In 1944, Mr. James Warburg, of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Wall Street, New York, one of the most influential international banking groups in
the speeches I hear both in and out of the House, the complete purpose of an economic system is to keep people at work. . . . I wish to dissent completely from that point of view. . . . I assert that the purpose of the economic system never was, is not, and never will be, that of providing jobs. . . . The only sound, sane, sensible, logical and legitimate purpose of an economic system is to provide the maximum amount of goods with the minimum of work and trouble . . . it is not 'work' that anyone objects to much; it is being compelled to work either by Government or by Nature. . . . When a Government, whether it be this Government or any other, seeks to compel the people of a nation to work, whether it be on public works or work of any other kind, then that Government is imposing a condition of slavery on the people. The Work State is nothing less than a Slave State. I wish to say with respect to private enterprise that I do not consider it the duty or obligation of private enterprise anywhere to provide jobs. . . . There is a lot of criticism of private enterprise being made today. The only thing I see wrong in private enterprise is the abuse of it. . . When the Socialists contend that the way to deal with the abuses of the private enterprise system is for the nation to take it over, that is equivalent to saying that we ought to abolish freedom lest it be abused."
The case for the "national dividends" idea has been outlined in detail in Social Credit literature. Both the Socialists and the "Capitalists" have attacked the idea. Both object to the human race entering into its heritage. They are both frantically trying to pursue an insane economic policy in the face of increasing scientific progress. The war speeded up the application of science to production a thousandfold. Here are a few facts given by a Labor member in the British House of Commons, a Labor man who has seen through the insanity of "full employment" in the twentieth century. Speaking on June 22, 1944, Mr. Maxton said:
". . . Do not start at the end of trying to find employment for our people. To see, now, that the persons concerned get their full share of the wealth that is produced, that is the major problem, rather than the problem of seeing that everybody takes a full share in the work of the world.
"The world's shipbuilding capacity today . . . is sufficient to build, in one year, a mercantile marine of as great a tonnage as the whole mercantile marine of the whole world of pre-war days. One year can produce that 65,000,000 tons of shipping. . . . What do the shipbuilders of the world do, when in one year, they put on the seas sufficient ships to keep the world going for 25 years?
"Suppose we have all the ships we need for 25 years produced in one year. What do the shipbuilders, the steel workers behind them, the local shopkeepers in the localities and the food and clothing producers, do for the other 24 years while waiting for the ships to go down?
"Here is a little cutting . . . which I have shown a hundred times to my friends: 'Speaking in Vancouver, Sir Robert Fairey, Director-Geberal of the British Aircraft Commission, . . . added: 'Britain could turn out enough planes in three days to last all the world's commercial airlines for five years.'
"This tremendously increased capacity for producing goods can be paralleled in every branch of industry where machine power plays a primary part."
The reader is urged to investigate facts such as Mr. Maxton mentioned, and then to ask himself what all this cry for "full employment" means. It may be true that here in Australia we could absorb a considerable amount of manpower on roads, etc., for a short period, although anyone familiar with the use of machinery during the war
for laying down new military roads and aerodromes knows that very few men would be required if full use were made of machinery. And we only want public works which will benefit the individual people. We don't want public works just for the sake of making work—which is, of course, what the economic planners want. The controllers of the Egyptian slaves kept them busy building pyramids!
The burden of work is being shifted from the backs of men by the use of solar energy in the form of electricity and steam. And now scientists tell us of the almost-unbelievable power which can be made
available in the form of atomic energy!
Is the human race to be prevented from using Nature's energy to bring freedom to an increasing number of individuals, simply because men like Hitler tell us that we must not accept Nature's gifts, that they would not be good for us? Social crediters challenge this idea.
WHAT OF NEW ZEALAND?
Some Australian Labor members assert that the New Zealand Labor Government has achieved beneficial results for the New Zealand people since it introduced very similar banking legislation to that introduced by the Australian Labor Party. Let us briefly examine some of the facts. We can only judge by results.
