make financially possible
note: In 1956, the Liberal Party of Quebec had included in its platform
the basic proposal of Social Credit. It lost the election. The Bankers
had done their job to make sure that Social Credit would not been
implemented. They are the ones who control political parties and
election campaigns. That is why one must not rely on elections to change
from slaves into free servants of the people. The pressure of an
enlightened population, joined to the grace of God, is the only way to
obtain a just economic system.
The importance of money
Under the economic system of primitive times, when my neighbour produced
what I needed and I produced what my neighbour needed, barter was a
simple, out-in-the-open affair.
But this type of primitive trade is something of the dim, past ages.
Today, with the exception of some types of farm products, each produces
for the public market, and each buys from the public market. In such an
economic system, money plays a vital role.
A man no longer works by himself. Production is pooled just as physical
labour is pooled. There are employers and employees. There is a division
of work. Regarded universally, this can be called progress because more
products are placed on the market.
But if this immense machine of production is to function properly,
something else besides the means of production is necessary; there must
be a means of paying for the produce or products.
The employer must reimburse his employee for his work. Now, that
reimbursement cannot be the product resulting from the work of the
employee. All day long, day in and day out, Paul makes shoes, but his
employer isn't going to pay him with shoes. Paul needs something besides
shoes for himself and his family. Jim works all year making wood pulp,
but he wants something other than wood pulp in return for his services.
That “something” is what Paul and Jim, or Mrs. Paul and Mrs. Jim,
pick from the shelves of the public stores according to the needs of
their families. And there you have the reason for the invention of
money. Paul's boss pays him in money, and sells his shoes for money.
Jim's employer likewise pays him in money, and sells his wood pulp for
If the employers of Paul and Jim had no money, they would be unable to
hire workers nor run their factories. Production would stop for the lack
of money. Physically, it would still be possible to produce shoes or
wood pulp, but financially, such production would be impossible,
incapable of realization.
Similarly, if all the Pauls and Jims and their families in the country
have enough money, they can buy on the public market whatever products
they need. Lacking money, they can't buy, even if the stores are glutted
Now all of this is not theory, but the bitter story of experience. How
many manufacturers in the past have had to close down their factories,
partially or completely, temporarily or permanently, because the bank
had refused them credit! And how many among the consumers — fathers,
mothers, entire families, young men and young women — have had to
suffer want, do without necessities, or contract long-term debts just to
ward off starvation, and all because they had not the means to pay for
the products offered on the market!
production of goods was physically possible. Their distribution, too,
was physically possible; there was no shortage of transportation nor
merchants. And, nevertheless, distribution halted because what was
physically possible was not financially possible.
This was brought about by the lords of finance, and not by the makers and
producers of material goods. And it's still the same today, the same old
What we have said above is true also when we come to consider that
corporate being, the municipality. There is no problem building a water
system when the community has the means to pay for it. If it hasn't
these means, it has to wait, or, as is many times the case, it goes into
debt, which means it must fatten the purse of the financier who produces
Any number of public projects are materially, physically possible and
capable of realization, as is proved by the fact that when the money is
at hand, they are carried out. But they are not financially possible.
The proof? These projects are delayed, grants are begged to carry them
out, citizens' property is mortgaged to get the necessary money.
The fact is: the filling of material needs, either of the individual or
the community, is something which, in the final analysis, is regulated
by the decision of finance. Men did not initially set up a system of
finance just to make life more difficult, or to place themselves under a
Such a turn of events has come about gradually in the financial system
and has made it the matter of men, though it was originally intended to
To overthrow this tyranny
Social Credit denounces, without let-up, this financial tyranny over our
There is no good reason why a financial problem should exist. Today there
is nothing easier than money to produce. And this is attested to by the
fact that the world, which was without money for ten years, was able, in
the space of one short night, to find all the money, all the billions of
dollars necessary to wage a global war lasting six years.
Crediters state: “Whatever is physically possible and desirable
should, by that very fact, be made financially possible.”
On March 29 of the year 1956, the Political Commission of the Provincial
Liberal Federation of Quebec included in the Liberal Party's program a
like declaration, followed by a political commitment:
Provincial Liberal Party considers that whatever is physically capable
of realization in the province should also be made financially possible
according to the needs of the population, the municipalities, the school
commissions, and other public bodies of the province. Consequently,
whensoever there shall be a Liberal Government in Quebec, it will take
the necessary means to achieve this end.”
A feasible promise
Now, the Liberal Party was not promising us the moon. It committed itself
to take the necessary steps to realize a promise that is entirely
feasible. We are not the only ones to state that this sort of a program
is practicable. A man well versed in the ways of finance, Graham Towers,
who was also the first governor of the Bank of Canada, held the same
In 1939, before the House of Commons' permanent committee of banking and
commerce, a question was put forward by Norman Jaques, M.P., and
answered without hesitation by Towers. Here is the question and the
reply as recorded on page 771 of the Minutes of Common' Banking and
Commerce Committee for 1939:
Would you admit that anything physically possible and desirable can be
made financially possible?
This was in 1939. A few months later, war broke out. And subsequent
events proved that it was quite easy to make financially possible all
that was materially possible. There was no purely financial problem as
far as conducting the war was concerned.
These purely financial problems were called by President Roosevelt
“nonsense” — and they are! When his country entered the war, he
declared that he would not permit the war effort to be handicapped by
But what the president failed to do was to prevent the financial barons
from making a temporary measure of this suspension of financial
"nonsense", and from putting it on the nation's books as an
accumulation of debts once the war was over.
A motivated economy
The Social Credit resolution adopted by the Liberal Party of Quebec was
more humane than the declaration of Roosevelt. It envisaged an economy
of peace, and not one of war. It was not concerned with rendering
financially possible for the purposes of war, but “to make financially
possible whatever is physically possible according to the needs of the
population and the public bodies of this province.”
The needs of the population are the needs of the individuals and the
families, of all the individuals and all the families comprising the
population of the province.
The primary needs of the individual are those who must be met if he is to
live: food, clothing, shelter, medical care.
Is it physically possible to provide enough food, clothing, housing, and
medical care in this province in order that each person might have the
necessities to live decently?
No one would dare deny that it is possible — materially. So, if needs
are not met today, it is either because the producer lacks the money to
produce, or the consumer hasn't the cash with which to buy.
Social Credit — and Liberal — resolution refuses to admit this
separation between what is physically possible and what is financially
possible. According to it, the question no longer is, “Can it be paid
for?” but “Can it be produced? Can it be transported? Can it be
delivered?” If the answer is “Yes”, if the product or produce is
materially possible, then logically (and humanely) it should, by the
very fact of its material possibility, be made financially feasible.
And this holds true in the degree for municipalities, school commissions,
and other public bodies. In as much as public development projects are
physically possible, they should be made financially possible. Money
should be the complement and reflection of real produce, not its
adversary striving to crush it. New money should come into being
whenever there is a question of developing new sources of natural
wealth, and money should not be cancelled except in the same measure as
the dissipation by consumption of natural wealth.
Thus you have an economy truly fitted to men's needs, not an economy
designed by and for bureaucrats and politicians; an economy regulated by
the consumers themselves, private and public; an economy motivated by
the clearly-stated needs of free men possessing the means (money) to
demand and get what they want.
The Liberal resolution did not mention the words “Social Credit”. But
it is obvious that the resolution cannot be realized under the rules of
So beyond doubt, it's a solid Social Credit measure without the title of
such. But then, it's not the name but the thing that counts.
This article was published in the May-June-July, 2003 issue of “Michael”.