III. THE MYTHS OF A-ECONOMICS.
The myths of Free Markets.
Today the animetal cultures that lead the cycles of war (Germanic and Semitic cultures of white men that first entered in contact with weapons and money) have become nations. And their ideologies that foster war, free markets and the ‘competence among human beings’ have become global ideologies that we feel as ‘natural’ to human societies. And yet military nationalism and economical competence are not the natural arrows of historic evolution, but the arrows of evolution of machines, whose most evolved forms are weapons and economic ecosystems ruled by a new language of information made of metal - money - different from the verbal, ethic, legal language of human beings. That is why the evolution of money and machines has not caused a parallel evolution of mankind and legal democracies. On the contrary, the ‘Free Market’ has vehemently opposed to the coming together of mankind as a global super-organism that could rival and control the network of company-mothers and machines, governed by the global stock-market that today rules the world. Yet if the battle between both languages and species, the digital languages of money and its technological machines Vs the verbal, ethic language of human beings, and the human species has been won by money and machines the futureis crystal clear in the ‘syntax of the language of money’ that compare men and machines and chooses by affinity machines as workers and soldiers: The predatory actions of those companies, its weapons and machines will destroy both Nature and the human world. and machines due to its faster evolution
In the realm of science those monetary values have been translated into the postulates of classic Economics, according to which the growth of financial and industrial wealth is the goal of mankind. Let us then, once and for all uncover the ‘myths of Economics’, what Owen called the work of ‘London parlor economists, always busy devicing clever arguments to cater the gree of their masters’. Since the reader probably will find no difficulties to dismiss ‘the clever arguments’ of the first economists, Aaron and Calvin, the idea that the Golden calf represented God because gold was his intellience, we will move on to explain the most sophisticated, modern, AE-myths evolved and disguised with mathematical truths not so easy to understand. In that sense Economics is not truly a science but an ideology in favor of technology and machines, whose power increases as machines dominate the human world, since:
- Ideologies use postulates without proves. When economics affirms that ‘the reproduction of money and machines are symbols of progress and economic wealth’, as Adam Smith did, it accepts a concept of wealth based in the values of informative metal, money, that prizes more machines than human goods and human life unlike verbal values do .
- Unlike sciences, ideologies and myths cannot predict the futurebut always imagine a positive, rosy future. So happens with economics, unable to predict the futureevolution of money and machines and its collateral effects (unemployment, war (13). Instead, classic economics is always prone to optimistic techno-utopias about the futureeconomical growth of nations. It is, in that sense, very unfortunate that the only Theory about change in Time that has passed all experimental tests, Evolution, has never been properly merged with Economics, the discipline that studies the reproduction and evolution of machines and their interaction with human beings. Since economic science was born a century before modern biology was born; when Adam Smith wrote his treaty on ‘The Wealth of Nations’ not even the concept of evolution had been developed. So Mathematics instead of Biology became the scientific discipline used more often in economic analysis. Yet Mathematics creates an abstract concept of machines that has prevented a proper study of the biological, evolutionary nature of those machines for more than a century. That is why Economics, lacking the theoretical background that evolution provides to most modern sciences, has been unable to predict the futureof its technological species, as all other sciences do with theirs. Since all sciences are defined as such when they can predict at least the futureposition and form of the species they study. So Astronomy became a science when it could predict thanks to Newton the position of the sun, year after year. Chemistry became a science when it could predict the result of atomic reactions thanks to the experimental understanding of electronic orbitals. To do so, both sciences had to define properly what stars and electrons were and how forces acted upon them. Yet economics has no real definitions of machines and money and so it cannot predict how money and machines evolve... It has always failed when doing such predictions.
- Ideologies have a tribal or religious origin. In the beginning of the XIX Century, the postulates of Aaronite-Calvinist Go(l)d, Racial Religions11 that considered Gold the symbol of God’s grace and all other human beings, inferior races, not chosen by Go(l)d, were translated into an ideology in favor of machines, money and the Go(l)d believers owners of those companies, called classic economics, invented by A. Smith, a Calvinist believer that also considered Gold ‘the invisible hand of God’ and Ricardo, an Aaronite Banker. Let us then consider some of those ideological myths:
- The Myth of the wealth of nations. It was coined by Adam Smith. It said that a nation’s wealth is its GNP in monetary prices. Yet since ‘weapons’ are the most expensive products whose sale gives higher profits, what truly Adam Smith said is that the ‘Wealth of Nations’, weapons, should be promoted, instead of ‘Human Goods’ , made with natural products, as all economists belonging to the Physiocratic school, had believed before his book was published. Obviously the highest wealth of a nation happens when it is at war and inflation, war production and speculation multiplies prices and GNP. And indeed, under that myth England became and industrial nation, making gunboats and conquering the world.
