Reply to attack made on Social Gredit policy

Press, 26 November 1981, Page 16

Reply to attack made on Social Gredit policy

By

JOHN A. WRIGHT,

In reply to an earlier editorial in “The Press” attacking Social Credit’s financial policy, I said that the criticism

ancial system, for most people, including many of our present Cabinet, have very little idea how the economy, or even the monetary system, works. The danger is that people in a position of influence, such as the editor of “The Press”, add to the confusion by making criticism on false grounds. The readers of "The Press” would be far better served if the paper was to present a thorough, well researched, series of articles on the structure and workings of the present financial system. A fair and valid comparison between alternatives would then be possible. Given the admitted bias, and emotive “fairyland” heading of the editorial, a positive response of this type is unlikely to eventuate.

seemed to be based on a false assumption. The editor’s reply to letters on November 18

confirmed my contention.

It seems that the reason for the editor’s admitted bias, and the strange interpretations he places on Social Credit policy, all stem from one basic difference, summed up in the editor’s statement that “private financial institutions do not ‘print’ money (credit) and their lending is based on their own borrowings, or accumulated assets.” If one accepts that the trading banks are private financial institutions, then the editorial claim that these institutions do not create credit is 20 years out of date. A Royal Commission, a series of Reserve Bank bulletins, and the writings of most modern economists have long since agreed that one of the main functions of trading banks is the creation and destruction of credit, through the overdraft system. Small wonder that the editor of “The Press” is bemused by Social Credit financial policy, when he does not understand the present system. There is no shame in failing to understand the present fin-

Some of the criticisms levelled at the manifesto itself also call for rebuttal.

In the Oxford dictionary, a manifesto is defined as a statement of intent, and that is what Social Credit has produced. We have circulated it more widely than any other party in this election campaign, by using normal retail outlets. It is not, and was not intended to be, a detailed blueprint tor legislation to be ' passed under a Social Credit government. The manifesto is backed up by other literature, giving far more detail on 1

Dominion Vice-President of the Social Credit Political League.

specific areas, particularly finance. The accusation that the Social Credit Political League

changes its financial policy at each election shows the inability of the editor to distinguish

between policy (which is the

over-all goal), and platform, which is the mechanics by which policy is carried out. While the platform has changed with changing circumstances, the policy remains constant. Social Credit policy has always been to restore the ownership of n redit creation fand the attendant benefits) to tne people and to run a bah anced, non-inflationary economy. The statement that Social Credit is ignoring its financial policy in this election campaign is laughable to those who attended Mr Bruce Beetham’s meeting at the Theatre Royal on Wednesday, November 18. Mr Beetham spent considerable time on outlining Social Credit policy and even went to the trouble of answering the specific points raised in the editorial in “The Press”. It is a great pity that the editor of “The Press” was not there to take advantage of the opportunity presented .to him and the public he is trying to inform to get a much needed wider perspective on a very important subject.