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