- The myth of the Free Trade: Nations that trade without taxes become richers. It was invented by Ricardo, a Jewish speculator, who affirmed that companies should pay a worker always the minimal salary, equal to the ‘productivity’ cost given by the machine that could substitute him since human beings were obsolete to machines and should be eliminated of the productive system or paid a minimal salary, under the survival wage need to feed them; as there will always be ‘supply’ of human objects to work and in this way profits would climb. It is exactly what companies have done ever since, lowering wages and increasing the ratio of machines in companies. Now it is called ‘productivity’. Yet what Ricardo didn’t say is that under verbal values humans should not be extinct by machines and so workers should have rights to prevent that substitution.
Further on, he invented an Aristotelian argument to impose industrial products to 3rd world nations, the so-called ‘Free Trade argument’: ‘If Portugal produces wine cheaper than England and England nails cheaper than Portugal, both profit by trade. So Free Trade is good’ – said Ricardo. Yet the problem is that an industrial nation produces cheaper most products; not only one product as Aristotelian Logic pretends, but a wave of them, as Non-AE logic proves. So England will sell to Portugal thousands of products and Portugal only wine, becoming a single-product nation, and depleting its monetary reserves trying to pay English Goods. As it truly happened: by the end of the century, Portugal sold only Porto to England and had ruined all its industries. So Portugal had to use up his gold and then it used up its Brazilian gold to pay England, becoming the 3rd world country it was till the European Union, an alternative economic ecosystem with human values, helped Portugal to come out of poverty. The same process happened in every region of the 3rd world colonized by England, which ruined India, China and Africa thanks to ‘Free Trade’. Since ‘Trade was civilization’. Thus what classic economists were doing, was to back the British Empire that relied in the re=production of the most complex machine of that age, the gunboat, to control a maritime Empire. So the industrial re=production of gunboats, the accumulation of gold taken from the colonies and wealth became 3 sides of the same equation. As industrial growth and Free Trade increased the importance of machines ending all alternative economic systems, the thesis of Adam Smith and Ricardo were adopted by all nations. And the wealth of the financiers and industrialist grew in a geometric way .The myth of free trade is the best-known myth of classic economics…
- The myth of companies’ efficiency: Companies are not efficient but since they can invent money in the market they seem to work better than governments who have to extort citizens to get taxes. Since they are Anonymous societies we cannot see how they work with that money. So they hide their inefficiency. For example, Netscape got 7 billion $ for free in a week for a mere CD of informatic data that was redundant, as there were several other navigators, which latter drove Netscape out of the market. With that money millions of lives could be saved efficiently in the 3rd world. The entire .com bubble wasted trillions of $ invented for free that could have changed the world. In Amsterdam to invent money people sold tulips. It is easy to do: you increase the digital price of a share in a ring of speculators. Today we are paying around 20 $ more per gallon of oil because speculators jack up the price in non-regulated markets. So the stock market in fact ‘sucks in’ resources for the entire world absorbed by a minority.