It is interesting to recall that, prior to the 1935 New Zealand elections, a powerful Social Credit movement had made the subject of financial reform the major political issue in New Zealand. As in every part of the world, the controllers of the Labor Party obviously decided that they must sabotage the Social Crediters. They arranged for the Labor Party to come out with an election policy of "monetary reform". Social Credit phrases and ideas were freely used. The result was an overwhelming victory for the Labor Party. After the elections, while the electors were waiting for some practical results to eventuate, the new Government rushed its Industrial Efficiency Act through, thus paving the way for the Slave State. There was much sound and confusion when the Government brought down its first Banking Legislation, but, after the shouting died away, what results were produced? Debt and taxation continued to increase more rapidly than ever. New Zealanders are today among the most heavily taxed people in the world.
When the Australian Labor Party was introducing its Banking Legislation, Mr. Calwell boasted that New Zealand "had used considerably more than £25,000,000 of national credit, at 14 per cent. interest, in the building of homes." (Vide Federal "Hansard", June 27, 1945.)
It is true that the New Zealand Labor Government has used millions of pounds of national credit for building Government housing settlements, the conduct of the war, and other bureaucratically controlled activities. But Mr. Calwell and other Labor apologists do not stress the fact that this national credit—the PEOPLE'S credit—is written up against the people as a permanent debt, requiring more taxation to meet the interest charges. Social Crediters have protested for years against the people's credit being appropriated, controlled and monopolised by the private banks; but they are just as much opposed to a Government monopoly doing the same thing; they desire the people to have control of and spend their own credit. In New Zealand, as in Australia, the centralisation of control of financial policy has increased the power of the bureaucracy over the people. The bureaucracy, as in Australia, has been specially trained for the task of fitting New Zealand into the plans laid down by the international planners.
It is important that Australian electors realise that rural populations in particular have always been regarded with the greatest apprehension by the international planners. Rural populations have been noted for their sturdy independence. It is significant that in Great Britain the so-called "Conservative" Party, although in office for many years, was unable to prevent the primary producers and land owners generally from being taxed almost to the point of confiscation (which indicates that all party governments are controlled by the planners). It is safe to say that the banks in both Australia and New Zealand have obtained control of at least 80 per cent, of agricultural and pastoral lands. Now, no less a person than Dr. Evatt, speaking in favour of the World Food and Agriculture Organisation, said that Australians might have to submit to some interference with their "traditionally domestic affairs." The same applies, of course, to New Zealand and other countries which passed Bills ratifying the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. This Organisation has the power to interfere with a nation's domestic policy in regard to "the processing, marketing, and distribution of food and agricultural products", "agricultural credit" and "agricultural commodity arrangements". In other words, agricultural countries such as New Zealand and Australia are intended to be at the mercy of this international organisation, which will be dominated by the same individuals who control all similar international organisations, including banking. If the international planners say that New Zealand and Australia must follow a certain rural policy, it will be a very simple matter to use the centrally controlled banking system to deny credit to primary producers and dispossess them. We might make mention here of the Mortgage Bank Department of the Commonwealth Bank, created by the Labor Party to "assist" farmers!
Make no mistake, the international planners want to control agriculture as it is in Russia: by State collectivised farming. The mechanism has been created for the task. It will be used at the opportune time.
The following extracts from a review of the New Zealand Labor Government's performances will indicate that Government controlled banking has produced results which give the lie to what Labor speakers tell us in Australia:
"The Sales Tax, described as 'iniquitous' in 1935 when only 5 per cent., is now generally at 20 per cent.
"Wages Tax, at 1/- in the £ in 1935, now 2/6.
"Social Security" levy 5/- per quarter for males and 5/- per year for females, including children of 16 years of age. The main "benefits" appear to be free consultation with empanelled doctors, who have to deal with their patients on mass-production lines to keep up with it.
"State housing schemes have failed hopelessly to meet the demands and the waiting list runs into thousands. [Will someone please tell Mr. Calwell!]
"State tenants, while thankful for a home while so many are homeless, have to tolerate irksome restrictions as to the size of their family and what pets or poultry they may keep, and official supervision generally which would be unendurable if privately owned homes were available. Private builders are unable to meet the demands for homes because materials and permits are controlled. Small builders are thus forced out of business. [The same procedure is, of course, being followed in Australia.]
"Staple foods have been progressively forced under the control of the Internal Marketing Board, in every case resulting in increased prices and smaller quantities available . . ."
