(ヴェル・ドゥマン誌の1961年6月15日号に最初に出版されたルイ・エバンの論文)

私が農夫だとしよう。そして、仕事の助けをしてくれる人を雇う必要があるとしよう。彼に支払うべきお金を持っていないならば、お金の代わりの何かで対価を支払うことができるという解決にひょっとしたら到達するかも知れない。

たとえば、彼が私の農場での生産品を私に与えてくれる毎日の労働の対価として、１０ポンドのジャガイモ、３ポンドの肉、１ポンドのバター、および１ガロンの牛乳を彼に与えることで合意するかも知れない。

また、私は、彼に与えるものを何も持っていないならば、彼の仕事の価値をドルで評価するかも知れない。そしてその場合、たとえば、私は農場の生産品から好きなものを選んで手に入れるためのチケットに署名し、彼に渡すかも知れない。彼がする仕事に対する時間当たりの報酬５ドルに見合った物を彼は得ることができる。そうすれば、彼は私の農園の生産品の中なら好きなものを選ぶ権利を私から与えられる。

しかしながら、町の他の農夫や職人が作った生産品から選ぶ権利を彼に与えるようなチケットに、私が署名できないことは確実である。私は、厳密に私に所属している物への請求権しか彼に与えられない。

もし、私が彼にドルで対価を支払うならば、事情は異なってくる。そうしたら、彼は国内においてどこででも誰からの商品やサービスも選択可能となる。しかし、彼にお金で支払うためには、私は先ず第一にお金を持っていなければならない。

私が発行するチケットとお金の違いは、私のチケットでは私に属しているものに対する権利しかないのに対し、お金は私の生産品だけではなく、他の人々の生産品に対しても権利があるということである。

私が私自身の生産品に対してチケットを使うことができるのは、私がそれらの生産品を作るからである。私はそれらの所有者である。私がお金を発行（創造）できないのは、私が他の全ての人々の生産品の所有者でないからである。

私のチケットとお金は両方とも同じ大きさの紙切れに過ぎない。両方が同じ数を持つことができる。カナダ銀行が発行した１０ドル紙幣と同様に、私のチケットにも同じ１０ドルというラベルを付けることは容易である。しかし、私のチケットは私の生産品を買うことができるだけなのに対して、１０ドル紙幣はその価値のものならばどんな商品でもサービスでも買うことができる。

社会の道具

上に述べたことは、お金が社会の道具であるということの別の言い方である。そして、お金によって、例外なく全ての人の商品やサービスを手に入れることができるので、一人の個人やたとえ個人のグループでさえその発行権を持つことは正当化され得ない。というのは、そうすることは、それらの民間の個人に他人の商品を使う権利を与えることになるからである。

そしてそうであるけれども、新しいお金はどこかで発生している、創造されているに違いない。既に流通しているお金は、マナ（訳注：聖書で、昔イスラエル人が放浪中に、天から与えられたという食物）のように天から落ちてきたはずは無い。それは自然発生によって生まれなかった。生産が増加するならば、流通するお金の量も同様に必然的に増加しなければならない。 もし、1600年代のシャンプレーン（訳注：フランスの探検家、地理学者）の時代よりも多くのお金がこの国にないとしたら、カナダの現在の産業・商業は麻痺するであろう。

だから、お金の供給量は増加した。追加された新しいお金があった。そして、産業活動が増加すればするほど、お金の供給量も増加しなければならない。しかし、それならば、この追加されたお金はどこからやって来たのだろうか？ 民間の一個人や、民間の個人のグループが、他人の財産に対する請求権を与える権力を持ってはいけないはずなのに。

新しいお金、すなわちお金の供給量の増加は、社会そのもの、すなわち社会のためにその役割を果たすように設立された組織を通して以外の如何なる源からもやって来ることは出来ないのだ。

さて、今日において、正にその本質において社会的である役割を誰が果たしているのであろうか？ それが政府でないことは間違いない。 というのは、政府は税金あるいは後に新しい税徴収を通して返済しなければならない融資によってしか使えるお金を手に入れないからである。

お金は銀行によって創造されている

A small part of modern money is made up of coins and bank notes. By far, the larger part is made up of credits existing in the ledgers of banks.

Everybody knows that anyone who has a bank account can pay his grocery bill without taking cash out of his pocket. He has only to make a cheque for the required amount. The merchant who gets the cheque has only to go to the bank and deposit it to his account or, if he wishes, get bank notes or coins in exchange.

Everybody knows that. But what everybody does not know is that there are two types of accounts which one can have at the bank: first, the case of the saver, who comes to the bank to deposit money in his account — a savings account; and secondly, the case of the borrower, who asks the bank to deposit money in it for him.

