If you phrase the question right, even the most fundamentalist person will agree with helping people. Say it was from someone they disagree with and then they immediately disagree with the idea now. It's become more team sports than actual policy nuance anymore
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
15 points (75.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44143 readers
1038 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't claim to understand economics, but where does this "free" credit come from, how is it sustainable if cost to manufacture is always more than what people have. It seems you just push the difference into a delayed debt.
this "free" credit come from
It can come from issueing new currency. The cost of that is inflation.
cost to manufacture is always more than what people have
That's what I'm wonder about mostly. This statement doesn't occur in the wikipedia page, and seems unsubstantiated. A human or LLM hallucination.
You're right, I'll see if I can find a better (human written) summary. Asked ChatGPT for this one since I don't understand it well enough to write one myself and I didn't want to paste the whole wikipedia page in.
Cost to manufacture is not more than wages, but cost to purchase a good is always more than the total cost of labour needed to produce it, so long as profit exists.
The money isn't free so much as redistributed from taxation elsewhere, think of it as the same as subsidising industry except only to the workers of that industry (instead giving it to owners and expecting the savings to trickle downwards). You could also consider it an income tax rebate with more fine-grained control of who gets it.
It doesn't seem particularly ground-breaking of a concept; I see the value in investing money into necessary but unprofitable industry though my concern is that if you subsidise wages of a business with a profit incentive, management may lower wages to compensate.
I'm not going to lie, I don't fully understand it myself (partially why I'm asking about it lol), so don't take my word on this but:
My understanding is that the amount of money distributed throughout the country is directly tied to the value the country as a whole produces. It basically keeps the buying power equal to the production value.
I'm unclear on how this would work when global trade is added to the mix though.
Yeah, value of a product is what market will pay. If gov tops up your funds to buy things ( in a free market ) the prices go up. And then if you aren't focused on just your economy, but global like you mentioned, the global buyers may really want the product, raising price higher, or not want products making unequal trade. I need a "Economic Theory for Five Year Olds" book
Market value and value are different things. Value is how much a product is socially necessary, and how hard it is to produce. Market value then is what people end up paying for it in a free market. They are often different, but in aggregate for the whole end up being the same.
I believe this is mostly managed through the Compensated Price part of Social Credit, but yeah I'm with you on that book. Was hoping someone here would be an expert on the subject
Edit: I apologize, I misread the question and the original post. You're right this credit is coming out of thin air and makes no sense
If the people themselves pay for the manufacture directly rather than pay for the product then you can reduce the cost to the fundamental value of the product and ignore the price increase due to the demand
If a private company pays for the manufacture and the people pay for the product there will always be a cut the middleman has to take, and they will sell at the highest price someone is willing to pay. This is the cost that people can't pay
Everyone can afford the construction costs of a home, but can't afford the competitive price
Where's that quoted text from? I can't find it on the linked wikipedia page.
It's a summary of the wikipedia page by ChatGPT. Should have labelled it as such, I'll do that now
Thank you
It was briefly influential here in Ireland and linked with respected figures like Maud Gonne.
My main impression: I have never figured out what the feck they're on about.
Do they have a simple 'bible' that explains what it is?
Compare Georgism for example: Georgism means 'tax the land'. Comprehensible. What does social credit call for?
I'm suspicious of the links to Fabian Socialism, which I see as condescending philanthropy to help the poor (rather than empowering the poor as in Marxism)
I'm suspicious of its moralistic language.
I'm suspicious of the links to Catholicism, but that can somewhat be written off as a product of its time.
I'm inclined to say its of historical interest at best, as I've never seen in advocated for past 1950. Maybe I could be brought around if someone can explain what it actually is.
Fabian Socialism
Well that's another Wikipedia rabbit hole I'm about to dive into
But totally agree with your suspicions. From what I've read so far, the Catholicism link is from Christians who actually believed in the fact that the bible says to take care of each other, but I'm not fully ready to trust that. (Like you said though, this could be a product of its time)
To me it really reads like something invented by a capitalist who knows that the system is unjust but is still devoted to it. Which, to be honest, I can respect, especially for the time period.
That being said, in my limited understanding of it, it doesn't sound all that bad? (definitely drop any religious connections). If I were to choose between the current system (in Canada/USA specifically), and this one, I might be willing to try it out.
Maybe I could be brought around if someone can explain what it actually is.
That's for sure my issue. I've read a number of articles on it at this point and I'm still not grasping exactly what it is. Was really hoping someone here would be an expert on it lol
I guess Social Credit by CH Douglas is the bible I need to read.
Haha probably not a bad place to start