Essay on Economics A Tool For Suppression

Essay on Economics A Tool For Suppression

Essay on Economics A Tool For Suppression


Economics: A gateway to Get Social Freedom and Liberty


Science and Fundamentals of Economics


Politics Vs Economic Problems


  • Economics as a blunt tool in the hands of some anti-social elements
  • Economic theories suppression
  • Understanding of economics is a prerequisite for achieving total freedom in the society
  • Economic theories are made to serve a few
  • Economic philosophy of Karl Marx
  • Capitalism — a destroyed system
  • Capitalism, Socialism and Communism leads to a same destination
  • People revolt against all economic systems may be different but evident
  • The science of economics ‘
  • Fundamentals of economics
  • Income tax — a tool of suppression
  • No political philosophy can solve economic problems


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 favour such personalities in positions of trust, then all the civilizing organizations of the country become suppressed and a barbarism of criminality and economic duress ensues. One of the primary barriers in this society is economics. Suppressive (anti-social personalities) have been weaving a web of economic entanglement for societies for some time using economic misinterpretations or ignorance to involve those societies which only recently 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 lives are exposed. Today, almost any person has a present time problem, growing more pressing as time goes by and as our society evolves. lt is the simple question: How can l live? ‘The answer to this question in a broad general way can be found by attaining an understanding of the subject called “Economics.”

Economies 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 obscure 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. there is a fruitful source of suppression 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 German. In his book, Das Capital, he sets out to destroy the world of capitalism, by introducing the philosophy of Communism, borrowed in some part evidently 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 upsetting the remainder most thoroughly. Capitalism, under attack, surviving only in the West in a faint form, has borrowed so heavily from Marx in its 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. lt could only foreclose mortgages and seize property. It could not and did not operate 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 fight Capitalism by becoming the Super Capitalist. lt 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 modem world, is an obscuring of actual economics to the somewhat ignoble (without honour; disgraceful) 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 mouthpieces 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.

Since all roads – Capitalism, Socialism, and 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. lf 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 cane 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 s park 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 Capitalist, 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 really WOFK and get more inefficient. The Societies of Earth, whether East or West, are all approaching with rapidity the same end – dissolution by a personal people’s revolt. The revolt has no name,

no leader, no banner, and no glory. lt only has a common end in view – the end of all states and all economic systems.

Any group of children will soon work out a practical economic system. Recently 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 shaky, for to be truly capitalistic, they would have to have had to develop 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 develop. There are innumerable 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. Man finds this system the most pleasant 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, i.e. Income Tax. The theory, in its most crudely expressed form, is the reduction of production coupled to the enforcement of demand.

In the west 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 without number. A great deal is made of “dilations” and “inflations.” Great tomes are written to interpret them, but there are only two operative laws that govern them: 1) An inflating 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.

The economic laws break down to only one factor 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 convinced they must produce and in prod JCfl0fl 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.

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 Capital, 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 (governments) gladly swallowed this potion and wrote Income Tax laws as a result. lt 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 “humanitarian” this sliding scale income tax really 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%. lf he makes 100,000 monetary units a year, the law is so written that his tax is about 90%. The more one makes, the more one has to pay in proportion. Very well.

Let’s use this as hours of work. ln 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 perhaps 39 out of 40 hours as tax. Alright Inflation will y-Nelly’s 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. Sc will his pay. But his tax will increase even faster. Therefore, governments are very anxious to inflate their money. The more it inflates, the more workers have to be paid (in valueless money), but thegreater a pe centage the government gets of the work hours. The end product is of course a total state ownership of everything. Industry cannot pay a worker 4-3,000 monetary units if tax laws take all but 5,000 monetary units. lf 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 percentage as income rises with a tenacity that is quite surprising. As inflations 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 inflations 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 rupee rise in the cost of bread. When a worker has to spend Rs. 5000 a week to keep himself and family, the government will take, Rs. 1500 of that, leaving him on half rations. And when he would have to spend Rs. 1,5000 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 suppressive men. Many Marxist complaints are just, many are quite factual, but he erred in trying to solve them, for whenever he proposed a solution and whatever 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 guarantee that his ruler is not really “bonkers”.

The relationship of any man to Economics is a simple one: “How can l live?” To that adheres the question, “How can his dependants and

his community live?“ Whenever 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.

Essay on A Balanced Economic State

Please follow and like us: