Social Credit: My Conversation with a Cosmic Penguin

My Conversation with a Cosmic Penguin

A good friend poses questions about Social Credit.

"Mark S Bilk"
"Richard Eastman"

Mark S. Bilk: Betty did a good job. [see "Betty's Book Report on Social Credit," below] But I have a question: Does everyone get the same amount of social credit money from the government?

Richard P. Eastman: Yes.

Mark S. Bilk: Seems to me the amount should be inversely based on income or wealth. No point in giving millionaires extra money -- they already have enough to buy things and keep the economy going. It's the poor and middle-class people who don't, so they should get it. That way you don't give out more than is necessary and risk inflation. Right?

Richard P. Eastman: Social Credit is no a redistribution instrument. It is not a tool of social policy. The poor and the rich get about the same amount of oxygen to breathe and they get the same among of Social Credit. If it were otherwise than immediately Social Credit would become an instrument for criminal misallocation, for political argument of how "progressive redistribution" formulas were arrived at. Politicians would run for office either as Robin Hood or as George Bush. Political corruption, and in fact political parties of all kinds, are based on capturing the instruments of redistribution.

Mark S. Bilk: And is getting social credit money dependent on working? Because if it's not, wouldn't people just live off that money and not work?

Richard P. Eastman: Receiving a Social Credit dividend check is not dependent on working, or being needy. Or anything else. If people want to live off that money they can do so. But without exploitation at the job, with lots of interesting employers all making profit and able to hire people that fit their very varied needs -- working is more attractive and easier to obtain. Most people want to so something and be proud of it. Others -- artists, or maybe people like you and me -- will forego larger incomes in order to serve others for free -- the self-sacrificing do-gooder. Everyone wants to work under the right conditions. Those who don't probably shouldn't. If they don't they shouldn't be a drain on family members who do work. We have great modern technology -- Social Credit is modernist -- and plenty of resources (despite the lies of monopolists who seek to hide the reasons behind planned dearth for higher prices of their monopoly/oligopoly corporations. I think we need men who don't work -- people who develop themselves in highly individualistic ways. But for the reasons given, I do not think people will want to forego work -- and one more reason: Without having to pay personal debt, and national debt and with such abundance from business with plenty of demand and no interest payments (i.e. not hobbled by the "B" in the "A" plus "B" theorem of cost of production plus interest payment equalling cost of product -- Social Credit eliminates "B" (interest payment component and related components or it compensates them with Social Credit making up for the drain of "B") with the ultimate result that people don't have to work as long to produce the same amount of product (think of it as less overhead translating into higher wages and lower prices, i.e., higher "real" wages, or purchasing. If going to work means only four or five hours a day -- people will not find work adversive. Almost everyone not overworked enjoys the first one, two or three hours of work. The fourth hour is tolerable, but work becomes aversive if you are tied to in for longer periods. Of course the work that is more interesting -- the professions etc. are especially rewarding for in visible accomplishment and social status -- individual achievement or love of the craft - or dedication to the service -- that many will work long hours and like it. They are free to give their time to work or not -- they are no longer debt slaves forced to work for Rothschild, Rockefeller and their debt collector the IRS. Everyone like work of their own choosing on their own terms. No one likes to hang out in the street when they can really be doing something they feel good about. Also people are competitive -- men will still pride themselves on what they can do, what they can earn, what they can give their families -- that almost defines the middle class ethic. Under Social Credit we will all tend towards that ethic. And that is good -- whatever anarchists or communists or libertarians or conservatives or progressives may urge to the contrary. The Rothschild's substitute for the "real thing" has led us to where we are today.

Mark S. Bilk: But that means that there would have to be enough jobs for full employment. And because of increasing automation, computerization, and other forms of technology, the standard number of hours worked per week would have to be gradually decreased to insure that there would be jobs for everyone.

