Talk:Social credit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, I would like to help improve this article, but I'm wondering how the article is rated. I'm looking at the rating and cannot determine who rates this article and why? Chdouglas (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This a propagandist entry[edit]

For instance while the article quotes an external source on the social credit movement's association with anti-semitism that is then rubbished on what is clearly nothing more than the opinion of the author. (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you refering to Janine Stingel's assertion? Chdouglas (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Zealand & US "Greenback Movement"[edit]

New Zealand had a Social Credit party also with at least one member of Parliament. I know very little about it, think it disappeared in the '80s Ping (07:30, 11 April 2003)

I'll look up the NZ thing.
Also, when I wrote this w/u originally for E2 I found some information about the "Greenback Movement" in the United States, which holds that the government end taxation and just print money (or something like that).
I don't really understand it, but apparently these people (who are largely anti-government militia types) claim to take inspiration from Douglas's social credit economic theory and Abraham Lincoln's monetary policy (there's also a bunch of conspiracy theory stuff about his murder)).
I'll do some looking and see if it's worth a page. -- stewacide 07:35 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
This sounds a lot like the documentary Moneymasters. It's a 3 and a half hour long history of central banking in the states that basically concludes the the US government should be responsible for issuing money and eliminate the federal reserve. As far as I know the system would still allow for fractional reserve banking and loans so it seems like it has some significant differences with this system but the idea of government controlling the issuing of money based on needs of the economy is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There has only ever been one NZ SC MP (An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) (01:12, 29 July 2005)

There have been five NZ Socred MP's. Rushworth (Country Party) in the 30's. Cracknell, SC in the 60's, Beetham, Knapp, Morrison later. Ot the first Labour Government,1935, of some is reported that 14 were monetary reformers.xx

Canada & article split[edit]

The info on the Canadian party is all accurate and does not deserve to be suddenly and inexplicably deleted. user:J.J. (18:25, 31 August 2003)

Most of the Canadian leaders eventually ditched the idology, but kept the name. (WAC Bennett was a Conservative). I didn't delete it, though it should be taken off until it is rewritten.Vancouverguy 18:29, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've split the article in two: one on the theory and one on the party. That way we can keep all the info on the party without implying that they followed Major Douglas's ideology. - Efghij 18:35, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)
Excellent.Vancouverguy 18:40, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A good compromise user:J.J. 18:44, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WAC was doctrinally conservative, though flamboyant in other ways; he always ran for office and held power on behalf of the Social Credit Party. He was never to my knowledge a member of any branch of the Progressive Conservative Party.

It is also skirting the truth to say that that "the leaders eventually ditched the ideology." They were plenty evasive about it, but if they ever disavowed it I never heard about it; the claim is so extraordinary that it needs to be supported with evidence.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi David:

While Douglas never specifically wrote about the BC Social Credit government (which was further ideologically from Douglas Social Credit than the Alberta government), he did write in his essay, "Social Credit in Alberta", that "The Manning administration is no more a Social Credit administration than the British government is Labour." and further:

"Much of the Legislation of the Third Social Credit Administration, and the programme for the new legislature, the Fourth, to an examination of which we shall come almost at once, is State Socialism and Collectivism and contravenes every principle, and particularly the two just stated, of Social Credit. That may not be important; but its consequences are very important."

Chdouglas (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flaws in "many of Douglas' ideas"?[edit]

So, what exposed these alleged flaws in "many of Douglas' ideas"? I don't know that much about Social Credit, but I get the impression that no country has ever put it into practice. And so far I haven't found any clear refutation of the theory (as I understand it). What proof did J.J. refer to? And what, specifically, did it prove? -Dan (01:24, 30 January 2004): I don't even know if I wrote some of the things you are quoting. All I know is that based on my simple understanding, he was advocating printing more money to help fix the economy, which is simply not a sensible practice. -J.J. (09:02, 31 January 2004)

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth, I may have misread the history page. As to the question, more than one Social Credit champion has proposed ways to fight inflation. I'll add some info about these. Meanwhile, let's see this alleged proof if anyone has it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan (talkcontribs) (06:10, 1 February 2004)
One of the tenets of the Douglas thesis is that there is a perennial shortage of purchasing power in the economy. In other words, the aggregate price of goods on the market at any one time is greater than the total amount of money at the disposal of the buying public.
The result is that people must borrow from the banking system to make up for this deficiency. It is the banks who issue new 'money' ("credit": not cash or legal tender) all the time by lending more and more. Only about three per cent (three out of one hundred) of the total money supply is in the form of notes and coins, i.e legal tender, and the rest, 97%, is in the form of Bank Notes, borrowing, of one sort or another. Janosabel (23:28, 2 February 2004)
Just to clarify: Douglas did not advocate "printing more money" but instead suggested that amount of money available to purchase goods should match the price of the goods available for purchase. In other words, production should match consumption. He further suggested that when production exceeds consumption, the difference should be distributed to all consumers so that goods already manufactured could always, actually, be purchased. Stevebockman (04:39, 9 February 2004)
Gary North doesn't seem like the best spokesman for the opposition, but I honestly don't know of any other "refutation" that addresses even one of the anti-inflation strategies. Does anyone have that "proof"? Dan 09:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Gary North's criticism of Social Credit is more a tirade than anything else. He erroneously claims that Social Credit would cause inflation, when Douglas was quite explicit that his compensated price scheme would in fact lower prices. North seems to have a problem with the philosophy of people getting something for nothing, because it contradicts his evangelical philosophy that "...if a man doesn't work, neither shall he eat." Socred (19:11, 25 July 2006)
I'll readily admit economy isn't my strong point, but doesn't the A+B contain a logical fallacy? The amount of money A producers pay to consumers derives from their prices A+B. Now, the amount of overhead costs B obviously is also paid to someone (e.g. some other producer), and therefore also makes its way back to consumers eventually. Stated another way, producers are also consumers.
Second, the proposed system seems unmaintainable in the view of international trade, where some countries will inevitably be running a trade deficit. Governments would in effect be subsidizing foreign producers, which forces them to either establish tariffs or print money. squell 16:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your "logical fallacy" argument may affect the original form of the A+B theorem, but it ignores Heinlein's version with his focus on savings. Note that Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke recently spoke of a world-wide savings glut. As to your second paragraph, I just don't follow you at all. Why would "subsidizing foreign producers" create a problem in a Heinlein-style Social Credit society? His book explicitly advocates exchanging paper money for foreign-made products (a.k.a. real wealth), in those situations where foreign producers can supply us with the product more efficiently. At what point would this cause individuals to suffer, and how? Recall that the largest single number of business loans in Heinlein's future U.S. would come from the publicly-owned Bank of the United States, which may not actually have to make a profit. If an American company goes out of business because of Bank/government policy, the Bank could presumably change the repayment schedule to prevent any gross hardship. Nothing would limit their ability to forgive loans except the ability of the economy to deal with extra money.
(Addendum -- if the Bank decides to forgive a loan to a U.S. company because a "trade deficit" has put them out of business, this may imply that the Bank has put more money into the national economy than it planned. But meanwhile, consumers have sent a presumably unexpected amount of money out of the national economy by buying foreign products. It may even out. We would ask Bernanke's future equivalents to take all this into account in making later policy decisions.) Dan 09:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Douglas stated in the Monopoly of Credit:
"To say that at some time or other the money has been distributed is in the nature of a general assertion which does not bear upon the specific fact. The mill will never grind with the water that has passed, and unless it can be shown, as it certainly cannot be shown, that all these sums distributed in respect of the production of intermediate products are actually saved up, not in the form of securities, but in the form of actual purchasing power, we are obliged to assume what I believe to be true, that the rate of flow of purchasing power derived from the normal and theoretical operation of the existing price system is always less than that of the generation of prices within the same period of time." (C.H. Douglas, "The Monopoly of Credit")
Money cycles - it doesn't circulate. Money is created by the banks in the forms of loans to businesses, and ultimately to consumers in the form of wages/salaries, and dividends. It is then taken back from the consumers through businesses in the form of price, where it is then paid back to the bank and extinguished. That is the accounting cycle of money. If the money created creates more costs than it cancels before its extinction, then each such operation produces a corresponding disequilibrium between prices and income. This process happens all the time via re-investment of money received as income. We are charged with capital depreciation, but are not credited with capital appreciation. Socred (19:11, 25 July 2006)
Each reader may have a different opinion about which theory is or isn't flawed. To keep a NPOV, I highly recommend that the article be reworded in a number of places such that the arguments and counterarguments are not stated as fact. For instance the phrase: "The error in regards to this theory was demonstrated", proposes that the matter was settled. To me the counterargument is entirely invalid, as money both circulates, and is borrowed and repaid, and nothing is so simple to be either-or. Please represent this in a more NPOV. mikedilger (17:38, 10 Aug 2008)

If you can show me money that is not created as a debt, or goods and services that are not produced with a cost, then I will certainly change the wording on the text. I am fairly familiar with the "quantity theory of money", and am willing to challenge anyone on its assumptions. Money does not just "fall from the sky", nor is it "dropped from a helicopter" as some articles on Mr. Bernanke and the Federal Reserve suggest. All money, even government cash and coin, comes into existence through debt (i.e. through purchase of securities or loans to commercial banks). All goods and services have costs attached to their creation and have debt owing to other companies accounts receivables that are attached to the good/service produced. The idea that a company can take the $1.00 in revenues and all of those revenues are income is completely fallacious, and the accounts of any company will demonstrate this fact. However, to appear to be fair, I have changed the wording on the article.

Chdouglas (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Direct Credits Society?[edit]

Why no mention of Alfred N. Lawson's Direct Credits Society? Even within the entry on Alfred Lawson, there's a ghost link inviting an article to be written on direct credits. Lawson was a nut, but one to be reckoned with just like many other devotees of populist money schemes. Maybe someone should also add to the Robert Anton Wilson material his jocular embodiment of theory in flaxscrip and hempscrip. -, 3/10/06

Please add whatever verifiable material you can. Wikipedia is a collective project written by volunteers. There is no "editorial board" that writes or approves entries. You can edit the "Social Credit" article by clicking on the "edit" tab at the top of the page, and you can create an article on direct credits by clicking on the ghost link. Leave a message on my talk page if I can assist. Ground Zero | t 13:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It's inaccurate to say that 'there is no suggestion that Douglas was anti-Semitic'. John Finlay, 'Social Credit: The English Origins':

'In the beginning he was restrained in his attitude towards [the existing economic order]. But from an early belief that it might, "like Topsy, just have growed", he moved on to attack "a very deeply laid and well considered plot of enslaving the industrial world to the German-American - Jewish - financiers". It was not long before the German-American element faded into the background, leaving the Jews as the real villains of the piece. When asked where real power lay, Douglas would answer that it was with Sir Basil Zaharoff, the mysterious armament king.' (p.103; quoted in Meghnad Desai, 'The Route of All Evil: The Political Economy of Ezra Pound', p.137)

I don't know enough to say whether Finlay is accurate, but he certainly makes the suggestion that Douglas became an anti-Semite. Duke Aldhein 16:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a few occassions where Douglas mentions Jews in his writings, but to state he was "anti-semetic" is a stretch. It is used by those who have nothing else to criticize in his works in order to cast aspersions on them. Socred (18:22, 31 August 2006)

I am sick of the misuse of the term "anti-semitic". It's preposterous to even include the suggestion of that link in this article, by the very definition of anti-semitic. At what point does Douglas state he hates all Jewish people, or even implies it? There are elite factions within every ethnic group, it just happens that much of the intellectual and financial world has been excelled upon through the Jewish philosophy and work ethic. An anti-semitic claim by this token would involve accusing all Jews, as a unit of people, as uniquely wishing to be part of a dominating, conspiratorial elite. This is clearly not unique to the Jewish people as an ethnic group and Douglas was clearly not presuming that.

Furthermore, the actual reform theory behind Social Credit is relevant to all, not just those apparently wishing to specifically oust a Jewish elite (rather, any elite that may take on similar dominating factors). Therefore, I think this article should focus 100% on the substance of the theory, rather than after-thoughts that make no difference to the ills SC is attempting to correct in consumer and finance capitalism.

I await a response to my request to have that preposterous sub-section removed, as it is irrelevant to the substance of SC theory...

Hi, if you make a comment, please date it so I know to respond. If you read the bottom of the page when you edit, it always tells you to sign your post with (~ ~ ~ ~) after you are done.

As to your comments, I agree, but I added the section into the article because there are always those who are going to criticize Social Credit because they allege that Douglas was an "anti-semite". I thought I would address the issue in an honest an upfront manner. I personally do not think that Douglas was an "anti-semite". I do know he was critical of Jewish philosophy, but in today's world, you cannot criticize anything in regards to Jews without being labelled an "anti-semite". That is the reality of the situation, so I thought it was better to be upfront on the subject, and honest, than to let someone who has very little knowledge of social credit attack it without actually understanding what Douglas did say about the "Jewish problem". You are correct in asserting that Douglas did not claim that all Jews were responsible for this problem, in fact, he went further to attack "Prussianism" for the same philosophy, yet you don't hear people crying that Douglas was "anti-Prussian". Chdouglas (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, apologies for not leaving my mark! Will do in future. Also, apologies if I came across as attacking the author of the wiki. I understand now why you included it. To be honest, I had never come across this claim of anti-semitism made before, although I had a feeling it would be jumped on by the odd few critics. Therefore, I retract my previous judgement on the issue and thank you for your kind work on this wiki. (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, no worries. I wrestled with including that section in the article as well, and did not include it in the original re-write of the article, but was conviced by others to address the issues before others, who have no knowledge of Social Credit, do. Better to go on the offensive and reference your material than deny the truth. Again, I do not for a second believe that Douglas was an "anti-semite". This is a "red-herring" and a last ditch effort by those who want to discredit it. Janine Stingel's claim that his works are "wholly dependent on a anti-semetic conspiracy theory" is comical and ignorant of the facts! Yet this is an academic, and this book was peer reviewed I believe! Do you believe it???? This person knows nothing about Social Credit, and her "peers" know even less!! Yet this is what passes for academic material on Social Credit!! However; you will note the external links section. You can now download some of Douglas's works for free! This material is now available to everyone for free. I recommend you download the books. Take care. Chdouglas (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The request for citation in regards to Douglas's A+B theorem being an analysis of prices and incomes and their relation to cost accounting and not an anti-semitic conspiracy theory was removed because the A+B theorem is included in the article, and it's obvious to anyone that it does not mention anything about semitism, or conspiracies. Chdouglas (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the theory[edit]

as an economic theory, what is wrong with the theory? The above discussion talked about it, but it is still unclear to me. Can someone clarify this in the article? And what are the distinguish points compared to other monetary theories? Jackzhp 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is what I'm struggling with myself. I first came across social credit economic theory (A+B, etc) before university (researching Canadian political history). It seemed to make sense at the time, but I figured that was because I didn't understand economics. Now I come across it again after all these years and after taking a lot of standard macroeconomics... and it still makes sense! Not only is it beautifully inductive, but its 'prediction' that unclaimable debt creation is necessary to the functioning of the current economic system seems borne out in reality.
I would LOVE for someone to explain the flaw here so I can put my mind to rest! Otherwise, what explains the absence of these theories from mainstream economics? -- stewacide (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The supposed "flaw" is that there is no difference between A and B payments, therefore, there is no gap. However; I address this in the "Critics to A+B and rebuttal". There IS a difference between A and B payments, and B payments are not income. They are monies on their way back to the bank. You have to imagine two seperate flows, one is going from the bank out to consumers as income, and one is coming back from consumers through prices and taxes back to the bank. The latter is not income. Economists are greatly confused by this because they cling to their fallicious "quantity theory of money" which simply adds all the money up regardless of which "direction" the money is flowing. Chdouglas (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not start a dialogue with a character like Steve Keen, or any of those advocates of big moves like a large scale dept write-off? I have been reading Minsky in the hope of finding a way of marrying the two works (Minsky's To Stabilise an Unstable Economy and Credit Power And Democracy)

I am generally suspicious of ANY work which angles the whole dialogue over 'the economy' (an abstract umbrella term for the ofter fleeting and sporadic behaviours, through the sentiments and attitudes, of a plurality of different groups and units) as a war of the corrupt, vs the weaker, unenlightened 'masses', whom are being shafted without their knowing it. Social Credit, as sketched out in Credit Power and Democracy and the like, is best viewed, I find, as a great prose on the massive changes from the linear, homogenous, democratic society to the 'world as global theatre' which McLuhan describes - The electric world, where no one need 'work' any more that the huntsman, come poet, come sportsman/athlete, come sculptor, come painter of 'tribal' organisation. 'Theory' can't be entertained, any more, as a proposition in the old fashioned sense.

There should be a dialogue - Have it out with Keen and the like. Keen is on TV. No one, so far as I'm aware, is very familiar with Social Credit... Keep it cool and practical. Huge changes ARE/HAVE occurred, the only question is how much pain and angst will it inflict upon the many publics. (AJKeefe - April 14 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page cleanup[edit]

I have done some major editing and cleanup on this page. Very little proper formatting was followed in the past, so I had to rearrange some comments and add headlines. I tried my best to keep conversations together, for the sake of logic and coherence. It would help, in future, if people used headlines, signed their comments, etc. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similarities to Technocracy's Energy Credit[edit]

As I was browsing through this article, I noticed a striking similarity to the Energy Credit concept which grew out of the Technocracy movement. Would this be a valuable comparison to note here? At the very least, we could add Energy Credit to the "See Also" section. Thoughts? FusionKnight (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Complete rewrite[edit]

As many will notice, this article has been almost completely rewritten. This effort reflects months of consultation with several noted authorities on the subject of Social Credit. While the original article was fairly accurate, it did not sufficiently outline the theory, history, and philosophy of Social Credit, as several parties have observed on this "Talk" page.

Further, the original article was poorly referenced as indicated by a formal request (template) for additional citation. This is understandable since many of the needed reference materials for Social Credit are no longer in print. However, such references do still exist, and citation of those references has been provided by the afore-mentioned experts.

Essential content from the original article has been retained as a summary in the first paragraph of the "Social Credit Economic Policy" section. The "Groups Influenced by Social Credit" section remains unchanged. The heading, "Later versions of Social Credit theory" was revised to "Literary figures in Social Credit", and this section was expanded somewhat to include other prominent names in this regard.

Moreover, the entire article has been greatly expanded to provide readers with a broadened view of Social Credit from economic, political, historical, and philosophical perspectives. New sections and sub-sections have been added in these regards.Chdouglas (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article still needs significant work. As I recall, Wikipedia's policy is, essentially, presenting ideas simply. The section on the A+B Theorem is particularly bad, relying pretty much entirely on block quotations of period sources. English has chanced significantly since this idea was formulated, making these quotations difficult to understand unless the reader is either already fairly familiar with the topics covered, or is so used to reading this outdated form of English that it is no longer linguistically challenging. Most pages I've looked at, including some fairly advanced scientific and mathematical concepts, at least provide a summary that allows me to understand the basics, even if the details require a greater understanding of the subject in general. This article, however, lacks even a summary that can be followed by the layman reader like myself. The Canadian Encyclopedia's entry on Social Credit is primarily based on the political parties, but provides an easy to understand, if somewhat threadbare summary of the economic concept. (I'm not sure of what Wikipedia's policies are about off-site links on talk pages or quotes from external websites, so just look up "Social Credit Canadian Encyclopedia".) Perhaps something similar should be worked into the article summary (along with a basic description of what the A+B theorem actually means). I don't expect to understand the entire article - I am no more fluent in economic theory than I am in advanced mathematics or quantum physics - but it seems that a layman oriented summary should be available, given that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia (which is generally understood to be a comprehensive summary of knowledge.) (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Social Credit Policy section has been removed because of discussions with others who felt that the details covered in that section were repeated in the body of the article. Chdouglas (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ezra Pound[edit]

Larone has added the statement that Ezra Pound offered to lead the Social Credit Party. I am unaware of this fact, and have added that this statement needs to be referenced. Please reference this statement, or I may have to remove it as opinion.Chdouglas (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed this statement because the author failed to provide a reference, and having discussed the matter with people who have been involved in Social Credit for several decades they are unaware of this "fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talkChdouglas (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

                An Important Note...............

Apart from Social Credit there is a much more advanced system in development known as TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS.


Robert Searl —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is nothing "advanced" about Transfinancial Economics. Too bad you have to go around to Social Credit sites to sell your wares. This is what Douglas said about those who advocate no interest money.

""The rapturous iconoclasm of certain groups of monetary reformers', to whom Usury", the sparring-partner of the bankers "inflation" is the Scarlet Woman of Babylon, has had the inevitable effect of encouraging the financial authorities to abolish, for practical purposes, the interest paid on undrawn current balances, and deposit accounts. We do not say they would not have done it anyway - the one thoroughly sound feature of the banking system was its dividends to shareholders and its interest payments to depositors which I jointly with the insignificant mint issues, provided almost the only fresh unattached purchasing-power. It is obviously lost time to beg of our amateur currency experts to consider whether they really mean what they ask, which is, the replacement of unattached purchasing-power by loans. But they must not complain if we, and others with us, regard them as propagandists for totalitarianism. " The Social Creditor, Oct. 27, 1945." Chdouglas (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doctrine of Incarnation[edit]

Recent changes that stated the Doctrine of Incarnation is Protestant theology as opposed to Christian theology were removed, because the Doctrine of Incarnation was formally adopted by the Catholic Church at the council of Nicea long before the existence Protestantism. While I realize that there are a few Christians who do not believe in the Doctrine of Incarnation, it is widely accepted by most Christians including Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox religions. You can refer to the subject on Wikipedia, the first paragraph is quoted below:

"The Incarnation is the understanding in Christianity that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. The word Incarnate derives from Latin (in=in, carnis=flesh) meaning “In the flesh.” The incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second person of the triune God; took on a human body and nature and became both man and God. In the Bible its clearest teaching is in the Gospel of John, were in chapter 1 verse 14, (abbreviated as “John 1:14”) it says “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,” [1]

In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was united with human nature[2] in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". The Incarnation is commemorated and celebrated each year at the Feast of the Incarnation, which is better known as the Annunciation.

