Social Credit Views

Monday, 28 March 2016 06:10

The Social Credit Path to Sustainable Consumption

Rate this item
(0 votes)

The following paper will be presented at the SCORAI conference at the University of Maine in June:


In the period between the two world wars, a British engineer by the name of Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879-1952) developed a highly original economic theory. This theory constituted (at least from one point of view) the key component of what would gradually come to be known as ‘Social Credit’. Douglas asserted that the chief responsibility for the economic conundrum lay with society’s financial system, that is, with the standard conventions that govern banking and industrial cost accountancy. His remedy followed the diagnosis quite naturally: the restoration of a full and proper functionality to our economies would require the introduction of appropriate changes to the money system. Douglas’ carefully developed proposals for monetary reform were designed to meet this challenge.

The Economic Problem According to Social Credit Theory

The gist of the Social Credit analysis can be most easily understood by focusing on the putative ‘law of the markets’ that was first articulated by Jean-Baptiste Say (1776-1832).

According to Say’s law, or at least to the financial interpretation of Say’s law, the act of production disperses sufficient purchasing power to consumers such that the corresponding volume of production (composed of goods or services) can be bought in full.

Orthodox economics, alongside every heterodox economic theory and/or system with which I am familiar, are at one in accepting or tacitly assuming the validity of Say’s law. That is, they assume that if it is ever the case that there is insufficient consumer income to clear the market in consumer goods and services, it must be because a certain proportion of that income is being saved or re-invested and is therefore not available to fulfill its intended function of liquidating the flow of consumer prices.

Social Credit stands apart by insisting that even if no consumer incomes were being saved or re-invested and everything received in the form of incomes were being spent on consumables, there is never, under modern, industrial conditions, sufficient income being distributed in the first place to offset the prices that are simultaneously being generated. The basic diagnostic claim, in other words, is that there is a chronic deficiency or lack of proper consumer purchasing power, i.e., income that is derived from the corresponding production.[1] This deficiency plagues our economies, rendering them structurally anemic.

In order to illustrate this claim in more concrete terms, let us assume that a given society is organized in such a way that it will produce in the course of a year all the goods and services that the population can use with profit to themselves: shelter, food, clothing, education, health-care, transportation, etc. Nothing superfluous is being produced, nor are genuine needs going unmet. Douglas’ contention is that under existing economic conditions the production of these consumer goods and of the volume of capital goods necessary (either through new production or replacements) to deliver that consumer production will not distribute sufficient income to consumers to offset the corresponding costs and hence the prices that industry is obliged to charge in order to remain solvent. As a result, the aggregate prices attached to that consumer production cannot be liquidated in full with the purchasing power that is dispersed in the process of delivering that same production to the public.


The Cause of the Price-Income Gap

While it can be exacerbated by profit-making, savings, the re-investment of savings, and a variety of other factors, the structural gap between consumer prices and incomes is primarily due to the fact that, under existing financial conventions, real capital (machines and equipment, etc.) gives rise to costs that are not distributable as current income to consumers, either at all or in the same period of time and at the same rate as they are collected. In effect, consumers are forced to invest their money in industry because of the presence of capital charges in consumer goods. As technology improves and labour is being increasingly displaced by real capital in the production process, the portion of costs that is not distributable as concurrent income is continually growing.


Conventional Methods of Compensating for the Price-Income Gap

Naturally, the imbalance in the price system must be overcome if the economy is to attain equilibrium and to continue in operation. Unfortunately, the existing economic system has no means of distributing such ‘surplus’ production except via new or additional production. Even in the case where distribution of the ‘surplus’ is effected by the expedient of consumer loans (in the form of additional debt-money borrowed from private banks to facilitate consumption), this money is only lent on the condition that the recipients will be able to recover principal and interest from future earnings (wages, salaries, dividends, etc.) and is thereby tied to production.