Richard P. Eastman: "Full Employment" is a bogus goal. The error gained prominence from Keynes who viewed the old excuse for depressions as "over production" -- but we know that there is no such thing -- in the Depression of the 1930's milk was thrown out and crops burned because there was insufficient demand due to insufficient purchasing power in the hands of the people. Keynes put his name to the General Theory because he sold out -- making millions in 1930 -- to the schemers behind the depression. Montegu Norman and Bernard Baruch among them. Keynes book was written by a circle of agent so of the City of London. At any rate, Keynes theory was that when factories were idled because of "overproduction" or "underconsumption" the solution was not Social Credit -- Keynes was bought to be the figurehead of "the new economics" that was simply change the packaging of the old system and sell that to the country, pushing the Social Credit reformers aside. Keynes had a good reputation because of his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace -- which described the mistakes of the Versailles treaty in demanding impossible reparations for Germany when Germany was not the country that kept the war going and when Germany was the country that first agreed to quit the war and accept Wilson's Fourteen Points -- which they never got. Keynes was right and got the international respect he deserved for being right. Keynes also was right when he wrote a shorter piece in 1925 called "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill" in which he foresaw the consequences of Winston Churchill, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer who did a Ron Paul and put Britain on the Gold Standard at pre-war gold-content of the British pound -- this in order that the British ruling and financial elite -- who loaned money in the war effort would now enjoy the windfall that goes to creditors when debts incurred earlier as paper must now be paid in gold at a gold per dollar price (in this case the pound) that represents an incredible amount of purchasing power that must be earned with an incredibly larger amount of labor for the debtor to meet his debt obligations -- of meeting the government's war-debt obligations through the paying of higher taxes through revaluation upward due to the arbitrary setting of the currency's gold content so high. (Note: All fooled people who follow Celente, Paul, Beck and all of the pundits with gold-dealer sponsors -- need to know that the Rothschilds monopolize money to scam people in this way -- right now they are selling their gold accumulation at incredible prices as people panic into turning over their purchasing power for this dead metal. They will get it all back again after the fall of the US. The equipment for detecting gold at a distance by its density is already mass produced and standing in readiness for the day gold confiscation comes. You Ron Paulers really made a big mistake when you bet on gold instead of on saving your country with good domestic investments in productive capactity and store of provisions for what is ahead. I say this over and over -- no Ron Pauler or Becker or Celenteist seems interested in defending their position against these criticisms. I wonder why?) At any rate, back to Keynes and Keynesianism -- his remedy for a shortage of "aggregate demand" his name covering the real problem of insufficient purchasing power for wage earners to buy products that have to cover production costs that include both wages, profits and usury -- his "solution" was to have the govermnment borrow money money from the Rothschilds and use it to "stimulate" the economy, to "prime the pump," with growth of government. But Keynes ignored the fact that the stimulus comes from borrowing which only adds to the interest burden. He thought the "stimulus" would increase production enough that the increased debt could be paid off -- forgetting that a stimulus that is debt financed is nothing but "junk food" -- eventually draining out more than in pumps in.

Mark S. Bilk: Already, lots of people work at jobs that produce nothing, or even do harm, like most advertising, real-estate and stock speculation, enforcement of laws against cannabis, and imprisoning people who use this herb (which is far less harmful than alcohol, and actually beneficial in some circumstances if used correctly). I think these non-productive and anti-productive jobs exist partly because with full employment, people would only have to work 20 or less hours per week to produce everything that they consume.

Richard P. Eastman: Yes, the Dilbert comic strips are not far from the truth of corporation world. A corporation is nothing but a small communist state -- they are run internally like the Soviet Union while outside the thrive because of monopoly power and other goverment bestowed anti-comnpetitive privileges. Single proprietorships like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Henry Kaiser, Walt Disney, and perhaps Bill Gates always outperform a corproation apart from any exclusive patents they may have purchases. Most of the government is inefficient. For every person caring for the retarded for example, eighty percent of paychecks go to administrative and consultant personnel who never work directly with the residents. In fact when cuts have to be made, the skilled hands-on caregivers and the group home are replaced by an apartment with uninsured street people hired to be "caregivers" while compensation for bureaucracy and consultants remains undiminished. (I was the administrator of a group home for severe-profound deveopmentally developed youth at the time care for people with developmental disabilities was being gutted in Washington State. The state was totally dishonest and it came from the top down. With Social Credit people will have the money to buy care for their own, without the state. People do not realize that the real enemy of socialism as well as of usury capitalism is Social Credit. I agree that Wall Street is very little about entrepreneurship and investment in America -- it is all about speculation and grabbing peoples incomes so the billionaires can use it for their "o.p.m." leveraged buyouts etc. And you know I will never agree with you on marijuana being good for people. I have seen to many people, once sharp, become lotus eaters talking and thinking like Cheech-and-Chong (hey, remember them, man?) -- As you know I nevertheless favor the government providing every addict with his substance at cost or for free -- i.e., pennies, grown on goverment farms etc. -- in order that people will not rob and kill to get money for drugs and in order that all those trillions of dollars don't keep ending up in the hands of Rockefeller/ Rothschild/ Israel/China hands. People adopting Social Credit around the world will not knock out Rotschild/Rockefell er organized crime unless the profit is taken out of cocaine and heroin and other addictive drugs. When drugs are provided to all addicts no questions asked for pennies -- the pushers will disappear -- the presure will be off to take it. The jails will be empty. People can get back to work again -- possibly with addiction health advice and therapy provided by private charities or local or state taxes. But yes, I agree there is a lot of busy waste in corporations -- especially because of nepotism -- keeping it in the families, while our ruling elite are tjust as sorry as the sorriest bunch of clowns any declining civilization has had to endure.

