Monetary Demcracy and Globalism

Civil Liberty and Globalism in the World of twenty first century

Monetary Democracy

When we deconstruct our historic monetary system to its basic individual blocks; then reconstruct it into our modern monetary system, we find that some of the most important blocks are missing. If we are to find a solution to our present monetary problems we need to look to our history; it does provide the solution.

It was in the year 2011 A.D.E. that certain men and women came up into the streets and parks of our Cities, in the United States and Europe to protest; “The Wall Street protest”,” the 99% versus the 1% “. The economic plight of the world where 1% get richer, become the super rich and the rest of us ” the 99%” need to work more and more for less and less and less. Is there any economic injustice?

Is this a time to smoke pot? A time to get stoned? A time to proclaim gay pride? A time to deny children their basic human right? A time to proclaim same sex parenting, same sex marriage, same sex family?  A time to kill the unborn with abortion? A time to kill with sex selection abortion because women are unwanted?  A time to make love not war (appease lust not justice)? All of these things belong to the protests of the 1960s, the sexual revolution.  That generation is now our senior leadership and fast approaching its eternal exit.

For the Wall Street protest the summer and fall went, and winter came, the parks got muddy, the tents became cold, they all went home. They never returned, nothing was heard again, they may have discovered that they themselves were the object of their own protest.  Have we now become so objective that we can judge and condemn 1% for being too subjective? By now everyone will have forgotten that these protests even took place. I would have forgotten too, but I recognized the contradiction and began to write this.

Since the last world war the western world, that is North America and Europe, has gone through two revolutions. On the face, these revolutions appear biennial; they are far from biennial. These two revolutions are now very much entrenched and we are feeling the real effects.

Two Revolutions do not make a right.

The first revolution was in the 1960s – 70s, “the sexual revolution”. Here in Canada known as Trudeau’s Just Society of 1969. In the United States primarily marked by Roe v Wade in 1973; In Europe each state had its own interpretation. The second revolution was in the 1980s, with Neo-Liberal economic policy and in reality, the restoration of class power, primarily from the efforts of Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

This second revolution is a natural progression of the first. Whether the design is intentional or not, is irrelevant, the phenomenon that has developed is the same.

This first revolution has completely altered the synthesis of our justice, and the foundation of all policy. What western people expect from Justice is human rights, freedom, and equality in short, the human being as an end in itself. The priori of justice understood to be the equality of human stewardship. With the sexual revolution this priori has been moved to the equality of human lust and greed. Justice became the ideology or religion of moral relativism.

Human beings are no longer considered an end in themselves but rather a means to an end, which of course is an ideological end, and as such, you can easily add, the privileged elite, “Neo-Liberal economics”.

These two revolutions also mark the death of the modern enlightenment, at least as far as justice and politics are concerned. Many of my ideas are inspired by the writings of Emanuel Kant, Moses Mendelsshon and Adam Smith, philosophers of the modern enlightenment.

Ideology, like much of organized religion, is not enlightenment, it only seeks to restrict and contain knowledge, then naturally our freedom and human rights. Enlightenment  seeks and defends the moral imperative for human freedom.

There is ample evidence from our recent history that demonstrates how we used democracy to destroy democracy, use justice to destroy justice, use human rights to destroy human rights, use free enterprise to destroy free enterprise, use religion to destroy religion, and lastly, use ourselves to destroy ourselves. It ought not to be like this, but such is the metaphysics of man. Who do we blame? Where do we find fault? There is no point in finding blame or fault. We need to recognize truth and reach forward to make things better.

If we the people are to make any progress in the quality of life we need to cast off the rule of Ideology, and once again embrace authentic enlightenment. We cannot keep on theorising and just merrily have an opinion; we need to call a judgment.

Economic  Globalism

I have read several books on globalism. Writers trying to put the phenomena in perspective; they all begin with a historic perspective. Right here at their beginning they all seem to make the same two fatal mistakes.  They take for granted that the development of ideology is normal. It is not normal. Then they take for granted that the original source of all primary reserve purchasing power (money) is government and the Banks. Neither is this normal. These writers have no concept of religion/ideology, and neither, money.

To get any concept of the big picture for geographical, political and economic development in history, you need to include the history of religion and the history of money.

The phenomenon of global economic development is not the problem; it has been ongoing for thousands of years; only in the last 30 years it has accelerated because of new technology. The real problem is with neo-liberal economic ideology. The term globalism may have been invented to gloss over the real intent of capitalist conquest and attempt to give it a humanitarian cover.

Ideology/Religion: Throughout history, you could say all of the great tragedies in the world came about by human greed and lust, converted into an ideological religion to achieve a privileged end.  Evil created to overcome evil. Rarely is there truth and often it is the victim. Neo-liberal economic ideology is no different.

Ideology is the same thing as Idolatry; the former is a modern term to describe the same human phenomena.  They attempt to create a comfort zone for themselves and the world, one that reflects the elite’s faith of superior benevolence, independent of the moral imperative. People are not regarded as ends in themselves but as means to that end. This requires restrictions on freedom and knowledge; truth is replaced with propaganda. All the attempts in the past to achieve this were through the rule of repressive law and war. In today’s world everything is financialized. It may now also be achieved through monetary and capital manipulation.

Now what is ethical and moral law?   To be able to act upon our subjective needs and wants we need to connect it to the objective priori that it could be willed to be a universal moral law. In other words ask yourself the question, what if everyone did this?  Calculate the consequences; you will soon have your answer.

The moral imperative existed before all formal religion, and true religion should be a defence of it.  This is the only way to human freedom and liberty. I always thought this was the American way. It is why we fought the civil war until we won.  Ideology like idolatry can never achieve this.  Ideology is always at odds with moral and ethical law because it seeks to substitute the subjective for the objective; hence special interest law and no objective law; it replaces the moral imperative with moral relativism.

Before I leave the subject of ideology I would like to make one comment about Reaganomics; in 1980 Ronald Reagan was quoted as saying “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.” No doubt he was referring to the record of the democratic presidency of Jimmy Carter, and the Democratic Party; their ideology of big government socialism, and the sexual revolution. Was he aware that he himself was ushering in a whole new Ideology of the same character, in an entirely different field, but with similar consequences?  Monetarist supply-side was the real policy behind it, but also very adaptable to the ideology, of the sexual revolution,” monetary and economic relativism”.

Despite Reaganomics being a failure right from the start, (it turned out very different from his projections), but in terms of Ideology he may have put the cart in front of the horse. Moral relativism now also became Economic relativism.  The first ideological revolution destroyed the family, has made marriage meaningless, denies children their most basic human rights, and discrimination against an objective life style is taking on the characteristics of anti-Semitism.

The second ideological revolution destroyed the middle class, free enterprise, and the effect on human rights is beginning to appear. We have developed a dual employment system where civil servants, public employees enjoy all their union rights pay raises and pensions, and at the same time for private enterprise employees all of this has been destroyed.  Secondly, the major discrimination will come through the monetary banking system, between those deemed as high risk and low risk; the super capitalist as low risk and small business and consumer as high risk; monetary policy finding an excuse for discrimination within the effects of their own policy. Then they call this “market conditions”.  Monetary discrimination is the product of policy and very difficult to detect as discrimination in the real community.

The first revolution relies on the syntheses of ideological justice. The second revolution puts itself outside of justice, called “Free enterprise”.  Both revolutions are ongoing and have no end, but they will destroy meaningful democracy, monetarism and enterprise.

If these observations are not true for everyone, it is that many of us still have the self-worth and means to resist the flow, or are in a favoured sector, but it will not be sustainable.

I am sure Ronald Reagan had intended neo-liberal economic ideology to work for the United States, but then in his time there was no idea of China’s communism hybridizing with capitalism. What was intended to work for the United States may very well work against the United States and the entire west.  When neo-liberal economic ideology is really the restoration of class power, then China as a hybrid of communism and capitalism is a readymade class power. The idea of free enterprise, free trade and competition is fake.  When Ronald Reagan said “Government is the problem”, what are we to think when capitalism hybridizes with government and commuisim?

    

History of money

Probably, the most misunderstood phenomenon in the world that leaves most people of the world helpless is money.