This teaching is central to the traditional Christian faith held by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, and most Protestants. Alternative views on the subject have been proposed throughout the centuries (see below), but all were rejected by mainstream Christian bodies.

In recent decades, an alternative doctrine known as "Oneness" has gained credence amongst various Pentecostal groups (see below), but has been rejected by the remainder of Christiandom."

What does this have to do with social credit? Janosabel (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read the philosophy of Social Credit section Chdouglas (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chdouglas (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critics of Social Credit[edit]

Social Credit as expounded by Major Douglas has consistently come under attack by persons whose philosophy is authoritarian. For decades it was the object of a blackout in the major news media, which of course are under the influence of the financial system; occasional references made therein almost invariably misrepresented the substance of Douglas's position. Academia, which also functions under financial direction, has produced a number of critiques subsidized, suspectly, by foundations affiliated with banking interests.

Douglas's ideas are unique in combining a decentralizing philosophy with practical measures for translating it into reality. Those who fear the radical release of personal initiative he envisaged--i.e., planners of all varieties, including financiers and socialists and other social moralizers--have a visceral hostility to the purpose of his proposals. This emotional reaction places most (not all) criticism of them in the domain of pedantry, rather than objective analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current sub-prime crisis is an indication that the orthodox model of banking and credit is broken. Social credit is an attempt to change the current system and prevent the boom bust "business cycle" from dominating the world's economy. The main problem which social credit tries to solve is the lack of purchasing power in the economy caused by the trend towards mechanization and lower wages. These trends, if allowed persist, will ensure that the economy will go into a death spiral and history has shown that such "spirals" usually result in economic warfare breaking out. Social credit is a legitimate framework to attempt to critique current fashionable models of economic thought. As with all systems it has its faults but through listening to its arguments one grows in understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of current modalities.Cmqesquire (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of Article[edit]

I moved this section to the bottom of the page in order to create less confusion. Chdouglas (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I belive this article fails to meet appropriate standards of neutrality, in the specific sense of undue weight. Specifically, The Social credit theory as applied to economics and monetary theory is a minority view, in the sense below. Guidlines added for reference, apologize in advance for wiki formatting faux pas.
I originally tagged a section, but the whole article has the same flaw... in other words, while the historical portions may be acurate, but you should properly tag it upfront as a fringe view, and proceed with the history. If instead you prefer to treat the subject as one of current controversy, then it is important that the status of the view (e.g. miniorty view) is described clearly upfront, and in this case the discussion of the the majority view presented here is neither sufficiently prominent, nor sufficiently robust.
"Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is on Social Credit, so the article is describing Social Credit, and is thoroughly referenced. The fact that the majority may or may not agree with Social Credit theory is irrelevant, because the truth is not determined by majority consensus.
The point is not truth or falsehood, but Wikipedia's standard of NPOV. As I stated above, one of the requirements of NPOV is that non-mainstream views (which Douglas's economic theory is) are clearly identified as such. Now, I agree that certain aspects of this article (e.g. the history of social credit theory, the history of the social credit party in Canada, etc. are non-controversial. It might be appropriate to divide the article appropriately into sub-articles. Then, the specific economic theory (which is largely discredited, whether you choose to agree or not) can be properly discussed, without taking away from the factual acount of other aspects.
And I'm saying your analogy is false. In the example that Wikipedia gives with reference to flat earth theorists,there isn't a scientist in the world who believes the earth is flat. Your argument is based on false analogy. If Social Credit has been discredited, then show me? It should be easy enough to do. The theory aspect specifically states that "Douglas believed", or "in this view". The theory portion of the article specifically states that these were Douglas's beliefs, and not necessarily the beliefs of others. The article does not state what is the truth, but merely what Douglas believed, which is what an article on SOCIAL CREDIT, should do. What you want to do is push your beliefs into the article. Articles on orthodox economics already exist, and if the reader wants to read them, they are able to do that. Other Economic theories are talked about in the artile, like when it says that Douglas disagreed with classical economists such as Ricardo and Smith, and those economists are linked in the article, so the reader can read what they had to say. I'm not going to write an article on other economic theories in a Social Credit article, because articles on orthodox theory already exist. The article does not say if Social Credit is true or false. That is up to the reader to determine. What you want to do is put your point of view into the article. Chdouglas (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This argument is the fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. An encyclopedia article on Social Credit exists to explain the theory and the history of the movement. It is up to the reader to determine if what Douglas was saying is true or false. In fact, what you are suggesting is actually re-writing the article from a non-neutral point of view, because you want to inject a point of view into the article. This article sets out to objectively state Douglas's theories, and the history of the movement.

No, I am suggesting the article be written with appropriate acknowledgement of the mainstream viewpoint.

Which viewpoint is that? The "Monetarist viewpoint"? Or the "Keynsian Viewpoint"? Or the "Austrian Viewpoint"? Or the Marxist Viewpoint? Your attempting to put your viewpoint into the article, and that is the point. It is you who wants to write the article from a certain point of view. The article as it exists now simply states Social Credit theory and the movement, AND IT IS UP TO THE READER TO DECIDE WHAT IS TRUE OR FALSE. You want to inject a viewpoint into the article based on the false assumption that truth has been found in economics, which is absolute nonsense. Chdouglas (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your argument also uses false analogy. The vast majority, if not all, scientists believe that the earth is spherical, and not flat. Whereas, in economics, there are multiple schools of thought, and to suggest that economics is a "science" where the majority of economists are in agreement is nonsense. There are multiple "schools of thought" in economics ranging from Keynsianism, to Marxism, to Monetarism to Austrian School...... In other words, you could use the same argument for any article on schools of economic thought, because the majority does not belong to any of them. Chdouglas (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet, members of those schools of thought would all agree that social credit not an viable theory. This in fact strengthens the arguement... despite the fact that there are multiple modern schools of thought, none of them endorse this theory. It is a fringe belief... I'm sorry if you don't like that, but this is the case.
First off, please sign and date all your posts, so its easy to follow arguments. Secondly, your argument is again fallicious, because all those schools of thought would also say that the other is not a viable theory for different reasons. There is no one school of thought in economics. Economics is not a science that can accurately predict outcomes. I'm not going to agree with you, so if you want to bring in a moderator from Wikipedia go for it, because I'm prepared to make the case.Chdouglas (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try the scientific approach on the orthodox theory. "Industry always pays out enough purchasing power to buy its products." If this is so, why did the world only have prosperity during the last century at times when vast quantities of non-consumer goods were being produced? New factories and also specifically armaments. Basically the only times of prosperity were linked to preparation for war, war itself or recovery from it. The modern economy can not stabilise without steady increase of money supply as the economy grows, and under the present system this can only be achieved through ever-mounting debt to the banking system. In other words, the orthodox theory is faulty, the A+B model does explain perceived facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going to get into this with you.... The point is not the arguements pro and contra- the point is that it is not a mainstream view.... regardless of how many clever arguements you wish to put forth. It's not my job to prove to you why mainstream economics is or is not correct. It is your job as author of the article to acknowledge that the view is not mainstream (again, reference above a possible solution dividing the non-controversial historical bits) And to provide the clear points of contention with mainstream orthodoxy.

And here again, you are wrong. The article does point out points of contention between other economic theories and Social Credit. The following are exact quotes from the article:

Douglas disagreed with classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo who divided the factors of production into land, labour and capital. He also disagreed with Karl Marx who claimed that labour created all wealth. Douglas believed the “cultural inheritance of society” was the primary factor in production.

Douglas also criticized classical economics because it was based upon a barter economy, whereas the modern economy is a monetary one. To the classical economist, money is a medium of exchange.

" [edit] Critics of the A + B theorem and rebuttal Critics of the theorem argue there is no difference between A and B payments, and Social Credit policies are inflationary. These criticisms are based upon the quantity theory of money, which states that the quantity of money multiplied by its velocity of circulation equals total purchasing power. Social Crediters deny the validity of this theory. Following is a brief explanation of the quantity theory of money:

"MV = PQ, where

M = quantity of money in the hands of the public, P = average level of prices, and Q = quantity of output (that is real national product or real national income). Thus PQ = national product, measured in nominal (dollar) terms, and V = income velocity of money. That is, the average number of times that the money stock (M) is spent to buy final output during a year. Specifically, V is defined as being equal to PQ/M Suppose that the money stock is $20 billion. Assume that, in the course of a year, the average dollar bill and the average chequing deposit are spent twelve times to purchase final goods and services. In other words, V is 12. Then, total spending for final output is $20 billion times 12, or $240 billion. In turn, this total spending (MV) equals the total quantity of goods and services (Q) times the average price (P) at which they were sold. But how can the same dollar be used over and over to purchase final goods? Very simply. When you purchase groceries at the store, the $50 paid does not disappear. Rather, it goes into the cash register. From there, it is used to pay the farmer for fresh vegetables, the canning factory for canned goods, or the clerk's wages. The farmer or the clerk or the employee of the canning factory will in turn use the money to purchase goods. Once more, the same money is used for final purchases. The same dollar bill can circulate round and round."[19]" Chdouglas (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this person's argument is fallacious on two counts, and you demonstrate the "false analogy" of this person's argument. Orthodox economics is hardly a "science" that can accurately predict future outcomes. In fact, other than the weatherman, there probably isn't a profession that can be so consistently wrong while still maintaining employment. In other words, the analogy between orthodox economics, and those who support the theory that the earth is spherical, combined with Social Credit and the "flat earth theorists" is false. Chdouglas (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your opinion... or mine... about whether mainstream economics is science or rubbish irrelevant. Economics is a recognized discipline of knowledge, and there is a significant body of literature addressing every aspect of it. In the context of this dialogue, social credit theory was discarded in the economic literature circa 1933, shortly after Douglas' publication. It is a requirement of NPOV that when a viewpoint (such as social credit) is not mainstream, it:
"should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained."
argumentum ad populum ? Perhaps. But this is the Wikipedia NPOV standard nonetheless.