Mark S. Bilk: Also, the state-run banks that make interest-free loans to businesses would have to require some collateral and/or would have to evaluate the soundness of the business plans. And the borrowers would have to be legally bound to pay the money back. Otherwise there would be all kinds of con-men borrowing money and absconding with it. Right?

Richard P. Eastman: Banks would charge interest on loans, but the loans would not be the source of our money supply. Banks for business and home building investments would have 100 percent backing -- they would actually pay savers to actually lend to the banks -- say at 3% on the same terms that the banks, after bundling up the savings deposits to make big loans, would offer, say 6% to entrepreneur borrowers. These banks would thus not control the money supply in any way. It costs them to keep depositors' money in the vaults, since they are paying 3% for them to have the deposit, and so they will lend the money as quickly as possible to the entrepreneur with the most promise of being successful, paying the loan back and then coming to make a bigger loan. etc. Notice that banks become only savings banks. The checking account function, and clearing checks, could be done through the Social Credit Agency as a public service -- people would use their Social Credit Card for everything -- the Social Credit dividend simply being added to everyones account at the specified time etc. Remember, no more fractional reserve banking -- no more creation of money out of thin air because of the fractional reserve system. Banks will simply be borrowers from the many at low interest in order to be lenders to the few entrepreneurs who have worthy ideas that require a lot of capital for start up. Moselm banking principles would also be allowed under Social Credit -- where the bank becomes a partner in the profits and the depositors get, not interest, but a yet smaller share of the profit -- profit sharing on top of principal instead of interest on top of principal. Lots of of room for creative finance this side of usury.

Mark S. Bilk: Oops, here's another point. The people in charge of handing out social credit money, and the people running the state interest-free banks, would have to be watched and controlled very carefully, and accurate descriptions of all their actions made instantly available to the public (via the Internet). Because the dynamics of such a situation, with people having power over the well-being of others, invites power-hungry people to seek those jobs, and also invites massive corruption. Whether they're called commissars under communism/socialism , or administrators under populism/social- credit, the psychological factors of the situation are the same.

Richard P. Eastman: On the second Tuesday of each month, before live television, the comptroller of the National Social Credit Service and the official Dispenser of the Dividend will go to a small round domed marble building with a single room under the dome and space for cameramen and witnesses. Directly under the dome will be granite block with a numerical keyboard and no letter keys and a windows to type in the date of entry, 9-21-2010, the day the dividend will be deposited and the divident amount each person will receive, say $200; and then both the Comptroller and the Dispenser of the Dividend will insert their individual keys which when both turned will activate the "enter" key which will be the entry, authorization and instruction for the distribution of that amount to each person's Social Credit Card to be created -- out of thin-air and without having to be paid back -- to be recieved at 12:01 am on the first of the month, Friday October 1. The granite "credit stone" will automatically reset to receive the next entry on third Tuesday in October for the amount specified. Then they lock up the Chamber of Social Credit until the next month.

