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

  • An Introduction to Social Credit - animated video
    Introducing the first-ever animated presentation of the Douglas Social Credit economic diagnosis and remedial proposals. Please spread wide and far!
    Written on Friday, 16 November 2018 04:01 Read more...
  • Social Credit and Democracy: The Problem - Part Four
    "If one wishes to do full justice to reality – regardless of the topic that is being investigated - it is of the gravest importance to neither underestimate nor overestimate the phenomenon in question. Accordingly, whenever this particular question of ‘conspiracy’ becomes the subject of reflection, the thoughtful individual will seek to follow a sensible middle-path in accordance with the available evidence and in full knowledge of his cognitive limitations. This will allow him to scrupulously avoid the error of those who become irrationally suspicious, i.e., paranoid, while, at the same time, avoiding the mistake of those who, by preferring to be complacently sceptical, refuse to call a spade a spade. To deny the reality and indeed even the possibility of conspiracy as an explanatory factor behind much of our socially-induced discontent is just as irrational, therefore, as to think that every negative thing that occurs in the world must…
    Written on Thursday, 08 November 2018 02:23 Read more...
  • Social Credit and Democracy: The Problem - Part Three
    Thus far in this series of articles exploring the relationship between Social Credit and democracy, we have seen that conventional ‘democracy’ suffers from a large number of design faults which vitiate it and render it ineffective. That would be bad enough, but Douglas goes one step further and claims that the ineffective mechanisms of conventional ‘democracy’ provide the best possible cover for the operations of a hidden dictatorship. Not only do they provide the best possible cover, but the same mechanisms which are ineffective from the point of view of fulfilling the true purpose of political association can be rendered most effective (by being cleverly manipulated) for the purpose of fulfilling an alternative policy-objective, one that is imposed by an agency that is external to the elected ‘government’.
    Written on Tuesday, 18 September 2018 22:58 Read more...