ESSAY ON ECONOMICS

1966 LRH

 

 

There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes which

cause about 20% of a race to oppose violently any betterment

activity or group.

Such people are known to have anti-social tendencies. When the

legal or political structure of a country becomes such as to

favor such personalities in positions of trust, then all the

civilizing organizations of the country become surpressed and a

barbarism of criminality and economic duress ensues.

One of the primary barriers in this society is economics.

Supressives (anti-social personalities) have been weaving a web

of economic entanglement for societies for some time using

economic mis-interpretations or ignorance to involve those

societies which only reciently struck off their chains of actual

slavery. Today, the chains are made of economic restrictions and,

to be blunt, economic lies.

An understanding of economics is a bold step forward toward

total freedom in society. Aberrations tend to blow rapidly when

their lies are exposed.

Therefore I have written this short essey on the actuual laws

of economics, as they may help you.

Today, almost any person has a present time problem, growing

more pressing as time goes by and as our society evolves. It is

the simple question: How can I live?

The answer to this quuestion in a broad general way can be

found by attaining an understanding of the subject called

"Economics."

 

ECONOMIC THEORIES

 

Economics are as simple as they are not obscured and as

confusing as they are made to serve a selfish purpose.

Any child can understand (and practice) the basic principles

of economics. But grown men, huge with the stature of government

or Chain Banks, find it very useful to obscuure the beyond all

comprehension.

The things that are done in the name of "economic necessity"

would shame Satan himself. For they are done by the selfish few

to deny the many.

Thus economics easily evolves into the science of making most

people miserable.

Nine-tenths of life are economic. The remaining one-tenth is

social-political.

If there is a fruitful source of supression loose upon the

world and if it makes people unhappy, then it is a legitimate

field for comment, as it must form a large "misunderstood" in our

daily lives

Let us see how involved it can be made.

The most virulent philosophy of the 19th Century was not that

of Dewey or Schopenhauer. It was that of a fellow named Karl

Marx, a Germam.

In his book, Das Kapitas, he sets out to destroy the world of

capitalism, by introducing the philosophy of Communism, borrowed

in some part eviidently from Lycurgus, of the ancient Greek State

of Sparta.

Marx has succeeded to date (though himself dead and buried in

England) in extending his philosophy over perhaps two-thirds of

the world's population and upsettiing the remainder most

thoroughly.

Capitalism, under attack, surviving only in the West in a

faint form, has borrowed so heavily from Marx in it's modern

"Socialism" that it cannot long survive.

Capitalism had little to recommend it to the worker. He had no

hope of ever getting enough cash together to loan it at interest

and so retire. By definition that was all that Capitalism was, a

system of living on interest by loaning money to more industrious

people. As it implies "All take and no active participation" it,

of course, is a rather easily destroyed system. It had no

vitality. It could only foreclose mortgages and seize property.

It could not and did not operatee cleverly. The trick was, and

is, to loan an industrious person half of what he needed to make

a go of his business and then when he failed, to take over the

business and the invested money loaned as well.

Governments and chain banks in the West are still at it today.

They are assisted by Income Tax. The profits of a business are

taxed each year so that it has no money to renew its machinery

or to expand. To keep going it has to borrow money from the

chain banks of the State. One slip and it is taken over entirely

by the chain bank or the state, mismanaged and then knocked out.

Thus the world gets poorer under Capitalism.

Communism in revolt, throws out all middlemen, simply takes

the final step of Capitalism and seizes everything. It fights

Capitalism by becoming the Super Capitalist.

It is not an idle comment that George Washington in the

American Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette in the French

Revolution, and Fidel Castro in the last Cuban revolution were

each the richest man in the country at the time.

Communism, far different from the hopes of Marx, is a tool of

the rich and powerful to seize everything in sight, and pay no

wages. It is the final answer to Capitalism not its opponent.

Socialisms in different costumes all tend to the same end

product of capitalism, total ownership.

So we can conclude about economics that:

1) There may be a subject called economics, and

2) There is certainly a large use of economic confusion to

bring about total ownership.

What you are observing apparently, in our modern world, is an

obscuring of actual economics to the somewhat ignoble (without

hounor; discraceful) end of taking everything away from everyone

but the State. The State can then be a chosen few who own all.

Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism all wind up with Man in the

same situation - owned body and soul by the state.

So if you are confused by "economic statements" by the chosen

few mouthpeices of the intended few who will be the State, then

realize it is not the subject itself but the intentional misuse

of the subject which is causing the trouble.

Sence all roads - Capitalism, Socialism, Communism - lead to

the same total ownership, none of them is in actual fact in

conflict. Only those several groups who each want to own

everything are in conflict, and none of them is worthy of any

support.

There is an answer to all this. If these "isms" all tend to a

total State then the obvious rebuttal is a No-state. This alone

would be an opposition to the total State.