But what about verifiability? Well, since everybody in the country gets the same amount, it is no invasionof privacy to provide that every citizen's name and city shall be listed on a Social Credit Website showing exactly the amount that the single specified amount was indeed created in that persons account. (It is an error to say the money was "transferred" to peoples accounts. It is created in those accounts by the Social Credit Agency -- but the Social Credit agency is not debiting its own accounts. The Social Credit agency has no accounts, no deposits, no money. It merely says "let there be money in each persons account" and it is done. Now everyone will know what the the social credit dividend is each month and each can check the amount against what was created for them -- and so can everybody else check to see that everyone else got the same thing. If people do not consent to have their names on the citizen roster to receive the created dividend then it it will simply be electronically impossible for them to receive their dividend. But the ultimate fail-safe is this: the program will be hard wired in such a way that everyone receives their created dividend together -- that there is no way for the system to look up an individual and change his dividend amount from what everybody else gets.

Public inspections of the software, with public access video of the entire process. The system will be too simple to hack.

Another fail safe could be that social credit money must all be either spent or converted to paper cash by the next month. That way no Social Credit Card will ever have more on it than the specified amount for the current month. Grocery stores, could simply give cash back for unspent social credit in a given month.

I think such a system would be much less prone to tampering, embezzlement and fraud than the system we have now or any other system I have ever heard of.

So there you are, Mr. Cosmic Penguin.

finis

Mark S. Bilk's Cosmic Penguin: http://www.cosmicpe nguin.com

Betty's Classroom Report on Social Credit

Today I am going to tell you about Social Credit.

Everybody knows that people go to work so they can get money to buy things. The things people buy are paid for with money people earn by making the things people buy. And that would be all there is to say about it if it weren't for a big problem that keeps happening.

Sometimes the good things people make on their jobs simply don't sell even though everybody knows people want those things and need those things. When this happens and selling stops the people who make things have to stop making them. Companies don't get any money when they don't sell what has been made and so they don't have enough money to pay all the people who work at the company. This causes troubles for nearly everyone.

How come there is not enough money for people to buy the things we know how to so easily make for each other?

The troubles start because some of the money that goes around and around from families to companies and back to families again gets taken away so there is not enough money being spent so everyone can keep their job and keep on spending. The big problem is the money that is taken away so it can't keep going around businesses and families doing good for people.

The reason the money goes away is that it is only loaned to people, not given to them. Families and companies have to borrow the money so they will have money to buy and sell. The people who loan the money to companies and familes give it, but then they expect it back or else they will take away the house or the companies for themselves. Sometimes the people who lend the money really want to get those companies for themselves and get the houses and start making people pay rent who live there.

If people didn't have to borrow money to get it, then there would always be enough money to buy things that people make when they go to work. There would be no problem if everybody just got together and voted to print money and send some to every family so they could spend it. Doing that is called Social Credit. With Social Credit the money does not have to be paid back.

Does everybody understand what I've said so far?

Social Credit is easy to understand and it is easy to do, but the reason why we don't get our money this way and avoid all the troubles is that very rich bad bankers can steal a lot of money from everybody when money is borrowed instead of being given to people from Social Credit.

Now there is one more thing you need to know about.

When bad bankers take away more money than they put in they stealing the things that that money could have bought for families if people used Social Credit to put in new money instead of borrowing.

The bad men don't just lend money and then get it back and then lend it again right away to someone else. If that was the way money worked then maybe money wouldn't be gone away as much and there would be enough going around for everybody to keep making things and buying things. But the bad men do something much different. What they do is called usury.

When a man wants to start a company and give people jobs to make things he goes to the usury man at a bank and borrows money from him. The usury man writes on a piece of paper that the man starting the company is to get some new money from the bank. The company is started and people get jobs and people have money to buy the things that are made. But then the money has to be paid back. For every dollar that the man starting the company borrowed, a year later he has to give back to the usury man a dollar plus a dime a nickle and some pennies; and sometimes he has to pay back with each dollar a whole quarter.

That extra money that has to be paid back for each dollar that the man owning the company borrowed is called interest. It is called interest because the extra dime and nickle and penny paid back with the dollar is what makes the usury man interested in lending to the man with the company in the first place.

So all the time people are borrowing new money that comes in but paying back the same amount of money plus more. Money is always being lost by families and companies to the bankers.

And this is what causes troubles. Because all the time the bankers have all that interest they get and families and companies are short that much for buying what is produced and keeping companies busy with everybody working. People lose their jobs. Companies go out of business. And the bankers don't want to lend money to companies because the companies don't have enough customers.

