Who must create money?

It is Saint Louis, King of France, who said: “The first duty of a king is to create money when it is lacking for the sound economic life of his subjects.”

It is not at all necessary or to be recommended that banks be abolished or nationalized. The banker is an expert in accounting and investment; he may well continue to receive and invest savings with profit, taking his equitable share of profits. But the creation of money is an act of sovereignty that should not be left in the hands of a bank. Sovereignty must be taken out of the hands of the banks, and returned to the nation.

Bookkeeping money is a good modern invention that should be retained. But instead of having these figures proceeding from a private pen, in the form of a debt, these figures, which serve as money, should come from the pen of the sovereign, in the form of money destined to serve the people.

Therefore nothing is to be turned upside down in the field of ownership or investment. There is no need to abolish the current money, to replace it with other kinds of money. The Government needs only, on behalf of society, to institute a system which adds enough of the same kind of money to the money that already exists, according to the country's possibilities and needs.

To this end, the Government must establish a monetary body, a National Credit Office. The accountants of this Office, although appointed by the Government, would not take their orders from it. Neither would they dictate anything to the producers, nor to the consumers. Their function would consist simply in matching the mechanism for the issue and withdrawal of money with the rate at which wealth is produced and consumed by unrestrained producers and consumers. Somewhat like the judicial system: judges are appointed by the Government, but their judgments are based solely on the law and exposed facts, two things they neither authored nor instigated.

People must stop suffering from privations when there is everything needed in the country to bring comfort into every home. Money must be issued in accordance with the country's production capacity and with the demand of the consumers for possible and useful goods.

Who owns the new money?

But where and how must this new money be put into circulation? To whom does this new money belong to when it comes into circulation in Canada? It belongs to Canada, and it is made for the Canadians. Being the fruit of the country's enrichment, this money does not belong to the accountants of the Office where it is created by a stroke of the pen. Nor does it belong to the Government, to be disposed of at will, since this would amount to replacing a banking dictatorship with a political one.

This new money responds to the country's developing needs. It is not a wage, nor a salary, but an injection of money into society so that the people, as consumers, may obtain goods already made or easily realizable, which are awaiting only sufficient purchasing power for them to be produced.

One cannot imagine for a minute that this new money belongs only to an individual or to a private group.

There is no other way, in all fairness, of putting this new money into circulation than by distributing it equally among all citizens, without exception. Such a distribution is the best way of making money effective, since money thus reaches into every corner of the land.

Let us suppose that the accountant, who acts in the name of society, noticing a lack of money, finds it necessary to issue 21 billion dollars. This issuance could take the form of bookkeeping money; a simple entry in a book, as the bankers do today in their ledgers.

Since there are over 30 million Canadians and $21 billion to distribute, each citizen would get $700. So the accountant would inscribe $700 in the account of each citizen. These individual accounts could easily be looked after by the local post offices, which are answerable to the Federal Government.

This would be a national dividend. Each Canadian would have an extra $700 to his own credit, in an account established for this purpose.

The dividend to each and all

Whenever it might become necessary to increase the money supply in a country, each man, woman, and child, regardless of age, would thus get his or her share of the new stage of progress, which makes the new money necessary.

This is not payment for a job done, but a dividend to each individual for his share in a common capital. If there is private property, there is also common ownership; that is to say, if some properties are privately owned, there are also common goods to which all are entitled.

Here is a man who has nothing but the rags that cover him. There is no meal in front of him, no penny in his pocket. I can then say to him:

“My dear fellow, you think you are poor, but you are a capitalist who possesses a great many things, in the same way as I and the Prime Minister do. The province's waterfalls, the crown forests, are yours just as they are mine, and they can easily bring you an annual income.

“The social organization, which makes it possible for our community to produce a hundred times more than if we lived in isolation, is yours as well as mine, and must be worth something to you as it is to me.

“Science, which makes industry able to multiply production almost without human labour, is a heritage passed on to each generation, a heritage that is continuously growing; and you, being of my generation, should have a share in this legacy, just as I do.

“If you are destitute, my friend, it is because your share has been stolen from you and put under lock and key, and the present unemployment in front of your needs, is the result of this.

“The Social Credit dividend will ensure that you get your share, or at least a major portion of it. A better administration, freed from the financiers' influence, and thus able to deal justly with these exploiters of men, will see to it that you get the rest.

“It is also this dividend that will recognize you as a member of the human species, in virtue of which you are entitled to a share of this world's goods, at least the necessary share to exercise your right to live.”

But we must take a closer look at the reasons why, in a well-organized society, each member is entitled to at least a minimum supply of goods. Too many people, who are regarded as being great sociologists, have not yet admitted this right.