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”)
In Alexander Kern’s “Emerson and Economics,” Kern draws attention to the economical aspects found in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s texts. Specifically, Kern discusses the lack of attention that Emerson’s economical notions receive. Emerson is not associated with being an economist writer, but Kern draws attention to how “he so frequently touched the subject than an understanding of his economic ideas is a prerequisite to the evaluation of his entire thought on any relative or absolute scale” (Kern 678). Kern’s theory that readers must extract the economics out of Emerson in order to comprehend his texts is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of viewing Emerson as an economist, yet he views Emerson as a moral philosopher because of the author’s views towards society. Alexander Kern’s call to view Emerson as an economist is yet to be answered. Moreover, it is crucial to evaluate Emerson as an economist in order to analyze his texts differently. Consequently, using economics to evaluate Emerson’s “Self Reliance” in a new way will show it is meant to be a call for social reformation. More specifically, by considering the economic panic of 1837 and its effects on Emerson’s views towards society, a new way to interpret “Self Reliance” is achieved.
Initially, the Social Security Act of 1935 generated a nationwide organization proposed to distribute financial assurance for the nation's workforces. This Act was set out to provide for society to the une...
This essay will look at defining what social policy is and give a brief overview of the selected policy. Examining the need for the policy, statistical evidence supporting this. Then the pressure groups lobbying and who may have been influential in policy development.
The American economy struggling originates from people taxing themselves as a result of idleness, pride, and folly, leading to a downward economic spiral. For the economy to return to a low unemployment rate and little to no debt people may want to read “The Way to Wealth” in order to learn about industry and how to avoid future money mistakes. Franklin wrote a persuasive sermon in order to convince people to change the financial status created from idleness, pride and folly. In the modern society American people need to create a stable economy for both themselves and the future generations. In order to understand the importance of unemployment rates and debt rates in comparison to Franklin’s “The Way to Wealth” idleness, pride and folly must be analyzed in
The interplay and relationship between Social Darwinism and Social Welfare in the United States typify the nation's struggle to make the best of a capitalist society, while at the same time correcting pitfalls. Social Darwinism in our capitalist society compares wealth with fitness, but historically, unregulated markets given the false sanction of natural law have proven out that Darwinist economic competition has a destructive side for society. The role of raw power, the frequency of failure and the spirit of want has out of necessity, fostered a fiscal and monetary policy defined as social welfare, in order to conserve some commitment and core of resistance to the corrosive impact of market power on the nation's social bonds. Social welfare emerged out of the fray, a public drive to provide the salve of predictability in the private sector. Both of these instruments of American society are in interconnected and independent.
Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity, written by James Gwartney, Richard Stroup, Dwight Lee and Tawni Ferrarini, explains the foundation of economics and how it all works in all aspects of our lives from the role of the government trickling down to personal credit cards and savings. This book was written with clear language for the audience to understand and comprehend the large amount of information within its condensed size. The authors’ target audience for this book seemed to be for those individuals wanting to learn the mechanics of economy including economic growth and stability. Gwartney separates his book into four parts: Part I, Twelve Key Elements of Economics, Part II Seven Major Sources of Economic Progress, Part Three Economic Progress and the Role of Government, and Part IV Twelve Key Elements of Practical Personal Finance.
The morality of social welfare systems, or the morality of crafting laws to aid American citizens in poverty, is a subject that (like myriad ethical issues) is hotly debated to say the least. For example, some opponents of social welfare institutions maintain the view that such programs "increase the reward or reduce the penalties" of poverty; thereby ostensibly making an impoverished state appealing even to people who might initially have been motivated to earn a living by conventional means. In other words, welfare programs (according to opponents) encourage otherwise productive individuals to embrace laziness, for basic human needs would be met by such institutions, eliminating the need to work at all. Those opposed to social welfare plans have also been known to claim that an "unfair burden is placed upon workers who must pay for the system." When one considers the above opposing views, it would then stand to reason that proponents of social welfare programs might maintain that it is the moral responsibility of working citizens to provide assistance and funding for programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Food Stamp program, or the like. This supposition is confirmed upon examination of the notion that, when basic human needs such as "food, housing, and medical care" are not met, one is consequently rendered unable to uphold any level of social freedom. Given the above information, one can safely deduce that modern supporters of social welfare organizations are under the impression that such programs provide the impoverished masses with the means by which to obtain the level of general well-being vital to acquiring work in the first place.
