Social Credit Economic System
In Robert Heinlein's book For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs the main focus is the economic system used in 2086. This system is called Social Credit and was coined in 1924 by Major C.H. Douglas in his book Social Credit ("Social Credit by Major Clifford Hugh Douglas"). The Social Credit theory of economics focuses on how every person is important to society. Believers in Social Credit economics also believe that it is the solution to many of the economic problems facing the world today (Bridger, Forward). However, like almost any economic theory it has problems that make it impractical and problematic.
The basic foundation of Social Credit is the recognition that, as individuals run institutions, they should therefore be superior to those institutions. It claims that all people need sufficient purchasing power for the economy to remain secure. Therefore, the primary concept is that people are provided with a regular dividend check from the government. This practice is justified by the belief that since every person's family has contributed to technology or general knowledge at some point in history this check is reimbursement for that contribution (Bridger, Forward). The government would expand the use of fiat money to fund these checks (Heinlein, 97-98). Fiat money is defined as “currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, but is not backed by a physical commodity”. While the idea that the government could just print as much money as they wanted was a revolutionary idea when Heinlein was writing For Us, The Living almost all modern paper currency is fiat money (Fiat Money). This use of fiat money shows the first issue with the Social Credit theory. When the government prints fi...
... middle of paper ...
...nal trade becomes impossible. This is yet another problem with the Social Credit system.
Social Credit aims to establish a more perfect society. The ultimate goal of the movement is to establish an economy free of the problems that plague the present system. Social Creditors go as far as to suggest a society where a combination of technological advancements, coupled with the proposed dividend checks eliminate the need for people to work in production. This, they claim would increase the amount of leisure time that people have and would create a golden age of cultural nurturing and flourishing. (Bridger, §6). However, Social Credit has several problems in its principles that make its adoption highly impractical at the current time. this has been shown in Alberta, Canada where Social Credit was attempted, but failed soon after due to numerous issues (“Social Credit”)
The history of welfare systems dates back to ancient China and Rome, some of the first institutions known to have established some form of a welfare system. In both of these nations, their governments created projects to provide food and aid to poor, unemployed, or unable families and individuals, however these were based on “moral responsibility.” Later in history, in 1500’s England, parliament passed laws that held the monarchy responsible for providing assistance to needy families by providing jobs and financial aid. These became known as “poor laws” (Issitt).
He states that the financial system was based on competing state banks with no central bank which promoted a rapid economic growth. As the American banking system developed the money supply developed with it. The federal government began the banking system through the issuing of specie but as the capitalist system developed the banking structure developed as well. During the Civil War, the North printed Greenbacks that drove gold from the domestic circulation to help pay for war necessities. The Greenbacks, however, were rarely used in the South expressing the different economies of the North and the South at the time of the Civil War. With differing economies and the growth of specie and paper money, Brands argues that the basis of knowledge about the money system of this time lays a foundation for how Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others were able to manipulate the market and gain wealth. Leading into price manipulation by those in corporate
In my opinion, social programs are essential to the economic health of both citizens and the country as a whole. Programs such as public education and income support (ex. The GST/HST tax credit for low-income earners) serve as financial equalizers which allow for improved standards of living, and, as a result, increased economic activity. The reasoning behind this is that a more even distribution of wealth results in more consumer spending because money that would otherwise be held in the brokerage accounts of the upper class, for example, are instead used to fulfill the basic needs of the lower class. Additionally, programs such as public healthcare and employment insurance provide financial and psychological stability to citizens and helps to maintain a healthy economy. Although the system can be abused, it does not occur in a majority of cases and I would argue that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
Driscoll, S., & Konczal, E. (2009). Social Security: Guide to Critical Analysis. Points of View:
Throughout this assignment a variety of terminology will be used, first it is appropriate to define what the term ‘Social Policy’ means. Social policy can be defined in different ways and ‘there is no established or agreed definition of social policy’ (Baldock et, al., 1999:21). From reading different books on social policy, the author’s understanding of social policy is it provides guidelines to deal with social problems . Social problems are matters which direct...
While many believe that social welfare in the United States began with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal plan, the first American movement towards welfare came from a different Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt. He stated in his New Nationalism address that “every wise struggle for human betterment” objectives are “to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity... destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and the commonwealth” (Roosevelt). Behind such a speech with charged language about democracy and fundamental equality, Roosevelt was instituting welfare programs such as limiting word days, setting a minimum wage for women, social insurance for the elderly and disabled, unemployed social insurance, and a National Health Service. After his proposal came Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom initiative, FDR’s aforementioned New Deal, John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society (Historical Development). While social welfare is steeped in America’s history, there is a very contemporary debate on its effectiveness and ethicality. People argue that the reason welfare has such a long history in America is because it helps people get out of poverty, equalizes opportunities, reduces crime, and helps children; in essence, that welfare works. Many in opposition to welfare disagree, citing that the system creates a culture of dependence, is easily abused, hurts the middle class and costs the government too much on a system that isn’t wholistically addressing the needs of the American people.
