Social Credit Views

Friday, 27 March 2015 10:21

A Brief Response to Dick Eastman

Written by M. Oliver Heydorn
Rate this item
(0 votes)

After reading Dick Eastman's recent post on Abeldanger: http://www.abeldanger.net/2015/03/populist-social-credit-or-north.html, I am left asking myself: where does one begin?

For the sake of the record, let me make it clear that:

1. I do not support a 'basic income' if such a proposal involves redistributive taxation, an increase in public debts, or any other method of conventional financing. What is needed is the creation of 'debt-free' money to help bridge the gap between consumer incomes and consumer prices and its direct distribution to consumers to spend as they see fit. This is the National Dividend proposal that was originally introduced by C.H. Douglas and has been supported by Social Crediters for the last 80 + years.

2. I did indeed attend the latest conference of the USBIG this past February in New York and while I was there I presented a paper explaining why Social Credit's National Dividend does NOT qualify as a basic income guarantee. The whole purpose of my presence was to introduce USBIG supporters to the Social Credit perspective. The paper can be read in full here:A National Dividend vs. a Basic Income - Similarities and Differences.

Academics with different perspectives go to conferences all the time where they can freely exchange diverging points view and critique each other's positions ... that's what academics do.

Eastman's sensationalistic accusations that Douglas Social Crediters may be fooled and that the "Anglo-Canadians" have now joined forces with those who are supporting a conventional North American Basic Income Guarantee in order to 'rob American economic sovereignty' are unfounded (he obviously had not read my paper), and more importantly, completely false. Quite frankly, I find the innuendo offensive. I fully support economic sovereignty for each nation and I am opposed in principle to the hegemony of international finance. I am, for example, firmly opposed to the Amero, the Euro, or any other type of international currency. 

I was not specially invited to present a paper at the USBIG conference. I submitted an abstract and it was accepted. If Mr. Eastman would like to present his ideas at the next conference he is free to submit an abstract as well.

3. It is instructive that even though he admits to knowing very little about me and my views, Mr. Eastman proceeds to categorically affirm that I am looking for a "North American Basic Income Guarantee" and that I want to do away with American national monetary sovereignty and other such rubbish.  If I were Eastman, I would be most embarrassed to freely admit my ignorance regarding someone else's views and then to immediately follow that admission up with unfounded and completely false claims. It does not cast Mr. Eastman's intellectual capacity, his intellectual integrity, or his general motivations in a positive light.

4. I would be happy to discuss in fuller detail the more technical issues that Mr. Eastman raises in his post, but until he shows some evidence of acting in good will and with a reverence for objective truth, it would seem to be a pointless exercise.

Leave a comment

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

2 comments

  • Comment Link Ross Noble Saturday, 06 April 2019 19:02 posted by Ross Noble

    I am coming down on Dick’s side in this argument.

    Douglas Social Credit does not understand that there are TWO GAPS in the economy. 1) Gap between labor’s production and what they can buy with their wages. 2) Gap between debt instrument claims and the ability of earth to pay.

    Number 2 Gap can be reduced further to the war between creditors and debtors. A debt instrument grows exponentially with compounding interest, while the “bank credit” it spawned does not grow. The gap between the debt instrument and its bank credit only mirrors at birth. With time, the debt claims grow and “gaps” away from its bank credit. Today, M2 money supply is 97% bank credit, ergo there are debt claims on virtually all of the money. The debt claims grow and grow, and the money supply cannot keep up.

    The creation of money should not be left to private creditors, to then make claims on the earth and society.
    Douglas Social Credit makes another mistake when they assume that money fluxes in an accounting cycle, as one ledger decrements another ledger increments. As much as I like Clifford Hughes Douglas, I couldn’t find any equations that showed a simple Say’s law circular flow that was independent of a time integration.

    If you introduce debt free money into the system, this particular money unit is NOT UNDER TIME PRESSURE. It is not cycling in an accounting periodicity, as it is the “debt instrument” that is making accounting claims.

    It should be obvious to a dispassionate observer of monetary history, that these polarization cycles occur regularly. Creditor plutocracies arise, where creditor has amassed the stock of money toward himself, and simultaneously owns the debt claims on that stock of money.

    Labor then desperately tries to sell their “rusting” wares or their life energy to acquire this money to rid themselves of debt slavery.

    So, it takes some sort of law to tax away rents and unearned income, to then inject back into the base of the population i.e. families, as AMERICAN social credit demands. The polarization of creditors against debtors will always happen if a private banking class of finance plutocrats own the privilege of making bank credit.

    Debt free does not move in an accounting periodicity as it is not linked to a debt instrument, it was not twinned at birth. It floats in the money supply, settling debts and consummating transactions as needed. Say’s law begins to work, and this notion seems to be not well comprehended by Douglas social creditors.

    Also, if you have a debt laden population, where debt instruments are claims on the money supply, and said money disappears when it pays down principle, then Dick Eastman is right again.

    In this type of money is bank credit world we currently live in, you have to issue debt free money into households, and then it goes on to pay down private debts. When this exogenous debt free money (from Treasury) enters into banker ledger to pay down debtors’ liability, the money and debt instrument both vanish. Both debt instrument and its credit came from nothing and return to nothing. In this case, it is exogenous debt free money issued by law, which disappears the private debt instrument as a form of jubilee.

    Releasing of these private debts then allow the economy to operate in accordance with Say’s law, as the diversion of flow to pay debts is released.

    I am less concerned about Public Debts than Dick, but he is also correct that they came into being as fraud. Public debts, like TBills, held on FED’s ledger have interest rebated to Treasury, and then Treasury re-spends. Fed rebates only after it takes its cut, and insures its primary dealer banks are solvent.

    I want to reiterate, gap 2 is growing claims of debt instruments, which make claims with mathematical precision, at a compounding rate. These growing claims cannot be overlaid with the bank “credit” hypothecated into existence, especially over time, and further debt claims cannot be overlaid with a normal economy that produces goods and services with a S curve.

    Douglas social credit does not comprehend Gap 2, and it doesn’t comprehend that debt free is independent of an accounting cycle.

  • Comment Link  Dick Eastman Sunday, 11 February 2018 10:25 posted by Dick Eastman

    While I hate and villify objective truth and while I bear unending and undiluted ill will towards you all, I will say -- but who can believe anything I say? -- that I did have a slight tingling sensation one gets when one hears good news after reading that Mr. Heydorn, does not endorse the tax financed national dividend proposal. I don't know Mr. Heydorn it is true, but I do despise his veneration for truth, which I completely lack and am glad that he does not choose to address my born of sin views of interest, deflation, debt, and economic depressions and the drain of purchasing power that must result when all money is borrowed form private lenders. I would only lie and blaspheme and misrepresent were he to do so.

Latest Articles

  • 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...
  • Why Overt Monetary Financing of a UBI Need Not Result in Demand Inflation
    When one explains to the common person the proposal of a National Dividend as a state created and distributed monetary gift given to all as a credit for the nation’s total production, there is one very common objection or concern that people often raise. They think that there is a danger that this will result in inflation or a devaluing of the nation’s currency, a devaluation that may even been as bad as the hyperinflation that has recently taken place in Zimbabwe or Venezuela as a result of severe political corruption, incompetence, or foreign interference. But before one can understand why a 'debt-free' 'basic income' is not inflationary, or need not be inflationary, one must first understand something of the economic and monetary theory upon which this suggestion is based, namely Douglas Social Credit.
    Written on Monday, 08 July 2019 14:09 Read more...