In Scott Russell Sanders’, “The Common Life”, he puts forward the conflict between an individual and society. Sanders recognizes the importance of individual activities, or as he said “seasons of withdrawal from responsibility”. On the contrary, Sanders declares that this surplus in no responsibility can steer to “a career of being unaccountable”. Sanders’ declarations are well founded when the proof is inspected.
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.
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
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.
Unemployment rates in Canada are alarmingly high. With increased globalization and unsteady labor markets more Canadians have had to rely on income assistance programs provided by the government. This paper will examine the public welfare policy of Employment Insurance by outlining the programs history, outlining the services it provides and offering possible reforms to better address the needs of Canadians. Since its enactment in 1940 EI has gone through significant changes in the structure and nature of the policy. Assessing the effectiveness of social welfare policies because important in times of economic uncertainty Canadians should be provided the services they pay to regularly. This paper is divided into three sections. First, the history of the program will be outlined, this includes analyzing key reforms, ideology of the first program and how it got to where it is today. Second, I will touch briefly on the main government departments that are in charge of administrating the program and services provided, and look at key pieces of legislation governing Employment Insurance. Lastly, I will introduce reforms that I feel would more comprehensively address the needs of Canadians and allow this piece of legislation to be an asset to Canadians in times of need. There needs to be more comprehensive criteria that allows people to maximize the
Social Darwinism is a late 19th century term used to describe the application of British naturalist Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection to social and political conditions. Late 19th century sociologist Herbert Spencer tried to capture the essence of social Darwinism with his phrase “survival of the fittest”. This essentially meant that the strong would rise to the top while the weak simply died out. Social Darwinists eschew social responsibility and compassion, instead believing that some people are more fit to survive than others. Many social Darwinists advocated that the government should maintain a laissez-faire, or hands off, approach when it came to regulating economic competition and alleviating social inequalities. Social Darwinism was used to justify the consolidation of the majority of wealth by a minority of Americans. The term allowed people to rationalize capitalism, imperialism, racism, and even eugenics. The wealthy believed in social Darwinism because it allowed them to justify their oppressive business tactics and low wages for their labor force. Politicians believed in it because it allowed them to justify imperialism, or expansion of the nation. Affluent Anglo-Saxons believed in social Darwinism, believing themselves to be the superior race, and used it to justify ...
Social welfare dates back almost 50 years, but through those years the real question is, what is social welfare? The interesting part of social welfare is that one persons definition or belief may be different from another’s belief. The truth is, not one person is right about the definition or ideology of social welfare. Social welfare programs have grown, shrunk, stabilized, and declined over the years, and today many believe that we are in a period of decline. The text “Ideology and Social Welfare” states that there are four different views to social welfare, all having their unique attributes. Personally, my view is a combination of the reluctant collectivists, the anti-collectivist, and the Fabian socialists view. I strongly believe that government intervention is necessary in order to control and regulate social welfare while keeping ethics in mind, but at the same time, it is not necessary for everyone. People have the ability to change their lives for the better with hard work and dedication. My opinion is just one of the hundreds that exist today, but as proven throughout history, not one person is necessarily right. The three approaches towards social welfare, the reluctant collectivist approach, the Fabian socialist approach, and the anti-collectivist approach, encompass critical points on social welfare and what can be done to avoid inequality.
Money is an essential part of life where every people can satisfy whatever they need and every person in America has a chance to find a job. However, some of the people in the country wanted to go on with their life freely by being a part of a welfare. Furthermore, distribution of wealth is a huge demand of every citizen. Everyone today is trying to look down for every people in the lower class, as they did not give any benefit to the country, waiting for the benefits that they will receive from the government. For instance, when most lower class people have gone through a financial crisis due to overspending, insufficient fund or pay for their work to support themselves and/or their family. The example shows that lower class people made the economy of the country unstable, however, the middle class and the higher class is at fault as well. Furthermore, even though the benefit of that the lower class received is from the middle class, the middle class as well benefits from the higher class. To sum up, every class is at fault towards giving the country’s economy a positive