Economics
...ution 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 br...