The lack of consumer income combined with additional production as the only means (ultimately) of compensating for the gap means that there is always a financial incentive (ahead of, and possibly apart from, any independent desire for the resultant goods and services) for businesses to invest more producer credit (borrowed from the private banks) in the hopes of increasing market share or of finding demand for a new product at some point in the future. This business expansion (especially for capital production and production for export) increases the rate of flow of incomes with which existing goods and services can be bought without simultaneously increasing the prices that consumers must meet. The costs of new capital production will not filter into the consumer market for some period of time and even then will only be discharged gradually over many years. Production that is exported is even more advantageous because its costs will never have to be met domestically. Instead, foreigners will be relied on as a source of funding for the incomes and profits of the exporting businesses. When the private sector fails, the government, by borrowing money for the sake of public expenditures, can distribute additional incomes without simultaneously increasing the rate of flow of prices (in the form of taxes). Warfare, in which bombs and other military production are ‘exported’ to the enemy, constitutes a special case. Indeed, the universal deficiency of consumer buying power is the main and constant impetus behind international military conflict and the colossal waste and destruction uniquely characteristic of warfare. Because each country is incapable of automatically absorbing its own domestic production, countries are forced to compete with each other in the attempt to achieve ‘favourable’ trade balances. In this game there must be losers as well as winners. The translation of the commercial struggle into armed conflict is only a matter of time and opportunity. The bottom line is that the economy must continually grow at the required rate, as this is the condition of the possibility of maintaining an equilibrium between prices and purchasing power and of servicing past debts.

As noted, this ‘compensatory’ production, if it is not exported, must eventually be sold (or otherwise charged) to the public. Some of it can be offloaded via easy credit in combination with manipulative advertising. Indeed, advertising is itself a whole industry that has grown out of proportion to any sane or rational need that it would serve in an economy that was not suffering from an artificial scarcity of purchasing power. Its overriding purpose is to induce as many people as possible to buy more than they really need or can reasonably make use of it, so that firms can continue to grow and profits and employment incomes can be maintained. Another proportion can be consumed by relying on the fact that the need for ‘compensatory’ production yields its own demand, similarly artificial, for goods and services that are required to make the compensatory work in that production possible or tolerable. Thus, additional production necessitates additional cars and roads, additional buildings, additional office furniture, equipment, services, and supplies, as well as wardrobes, convenience foods, and daycare, etc.

According to the Social Credit analysis of the economy’s financial infrastructure, it is impossible to turn our backs on consumerism and on the culture of consumerism, without jeopardizing the sustainability of the current economic order. We must remain on the economic treadmill and run ever faster on it under threat of economic collapse. Excessive and wasteful production, economic sabotage of all different kinds, is necessary for the purpose of distributing incomes and maintaining equilibrium.

The implications of this state of affairs for ‘sustainable consumption’ as an existentially, socially, aesthetically, and/or environmentally worthwhile policy should be clear. As beneficial and therefore as desirable as it may be to have a provision-centred economy that aims at delivering a sufficiency of goods and services so that people can survive and flourish, it is simply not practical under existing financial conventions.

The Social Credit Remedies

Social Credit also offers a solution, however, to the problem of chronically deficient consumer incomes and this solution, by eliminating the need for compensatory production as a method of filling the gap, would make sustainable consumption financially viable and economically realizable.

Instead of relying on governments, business, and or individual consumers to borrow additional debt-money from the private banks (which is money created by the banking system) in order to fill the recurring gap between prices and incomes, Social Credit proposes the establishment of a National Credit Office to determine the volume of compensatory credit that is needed to achieve equilibrium in each economic period, to create this credit free of debt or of any other costs, and to distribute it directly or indirectly to consumers. The direct contribution would take the form of a National Dividend or an income that would be granted to each citizen whether he be employed in the formal economy or not. The indirect contribution would take the form of a National Discount on retail prices, i.e., on the prices of consumer goods and services. These would be sold at the price that reflects the real costs of producing them and the difference would be made up to the retailers so that the latter can cover the full accounting costs associated with their wares.[2]

The continual and dynamic balancing of prices and incomes in accordance with Social Credit principles, i.e., the introduction of a self-liquidating price system, would render present consumption entirely independent of additional production as a necessary condition for obtaining full access to what the community has already produced. No pressure to overproduce means no necessity of finding or otherwise inducing a market domestically or of exporting the surplus. People could be free to enjoy in full what the efforts of the community make possible alongside increased leisure or the freedom from compensatory work that goes along with the need for compensatory production.

