NECRONOMICS: CURRENCY DIVORCING PRODUCTION

To what can a collection of basically well-intentioned people blame their necrotic handling of a nation's money supply? The necronomists and modern politicians do not understand, appreciate, and maintain the relationship between the production time and symbolic time. They divorce the substance of human time from the common, current symbol of human time. Thus, we are beset by escalating inflation: currency buying fewer goods and services, that is, a dollar is worth less time of another person. The principle of substituting a less expensive common intermediate product is being destroyed by necronomic monetarism. This destruction is evident in the cry for a return to the gold-standard.

The gold cry ignores constipation of gold upon production, and it ignores a reason for why panics and depressions occurred under the gold standards. The reason? Banks pooling the precious metal savings of the small person to catalyze the imbalancing of production away from essential goods and services. Bankers and financiers stimulated the mere acquisition of old production or old products at the expense of capitalizing new expanded production. Most bankers are naive or ignorant of their counterproductive actions. There are, however, the deceitful bankers well aware of their actions, bankers who are possessed of a "Let them eat cake attitude." The problem is not our symbols of time but what the professional "time-keepers" do with our excess, disposable time in the form of currency, stocks, bonds, and all the other soppy symbols.

The solution is not regressing the currency to a primitive state where human resources are wasted mining precious metals unnecessary to production itself. The solution is paralleling the expansion of the money supply to the production time. Part and parcel this action is eliminating the counterproductive financial activity that retards, regresses, or depresses production. These two things will cause an unparalleled boom in production. Simultaneously, a reduction and possible elimination of taxation through productive monetarism and democratic problem-solving is possible.

When one understand the age-old but unappreciated relationship of production time to the expansion of the common intermediate product known as currency, the mind begins to mine a better currency than all the gold in the universe. That lode is the "lifehour". Opposed to the lifehour--the one-to-one equating of production time to currency--is gold. If we had all the gold in the universe would it solve our problems of inflation, unemployment, and taxation? Would these problems be reduced or intensified if we put twice as many people to work mining the existing gold fields?

When one understands the age-old relationship between production time and currency, one realizes the way to eliminate inflation, unemployment and possibly taxation. Clearly, if we were on an OFFICIAL gold standard and the production of gold doubled, we would have twice as much gold. Would this additional gold in circulation cause a lot of inflation due to the increase in the amount of currency? Would this inflation especially show up in the reduction of essential production as people turned to gold production?

The productive, fertile seed for solving inflation is recognizing how currency has traditionally been synonymous with production time. Therein are the means by which taxation can be reduced and political compensation increased. If the politicians were to engineer a production re-birth so that production increased by 50%, they would be justified in having a bonus. As is, politicians receive no justified bonus, for they fail to conceptualize and modify the money supply in productive ways.

Presently, politicians do not expand the money supply in the most productive way. Production suffers when the symbols of production--currency--are divorced from production. The money supply is expanded in counterproductive, destructive ways: necronomic monetarism. Necronomic monetarism fails to control the money supply because it does not recognize that all products are forms of currency.

Productive monetarism, on the other hand, recognizes that there are government-issued and private-issued currencies. The establishment of productive monetarism would involve an gradual elimination of all private currencies. The elimination process would begin with the private forms of currencies that inflationarily expand the money supply most, that cheapen the product value of the official public the most.

In the forefront of inflationary products of human activity are the counterproductive, acquisitive, speculative, and decapitalistic loans made by bankers. The solution to this inflationary problem is the establishment of Savers' Mutual Funds in which the participants understand the difference between capitalism and decapitalism so as to use democratic tuning in order to reverse inflation. Productive monetarism, in conjunction with capitalism per capita, could in one day turn a $60 billion federal deficit into a $20 billion surplus by eliminating inflationary use of the government issues of currency.

Woodrow Wilson's Role

In 1913 President Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in re-structuring the source of government revenues. Prior to 1913 government revenues came mostly from tariffs and taxes on certain domestic production, e.g., whiskey. Passage of the Underwood Tariff Act lowered both the tariff rates and the government revenue which came from custom duties. Wilson pushed this legislation so as to help not only the small businessman but production as well. Tariffs hindered the small businessman or aspiring capitalist. They gave a functional monopoly to the established large businessmen. The monetary consequences of being able to control legislation to stem foreign and domestic competition to monopolize the existing capital is not without its modern counterparts. Today, similarities can be seen in the way that bankers handle the money of small savers and big discount windows, e.g., Seagram's of Canada $3 billion loan from American banks.

Unfortunately, Wilson accepted a poor substitute for this lost tariff revenue: income and corporate taxes. A better means was simultaneously available, namely, the Federal Reserve. Wilson's effort to help the American citizen has come to naught by missing a golden opportunity. Through the distortion of the income and corporate tax system and through the distortion of the financial system by necronomists, America is financially where it was in 1913. The small business man is being frozen out of the system of production by the large concerns that monopolize the system of production and the available capital.

