-Caveat Lector-
an excerpt from:
The Strange Death of FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
A History of the Roosevelt-Delano Dynasty America's Royal Family
Emanuael M. Josephson©1948
CHEDNEY PRESS
127 East 69th Street
New York 21, N. Y.
--[26]--
CHAPTER XXVI
THE REMEDY — A SURPLUS ECONOMY
THE MASSACHUSETTS YANKEE PLAN
A conspiracy to destroy democracy might have been motivated either by lust
for power or by fear of destruction and ruin. In the case of John D.
Rockefeller both factors were involved. Initially fear played a larger role
than the Napoleonic complex. But as Standard Oil grew flourished, conquest
became a predominant factor; but fear still loomed large.
John D.'s fear of want, amidst all his wealth, is evinced by the penurious
and penny-pinching training he gave his children. His fear of being crushed
by the weight of his own wealth and public resentment against it, is
evidenced by his pretense of philanthropy. In the present Rockefeller Empire,
this fear has been compensated for and supplanted by a Napoleonic complex.
There is security neither for the rich nor for the poor in any of the present
scarcity economies. But today these fears should be as -anachronistic as the
scarcity economies which give rise to them.
In the past, not so many decades ago, there gripped the whole world a
historic fear — the fear of want and starvation. It was very real. It arose
from the inability of mankind to produce enough food and other necessities of
life. Periodic droughts, or disasters, produced famines of the type that
still scourge China, India and Russia, even in this modem era. In times of
famine the short supply of necessities caused a rise in their prices. Only
the rich and more fortunate who could find food and other necessities, and
had the money to purchase them, could manage to survive. Supply and demand
operated with direct and overwhelming force in influencing the prices of
commodities in times of shortage.
Today the same fear grips the world under circumstances that make it very
strange. Modem science and technology have so tremendously increased the
world's productive capacity of necessities of life that the usual fear is no
longer production of too little food and necessities of life but production
of too much, in most parts, of the world.
Though man's life-span has been extended to little less than the "three score
and ten", it is a curious fact that modern-day society looks little beyond
the immediate present under its present economic organization. The production
of food, and other necessities, in excess of its immediate needs has
repercussions and sequelae that are as drastic and, ultimately, are identical
with those produced by shortages in primitive society. It matters not that an
excess over immediate needs is essential to provide for tomorrow, to furnish
a reserve against times of disaster and shortage. It matters not that such
reserves are essential for security and for continued existence of man and
society. Such excessive production of necessities, however slight, is
labelled "overproduction".
"Overproduction" is converted by a perversion of the economic organization of
society whether it be Capitalist or Communist (Super-Capitalist), into a
major disaster. It leads to a drop in prices because of competition of
producers in attempting to dispose of their production immediately, in order
to "make them liquid". That means to sell them immediately to convert them
into money.
The rush of all producers to sell causes a drop in prices. The function of
carrying over the momentary surpluses is relegated to speculators, whose
purchasing capacity is limited and who are forced to seek a profit by buying
cheaply. Sellers compete with one another and force prices down. As a
consequence the marginal producer sustains losses and drops out of
production. That sets in operation a vicious cycle of reduced production,
unemployment, lowered consumption, lowered prices, a further drop in
production and so endlessly. The eventual outcome is production of less food
and necessities than the nation requires, the same condition as was faced in
the less advanced stages of society, and the wiping out of surpluses that
spell security.
This situation comes about solely as a result of the mechanics of faulty
economic organization of society, which is designed as a cut-throat,
starvation, race suicide scarcity economy. It leaves but three alternatives —
sustaining prices either by a monopoly which means private enforcement of
scarcity, public enforcement of scarcity by a "managed economy", or a
scarcity resulting from the interaction of supply, price and production. Fear
of too little results from fear of too much.
The remedy for this absurd situation requires clear, untrammelled and
unequivocal thought on the subject of the economic organization' of society.
In final analysis it is thought and ideas which rule the world.
Unfortunately, there has been so little thought given to the problem, that
the solutions that have been offered whatever their labels, especially if
they he Communism or Fascism, are in their ultimate form merely identical
aggravations of the evils of our traditional system.
Any quest for a solution must begin with a clear and concise expression of
the problem.
What is the axiomatically basic function of Government? The reply is obvious:
Without life, there can be no government.
Therefore the basic function of government is to enable its citizenry to live.
Since raw materials of the necessities of life are essential for existence,
the corollary basic functions of government requisite for its continuity are:
First: To make available stores and reserves of the necessities of life both
for immediate needs and against times of disaster.
Second: To make it possible for its citzenry to obtain the wherewithal to
purchase those necessities.
No government now undertakes to perform these basic functions except in the
case of emergency and war. The reason for this is obviously that the
character of the economic organization of society bars the way. The idea
which is the cornerstone of that economic organization is the so-called "law
of supply and demand."
The fallaciousness of this "law" is most simply revealed by the illustration
used in elementary textbooks on economics for the very purpose of
demonstrating its validity. It reads:
Three men are stranded on a desert island. Only one of them has barely enough
of the necessities of life for his own needs. Consequently, the economist
relates, the price of those necessities would rise to a high level. For the
demand exceeds the supply and scarcity lends value, he reasons.
But the conclusion which the economist draws is obviously fallacious. Any man
who under those circumstances would undertake to sell the irreplaceable
commodities which he requires for the preservation of his own life, as a
matter of business, would he either stupidly avaricious or insane. He might
share them with his fellows as a matter of humanity; but to trade in them
would be equivalent to trading in his own life.
Quite as absurd is it for nations to permit their commerce in the necessities
of life to be dominated by the supposed operation of the "law of supply and
demand." It is absurd not only because it means a scarcity economy that is
rendered entirely needless by the abundance which man can now derive from
Nature; but also because it bars the government from performing its function
of making available to its citzenry the raw materials of the necessities of
life by enabling the creation of reserves and surpluses.
The idea of a "supply and demand" economy is even more absurd because it
exists only for today and gives not a thought to tomorrow. The demand of a
nation for the necessities of life, like population, remains relatively
constant. Likewise, though vagaries of Nature may cause variations of supply
from year to year, the average productivity of the land remains constant.
Even primitive man realized this clearly, as is illustrated in the Biblical
story of Joseph and Pharaoh.
In reality, a study of the events of the past twenty years reveals that it is
neither supply nor demand that determines prices of the raw materials of the
necessities of life. This becomes apparent from the fact that the price of
wheat was ten times higher during 1919, when there was a bumper crop, than it
was in 1932, when there was an actual shortage. These facts impelled
Professor Warren, the Cornell authority on chicken and "New-Deal" economics,
to advance the explanation that it is the relation of the supply and demand
of a commodity to the supply and demand of gold that determines prices. But
this is a rather complicated formula for the simple fact that it is neither
supply nor demand but speculation that determines prices.
Speculation prevents the setting up of surpluses of the necessities of life,
which constitute the only real security for the nation and the individual.
The holding of reserves by the government or by individuals acts on the
speculative market as an excess supply, and depresses prices. Drop in price
reduces profits and forces a reduction in production, which in turn forces
using up of reserves.
Applied to labor and human values, as justified by Karl Marx's Socialism, by
Communism and by labor unionism, the so-called "law" is even more
destructive. In its converse expression, "scarcity alone lends value," the
"law" demands restriction of the supply of human beings. The term "social"
cannot be applied to such an organization which makes man serve it as victim
and sacrifice. The birth control movement, the purges of Hitler and Stalin,
the merciless condemnation to mis. ery and death of refugees, the destruction
of the livelihoods and futures of younger generations, national and racial
antagonisms—sacrifices to the Moloch of human scarcity-are all natural
outgrowths of such economic Concepts.
Roseate and sanguine peace discussions always ignore what human experience
has proved invariably true: that war is an absolute necessity for the
maintenance of scarcity economies and is made inevitable by them. Under
scarcity economies a certain portion of the people of a nation, and of the
nations of the world must do without a sufficiency of the necessities of
life, must live a submarginal existence, and in some cases must actually
starve—because scarcity economies mean that there must not be enough to go
around, if values are to be maintained. It is inevitable that violence breeds
among the groups that are condemned to want or starvation, and if and when
those groups become sufficiently large, war readily emerges from their
struggles for survival.
