DOUGLAS CBEDIT

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 48, 25 August 1933, Page 14

DOUGLAS CBEDIT

SCHEME CRITICISED

At a ■well-attended mooting on Tuesday night Mr. E. W. Nicolaus, organiser for the Commonwealth Land Party, dealt with the theory of Major Douglas, known as the Douglas Social Credit Scheme. The speaker gave a definition of the -words "credit" and, "money, and said that according to both Douglas and the general run of business men -s understanding of these terms, they both meant that goods were in existence or had boon added to the general stock of wealth to the value of the credit owned or loaned and tho money in the hands of the public generally at any one time; that a credit balance in a customer's account at a bank signified an acknowledgment that the customer had a rightful claim upon the general wealth of the world to that amount; and that ho could exercise that claim at any period he so wished. This proved that credits were not "baseless," "costless," or "limitless," as asserted by Major Douglas. Any credit or money issued in excess of the true credit or money would merely raise tho cost of commodities and services, and to that extent robbed the. holder of true credit and money of his rightful claim on those commodities. Further, the proposal of Major Douglas'to socialise credit meant the socialisation of all wealth upon which it was based. Thai was pure unadulterated C'ommuuism presented under the guise of a new and plaugible individualistic . system. Tho private ownership of land, said Mr. Nieolaus, was the primary cause of injustices and monopolies. Money did Vot enter into-the question of the distribution of wealth, which was the acknowledged cause of poverty, as so many people thought. Money was not a distributor of wealth, but the measure of value of wealth. The distribution of wealth took place naturally, and was decided before the production of wealth took place. Natural law made the distribution between the three factors of production, land, labour, and capital, in the form of rent, wages, and interest, and no device of man could alter that distribution. The robbery, of individuals did not alter that fact. Because private persons were allowed to collect the rent of land there resulted speculative prices and rent, taxation, tariffs, and wars. Private ownership of tho rent of land was the mother of all monopolies, and it attacked tho social welfare at its base;—tho production of raw material and food from tho land.