I never said that "mainstream" economics was rubbish. Now you're attempting to put words in my mouth. What I said was that economics is not a "science" where the vast majority of economists are in agreement, or other economic theories are capable of accurately predicting outcomes. Like the old joke, put two economists in a room, and you'll get three opinions. The point I made was that your analogy was false. All economic schools of thought are the "minority view", because the majority does not belong to any of them. In other words, your analogy in regards to Social Credit and the belief that the earth is flat is a false analogy, so the article itself does not violate the standards of Wikipedia.

The purpose of the article is to elaborate on the theories and history of Social Credit. The article does not say that "this or that is true", and it always states that "Douglas believed", or "in this view", or "Douglas thought". Also, the article is thoroughly referenced. There are many articles on orthodox economics and other views if people want to read about them. In fact, some are linked in the article itself. Your intention is to impose your viewpoint into the article, and that is against Wikipedia standards. Chdouglas (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further, why don't you show the fallacy in Douglas's analysis, since if you say it was rejected circa 1933 it should be easy to do. By the way, the first Social Credit government was elected in 1935.Chdouglas (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on my knowledge of Social Credit, the Wikipedia article accurately describes Social Credit as presented by its originator, C.H. Douglas. I don't understand how it can be claimed to be a "minority view" and the claimant completely fails to substantiate his point of view. Helgenome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helgenome (talkcontribs) 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) Reply[reply]

On March 17, 2008, an unidentified editor (IP placed an NPOV tag at the top of the section "Critics of the A + B theorem and rebuttal" for this article. Later that day, the same unidentified editor moved the NPOV tag to the top of the article. An NPOV tag at the top of the page suggests that the entire article is in violation of Wikipedia policy. But the general content and history of this article and the discussion on its "talk" page strongly suggest otherwise. Based on all the above, I will remove the NVOP tag for inappropriate application.David Kendall (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Critics of the A + B theorem and rebuttal" sounds biased to me. PegArmPaul (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you could elaborate? I specifically put the section in the article to not sound biased. The section of the article mentions two major criticisms of the A+B theorem, and gives an "orthodox" explanation of the quantity theory of money. It then gives what was a "perceived" error in the theory, explains that Social Crediters deny the validity of the theory, and quotes from an official government of Alberta document in rebuttal to the quantity theory of money. I'm certainly willing to address any concerns with the article, but the original poster who stated the entire article is NPOV was "out to lunch" in my opinion, and just seeking to impose his opinion in the article. The article is meant to represent an accurate description of Social Credit, and it seems to me that the other poster had no valid arguments against Social Credit, so he wanted to alter the article. Chdouglas (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, I have added to the "Critics of the A+B theorem and rebuttal" and quoted an article that states that the A+B theorem has met with almost universal rejection by academic economists. However; I also posted Douglas's reply to the criticism of the article (even though the reply was not directed at the article, it's the same old criticism that is always made against the A+B theorem). I am doing my best to work with you, because I DO want to present a fair article on the subject. Like I said, I just want to put the information out there in an honest and objective manner so that the reader can decide. Chdouglas (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re “Neutral Point of View”:

The complaint of the critic seems to be that the author has done too good a job of exposition on the economic doctrine. He seems alarmed (and quite possibly surprised) that elements of C.H. Douglas’ ideas could be put together into a coherent argument. Were that not the case, it would be unnecessary to balance the exposition with arguments supporting the majority opinion that it is a flawed, absurd and even dangerous doctrine. The objection that the doctrine is not mainstream is amply acknowledged in the article as it stands. The author’s purpose seems to be to provide an explanation of what Social Credit is about; the critic finds it persuasive and therefore dangerous to young minds unless balanced by a point-by-point reaction from economists who have disagreed. I suspect that if interrogated on the point, the author would affirm that many of the doctrine’s critics have reacted to issues that were not in fact part of the Douglas’ system, and that that is a reason for having undertaken this sympathetic but objective exposition. To then recite all of the objections that have been raised against the doctrine would call for an exposition of how Douglas devotees have answered them—unless the complaints are accepted as a definitive closure of the issue. A complete treatment of the objections would therefore entail an argument over the credibility of the mainstream or majority view of economics, the legitimacy of minority views generally, and ultimately the status of economics as ideology or science. That is more than enough content for a whole book.

It does seem that the critic would prefer to have the article focus on aspects of Social Credit that are specific to arguments among economists. To do so would give a distorted and excessively narrow picture of the subject. The author of this article has described the much broader scope embraced by Douglas’ vision. It is conceivable that the critic would be more contented with the treatment of the economics portion if the author were to re-cast the introduction of the article to give his subject a broader and more accurate appellation.

Douglas described Social Credit, more than once I believe, as “the policy of a philosophy”. In other words, Social Credit is an application of the philosophy, not the whole cheese. The policy end of Social Credit does constitute an economic doctrine and is therefore a justifiable target for criticism by proponents of other economic ideologies. I suspect that one of the problems that Douglas proponents have had with his critics stems from a failure on both sides to recognize the differences between their fundamental premises or postulates. It seems that he developed a philosophical system but may have failed to develop and label it as such (?), although he was aware that his own worldview was eccentric in some respects. Instead, he charged directly into its implications for political economy and his philosophy became known for its policy doctrines rather than for its broader concept of nature and the human situation.

Philosophical systems are created by thinkers who begin from a set of premises (postulated statements of what is) and then deduce a wide range of implications from them. They sometimes (often?) find that they have to supplement the original set of postulates with some others in order to make the system hang together satisfactorily. That is the way that grand and influential systems as well as minor and forgotten ones are forged. The strength (sustainability) of the system depends upon the believability (realism) of the postulates (assumptions) and the logical rigor by which the deductions are developed. Systems that become widely accepted by having passed these tests repeatedly can and do erode eventually as some of the postulates are found to no longer pass the test of empirical reality. It is the job of professors of philosophy to assist their students in identifying the postulates employed by historically important philosophers so that the cogency of their systems can be evaluated and understood in light of historical context and the state of currently reliable knowledge.

Political economic ideologies are of this kind, notwithstanding claims to scientific status by some practitioners. The author of this article manifests a lively awareness of that observation; the critic’s perspective might be interpreted as favoring the view that mainstream economics is a better developed science. (But that is not asserted nor is it a clear implication of the complaints.)

I am suggesting that the debate over the economic content of this article might be more clear and satisfactory if the author revised it to conform with Douglas’ claim that it is deduced from a more general philosophy. That is, lay out the postulates that lie at the base of the philosophy. It would be useful to then contrast them to what the author may conceive as the postulates of a more mainstream ideology. The critic could perform a useful service here by participating in the development of that set of mainstream postulates. Readers would be served by being able to make their own judgments on the reality of the assumptions made by each side, and on the rigor by which each side employs them deductively. That, I believe, would be a more satisfactory way to approach the critic’s desire for “equal weight” than to simply assert mainstream reactions to particular points of the Social Credit economic doctrine. Such a to-and-fro does not serve readers’ interest in conceptual clarity.

Disclosure and disclaimer: I am a practicing and credentialed economist, but not a Social Credit partisan. My direct interest in Douglas’ own writings is mostly restricted to the decade just past. My comments about philosophical systems are my amateur distillation from discussions with professional philosophers over many years. These were not interrogations on specific topics, just friendly exchanges with acquaintances having a broad range of attitudes and interests that overlap with mine. Reflecting on what I have learned from them leads me to infer that Major Douglas had constructed a fairly complete philosophical system for himself. (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 3/26/09Reply[reply]

Sorry I don't have a wikilogin... not a wikipedia troll and have no particular interest in this article other than the fact it is blatently biased, and fails wikipedia NPOV standards.
I have replaced the POV tag and will queue for arbitration. The point is quite simple really. Would you say Social Credit (the economic thory) is a mainstream economic view, held by a majority or significant minority today, not circa 1933? If so, please cite sources. If not, please re-read the NPOV requirments.
I object to any removal of the NPOV tag until arbitration is completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
update, now I have a logon. Informal mediation requested. If we are not able to resolve in that way, I will escalate appropriately.

Go ahead and escalate it.

As I've stated before, no economic "school of thought" is mainstream, and any criticism that you make in this regards could be applied to every single article on economic schools of thought. The article is on Social Credit, not mainstream economics. In other words, it's designed to give an accurate description of Social Credit. There is an entire section devoted to criticisms to the A+B theorem, so I don't know how you can claim the article is "biased".

It's obvious from your reqest for mediation that YOU want to re-write the article( "I realize that in an ideal world, I should write an article that conforms to the proper standards."), yet I guarantee that YOU know nothing about Social Credit. What you're trying to do is put your point of view into the article. The article itself is thoroughly referenced, and I guarantee you that your opposition is that it's too good, so you have no other criticism than to attempt to find a "loophole" in Wikipedia policy to distort the truth on the subject.

I have attempted to work with you, and have added a statement in the article in regards to the Criticsms to the A+B theorem and rebuttal, and have asked for your input. Instead, you simply put a tag on the article. The first comments in this section are from a professional economist, which I assume you are not. Chdouglas (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your "attempts to work with me" have been a farce... your responses are not germaine to my criticism. Also, I have to point out that the NPOV tag was removed without any consensus being reached, requiring me to re-post it. I belive this shows your intent rather clearly.
The aspects of wikipedia NPOV which I have quoted extensively are hardly loopholes, rather they are essential parts of the NPOV. As I stated, I actually have NO desire to re-write the article. However, I do insist that appropriate standards be followed. Hopefully mediation or arbitration will resolve this. If needed, I will also post on some other appropriate pages to attract the attention of properly qualified people to add weight to this debate, but the essence remains unchanged - - innapropriate presentation of a non-mainstream view.
I also think I've finally figured out what is really going on here, therefore I will make the following disclosure... I am not in any way affiliated with any political party. I expect the posters here to disclose any associations they may have, particilarly with Social Credit political parties and their derivatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I did not remove the NPOV tag, and if you check the history of the article, you will see that. I have changed the article based upon your comments on neutrality. I changed the opening sentence to demonstrate the Social Credit is the policy of a philosophy, which Douglas described as "practical Christianity". I also added to the critics to the A+B section where I quoted an article that states that Douglas' A+B theorem has met with rejection by the vast majority of academic economists. Instead of specifying your complaints about the article, you chose to put a tag on the entire article, which is why I believe that David Kendall removed it in the first place.

Your attempts to label this article in that manner is based on false analogy. Economics is not a science where the vast majority of academics are in agreement. Like the old joke goes, put two economists in a room, and you'll get three opinions. That joke is based upon the reality of the situation. As the initial poster, who is a professional economist, points out, "To then recite all of the objections that have been raised against the doctrine would call for an exposition of how Douglas devotees have answered them—unless the complaints accepted as a definitive closure of the issue. A complete treatment of the objections would therefore entail an argument over the credibility of the mainstream or majority view of economics, the legitimacy of minority views generally, and ultimately the status of economics as ideology or science. That is more than enough content for a whole book. "

I'm willing to work with you, but you have not given any specific criticism of the article, and I do not intend to re-write the entire article. The article is thorougly referenced, and in my, and other's, opinion, an accurate depiction of Douglas' theories and the history of the Social Credit movement.