As this is instinctive in Man - to oppose his enslavement -

people manifest their personal revolt in various ways.

They cannot simply overwhelm a well-armed government. So

their revolt takes the form of inaction and inefficiency.

Russia and Cuba, for two, are going on the rocks of individual

inefficiency and inaction. They do not see it as a revolt as it

hasn't any peaks. The grain and cain just don't come up, the

trains somehow don't run and the bread doesn't get baked.

America and England driven still by some faint remaining

spark of "free enterprise" muddle along. But the economic squeeze

is too great for this long to continue. Income Tax, bank and

state loans, all the evils are there waiting.

Sensing the coming total ownership of all, the worker even in

the U.S. and England begins to put on the breaks. A good day's

work today was an hour's work a century ago. Strikes now

enthusiastically paralyze anything they can. Inefficiency and

inaction are the order of the day.

Not clever, the Capitaliist, the Commissar (a Soviet Party

Official), the Great Socialist do not believe anyone has

penetrated their actual intent and so continue to twist economics

about in the hope of convincing the people. They strike, won't

realy work and get more inefficient.

The Societies of Earth, whether East or West, are all

approaching wiith rapidity the same end - dissolution by a

personal people's revolt. The revolt has no name, no leader, no

banner, no glory. It only has a common end in view - the end of

all states and all economic systems.

 

THE SCIENCE OF ECONOMICS

 

Any group of children will soon work out a practical economic

system.

Reciently children in a park in Russia became the subject of

government horror by developing a barter system, exchanging toys

for toys, an act which was duly chastised as "Capitalistic." The

Russian word values are shakey, for to be truly Capitalistic,

they would have to have had to develope an interest system of

recompense for the loan of the toys, not the barter system.

So long as there is a supply and as long as a demand can be

generated, some form of goods exchange system will develope.

There are innumberable combinations of supply and demand

actions. There is the reluctant supply and the demand by force, a

system commonly followed by troops or feudal barons, or simply

robbers.

There is the eager supply action added by creating a demand with

advertising, a system we know as business and at which Madison

Avenue s so adept. Man finds this system the most pleasent of the

systems, but it has a limitation in that it demands in return

money, and causes people to pay in order to buy the advertised

goods. (joke)

Then there is a system based on creating want. Governments

almost uniformly believe in this system and use it. They repress

supply by the taxation of the suppliers, and increase demand by

punishment of the consumer for lack of funds, ie Income Tax. The

theory, in its most crudely expressed form, is the reduction of

production coupled to the enforcement of demand. Fathers can be

arrested for not caring for children, while the price of bread,

rent, and services is beyond father's ability to pay. One is

arrested as a vagrant if one does not dress well, but the price

of clothing through scarcity puts it beyond his reach.

There are many, many variations of the same two factors,

supply and demand, and these can be played on by huge industries

or the State, or robbers, or beggars, or anyone wthout number.

A great deal is made of "deflations" and "inflations." Great

tomes are written to interpret them, but there are only two

operatve laws that govern them:

1) An inflation exists where there is more money in circulation

than there are goods.

2) A deflation exists where there are more goods than there is

money to buy them.

These two laws can be twisted about at will to confuse people.

But that's all there is to know about either an Inflation, or a

Deflation, or booms, or depressions for that matter.

 

FUNDAMENTALS

 

The economic laws break down to only one fact or fundamental

usually never mentioned in the best of suppressive circles

This is the genesis of economics, the beginning, how it all

came about.

To bring about economics, a person must be led to believe he

needs more than he can himself produce and must be restrained

from consuming his own production.

After that, one has economics, a society and rules, laws,

governments and a huge industrial combines.

Let us take the simple matter of a poor cow. The cow produces

milk, more cows, and even meat.

By being a producing animal, the cow is made to surrender the

lot. She does not need her own milk, cannot use her calves and is

also made to surrender her own body for meat. In return she gets

a sloppy barnyard, a thistle pasture, barking dogs and abuse.

Sentient or not, intelligent or stupid, the cow yet sets us a

fine example of the perfect citizen of the State.

The perfect citizen (from a suppressive government viewpoint)

is one who demands nothing and produces everything and even

surrenders her body on demand - the ideal citizen, the praised

comrade.

Life gets itself rigged this way. Those who can produce are

convienced they must produce and in production are given less and

less until at last we have a slave - all work and, no pay,

minimum food and untenable quarters.

Economics are used to bring about this exact condition

remorselessly.

 

INCOME TAX

 

If you have reservations about the end product of various

state acts or the intentions behind them, consider this hitherto

hidden fact.

Income Tax is designed on the Marxist principle (to be found

in Das Kapital, the Communist text) of taxation as follows:

"To each according to his need."

"From each according to his ability to pay."

