Social Credit News

Saturday, 09 August 2014 06:22

Re: "The Costliest Money Mistakes"

Written by Oliver Heydorn
Rate this item
(0 votes)

According to the latest edition of the “Money Minute”, the Royal Bank of Canada has discovered that 75% of Canadians struggle with consumer debt and that, on average, they owe 16,000 dollars per head (not including mortgage debt): https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/video/playlist/money-minute/costliest-money-mistakes-172856785.html

The solution according to Ashleigh Patterson? Canadians must get their financial houses in order: they must start saving and stop using credit cards! Don't live beyond your means! Saving will help to prepare them for unexpected costs or unexpected losses/reductions in income, while not borrowing on credit cards will preserve them from having to pay interest charges that will erode their incomes in the future, thus intensifying the struggle with debt at a later stage (10,000 dollars borrowed at the standard 18% and compounded monthly yields 49,693 dollars in interest over a ten year period).

What Patterson does not seem to realize or want to admit is that if Canadians were to put their financial houses in order along the lines which she suggests, the economy would be even more anemic than it already is at the present time. More and more people saving greater sums of income and fewer and fewer people borrowing-to-to buy would reduce the amount of consumer purchasing power available to meet the prices of goods and services in the marketplace. If some other entity such as the government did not intervene by injecting more purchasing power into the economy (by increasing its mortgage, i.e., the public debt), a recession, increased unemployment, and an increase in bankruptcies would be the inevitable result of a lack of ‘consumer confidence’. Under the present economic system with its structural gap between prices and incomes, you cannot demand that certain economic actors must or should balance their budgets without causing other economic actors to unbalance theirs if any semblance of financial equilibrium is to be maintained.

The real solution is to recognize that there is a lack of consumer purchasing power derived from consumer incomes. A financial system which automatically reflected the physical economic facts would provide a sufficiency of supplementary consumer purchasing power (debt-free, as it were) in the form of a compensated price and a National Dividend. Consumers could then consume without falling into debt by relying on credit cards, lines of credit, or standard bank loans, while businesses would never have to deal with an artificially induced lack of consumer demand.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

Latest Articles

  • A Favourable Balance of Trade? - New Animated Video
    This is the first professional animated presentation of one key aspect of the Douglas or British Social Credit case (not to be confused with Chinese 'Social Credit'): the folly of 'favourable' trade balances under the existing financial system, where physical loss and inefficiency are financially rewarded.
    Written on Friday, 27 September 2019 04:04 Read more...
  • Problems with Taxes
    Relying on bank credit, indirectly through taxation or directly via borrowing, to fund a Universal Basic Income (UBI) scheme is untenable. A fundamental reform of the financial system is the only viable means to ensure a future in which sustainable purchasing power is in the hands of the Canadian consumer. There is no need to take from Peter to give to Paul. Not one penny of anyone’s income would need to be redistributed. There is enough for everyone to have an income, a UBI, under a corrected financial system as advocated by Douglas Social Credit.
    Written on Tuesday, 16 July 2019 14:59 Read more...
  • Living Beyond Your Means
    We are often told that people should not ‘live beyond their means’, that is, that no individual person, nor any corporate entity like a business or a government, should spend more money during a given period than they take in as income or as revenue. Doing so is judged to be profligate, irresponsible, and only setting oneself up for pain in the long run. For countless centuries, if not millennia, the balanced ‘budget’ has been regarded as the sine qua non of fiscal prudence and ‘sound’ finance. And yet, if we look at our economies over any given period of time, it is quite normal for individual consumers, considered in the aggregate, to spend more than they receive in income, for governments at all levels to spend more than they take in viataxes, and even for businesses, considered again as a whole, to spend more money (thanks to long-term capital…
    Written on Monday, 15 July 2019 13:21 Read more...