Chdouglas (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than disputing neutral-point-of-view issues according to Wikipedia guidelines, the critic(s) of this article seem to vehemently oppose many of the views related to Social Credit. But a difference of opinion on one or more issues does not justify placement of an NPOV template across an entire article. So I removed the template for inappropriate application on March 20, 2009.
Moreover, the views of C.H. Douglas regarding Social Credit are clearly presented as the views of C.H. Douglas throughout this article. The fact that C.H. Douglas was the originator of "Social Credit" along with historical disputes against his theories seem to be well represented throughout several sections of this article.
To dispute Social Credit as a "minority" or "obsolete" economic theory, contemporary critics should provide additional documentation for their disputes within the body of the article supported by citation of reliable sources in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines -- not arbitrarily place an NPOV template at the top of the article. David Kendall (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, some unidentified user (IP [vandal] placed an NPOV tag at the top of this article without identifying any specific passage of text within the article that might be objectionable. This individual cannot (or will not) provide any justification for their action except that they do not agree with the principles outlined in the article.
If this is the appropriate application of an NPOV tag according to Wikipedia guidelines, then Wikipedia has no business calling itself an "encyclopedia", and I have no business doing business with Wikipedia.
Once again, I'm removing the NVOP tag for inappropriate application. David Kendall (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Mr. Kendall. I spent hours, upon hours, researching and writing that article to summarize Douglas' ideas while maintaining Wikipedia standards. Now anyone who does not like Douglas' ideas can come along and place a tag on the entire article, because in their opinion, they believe that it's a supposed "minority view" according to Wikipedia standards, the article has to include content which is already available in other articles on Wikipedia.

The article is supposed to be about Social Credit, which was developed by C.H. Douglas. The article does not attempt to demonstrate the validity or invalidity of Douglas' analysis, because the article is always clear to state that this is Douglas' view.

It should be obvious to any outsider what is going on here, and the initial poster in section 12.1 picked it up immediately -

"The complaint of the critic seems to be that the author has done too good a job of exposition on the economic doctrine. He seems alarmed (and quite possibly surprised) that elements of C.H. Douglas’ ideas could be put together into a coherent argument. Were that not the case, it would be unnecessary to balance the exposition with arguments supporting the majority opinion that it is a flawed, absurd and even dangerous doctrine. The objection that the doctrine is not mainstream is amply acknowledged in the article as it stands. The author’s purpose seems to be to provide an explanation of what Social Credit is about; the critic finds it persuasive and therefore dangerous to young minds unless balanced by a point-by-point reaction from economists who have disagreed." Chdouglas (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The critic continues to insist that the article is "blatently [sic] biased". He continues by affirming that "The point is quite simple really. Would you say Social Credit (the economic thory [sic]) is a mainstream economic view, held by a majority or significant minority today, not circa 1933?" If that is the key objection to the article as written, then the issue should be easily resolved. The author has not claimed that it is a lively subject of debate among the current generation of economists. Would the critic be satisfied if this degree of disinterest were affirmed at the outset of the article? That is, it might be introduced by describing the article as an archaeological "dig" to exhume the foundations of a debate that did evoke some reactions from established economists in the 1930s but that has disappeared from view since the 1950s? This would make it an object of interest for only the curiosity of antiquarians. Is that what the critic would like as a contextual excuse for presenting the exposition of principles? Does he want the author to go so far in emphasizing the disinterest of economists that he finds it necessary to apologize for making the exposition at all?

The archaeological metaphor really is not accurate, for the name Social Credit is "out there" and it is consequently a fit subject for explanation in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the writings of Douglas and interest in them among a few scholars did not completely wither away. It seems that a few academics have managed to devote some considerable amount of their professional time to keeping the subject alive. Would the critic be satisfied if the nature and extent of this "legitimate" activity were quantified in the article? Could it be? The critic seems to want the article to affirm that "Social Credit is abhorrent to all economists." If that is in fact what is wanted, then it begs the question of what restrictions are placed on the definition of "economist". The critic should supply his criteria. (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia editing/discussion so I apologise if this contribution doesn't meet formatting standards. This article is comprehensive and clearly well-researched. However I have to agree that it subtley fails to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standard. Social Credit is a fringe view which is held (to the best of my knowledge) by virtually no mainstream economists today. Since the article describes a fringe view, it requires explanation as to why mainstream economists no longer agree with Social Credit. The current weighting of S.C. critiques in this article is definitely out of balance. Not only that, but the author of the article has given Douglas and Social Credit supporters the last word in responding to critiques in the article. This further obscures the degree to which Social Credit is a discredited theory.
-Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nick, no need to apologize. The article is on Social Credit, not economics in general. If the article was on economics, and there was an "undue weight" given to the Social Credit position, then your statements might be valid. However, as it stands, the article is about Social Credit, and the article does not state that Douglas was correct, it only states that this is what Douglas believed, or "in this view". The criticism to A+B theorem and rebuttal was added to give the reader an opportunity to see what the criticisms of Douglas' theories, and how Douglas rebutted them. This part of the article is given equal weight, since there is always a criticism and a rebuttal. I'm interested that you state that Social Credit is a "discredited theory", but you fail to add anything as to how it was discredited (is this just an assumption?). You are free to add to the article in terms of the criticism, just as I'm free to add to the rebuttal. As an author stated above, "To then recite all of the objections that have been raised against the doctrine would call for an exposition of how Douglas devotees have answered them." I have tried to be fair in the article, by posting the criticisms to Douglas' theories in the article itself. I do find it "odd" that suddenly professional economists are once again gaining interest in Douglas, and I have referenced some in the article. I'm of the opinion that Douglas started with such a completely different set of assumptions that most economists did not understand his position. If you go to the "external links" part of the page, there is a pamphlet entitled "The Douglas Theory, a Reply to Mr. J.A. Hobson", which is a reply by Douglas to Mr. Hobson's (who was an economist) criticisms of Douglas' theories. Chdouglas (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The NPOV Gun[edit]

Wikipedia's NPOV tag is not an all-purpose automatic weapon that critics can whip out of their holsters and brandish anytime they don't agree with the content of a Wikipedia article.

The critics of this article remain unidentified and refuse to specify which particular passages of the article might be in question. They complain that Social Credit is a "minority view", but refuse to identify any "mainstream view" for comparison. They claim that non-mainstream views must be clearly identified as such according to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. But they provide no Wikipedia reference to support their claims.

Quite the contrary, the "undue weight" argument is invalid if not ridiculous. If this article was about a broad subject like Capitalism or general Economics, then excessively detailed discussion of Social Credit would certainly bear "undue weight" within that article. But in an article about Social Credit, detailed discussion of Social Credit seems extremely pertinent and necessary. In fact, detailed discussion of other theories would bear "undue weight" in an article that is focused primarily on Social Credit. Since this article is focused on the theories of Social Credit originated and advanced by C.H. Douglas, even other interpretations of Social Credit should be subordinate in this particular article to the views originally expressed by Douglas himself.

The "fringe theory" argument is also implausible. According to Wikipedia: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

This article is well documented with verifiable citation. Moreover, Social Credit has been a globally recognized economic theory for nearly a century. Historic and contemporary arguments in favor and against Social Credit clearly establish its notability as valid subject matter for a Wikipedia article.

Chdouglas should be reminded: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This message appears at the bottom of the Editing Box every time you edit an article, and it is Wikipedia's general policy regardless of how many hours you've spent editing an article.

Unidentified critic(s) of this article should be reminded: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

Meanwhile, the critics of this article remain unidentified, they refuse to specify which particular passages of the article might be in question, and they either don't understand or deliberately abuse Wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully, this feedback will help to resolve those problems now and in the future.

David Kendall (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the entire section above this one - as well as the almost complete absence of any reference or exploration of criticisms of social credit economic theory. Dodge rambler (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dodge ramble- the NPOV tag has been removed as per the conversation above. The tag is not something to be used because you disagree with the content of an article. The article itself does have an entire section devoted to critics of the A+B theorem and rebuttal, plus it references Pullen and Smith's article which states that the A+B theorem has met with almost universal rejection by academic economists and why. If there's something you would like to add to the section in terms of critisms of the A+B theorem, please be my guest. I want the article to be as accurate as possible. But please do not put a NPOV tag on the article because you disagree with the content of the article. Thank you. Chdouglas (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry CH but the issues brought up in have not been dealt with. There is more to criticise about Social Credit than just the A + B theorem and this article still reads like a promotion/apologia. Dodge rambler (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry Dodge, but the issues were dealt with. The opening paragraph was changed, and the section on critics to the A+B theorem was added to. If you have a SPECIFIC criticism, perhaps we can work towards a solution, but in the meantime, the tag has been removed until you either give specifics, or add to the article (but please be sure to reference your material). The NPOV tag is not to be used because you disagree with the content of the article. And the article itself is very careful to state that "Douglas believed" or "in this view". It does not state that "this view" is correct. Chdouglas (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article still not conforming with Wikipedia:NPOV[edit]

This article is clearly lacking balance, and even the tone of it is written from the point of view of a Socred activist, e.g., "While Douglas believed our cultural heritage is the primary factor in increasing our wealth, he also believed that economic sabotage is the primary factor decreasing it." and also, "Douglas called attention to the excess of production capacity over consumer purchasing power, an observation that was acknowledged by John Maynard Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money," which implied that Keynes specifically accepted and acknowledged Douglas's proposition (and which I have already modified slightly to be neutral). The other comments are correct, and the changes that have been made are not sufficient to address the points in Talk:Social Credit#Neutrality of Article.