The factor that precipitates war, however, is the necessity of destroying
accumulated surpluses of both men and materials in order to avert complete
breakdown of the scarcity economy. For inevitably the vicious inverted spiral
of lowered production, resulting in lowered employment, which results in turn
in lowered consumption, that involves again a further lowering of production
to maintain scarcity and value, ultimately brings about the state of
widespread unemployment that means a surplus of labor, as well as surpluses
of commodities. This cycle generally reaches its climax at intervals of about
a quarter of a century. As a consequence of the intolerable stagnation,
unemployment and hunger that results from it, war is eagerly sought by
nations as a solution of the impasse created by politicians to-day on the
counsel of malicious propagandists or of stupid fools who parade as
"professors of economics".
Side by side with the more active destructive forces operating in scarcity
economies actively to destroy surpluses of men and materials, there operates
a slower, more insidious but even more basic destructive force—voluntary
birth control and race suicide. It is this factor that has been responsible
for the destruction of every empire and every civilization in history.
Individuals either can not afford to have children as a consequence of the
cost of living in relation to earnings under a scarcity economy, or else they
voluntarily undertake to avoid bringing children into a world already
cluttered with large numbers of unemployed. They thus aid in the effort to
attain a scarcity of human beings. Since such voluntary efforts at birth
control are usu. ally adopted by folks of a higher level of intelligence and
culture, the consequence is a lowering of both the population and its level
of intelligence.
There are two types of scarcity economies.
Gold Standard, or Laissez-Faire, type of scarcity economy makes no effort to
restrict, or manage, production directly. It operates through the interplay
of gold supply and production: with a fixed volume of gold as the basis of
value, the more there is produced of commodities and necessities of life, the
less they are worth as measured against the fixed supply of gold. Or if the
supply of gold is restricted by manipulation or speculation, the price of
commodities and necessities of life can be forced down without regard to the
adequacy of the supply. Naturally when the price is forced down below the
level of the cost of production, production fans off because it no longer
pays to produce; discontinued production means unemployment with consequent
les[s]ened consumption; and that in turn means further reduction in
production and repetition of the vicious cycle. Consequently, under the gold
standard economy, the breakdown that leads to depressions and wars is
precipitated by prosperity and by the ap. proach of production to adequacy.
"Managed" economies are manipulated to attain the most rigid form of scarcity
economy whether they he Fascist, Communist or "New Deal". The motive of these
types of economy are variously expressed for ideologic or propaganda
purposes. Thus the Fascists make no humanitarian representations for their
managed scarcity economies but frankly advocate them to serve the purposes of
the State. The so-called Liberal, i.e. the Communist, New Deal and Labor
economies, profess to manage their economies for the purpose of preventing
the accumulation of reserves and surpluses in order to avoid unemployment
that they regard as the inevitable consequence of "overproduction." Their
shibboleths are "Production for use not for profit" and "Labor must get all
that it produces". The fallacy of this type of thinking is obvious: Use is in
itself a form of profit; but for the maintenance of an economy other forms of
profit are essential: there must be the profit to provide for the maintenance
of surplus and reserves against times of need, which is the only true form of
security; and the profit that must repay human ingenuity for its task of
creating and must provide for production and maintenance of other machinery
of production. Without these forms of profit, an economy must inevitably
break down.
The obvious remedy of the evils of a scarcity economy is to remedy the basic
defect— the more there is produced, the less it is worth. This would make it
possible to set up the surpluses and reserves that spell security without
destroying thereby the price of the commodities — a surplus economy.
To accomplish this purpose, fortunately, it is not necessary to resort to
another of those economic experiments that have trifled with, and endangered,
the lives and livelihoods of many millions of people that have characterized
the 'New Deal" in the past decade. The setting up of vast surpluses and
reserves without depressing the price of the commodity involved has been
accomplished for long periods of time in the case of one commodity — gold.
Vast surpluses of gold have been stored up without depressing its price. Even
when the production of gold was lowest, in 1929, its real overproduction
relative to the amounts required for technologic uses was more than 90% of
the total production. This overproduction has been buried in a hole in the
ground at Fort Knox. So far as goes the nation's actual need of it for
fabrication into necessary devices, it can remain in that hole forever, or
until some technologic use for gold is discovered that requires the large
surplus that has been built up in the course of world history. (This amounts
to a block of gold about the size of a thirty foot cube that could be
contained in the average thirty-five foot, three story building.) In spite of
this real overproduction the price of gold actually has been raised by the
New Deal.
The mechanism that has defied the speculative influence of supply and demand
on the price of gold is the monetization of gold. It has been accomplished by
the Currency Act of March 14, 1900 and its recent amendments.
