People suspect it won’t last, that it can’t last, and they’re all too likely to do just as I’ve said, and Jim has confirmed. They won’t eat “six times a day”, but they may well buy twice as much food as they’ve been buying because they want to “get while the getting’s good.” This would likely be the case with non-perishable foodstuffs, and many other articles in common demand. That’s just human nature.
Now you combine that with an equally generous dividend, paid to all, remember, and just what’s that going to do to the production that creates this abundance? We’d like to think that it would automatically increase. But that’s the trouble with too large a paradigm shift coming on all at once ~ it might not increase. It might fall. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know what lies beneath the surface, just waiting to rip the bottom out of the good ship “Social Credit” as it sails blindly forward.