Until the entire article conforms with NPOV in its entirety, it needs a disputed neutrality tag. This means a lot of work and is not simply about specific criticisms. See Keynesian economics and Chicago school of economics for articles that are good examples of balanced, NPOV writing despite being controversial topics in many circles -- and Supply-side economics for one that fairly and reasonably has a "disputed" tag on it.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 11:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bcorr:
I'm willing to do anything to help improve this article, but I cannot do it without specific criticism. I honestly believe your criticism of the article is strictly about the article, not its content. Whereas these other critics simply did not like the fact that Social Credit could be put together in an article in a coherent fashion, and were simply looking to discredit it.
You say the sentence "While Douglas believed our cultural heritage is the primary factor in increasing our wealth, he also believed that economic sabotage is the primary factor decreasing it." is biased, but I don't understand how? This IS what Douglas believed. I never said or implied it was true. I don't understand how this is "biased". Again, there is a section on the "critics to the A+B theorem, and Douglas' rebutal". Would you prefer the criticisms and the rebutal in a separate section apart from each other? I know the articles you refered to as being unbiased had different criticisms seperated and without rebuttal. I do think in the issue of fairness that Douglas' rebuttal to these criticism should be published.
Chdouglas (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi C.H. -- thanks for your note. Your question makes sense. To examine that where the article is in variance with NPOV, I'll take the example that I cited and you asked me about. While the statement itself is absolutely literally true, by using terms such as "our wealth" it puts both the reader and the writer into a context where (for lack of a better metaphor) we included in the story while we learning at the feet of C.H. Douglas. Perhaps unintentionally, the tone throughout the article tends to make us sympathetic to Douglas and his point of view.
Some of the key things that I think will help this article are found in:
The other things I should say is that you shouldn't feel you must the responsibility of fixing the entire article; as all editors work on it, they can be conscious of this and modify it accordingly. It's nothing terrible or dishonourable for an article to be labeled as NPOV, nor is it a challenge to those who've worked on it. It's just a flag to readers and editors that it's a work in progress, and it needs some loving attention in one or more specific aspects.
Regards, BCorr|Брайен 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Bcorr:
Thank you. That is definetly constructive criticism. And I can easily change that sentence without changing the meaning of it. My concern when these tags first started appearing on this article was that the people putting the tags on the article were simply doing it because they disagreed with the content of the article. I have spent a great deal of time researching and sourcing information to build this article, and I'd hate to see it destroyed by those who simply do not like the message. Changing the tone or verbiage of the article is not an issue, and I invite your critique in that regard.
Perhaps you can help me change it, by providing specific criticisms along the way? I want to be involved so that the message of the article is not changed. Other encyclopedia articles were written by people who know nothing about the subject, and they are full or errors obvious to anyone who has taken any time to study the subject.
Chdouglas (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I'm not around Wikipedia as much as I used to be, but I'd be happy to check in here every couple of days and try to help you improve the article. I will see if I can identify other specifics, and perhaps I can look at it from the point of view of someone not terribly familiar with the topic (which I think is actually helpful in an encyclopedia), but with a lot of experience editing here.
Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, thanks for your help. I appreciate it. And I welcome the critique of someone who is not familiar with the subject, because then it allows me to address issues that I may think are clear (because I understand the subject), but are not really clear to those unfamiliar with the subject. I have taken the time to address the particular concerns you addressed above, and I hope these are satisfactory. If you can also point out other specific examples, I would be more than happy to change the wording or tone. I appreciate your help, and look forward to working with you.
Take care. Chdouglas (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Areas that need some help[edit]

Hi C.H. -- this is sort of a drive-by post, but the section Social Credit#Political history needs a bit of work, I think. It characterizes why people opposed social credit without any references, and sounds more like opinion than fact. Maybe it's just a matter of not going into why Labour opposed it? Also, it raises the issue of whether there is true social credit (i.e., the ideas of Douglas) and other things that are not really social credit (see how the term in in quotes when describing Aberhart's government in that section).

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bcorr:
I will work on referencing that paragraph, and perhaps altering the wording or pulling it. I'm unclear about the meaning of the last sentence. If your asking whether the Alberta Social Credit Party promotes the ideas of Douglas, I would argue that it probably hasn't done so in any meaningful fashion since Aberhart. Could you please clarify that last sentence, and I'll work on altering the paragraph about Social Credit and the Labour Party.
Thanks. Chdouglas (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly the whole thing is in need of work, not just this or that section. It's a long, absurd SoCred screed vaguely disguised as an encyclopedia article. EvanHarper (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screed? The purpose of our discourse is to create an accurate article on Social Credit. The article is thoroughly referenced, and there are longer articles articles on Wikipedia than the article on Social Credit. If you have some constructive criticism, I'm willing to work with you to help improve the article. If the purpose of your comments are merely a drive by criticism based upon your opposition to the concept, then we will leave it to Wikipedia to arbitrate. Chdouglas (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bcorr:

I have finally found the reference for the paragraph about Social Credit and the Labour Party, and referenced the statement about the Fabian's comments. Is there anything else you can think of that you would like me to work on? Please let me know. Chdouglas (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bcorr: Since you haven't responded to my note on the discussion page for this article, or the note left on your discussion page, I have to assume that everything has now been rectified, so I have removed the NPOV tag. If you have any further concerns, please let me know. Chdouglas (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A+B clarification[edit]

First I should say I do not find this article to be particularly biased, and does a good job of describing Social Credit to someone who is not intimately familiar like myself. I agree that economics is far from an exact science and perhaps some of Douglas's views may be pertinent still in view of the recent economic upheavals.

However, I am totally unable to grasp the A+B theorem and as it seems a fundamental piece of the socred argument I am hoping someone can enlighten me.

It is stated:

"Group A - All payments made to individuals (wages, salaries, and dividends). Group B - All payments made to other organizations (raw materials, bank charges, and other external costs)."

"since A will not purchase A+B; a proportion of the product at least equivalent to B must be distributed by a form of purchasing-power which is not comprised in the description grouped under A"

I fail to see the distinction between A and B. The amount paid for raw materials for instance, will be paid to another organization which presumably also has empoyees to be paid in the form of wages, salaries and dividends which will create at least a portion of the missing purchasing power. Similarly at least some of the bank charges will go to salaries of bank employees (who presumably also need to feed, clothe and house themselves) and will therefore create additional purchasing power. Unless I am misinterpreting, the missing B of one organization is simply the A of another and taking the economy as a whole will cancel the stated problem, if not wholly, at least in large part.

Where I do believe Douglas has hit the mark is the fact that as technology improves there is an inherited dividend that is constantly accruing to society as a whole. Over time we should be lowering the amount of labour required to produce any given item, and the benefits should be distributed though some mechanism not to just to a privileged few but to all individuals.

But here we are entering the realm of social policy not economics. Once we go there, sky's the limit: are company executives worth their salaries which are hundreds of times that of line employees? should we focus society's resources on meeting basic needs for food and housing, or on green initiatives, or should we focus on the latest model of cell phone or television? Should we focus on lowering the number of hours worked per week or will that lead to an indolent population that will spend its social dividend on "popcorn and beer"? (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, with respect to your concerns relating to Douglas' A+B theorem, it must be remembered that Douglas is referring to income and prices as flows. This means that time is an essential element of his analysis.

"“The mill will never grind with water that has passed, and unless it can be shown, as it certainly cannot be shown, that all these sums distributed in respect of the production of intermediate products are actually saved up, not in the form of securities, but in the form of actual purchasing power, we are obliged to assume what I believe to be true, that the rate of flow of purchasing power derived from the normal and theoretical operation of the existing price system is always less than that of the generation of prices within the same period of time.” (C.H. Douglas, “The Monopoly of Credit”)
Social Credit philosophy regards the individual as the most important aspect in society. This means individuals should be free to do what they want with their free time, and if that includes consuming popcorn and beer, so be it. However, I would argue that it is a faulty economic system which ties purchasing power solely to work which creates a social environment where the philosophies of materialism and consumerism reign supreme. We are constantly being bombarded with the message to consume because we have to produce more and more waste in order to distribute incomes necessary to consume goods that people actually desire. In order for this "wasteful" production to continue, we have to sell people on the necessity of the product being produced. Douglas spoke about this phenomenon in the 1920's in his book, "Economic Democracy":
"But it may be advisable to glance at some of the proximate causes operating to reduce the return for effort ; and to realise the origin of most of the specific instances, it must be borne in mind that the existing economic system distributes goods and services through the same agency which induces goods and services, i.e., payment for work in progress. In other words, if production stops, distribution stops, and, as a consequence, a clear incentive exists to produce useless or superfluous articles in order that useful commodities already existing may be distributed. This perfectly simple reason is the explanation of the increasing necessity of what has come to be called economic sabotage ; the colossal waste of effort which goes on in every walk of life quite unobserved by the majority of people because they are so familiar with it ; a waste which yet so over-taxed the ingenuity of society to extend it that the climax of war only occurred in the moment when a culminating exhibition of organised sabotage was necessary to preserve the system from spontaneous combustion.
The simplest form of this process is that of " making work " ; the elaboration of every action in life so as to involve the maximum quantity and the minimum efficiency in human effort. The much- maligned household plumber who evolves an elaborate organisation and etiquette probably requiring two assistants and half a day, in order to " wipe " a damaged water pipe, which could, by methods with which he is perfectly familiar, be satisfactorily repaired by a boy in one-third the time ; the machinist insisting on a lengthy apprenticeship to an unskilled process of industry, such as the operation of an automatic machine tool, are simple instances of this. A little higher up the scale of complexity comes the manufacturer who produces a new model of his particular speciality, with the object, express or subconscious, of rendering the old model obsolete before it is worn out. We then begin to touch the immense region of artificial demand created by advertisement ; a demand, in many cases, as purely hypnotic in origin as the request of the mesmerised subject for a draught of kerosine. All these are instances which could be multiplied and elaborated to any extent necessary to prove the point. In another class comes the stupendous waste of effort involved in the intricacies of finance and book-keeping ; much of which, although necessary to the competitive system, is quite useless in increasing the amenities of life ; there is the burden of armaments and the waste of materials and equipment involved in them even in peace time ; the ever-growing bureaucracy largely concerned in elaborating safeguards for a radically defective social system ; and, finally, but by no means least, the cumulative export of the product of labour, largely and increasingly paid for by the raw material which forms the vehicle for the export of further labour.
All these and many other forms of avoidable waste take their rise in the obsession of wealth defined in terms of money ; an obsession which even the steady fall in the purchasing power of the unit of currency seems powerless to dispel ; an obsession which obscures the whole object and meaning of scientific progress and places the worker and the honest man in a permanently disadvantageous position in comparison with the financier and the rogue. It is probable that the device of money is a necessary device in our present civilisation ; but the establishment of a stable ratio between the use value of effort and its money value is a problem which demands a very early solution, and must clearly result in the abolition of any incentive to the capitalisation of any form of waste.
The tawdry " ornament," the jerry-built house, the slow and uncomfortable train service, the unwholesome sweetmeat, are the direct and logical consummation of an economic system which rewards variety, quite irrespective of quality, and proclaims in the clearest possible manner that it is much better to " do " your neighbour than to do sound and lasting work. The capitalistic wage system based on the current methods of finance, so far from offering maximum distribution, is decreasingly capable of meeting any requirement of society fully. Its very existence depends on a constant increase in the variety of product, the stimulation of desire, and in keeping the articles desired in short supply." ( C.H. Douglas, "Economic Democracy" pge 74-78)"

Chdouglas (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Land for the Chosen People Racket[edit]