Though it may seem paradoxical, the Social Credit path to sustainable consumption requires that the consuming power of the community be brought into step with its productive power. In one sense people need to be given more, so that in another they can be satisfied with less. If people were financially enabled to automatically consume in full all that is produced, there would be no incentive to produce and consume many other things which are best described as waste. The economy could then begin to operate quite naturally on a smaller, more human scale that would, while being more satisfactory with respect to genuine needs and desires, also be more environmentally-friendly and socially responsible.




[1] Proper consumer buying power designates purchasing power that can actually liquidate costs once and for all, rather than merely transferring them as debt-claims against future incomes connected with separate periods and cycles of production.

[2] Both forms of compensatory consumer credit, so long as they are issued at the correct rate, would be anti-inflationary, rather than inflationary. In the first place, they would be issued in lieu of all conventional palliatives; this would mean the elimination of excessive government and corporate debts and the complete elimination of consumer credit. The economy cannot be flooded with an excess of money if credit is only issued for wanted production, and prices and incomes are properly balanced in each period by the addition of the right volume of ‘debt-free’ credit. In the second place, and in contradistinction to what happens under the present practice of borrowing more and more to fill the gap, these consumer credits would not leave an inflationary trail of debt behind them. Finally, neither the dividend nor the discount funds will accumulate. They are issued precisely for the purpose of covering price-values in the cost structure of goods and services for which no purchasing power has been automatically distributed in the course of production. When businesses receive compensatory credit, it will be used, alongside the community’s regular flow of income, to pay off their production loans from the banks (or to replace their capital reserves), and will thus be cancelled as consumer purchasing power.

Last modified on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 05:17

Leave a comment

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


  • Comment Link Oliver Wednesday, 20 July 2022 22:01 posted by Oliver

    You're most welcome, Pedro! I am glad you found the explanation helpful.

    Um abraço,

  • Comment Link Pedro Tuesday, 19 July 2022 12:20 posted by Pedro

    "When spent on consumer goods/services, yes, the rate at which such profit would re-enter the market as consumer income would have to be taken into consideration when it comes to calculating how much additional consumer credits in the form of the dividend and the discount have to be created to balance the flow of costs/prices and incomes."

    Now I understand perfectly. Thank you very much.

    Regarding the book, I would love to read it if I could already understand English perfectly. Even so, I thank you for all your attention.

    Hugs !

  • Comment Link Oliver Monday, 18 July 2022 20:32 posted by Oliver

    Hi Pedro, yes, the profit received by retailers from selling their merchandise would not go back to the NCA immediately. Some of it could be saved, some of it could be re-invested, and some of it could be spent on consumer goods and services. If saved or re-invested we know that it would not increase purchasing power and, in the case of being re-invested, would actually create another cost without equivalent purchasing power. When spent on consumer goods/services, yes, the rate at which such profit would re-enter the market as consumer income would have to be taken into consideration when it comes to calculating how much additional consumer credits in the form of the dividend and the discount have to be created to balance the flow of costs/prices and incomes. You could even consider a portion of the retailers' profits as circulating among them, covering their profit margins, in which case once their profits had been "primed" so-to-speak, you could cut back on the amounts that would needed to be covered by the dividend payments. You are asking some very pointed, precise questions ... I'm amused because I thought I was the only one given to such a thorough analytical approach - but it is surely important to think all of these things through to their natural conclusions. If you have a copy of my 2014 book, "Social Credit Economics", you could read more about the ins and outs of the Douglas Social Credit system in great technical detail.

    Best regards, Oliver

  • Comment Link Pedro Sunday, 17 July 2022 10:27 posted by Pedro

    Hi Oliver

    To answer his question: I don't know. The profits (as part of the dividends) that retailers would receive from selling their merchandise would not go back to the National Credit Authority immediately.

    Part of the profit would become the retailer's salary (as far as I know) and would be used to consume final goods and/or services. That is, the same money was used both by the consumer and then by the retailer as purchasing power.

    The circulation of that money, multiplied by the amount of money, could exceed the sum total of the value of final goods and services. There would be a possible inflation that way.

    That's the conclusion I came to.

