PDA

View Full Version : Could social credit work?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Huker
01-23-2005, 11:28 PM
Hello everyone. I've recently been doing a lot of reading about how the economy works in our current debt-money system. This reading also had a lot to do with a different money system called social credit. The other night I got into a huge discussion about social credit and the debt-money system. I am interested to hear what people around here might have to say about the whole thing.

For those who don't know what social credit is, here goes. Those who do know about it, feel free to correct me or throw any important details in.
In our current system, the majority of money (national currency) runs through, and is created, in national private banks such as the Federal Reserve. These banks get money from the public through taxes, interest, and deposits. Then these banks make loans and charge more interest. Interest makes debt. Since most money is actually just exchanged in the form of numbers (eg: with debit transactions, it is just digital numbers that are exchanged and not tangible currency) these debts can become rediculously large, for example the 6 trillion dollar debt in the US or the 600 billion dollar debt of Canada. These, being so huge, could never really be payed off, but the money is owed to the private banks who made the original loans and create the national currency. Hence, the problem with our current system is that private bankers are holding all the cards, even though in the US and Canada, it states in the constitution that money is to be made by the Government and exchanged directly with the public.
Now for the social credit. In this system, money is exchanged based on production and sales from one account holder to another. Interest is not a factor in this system since growth is based on production and sales and not based on a system in which public money is bought from private banks in the form of loans (debt-money). Money is exchanged between buyers and sellers and prices are determined using a coefficient based on total production of the product or service. If someone needs more money, then it can be made for them and they can repay it interest-free once they have the money from their own sales.

I myself am a believer that our current money system has to change or, globally speaking, we'll get nowhere. Obviously social credit, or something like it, is my choice alternative until something better comes along. I'm interested to hear what everone else thinks about the whole scenario. Is our current money system best, or should change take place? If so, what changes do you propose? I've read other forums where people have answered to questions such as this with some pretty outrageous ideas that no one really appreciated, so try to be constructive.

Taliesin
01-26-2005, 09:13 AM
Interesting Post. You've just described one of the reasons why Usury was always regarded as immoral.

Now here's the problem - in the Western World our economies and the jobs they provide are based on a consumer economy - without credit that system would collapse, think 1929. Interest is necessary for those who provide credit to provide security against defaulters. We have caught a tiger by the tail. The only way to change to a social credit system, is to move away from a consumer economy WITHOUT the huge Job losses you would expect.

At present the only way out of this system is by becoming Bankrupt so you are baned from the credit arena.

I like the idea of social currency, but i can't see how to make the change to it without the horrific consequences.

Adam Alexander
01-26-2005, 08:56 PM
I've got a constructive response, but I'd rather handle it in steps. I'll quote you and then post my reply.


"In our current system, the majority of money (national currency) runs through, and is created, in national private banks such as the Federal Reserve. These banks get money from the public through taxes, interest, and deposits. Then these banks make loans and charge more interest. Interest makes debt."

Banks don't get money directly from taxes.

That's like saying "auto repairs make debts." Sure, they cost something, but you're getting a service in return. In the case of interest, the service you receive is the use of capitol.


"Since most money is actually just exchanged in the form of numbers ...these debts can become rediculously large...being so huge, could never really be payed off, but the money is owed to the private banks who made the original loans and create the national currency."

So, if money was exchanged in paper form, the debts wouldn't get that large?


Post a response, I'll reply.

Huker
01-27-2005, 10:52 PM
I agree that there are a number of jobs that are based on the debt-money system. Social credit would still be a consumer/service economy, just without the interest. People who run private banks and stocks might have to find new ways to serve the economy, but the remaining 90% of society could continue on their daily lives. One of the best weapons that our current economy has is people's belief that it is a highly complex machine that requires every single component to work or else chaos will follow. We can disarm this weapon by learning about it as well as other systems of currency. It seems to me that the workings of our system are not so complicated.

It is true that banks don't get money directly from taxes, but money from income tax and GST (for Canadians) does pass through the private banks that are controlling most of the government money. Although they might not get all of it, some tax money does end up in their pocket.

For banks:
If the services we recieve from interest charges is the use of capitol, then what are the service fees for?

My point about money being exchanged in the form of numbers was to emphasize that money is exchanged without consideration to its value, since it is just a number. National debts will never be payed off on our current system. If money were in the form of paper representing its true value, or solely in the form of numbers, then debt wouldn't be necessary since interest wouldn't be created through the use of the loans from which money currently comes. Since national debts mean nothing, we could all scrap the national debts and start anew. Also, money is purchased from private banks in the form of a loan, which must be paid with interest and that is one of the reasons why national debts are so large.