Talk:Social credit

message: Hi, I would like to help improve this article, but I'm wondering how the article is rated.  I'm looking at the rating and cannot determine who rates this article and why?  Chdouglas (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

message: For instance while the article quotes an external source on the social credit movement's association with anti-semitism that is then rubbished on what is clearly nothing more than the opinion of the author.80.41.99.88 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to Janine Stingel's assertion? Chdouglas (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This a propagandist entry

message: Why no mention of Alfred N. Lawson's Direct Credits Society?  Even within the entry on Alfred Lawson, there's a ghost link inviting an article to be written on direct credits.  Lawson was a nut, but one to be reckoned with just like many other devotees of populist money schemes.  Maybe someone should also add to the Robert Anton Wilson material his jocular embodiment of theory in flaxscrip and hempscrip. - robgood@bestweb.net, 3/10/06
:Please add whatever verifiable material you can. Wikipedia is a collective project written by volunteers. There is no "editorial board" that writes or approves entries. You can edit the "Social Credit" article by clicking on the "edit" tab at the top of the page, and you can create an article on direct credits by clicking on the ghost link. Leave a message on my talk page if I can assist. Ground Zero | t 13:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct Credits Society?

message: I have done some major editing and cleanup on this page.  Very little proper formatting was followed in the past, so I had to rearrange some comments and add headlines.  I tried my best to keep conversations together, for the sake of logic and coherence.  It would help, in future, if people used headlines, signed their comments, etc.  Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page cleanup 

message: As I was browsing through this article, I noticed a striking similarity to the Energy Credit concept which grew out of the Technocracy movement. Would this be a valuable comparison to note here? At the very least, we could add Energy Credit to the "See Also" section. Thoughts? FusionKnight (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities to Technocracy's Energy Credit 

message: As many will notice, this article has been almost completely rewritten. This effort reflects months of consultation with several noted authorities on the subject of Social Credit. While the original article was fairly accurate, it did not sufficiently outline the theory, history, and philosophy of Social Credit, as several parties have observed on this "Talk" page.
 
Further, the original article was poorly referenced as indicated by a formal request (template) for additional citation. This is understandable since many of the needed reference materials for Social Credit are no longer in print. However, such references do still exist, and citation of those references has been provided by the afore-mentioned experts.
 
Essential content from the original article has been retained as a summary in the first paragraph of the "Social Credit Economic Policy" section. The "Groups Influenced by Social Credit" section remains unchanged. The heading, "Later versions of Social Credit theory" was revised to "Literary figures in Social Credit", and this section was expanded somewhat to include other prominent names in this regard.
 
Moreover, the entire article has been greatly expanded to provide readers with a broadened view of Social Credit from economic, political, historical, and philosophical perspectives. New sections and sub-sections have been added in these regards.Chdouglas (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article still needs significant work.  As I recall, Wikipedia's policy is, essentially, presenting ideas simply.  The section on the A+B Theorem is particularly bad, relying pretty much entirely on block quotations of period sources.  English has chanced significantly since this idea was formulated, making these quotations difficult to understand unless the reader is either already fairly familiar with the topics covered, or is so used to reading this outdated form of English that it is no longer linguistically challenging.  Most pages I've looked at, including some fairly advanced scientific and mathematical concepts, at least provide a summary that allows me to understand the basics, even if the details require a greater understanding of the subject in general.  This article, however, lacks even a summary that can be followed by the layman reader like myself.  The Canadian Encyclopedia's entry on Social Credit is primarily based on the political parties, but provides an easy to understand, if somewhat threadbare summary of the economic concept.  (I'm not sure of what Wikipedia's policies are about off-site links on talk pages or quotes from external websites, so just look up "Social Credit Canadian Encyclopedia".)  Perhaps something similar should be worked into the article summary (along with a basic description of what the A+B theorem actually means).  I don't expect to understand the entire article - I am no more fluent in economic theory than I am in advanced mathematics or quantum physics - but it seems that a layman oriented summary should be available, given that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia (which is generally understood to be a comprehensive summary of knowledge.)24.69.201.248 (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete rewrite