There is a big difference between these two kinds of accounts.

When you take your money to the bank, the banker places this money in his vault and inscribes in your account this amount of money to your credit. You may use this credit as you wish. You can make payments when you want by drawing on this account through cheques. It is not hard cash (notes and coins), like the money you carried to the bank, but it is money just the same.

But what about the borrowing account? The borrower does not bring any money to the bank. He goes there to ask money from the banker. Often this is a large sum — let us say something like $50,000. The banker is not going to reach into the drawer and take out $50,000 in hard cash and give it to the borrower. And the borrower would hesitate to leave the bank with this amount of money in his possession. What the borrower wants is to have $50,000 inscribed to his credit in his account, upon which he will be able to make cheques according to his needs. And the banker will do this for the borrower; he inscribes this amount to the credit of the borrower.

But, mark you, the banker does this without taking a penny out of his drawer, without the borrower having to bring a penny to the bank, and without anyone else's account having been in any way touched.

In the case of the saver, there was a transformation of hard cash, locked up in the banker's drawer, into financial credit, which appeared as figures in the credit account of the saver. This transaction did not put one additional penny into circulation.

In the case of the borrower, there was no such transformation since the borrower did not bring any money with him. And since nothing was taken from the vault, from the drawer, from the account of any of the other depositors, it happens now that there is, in the bank's ledger, to the credit of the borrower, a new sum of money which did not exist before.

This is what is called the creation of money by the banker. It is a creation of credit, of checkbook money. This money is just as good as any other, since the borrower can make out cheques on it in the same fashion as the saver can draw on the money he deposited.

With this new money, the borrower can pay for work, materials, goods — the work of others, the materials of others, the goods of others.

In creating this $50,000 for the borrower, the banker has given to the latter the right to draw upon the production of others; not upon the production of the banker, but upon all the production in the country. The banker who does not, as a banker, own one bit of the country's production, nevertheless can give the borrower a claim to a share of the country's production.

This is what might be called, in all justice, the usurpation of a social function. Only society, in its whole, may with justice accomplish this function, a function that society may very well entrust to a competent organism, under its own control. But it is inadmissible that so important a social function be delegated to a private institution that traffics in it for its own profits.

Sovereign power over economic life

The borrower must, by a certain agreed date, repay to the bank the money which it created for him. When the money returns to the bank, it is no longer in circulation. It is dead money. To get another amount of money into circulation, another loan is needed, another creation of book money.

Loans therefore put money into circulation. Repayment of loans withdraws money from circulation.

In a given period — let us say, a year — if the sum of bank loans granted is greater than the sum of repayments made, then the volume of money in circulation has been increased. If, on the contrary, the banks have been more difficult about making loans, while still demanding repayments at the same rate as previously, then the volume of money in circulation decreases. This is what is known as a restriction of credit.

Since the banker charges interest on his loans, every repayment entails the return of more money to the banker than was originally issued in the loan. The result is that, in order to keep up the volume of money in circulation, it is necessary to have, over all, a greater activity in loans than in repayments.

The fact that it is necessary to repay to the bank more money than was issued results in private individuals and public bodies being obliged to have recourse continually to new loans, whence comes the ever-increasing debt. Without such a practice, it would not be long before the amount of money in circulation dried up completely. This function of the banker therefore confers upon him supreme power over the economic life of the country. He is more powerful than the Government, for he has the power to grant, refuse, and regulate credit, which is the very lifeblood of any country's economy.

Hope for an end?

Statesmen in Europe, the United States, and Canada have denounced, even openly, this supremacy of the banking system. Canada's Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in 1935 that as long as this power remained unbroken, it was futile to speak of democracy and the sovereignty of Parliament. There have been those who, like him, promised to restore to the nation the control of its money and credit. Others, like former Canadian Finance Minister Donald Fleming, have publicly attacked the arbitrary and harmful acts of the top bankers.

And yet none of these men were able to effect any change. And those politicians who are most vocal in their attacks on this money power — and this includes those politicians who fraudulently used the label “Social Credit” (real Social Credit, as advocated by the “Michael” Journal, has nothing to do with so-called “Social Credit” parties; moreover, it does not need either a “Social Credit” party to be implemented into the laws of a country) — will never change anything as long as the people themselves are not united to form a power even greater than that of Finance, a power that will force the Government to take action.

This is not a matter to be settled by elections. It is a question of forming a large enough group of citizens who are enlightened and determined to the point that they will make themselves heard by their governments, regardless of what party is in office.

It is also a matter for Divine assistance, since the enemy has a diabolical nature, and the money dictatorship is only one of his multiple faces. This is what the Social Crediters of the “Michael” Journal have understood, and understand more and more.

トップページへ戻る