    Even so, I appreciate your attention to my queries. Thanks : )

  • Comment Link Oliver Saturday, 16 July 2022 23:25 posted by Oliver

    Hi Pedro,

    I think, if I follow your question, that the profit would be covered by the consumers directly and would be calculated as part of the National Dividend payments. The profit margin itself (its size) would be determined by the application of the compensated price mechanism (retailers would have to agree to a negotiated profit margin with the National Credit Authority in order to enjoy the benefits of the price discount). The actual money to cover it, however, would come from the National Dividend payments to consumers and would be transferred to the retailers when the consumers buy the retailers' good or service. Does that make sense?

    Best regards,

  • Comment Link Pedro Thursday, 14 July 2022 19:44 posted by Pedro

    Hi Oliver!

    Very well then. The retailer's profit is part of consumption. But how would the retailer receive this profit? Would it be paid by consumers directly with their money or would the retailer's profit be created in cash by the banks at the time the retailer made the sale?

    I thank you for your attention, Oliver.

    Hugs !

    Note: I apologize if something is not very clear. I wrote through the translator

  • Comment Link Oliver Thursday, 14 July 2022 00:38 posted by Oliver

    Hi Pedro,

    Many apologies for the delay in responding; I have been travelling extensively quite recently. To respond to your question, the retailer's profit, determined in part by the compensated price scheme agreement that the retailer would enter into with the government, would indeed represent consumption. In the case of the retailer, his organization skill, entrepreneurial talent, marketing ability, etc., could well be considered as part of what is consumed in the production process, i.e., in getting the goods and services to market.

    Um abraço,

  • Comment Link Pedro Tuesday, 12 July 2022 14:40 posted by Pedro

    Excellent article.

    I would like you to clear up a doubt of mine: Douglas came to the conclusion that the real cost of production is consumption. This means that the consumer will only pay for physical or actual consumption.

    How then will the retailer make his profit? As far as I know, the retailer's profit does not represent physical or actual consumption.

    Hugs !!

    Note: I'm putting the question again because I don't know if the answer to this question was put in another article (as has happened before).

  • Comment Link Pedro Sunday, 26 June 2022 15:48 posted by Pedro

    Hello Oliver!!

    Excellent article.

    I would like you to clear up a doubt of mine: Douglas came to the conclusion that the real cost of production is consumption. This means that the consumer will only pay for physical or actual consumption.

    How then will the retailer make his profit? As far as I know, the retailer's profit does not represent physical or actual consumption.

    Hugs !!

Latest Articles

  • Douglas Social Credit: Untying the Gordian Knot
    The financial and economic problem that has plagued civilization since the dawn of the industrial age may be described as a Gordian knot[1], i.e., as an intractable problem that cannot be solved within its own conventional framework, but only by thinking outside of the box. Those few of us who have studied both the problem and Douglas’ response to it in-depth have become convinced that Douglas, like a modern-day Alexander, cut this Gordian knot and discovered the correct path for the harmonious resolution of this problem. The irony, however, is that when it comes to effectively and efficiently communicating Douglas’ brilliance to a wider public, the Douglas Social Credit vision for our financial system and economic life may itself be likened to a Gordian knot (not in itself, but in deciding how best to explain it). There are so many issues, positions, evidences, and arguments bound up in the problem…
    Written on Tuesday, 02 April 2024 06:57
  • Douglas Social Credit ... By Way Of Metaphor
    For whatever reason, Douglas Social Credit seems to exhibit an unusually high informational “barrier to entry” and yet it is vital that as many people as possible would come to understand it as quickly as possible because the financial analysis and remedial proposals of Major C.H. Douglas (1879-1952) are the solution to 90% or more of our financial, economic, political, cultural, environmental, and international problems. In what follows, I will focus on the monetary dimensions of Douglas Social Credit, though the reader should be aware that DSC constitutes a much broader body of thought which incorporates a social philosophy, a political theory, and also a theory of history. Since the easiest way to grasp something new and therefore unknown is to approach it by means of the known, this article relies heavily on metaphors to communicate the truth of Douglas’ vision.
    Written on Saturday, 13 January 2024 15:56
  • Dr. Oliver Heydorn on Mark Anderson's "Stop the Presses" Radio Show
    On January 3rd, 2024 and again on January 10th, 2024, Dr. Oliver Heydorn appeared as a guest of Journalist Mark Anderson on the Republican Broadcasting Network. The interviews can be accessed under "read more".
    Written on Wednesday, 10 January 2024 17:02