Social Credit

[Meeker]

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

WTF is this shit?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

WTF is this shit?

A stupid idea dreamed up by people who clearly never passed economics in high school or stopped to consider where the raw supplies for businesses come from. Hint: They don't magically turn money into them.

[Sensei]

well, if there were ever a documentary about Social Credit, the subtitle would be Meeker's post.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Replace any reference to "workers" in Marxist doctrine with "consumers" & the result probably wouldn't be that far off from Social Credit.

     Needless to say, Meeker's comment is spot on.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, I've never understood at all what Social Credit was. And I've also never understood why it was so popular (relatively) for like 30 years in Canada and New Zealand.

[Verily]

Yeah, I've never understood at all what Social Credit was. And I've also never understood why it was so popular (relatively) for like 30 years in Canada and New Zealand.

Not really. Parties that called themselves Social Credit were somewhat popular in both countries. But those parties all dropped Creditism from their platform after the mid-1930s when it became obvious that it was a crackpot theory (and after the Canadian courts refused to allow the Alberta SoCred government to actually carry out any of its Creditist plans).

In Canada, at least, the SoCreds became just your standard hard-right conservative party, sort of the opposite of the NDP, and then later morphed into Quebec separatists. I'm not so familiar with what happened to the party in New Zealand.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They used to win a few seats every now and again on the old Rugby borough council. Rugby is a strange place.

[Person Man]

It sort of sounds a lot like Bush's idea for an "ownership society", where people would be lent money to buy their posessions and then work for it....we know how that went.

[Hash]

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

WTF is this shit?

A bad theory made up by people who had no clue what economics is. William Aberhart was a radio preacher and high school principal. In power, the SoCreds were either crooks or social conservatives.

[Person Man]

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

WTF is this shit?

A bad theory made up by people who had no clue what economics is. William Aberhart was a radio preacher and high school principal. In power, the SoCreds were either crooks or social conservatives.

Yeah, that's what I didn't understand...the SoCreds seem to have allied themselves with the Religious Right...or at least with their principles...

[Hash]

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

WTF is this shit?

A bad theory made up by people who had no clue what economics is. William Aberhart was a radio preacher and high school principal. In power, the SoCreds were either crooks or social conservatives.

Yeah, that's what I didn't understand...the SoCreds seem to have allied themselves with the Religious Right...or at least with their principles...

In Canada atleast, the SoCreds were the religious right.

[Person Man]

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

WTF is this shit?

A bad theory made up by people who had no clue what economics is. William Aberhart was a radio preacher and high school principal. In power, the SoCreds were either crooks or social conservatives.

Yeah, that's what I didn't understand...the SoCreds seem to have allied themselves with the Religious Right...or at least with their principles...

In Canada atleast, the SoCreds were the religious right.

Hmmm...BRTD is going to have a stroke with these generalizations...but how come?

[Verily]

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

WTF is this shit?

A bad theory made up by people who had no clue what economics is. William Aberhart was a radio preacher and high school principal. In power, the SoCreds were either crooks or social conservatives.

Yeah, that's what I didn't understand...the SoCreds seem to have allied themselves with the Religious Right...or at least with their principles...

In Canada atleast, the SoCreds were the religious right.

Hmmm...BRTD is going to have a stroke with these generalizations...but how come?

They originated as a political force in the left-wing religious movements that were common at the onset of the Great Depression, and indeed for many decades previous, in the western US and Canada. Think the US Populist Party, William Jennings Bryan, Canada's United Farmers, etc. But their economic ideology was stymied by courts and by reality, which meant they governed primarily as social conservatives in their early days while making occasional attempts to force through creditist economic models. Later on, as economic rightism and social conservatism became more closely intertwined in Canada as in the US, they became a fully right-wing/conservative party.

After some research into the New Zealand Social Credit Party, it appears that they retained their creditist ideology throughout their existence. They were also a later phenomenon, only rising to prominence in the late 1950s, first winning seats in the 1960s, and surviving as a political force until the late 1980s.

[prussia]

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

WTF is this shit?

If you want to know, you can ask the person who wrote the article.

[Person Man]

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

WTF is this shit?

A bad theory made up by people who had no clue what economics is. William Aberhart was a radio preacher and high school principal. In power, the SoCreds were either crooks or social conservatives.

Yeah, that's what I didn't understand...the SoCreds seem to have allied themselves with the Religious Right...or at least with their principles...

In Canada atleast, the SoCreds were the religious right.

Hmmm...BRTD is going to have a stroke with these generalizations...but how come?

