A Different Type of Money System: Social Credit
Posted by Socrates in bankers, banking, Big Finance, Ezra Pound, jew financial crimes, jewed finance, money, Social Credit system, Socrates at 6:45 pm | 
Permanent Link
The poet Ezra Pound was an advocate of Social Credit, by the way [1].
This online book makes some good points about wealth, money and credit, e.g., having wealth and having money is not the same thing. It allows the reader to think about Western money systems in an outside-of-the-box manner.
Social Credit is based on real credit and real production, not on inflationary fiat money or fractional-reserve ledger entries. Here, the book says that the state, not private bankers, should control money for the benefit of society:
“The conversion into money of real credit can only be exercised by a sovereign authority, acting in the name of society itself, and pursuing, not the banker’s profit, but the economic welfare of society as a whole.” (“real credit” = the ability to produce and deliver goods and services).
A Social Credit system could, in theory, be molded and shaped in different ways, according to a country’s needs.
Contrary to what some people believe about Social Credit, it need not be a “cashless” system.
Social Credit could, in theory, put an end to inflationary, interest-and-debt money systems in the West. But even if Social Credit isn’t as viable as some people believe it is, the idea could nonetheless lead to similar ideas which might eventually help Whites as a people [2][3]:
Chapter 14: [Here].
Chapter 15: [Here].
[1] Ezra Pound and Social Credit: [Here]
[2] more about Social Credit: [Here]
[3] a book about Social Credit: [Here]
1 April, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Well, aren’t credit unions considered cooperatives? Yet they still loan money out at the same rate as everybody else.
Co-op grocery stores/supermarkets are made up of members who’ve paid a $5 mem. fee, but I don’t think they declare dividends the way they used to years ago, as did the credit unions. I can recall receiving dividends from both organizations. Really. If they still do, there in the USA, let me know and I am sorry for disagreeing.
Sgruber, your post on “state owned anything” is both hilarious and oh-so-true. What lovely writing.
1 April, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Sgruber, your post on “state owned anything” is both hilarious and oh-so-true.
Notice how he lumps all governments together, regardless of whether they’re jew-run (like ours) or Aryan-run (like Germany’s under Hitler).
It’s just boilerplate libertardian claptrap.
1 April, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Why should the making of loans [be] the sole regime of a “state-owned bank?”
If the government prints the money, then the government should also be the one who loans it out….usury-free, of course.
There’s no logical reason why the government should print money and then give it to a group of middlemen (private bankers) who turn around and charge “interest” on it.
1 April, 2008 at 6:45 pm
in reply to Stronza:
you wrote:
in reply:
No, and the “rate” does include include clauses that favor the credit union to the extent that the same clauses favor the bank.
There is a larger point to be made in this regard, and I believe I have not made it clearly enough.
See below.
you wrote:
in reply:
They are still here,and they are still alive – and growing.
Google National Cooperative bank, for example, and see examples of the financial sophistication I am referring to.
My example runs much more organically than that.
For instance, the Co-Op Bank would help finance partnerships, with the economic profit divided fairly among the partners.
LLPs, LLC’s, the list goes on of risk-sharing vehicles that avoid the inherently mechanistic nature of “interest,” while allowing a return on the investment that is understood by many people; thus, for instance, the economic sophistication of the community would grow as, say, the ABC Family Trust lent money to the ABC Family Partnership to invest in – be a limited partner in – DEF Farming Enterprises, for example.
No “interest” at all, in the mechanistic, inorganic sense, but a lot of interested people learning about the business of the Enterprises, for example, as they – and their Families – are sharing in the risk, and the rewards.
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!
1 April, 2008 at 11:31 pm
New Dutch is exactly correct. If the U.S. Treasury Department can create interest bearing bonds out of thin air, then it can just as well create money or currency out of thin air, INTEREST FREE AND DEBT FREE. This seems to be a point that most people miss.
The power of money creation is a right that belongs to sovereign national governments, NOT private corporations(i.e. the commercial banks). The creation and control of a nation’s money supply is far too important a responsibility to be farmed out to (Jew run)private commercial banking cartels like the Federal Reserve System.
There are actually several concurrent issues at play in any discussion of money and monetary systems.
1. fractional reserve banking vs. full reserve banking.
2. debt based/interest based money supply vs. debt free/interest free money supply.
3. fiat money supply vs. commodity backed money supply.
4. private money supply vs. public money supply