The use of coins as money began in history about as soon as metals were discovered and could be processed. They were added to the barter trade. The discovery of gold and silver, not very useful for utensils or implements, but did have a special quality that was appreciated by everyone. It naturally became the product to impress, jewellery to express wealth, then money.

The only purpose of money is to secure payment, as the ancient Hebrew word for payment indicates t’shalom “to make peace”. This can be achieved through simple bartering; agreeing on goods for goods, but this barter system can never work well for complex transaction or any major projects requiring the cooperation of a lot of people. Coins of precious metals overcame this problem.

However coins in themselves are still nothing regardless of the metal. For them to have any value for payment (or making peace) lies completely in the consciousness of the human being.  Subjectively human beings were impressed by the aesthetic quality of gold and silver to the point that humans coveted gold and silver. It became an objective priori and could become a universal law of payment; accepted by friend and foe alike. Payments could now be expressed in weights of precious metals, human covetousness guaranteed universal acceptance (confidence). The world then had one universal currency with real purchasing power.  However herein already lies the problem with money; the universal law of payment relies on the priori of covertness and at the same time is expected to be moral for making payment.

Now who creates money (Purchasing power)? Throughout history it was whoever found gold and silver, as the primary source.  A secondary source is capital accumulation through mercantile trade, and also through taxation by government; from here we get into monetarism, where capital is lent out for interest, to mercantile trade, industry, agriculture and government, and anyone who may have the ability to recover money to make interest and principal payments. However, despite this debt, it is always the original non-debt supply of gold and silver that determines the total supply of purchasing power. Much of our history is defined according to the supply of gold and silver.

We should keep in mind that historically money is intended to make peace and payment; a moral priori law.  It is a great irony on the world’s history, to see what we have done to each other in order to acquire tokens of peace and payment.

Today we have fiat money; the American dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971, money has no reference to gold, and the real value of money is public confidence. The quantity of money is controlled by the priori of math, In other words numerical units that can continue to infinity.  Money comes into existence only through debt. The supply and demand for money is to be controlled by manipulating  interest rates, and as you see today that is hardly possible.

Before I draw any conclusion about money, I will first discuss a few monetary problems from history. In ancient Mesopotamia and the Middle East, about 2,000 B.C.E., the land was settled by small city states and nomads. These states had functioning economies that included farming, industry and trade. Money was in use; Yet for all of this there were constant petty wars between these states.  These wars were carried out to acquire wealth and power beyond what existing economics could produce. Another factor that should not be overlooked is the contempt for each other’s ideology (religion) a feeling of deficiency in truth and justice.

An account of one of these petty wars can be found in the Bible, Gen. 34. when Jacob’s sons were confronted with the problem of their sister Dinah and the proposed marriage to Shechem.  Hamor and his son Shecem thought they had a merger with Jacob’s family through marriage. However Jacob’s sons had a different idea; they killed all the men, took the woman and children, cattle and money. They made it into an economic stimulus package for themselves.

Another good example from the Bible that illustrates monetary deficiency is from the account of King Solomon and the state of Israel.  We read that King Solomon sent ships to get gold from Ophir. New gold from an outside source wins the right to expand the money supply, and the initial benefit of economic stimulus. At the end of Solomon’s reign we read of no more new gold, but instead high taxes and the kingdom falling apart. It is probable, that through trade and consumerism the economy was dispossessed of gold for capital accumulation, and then taken to another state where it would be used to expand that economy. What was needed for the state of Israel was another shipment of new gold. Increasing the money supply could have provided the economic stimulus to rescue the state, but that did not happen.

Nothing in the economy of the state of Israel was lacking other than money. Money is the only means to facilitate the operations of a complex economy.  The only other means is by draconian rule of law; the difference between willing cooperation and unwilling cooperation.  The real problem was the monetary leakage. The only way to recover money outside of a primary source is through trade, war or by surrendering sovereignty to another state who could promise money.

All through the middle ages we have the same scenario for Western Europe, beginning in the second or third century; a thousand years of economic stagnation and a short money supply; The Roman super rich hording  the supply of money and land, with the people in debt, poverty and slavery. Then, this system from the crumbling Roman Empire simply transferred to the feudal rulers and the Roman Catholic Church. The only times the money supply expanded was in preparation for war, the building of castles and cathedrals, and then soon taxed back.

