Capitalism vs Consumer Sovereignty
In Genuine Market Competition Economy Without Usury
By Dick Eastman

"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

Dick Eastman 
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 the financing.

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 families.

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  entrepreneurial borrowers.

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 sector.

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.

Dick Eastman



Donate to
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs