[Josh Martin]
Heydorn writes from the perspective of those enamored with the idea of a Social Credit proposal for a National Dividend. In this blog post he outlines the differences between such a dividend and a basic income. First, he acknowledges the structural differences. While a basic income is fixed at a level, the dividend would be fixed to productivity: no productivity, no dividend. Secondly, he claims that the purpose of the basic income is to achieve full employment, while the dividend is supposed to encourage leisure. Lastly, Heydorn says a basic income would be financed through currently in place means, but a dividend should be issued by a newly created National Credit Office. For these reasons M. Olver Heydorn argues that those in favor of the Social Credit should hesitate to support a basic income and should instead seek to convince basic income supporters to join them instead.
M. Oliver Heydorn, “The (Big!) Difference Between a ‘Basic Income’ and the National Dividend”, Socred.org, 30 October 2014.
Yes, Social Credit is fine as far it goes, and can be seen as a “precursor” of Transfinancial Economics. An entry on the latter exists at the noted P2P Founded. TFE represents a huge revolution in our understanding of finance, and economics.