notes on critiques of social credit
need a better understanding of this, herman daly proposed the same basic scenario and i'd really like to find out if it's flat-out madness. if it's not it would be pretty revolutionary but in a way political majorities would support and honestly possibly major sections of business? possibly. maybe...in france...or germany... hmm.
the arguments against:
*when responding to the critique that the 10% reserve rate allows banks to profit from the creation of money ad hoc, the response is that much real work is done in banking. this is an inane response unless its purpose is outright dissemulation (sp? i really should remember how to spell that). this does not challenge the basic points at all, that banks profit via loan interest etc. from a government-created manouver that fundamentally is grounded in paper and law, not material production. even if the rates of profit for banks weren't obviously too egregious to allow this argument, the issue still remains that priavte entities are given dominant control over the development of the economy based on government entitlement. (10% reserve rate and FDIC)
*when responding to the "guild" claims, authors say that they would still be government because they are not private enterprise. this is horseshit, and either they're idiots or once again practicing ideological dissemulation intentionally or no. a "guild" of the distributive sort is functionally a labor cooperative. it is quite possible to create such things leaving all market laws in operation. if they are annoyed that such organs would provide for any non-market services at all, i'm curious if they believe in finding friends and lovers on the open financial market (if they have either) fucking apes.
they would deny the very freedom that allows any society to exist whatsoever, namely the freedom to assemble. amazing how lowly that freedom is considered, especially in comparison to speech or arms.
*of course a distributist proposal might also include nonprofit banks. they would by definition not be usurious. and they can be independent of transient political solutions to economic issues.
that was also a criticism, that giving government the sole prerogative to invent money would equate to solving economic problems only by enlarging the money supply. whereas the claim is clearly that this would be based on economic factors, which it obviously already is. they do enlarge the money supply arbitrarily, and prudent business logic would have dictated this be tied to the general productive possibility of the economy. there's no reason a government couldn't do this in the same manner as a bank, except that it would reduce political insulation. credit unions can and do accomplish the same things (i wonder what their reserve rate is, probably the same, it'd by funny if it was higher, a damned hoot). or as shards once suggested, municipalities in limited forms for explicitly politically-grounded efforts. leaving it at municipal or regional levels would prevent a central body such as a federal "bank" from monopolizing all power of wealth creation.
the arguments against:
*when responding to the critique that the 10% reserve rate allows banks to profit from the creation of money ad hoc, the response is that much real work is done in banking. this is an inane response unless its purpose is outright dissemulation (sp? i really should remember how to spell that). this does not challenge the basic points at all, that banks profit via loan interest etc. from a government-created manouver that fundamentally is grounded in paper and law, not material production. even if the rates of profit for banks weren't obviously too egregious to allow this argument, the issue still remains that priavte entities are given dominant control over the development of the economy based on government entitlement. (10% reserve rate and FDIC)
*when responding to the "guild" claims, authors say that they would still be government because they are not private enterprise. this is horseshit, and either they're idiots or once again practicing ideological dissemulation intentionally or no. a "guild" of the distributive sort is functionally a labor cooperative. it is quite possible to create such things leaving all market laws in operation. if they are annoyed that such organs would provide for any non-market services at all, i'm curious if they believe in finding friends and lovers on the open financial market (if they have either) fucking apes.
they would deny the very freedom that allows any society to exist whatsoever, namely the freedom to assemble. amazing how lowly that freedom is considered, especially in comparison to speech or arms.
*of course a distributist proposal might also include nonprofit banks. they would by definition not be usurious. and they can be independent of transient political solutions to economic issues.
that was also a criticism, that giving government the sole prerogative to invent money would equate to solving economic problems only by enlarging the money supply. whereas the claim is clearly that this would be based on economic factors, which it obviously already is. they do enlarge the money supply arbitrarily, and prudent business logic would have dictated this be tied to the general productive possibility of the economy. there's no reason a government couldn't do this in the same manner as a bank, except that it would reduce political insulation. credit unions can and do accomplish the same things (i wonder what their reserve rate is, probably the same, it'd by funny if it was higher, a damned hoot). or as shards once suggested, municipalities in limited forms for explicitly politically-grounded efforts. leaving it at municipal or regional levels would prevent a central body such as a federal "bank" from monopolizing all power of wealth creation.