message: Larone has added the statement that Ezra Pound offered to lead the Social Credit Party.  I am unaware of this fact, and have added that this statement needs to be referenced.  Please reference this statement, or I may have to remove it as opinion.Chdouglas (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ezra Pound

message: Recent changes that stated the Doctrine of Incarnation is Protestant theology as opposed to Christian theology were removed, because the Doctrine of Incarnation was formally adopted by the Catholic Church at the council of Nicea long before the existence Protestantism.  While I realize that there are a few Christians who do not believe in the Doctrine of Incarnation, it is widely accepted by most Christians including Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox religions.  You can refer to the subject on Wikipedia, the first paragraph is quoted below:
"The Incarnation is the understanding in Christianity that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. The word Incarnate derives from Latin (in=in, carnis=flesh) meaning “In the flesh.” The incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second person of the triune God; took on a human body and nature and became both man and God. In the Bible its clearest teaching is in the Gospel of John, were in chapter 1 verse 14, (abbreviated as “John 1:14”) it says “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,” [1]
In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was united with human nature[2] in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". The Incarnation is commemorated and celebrated each year at the Feast of the Incarnation, which is better known as the Annunciation.
This teaching is central to the traditional Christian faith held by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Anglican Communion, and most Protestants. Alternative views on the subject have been proposed throughout the centuries (see below), but all were rejected by mainstream Christian bodies.
In recent decades, an alternative doctrine known as "Oneness" has gained credence amongst various Pentecostal groups (see below), but has been rejected by the remainder of Christiandom."
:What does this have to do with social credit? Janosabel (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the philosophy of Social Credit section Chdouglas (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrine of Incarnation

message: Wikipedia's NPOV tag is not an all-purpose automatic weapon that critics can whip out of their holsters and brandish anytime they don't agree with the content of a Wikipedia article.
The critics of this article remain unidentified and refuse to specify which particular passages of the article might be in question. They complain that Social Credit is a "minority view", but refuse to identify any "mainstream view" for comparison. They claim that non-mainstream views must be clearly identified as such according to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. But they provide no Wikipedia reference to support their claims.
Quite the contrary, the "undue weight" argument is invalid if not ridiculous. If this article was about a broad subject like Capitalism or general Economics, then excessively detailed discussion of Social Credit would certainly bear "undue weight" within that article. But in an article about Social Credit, detailed discussion of Social Credit seems extremely pertinent and necessary. In fact, detailed discussion of other theories would bear "undue weight" in an article that is focused primarily on Social Credit. Since this article is focused on the theories of Social Credit originated and advanced by C.H. Douglas, even other interpretations of Social Credit should be subordinate in this particular article to the views originally expressed by Douglas himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Undue_weight
The "fringe theory" argument is also implausible. According to Wikipedia: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories
This article is well documented with verifiable citation. Moreover, Social Credit has been a globally recognized economic theory for nearly a century. Historic and contemporary arguments in favor and against Social Credit clearly establish its notability as valid subject matter for a Wikipedia article.
Chdouglas should be reminded: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." This message appears at the bottom of the Editing Box every time you edit an article, and it is Wikipedia's general policy regardless of how many hours you've spent editing an article.
Unidentified critic(s) of this article should be reminded: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
Meanwhile, the critics of this article remain unidentified, they refuse to specify which particular passages of the article might be in question, and they either don't understand or deliberately abuse Wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully, this feedback will help to resolve those problems now and in the future.
David Kendall (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dodge ramble- the NPOV tag has been removed as per the conversation above.  The tag is not something to be used because you disagree with the content of an article.  The article itself does have an entire section devoted to critics of the A+B theorem and rebuttal, plus it references Pullen and Smith's article which states that the A+B theorem has met with almost universal rejection by academic economists and why.  If there's something you would like to add to the section in terms of critisms of the A+B theorem, please be my guest.  I want the article to be as accurate as possible.  But please do not put a NPOV tag on the article because you disagree with the content of the article.  Thank you. Chdouglas (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry CH but the issues brought up in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_Credit#Neutrality_of_Article have not been dealt with. There is more to criticise about Social Credit than just the A + B theorem and this article still reads like a promotion/apologia. Dodge rambler (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Dodge, but the issues were dealt with.  The opening paragraph was changed, and the section on critics to the A+B theorem was added to.  If you have a SPECIFIC criticism, perhaps we can work towards a solution, but in the meantime, the tag has been removed until you either give specifics, or add to the article (but please be sure to reference your material).  The NPOV tag is not to be used because you disagree with the content of the article.  And the article itself is very careful to state that "Douglas believed" or "in this view".  It does not state that "this view" is correct.  Chdouglas (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The NPOV Gun