Through the Currency Act, the nation alleges that it regards gold as
absolutely essential for the existence of the nation — that it can not live
without gold, it can not cat or drink without gold, it can not clothe itself
without gold, it can not shelter itself without gold. These allegations
implied in the Act, are obviously false. Nevertheless, the Act provides that
in order to stimulate the production of gold to the nation's maximum
capacity, no producer of gold shall have to rely upon speculators for
marketing his production. It provides that all gold produced would be stored
by the Treasury and warehouse receipts, in the form of gold notes, shall be
issued for it at a fixed price, originally a dollar for each 25.8 grains of
gold. The result has been complete stabilization of the price of gold no
matter how great the overproduction; and the creation of a huge surplus of
useless gold without impairing its market price.
Despite the allegations implied in the Currency Act, gold is not essential
for human existence. If the men stranded on a desert island had all the gold
in the world and all the money in the world with them, they would still
starve to death. King Midas who mythology tells us was endowed with the gift
he prayed for — that everything he touched be converted to gold —
nevertheless starved to death. What then gives gold and money based on gold
their value?
Obviously the only thing that gives gold, or any form of money, its value is
solely its acceptance in exchange for the things required for existence:
food, clothing, shelter and other necessities and luxuries. When gold or
money can not buy these things it has no value. Therefore the only real
security behind gold and money, that give them their value, are the raw
materials from which the necessities of life can be made.
Though gold, silver and the national debt are the basis of the currency
issued by the Treasury, that money constitutes only a small fraction of
exchange medium of the nation. Currency created by the private banker
constitutes the bulk of the currency in use. In 1929, for each dollar created
by the Treasury on the basis of gold, the private banker created two hundred
dollars. Without credit currency, the nation's business would come to a
standstill.
The bulk of that credit currency is created by the private banker, when he
desires to create it, on the basis of the things that people require for
their existence. Therefore the real basis for this credit currency and the
security behind it is the raw and fabricated materials constituting the
necessities of life.
This credit currency is produced in violation of the Constitution and
law. The Constitution states that Con-gress alone shall have the power to
issue money and
determine its value. It prescribes gold and silver as the basis for money.
Credit currency and its creation by private bankers are implicitly prohibited
by the Constitution.
This situation was brought about by the efforts of Alexander Hamilton, at the
behest of George Washington, to win over the Tory elements, such as the
Roosevelts, to the support of the Constitution. They insisted upon retaining
the control over the real wealth of the land, the raw materials of the
necessities of life, through the device of private banking credit, and the
speculative manipulation it made possible. This was granted them and the
limitation of the monetary powers of Congress was written into the
Constitution. Though the exclusive "power to issue money and define its
value" was reserved to Congress, this provision of the Constitution was
disregarded from the very start. Consistently since, the real security behind
money and wealth, the nation's commodities, has been ignored by the law, and
the currency based upon that wealth is denied the status of legal tender.
Before this had been done, however, the Colony of Massachusetts Bay had coped
with the problem of inflation and had arrived at a true Yankee commonsense
solution of the problem. Massachusetts, like the rest of the Colonies, had
sought to evade its obligations to the Continental Army, the payment of wages
and pensions to volunteers, by the issue of unsecured paper money The money
rapidly became so worthless as to give rise to the expression "not worth a
Continental"; and the Colonial governments were bankrupt.
By 1780 the number of returned, unpaid veterans of the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay had grown large. They threatened to seize the government if
they were not paid. This was an emergency that stirred Yankee in. genuity to
its full depths.
The Massachusetts Yankees reasoned soundly that the best way to stabilize
prices and stop inflation was by direct action rather than by roundabout
methods. They defined money in terms of the things that folks wished to
purchase with it, the staple necessities of life. In that manner the lender
would be sure to receive back the same purchasing power as he had loaned.
They therefore defined the money in terms of the staple commodities produced
in the Colony — beef, corn, sheep's wool and sole leather. These notes, a
reproduction of one of which appears on the frontispiece, were issued in 1780
and came due in 1784. They were accepted as legal tender.