- Free capitalism: We are free, as we all can create companies and speculate. Yet in fact, the same Aaronite-Calvinist ‘stockrats’ who invented the Free Market own still 80% of Wall Street and manipulate stock values and world currency values at pleasure, sinking them when they want to take profits or revenge against a socialist market. So for example, when a country becomes socialist, capital sinks its currency as it happened with Miterrand and the Frank or Brazil and the Real when Lula tried to nationalize some tracts of lands. Since currency and stock-prices are set, as a boxing match, by sheer financial muscle. So the fighter with more strength ends up hitting so much the weaker one that it sinks him. Since a ring of stock-speculators with maximum capital can set the value of any currency or stock up or down, by merely selling up or down the stock among themselves. That is how a minority of world stock-holders rule the policies of nations. In the same manner, stocks are set up in price by a ring of speculators and then ‘downloaded’ to the middle classes of investors that enter the market latter. That was done in the 29 crisis and now it has been done in NASDAQ trapping the middle American class, while speculators ten-folded their billionaire fortunes. When Sephardim invented it in Amsterdam it was called to ‘skin the rabbit’: you speculate upwards and then sell to the common people. Then it was done with slave boats, gold mines, and tulips... The speculating object doesn’t matter; it is only an excuse to invent digital money in the market. After Nasdaq crashed now is done with commodities and oil prices that are around 20 $ higher respect to their real value. Markets are restricted, complex professional places, a club of old’ boys , a racket for connoisseurs, mainly banker priests. A recent example that had deep consequences in politics: in the 90s Jewish bankers came into the Russian ‘Free Market’ and sunk, it selling out, till the entire Russian economy was worth as much as… Singapore. Then they bought massively through their middle class of Russian-Jewish traders stocks to the Russian people who had received free vouchers during the privatization of Russian oil. Then once they had bought Russian raw materials they jacked up the price. Mr. Abramovich became a billionaire, owner of Russian oil and moved to London to live the great life and pay dozens of millions for fancy soccer players. His partner, Jodorovich, was more ambitious and didn’t follow the obvious truth, take the money and run . Instead he spent his money trying to become the Russian Prime Minister. Antisemitism rose all over Russia and the poor Jews had to leave to Israel. When Putin put in jail Jodorovich 70% of Russians voted for him. But this is politically incorrect to say. The market is just and Antisemitism have no economical causes; it is just caused by the natural evilness of the inferior human species or some strange virus that affects the mind of people periodically …
- The myth of stock-risk. To hide those privileges economists say that the enormous returns of stock markets are not caused because stocks invent money for free but because there is a risk in their growth. There is not risk in stock-markets, except for the ‘rabbits’, the middle classes, skined at the end of the speculative cycle. Because stocks invent money. So the risk of loosing money for a market-maker is the same it has the mint, when producing money. That is why a view of the long term curve of Wall Street , show a growing monetary mass invented by the market.
- The myth of Free Credit. Governments, chosen by the people, cannot obtain credit through currency emission, their traditional method of ‘inventing money’ but companies can do that very easily through the emission of ‘shares’, their own paper money, in Stock Markets. Such conflict of interests happens because in a healthy economy there is a limit to the amount of money that can be reproduced every year inventing both kinds of paper money, stocks and currency. Since money and prices are in balance with physical production. Thus if too much money is invented, money looses value and there is inflation and economical insecurity. So it is necessary to distribute the pie, the total amount of ‘invented money’ between Companies (through the emission of shares or speculation that artificially jacks up their prices) on one hand and Governments and citizens on the other hand (through the emission of currency and personal loans). In other words, it is necessary to choose between the financial rights of citizens and their governments Vs the rights of companies, their shareholders and their products. In Free Markets governments and citizens they represent lack that right, denied by Deficit Zero Laws; so that companies can take all the pie and have limitless credit on stock markets. For that reason, since the creation of a Worldwide Free Market in the 80s, individual citizens and governments have less credit and have to dismantle the Welfare State. So without subvention or Government production, the Human goods that citizens need - health, housing, quality food, public transport, education, etc. – become scarce. Meanwhile thanks to its limitless credit, companies have increased production and research in their most profitable products, weapons and computers that have multiplied enormously. Again we are confronted with a clear conflict of interests. Who should have the right to invent money in a free society, the government chosen by its human citizens or the citizens of the Free Market, corporations whose leadership is chosen by a few, very wealthy shareholders? Obviously if we live in a Free Market where companies have higher rights than human beings, they will invent most of the money. Whereas if we lived in a real Democracy where people have more rights, the government they choose freely should invent money. Otherwise a Democracy is not real, since nowadays money is the language of power that everybody obeys. Thus without capacity to issue orders with money, politicians do not have power and citizens do not have credit. Instead they are obliged to pay money in taxes, becoming the underdogs of the system, on the bottom of the power pyramid. Whereas companies with their limitless supply of money can ‘buy’ laws, politicians and citizens. In a Real, Global Democracy, financial freedom would imply that all governments could maintain by International agreement an equal quota of public deficit, around 25% of their GNP, to pay their investments in ‘human goods’ highly wished by their citizens, Though that quantity might seem impressive, accustomed as we are to live in a Free Market where governments have no deficit that sum is less than what many technological companies invent every year for free in the Stock-Market to pay their investments or to obtain gratis financial benefits. Further on Free Market companies in order to maintain their monopoly of credit, lobby in favour of deficit zero Laws or use Financial Markets to sell and sink currencies that have Deficits=invent money against their monopoly. Such retaliation is specially bleeding when it goes against III World countries that need huge deficits in public infrastructures, education and food. Those companies also lobby within international institutions as the IMF and the World Bank, that impose those inhuman policies to 3rd World countries. So in III World countries investments in Human Goods have stagnated and hunger is endemic.