This system only began to break up when there were more free people and some trade. However the real breakthrough did not come until Spain unified, then conquered Granada, then discovered America. In America they conquered the Aztecs and Incas, stole their gold and brought it back to Europe; thereby winning the right to expand the money supply for themselves and all of Europe. For once in a thousand years there was a substantial increase in the money supply, and this time not all of it was in the control of the feudal system or the church. Much of the gold stayed in the hands of the conquistadors and their families, for discretionary spending and investment.

Now, why should Spain have a monopoly power over the expansion of the money supply? There were not too many in Europe who agreed.  We have Sir Francis Drake from England and Albert Hyn from the Netherlands who made it their business robbing Spanish treasure ships. Worthy of being knighted “Sir”. Did they do any crime?  Spain could very well have become the Banking center of the world but they destroyed it, with their Ideology. The Roman Catholic Church would not allow lending money for interest, and then add to this the Jesuit Spanish inquisition. The Banking center moved to Amsterdam in the Netherlands; a country that was a refuge for the persecuted of Europe and Jews were equal citizens.

We often think of the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment as spontaneous events, but I think they were very much aided through the monetary expansion from private sources outside the direct control of the established tyranny. It provided the means and courage for individuals to exert themselves, but also the moneyed network to sustain reform.

More recently in North America, it is often said the American west was developed through the gold rush. It is more accurate to say the American west was developed through the creation of new primary money (purchasing power) and gold was the capitalist excuse.

All this time that western Europe was in the middle ages, the eastern half of the old Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire continued for another one thousand   years.  They had a larger population, an adequate gold supply and a stable currency for the first 800 years. They had a free enterprise economy controlled by the rule of law. Trade was regulated and every attempt was made to replace imports with home production. They had a large middle class and no super rich, but the state as a whole was very wealthy.  It only came to an end through constant attack of war and no reliable allies.

The historic model for western capitalism is without any doubt the ancient Greeks.  Greece, the land itself was not a prosperous land in terms of agriculture or food production to support a population but it was through sea trade and colonization around the Mediterranean that they were able to build advanced City States.  This advanced development of these City States could not have been achieved through a barter trade economy. The Greeks had gold and silver mines; mining was an important occupation for the Greeks.

It was through Greek trade that there was an ever increasing supply of money as wealth being introduced into the Mediterranean region. For the first time in European history, portable wealth, gold and silver as money became more important than the wealth of land.

The Greek City states and colonies were attacked by Persia in the wars beginning in 490 B.C.E. .Territory was lost to Persia, as well gold sources being redirected to Persia.

During these wars Athenians discover a rich vein of silver in Laurium about 480 B.C.E…  In the Athens democratic government assembly under the leadership of Themistoles; at that time; it was proposed by Aristides and his supporters that the silver be divided up and distributed among all the citizens in the same manner as the spoils of war. Themistoles instead insisted that the new wealth be used to build a strong fleet of at least 200 additional war ships in preparation for the next Persian sea invasion. Aristides was ostracized (voted out) from the assembly for ten years and the money went to build the ships. All of this money was newly created purchasing power, not debt, no one owed anyone anything.

What is clear from this history is that new purchasing power as money came into existence through the people as individual citizens and also collectively  as the community. Greek citizens could purchase their leisure life with newly created purchasing power and none of this was debt. They owed no one. Instead, through colonization and lending money the world came to owe them. At the same time it should be remembered that the majority who lived at Athens during this time were not citizens, and this would not apply to them. They were slaves and serfs. By comparison then our modern monetary system treats all of us as slaves and serfs, not citizens. Debt being our master; whether we know it or not, or don’t want to believe it.   The true value of our debt money is the future work you still need to do, the future sales you need to get. This is the only reason why we need constant economic growth just to survive.

The Persians navy of king Xerxes was defeated in a major sea battle of 480 B.C.E. His army went home. After this the Greek City States formed a federation of states for defence. This federation did not work, but created a war. While the City States squabbled and fought each other, King Philip II of Macedonia consolidated his state in the north. He seized the northern gold mines; thereby depriving the southern city states a good portion of their money supply.