New Zealand's economic arrangements are controlled by the same type of economic advisers that we have in Australia. Their objective is to make impossible any revolt against the policy of debt-finance. Hence the use of food controls, and other controls, in conjunction with financial domination.
WHAT OF ALBERTA?
There is no need to go into details here concerning the remarkable results achieved by the Social Credit Government in Alberta, Canada; results achieved in spite of the fact that the Albertan Government has been prevented by the Federal Government of Canada from implementing its major policy. BUT IT HAS PROGRESSIVELY REDUCED DEBT AND TAXATION, a reform which is not laid down in the Labor Party's Banking Legislation in this country. The Social Credit Government in Alberta is the only Government in the world reducing debt and taxation. No wonder the Social Crediters have now held office in Alberta for over ten years with practically no opposition in the Provincial Parliament. The Albertans are getting results. Those who desire to know the inspiring story of the Albertans' fight for real freedom should read a booklet on the subject, advertised at the back of this booklet.
During the Canberra debates on the 1945 Banking Legislation it is true that one Labor Member, Mr. Langtry, did mention the outstanding results achieved by the Social Credit Government in Alberta. He suggested an official inquiry. But, having made this excellent suggestion, he then indulged in that hypocrisy which is far too common at Canberra. He said that under no circumstances would the Liberal Party or the Country Party instigate such an inquiry—neglecting to mention that the same was true of his own Party! In Canada the Socialists have joined with their so-called opponents in a desperate attempt to thwart the growth of Social Credit. A most significant development! In order to try to defeat the Social Crediters in Alberta at the 1940 provincial elections, members of all Parties sank their Party identity and stood as "Independent" candidates.
Mr. Norman Jaques, Social Credit Member in the Canadian Federal House, writing to a friend in Australia on December 30, 1942, said: "With two Social Credit friends, my wife and I attended a mass meeting of these Independents. Two thousand of the faithful had gathered from far and wide, and were addressed by the provincial Conservative Leader, and by former Liberal and C.C.F. (Socialist) Members of Parliament. As the Socialist put it, while the three speakers stood, arm in arm, on the platform: 'In the past we have had difference of opinion, but when we consider the threat of Social Credit Government to our fair province, to our women and children, our differences sink into insignificance'."
The story of Social Credit in Canada reveals all too clearly that the Socialists and others who advocate a nationalised banking system are just as much opposed to the policy of the Social Crediters as are the financiers. No doubt the controllers of the Labor and Socialist Parties everywhere have taken to heart the advice given by the Socialist economist, Mr. G. D. H. Cole:
"Before a Labor Government nationalises any other productive industry, it should nationalise the banks . . . With the banks in our hands, we can take over the other industries at our leisure."
Don't forget the Industrial Finance Department of the Commonwealth Bank!
ELECTORS MUST DEMAND RESULTS.
I have already stressed the fact that electors can expect no beneficial results simply because the Federal Government takes control of the money system. WHO CONTROLS THE FEDERAL GOVERN-MENT? It is obvious that the electors don't, because they have changed the Parties at Canberra several times and have obtained no beneficial results. Social Crediters have stressed the fact that electors cannot obtain any beneficial results from the financial system or any other system unless they first obtain control of their individual Members of Parliament and insist that Members represent the people's policy and
not that of the controllers of all Parties. Unless we can all agree and act upon the following points, all talk of political and economic democracy in Australia is futile:
- (1) The parliamentary system of government exists in order that electors may get those results which they want.
- (2) All policies should be framed by the people. (This does not mean that they should enter into arguments and divide themselves into hostile political groups concerning the administrative methods of obtaining what they want.)
- (3) Members of Parliament should faithfully represent the policies of the people and be directly controlled by them. They should take steps to insist that the people get what they want.
Bearing in mind the above points, can we truthfully say that we have real political democracy in Australia today? We have not. Members of Parliament give their first allegiance to their Party, and the real policy of any Party is controlled by the advisers to all Governments. This state of affairs only continues because of the political apathy of the people. Social Grediters are not endeavouring to tell John Citizen what they can do for him; they are not forming another Party and seeking power over the people. In this connection the Social Gredit objective is to show the people how—if they stop being divided by the Party system and unite in demanding those results which they all desire, and give no support to any candidate who will not represent their policies—they can govern themselves.
Have the people ever been asked to frame their own policies? No. They have been encouraged to argue among themselves. And most of their arguments are concerning methods of reaching an objective decided for them by someone else. Take taxation as one vital issue. What difference is there between any of the Parties on this matter? None whatever. There is merely argument about whether this group or that group should be taxed more heavily. (Indirect taxation is ultimately passed on in consequently higher prices of goods and services, and, as we are all consumers, we all pay it.) Social Crediters say that the electors should frame their own policy on taxation. Do they all want taxation drastically reduced and eventually wiped out? Can employer and employee agree on this? Surely they can. Such a policy would benefit both of them. The employer could reduce the price of goods, and the employee would have greater purchasing power.
Social Crediters urge electors to unite in demanding drastically reduced taxation. Electors should tell their parliamentary representatives—by letter, personally, or any other means—that they insist that he carries out their policy, and that, if he does not, they will use their votes to remove him at the next elections. It is not the job of the electors to put forward methods by which taxation can be drastically reduced and eventually abolished, although in this booklet some indication is given of how it can be done. It is the job of the Government and its well-paid economic advisers to devise methods by which the people's policy can be put into effect. If economic advisers cannot get results, the Government should replace them with men who can. Electors should judge by results.
In order that there can be no doubt about the result (in this case, reduction of taxation) electors should, as a start, demand a specific reduction—say 50 per cent., which is easily possible.
Taxation is only one of the many issues on which electors can unite. There is grave concern in Australia concerning the encroachment of the Canberra bureaucracy on the functioning of responsible Government. If Australians are opposed to the appalling results which these bureaucrats and their food boards and other creations have produced, they
should unite in informing their individual Members of Parliament that they hold them personally responsible for a drastic reduction in the number of bureaucrats. We must have responsible Government. But before we can get responsible Government we must become responsible citizens who recognize the fact that we must frame our own policies, those results which we all desire, and demand them in whatever priority we think fit. If we will not do this, but merely vote apathetically for candidates who tell us what they or their Party bosses think is "good" for us, we might as well admit that we are virtually disfranchised; that we are not easting our votes for our policy, but, in all probability, are easting them for policies opposed to our own. Members of Parliament are primarily concerned about how much voting strength they have behind them. At present they do what their Party orders (although in many cases they know it is against the best interests of their electors) simply because they know that defiance of the Party would mean the use of the Party machine to take the block Party vote away from them at the next election. The electors, must break the control of Party machines in politics and restore control of Members of Parliament back to the electorate.
It is interesting to recall briefly the inspiring example of political action which the people of Alberta have given. For many years prior to the 1935 Albertan provincial elections, hundreds of Social Credit groups were formed all over Alberta. Tremendous public opinion was directed against the Government, then comprised of members of the United Farmers Party, on the question of financial reform. The electors demanded certain basic results: the reduction of taxation, a lower cost of living, a reduction of debt and the payment of a monthly national dividend of twenty-five dollars. Although the Government actually yielded to public opinion to the extent of appointing Major Douglas as the provincial economic advisor not long before the elections, it was apparent to the electors that the Government was not going to implement the people's policy. At the election the people used their votes to discipline their servants by voting them out of Parliament and replacing them with men who were pledged to carry out the people's policy. 56 Social Crediters were appointed by the electors, out of a total of 63 seats. Now it is instructive to note that the people of Alberta didn't say how the results they required were to be obtained; they were content to judge by results. During the first eighteen months the Government formed under the late William Aberhart made no progress at all towards getting the people the results demanded. Major Douglas's advice was rejected and Aberhart made the mistake of thinking that it was his responsibility to work out technical methods for achieving results. Major Douglas did not even bother going out to Alberta from England to advise the new Government, but resigned his position. Grave discontent grew among the electors when they found they were not getting results, and organised pressure from the electorates was brought to bear on individual Members demanding that they fulfill their election pledges.
Electors must never lose sight of the fact that they must at all times insist that Members honour their pre-election promises. Many promises are made in the knowledge that the electors will not maintain sufficient political pressure once the election is over. One could give dozens of examples of this, but one will suffice: The following is portion of a resolution passed in the Perth Town Hall in 1932: "That the monetary system must provide for the progressive displacement of men by machines, by allowing the increased leisure made possible by such displacement to accrue to mankind as a whole."
The mover of the resolution was Mr. John Curtin! Mr. Curtin no doubt found that he couldn't "get on" by continuing to advocate the above policy; he yielded to pressure. But it wasn't pressure from electors.
Let us now continue with our story of Alberta. After the Alberta electors had brought pressure to bear on their individual Members, mainly by written instructions, action was taken to implement the people's policy. Competent technical advisers were called in by the Government to devise methods by which the people's policy could be implemented. These advisers were sent out to Alberta by Major C. H. Douglas. One of them, Mr. L. D. Byrne, is still economic adviser to the Albertan Government.
All legislation to give effect to the advisers' initial advice was effectively checked by the Canadian Federal Government, thus demonstrating once again the menace of centralised Government. The advisers then had to devise the now-famous Treasury Branches to give effect to the people's policy.
It may be argued here that these Treasury Branches are State owned and that this is contrary to what we have previously stated about nationalisation. But these Branches are merely institutions for providing the people with services denied them by the local banks, which cannot be controlled by the provincial government. The Treasury Branches cannot be used in any way by the Government to impose policy on the people; the people control the Treasury Branches. The greater use that the people make of the Branches, the more direct benefits they receive, as will be appreciated by any one who studies the scheme. The main danger of nationalisation occurs with centralised Government which the people naturally find it hard to control effectively. Social Crediters are strong advocates of local Government which the electors can control. Such a Government is the Albertan Government, where there was no danger of a Government was effectively controlled by the electors right from the start. Government on the spot is the most democratic Government; Government by remote control can never be democratic. Social Crediters urge electors to take far more interest in their State Parliaments. What the people of Alberta have accomplished can be accomplished by the people of any one State in Australia. Although the powers of the State Government, the Australian State Governments still have far more powers than have the Canadian provincial Governments. If the people of any State took the same steps as the Albertan people did to control their Government, there appears to be no reason why the Government of that State could not use its constitutional powers concerning State banking to give the people a system which would allow them to make use of their own credit as they desire.
During the Dean Case Inquiry in 1944, Mr. Justice Reed stated that, because there is no Act of Parliament making the creation of credit legal, it does not follow that this credit is illegal. This argument must therefore apply to banks set up by authority of State Governments. In Section 51, sub-section XIII, the Federal Government, "subject to the Constitution," has power to make laws with respect to "Banking, other than State Banking." There is nothing in the Constitution which limits in any way the phrase, "other than State Banking." There appears to be no reason to doubt that banks established by the authority of the State Governments have the same powers of credit creation as the other banks.
The most convincing evidence of the powers of banks established by authority of the State Governments has been supplied by one of Australia's leading banking authorities, Sir Alfred Davidson, formerly General Manager of the Bank of New South Wales. During the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems in 1936, Sir Alfred was asked a series of questions on banking. Both questions and answers were published in booklet form by the Bank of New South Wales. After dealing with the general subject of central banking. Sir Alfred
answered the question, "Do you think it desirable that the Commonwealth Bank should acquire any, and if so, what, additional powers in this direction?" (of playing a more important role in the Australian banking system). He said: "I would suggest that the only additional powers that the Commonwealth Bank may need are: . . (2) Powers to control banking institutions set up by State Governments. THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION." (My emphasis.) Surely this is clear enough. Banking institutions set up by State Governments are not subject to control by Federal authority.
In answer to a further question, Sir Alfred said: "It is essential that the Central Bank should be able to enforce its policy on the community. Its present powers appear to be ample enough to enable it to do this with regard to Australian institutions, EXCEPT IN THE REALM OF STATE BANKING." (My emphasis.) The Banking Legislation passed by the Federal Labor Government was designed to put into practice Sir Alfred's totalitarian idea that the "Central Bank should be able to enforce its policy on the nation." But note: Any State Government possessing the determination and the knowledge could resist this policy, as reluctantly admitted by Sir Alfred. But electors must first act as already suggested.