- The myth of free employment. We can choose our job.We can’t since jobs are not free but selected by ‘wages’ and ‘wages’ are selected by the values of money. So people choose those values indirectly: a job as a maker of weapons or violent films gives you billions and a missionary has to work for free. So people choose ‘freely’ to make violent weapons.
- The myth of Free consumers. Consumers are free to obtain whatever they wish in a Free. Market. This is not truth, as prices direct consumers to certain goods. We thus talk of a ‘supply economy’, where propaganda and companies’ investment in technology overproduce technological goods and under produce basic human goods that constantly increase their prices. So unwanted goods multiply and the goods people desire become scarce. For example, dangerous Products (polluting products, weapons), circulate between countries with minimal controls in spite of the destruction they can cause when being used illegally. While citizens are becoming restricted in their movements, since they have ‘free access’ to those dangerous products. So governments watch us like ‘potential terrorists’. Obviously in a Real Democracy it would be better for citizens to control the production and distribution of dangerous products and to allow the free movement of human beings. But due to the dominance of companies’ rights over human rights, in Market Democracies Governments hardly control those dangerous Products or make responsible those companies that make them, as it becomes clear in recent cases of airplane crashes and oil tanker spills, not to mention the untouchable weapons and car industries that kill millions of humans. Therefore as technology improves and the costs of reproduction of dangerous Products diminish, they become more accessible to people thanks to the Free Market and more legal limits are established to the free movements, rights and presumption of innocence of human citizens. Today in any airport we all are presumed terrorists because the Market is Free and it refuses to control the lethal products it makes. While citizens go to jail for driving too fast, while car-makers invest billions in making cars that drive much faster than the law allows them.
8. Only a Demand economy is a free democracy.
Today companies have replaced the Natural Market based on the Free Demand and production of Human Goods that citizens wish (which was the original economy, the first economists, the Physiocrats studied and cherished), by a Supply Market that caters to the products of companies. Democracies and free demand economies where human beings are free are very different from Free markets and free supply economies where companies are free. Since men and companies are two different species, with different goals, both in the short as in the long term. Short-term differences are obvious. Companies want to increase their benefits increasing their sales, measured in prices, which means to reproduce more machines and weapons - the most expensive products of the Market. Men, on the other hand want to increase their happiness, welfare and biological, free will, increasing their information and their corporal and mental energy in order to reproduce within a family and enjoy social life; reasons why they wish to have more ‘Human Goods’ that foster those activities.
Such difference between the goods produced by companies and the goods wanted by citizens means that in free societies we will find abundance of products positive for our development as human beings: truthful information within the reach of all citizens, food, housing, art, hospitals, collective means of transport, etc. Whereas in Free Markets we will observe thanks to the monopoly of monetary invention by companies, a massive investment in the evolution and reproduction of the most expensive machines and weapons that give greater benefits to those companies.
Unfortunatelly not all those machines are compatible with human beings. Since both species are different, made of different materials, metal in the case of machines and carbon-life in the case of men, that poison each others . Reason why when corporations dominate Humanity, the reproduction and excessive use of harmful machines cause ecological and humanitarian disasters difficult to control, like oil spills and wars. While Human Goods, from housing to health care, to education and art - not susceptible of great benefits due to their higher production costs, since they use a lot of human labour - will be scarce; as they are in our present Global world.