They originated as a political force in the left-wing religious movements that were common at the onset of the Great Depression, and indeed for many decades previous, in the western US and Canada. Think the US Populist Party, William Jennings Bryan, Canada's United Farmers, etc. But their economic ideology was stymied by courts and by reality, which meant they governed primarily as social conservatives in their early days while making occasional attempts to force through creditist economic models. Later on, as economic rightism and social conservatism became more closely intertwined in Canada as in the US, they became a fully right-wing/conservative party.

After some research into the New Zealand Social Credit Party, it appears that they retained their creditist ideology throughout their existence. They were also a later phenomenon, only rising to prominence in the late 1950s, first winning seats in the 1960s, and surviving as a political force until the late 1980s.

So, is there any relationship between Bryanism, the So Cred Theorists and the Southern Strategy that allegedly has taken away so many "Dixiecrats" from the Democratic Party starting with the Nixon Campaign and the Southern Strategy? Is there any relationship between Social Credit Followers and the Economically Moderate Pro-Life Ethnic Nationalist Reagan Dixiecrats in places in the inland south? Perhaps there is a narrow theory of Social Credit Philosophy and then a much wider Social Credit Political Tradition that is divorced from the actual theory, but is made up the same political stances and alignment...i.e. Communitarian Nationalism.

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

WTF is this shit?

If you want to know, you can ask the person who wrote the article.

Are you the one wrote this article? As you see, I wouldn't mind if some of my questions were answered.

[prussia]

Are you the one wrote this article? As you see, I wouldn't mind if some of my questions were answered.

Yes.  I found this website through a saved google search on the term "Social Credit".

Ask away.

[Verily]

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

WTF is this shit?

A bad theory made up by people who had no clue what economics is. William Aberhart was a radio preacher and high school principal. In power, the SoCreds were either crooks or social conservatives.

Yeah, that's what I didn't understand...the SoCreds seem to have allied themselves with the Religious Right...or at least with their principles...

In Canada atleast, the SoCreds were the religious right.

Hmmm...BRTD is going to have a stroke with these generalizations...but how come?

They originated as a political force in the left-wing religious movements that were common at the onset of the Great Depression, and indeed for many decades previous, in the western US and Canada. Think the US Populist Party, William Jennings Bryan, Canada's United Farmers, etc. But their economic ideology was stymied by courts and by reality, which meant they governed primarily as social conservatives in their early days while making occasional attempts to force through creditist economic models. Later on, as economic rightism and social conservatism became more closely intertwined in Canada as in the US, they became a fully right-wing/conservative party.

After some research into the New Zealand Social Credit Party, it appears that they retained their creditist ideology throughout their existence. They were also a later phenomenon, only rising to prominence in the late 1950s, first winning seats in the 1960s, and surviving as a political force until the late 1980s.

So, is there any relationship between Bryanism, the So Cred Theorists and the Southern Strategy that allegedly has taken away so many "Dixiecrats" from the Democratic Party starting with the Nixon Campaign and the Southern Strategy? Is there any relationship between Social Credit Followers and the Economically Moderate Pro-Life Ethnic Nationalist Reagan Dixiecrats in places in the inland south? Perhaps there is a narrow theory of Social Credit Philosophy and then a much wider Social Credit Political Tradition that is divorced from the actual theory, but is made up the same political stances and alignment...i.e. Communitarian Nationalism.

No. At least, not ideologically. Creditism gained credibility among impoverished farmers who had no clue what economics was, the same farmers who happened to be at the forefront of things like the Populist Party, Prohibition and women's suffrage shortly before. Trying to pin it all down in a modern context is hopeless and confused. But these were largely deeply religious people--often opposed to nationalism, at least initially, thus the tepid support for WWI at best in the Great Plains--who were struggling in the US and Canada because of the gold standard. Creditism offered an alternative in Canada, where the ideology took off enough to gain control of the Alberta legislature.

Don't try too hard to connect it to Dixiecrats or the modern Republican Party. The connections just aren't there, or where they are, they're ephemeral. Suffice to say, the political ideologies in the Plains and Mountains have changed radically while hardly changing at all since the genuinely Creditist period in Alberta.

[Person Man]

I thought there was no connection at all...but it seems that politics makes strange bedfellows...gee...

[k-onmmunist]

They used to win a few seats every now and again on the old Rugby borough council. Rugby is a strange place.

It's also the place I was born

But yeah, social credit never really caught on in the UK. Apart from the Green Shirt nutters who were basically fascists.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No offensive to Prussia but the article makes it sounds like (and I mean this mainly in the use of language) to economics what Alternative medicine is to actual medicine.

Some of Douglas's ideas are interesting and underplayed by classical economists, but then like so many New Age herbalists, mixes good sensible insight with quasi-crackdown notions which have the advantage of cultural and populist appeal (see "The nature of Money and Credit" section). Therefore it probably isn't surprising they eventually fell into strong conservatism.