1966 the subject called”Economics. ” Economic Theories

1966 the subject called”Economics. ” Economic Theories

1966 LRH There are certain characteristics and mental attitudes whichcause about 20% of a race to oppose violently any bettermentactivity or group. Such people are known to have anti-social tendencies. When thelegal or political structure of a country becomes such as tofavor such personalities in positions of trust, then all thecivilizing organizations of the country become surpressed and abarbarism of criminality and economic duress ensues. One of the primary barriers in this society is economics.Supressives (anti-social personalities) have been weaving a webof economic entanglement for societies for some time usingeconomic mis-interpretations or ignorance to involve thosesocieties which only reciently struck off their chains of actualslavery. Today, the chains are made of economic restrictions and,to be blunt, economic lies. An understanding of economics is a bold step forward towardtotal freedom in society.

Aberrations tend to blow rapidly whentheir lies are exposed. Therefore I have written this short essey on the actuual lawsof economics, as they may help you. Today, almost any person has a present time problem, growingmore pressing as time goes by and as our society evolves. It isthe simple question: How can I live? The answer to this quuestion in a broad general way can befound by attaining an understanding of the subject called”Economics.

” Economic Theories Economics are as simple as they are not obscured and asconfusing as they are made to serve a selfish purpose. Any child can understand (and practice) the basic principlesof economics. But grown men, huge with the stature of governmentor Chain Banks, find it very useful to obscuure the beyond allcomprehension. The things that are done in the name of “economic necessity”would shame Satan himself. For they are done by the selfish fewto deny the many. Thus economics easily evolves into the science of making mostpeople miserable.

Nine-tenths of life are economic. The remaining one-tenth issocial-political. If there is a fruitful source of supression loose upon theworld and if it makes people unhappy, then it is a legitimatefield for comment, as it must form a large “misunderstood” in ourdaily lives Let us see how involved it can be made. The most virulent philosophy of the 19th Century was not thatof Dewey or Schopenhauer. It was that of a fellow named KarlMarx, a Germam. In his book, Das Kapitas, he sets out to destroy the world ofcapitalism, by introducing the philosophy of Communism, borrowedin some part eviidently from Lycurgus, of the ancient Greek Stateof Sparta.

Marx has succeeded to date (though himself dead and buried inEngland) in extending his philosophy over perhaps two-thirds ofthe world’s population and upsettiing the remainder mostthoroughly. Capitalism, under attack, surviving only in the West in afaint 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 nohope of ever getting enough cash together to loan it at interestand so retire. By definition that was all that Capitalism was, asystem of living on interest by loaning money to more industriouspeople. As it implies “All take and no active participation” it,of course, is a rather easily destroyed system.

It had novitality. It could only foreclose mortgages and seize property.It could not and did not operatee cleverly. The trick was, andis, to loan an industrious person half of what he needed to makea go of his business and then when he failed, to take over thebusiness 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 aretaxed each year so that it has no money to renew its machineryor to expand. To keep going it has to borrow money from thechain banks of the State. One slip and it is taken over entirelyby 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 takesthe final step of Capitalism and seizes everything. It fightsCapitalism by becoming the Super Capitalist. It is not an idle comment that George Washington in theAmerican Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette in the FrenchRevolution, and Fidel Castro in the last Cuban revolution wereeach the richest man in the country at the time. Communism, far different from the hopes of Marx, is a tool ofthe rich and powerful to seize everything in sight, and pay nowages. It is the final answer to Capitalism not its opponent. Socialisms in different costumes all tend to the same endproduct 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 tobring about total ownership. What you are observing apparently, in our modern world, is anobscuring of actual economics to the somewhat ignoble (withouthounor; discraceful) end of taking everything away from everyonebut the State. The State can then be a chosen few who own all.Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism all wind up with Man in thesame situation – owned body and soul by the state. So if you are confused by “economic statements” by the chosenfew mouthpeices of the intended few who will be the State, thenrealize it is not the subject itself but the intentional misuseof the subject which is causing the trouble. Sence all roads – Capitalism, Socialism, Communism – lead tothe same total ownership, none of them is in actual fact inconflict. Only those several groups who each want to owneverything are in conflict, and none of them is worthy of anysupport.