So, because Free Market Democracies reign today supreme the multiplication of weapons and wars continues. Inversely, in real Democracies, where men are free to pursuit their happiness and welfare, the production and consume of those goods would be stimulated by all kind of methods, as there is for them a huge demand among human beings and governments would have unlimited credit to help their production in order to obtain the approval votes of a majority that want to have them.
Thus, we conclude that the true goal of Free Markets is not the freedom and evolution of man, but the goal of companies: the reproduction and evolution of machines and weapons from where they obtain their biggest profits. Yet most people are unaware of this facts because companies not only manufacture machines but also manufacture economic ideas in favor of those goals, hiding their financial privilege. Unfortunately, companies, due to their monopoly on the invention of money, reproduce much more information than democratic institutions and human beings who want to protect mankind and Nature from lethal products and eliminate the unjust credit monopoly of those companies, ending with the political corruption that such credit monopoly buys. So citizens are awash with propaganda in favor of machines and economical growth. For that reason it is impossible to make understand the great public that Market Democracies are corrupted by money and handled to a great extent by interest groups, by lobbies that represent often the most wealthy corporations which are companies that manufacture weapons. Thus money again imposes information in favor of Free Markets. For example, ‘classic economics’ taught in company-funded Universities affirms that companies cater to citizens – the consumers, who are in that utopian, propagandistic vision of Free Markets, the masters to whom corporations serve and governments protect. The truth is very different. In Free Market democracies most political parties, specially the right ones, serve big Corporations with laws that favour their machines. We live in fact in a Supply Economy where free credit and propaganda (manipulated information) convinces consumers of buying any goods companies want, even those who are harmful to them. A fact that in abstract economics is called Say’s Law: marketing creates the consumer. Thus to convince us of the need for those products, audiovisual companies provide commercials that convince consumers with all kind of rhetoric arguments (epics of war, sexual ads, etc.) of the kindness of companies and their lethal goods. So weapons that kill us are marketed in America, the purest Supply Market, as the source of our security. Yet since consumers don’t demand enough weapons of mass destruction, those companies buy politicians, so Governments, against the laws of a real Free Market, spend huge sums of money in weapons, exaggerating or even provoking a state of permanent, orwellian war. For example, America invests in weapons as much as the next 20 countries combined; yet its citizens under war propaganda, still believe they are in danger because they don’t spend enough in ‘Defense’.
It is obvious that a supply economy is not a democratic economy, because it does not provide what most people demand, but what a few companies and their owners wish to produce to make more money. For that reason all Free Markets (by definition supply economies), are not Democracies. That fact was well known among the economists of the post-war era, because the policies of supply economists, indifferent to human goods, caused the 29 economic crisis and latter promoted the massive production of weapons that ended in World War II. They produced ‘cannons instead of butter’ as it was fashionable to say those days. But today, economists study M.B.As, Masters in Business Administration. That is, they do not study the truth about economics, but practical ways to make more money and get a job in a big corporation. So most economists today never criticise the Corporations that feed them. Those corporations on the other hand are the ones that sponsor M.B.A. schools and pretentious Economic Prizes. For example, the Nobel Prize for Economics is not given by the Nobel Committee but by the Bank of Sweden. So we have even a Nobel Prize that approved on Slave Trade because of its positive influence on Capital Accumulation. Finally companies enrol scholars to dedicate all their efforts to develop ideas in favour of the products of a supply economy, even a war-based economy, as ‘Think Tanks’ do today in America, with the excuse of increasing economical growth through the production of weapons (as Hitler did in Germany in the 30s). To that aim economists to the service of companies have created an ‘ideology’ of what should be the ‘right economy’, called Classic Economics that we learn in the University, not in the way we learn other ‘social sciences’ such as philosophy that is, studying the many possible schools of thought regarding what should be the best economy for the human kind, but considering the Free Market a ‘dogma’, which excludes and censors all other possible economical worlds. For example, when I studied at Columbia U., regarded as the best American University in social sciences, there were two authors whose books were unavailable at the library: Sade that conflicted with the puritan religious, American People’s ideology regarding sexual customs and Marx, which conflicted with the American Corporation’s ideology, regarding what History and Economics should be.
