"As we view the achievements
of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations,
and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is
trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be
the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the
people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
Capitalism versus Consumer Sovereignty in a Genuine
Market Competition Economy Without Usury.
The distinction between good and bad banking, that is, between usury
credit monopoly and debt money versus loans on pooled household
savings of debt-free national treasury (fiat) money
January 12, 2012
Capitalism is a system of exploitation. Interest, monopoly credit
and monopoly rent are what enslave us, not entrepreneurship, market
exchange or profit. Interest and monopoly power destroy
the equilibrating, harmonizing, mutual-gain poissibilities of a market
economy where laws regulating contract and ownership are corrupted by
the interests of an organized minority that wages economic warfare by
buying politicians on the black market so that cheating will be legalized
by convenient rewriting of the rule book.
Men may acquire goods either by production and exchange - the
economic means - or by imposing their rule on others and taking their
products from them - the political means. Libertarianism is political
means disguising itself as economic means.-- the coercion is hidden
in the corporation charter and the banking laws in the debt contract
itself, a contract written on the terms dictated by the oligopoly of
credit. See what happens to anyone who does not pay his debts.
Consider how different things would be if the lender was made to assume
the risk for his decision to back one entrepeneur rather than another
and his decision to lend to one house builder rather than another
-- so that savings deposits are not guararanteed, so that collateral
is not put up which fully compensates the lender if the investment venture
should fail to realize income over production costs adequate to pay
Under such a system lenders would begin to look carefully at where the
money is being invested -- because they would lose if the venture failed.
They also would make decisions to prosper the country in general, because
the ventures they are investing in will fail if demand is inadequate
for repayment -- when failure to repay means that the lender and the
borrower are both taking the risk.
Everything is incentive system. Herbert Spencer said that when
you protect people from the consequences of their actions you end up
with a world of foolish actions. When bankers get the same return
whether a business fails or whether it succeeds and when engineering
failure means that the corporations they own faces less competition
since lack of demand has wiped away competitors with no monopoly advantage
and no access to the credit that international corporations always easily
obtain -- then you will have a world like you see today.
But when bankers are forced to take the losses when they make a loan
to a pal rather than to the best entrepreneur with the most promising
entrepreneur and when they are no longer allowed start wars or redirect
weather systems redirect dry air, or wet air or spinning air to create
disasters making corporation order-getting for war material or reconstruction
material or agricultural commodities speculation so that profit is certain
-- that is when the economy is redesigned populists who know how to
design the economy so that such perverse incentives no longer obtain
-- then you will see prosperity return -- but, I should add, only when
the reform comes with the other populist elements of debt repudiation,
nationalization of money creation so that we have thin-air debt-free
treasury notes that circulate without the deflationary requirement that
they be paid back plus compound interest, and 3) the social credit distribution
of all new money exclusively into the hands of American households,
to each individual, so that consumer demand will be the source of purchasing
power, the source of demand -- the wealth pump -- the source of consumer
sovereignty which a market system is supposed to have, rather than the
usurer sovereignty and the usurer's monopoly corporation sovereignty
that we have today.
You think libertarianism stands for reason, liberty, and mutual gain
from unhampered exchange.
But libertarianism points only to prices, when what matters is income
derived from that price. Cost of the production is not automatically
equal to the income that buys the production, any more than saving always
equals investment. THese are but lies to hide the coercion that
goes on when the money we use to keep track of our exchanges in a to-complex-for-barter
economy is charged for at interest.
Usury money converts the exchange economy into a slave economy.
I distinguish between two kinds of lending.
1) Good lending where the banker, offering bank depositors three percent
on time deposits, lends checking deposits backed by those deposits to
entrepreneurs who seeking money to pay workers and other factor suppliers
in advance of the production and sale of a product that the entrepreneur
believes will return a profit. Good bankers get to decide
which entrepreneur is offering the most promising gain if he gets the
money. Good bankers are betting on the winning entrepreneur, and
they should take the loss when the entrepreneur they bet on loses in
market competition. That is what good bankers do. There
is very little good banking going on in this country.
This populist candidate likes good banking and wants to make it the
only banking that is allowed in the United States.
2) Bad banking is usury banking under which the exchange economy becomes
perverted by a compromise with the slave economy.
Our financial system is a slave system that tolerates private
credit monopoly, that economic institution of politically imposed coercion,
wrongly given as legitimate and an equal footing with good banking.
However, bad banking drives out good.
A hybrid system which combines good banking with bad banking -
the current system libertarians and all the party candidates defend
as "capitalism" - a system that gives us great fortunes of taken
surplus, akin and indeed a continuation of great landed (feudal) property
seen in every land where the countryside's purchasing power for urban
products is weakened by rentier exploitation and ensuing inefficiency;
and the urban labor market is flooded with displaced agricultural workers,
pressing down wages, displacing people on the land and forcing them
into the cities -- except that even there wages are too high,
living standards too high to suit the robber barons, who set up production
in other countries where even lower wages can be offered for the same
labor because in the foreign country the dictators dealing with the
bankers have made sure that their workers do more for even less -- just
call Henry Kissinger and, for a cut, he will set you up in communist
China -- now a giant corporation selling proletarian labor to international
finance -- that is the Jewish mafia allied with the Chinese Triad crime
This system of wage slaves, and displaced serfs waiting to have their
life support cut because they are "units no longer necessary" anarcho-capitalists
espousing "the virtue of selfishness" espoused by a Russian Jew mistress
of a Rothschild who used to hang out with Alan Greenspan whose articles
for the gold standard appear in some of her books, and after whom one
of her disciples, Ron Paul, named his son. The populist rejects
that system -- as explained in this recent interview of Dick Eastman
by Richard Stark
Capitalism is the enemy of a consmer-sovereign market economy.
Capitalism is a system of exploitation, and capital revenue is the gain
of that exploitation. It is capitalism that destroys the harmony
of a genuinely coercion-minimized market. Markets can only exist under
rules and rules always imply a degree of coercion -- but the necessary
rules of property and contract can be written in a variety of ways,
some good, some bad and some, like those in force today, utterly ruthless
in loading advantage to the economic-rent-seeking usureres against the
This is no apologetic for Austrain Economics and "libertarianism" and
"Ayn Randism" -- I denies the harmonious character of their offered
system of "free market" because it is the least free of all possible
market systems -- and what Peter Schiff and Lew Rockewell point to as
the success of the free market system for some -- is really the effect
of coercion "hidden in a black box of financial system architecture
and corporation law" -- in the rule books of finance written by players
in the games in such a way that playing the game will always end in
the rule writers owning all the wealth.
Far from "freedom" the libertarian free market system is really robber
barons at war with market system in which mutual gain in spontaneous
cooperation without business cycles and without monopoly power in any
You have been told I am a money crank. Now I'm telling you that
the American can't be started without a crank.
These times require another Solon, Lykurgus, Hammurabi, Madison,
Jefferson and Paine -- but since no one like that has stepped forward
who has not been shot -- I offer you myself, on the principal that "anything
worth doing is worth doing badly" (rather than not at all).
I am a course of action in the worst possible package - but I am the
crank that can start the engine keep it so it never stalls but takes
everyone wherever they want to work their way to be.
An earlier interview on social credit, by Mike Harris, in early December
2011 didn't make it to Harris's archive on Republic Radio
-- or I would have included a link here.