There is an answer to all this. If these “isms” all tend to atotal State then the obvious rebuttal is a No-state. This alonewould 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. Sotheir revolt takes the form of inaction and inefficiency. Russia and Cuba, for two, are going on the rocks of individualinefficiency and inaction.

They do not see it as a revolt as ithasn’t any peaks. The grain and cain just don’t come up, thetrains somehow don’t run and the bread doesn’t get baked. America and England driven still by some faint remainingspark of “free enterprise” muddle along. But the economic squeezeis too great for this long to continue.

Income Tax, bank andstate loans, all the evils are there waiting. Sensing the coming total ownership of all, the worker even inthe U.S.

and England begins to put on the breaks. A good day’swork today was an hour’s work a century ago. Strikes nowenthusiastically paralyze anything they can. Inefficiency andinaction are the order of the day. Not clever, the Capitaliist, the Commissar (a Soviet PartyOfficial), the Great Socialist do not believe anyone haspenetrated their actual intent and so continue to twist economicsabout in the hope of convincing the people. They strike, won’trealy work and get more inefficient. The Societies of Earth, whether East or West, are allapproaching wiith rapidity the same end – dissolution by apersonal people’s revolt.

The revolt has no name, no leader, nobanner, no glory. It only has a common end in view – the end ofall states and all economic systems.The Science of Economics Any group of children will soon work out a practical economicsystem. Reciently children in a park in Russia became the subject ofgovernment horror by developing a barter system, exchanging toysfor toys, an act which was duly chastised as “Capitalistic.” TheRussian word values are shakey, for to be truly Capitalistic,they would have to have had to develope an interest system ofrecompense for the loan of the toys, not the barter system.

So long as there is a supply and as long as a demand can begenerated, some form of goods exchange system will develope. There are innumberable combinations of supply and demandactions. There is the reluctant supply and the demand by force, asystem commonly followed by troops or feudal barons, or simplyrobbers. There is the eager supply action added by creating a demand withadvertising, a system we know as business and at which MadisonAvenue s so adept.

Man finds this system the most pleasent of thesystems, but it has a limitation in that it demands in returnmoney, and causes people to pay in order to buy the advertisedgoods. (joke) Then there is a system based on creating want. Governmentsalmost uniformly believe in this system and use it. They represssupply by the taxation of the suppliers, and increase demand bypunishment of the consumer for lack of funds, ie Income Tax. Thetheory, in its most crudely expressed form, is the reduction ofproduction coupled to the enforcement of demand. Fathers can bearrested for not caring for children, while the price of bread,rent, and services is beyond father’s ability to pay.

One isarrested as a vagrant if one does not dress well, but the priceof 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 industriesor the State, or robbers, or beggars, or anyone wthout number. A great deal is made of “deflations” and “inflations.” Greattomes are written to interpret them, but there are only twooperatve laws that govern them: 1) An inflation exists where there is more money in circulationthan there are goods. 2) A deflation exists where there are more goods than there ismoney 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 aDeflation, or booms, or depressions for that matter.Fundamentals The economic laws break down to only one fact or fundamentalusually never mentioned in the best of suppressive circles This is the genesis of economics, the beginning, how it allcame about. To bring about economics, a person must be led to believe heneeds more than he can himself produce and must be restrainedfrom 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 producesmilk, more cows, and even meat.

By being a producing animal, the cow is made to surrender thelot. She does not need her own milk, cannot use her calves and isalso made to surrender her own body for meat. In return she getsa sloppy barnyard, a thistle pasture, barking dogs and abuse. Sentient or not, intelligent or stupid, the cow yet sets us afine 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 evensurrenders her body on demand – the ideal citizen, the praisedcomrade. Life gets itself rigged this way. Those who can produce areconvienced they must produce and in production are given less andless 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 conditionremorselessly.Income Tax If you have reservations about the end product of variousstate acts or the intentions behind them, consider this hithertohidden fact. Income Tax is designed on the Marxist principle (to be foundin 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 asa result. It looks quite innocent to the uninformed. In a letter written by the treasury of a great nation aquestion as to why Income Tax was levied so unequally insteadof on merely a set percentage of everyone’s gross income, wasanswered with the astounding datum that taxation of one’s netincome on a sliding scale was far more humanitarian.

Let’s see how “humsnitarian” this sliding scale income taxrealy is. Inflation is the order of the day. Few Western nations takeany but inflationary action. To wit, they devaluate the buyingpower of money by spending more money than there is produce toabsorb it. Income Tax is arranged so that the more one is paid, thehigher a percentage he is taxed.

For a crude example, if onemakes 500 monetary units a year, the law states that his tax is2%. If he makes 100,000 monetary units a year, the law is sowritten 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 incomebracket on a forty hour week, one pays the government a half’swork a week. In a middle income bracket, one pays the government20 out of 40 hours.

And in the high income bracket, one paysprehaps 39 out of 40 hours as tax. Alright inflation willy-nilly is shoving the lowest workertowards the higher tax bracket. The price of bread and rent and all will go up proportionateto the value of money. So will his pay.

But his tax will increaseeven faster. Therefore, governments are very ancious to inflate theirmoney. The more it inflates, the more workers have to be paid (invalueless money), but the greater a precentage the governmentgets of the work hours. The end product is of course a total state ownership ofeverything. Industry cannot pay a worker 40,000 monetary units iftax laws take all but 5,000 monetary units. If you will look at the taxation schedules you will see thatif a loaf of bread cost ten times its current price and you hadother costs rising proportionately your pay would shrink to whereyou could not afford to eat because the higher tax percentagewould engulf your pay, no matter what it was.

Now no one has mentioned this. And governments defend theirright to a raising precentage as income rises with a tenacitythat is quite suprising. As inflation wipes out savings also, right up ahead is the bigchasm, waiting. Anyone trying to say that inflation is inevitable and incometax vital is simply suppressive or stupid.

Surely the big wheelsof government economics know as well as any other trainedeconomist that all one needs to so to check inflation is increaseproduction 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. ByCurrency Exchange laws, one cannot also export the money. Aprohibitive duty is put on all imports.

Naturally, inflation witha vengeance. And an Income Tax is easily the highest in theworld. Citizens of that nation are traditionally determined to never,never, never be slaves.

But here come the chains; one link forevery 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 haveto spend $1,500 a week to provide food, clothing and shelter, hewill get only about 40% of that, even if he is paid that due toIncome Tax sliding scale, and he will starve to death. To be charitable, it is possible that the leaders of thesecountries do not know these things and are being badly advised orare confused.

But if so, what vicious blokes must be doing theadvising. A very proper course for the country would be to abandon theempire no citizen of that country cares about any more, cuttingoff all its support and defense funds for lands that hate theBritish anyway. Then, or at the same time, engage upon a furiousresearch program to discover how to produce food enough for itspeople, let down all its trade barriers, cancel the projects thatmake income tax vital and prosper beyond all imaginings. One can’t tax nothing, and if taxes depress the producer tozero then so goes the land.

The bright eyed visionary (with some insanity showing throughthe brightness) raves about Utopia and the beautiful schemes ofvarious political solutions. These are supposed to open the bright new future if only wegrit our teeth now and starve. There is NO political Philosophy that ever can or ever willsolve economic problems, for they are two different fields,aren’t they.

When Marx married them, he gave a terrible tool to supperssivemen. Many Marxist complaints are just, many are quite factual, buthe erred in trying to solve them, for when ever he proposed asolution and what ever solution he proposed, he offered as a partof it government. Governments are not always run by sane men. The man in thestreet 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 hisdependants and his community live?” When ever a person asks this question or any version thereofin this, the complex society of today, he is asking “What iseconomics?” In this section, short as it is, all the vital factors ofeconomics are listed. What needs to be guaranteed is that one’s economic destiny isnot managed by men who hate and who will not be comfortable untilall other men are slaves. The long term solution to the question “How can I live?” isnever work for a suppressive firm and do not support asuppressive government. And work to guarantee that leaders aresane.RON