message: Credere (latin word), was not for "to beleive", bot for "right".  Debere (latin word) was for left.  See invention of accounting in Italy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.169.149 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credere 

message: I have to say I've never really understood what, practically speaking, Social Credit entails. If CH Douglas had been prime minister, what specifically would he have done to reform the currency?
I'm afraid the lead as it stands sheds no light on that, but provides vague metaphors like 'practical christianity', and 'distributive'. The lead should answer a very simple question: what, in literal terms, is social credit? TheMuteCoot (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is social credit? 

message: This website was moved from external links to groups influenced by Social Credit because the website promotes the use of interest free loans for production which is not a policy promoted by Douglas.  There is enough confusion on this subject.
"The rapturous iconoclasm of certain groups of monetary reformers', to whom Usury", the sparring-partner of the bankers "inflation" is the Scarlet Woman of Babylon, has had the inevitable effect of encouraging the financial authorities to abolish, for practical purposes, the interest paid on undrawn current balances, and deposit accounts. We do not say they would not have done it anyway - the one thoroughly sound feature of the banking system was its dividends to shareholders and its interest payments to depositors which I jointly with the insignificant mint issues, provided almost the only fresh unattached purchasing-power. It is obviously lost time to beg of our amateur currency experts to consider whether they really mean what they ask, which is, the replacement of unattached purchasing-power by loans. But they must not complain if we, and others with us, regard them as propagandists for totalitarianism. "
C. H. Douglas in The Social Creditor, Oct. 27, 1945.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleeding in Debt 

message: Hi Webb:
While I appreciate your support for the subject, your edits are not helping at this point.  They read too much like a promotion for the subject, which does not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia.
If you want to help create an initial summary of the subject, so that someone does not have to read the whole article to get the jist of it, I'm in full support of that.  
I spent alot of time to create an accurate article on the subject, because the first article was not well researched and was full of errors.  I also spend time defending this article from vandalism.
While I do appreciate your intent, the summary you keep posting does not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia.  This is not a vehicle to promote Social Credit.  This is a vehicle to give everyone the truth about Social Credit, and if people want to find out more on the subject, or promote it, given the information here that is fine.
Chdouglas (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Webb, are you "Javis" who posts on the occupy wallstreet website?
"Posted 5 days ago on April 2, 2012, 6:43 p.m. EST by Javis (18) 
This content is user submitted and not an official statement 
I know that this is an ineffective way of trying to spread a concept, and I will come up with a short, effective summary as soon as possible, but I really, really, and truly believe that this is /the/ most effective solution to the economic problem with the least amount of calling people evil possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit Further reading is at: http://douglassocialcredit.com/ http://bleedingindebt.com/"
Chdouglas (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by Webb 