To the person who keeps removing the link to Douglas' article, "Land for the Chosen People Racket", please stop, or I will have to escalate this to Wikipedia. The article is a reference source to Douglas' opinion of land taxes in relation to Henry George. The article was published in the Social Crediter, and was authored by C.H. Douglas, so it pertains to the article on Social Credit. Chdouglas (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not removed a link to an article. I have removed a link to a personal website. Links to personal websites can not be cited as reliable sources for factual content in Wikipedia articles. The removed personal website address did not link to Douglas' 42 page article, and the short amount of altered text (including the orange edited print) could have come from, quite frankly, anywhere. Please stick to using sources that meet Wikipedia's WP:RS requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I have a copy of "Land for the Chosen People Racket", and there is nothing added or removed from the link I have provided. The policy you quote states that personal websites cannot be linked as reliable sources, but it does not state that original articles posted on private websites cannot be linked as reliable sources. The comments highlighted in orange are merely highlighted, not added. The personal website you removed IS THE 42 PAGE DOUGLAS ARTICLE "Land for the Chosen People Racket", it is merely re-printed on that website. If Wikipedia did not allow for re-printed versions of books or articles stored at "private" websites to be used as references, there would be VERY few references at Wikipedia. If you want to verify the source, I will email the article. Chdouglas (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have misread the Wikipedia policy, or have misunderstood its intent. We cannot link to personal websites (regardless of the content therein) when citing reliable sources. There is no editorial oversight of the content at that website. Even if content at that site is accurate today, it may not be tomorrow - and we cannot rely on that as a source for our factual content. If the material in question has been verifiably published somewhere, then why do you not cite that published material as your source, instead? Just leave the links to websites (where the owner can modify the content on a whim, with no oversight) out of our articles. As you noted, Wikipedia does allow content from websites that qualify as reliable sources. The personal websites of editors do not so qualify. If you want further confirmation of this, or wish to argue the issue further, I'd recommend dropping a note at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.
(As a side note, highlighting some sentences instead of others in a document is a minor form of editorializing - and we don't cite editorialized sources to support factual content. Additionally, I see but one page at that website link - not 42.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will reference the document and put the online article as an outside source. Chdouglas (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you have referenced the document, although page numbers indicating the specific sections of the document being referenced would be helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The website link has removed the page numbers and put them all together. The entire article is reproduced at that website. While we're on the subject of external websites as sources, can you take a look at reference number 8 at the following article , and see if it needs to be removed. Thanks Chdouglas (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked at the reference you mentioned in the Douglas article, and that source should not be used to support statements of fact (such as quotes by Douglas). That site might be used as a source of opinions held by the WSM organization in some cases, but it isn't a reliable source of information about things other than WSM. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labor Theory of Value[edit]

I think the introductory paragraph under "Economic theory" can be worded better - production, wealth, value are being slopped around, muddying anything distinctly promoting a "cultural inheritance of society" as the "primary factor in production".

First of all, the first two sentences create a false distinction - both Adam Smith and David Ricardo promoted a labor theory of value, and Marx recognized factors of production. I'm not saying this to be picky, I simply don't understand how this sets up Douglas' arguments to be different - surely he is not dismissing land and labor as factors of production, but is highlighing the historical and social nature of the productive forces (which is not too far from Marx).

Second, value is not the same thing as wealth, and different sorts of value are distinct from each other as well. Therefore, to say that Douglas "disagreed with Karl Marx who claimed that labour created all wealth" muddies the issue - especially when your link to the phrase "labour created all wealth" points to an article which has Marx explicitly stating "Labor is not the source of all wealth".

Every few years I try to understand social credit. Can it be explained in dialogue with other economic theories, or can a better means be found to distinguish from other theories? I think rewriting this section would be a good start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Casy (talkcontribs) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, your critique is very valid, and let's work to fix this section. Douglas' theories are different from classical economics in the fact that he contends that our "cultural inheritance" is the primary factor in production. Classical economics holds that land, labour and capital are the three primary factors of production. While Doulgas did not deny these factors of production, he claimed they were relatively unimportant compared to our cultural inheritance.
I studied economics in university, and origially tried to understand Social Credit in a way consistent with classical and Keynsian economics. I personally don't believe it can be done. This led to great frustration from my end. While there are a few similarities between Douglas' ideas and other economists, Douglas was generally operating from a completely different set of first principles in many instances: 1) Cultural inheritance the primary factor of production, 2) Money as a distribution/ticket system as opposed to a means of exchange, 3) accounting theory of costs and prices (A+B theorem) as opposed to a marginalist theory of prices, 4) real cost is consumption as opposed to opportunity costs, 5) scarcity is not a value..... I could go on and on.
I think one of the primary reasons his theories were rejected by academic economists is that they did not understand Douglas because he was speaking a different languange due to the fact that he was operating under completely different assumptions than most, if not all, economists in his time. Chdouglas (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, I altered the section, please let me know what you think. Thank you. Chdouglas (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Credere (latin word), was not for "to beleive", bot for "right". Debere (latin word) was for left. See invention of accounting in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi: I disagree, see link below:

"the Latin word credere (lend to, make loans, give credit; trust, entrust; commit) derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *kerd-"

Chdouglas (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is social credit?[edit]

I have to say I've never really understood what, practically speaking, Social Credit entails. If CH Douglas had been prime minister, what specifically would he have done to reform the currency?

I'm afraid the lead as it stands sheds no light on that, but provides vague metaphors like 'practical christianity', and 'distributive'. The lead should answer a very simple question: what, in literal terms, is social credit? TheMuteCoot (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MuteCoot:

C.H. Douglas would have issued a dividend and a price rebate to consumers. This is covered in the article under the compensated price and national dividend section.

Social Credit is "practical Christianity", and generally falls under a "distributive" philosophy (as opposed to "re-distributive"). The subject if far more complex than mere "monetary reform". Communists and fascists could be described as "monetary reformers".

In the first paragraph the article states, "Each citizen is to have a beneficial, not direct, inheritance in the communal capital conferred by complete and dynamic access to the fruits of industry assured by the National Dividend and Compensated Price."

That is the essence Douglas's policy in regards to monetary reform. If you want to find out why this policy is pursued by Social Crediters, then you have to read on the A+B theorem, and the section on compensated prices and dividends.

Many of the books that Douglas wrote can be found at the bottom of the article in the external links section of the article.

Take care Chdouglas (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bleeding in Debt[edit]

This website was moved from external links to groups influenced by Social Credit because the website promotes the use of interest free loans for production which is not a policy promoted by Douglas. There is enough confusion on this subject.

"The rapturous iconoclasm of certain groups of monetary reformers', to whom Usury", the sparring-partner of the bankers "inflation" is the Scarlet Woman of Babylon, has had the inevitable effect of encouraging the financial authorities to abolish, for practical purposes, the interest paid on undrawn current balances, and deposit accounts. We do not say they would not have done it anyway - the one thoroughly sound feature of the banking system was its dividends to shareholders and its interest payments to depositors which I jointly with the insignificant mint issues, provided almost the only fresh unattached purchasing-power. It is obviously lost time to beg of our amateur currency experts to consider whether they really mean what they ask, which is, the replacement of unattached purchasing-power by loans. But they must not complain if we, and others with us, regard them as propagandists for totalitarianism. " C. H. Douglas in The Social Creditor, Oct. 27, 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talkcontribs) 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits by Webb[edit]

Hi Webb:

While I appreciate your support for the subject, your edits are not helping at this point. They read too much like a promotion for the subject, which does not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia.

If you want to help create an initial summary of the subject, so that someone does not have to read the whole article to get the jist of it, I'm in full support of that.

I spent alot of time to create an accurate article on the subject, because the first article was not well researched and was full of errors. I also spend time defending this article from vandalism.

While I do appreciate your intent, the summary you keep posting does not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. This is not a vehicle to promote Social Credit. This is a vehicle to give everyone the truth about Social Credit, and if people want to find out more on the subject, or promote it, given the information here that is fine.

Chdouglas (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again:

Let's discuss a summary of the article. Your summary is not entirely correct, and it still reads like a promotion of the subject. A summary can be an introduction, or an overall summary, but it needs to summarize the Social Credit concept. Not speak to whether recessions will occur under a Social Credit society. I do not believe they will, but that is up to the reader to decide. Again, this is not a forum to promote Social Credit. It is a forum to give an accurate description of the subject. Also, your statement that in a Social Credit society people would "share" the wealth is not true. Social Credit does not seek to redistribute wealth. It seeks to distribute more wealth to everyone. Those two statements are not the same.

I have a feeling you are relatively new to the subject, but desire to promote it. There's different ways to do that, but this article on Wikipedia cannot be a means to promote this subject. It is merely a means to educate people on the subject. If they like what they read, all the better, but this article cannot be an advertisement.

If you want to work on a summary, I'm more than willing to help. Perhaps you can click on my wikipedia name, and we can discuss further. Or we can discuss it hereChdouglas (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've asked you several times now to discuss a summary of the article, and you simply refuse. I'm trying to work with you, but I'm not going to have someone who is not that familiar with the subject jeopardize the article, and publish incorrect information about Social Credit.

Nowhere did Douglas state that he wanted to end fractional reserve banking, or did he say that he wanted to "share the wealth". This is not Social Credit, and I'm now demanding you reference this summary. This is a summary that you want to put on there with your own interpretation of the subject without any reference to it.

I appreciate that you want to promote the subject, and I'd also be more than happy to help you do that. But this is not the vehicle to promote Social Credit. This is an encyclopedia article. I think a summary would be a good idea, but it has to be accurate, unbiased and referenced. Chdouglas (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Webb, are you "Javis" who posts on the occupy wallstreet website?

"Posted 5 days ago on April 2, 2012, 6:43 p.m. EST by Javis (18) This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I know that this is an ineffective way of trying to spread a concept, and I will come up with a short, effective summary as soon as possible, but I really, really, and truly believe that this is /the/ most effective solution to the economic problem with the least amount of calling people evil possible. Further reading is at:"

Chdouglas (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Webb:

I know exactly who you are (without actually knowing you personally) - you have written the exact same summary at your blog -

I like your blog, and believe that is a good way to "promote" Social Credit. This is not the vehicle to promote Social Credit, and if you keep vandalizing the article without any references, I'm going to have to take this up the ladder to Wikipedia administrators.

Your summary has to meet Wikipedia guidelines, and it has to be accurate. I believe that it is factually incorrect to state that Social Credit allows people to "share the wealth". I have read virtually everything that Douglas has ever written, and have been involved with Social Credit for over a decade. You will not be able to reference that statement. Social Credit is not about "redistribution" of wealth. It is about distribution of already existing wealth to everyone.

I like the idea of a summary. I'm not overly pleased with the introduction and I believe it could be improved. If you would like to discuss the summary, and discuss other issues with knowledgeable Social Crediters around the world, please join this email list:

We'd be glad to have you there to contribute.

Chdouglas (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chdouglas,

Sorry about not responding, I am new to Wikipedia and did not know this page existed. I went to your talk page and saw nothing. I am happy to discuss a new summary with you on this article. But first I need to mention that I did not write anything about redistribution of wealth, you have clearly misinterpret what was written, please stick to the facts and we can work together. I understand that this is not the arena to advertise social credit but I do want it to be understood by as many people as possible, as it is often taken as a reference point when people first come across social credit. It is very weak in this area. Please come up with a different summary so the contents can be understood much more clearly or highlight the areas you are unhappy with and I may come back with something that is much more acceptable for every one concerned.