. While this monetary plan prevailed, Massachusetts alone among the Colonies
prospered. By 1784 it had been agreed that currency would he issued by the
Federal Government. The Massachusetts Yankee staple product notes were
redeemed at the same value at which they were- issued. Yankee staple notes
were the only currency ever redeemed at the value at which they were issued
by any American governmental agency. All the other forms of currency issued
were either wiped out completely, like the greenbacks, or were so
tremendously inflated like the Continental and the Roosevelt dollar, that,
they were redeemed at a mere fraction of their value at issue. The
Continentals were redeemed at approximately one cent on the dollar. What will
be the ultimate redemption value of our dollars if the present conspiracy,
that has been so far advanced by the New Deal, is carried out (and it will be
unless it is checked) is difficult to say. It would probably be a good guess
to say that they plan wiping out 90% of the value of the dollar.
The only measure that can block the wiping out of the major part of the
wealth of the rank and file of Americans by this conspiracy is re-adoption of
the Yankee staple product currency base. Since the only real security that
lies behind the dollar and gives it its value is its acceptance in exchange
for the raw or fabricated staples constituting the necessities of life and
luxuries, it is essential that the fact he recognized. Money must be based
upon those staples directly just as it is now based upon gold and silver
directly. The staples that constitute the raw materials of the necessities of
life can be kept in storage, with modern technology, almost as safely as can
gold. Paper money would he exchangeable for any of the staples at the same
defined and established value, plus a seigniorage, just as paper money is
normally exchangeable for gold and silver.
Widening the monetary base to include all staples that can be stored over
periods of years would mean the inclusion in the base of the grains, such as
wheat, corn, and soybeans; the elements, such as uranium, copper, tantalum,
coal, tin and sulphur; minerals such as feldspar and phosphates; petroleum
oil; the fibres, such as cotton, wool, hemp, rayon and silk; leather; rubber,
and a Wide array of other staples. The large number of staples included in
the base would serve to prevent unbalancing the economy by a rush into
production of the staples that were thus made liquid wealth. The liquidity of
the staples would serve to stabilize the values of products fabricated from
them. The entire economy would be stabilized and the dread of production of
the staple necessities for fear of "overproduction!' would vanish. The
nation's economy will recognize what common sense teaches the individual:
intrinsic values are not impaired by the amounts produced; momentary excesses
in production over immediate utilization of staples, do not constitute
overproduction from the viewpoint of long term needs; folks need not starve
and want, as when rationing prevailed, if there is at hand too much of
necessities, but they must starve if there is too little; setting up
ourpluses as reserves against disaster is as sage today as when primitive man
and Joseph and Pharoah discerned its wisdom.
It is questionable if in a constantly expanding economy and steadily
maintained prosperity, that such a program makes inevitable, there can be any
tremendous actual overproduction. But even if there should chance to he such
an overproduction in some staple or another, any losses implied could be
written off by a slight increase in seigniorage or taxes, and would involve
no significant loss. Since free exchange of staples between the nations of
the world would become possible as a result of stabilized values, such
excessive surpluses should be few and far between.
The Yankee staple product currency would enable the government to perform the
first of its axiomatically basic functions — the setting up of surpluses and
reserves to insure the citizenry against want and starvation. It would also
make possible its performance of the second function — enabling the citzenry
to obtain the wherewithal to purchase. For when production of staples can be
expanded to the maximum capacity, and the production has become liquid
wealth, there is inevitably stimulation of the entire economy by the
increased wealth. This would make for greater employment. More important
still, widening the currency base and the monetization of staples, would
enable a government to put an end to unemployment by creating absolute
freedom of employment. Without this freedom, all other types of freedom
assured citizens by doeuments—freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness—are meaningless. For without the absolute right to employment and
to earn an adequate living the citizen cannot even enjoy the freedom of life.
Until the government has created and given substance to the ideal of freedom
of employment that is implied by our Constitution, we cannot claim to have
fulfilled its letter, nor can we claim to be a democracy.
By freedom of employment is not meant the "right to organize" into labor
unions. For that implies the substitution of one form of coercion, economic,
by another, that of labor unions.
Freedom of employment also can not be effected by placing a host of persons
on the Government payroll. Quite as ominous as the Relief rolls is the steady
growth of the number of government employees, and the spectacle of hordes
seeking Civil Service employment because it alone offers security of
employment to many. Government employees, as a rule, do not produce or
increase the resources of a land but deplete it. Parasitic bureaucratic
systems eventually destroy the lands on which they prey.