But bankers are in the business of lending money, and if people can't borrow money because the banker knows the people will never be able to earn enough to pay back each dollar with an extra dime, nickle and penny because the banker has taken out all of the money that was going around -- the banker will look elsewhere for people to lend money to. He will lend money to other countries. Or he will pay bad people to get countries angry with each other so they will start a war so that people will have to borrow money to buy guns and airplanes and ships and bombs to win the war. Then the banker can lend all of the money he took away as interest and the companies can hire people again to make the guns and bombs. The bankers will even cause other kinds of disasters if they can so they can lend their money to rebuild after the disaster. These are the kinds of troubles that happen when people get their money from borrowing it from banks rather than just agreeing that money will be printed up for free and given to each man, woman and child to spend without having to pay it back at all.

After thinking about usury and Social Credit I really hope that people will find a way to have Social Credit without usury. If people have Social Credit then companies would make enough money that they could keep everyone hired and make new things and different kinds of things and better things and everyone would have the money to buy the ones they like.

Are there any questions?

Q: How come people don't fix the problem by having Social Credit and not having money that's all borrowed and shit.

A: That's exactly what I wondered. So I looked up the word "economics" in the school encyclopedia and read what it says about what causes companies to go out of business and people to lose jobs. It didn't anything about the real reason of people having to pay interest without extra money being added so they could pay it. Instead there were two famous men who were paid by the bankers to give people different reasons why people lost their jobs and and couldn't buy things.

One man named John and another named Paul said that when companies couldn't sell that the government should spend money so companies give new jobs to people who lost their jobs. But this answer was wrong because the government had to borrow money before it could spend it, and the leak of interest later on would more than undo the spending that the government does now. And besides, the government spending what they want is not the same as the people having the money to spend it on what they want.

Another man with another wrong answer was named Milton. Milton said that the banks that make money should look at prices and if prices go up they should lend less money and if prices go down they should lend more money. Well, of course that sounds good, but of course it doesn't fix the problem of interest draining away the money people have to spend on the goods they make. Even when prices don't change, the bankers are slowly ending up taking out more dollars than they have put in. Milton didn't understand that it makes a difference if there are ten dog food companies making puppy biscuits with everybody working and selling the puppy biscuits for fifty cents a box and having only two dog food companies in business and people without jobs with the price of puppy biscuits still fifty cents for a box. Another thing that Milton said was that while the people were incapable of deciding how much money their should be, that the bankers could be trusted to just lend enough money so that prices wouldn't change. Milton didn't seem to know that bankers would want price to go down and the amount of money to go down most of the time -- because everyone owes them money and if prices go down then the money they are going to get from people paying interest will buy more for the bankers and the people will have to work harder and longer to get each dollar, dime, nickle and penny. They also like to have the amount of money going around to become less and less because then more people will have to come to the bankers to borrow more and pay back a dollar and a quarter for each dollar borrowed instead of just a dollar, a dime and a nickle.

John and Paul and Milton would not tell people that using money that is borrowed rather than money that is just made and given to people is what causes everybody's troubles. It doesn't matter if puppy biscuits are one cent a box or if they are a million dollars a box as long as people receive enough money to buy everything they can make and want to own.

To conclude this report I simply wish to say that I think Social Credit is the best way for companies and families to get the money they use and that usury is a very bad way that only does good for a few very bad people.

Teacher: Thank you, Betty. That was very nicely done. However, before you take your seat, I have a question that I would like you to try answering. Some people say that if our money were gold instead of paper or checking account money created by bank loans that prices would not go up and everything would be fine. In light of what you have learned about Social Credit, do you think that could be true?

Betty: I don't see how it could be true, Miss Shirley. To get gold one has to pay the cost of getting it out of the ground. And when people hide it away it doesn't get spent. With Social Credit the money just comes to every house without people having to do anything. With gold you would have to either get it out of the ground or borrow or buy it from the rich people who own it all, and they would want interest. To pay their debts people would not only have a harder time because money had gone away in paying interest, but because gold is so hard to get hold of to put in people's hands in the first place. The gold money would never be enough and so the bad bankers would prosper at the expense of everybody else even more with gold than without it.

Teacher: Very good. You may take you seat. Now class, it is time to put away your reading notebooks and bring out your geography textbooks.

note: Economists mentioned were John (Keynes), Paul (Samuelson), and Milton (Friedman)

============ ========

How to Fix Everything

by the Little Mailman of Bayberry Lane

The things people make and the people who get to own them depends on where our tokens for spending come from, and on who gets to spend those tokens first , and on how much they have to pay back later for being allowed spend those new tokens today.