Those corporative economists, people like Mr. Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve or Mr. Rato, head of the IMF, get political and financial power, they promote overproduction of weapons and digital technologies to foster stock-market speculation, causing a global endemic shortage of credit to human goods. Yet in a real Democracy economics would be taught properly and economists would learn and foster a demand economy where the Government, not the stock-market, would invent free money to subsidize the Human Goods that people want.
The list of policies against ‘Human Free will’ in favour of companies’ profits sponsored by Free Markets is very long. Let us consider a few more examples:
- ‘Free Markets’ impose restrictions to the free trade of the most demanded human products, needed for the well-being of humanity, like food, drugs, textiles or Governments’ aid to the Third World… Since those products and countries do not give great benefits. So the main World Trade Organizations, GATT and EU, allow the sale of weapons to poor countries, but they impose taxes, quotas and all kind of controls to their trade in Human Goods. Meanwhile, financial speculation on their international prices rack enormous profits to a few companies which monopolize their trade, buying very cheap but charging astronomical prices to consumers. For example, the market price of coffee sunk to 1/3rd from the 60s to the 90s, thus ruining many countries of the Third World. Yet people buy coffer very expensive. In the 90s oil speculation was let free and in the 2000s the Market tripled prices to profit of a few speculators and big oil companies that had accumulated previously at low prices, making pay a higher cost to all global consumers. Those organizations also prohibit Governments’ deficits to increase investment in human goods, with the excuse they have to maintain stable their trade balance. Yet paradoxically, they allow a constant capital drain that goes to buy first world weapons or stock market shares.
- Our monopoly on drug patents forbids Third World countries to produce cheap generic medicines that could save millions of lives in Third world pandemics.
- If we go to the detail that eagerness to sell our useless machines to the Third World might look truly ridiculous. For example, in Africa, America subsidizes with its ‘aid to the Third World’ the installation of Internet terminals in populations that lack food and basic medicines; while it has bombed a generic drugs factory in Sudan, arguing that it was a ‘terrorist’ factory of chemical weapons, perhaps to protect the pharmaceutical patents of our companies? Who knows? Since, obviously the first thing to die in a ‘Free Market Democracy’ is real, truthful information about the deals of companies, governments and the military.
In order to know the real goals of our democratic societies it was first necessary to understand what means a Free Market: a place where the only free ‘legal persons’ are companies that can develop any activity they wish without limits. But what a company wants? The answer is surprisingly simple: to reproduce and to evolve its product, normally a machine or product related to them (+80% of stock market companies). Thus, the production of machines and its sale to obtain benefits becomes the real objective of Market Democracies.
Which means that the goals of the main social units of a real democracy, its families, which try to improve their happiness, welfare and survival through their reproduction, education and possession of positive goods for their life, will not be met in all cases in which both type of goals conflict , given the scarcity of financial and material resources this planet has.
Today, approximately 90% of new investments in the world go to the production and evolution of machines not to the production of human goods.
Our examples of the use Markets make of the resources of a country show a fundamental difference between citizens of Markets and Real Democracies;
Since companies dedicate those resources to their products, not to the well-being of man , main target of real democracies such as those that appeared in post-war Europe and could finance the production of Human Goods through Government’s deficits. But those types of policies today are disappearing, because companies have won the battle for credit to democratic governments.
But should not exist a fair division between the Economic World and its language of power, money and the Political World and its language power, the Law, as two separate entities, like theorists of Free Markets pretend? This concept is a fairy tale because Free Markets and Political Governments are not separated systems but intertwined entities and so one will dominate over the other. So the question is: what entity should control the language of social power, money? Obviously the government of the people. That right was so obvious in the past that even in the Middle Ages kings required the approval of Parliaments to tax or invent money. And the entire British Democracy was created as a result of that fight between elected Parliaments to uphold that right against non-elected kings. And yet today, in our ‘democratic society’, governments no longer have rights to invent the language of power of society. Further on, one of both languages of power, the verbal, ethic language that creates laws, is far less powerful than the language of money that rules us all. Because people obey first money, then words. If I tell you not to pollute, you won’t listen to me, if I pay you not to pollute you will obey… Simply stated, in our World monetary orders create, cre(dit)ate reality. But corrupted politicians have ‘convinced’ us of the kindness of a Free Market ruled by stock-exchange companies and imposed deficit zero laws to governments to leave that right into the hands of CEOs from companies that we do not elect, neither work for the common welfare. So now money is invented for free in shares through all type of financial processes – speculation that inflates share prices, options, merges and acquisitions, capital splits where ‘magically’ suddenly 1 share becomes 2, inventing twice its value, etc. For that reason, paradoxically the democratic man of today is ruled by the power of companies to a degree that not even the man of the Middle Ages suffered under the dictatorship of kings. Since companies use their paper-money to give all kind of subtle orders to them, through prices and salaries that everybody obeys.