Freedom of employment can he produced only by a social organization which
gives man the freedom of choice between accepting employment offered him by
another or of creating adequately profitable employment for himself.
That a form of social organization which creates freedom of employment is
possible, is indicated by the fact that our law and government do create it
in one direction. Under our present law, the men who can go out and pan gold
in sufficient amounts are given freedom of employment that is adequately and
assuredly profitable. No matter how many men engage in the, production of
gold, no matter how much is produced, its price remains unaltered. They can
be certain that. if they can pan a definite amount of gold they will have
enough for all their needs. This contrasts sharply with what would happen if
an equal number of men engaged in any other form of production; for them the
more they produced the less it would he worth.
It is truly absurd that gold should be the only commodity the production of
which, and the producers of which, are adequately protected by a law which
gives form to the dictates of our Constitution. For it alone among the
commodities is useless—so useless that it is taken out of one hole in the
ground and buried in another at Fort Knox.
The monetization of gold has created freedom of employment and has also
tremendously stimulated employment and wages in its production. Widening the
monetary base to include a wide array of commodities, the staple products
that are the raw materials of the necessities of life, would obviously
stimulate employment in many different directions.
Creating freedom of employment in directions other than self-employment in
producing gold is not popular with the Labor Barons and their "Liberal"
henchmen. It would wipe out any excuse for their activities. They therefore
allege that freedom of employment can not exist because, they say, "sixty
families and a few hundred companies own and control all the machinery of
production". This is a Marxist myth that is proved obviously false by an
examination of what, in ultimate ,analysis, constitutes the basic machinery
of production. Some glibly state that labor is a basic machinery of
production. But labor as often destroys as it produces; unthinking and
plodding labor may produce little; and monkeys labor all day long and produce
no wealth. It is the thing that differentiates man and monkey that
constitutes the most important basic machinery of production.
The ultimate machineries of production are two—human ingenuity, and the earth
and elements, which are the sources of the raw materials. It would be
ridiculous to pretend that any six hundred families or ten thousand
corporations have a monopoly of human ingenuity. The elements are relatively
uncontrolled. Of the other machinery of production, the land, this group
controls scarcely one percent in the United States. The largest owner of land
in the United States is the Government, the people themselves. The
governments control' well over fifty percent of the nation's land. Over
twenty percent are included in the Federal parks and reservations alone.
With regard to government lands there exists in the United States a curious
situation. They are carried on the Government's ledger as liabilities
together with the many billions of debt. As they are handled today they are
really liabilities. They produce nothing, cost much to maintain and police,
and eventually are given away to speculators or to homesteaders on the
speculation that they will be able to hold out.
But this land situation is unquestionably absurd. The land could be converted
readily into a very real asset that would salvage the nation's solvency and
credit by a very wide margin it the disposition of the Crown Lands of England
were followed as an example. The Crown Lands are usually not alienated from
the Crown, but are leased for production for a percentage of what is produced
in some instances.
Following the example of England, the United States could lease its lands for
production and thus convert them into assets. With the widening of the
currency base to include the staple' products, it could go even further. It
could utilize these lands for the creation of true freedom of employment. It
could offer to lease to all who care to do so, as much land as each
individual can work, for the production of staple products, at a rental
consisting of a percentage of the production. In. stead of frittering away
the national wealth on a dole system, and stimulating sloth and
shiftlessness, it could undertake to lend the money for financing purchase of
machinery of production with the proviso that the loans he amortized in kind
with a part of the staples produced. The incorporation of staples in the
monetary base under the Yankee plan would make this possible.
Under the Yankee plan no depression or unemployment could ever exist. A bit
of commonsense thinking makes clear the irrationality of these problems. The
consideration of them has been so stereotyped, that no one has stopped to
reflect that the unemployed, like the rest of mankind, require their share of
the necessities and luxuries of life. In producing those items for themselves
lies the obvious solution of their unemployment.
The Antigonish movement that has converted a pauperized group of fishing
villages in Newfoundland into a prosperous and model community, attests to
the potentialities of such a solution. It contrasts sharply with the
persistent accentuation of the unemployment problem that has resulted from
the plans of the subversive, radical and "New Deal" groups that are more bent
upon stimulating class hatred and wars than employment, prosperity and peace.
The country was well on the way to arriving at such a solution in the barter
plans of 1933, when the advent of the "New Deal" put a stop to the rational
solution, resuscitated the banks and then rescued the old economic setup
which repeatedly has proved unworkable.
