Social Credit - är inte socialism

För att undvika missförstånd så vill jag framhålla att en ekonomi med samhällskredit inget har med socialism att skaffa - trots att ordet "social" förekommer.

Nej tvärtom, som Louis Even skriver i sin bok: In This Age of Plenty

Not Socialism

Because of the word social in the term “Social Credit”, some people erroneously assume it to be a form of Socialism, and automatically reject it. On the contrary, Social Credit is the best way to fight Socialism and Communism, and to protect private property and individual freedom. A Dominican Father, who had studied the Social Credit proposals, even wrote: “And if you want neither Socialism nor Communism, bring Social Credit in array against them. It will be in your hands a powerful weapon with which to fight these enemies.”

Och visste du att kongressen i USA 1932 godkände ett lagförslag om att införa social credit, men att det sedan gick lite snett trots allt. Men nära var det, verkligen nära:

The Goldsborough bill

No, there is no need for new parties; only the education of the people is necessary. Once the pressure from the public is strong enough, all the parties will agree with it. A fine example of this can be found in the Goldsborough bill of 1932, which was described by an author as a “Social Credit bill” and “the closest near-miss monetary reform for the establishment of a real sound money system in the United States”:

“An overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress (289 to 60) favored it as early as 1932, and in one form or another it has persisted since. Only the futile hope that a confident new President (Roosevelt) could restore prosperity without abandoning the credit-money system America had inherited kept Social Credit from becoming the law of the land. By 1936, when the New Deal (Roosevelt's solution) had proved incapable of dealing effectively with the Depression, the proponents of Social Credit were back again in strength. The last significant effort to gain its adoption came in 1938.” (W.E. Turner, Stable Money, p. 167.)

Robert Owen testified in the House, April 28, 1936:

“...the bill which he (Goldsborough) then presented, with the approval of the Committee on Banking and Currency of the House — and I believe it was practically a unanimous report. It was debated for two days in the House, a very simple bill, declaring it to be the policy of the United States to restore and maintain the value of money, and directing the Secretary of the Treasury, the officers of the Federal Reserve Board, and the Reserve banks to make effective that policy. That was all, but enough, and it passed, not by a partisan vote. There were 117 Republicans who voted for that bill (which was presented by a Democrat) and it passed by 289 to 60, and of the 60 who voted against it, only 12, by the will of the people, remain in the Congress.

“It was defeated by the Senate, because it was not really understood. There had not been sufficient discussion of it in public. There was not an organized public opinion in support of it.”