Nothing is more certain than that, unless electors take action to bring all Governments under their effective control, control will be further and further centralised in the hands of the central Government at Canberra, and then the International Organisations, which will be able to implement their policies everywhere without fear of challenge from the people.
The fundamental issue is clear: Either control of Government is to be brought closer to the people, in order that they can control it, or it will be removed further away from the people.
The choice is with the people. They must become alert and interested in looking after their own welfare. They must start demanding results and keep on demanding them until they get them. Social Credit is the belief that people in association can get what they want.
CONCLUSION.
We can now summarise the conclusions we have reached in this booklet:
The economic advisers to all Parties at Canberra are determined to make the Australian banking system an integral part of a world-wide system of banking controlled by one international group.
Social Crediters advocate a financial policy which will be directly controlled by the Australian people.
The economic planners, taking advice from the international planners, desire to use the financial system to plan what they think the Australian people should produce.
Social Crediters say that the financial system exists to serve consumers, who should be completely free to indicate by money-votes just what they desire produced.
The economic planners and all Parties are determined to pursue a financial policy of increasing debt, and consequently of increasing taxation to pay interest on the debt.
Social Crediters advocate a financial policy which will ensure that production of assets (whether they be public utilities such as roads, etc., or capital goods) or consumable goods and services, does not leave a burden of unpayable debt. Social Crediters advocate a financial policy which will ensure that the people have at all times sufficient total purchasing power to meet total prices of all goods and services.
The economic planners believe in taking increasing taxation from the people and only allowing the people to get some of their own money back under certain conditions. The conditions are framed by the planners and their bureaucratic staffs, who are paid liberally out of the taxpayers' money.
Social Grediters advocate the complete elimination of taxation. They believe in the people spending their own money. Under a Social Gredit policy they would have adequate money-votes to purchase all that they produced. Legitimate private enterprise would be able to fulfill its proper function and not be destroyed by monopoly.
The economic planners and all Parties believe that the economic system should provide "full employment." They are not in favour of that individual liberty which a regular monetary dividend, a dividend made possible by the efforts of our forefathers and the increment of association, would give every individual in the community.
Social Crediters believe that the aim of an economic system should be to provide consumers with the goods and services they require. Work should only be incidental, and available to those desirous of doing it and who show that they have the qualifications. As greater efficiency in production is developed, which means increasing production with less men, the monetary dividend would increase. People could self-employ themselves and the arts and crafts would no doubt come into their own again. Man is naturally creative.
The economic planners want the banking system to be centralised even more than it is now. They want to continue making it an instrument for imposing on the people the will of a few men.
Social Crediters desire to break down all monopoly and have a banking system which will operate on the same basis as other businesses in the community. Social Crediters want a banking policy which the electors can directly control and which will automatically provide them with access to their own financial credit in order that they make and carry out their own policies in production.
The economic planners, who dictate to all Parties, keep the people divided by the Party System. In this manner the people are tricked into arguing about diffrent methods of achieving the same result—the result desired by the economic planners and their international masters.
The Social Crediters point out that Party Politics make real Democracy impossible. They are endeavouring to show electors how they can unite in order of priority on those specific results they want, as did the people of Alberta, and insist that their individual Members of Parliament are solely responsible to them. They urge electors to cease arguing about which road to take to serfdom and to unite in demanding the fuller life we all know to be possible.
Nothing is more certain than the fact that the Australian Labor Party's 1945 Banking Legislation is one of the roads to slavery which electors should refuse to take.
The monopoly of the people's credit cannot be broken by monopolising it still further!
(THE END.)
The "NEW TIMES"
Australia's Social Credit Weekly
The "New Times" is a really independent weekly, advocating political and economic democracy. Its courageous and revealing articles, together with a democratic, constructive policy, are causing widespread public interest. Become a reader and keep yourself in touch with the real factors behind the international and national situations. It will only cost you 4d. per copy from your nearest authorised newsagent—if he does not already stock it, tell him to order from Gordon & Gotch.
Direct Subscription Rate: £1 for 12 months; 10/- for 6 months; 5/- for 3 months.
Post free from Box 1226, G.P.O., Melbourne.
Read the booklet, "ALBERTA NOW." Obtainable from the above address. Price 71d. per copy, including postage.