Social Credit Views

Wednesday, 26 November 2014 06:36

Scotiabank's Profits and Lay-Offs

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

One of Canada's big 5, Scotiabank, recently announced that it will be cutting 1,500 jobs. This, in spite of the fact that the bank has, so far this year, earned as much as 5.57 billion dollars in profit ... according to the official numbers ;).

http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/11/04/scotiabank_axing_1500_jobs_twothirds_of_them_in_canada.html

Now I am not suggesting that laying these people off is not the best business decision given the way in which the game is presently played. I am merely pointing out that under the current economic system with its 'monopoly of credit' there are definite winners and losers ... and those of us who are punished by the system, who are disenfranchised by it, cannot help but look at that 5.57 billion dollars in profit with a raised eyebrow.

Furthermore, this reaction is entirely legitimate since, from a Social Credit standpoint, the bulk of that profit is undoubtedly made possible by the gap between prices and incomes, a gap which should not even exist. By extending additional debt-money in the form of bank credit (created ex nihilo) to governments, businesses, and consumers in order to compensate for the recurring disparity, banks can and do garner large revenues via the compound interest that is charged on what tend to be chronic debts, i.e., debts that are unrepayable in the aggregate. The longer these debts are held, the greater are the sums necessary to service them (because the volume of interest due grows exponentially with time). 

In general, the business of finance should be conducted for the benefit of each individual in society and not for the benefit of a few at the expense of the common good. This means that finance ought not to be run just like any other business, i.e., for private gain as an isolated objective. Instead, it should be run for the sake of the public interest: the delivery of goods and services, as, when, and where required, with the least amount of trouble to everyone (even if it remains true that it is best for the day-to-day activities of finance to be privately administered).

 
From Major Douglas' Speech at Dunedin (1934):

http://www.socred.org/index.php/pages/the-douglas-internet-archive

 

"I had a talk with a very pleasant and kind and, indeed, eminently respectable
bank manager in Wellington, quite accidentally, a week or two ago on quite
ordinary matters. The conversation turned on the banking system, and he
claimed that the banking system was a business like any other business, and that
it was run in order to make a profit like any other business, and that the sole
consideration that it had in mind was to carry it on along the successful lines of
any other business.

Well, I do not know whether that is an idea which is prevalent amongst all bankers,
but if it is then it is the final condemnation of the banking system as it stands at the
present time, because it is quite obvious that something which interpenetrates and
controls the activities of the wealth producing organisation on which we all rely,
cannot possibly, whether it is privately administered or whether it is publicly administered
is not the point - but it cannot be run as a private interest. That is incredible. (Applause.)
It simply means that everybody's business is at the mercy of this private organisation,
and we know that it is."

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...