On the other hand the government and its politicians only can obtain money:
- Extorting taxes from citizens, which are always unpopular.
- Or renting their services to corporations, which they do routinely, causing the generalized corruption of our political systems and parties.
Indeed, unfortunately even the so called Socialist or Labour Parties which used to promote a Demand Economy and welfare state based in Human Goods that most people need are today corrupted by industrial lobbies. The most obvious case of such kind of corrupted left parties is the British Labour Party that thanks to the influence of the Blair family, basically a couple of City lawyers, supports the policies and wars of the Free Market . So now the Labour party paradoxically dedicates its efforts to cheat its voters and convince them than those economical policies that destroy labour and the welfare state are positive to them. For example, they say that to lower unemployment it is necessary to invest in technological companies, which actually destroy jobs, as their products are manufactured by robots and machines , instead of promoting small companies that produce Human Goods and use on average 10 times more labour per unit of capital than big Corporations dedicated to manufacture machines. What they really mean is that technological corporations are bigger and so are their bribes to politicians that back them.
We conclude that in our ‘democratic world’ companies rule the acts of politicians through lobbyism, the life-time of citizens through salaries and the supply and demand of products they manufacture and we consume through marketing and prices. They even control our economical ideas of truthness through their sponsorship of biased information in favour of technology, machines, Free Markets and War. Meanwhile not corrupted politicians stage a pathetic dance of regulations that most companies ignore, because they can always in a global market jump over borders and delocalise their factories in a country where the dictatorship of the Free Market is more severe.
For all what has been said, though most people believe to live in a ‘free society’, a democracy ruled by the law, it is obvious that the evolution of money has created in the past centuries another kind of society, a ‘Free Market’, where money, no longer the law, controls societies. And so a restricted minority of ‘stockrats’ ruled the world. They belong mainly to the Go(l)d culture, and its 3 main nations, Israel, America and the British Empire. Yet, increasingly all countries become ruled by ‘stockrats’ and corrupted politicians, since abstract economics has converted in ‘scientific postulates’ the specific branch of capitalism of the Go(l)d culture, according to which the government has to yield to the ‘greed’ of companies, that search the supreme good and preferred goal of mankind, wealth in money and technological evolution. So as any organism with a real head, we have to study the Jewish-Calvinist Go(l)d culture that rules America to understand its future, since plainly speaking, its people has nothing to say about it unless they r=evolve and take power.
10. Social Darwinism and scientific racism, the ideology of A-Economics and Free Markets.
Today America and most human cultures are in biological terms ‘economic ecosystems’ whose only purpose is to reproduce more machines and weapons increasing the economical power of its ruling castes. In those countries historic networks, based in words and natural food, are submissive to machine networks, based in money and machine’s energy; ruled by ‘animetal ideologies’ and hierarchical castes that do not regard the rest of men as equals, since they believe to be superior due to its ‘external added’ energy power (given by weapons, made of energetic metal such as iron) or its informative power (given by a soft informative metal such as gold). So they believe in ‘unfair competence’ and apply Darwinian behaviour to the rest of human beings, with their added power, considering the poor, inferior species, because they lack their technological power.
In that regard, Social Darwinism, the ‘anti-truth’ of Darwinian laws of behaviour that encourage the solidarity between similar species was perfectly expressed by Carnegie, the steel master when he affirmed that, ‘While the law of competition may sometimes be hard for the individual, it is best for the race because it ensures the survival of the fittest in every area. We accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few, and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial but essential for the futureprogress of the race’. It is all true, yet economists, scientists and industrialists are missing the point: evolution of which race, Mr. Carnegie, the human or the metal race?