Imagine this situation. Your neighbour’s dog keeps you awake at night with its relentless barking. You go to your neighbour, tell him the problem and ask him what he is going to do about it. His response it to tell you there is no dog and hence no problem, have a nice day.
His answer does not convince you that you are imagining things every night rather that he is seeking to avoid taking any action by denying the existence of the problem. You have two choices; you can put up with the barking and be driven to the edge of madness by sleep deprivation, in which case the fault is your own, or you can examine the avenues available to you for solving the problem by your own action. You might suggest to your neighbour solutions for stopping dogs barking, you might contact the pound, move house or, in the extreme case, brew an arsenic marinade, treat a steak and throw it over the fence. What you don’t do is spend the rest of your disturbed life countering the neighbour’s intractable denial in the existence of a dog.
Social Crediters face this dilemma. Douglas did the greatest service by identifying the essential source of our economic woes. The case has been made and remade thousands of times and our situation validates the Social Credit analysis. Social Credit predicts the symptoms that are all around us; debt, war, heavy taxation, the centralisation of control, poverty amidst plenty, general discontent and waste amidst other tumours with their roots in the persistent denial of reality.
Thankfully it’s not a fault inherent in human nature or an eternal and inevitable class war. The essential defect is quite simply there is not enough money distributed to consumers to buy what is produced. Now if you are new to Social Credit you will not appreciate in any small moment the far reaching effects of this disorganisation. If you spend a bit of time reading and thinking about the problem you will gradually realise that this imbalance has reached into every aspect of modern life and twisted it into something completely misshapen from what it would otherwise be. I don’t believe I overstate the case.
Douglas proposed a solution and I can’t put it more simply than he did;
‘…individuals in the modern world obtain their purchasing power through three sources – wages, salaries and dividends. This purchasing power is taken away from them through the medium of what we call prices, and it will be quite obvious to you that the first thing necessary is to make total purchasing power equal to total prices, a proposition which has no other known solution than by the addition of a credit issue to purchasing power. That is to say, we must give the consumer purchasing power which does not appear is prices.'
Now the reason we don’t already enjoy this extra purchasing power is because it bypasses the conventional means of money creation enjoyed by banking. The banking industry’s domination depends on their monopoly control of credit creation. The method by which money is created, as debt-contracts to those the banks assess able to repay it, means that somewhere all money must appear in prices.
Indulge me as I illustrate the obvious. A butcher borrows $300,000 to buy a house. The bank transfers the money to the bank account of the seller, which creates a deposit. The seller is free to use that credit to buy things, this is in every sense new money. The butcher has a debt of $300,000 plus interest and other bank charges. The butcher sits down to evaluate the price of his sausages. If he intends to keep the house he has borrowed money for he will need to factor the cost of the loan repayments into the price of his sausages. So it is that debt appears in prices. For commercial borrowing the inclusion of banking charges in prices is more direct.
So you will see that Douglas’ proposal to 'give the consumer purchasing power which does not appear in prices' would rightly be regarded by the financial establishment as a direct attack on the mechanism that gives them power. Up till now the best strategy for the banker has been to pretend there is no problem, there is no dog, that the prime cause of economic unrest is anything but systemic. Our problems, we are told, are the result of corruption, incompetence, market regulation, market deregulation, greed, labour shortages, class war, the Zeitgeist, religion, unemployment and all of the other imponderables and non-solutions that invariably distract us while this finance based plutocracy consolidates its rule. I think it’s high time we focus on the dog.