Talk:Social credit

New Zealand & US "Greenback Movement"

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 99.249.128.98 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There has only ever been one NZ SC MP (An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.40 (talk • contribs) (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 persuasion.it is reported that 14 were monetary reformers.xx

Canada & article split

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)

Flaws in "many of Douglas' ideas"?

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 pratice. -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 (talk • contribs) (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 (credi)money (not cash/legal tender) all the time by lending more and more. Only about three per cent (tree out of one hundred) of the total money supply is in the form of notes and coins, i.e legal tendeder. 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)

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)

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. Bernake 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 fallicious, 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)

Direct Credits Society?

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. - robgood@bestweb.net, 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)

Antisemitic?

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)

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)

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. 194.221.40.3 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

the theory

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)

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)

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)

Talk page cleanup

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to Technocracy's Energy Credit

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)

Complete rewrite

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)

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)

Ezra Pound

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)

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 (talk • Chdouglas (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

   [2]

Robert Searl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Doctrine of Incarnation

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)

Read the philosophy of Social Credit section Chdouglas (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Chdouglas (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Critics of Social Credit

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 76.68.167.186 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Neutrality of Article

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

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV

"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 24.130.172.122 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 219.88.47.75 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Yes, this person's argument is fallicious 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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.238.233 (talk)

On March 17, 2008, an unidentified editor (IP 24.130.172.122) 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)

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

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)

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)

=====================

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 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 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 a constructed a fairly complete philosophical system for himself.67.193.226.125 (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 3/26/09

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 67.180.60.210 (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

update, now I have a logon. Informal mediation requested. If we are not able to resolve in that way, I will escalate appropriately.