Such a plan would satisfy every legitimate element in the community. It
protects those that have, in the possession of that which they have. It also
enables those that have not, to produce that which they need. It would make
obvious the absurdity of the idea that the only possible solution is the
dishonest concept of "distribution of wealth", which in ultimate analysis is
merely a distribution of poverty. It eliminates the idea that accumulations
of reserves or wealth are a menace to the nation. It does this by eliminating
the only real danger of such accumulations, which is the paralysis of the
currency system resulting from irrational restriction of currency.
At the same time it would dispel forever that irra. tional attitude which
demands security, and at the same time decries the setting up of savings and
reserves of the necessities of life, which alone offer real security. The
current idea that bookkeeping balances offer security is absurd. Above all
else it would eliminate the real basis for strife between the "haves" and
"havenote", whether those groups be within the same community or in different
nations.
It is only such a plan that could make the United States the capitalist state
that many folks falsely fancy that it is. It obviously is not "capitalist" in
the sense of making the private ownership of property secure, for there has
been no real security in ownership, especially during the past decade. Ours
has been a speculative economy that is as much the antithesis of true
capitalism as are the theories of Communism or National Socialism. Communism
in its ultimate, development assumes the form of a super-capitalistic
super-dictatorship. The only difference between these rival and supposedly
antagonistic economies is the name of their masters.
Capitalism, it is safe to predict, is the only form of social organization
that ever will he secure. For it is rooted in the very trait of
possessiveness inherent in human nature which theorizing radicals have
pretended it is possible to root out, merely to find that it had mastered
themselves. If a form of social organization that is rooted in human nature
cannot succeed, certainly no other has any chance whatsoever.
It is as absurd to say that "democracy (or republicanism) is a failure" as it
is to say that "capitalism is a failure". The U. S. has never had either of
them, in the correct sense of the terms. The nation has never carried out the
blueprint of human organization drawn up by the wisest group of men that ever
assembled for that purpose—the Constitution. They defined democracy in terms
of "freedom of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". These are the goals
that man has striven for from time immemorial.
The authors of the Constitution were close enough to slavery and feudalism to
keenly appreciate the value of freedom and the attributes of democracy.
Unfortunately the present generation are so hedonic and lacking in insight
that they fail to realize the meaning of slavery though they have witnessed
it in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and of Russia. They are willing
to surrender, and have surrendered, "freedom" for the bait of slave-masters—a
mirage of "security",—even before they have attained the measure of freedom
called for by the Constitution. They actually believe the shibboleth
"Democracy is a failure", though the nation has never attained it.
Democracy has not been attained in the U. S. because it has never created the
basic freedom—absolute freedom to earn a living, or freedom of employment.
This freedom was taken for granted by the framers of the Constitution.
Frontiers, all about them, provided freedom of employment for anyone who
cared to work. It was implied in the expression "freedom of life . . .". For
there can he no "freedom of life" if there is no freedom to earn the
wherewithal to live.
Lik[e]wise, a true capitalism is a form of social and economic organization
which makes the private ownership of property secure. The speculative gold
standard scarcity economy, latterly replaced in part by a "managed" scarcity
economy, offers no security in the private ownership of property. The
experiences of 1929 attest to that. It is reasonable to assume, in view of
the experience of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, that if the development of
our economy had been untrammeled by treacherous Tories who were in a position
to impose their will, the Yankee surplus economy plan, which is the only
possible basis for a true capitalism, would have been adopted as the pattern
intended by the framers of the Constitution. It would have made the world a
happier place to live in.
The Yankee surplus economy plan would eliminate the fear of starvation and
want that results today from either under- or over-production, both at home
and abroad. The adoption of the plan by any one nation would force its
adoption throughout the world. For if any one nation offered, for instance,
to pay three dollars a bushel for any wheat that might be turned over to its
Treasury, every other country would have to do the same, or else lose the
wheat its people require for their existence. No matter how high the barriers
that might be set up to prevent the outflow of the wheat, it would be sure to
make its way to the highest market. This would imply eventually an equally
high standard of living in all lands.
When staples sell at the same level in all lands and the standard of living
become equally high, barriers which are set up to prevent impairment of
living standards, or jeopardy of employment, would disappear. Free trade on a
world-wide basis would become possible and desirable. Such a plan offers the
only practical solution of the impasse created by the breakdown of the gold
standard system in international trade. It would eliminate the struggle for
raw materials which underlies wars and alone could make possible
international amity by making trade barriers unnecessary and anachronistic.
Fear of starvation and want would vanish rapidly in a world placed on a
surplus economy basis. Human would no longer be regarded by nations as
liabilities, to be avoided-by race suicide, by retarding the young. er
generation in its start in life, by immigration barriers, by labor unionism,
by DP camps, and by the massacres of the concentration camps which are the
most eloquent expressions of the ultimate in scarcity economy.
This age-old solution of the problems of economic organization has been
adopted, as in Massachusetts, whenever emergency brought to the fore the
realization that the real basis of wealth is not gold but the necessities of
life. In the story of Joseph and Pharaoh, it is one of the most important
lessons the Bible has to offer, but one which our "economists" and "men of
learning" refuse to learn.
The question arises: Why has not the Yankee plan been adopted during the
decade and a half of absurd scarcity economy experiments of the New Deal?
Foreign ideas are as popular and fashionable in the "social scienes" (made in
Germany) as are the French gowns among the fair sex. And homely, commonsense
American ideas on economics, are as deprecated as domestic gowns.
The state of the world, however, has become so critical, and the impasse so
absurd, that mayhap folks will stop, look and listen long enough to adopt the
sound idea and rational solution of the Yankee plan. In garbled form it has
been advocated in recent years by diverse characters. Thus Sir Maynard Keynes
was chief Bank of England propagandist for forcing the gold standard,
scarcity economic concepts on the New Deal. In his "Treatise On Money" and in
his address before the British Association for Advancement of Science in
August 1938, he belied the scarcity propaganda he was paid to foist on the U.
S. by urging the adoption of the staple product plan in England. Father
Coughlin advocated a garbled form of the plan, as it was described in an
article by this author, and made it the basis of his Social Justice plan; but
he unfortunately confused it with the highly speculative Irving Fisher
gold-index dollar, which is the exact antithesis. Wise and scholarly Senator
Robert Owens, author of the Federal Reserve Act, attempted to introduce the
Yankee staple product dollar into that Act; but Irving Fisher and Senator
Carter Glass frustrated his plan. Had Senator Owens succeeded, the Federal
Reserve Act would have served the interests of the nation instead of merely
the Dynastic bankers and their allies; and World War I might have been
averted.
If the U. S. and the world can be shifted onto a surplus economy base, the
destruction of democracy and human freedom, the advance of Communism, managed
economies and other forms of dictatorships and slave states, and the further
advance of World War III can be averted. The drive behind the Dynasty and the
Rockefeller Empire for an American monarchy can be checked; and the fear that
filled the world and motivated John D. Rockefeller and other monopolists
could be completely dispelled. With this out of the way the Napoleonic
complex will fail to gain support.
To put the Yankee plan into operation in the U. S. will require another
amendment to the Currency Act widening the monetary base to comply with
existent realities; a change in the policy of the Interior Department with
regard to public lands; supplanting Relief and bonus measures by a plan to
finance folks who desire to produce, with loans to be repaid out of
production; and enlargement of elevator and storage facilities to the point
of adequacy.
The value to be given in the base to staple products should be the average
historic value multiplied by the same factor as the price of gold has been
increased. The advantage of the plan to the fanner and the other producers of
staples are obvious. The fabricator would benefit from the stable value of
raw materials and the enlarged market created by the high stable earnings of
the producers of staples. The worker would benefit by earning all that he
produces, or else by stabilization of his wage at the level of lib ability to
earn if he wished to resort to production of staples; and he would he free to
earn as much as he is willing to work for. The rich would be secure in their
wealth because their holdings would not constitute a barrier to others
acquiring as much as they are willing to work for. Banking and industry would
benefit from the liquidity of wealth and from the general prosperity. The
nation and the world would benefit from the stabilization of its economy and
the accumulation of the unlimited riches that Nature has to offer. These
things could be accomplished in the brief period of six months, if there is a
will to accomplish them.
This solution would defeat the purposes of the Dynasty to destroy democracy
and freedom, and would render fruitless the martial plans for world conquest
of both Russia and the Rockefeller Empire.
pps. 311-333
--[fini]--
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