Posted from email I sent you

I will no longer annoy you guys by adding my summary on the Wikipedia article. I believe what I have written to be accurate, It just does not fit into your description of what social credit is that's all. Below is a section I have taken from New Economics No 7 first published in 1935  

'NATIONAL CREDIT is the measure of the nation's ability to produce Goods and Services. THE NATIONAL DIVIDEND is a method of National Payment by Results according to the exact measure of National Credit achieved. THE NATIONAL DIVIDEND, therefore, is extra earning by and for the whole community and not merely something taken from Mr. A. and spent by Mr. B. It is not the class-war of politicians but a huge advance in the general well-being of the Whole People It means the Abolition of Poverty by an increase of distributed Real Wealth'.

I also wrote this, in response to this person below, when I worked out how to use the talk section. Dated 8 April 2012 Of course it is, the entire wealth and credit of a country including the wealth it creates belongs to the people, not the banks. They are the true share holders. Social credit utilizes this wealth to benefit the people. The dividend is used to compensate the price difference for the purchaser, more importantly it is used to increase the money supply when it falls to unacceptable levels. The government can build and maintain its infrastructure using the credit of the nation, minimizing taxes needed. Obviously the wealth is shared.

Please do not get me wrong, I am trying to help, not hinder the progress of social credit and apologise for any unintentional harm. I do respect you guys. I will join your email group if you guys are happy with this.

--Webb50 (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Webb:

I think it's a good idea to rewrite the introduction, or give the article a summary. However, the summary cannot promote the subject. This is not a vehicle for promotion. It must be accurate, objective and referenced. I will be more than happy to work with you on this project to help improve the article.

The article you reference above about the National Divedend was not written by C.H. Douglas. There are many people who have misinterpreted Douglas' ideas over the decades, and that's why it's important to give the reader an accuarate depiction of what Douglas was actually saying. Therefore, I think it's vital to use Douglas' works as references. Subtle wording errors can be misinterpreted by readers. Further, the dividend is only one aspect of Douglas' proposed monetary policies. The price rebate mechanism is the other. Chdouglas (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusing tag[edit]

I added the tag because I read the first paragraph and still have no clear idea what social credit is. I think it needs to be rewritten to summarize the concept in the first sentence before going into tangential explanations. —Torchiest talkedits 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

==Ironically, I was just working on re-writing the first paragraph. I'll post my revisions, and you can tell me what you think. Chdouglas (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 21:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I altered the opening paragraph slightly, and looked at the article on Keynesiasm for an example, but I don't see much difference? The opening sentence states that Social Credit is an economic philosophy developed by C.H. Douglas. I added a second sentence that defines the words "Social" and "Credit" and how they relate to the philosophy. I guess I need to understand what you are looking for? What is "confusing". You cannot sum Social Credit in a sentence. In fact, it was very difficult to summarize it in a encyclopedia article. Social Credit is much more than "monetary reform" and the A+B theorem. Douglas said it was "the policy of a philosophy", so it's essential to establish the philosophy of Social Credit before delving into the policies. Why don't we start with the parts that you find confusing? Chdouglas (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the nature of the power to be distributed? And does "absolute economic security" mean? I understand it's a large concept, but the first paragraph is a bit too larded with buzzwords, especially the last sentence: "In other words, Douglas did not seek to build a utopia, but to set the conditions upon which each individual can build their own utopia." All of the parts I mentioned read more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. —Torchiest talkedits 16:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I have clarified the nture of power to be distributed to individuals. Absolute economic security would be where people are absolute secure in their economic affairs. I'm not certain what you're looking for. The policies of Social Credit are designed to allow the individual the most economic freedom given the need for association in economic affairs. As capital and technique replace labour in production, mankind should be given the freedom and security offered by this progress. Currently, the economic system offers "unemployment" and the business cycle as a logical consequence of labour being replaced by capital and technology in production. In other words, the current accounting system brings economic insecurity with progress. Social Credit would reverse this. Douglas did not seek to bring about his own version of utopia, but he sought to give people the most freedom possible in order that they can bring about their own utopia. I understand that the first paragraph is a little "vague", but the philosophy has to be stated first before economic/political theories and policies can be discussed. Social Credit is a complete system just as Marxism is a complete system. There's much more to it than monetary reform and the A+B theorem. Those are important aspects of it, but its philosophy is the most important element. Philosophy is sometimes "vague". I still am not certain exactly what you're looking for? Chdouglas (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it reads too much like an apologia. I'd suggest replacing some of those parts with direct quotes, if, for example, Douglas used the term utopia in his work. —Torchiest talkedits 19:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again. How does it read like an apologia? Is it the last sentence about utopia that you have a problem with? This is the exact quote which I reference from the last sentence of the opening paragraph. It's from a pamphlet "Major Douglas Speaks" on page 41, Douglas said, "..what we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own." Chdouglas (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Okay, let me try presenting you with a possible rewrite that trims out the confusing parts and focuses more on the core of the concept first:

Social credit is an economic philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (1879–1952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924. Social credit is a interdisciplinary distributive philosophy, encompassing the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting, and physics. Its policies are designed, according to Douglas, to disperse economic and political power to individuals. Douglas once wrote, "Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic."[1] Douglas said that Social Crediters want to build a new civilization based upon "absolute economic security" for the individual, where "they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid."[2][3] In his words, "what we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own."[4]
  1. ^ Douglas, C.H. (1974). Economic Democracy, Fifth Authorised Edition. Epsom, Surrey, England: Bloomfield Books. p. 18. ISBN 0-904656-06-3. Retrieved 12 11 2008. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ Douglas, C.H. (1954). "Cover". The Douglas Quarterly Review. The Fig Tree, New Series. Vol. 1, no. June. Belfast, Northern Ireland: K.R.P. Publications (published 1954–55). Cover. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |nopp= ignored (|no-pp= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date format (link)
  3. ^ Micah 4:4
  4. ^ Douglas, C.H. (1933). "Major C.H. Douglas Speaks" (Document). Douglas Social Credit Association. p. 41. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |publication-place= ignored (help)

Like I said, there is so much extra terminology and phrasing in that first paragraph, it muddles things to a point that it gets confusing. Do you think my version still includes the essential details, or have I misstated anything? —Torchiest talkedits 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good. I guess I tried to add stuff over time to add clarity, but sometimes it only creates more confusion (KISS principle). I'm totally fine with that rewrite.Chdouglas (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I'll put it into the article and remove the confusing tag. But perhaps look into reworking the rest of the lead in a similar way? —Torchiest talkedits 03:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LETS Local Exchange Trading System[edit]

Unless I'm mistaken, the LETS was influenced by social credit, having read up on advocates of it years ago. Neither article on wikipedia mentions, and LETS is calling it "mutual credit" instead of social credit.

Someone should look up and add references if found - as LETS would be an example of a working system using the social credit idea.

reply - LETS I'm not sure how the idea of LETS was influenced by Social Credit since there's very little similarity between the two ideas? One is an alternative currency (LETS), the other is an issuance of debt free credit to consumers (Social Credit).


Turmel Book Reports:

David Astle: The Babylonian Woe The very best book on the history of money ever written by someone who had a full understanding of the banking system engineering. Self-published, it is priceless.

Major Clifford Douglas: Social Credit First engineering analysis of the funding shortage.

Louis Even: Quebec Social Credit Optimized the social credit model to end up with LETS

Bishop Peter Selby: Grace and Mortgage

Mike Rowbotham: Confronting Tyranny

Monetary Reform Quarterly

Goldsmith & Walker: New Local Currency Systems Wonderful stories of Timedollar successes.

Consumercard Essay

"Proteus" by Morris West with a move for the UN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A552:8200:95E4:7594:C606:4C50 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And not one of those links you provided was written by C.H. Douglas. Many people, like John Turmel have taken ideas from elsewhere, and called them Social Credit. This is to gain legitimacy for their own ideas. LETS has nothing to do with Social Credit. Chdouglas (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we get some criticisms of the theory?[edit]

I'd like to see a section on criticisms of the concept by outsiders. Are there any? And no, the accusations of Anti-Semitism aren't enough. That doesn't directly engage probable economic flaws in the concept. Ventifax (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a whole section of the article devoted to criticisms of Social Credit and their rebuttal in addition to the section on anti-Semitism. What more are you looking for, specifically? Chdouglas (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Social credit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alliance of the North[edit]

I'm curious about whether this is/was a socred party - I haven't found much info that wasn't on their website but the party colour was green and their platform on Money and Banking was "Money and Banking: The Alliance will launch a criminal investigation on Banks" which sounds like something that be Socred influenced. It was a Quebec party - so would something like the Ligue of St. Michel have talked about them - or would anyone be aware if he ever stated any connection or influence? Unfortunately I don't know French so I'm kind of limited in my research on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talkcontribs) 05:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese Social Credit Ranking System[edit]

C.H. Douglas Social Credit is in no way related to the Chinese Social Credit ranking system, and whoever keeps adding links to the article and removing my changes that make this point in the article, please stop, or I will report this as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talkcontribs)

That is literally why Template:About exists. (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead neutrality/rewrite[edit]


I believe the lead for this article veers from the intended purpose of the lead. According to the MoS, the lead should succinctly summarize the topic in a basic, clear, and accessible manner. It should also be concise, and include controversies if applicable. Given that this article's lead fails to clearly define social credit, includes a number of flowery quotes from Douglass, discusses a number of facts more suitable for the "History" section, and fails to include detractors of social credit, I believe a rewrite of the lead is in order. I believe a new lead should begin by defining social credit, then briefly discuss how and why social credit was theorized, then elaborate on what social credit entails, and finally touch upon its reception with both positive and negative views on the matter. Thoughts?

--Amtoastintolerant (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And your lead is now incorrect. The encyclopedia Brittanica is a horrible source for this material. That's why I sourced original material. I'm certainly not against working with you to improve the article in any way, but the changes must be correct. I already went through a major change in the lead paragraphs, and a major battle over "neutrality". Again, I don't mind improvements to the article, but won't have the material vanadalized to promote a non-neutral view on Social Credit, which is what happened before under the guise of "neutrality". I spent too much time writing this article and sourcing it to have people use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source. In fact, it was the inaccuracy of encyclopedia articles like the Encyclopedia Brittanica that prompted me to write this article in the first place.Chdouglas (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have adjusted the wording of your lead slightly in order to make it correct. Have a look at it.

Social Credit and Modern Monetary Theory[edit]

As a layman, MMT and Social credit look quite similar to me. I am not the only one who thinks so.

I'm not qualified to say the extent to which they're similar or dissimilar... but since we have CH Douglas himself editing this page, maybe he can tell us? Risingrain (talk)... Why it matters 10:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]