Mr. Owl said to me the other day that there are so many people making different kinds of things with so many different kinds of machines and so many different kinds of things that go into the things we buy that we have to have Buying Tokens to make it all work. The buying tokens pay people for working. When people spend the tokens they earn that gives messages to other people about what things people will pay the most to own. In bigger words the entrepreneur must have the market price signals to decide which things to produce and how to make them so he can most profitably satisfy the people spending the tokens they earn.

Today things are not going the way they are supposed to go and the reason has to do with a man who makes spending tokens out of thin air, as if by magic, and what that man demands back from people later on for letting them be the first spenders of the money he makes out of thin air today.

Now we all can think when thinking is important and nothing is more important than everyone getting all the food and clothing and pretty houses and other nice things that they want to be happy and to help the people they love to be happy too.

What is going wrong today and what can fix it is easy to understand if you ask the right questions and then think about the answers to these questions. There are only three big questions that we need to answer before we can fix everything up the way it is supposed to be.

This is how Mr. Owl explained it to me:

The three great questions:

1. Who gets to do the "thin air" trick that originates purchasing power,.

2. Who receives the new "thin air" spending tokens to become "first spender."

3. What "kickback" must Mr. First Spender pay to Mr. Thin Air for conferring the privilege of spending first?

Mr. Owl's Glossery of Terms ( In case you need to look up a word as we go along.)

thin air: sovereign power to originate spending tokens

credit: Mr. Thin Air's own best reasons for favoring Mr. First Spender with getting "thin air" exchange tokens for first spending over someone else who lives in the village getting them.

kickback: payments over time to Mr. Thin Air for allowing someone to be a first spender. This tribute to Mr. Thin Air is called usury or interest.

What are the answers to these questions?

Let me tell you.

Mr. Thin Air, for allowing people to first-spend thin-air tokens, exacts tribute in return. Mr. Thin Air receives for conferring immediate use of his thin-air spending tokens, tribute that must be gathered by toil and sacrifice, tribute of purchasing power equaling the full first-spend amount plus an extra amount, to be paid over time plus a compounding of amount as an extra-amount owed also requires a tribute payment, according to the ways of compound interest.

An ancestor of Mr. Thin Air got his special thin-air privileges from a King in return for easing the Kings debts or for giving the King some gold to buy weapons to win a war that Thin Air's ancestor actually instigated.

Since that time the Thin Air tribe have gained control of the world, simply by the power of introducing thin-air spending tokens and conferring the power to be first spenders on condition of repayment in toil-money plus usury.

Mr. Thin Air has lots of reasons why he should hold on to his thin-air power monopoly.

One reason he gives is that he owns almost all the gold and keeps it in his vaults and that the thin-air credit power just simply stems from that "backing."

Another reason that Mr. Thin Air gives for monopolizing thin-air powers is that governments cannot be trusted not to create too much thin-air money. Mr. Thin is against others having his thin-iar powers because he fears too much money would be pulled out of thin air, that there would would be too many token claims to slices of the national economic pie which would mean that the slice each single token buys would become thinner and thinner -- and that would be bad because the agreed-upon tribute First pays each month, would each passing month represent less and purchasing power than Mr. Thin originally envisioned when the contract with Mr. First was signed. Mr. Thin calls this reason, the "anti-inflationist" argument.

In addition to being "anti-inflation, " we should not, and for the same reason, Mr. Thin Air is also a pro-deflationist -- although he never mentions this or uses the fact as a reason for having him retain his monopoly of thin-air and credit power. Nevertheless his policy is that it is better for him to be very stinting in the amount of first-spending of thin-air tokens he allows since reducing the amount of thin-air tokens in the hands of first spenders means there will be more economic pie per token -- which means that his entire stock of tribute IOUs that he hold will grow in value -- a much bigger gain from him than he would have if he made a few more loans so purchasing power in circulation would not deflate and his pile of IOU's would not increase in value over time due to the deflation.