About the turn of the century, most western nations (govern-

ments) gladly swallowed this potion and wrote Income Tax laws as

a result.

It looks quite innocent to the uninformed.

In a letter written by the treasury of a great nation a

question as to why Income Tax was levied so unequally instead

of on merely a set percentage of everyone's gross income, was

answered with the astounding datum that taxation of one's net

income on a sliding scale was far more humanitarian.

Let's see how "humsnitarian" this sliding scale income tax

realy is.

Inflation is the order of the day. Few Western nations take

any but inflationary action. To wit, they devaluate the buying

power of money by spending more money than there is produce to

absorb it.

Income Tax is arranged so that the more one is paid, the

higher a percentage he is taxed. For a crude example, if one

makes 500 monetary units a year, the law states that his tax is

2%. If he makes 100,000 monetary units a year, the law is so

written that his tax is about 90% (1965 US). The more one makes,

the more one has to pay in proportion.

Very well. let's use this as hours of work. In a low income

bracket on a forty hour week, one pays the government a half's

work a week. In a middle income bracket, one pays the government

20 out of 40 hours. And in the high income bracket, one pays

prehaps 39 out of 40 hours as tax.

Alright inflation willy-nilly is shoving the lowest worker

towards the higher tax bracket.

The price of bread and rent and all will go up proportionate

to the value of money. So will his pay. But his tax will increase

even faster.

Therefore, governments are very ancious to inflate their

money. The more it inflates, the more workers have to be paid (in

valueless money), but the greater a precentage the government

gets of the work hours.

The end product is of course a total state ownership of

everything. Industry cannot pay a worker 40,000 monetary units if

tax laws take all but 5,000 monetary units.

If you will look at the taxation schedules you will see that

if a loaf of bread cost ten times its current price and you had

other costs rising proportionately your pay would shrink to where

you could not afford to eat because the higher tax percentage

would engulf your pay, no matter what it was.

Now no one has mentioned this. And governments defend their

right to a raising precentage as income rises with a tenacity

that is quite suprising.

As inflation wipes out savings also, right up ahead is the big

chasm, waiting.

Anyone trying to say that inflation is inevitable and income

tax vital is simply suppressive or stupid. Surely the big wheels

of government economics know as well as any other trained

economist that all one needs to so to check inflation is increase

production and decrease government spending.

One Western nation has a lovely one going. "Export the goods!"

is the cry. The more goods exported, the less there is to buy. By

Currency Exchange laws, one cannot also export the money. A

prohibitive duty is put on all imports. Naturally, inflation with

a vengeance. And an Income Tax is easily the highest in the

world.

Citizens of that nation are traditionally determined to never,

never, never be slaves. But here come the chains; one link for

every penny rise in the cost of bread. When a worker has to spend

$500 a week to keep himself and family, the government will take

$150 of that, leaving him on half rations. And when he would have

to spend $1,500 a week to provide food, clothing and shelter, he

will get only about 40% of that, even if he is paid that due to

Income Tax sliding scale, and he will starve to death.

To be charitable, it is possible that the leaders of these

countries do not know these things and are being badly advised or

are confused. But if so, what vicious blokes must be doing the

advising.

A very proper course for the country would be to abandon the

empire no citizen of that country cares about any more, cutting

off all its support and defense funds for lands that hate the

British anyway. Then, or at the same time, engage upon a furious

research program to discover how to produce food enough for its

people, let down all its trade barriers, cancel the projects that

make income tax vital and prosper beyond all imaginings.

One can't tax nothing, and if taxes depress the producer to

zero then so goes the land.

The bright eyed visionary (with some insanity showing through

the brightness) raves about Utopia and the beautiful schemes of

various political solutions.

These are supposed to open the bright new future if only we

grit our teeth now and starve.

There is NO political Philosophy that ever can or ever will

solve economic problems, for they are two different fields,

aren't they.

When Marx married them, he gave a terrible tool to supperssive

men.

Many Marxist complaints are just, many are quite factual, but

he erred in trying to solve them, for when ever he proposed a

solution and what ever solution he proposed, he offered as a part

of it government.

Governments are not always run by sane men. The man in the

street has no guarentee that his ruler is not realy "bonkers".

 

THE QUESTION

 

The relationship of any man to Economics is a simple one: "

How can I live?" To that adheres the question, "How can his

dependants and his community live?"

When ever a person asks this question or any version thereof

in this, the complex society of today, he is asking "What is

economics?"

In this section, short as it is, all the vital factors of

economics are listed.

What needs to be guaranteed is that one's economic destiny is

not managed by men who hate and who will not be comfortable until

all other men are slaves.

The long term solution to the question "How can I live?" is

never work for a suppressive firm and do not support a

suppressive government. And work to guarantee that leaders are

sane.

RON