This money from these mines was diverted to Macedonia and used to build a new navy and army for the state. In light of the contemporary time, this was a new and innovative hi-tech navy and army. When you have enough money and everyone gets paid well you can buy a lot of cooperation from the people.  Again this is all primary money; created purchasing power; not debt or war bonds; King Philip owed no one anything.

With this army and navy, King Philip II conquered all the Greek city states; destroyed democracy and made himself Tyrant of all Greece, Himself, the one and only citizen.

After the death of King Philip, his son, Alexander became king.  Then after establishing himself as King of all Greece, he took this new army to attack Persia, to regain lost territory and get revenge on the previous Persian attacks. This conquest was funded with gold and silver from the mines not debt or war bonds and when this was not enough the spoils of conquest would provide the rest.

Alexander conquered the Persian Empire over 11 years with four major battles. After the battle of Issus he took the city of Damascus and there apprehended the Persian war treasury, thereby he gained all new purchasing power to continue his conquest.

Alexander’s empire did not last; it was divided into 3 Kingdoms; and governance of a large empire with an inadequate money supply is difficult.  However the sequence of money and debt, how it has evolved, continues according to this pattern to our modern time. It is clear from this history that capitalism cannot exist without the creation of money that is wealth in its own, (Reserve) that has no reference to economic activity, neither debt.  Money as wealth in itself becomes the command of economic activity. Debt cannot be created without it, and money (purchasing power) created by debt is not this wealth.

The Gold Standard: Today there are still some people who think we should return to the gold standard, there could be nothing more ridicules than this. Most people today agree that the depression of the 1930s was caused by the gold standard and if it had not been for the gold standard the depression could have been prevented.  The world gold supply is inadequate and the means by which it comes into existence as money is much less than desirable.

With the gold standard money is created by lending to the public on a ratio of gold reserve held by the bank. This system works as long as no one asks for their gold. When everyone asks for their gold you will soon find out that most of your money is not gold but rather someone ell’s debt.  With fiat money the system is still the same but without reference to gold.  The reserve is expressed in a quantity of money, that can be increased or decrease by restrictive lending (taking in more than letting out)  or a bond (loan) from the central Bank, or quantitative easing,  (in reference to history this would be the same as new gold coming from a mine).   Now all primary capital is held by the central Bank or the Reserve.  There is no longer any primary capital with the people (like gold coming into circulation as money from a private source).  All money in circulation is some ones else’s debt.  Then private enterprise capital accumulation can only be the debt accumulation of someone ells.

The problem with debt money is it always requires future economic activity in order to repay, whereas primary reserve money is capital purchasing power that does not require future economic activity. It is wealth in its self.

Gold Method: I think it is clear from history that for a very long period of time, money came into existence and circulation as primary reserve money by anyone who could produce it.  As in the example of the Greek City states, primary capital reserve money was distributed by democratic means to its citizens.  Today with fait money I see no reason why this could not be done again to correct the imbalance between reserve money and debt money.  At the same time we would need to restrict the growth of debt to achieve the balance.

Inherent value of money: historically the value of money was focused on the gold, the metal. However the real value that became apparent is its usefulness as purchasing power. Then it follows, what makes money most useful to the citizen is social, economic, political, stability; which can also be characterized by reliable objective justice, human rights, and the objective rule of law. Then it is these properties that are the true value of money. A democratic state that has these properties in place may create as much primary reserve money and capital as it needs for its citizens.

Since ancient times, states and economies got sacked; stripped of their assets and money for the purpose of enriching the raider or conqueror. Nothing much has changed; we still do the same thing, only in a modern way without gold. Where everything is financialized, the sacking is put on a promissory note for a future generation, and when that generation comes we have a financial crisis. We do this within the state, through government deficit spending, and now globally with the finacialization of trade and capital imbalances, creating economic imbalances, and the debt trap of nations around the world.

Free Trade: Now the question; Does trade and deficits need to be balanced if money and debt is to have any value? Adam Smith in his book” The Nature and Cause of Wealth of Nations” (1796) is considered to be the corner stone of Neo-Liberal economics. (I have heard reports that Margret Thatcher always kept a copy in her purse).  If we are to get anything out of Smith’s ideas, we need to update them. His writing is not pure philosophy, but pure reason applied to his own time.  In Smith’s time the world was still a large frontier, much of it was hardly explored. Today the world looks more like a fish bowl.   Money was gold and silver, there were many new mines that produced a steady supply of gold and silver all entering the monetary system and being lent for interest, to the point that there was inflation.  Today with fiat money, there is no primary source of money coming from within the economy, only debt money from a presupposed capital reserves held in the central banking system.

Adam Smith considered labour to be the major component of price.  That may have been true for his day when it required a lot of labour to manufacture or produce anything. However in our day with the technology, labour is becoming the smallest component in price.

Adam Smith envisioned that trade imbalances would correct themselves through competition and improved productivity; the invisible hand or in the French Revolutionary terms (laissez faire). But instead we have financialized trade and capital imbalances, and then with fiat money on the priori of math this can continue to infinity. We may have free trade but the trade wars have only been transferred to monetary wars, capital wars and fiscal wars. Someone needs to call a judgment on value and that should be the people.

What do we mean by competition and improved productivity to equalize trade? The equalizing trade that would result can only be through the equalizing of the price for goods, according to Adam Smith.  The price for goods consists of three components, a return on capital, a return on labour and a return for government in the form of tax. It is all three of these that need equalizing to balance trade under a free trade policy. Adam Smith’s concept is inadequate to equalize anything, much less strategic goods such as oil. However, concerning price, when there is very little labour input or labour cost and no taxes, how then do you equalize profit and the return on intellectual property, or resource property?  It can only happen when we force it to happen, through import taxes in the importing state or through higher wages, human rights and social security in the exporting state.    Without this equalizing,  we will create production states and consumer states as the new division of labour, and the absurdity of fiat money as wealth continues; our debt.  Through this type of unmitigated division of labour the consumer in developed economies still remains a component of labour for income, but without any representation in the price structure. Much of our consumer debt is a short fall in the labour component of price; debt, a substitute for real income. With short sighted consumerism, more consumption and capital accumulation can be achieved through consumer debt than with higher prices (Prices that would include a civil value for labour and social security). The efficiency of production is worthless, to both the consumer and producer when it cannot include, labour which is also the consumer, for a source of income, through value added, (in other words the benefit of lower prices is not income for the people).  Efficiency should be for the benefit of the entire economy, not just for lower prices and capital accumulation.

Adam Smith stated in his book the wealth of nations “all production is for consumption” then it cannot be for surplus capital accumulation.  This can only be possible when (as if) we deny that a portion of consumption has taken place and defer it to another time, represented by consumer and government debt. By comparison much of eighteenth century capital was surplus gold from the mines and colonies, not debt.

When production does not need labour there is a moral obligation to include the welfare of the consumer,( the population), in the price structure through value added. Without this production is not sustainable. People do not need to be unemployed. We need to direct labour away from the waist of consumerism and toward environmental/economic stewardship. Environmental protection must be inserted in the price and economic structure, to replace the labour component that was lost. Like I said before efficiency belongs to the entire economy, not just for profit production.

Neo-Liberal economics make their defence from Adam Smith and his eighteenth century experience in trade, to defend their doctrine of free trade, no taxes and floating exchange rates, to balance trade and capital flows. However the eighteenth century idea of money is quite different from today. Adam Smith had a rather casual idea of money. He writes “The cheapness of gold and silver render those metals rather less fit for the purposes of money than they were before”.  In other words trade and industrial expansion had to catch-up to the money supply, if money was to retain any value; and this flow of money continued year after year. This is all primary reserve money, very little was debt.

As the economic activity of the nineteenth century caught-up to the money supply and gold was no longer so plentiful, money was created through debt on the gold base.

Then in the twentieth century money was removed from the gold standard and was created through debt, based on the reserve in the banking system; a presupposed reserves of the central Bank.

Obviously in the eighteenth century every advantage for trade and economic development was with the state that had accesses to cheap gold and silver from the mines or colonies. It is easy to promote free trade when you are speaking from this advantage.

States that did not have access to cheap gold and silver could only obtain it through trade or debt.