Mr Thin Air and all of his ancestors through the centuries, like to convince people that the thin-air power should be tied to gold reserves because such an arrangement in always deflationary in the long run. With thin-air power tied to the amount of gold in vaults (as arbitrary an arrangement as any other charlaton money scheme) there will never be deflation which to reduce the purchasing power of the future loan payments he receives from Mr. First Spender D.S.. However, as economies, being organic things, usually grown if not mistreated too badly, Mr. Thin Air can expect the benefit of continuous deflation as the amount of economic pie will grow by a larger percent each year than the percent gold miners will be able to increase the size of the gold stock that backs thin-air money creation.

Of all things in this universe Mr. Thin hates and fears the Social Credit idea that American populists are just beginning to discover from the writings men who went up against the Thin-Air Money Dynasty in past ages of economic depression brought on by Mr. Thin Airs favorite policies.

Under social credit, the government takes over the thin-air function and provides first-spending power to each person of each household. Since everybody gets the same social credit amount of thin-air purchasing power each month and since all will be affected by inflation or deflation in the same way and by the same amount -- and since no social credit is paid to the governemnt -- remember, the people own the government and any funds it obtains must come from the people in taxes that are set by the people's chosen representatives.

Under social credit, then, there is no tribute, no debt slavery. You don't have to pay back the amount of first spending purchasing power given or interest on that purchasing power or the amount represented by the extra toil and sacrifice needed to earn tokens more hard to come by because of Mr. Thin's deflationary policies.

Now you understand social credit. Now you can read the following correspondence on the subject -- outlining real solution to the economic crisis -- which chisis is a supremely naughty escapade by Mr. Thin Air which I call "the Kleptastrophe" -- and, hopefully, you will see that there is another way that really is clearly true and superior and worth the effort of using it to skate past hell and reach the future we really always wanted.

The End.

Note the Little Mailman of Bayberry Lane wants you to send this letter from him far and wide, so that we can all come to agreement that this is the best way of fixing the things that are wrong today.

============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ====

Here is how the dog who belongs to himself likes to explain it:

Social Credit is better.

Which system would you rather have?

System #1:
The international bankers have monopoly of credit. They keep the credit tight to maximize loan income and the value of their debt portfolios. Unfortunately keeping the money supply tight means that the corporations they invest their money in and buy stock in do not have customers. So, hiring Israeli intelligence they pay for a false-flag attack in New York skyskrapers so they can have a war and a great need for anti-terrorism measures which their defense corporations can cater profitably, solving the problem of insufficient purchasing power to buy their products. They also create weather disasters and other disasters with secret technologies -- because the emergency services business and the reconstruction businesses are also lucrative -- paid for by government which borrows the money from the bankers to pay the corporations. etc. Meanwhile the people not involved with war industry or the disaster business continue to lose jobs and houses and standard of living because of lack of purchasing power.

or System #2:

System #2: The government has debt-free treasury money that it creates without borrowing from international bankers. They give an amount of money to every American -- not a redistribution of funds, but the government giving households the chance to spend the new money into existence -- so that household demand will guide the market economy. The entire economy will shift away from catering war and disasters -- and from making war and making disasters -- as people receive these checks and treat them like they would a tax return or a dividend payment or a pension check. People will still work for a living -- the social credit does not replace work, or entrepreneurship, or the market system, or earning a living -- what it replaces is the way new money enteres the economic loop. Let housewives again decide what this country will make. And under this system the domestic economy will get the stimulus, becuase American families do not spend their money on war. Social credit is the death knell for both finance capitalism and socialism and the welfare state. There can be no free market system with consumer sovereignty without social credit. Their can only be poverty and war without Social Credit.

============ ========= =====

Social Credit is Household Spending Power -- sent to everybody like electric power from a public utility.

It it real unborrowed legal tender money that households receive to spend as they choose and never have to pay back.

From where? Who pays for it? From "thin air" and from the fact that good money managed nationally in this way creates economic pie as no other system. It is money from the same "magic hat" that the Rothschilds have monopolized and from which they have from "thin air" made their loans in usury. Money from the same store of assets and potential that the Rothschilds got all their wealth from when they monopolize credit and lend to us for their own interest-harvesting , as they farm the fruits of our labors at our very great expense.

===========

Government administered basic-right dividend checks to everyone providing interest free 'money' backed by the willing acceptance of the entire nation in acknowledgement of the great benefit the system provides at so little cost to the nation. The power of money at the service of all from out of thin air and right to your own home.