message: I added the tag because I read the first paragraph and still have no clear idea what social credit is.  I think it needs to be rewritten to summarize the concept in the first sentence before going into tangential explanations. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, thanks. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 21:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I altered the opening paragraph slightly, and looked at the article on Keynesiasm for an example, but I don't see much difference?  The opening sentence states that Social Credit is an economic philosophy developed by C.H. Douglas.  I added a second sentence that defines the words "Social" and "Credit" and how they relate to the philosophy.  I guess I need to understand what you are looking for?  What is "confusing".  You cannot sum Social Credit in a sentence.  In fact, it was very difficult to summarize it in a encyclopedia article. Social Credit is much more than "monetary reform" and the A+B theorem.  Douglas said it was "the policy of a philosophy", so it's essential to establish the philosophy of Social Credit before delving into the policies.  Why don't we start with the parts that you find confusing?  Chdouglas (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the nature of the power to be distributed?  And does "absolute economic security" mean?  I understand it's a large concept, but the first paragraph is a bit too larded with buzzwords, especially the last sentence: "In other words, Douglas did not seek to build a utopia, but to set the conditions upon which each individual can build their own utopia."  All of the parts I mentioned read more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 16:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Hi, I have clarified the nture of power to be distributed to individuals.  Absolute economic security would be where people are absolute secure in their economic affairs.  I'm not certain what you're looking for.  The policies of Social Credit are designed to allow the individual the most economic freedom given the need for association in economic affairs.  As capital and technique replace labour in production, mankind should be given the freedom and security offered by this progress.  Currently, the economic system offers "unemployment" and the business cycle as a logical consequence of labour being replaced by capital and technology in production.  In other words, the current accounting system brings economic insecurity with progress.  Social Credit would reverse this.  Douglas did not seek to bring about his own version of utopia, but he sought to give people the most freedom possible in order that they can bring about their own utopia.  I understand that the first paragraph is a little "vague", but the philosophy has to be stated first before economic/political theories and policies can be discussed.  Social Credit is a complete system just as Marxism is a complete system.  There's much more to it than monetary reform and the A+B theorem.  Those are important aspects of it, but its philosophy is the most important element.  Philosophy is sometimes "vague".  I still am not certain exactly what you're looking for?  Chdouglas (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it reads too much like an apologia.  I'd suggest replacing some of those parts with direct quotes, if, for example, Douglas used the term utopia in his work. —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 19:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text:   Hi again.  How does it read like an apologia?    Is it the last sentence about utopia that you have a problem with?  This is the exact quote which I reference from the last sentence of the opening paragraph.  It's from a pamphlet "Major Douglas Speaks" on page 41, Douglas said, "..what we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own." http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19539073/1091728151/name/Major+CH+Douglas+Speaks+Final+Edit+Complete.pdf  Chdouglas (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Social credit is an economic philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (1879–1952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924.  Social credit is a interdisciplinary distributive philosophy, encompassing the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting, and physics.  Its policies are designed, according to Douglas, to disperse economic and political power to individuals. Douglas once wrote, "Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic."  Douglas said that Social Crediters want to build a new civilization based upon "absolute economic security" for the individual, where "they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid." In his words, "what we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own."   
Like I said, there is so much extra terminology and phrasing in that first paragraph, it muddles things to a point that it gets confusing.  Do you think my version still includes the essential details, or have I misstated anything? —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good.  I guess I tried to add stuff over time to add clarity, but sometimes it only creates more confusion (KISS principle).  I'm totally fine with that rewrite.Chdouglas (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  I'll put it into the article and remove the confusing tag.  But perhaps look into reworking the rest of the lead in a similar way? —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 03:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing tag 

