Spot the similarities

Gerry Eckhoff spots the similarities between social credit and quantitative easing:

. . . I intend to follow the current fashion and print money. Some of you will say that is a heinous crime deserving of the most severe punishment.

Counterfeiting, after all, destroys our monetary system. Society cannot allow the printing of money just because there is a need for more cash. Society’s politicians however now promote printing our own money to solve the world’s financial problems so I figured “sauce for the goose … ” If our politicians believe printing a couple of billion dollars annually to pay for their pet projects is such a good idea, then surely my idea of printing a paltry few dollars for my projects is even better.

As I have no wish to be found guilty of plagiarism, as well as counterfeiting, I must acknowledge the idea to print money as required is not new. Many years ago a Major C. H. Douglas thought it was such a good idea he called it “social credit”, to legitimise the printing of money if and when needed.

Social credit sounded so much better than “money printing”. The good major failed to notice if you increase the supply of a product its value trends downwards. That applies to milk, lamb, beef, timber as well as the money you are printing, so you have to keep printing and producing to retain the status quo. One well-known advocate of this approach is one Robert Mugabe, from Zimbabwe, where his printing presses simply couldn’t keep up with the daily devaluation of their currency but would have been great for the local paper mill if they could only have printed enough money to build one. . . .

Rather surprisingly, the idea of the good Major Douglas and the not-so-good Robert Mugabe, is now fast becoming orthodox monetary policy endorsed by no lesser political and economic giants as our very own Green Party. This print-and-distribute policy has the backing of their MPs who have obviously studied President Mugabe’s model and commitment to printing money as the way to pay off debt. The sheer brilliance of the Greens scheme is that interest rates for borrowers will be zero. This policy will, of course, severely punish those not responsible for the monetary collapse the world’s savers. Those rapacious and retired folk who had scraped together a nest egg in the local bank to assist in their retirement will get no return for their deposit. I do struggle to understand how this policy offers an incentive to all others to save. Meanwhile, it’s business and bonuses as usual for Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan et al. The printing presses are rolling as the international banking industry and politicians now speak not of printing money nor of social credit but of “quantitative easing.” This phrase sounds more like a description given to a ewe about to give birth to triplets rather than a monetary expression but there you have it. All of which gave me the idea to print my own money. If the Feds can do it, if the euro zone can do it, why not me – or you?

. . .  counterfeiting or increasing the money supply for a private benefit is illegal but increasing the money supply by Government for public benefit and electoral advantage is not.

Both however have the same effect on savings and the purchasing power of our dollar and both should be illegal.

I go to jail and Mr Norman goes to Parliament. How does that work?

Gerry isn’t the only one to spot the similarities between social credit and quantitative easing. Democrats for Social Credit leader Stephnie de Ruyter has given the proposal her blessing.

7 Responses to Spot the similarities

  1. Roger says:

    And de Ruyter will leaved us all roo ted.


  2. Gravedodger says:

    Sadly the savvy buggers to whom we owe billions will not accept “normals” or whatever the financial genius calls his version of monopoly money in settlement , they will want something of true value and we will end up where The Weimar Germans ended in November 1923, at a $US worth $1 000 000 000 000 NZ.
    Then the NZ banknotes become larger to accommodate all the zeros in a font size that can be read.

    Utter stupidity but that will not stop the ignorant seeing it as a solution, working harder and smarter wont occur to them.


  3. adam2314 says:

    1. I am not for printing money in the way that Q.E. is.. i.e. Giving it to the banks, that put us into the situation the world finds it self in at present…

    But .. What is the difference between the Govt. borrowing a Billion Dollars for another harbour crossing and charging tolls to repay the borrowings..


    The govt. produces the money and builds the bridge, charging tolls and ripping up the money as it comes in.. ???

    The Billion dollars is spent in the economy no matter how it is financed.. The Billion Dollars is extracted from the economy no matter to whom it goes to..


  4. adam2314 says:

    Is this not how the 3.5% housing loans were financed .. With the deposit coming out of future Child Allowance ??..


  5. homepaddock says:

    People had the option of capitalising the Family Benefit to help fund the purchase of a house but I think government accounts were in surplus then.


  6. adam2314 says:

    That was money from the future 16 years..!!..

    It still does not answer my Bridge building question..

    What is the difference ??


  7. homepaddock says:

    Someone with a greater understanding of economics than I have might be able to do better than this: borrowing doesn’t increase the overall supply of $NZ the way printing new money does.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: