Hi All:
I continue to submit that the problem is not "free market capitalism."
Rather it is the money system that is at fault.
Using the definition that capital is "stored value" either material or
knowledge, skills etc., capital is a good thing and would that we all had
plenty of it.
The problem is with our system of money, primarily the banking system.
The purpose of banking is to facillitate the trading of capital goods,
originally due to the fact that money was tied to intrinsic value which was
in short supply.
The banks created credit (money) on the basis of "bills of lading" or their
equivalent. The credit existed until the trade was completed, and the debt
(money discharged.
An important inhibition was placed on the banks in order to keep them
honest. They were prohibited from the outright owning of property. If a
loan was defaulted, the goods had to be sold and the proceeds used to
discharge the debt. (Some may remember the penny auctions of the 30's)
The problem began when the bankers discovered that they could delay the
discharge of the debt by extending the time it took to complete the trade.
For example, the trade of a car could be facilitated between producer and
consumer over the period of 4-5 years it took to discharge the debt. (Time
is money)
The bank act changes of 1968 changed the elementary banking principals
drastically. It allowed banks to own property.
The consequece is that the banks interets are no longer to facillitate the
free market, rather thay have assumed the dual role of both facillitating
it and participating in it.
The result is the same as though the major sports teams were largely owned
by the refs and umpires.
Think about it!!!
Not only that, but the teams not owned by them had their practice times
overseen by the same umpires.
There are other major problems in the banking system. The ones above are
the most recent and in immediate need of redress.
This list is addressing the problem of "future-work." The functioning of
the economy is largely regulated by the availability of the stuff that
facillitates it operations, namely money. Once that elemental problem is
solved, the rest falls into place.
I have written before that economic activity is being "driven" by the
interest factor of our money system. We can and do produce, not to satisfy
needs, rather to satisfy the interets on the money that is borrowed for
purposes of production. The neccessity of producing demands export of the
excess. All countries cannot have surpluses in their balance of int. trade.
An excellent way to get rid of the excess and keep the production machine
going is to have a war and destroy a lot of excess stuff. The US knows
this. That's why their most important industry is military. In a world at
peace, the US comes last. There is no better reason for being provocative.
"Everyone wants peace. Everyone hates the pacification process"
Ed G
==============
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:00:56 +0200
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Reuss)
Subject: Re: 87 YEAR-OLD PERSON REFLECTS ON MODERN TIMES
Cc: "Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brad McCormick couldn't resist either:
>
> "Free markets" are oxymorons! The only way to have a
> "free market" is to have a strong police force to
> curtail the muggers' freedom to participate in the
> freedom of the market!
Naah... A strong police force would mean a strong state == the last thing
that Free Marketeers would want! No, in the Ultimate Free Market, security
is privatized too: A Free Market of private security services for the rich,
and a Free Market of muggers for/of the poor. "Survival of the Safest"...
The Invisible LongFinger will take care of it!
Chris
Peace and goodwill
Ed Goertzen,
Oshawa, ON, CA
L1G 2S2,
905-576-6699
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Timocracy: A form of governance known in ancient Greece that means
"government by the worthy". While at that time 'worthy' meant property
owning, there is no reason that it cannot be redefined as "those who want
to participate in public affairs, not only in the democratic election of a
representative, but also in the non partisan formation of, and
administration of, policy through local consensus followed by firm advice
to their elected representatives.
Anyone interested in participating in a steering committee, please contact
Ed Goertzen at
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