message: Okay, let me try presenting you with a possible rewrite that trims out the confusing parts and focuses more on the core of the concept first:
:Social credit is an economic philosophy developed by C. H. Douglas (1879–1952), a British engineer, who wrote a book by that name in 1924.  Social credit is a interdisciplinary distributive philosophy, encompassing the fields of economics, political science, history, accounting, and physics.  Its policies are designed, according to Douglas, to disperse economic and political power to individuals. Douglas once wrote, "Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic."  Douglas said that Social Crediters want to build a new civilization based upon "absolute economic security" for the individual, where "they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid." In his words, "what we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own."   
Like I said, there is so much extra terminology and phrasing in that first paragraph, it muddles things to a point that it gets confusing.  Do you think my version still includes the essential details, or have I misstated anything? —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good.  I guess I tried to add stuff over time to add clarity, but sometimes it only creates more confusion (KISS principle).  I'm totally fine with that rewrite.Chdouglas (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  I'll put it into the article and remove the confusing tag.  But perhaps look into reworking the rest of the lead in a similar way? —<B>Torchiest</B> talkedits 03:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Unless I'm mistaken, the LETS was influenced by social credit, having read up on advocates of it years ago.  Neither article on wikipedia mentions, and LETS is calling it "mutual credit" instead of social credit. 
Someone should look up and add references if found - as LETS would be an example of a working system using the social credit idea.
::reply - LETS I'm not sure how the idea of LETS was influenced by Social Credit since there's very little similarity between the two ideas?  One is an alternative currency (LETS), the other is an issuance of debt free credit to consumers (Social Credit).
-----
fyi:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/
Turmel Book Reports:
David Astle: The Babylonian Woe The very best book on the history of money ever written by someone who had a full understanding of the banking system engineering. Self-published, it is priceless. 
Major Clifford Douglas: Social Credit First engineering analysis of the funding shortage.
Louis Even: Quebec Social Credit Optimized the social credit model to end up with LETS
Bishop Peter Selby: Grace and Mortgage 
Mike Rowbotham: Confronting Tyranny 
Monetary Reform Quarterly
Goldsmith & Walker: New Local Currency Systems Wonderful stories of Timedollar successes. 
Consumercard Essay
"Proteus" by Morris West with a move for the UN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A552:8200:95E4:7594:C606:4C50 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LETS Local Exchange Trading System 

message: I'd like to see a section on criticisms of the concept by outsiders. Are there any? And no, the accusations of Anti-Semitism aren't enough. That doesn't directly engage probable economic flaws in the concept. Ventifax (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get some criticisms of the theory? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Social credit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209091428/http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/social_credit_by_ch_douglas.pdf to http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/social_credit_by_ch_douglas.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209091428/http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/social_credit_by_ch_douglas.pdf to http://douglassocialcredit.com/resources/resources/social_credit_by_ch_douglas.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002135413/http://www.socialcredit.com.au/books/MonopolyOfCredit.pdf to http://www.socialcredit.com.au/books/MonopolyOfCredit.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031204185910/http://www.alor.org/Library1.htm to http://www.alor.org/Library1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717051915/http://www.kibbokift.org/ to http://www.kibbokift.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm curious about whether this is/was a socred party http://wayback.archive-it.org/227/20170205220709/http://www.alliancedunord.ca/aden.html - I haven't found much info that wasn't on their website but the party colour was green and their platform on Money and Banking was "Money and Banking: The Alliance will launch a criminal investigation on Banks" which sounds like something that be Socred influenced. It was a Quebec party - so would something like the Ligue of St. Michel have talked about them - or would anyone be aware if he ever stated any connection or influence? Unfortunately I don't know French so I'm kind of limited in my research on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Alliance of the North

message: C.H. Douglas Social Credit is in no way related to the Chinese Social Credit ranking system, and whoever keeps adding links to the article and removing my changes that make this point in the article, please stop, or I will report this as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdouglas (talk • contribs) 
That is literally why Template:About exists. 45.132.154.121 (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese Social Credit Ranking System

message: As a layman, MMT and Social credit look quite similar to me. I am not the only one who thinks so.
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/44062/6/Short_Victor_M_20143_MA_Thesis.pdf
I'm not qualified to say the extent to which they're similar or dissimilar... but since we have CH Douglas himself editing this page, maybe he can tell us? Risingrain (talk)... Why it matters 10:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Credit and Modern Monetary Theory 

message: The wording of this article is lending too much credibility to a Lyndon LaRouche-style charlatan. Every Econ textbook will tell you that the value of all the goods and services produced in the economy is equal to all the wages, rents, profits, royalties, and interest paid out in the economy. And when we look at Douglas' anti-semitism, we can clearly see we are dealing with a nut. This should clearly be labelled as "pseudoscience". 108.20.239.35 (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving Credibility to a Crank