People are poor because there’s something lacking in them, and changing them is therefore the only effective remedy. From this he suggests doing away with public solutions such as affirmative action, welfare, and income support systems, including “AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and the rest. It would leave the working-aged person with no recourse whatsoever except the job market, family members, friends, and public or private locally funded services.” The result, he believes, would “make it possible to get as far as one can go on one’s merit.” With the 1996 welfare reform act, the United States took a giant step in Murray’s direction by reaffirming its long-standing cultural commitment to individualistic thinking and the mass of confusion around alternatives to
...hown to be a fundamental socioeconomic transformation. My paper has shown many aspects of the market society, by using a number of theorists’ concepts. I focused on the characteristics of a market society, as well as why this transformation from traditional society was so significant. I also discussed the changes that have taken place in the workplace and the impact on the workers, which these material conditions became apparent throughout time. Lastly, I explained Weber’s idea of “economic rationality” and the worldview of people in a market society, to show how workers rationalized the work they put into the production and distribution of material goods. Generally, this paper’s purpose was to show how the market society has established itself over time, and how both material and ideological conditions interacted and changed the ways we view market society today.
The Affluent Society was founded in 1958. A little information about Professor Galbraith, a Harvard economics professor. Served on many of the US president’s staff as well as he was a great writer. A lot of his theory is based on Keynesian economics. This book, The Affluent Society, is part of a trilogy.
Money has evolved with the times and is a reflection of the progress of man. Early money was a physical commodity, grain, gold or silver. During the vital stage, more symbolic forms of money such as certificates of deposit, bank notes, checks, letters of credit, bonds and other forms of negotiable securities came into prominence. Social development transformed money into a trust, “In God We Trust' it says on the back of the ten-dollar bill.” (The Ascent of Money, 27)
The market today has become so important that society takes it as completely natural. From “The Economic Problem” Heilbroner describes three main solutions, with the market being one. Furthermore into the market, Polanyis book “The great Transformation” gives insight on how much society actually allows the market to dominate. To Polanyi a market society is seen as social relations embedded in the economy instead of the economy being embedded in social relations. Examining both of these books gives a great understanding on how life was without the market and how it came to be. Taking note of Rineharts work as well on how the workplace has drastically been changed by the market is key to analyzing the transformation as a whole. As a result of the transformation, not only has human labour been altered, but another author known as Weber states that certain peoples view on the world have also be affected. This essay will establish how “the great transformation” (Polanyi) from a traditional society to one based on a market economy has vastly impacted societal workplaces, and societal beliefs around faith of idealogical conditions.
In academic discourse concept reemerged in the 1980s in France and then spread in most European countries, Latin and North America, and Asia. In the beginning of 21st century the social economy is considered as a possibility for a “third way” of development after the collapse of state-controlled economies and the criticism of liberal economies.
Our lives are greatly affected by our culture, ecological environment, political environment and our economic structure. The overarching method of organizing a complex modern society relies heavily on the founding economic theories regarding method of production, method of organization, and the distribution of wealth among the members of. This paper, specifically deals with the views and theoretical backgrounds of two dominant theories of the past century, Keynesianism and Neo-liberalism. Our social economic order is product of the two theories and has evolved through many stages to come to where it is today. The two ideologies rely on different foundations for their economic outcomes but both encourage capitalism and claim it to be the superior form of economic organization. Within the last quarter of the 20th century, neo-liberalism has become the dominant ideology driving political and economic decisions of most developed nations. This dominant ideology creates disparities in wealth and creates inequality through the promotion of competitive markets free from regulation. Neo-liberal’s ability to reduce national government’s size limits the powers and capabilities of elected representatives and allows corporations to become much larger and exert far greater force on national and provincial governments to act in their favour. Hence, it is extremely important at this time to learn about the underlying power relations in our economy and how the two ideologies compare on important aspects of political economy. In comparing the two theories with respect to managing the level of unemployment, funding the welfare sates, and pursuing national or international objectives, I will argue that Keynesianism provides far greater stability, equ...
The invention of money was a major improvement in peoples’ lives. In the past, people usually had to travel all day to find the person who is willing to exchange their goods. In addition, the goods people want to exchange did not have the standard value of measurement. This led to unequal exchanges. Furthermore, it is not convenient to carry heavy goods from one place to another for an exchange. To solve these issues, money will be the only solution. Later, people tend to develop money from cowry shells to credit cards for the convenience and to improve their society.