Tsunamis of Money

In my mind had remained though some unexpressed doubts about wether it will be done. It would be an investment in humanity, in lives, in future development, but not an investment resulting in immediate financial profit, showing direct cash returns. So I have my doubts indeed.

Our present world-wide political system, where each country is a territorial state with a monopolistic legal framework and above all no monetary freedom, but a centrally managed, compulsory, monopolistic and legal tender currency, does hardly allow for big investments that do not show a maximun return on capital. So the tax payer would have to bleed, as usual.

If capital is not something accumulated through savings (money earned not spent on consumption) by a working person who will either keep it all or part of it as a safety, to deal with future unforeseen emergencies, OR maybe will lend it to someone without or with not enough own capital, expecting to get it back in full when needed (and maybe asking a small "interest" on it to be compensated for surrendering liquidity upon demand and as a kind of insurance against possible loss ~~ though this would actually work well only if a greater number of such people banded together in a mutualist organization or instead used a bank offering that service on the market or actually used the interest to pay the insurance premiums to a private insurance company insuring them against the eventual loss), OR, above all, will use it to start a new enterprise possible only with a larger capital. This new enterprise will allow the person to get more money for its work. I underline work.

But you have the kind of persons that have enough capital (most likely not earned by own work) to live to the last day of their lives in luxury, if they decided to use the capital for consumption. But they normally decide against that extreme, without starving though, as they, from the way they got that money in the first place, are so used to and have been or have themselves brainwashed into expecting increase of their capital without own work, but through the work of others.

Now, a territorial state with that money monopoly allows them to get through with this. The working people, legally prevented from the very many existing ways of creating their own currency, credit etc. and thus build capital by working, have to borrow capital from those capitalists (in the true sense of the word, not in that wrongful one promoted in America and so stupidly and proudly used by libertarians to indicate that they are free market advocates in the field of economics and beyond, thus pushing under the rug so many aspects of reality) and pay very high interest on it (through lack of competition between currencies and by those other means of funding one's entrepreneurship), of quite a different type and rate as the one mentioned above. On the basis of that statist money monopoly and through the mathematical function of compound interest (capital once earned through interest does not drop its claim to interest, it will be reinvested further, which makes it grow exponentially till there is an excessive supply, though mainly in the hands of a few, which cannot find anymore large enough possibilities for reinvestment, considering the amount of the capital on the lookout and the return expected (typical examples would be nuclear plants, high dams and the like, things that would never have been implemented without the accomplice state); the capital has become its own enemy, at least for the unearned income crowd, not those who use it just as a prerequisite for their own work. The "lesser capitalists" have accumulated some little capital too, and since they are workers and not that greedy and that spoiled, are reasonably satisfied with it. They are content, their sleep is heavier, they sleep the sleep of the just.

Their capital has to be destroyed, to make them needy and willing to work again for the big capitalists. The solution for this, when natural catastrophes have been few and far between, has always been and still is war.

Interest, in a closed society as we have it, is shoveling tsunamis of money from the deep ground of the ocean of the working class (be they employed or self-employed, blue or white collar, or with flowers around their neck) to the pockets of the happy few in their beach houses, which are no huts like on those tragic shores around that epicentre, but villas or forts. So they have not yet been drowned. The ones below the interest divide (net payers) are getting ever poorer, the ones on top ever richer and more powerful, the middle classes disappear. [Money, by the way, is not the only factor involved here, the major other one being the way landownership is legally framed presently most everywhere, plus a good number of other relatively minor factors.

It is totally wrong though to forbid* interest, like some factions of the Nazis had tried to do, like the ancient Jews did among themselves, not towards foreigners, like Islam claims to do, but hypocritically just changes the name for it, getting the same amount or even much more when lending money to a business by receiving a contractual part of the business's earnings, with or without participating in the entrepreneur's risk of failure; if the risk is taken, the lender becomes sort of an entrepreneur, but is still not doing the work in the business! The right definition of interest here in this context is money received out of the work result of others against their will. And the ban, the prohibition is ineffective. Only the inescapable character of interest within our present system is wrong. Change that system!

Interest itself is innocent. One should not impose sanctions on it and punish or jail innocents. Free the market totally and interest will have ceased to be a problem. Whoever will want to pay it or receive it, considering the deal a win-win situation, will do. Not the others. The ones who think that the rate of interest doesn't matter, only the difference between the amount of interest you pocket and the amount you have to pay, may still ignore the effects on others, on the whole of a nation or the world population, but at least his narrow view cannot have ill effects anymore. And those same who think that interest is due for having accumulated one's capital ten years earlier than the next best guy, that work done in 1995 has a more rightful claim to such interest than the work done in 2005, can see if he can get away with it, when people will have been freed from the monopoly game. If you think that, as capital lent is helping the other man and that this deserves a reward out of the higher income it made possible, I can agree with this, provided this is freely agreed upon and has an end when the reward is served according to the initial agreement, instead of being a never ending perpetuum mobile of blackmail and extortion, a snowball system that never stops cheating the naive participants, except those at the top that started it, the receiving end.

Now we all know why capitals are called capitals. That's where capital management is concentrated. :-) Sometimes the political half of the Siamese twins has been separated from the other: Washington and New York, Berlin and Frankfurt, Bern and Zurich, the sign of federal states.

I beg for reactions to the above via my contact form or guestbook maybe, as I do not have a forum anymore or not yet again.

* "Il est interdit d'interdire!" [slogan on the walls of Paris in May 1968]