Now apply this resent history to our fait money of today as policy. The challenge is to get the currency of one dominant state, or a few states to be accepted as the world currency of trade and debt, and thereby all other currencies become secondary. These states with secondary currency will be required to use the currency of the dominant state to complete trade transactions and seek investment.  These currencies are being crowded out, as the dominant currency takes on the characteristics that once were attributed to gold; therefore these smaller states lose the ability to create their own reserves or primary source of money for investment and trade. The dominant states become the only source of primary money or reserves.  In eighteenth century terms, they would have the only gold mine in the world, at least for creating purchasing power, and all the other states would be dependent on that state for a money supply.  Economic development only becomes possible through trade and capital flows not through the states own ability to create money, that ability now belongs only to the dominant state or states.

Once the dominant State has the world flooded with its money and its own economy operating reasonably well it can start raising interest rates and thereby collect tribute from the whole world, causing economic stress in other states which in turn provide the justification to micro manage the affairs of these states.    This is today’s imperialism; monetary social credit and welfare for capitalism, debt and servility for the world.

We need to developed an economic system that will make local, regional and national economies more self sufficient and self reliant. This should be the new consciousness for globalism.  The tools to do this are local control of monetary policy, fiscal policy and the people’s primary reserve money. The global capital markets can never achieve this; instead they create dependency and regional disparity.

We need an economic system where we can contract the economy and at the same time improve the quality of life and environmental protection.  The present system of ever increasing consumption and waist to maintain growth for the purpose of staying ahead of debt with more debt money is not sustainable, but will end in capitalist tyranny.  We need to reduce consumption and debt. That can only be achieved through the use of the people’s primary reserve money.

The people of each state in the world could create their own capital and would not be dependent on global capital markets. When each state would use the same criterion we in essence would have one global currency.  We need to replace Monetary Imperialism with the Monetary Imperative, which is nothing unlike the Moral Imperative.  Monetarism on a priori of necessity and universality on the same axis as the priori of Justice.

Balanced trade is necessary by direct economic aid, the development of domestic economies for domestic needs, and realistic trade agreements.  Free states need to run the economy like a business for the public profit and the profit is quality of life; and not capital accumulation on another’s debt.  The world needs more than just economic diplomacy. It need monetary Justice.

The present monetary system can never achieve this; it emphasizes the wrong end of the economic process, and it will carry on from crisis to crisis until everyone realizes that money has no real value other than the pretext behind it “conquest”.

Conclusion

When in the west, with our democracy, and developed economies, of these post revolution days of the twenty first century; we may think of ourselves as descendant of ancient Europe, the Greek Democratic City states, and then upon reflection  –  we have chosen the very worst and rejected the very best. We have embraced Greek pagan religion/ideology and we have rejected Greek monetary democracy.

They are three things, for all the people of the world.

1. The restoration of the Secular State under the supremacy of God and the Rule of Law, which speaks for its self that Justice, would be objective; Human rights, civil rights, civil liberty, and human beings as ends in themselves.

When Ideological/religious judges, on the Supreme Court can bypass Parliament or any other democratically elected body, and rule by Ideological/religious decree; then we the people have a Civil Right to a system whereby the we can bypass Parliament and impeach these ideological/religious judges.  We need to put an end to this last vestige of absolutism.

2. The restoration of free enterprise, under the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law, which again is Human rights, Civil Rights, Civil Liberty, objective justice and the objective rule of law. Enterprise without this is not free enterprise but a regression to slavery and extreme poverty for the masses.

3. The restoration of the People’s Money. Public debt is owed by the people and also to the people as their own primary reserve money. The one cancels out the other. Public debt has no vale and its existence as debt is an illusion for the benefit of monetary imperialism.  The present monetary system of Quantitative Easing, is social credit welfare for Capitalism, and will create tribute states as well as tsunamis of capital flows around the world, but no coherent local and regional economic development. That can only come through empowering the people with their own local capital (monetary democracy).

The debt of third world nations or underdeveloped countries needs to be written off; and these countries empowered to create the purchasing power needed for social economic development, on the condition of objective human rights and the rule of law.  This, the only true value of money.

How to Make It Happen? Read the next article, Maccabean Club.

Caleb Maccabee