Wilson should have molded the Fed so as to expand the money supply to benefit all (capitalism per capita) rather than allow the operation of the Fed to inflationarily benefit a fewer few. As is, the Fed expanding the money supply through the discount window benefits only the bankers who have a rising record of counterproductive use of the money. The rise in the money supply since 1913 would have been non- or less-inflationary, and could have indexed the greatest production boom ever experienced by humanity. Wilson should have earmarked all of the Fed's expansion of the money supply to go through the Federal Budgetary process, instead of the outlet known as the discount window.

If the money supply had been consistently expanded by the public process, the tax requirements upon the individual and industry would have been less, perhaps to the point of nothingness. Realize that the money supply refers to the money circulating among the people within the system of production. Realize that the target of all money supply expansion is to increase production. Does it not seem realistic to have the money going through the budgetary/taxation door rather than the discount window? Either way, the money will eventually end up in the banks, however, one way reduces the amount of taxes that must be collected.

Why not have the money's entry point directly to the people so as to reduce the tax burden upon the people? Does it not necessitate additional taxation when the money supply is expanded through the banks rather than through the people themselves? If the Fed expands the money supply by $5 billion through the discount window how much of that money ends up being taxed? On the other hand, if the Fed expanded the money supply by the same amount through the budgetary process, taxation would be less. As noted previously and elsewhere, the Fed does expand the money supply through the budgetary process when it buys Treasury notes. However, this "piecemeal" monetarism does not occur by active choice to benefit the average taxpayer but when the Fed is forced by private concerns to buy Treasury securities in order to prevent a new record rate of interest on Treasury notes.

Realize that this is not an argument for massive monflation by way of monetizing the National Debt. Rather it is simply stating that the money supply can be expanded either

directly through the people to the people, or indirectly through the banks to the people.

The question at hand is how to expand the money supply in the most productive way for the system of production. Prima facia, an expansion that reduces taxation would be better than one that necessitates further taxation or federal deficits which occurs under necronomic monetarism.

The Warnings Ignored by Woodrow Wilson

Earlier, it was noted that income tax and the Federal Reserve System came in under Woodrow Wilson's administration. The previously legislated income tax was activated in order to replace the revenues lost from repealing the high tariff laws. The shifting of the base of government revenues was tainted. Wilson should have axiomatically looked askance at the provisions of the Federal Reserve Charter. Why? Because both the charter of the Fed and the previous high-tariff laws had a common denominator. One of the chief molding forces behind both was a U.S Senator from New England: Nelson Aldrich, grandfather of a recent U.S. Vice-President (Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller) and of the recent long-running Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (David Rockefeller).

The capacity of the Rockefeller family to engineer means by which to divorce currency from that which it symbolizes is both historical and contemporary. With the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, bankers were able to expand and control the official symbols of production without any relation to production, past or future. Today, and as detailed in the chapter on monetary colonialism, the Rockefellers--particularly David--have played a key role in the development the "Trilateral Reserve Loan" (a better name for the Eurobond market) and the financial mentality behind it--the Trilateral Commission. Not only was David Rockefeller instrumental in founding the Trilateral Commission, but he continued to fund it. And what is the Trilateral Reserve Loan--the Euromarket--but the counterfeiting of symbols of production (loansy) regardless of an overall counterproductive effect on the substance of production. In other words, the Eurobond market divorces the symbols of production so as to exert upon real production an overall, accelerating reduction of production.

An example of how financiers and bankers divorce the symbols of production time from production itself is an two-page, center-sheet advertisement in the Wall Street Journal by the Chase Manhattan. In bold letters, centered above the face of a clock, the ad states:

"Time is money. And the Chase is on."

Below this heading, several examples were given on how Chase can come up with money quickly. However, while Chase recognizes that time is money, they do not maintain this relationship in terms of the total production system. Rather, their use of money is to save time for a fewer few at the expense of the productive industries and individuals who are disenfranchised of their buying power by bankers that make counterproductive loans for short-term gains.

In a very real sense, in nature and effect, the Trilateral Commission in an updated Standard Oil Trust--a limited number colluding to divorce the basic producers of not only their existing wealth, but the future means to benefit from capitalistic endeavors. This is true, whether or not the financier participants possessing the Trilateral mentality recognize it as such. Just as John D. Rockefeller separated many budding capitalists of their enterprises and future, so do his descendants at the Chase (and the descendants of his brother William at Citicorp) lead the financial community in divorcing the productive entities from their wealth. Instead of illegal rebates, the contemporary Rockefellers and their Trilateralist advocacy divorce the producers of their wealth by manipulating the symbols of wealth which are divorced from the substance of production.

While the repealed tariffs and the charter of the Fed might seem very dissimilar initially, in one respect they are not. Both are counterproductive since they impede the capitalization of new production by enterprising capitalists. The high tariffs permitted elevated domestic prices which gave the existing industrial powers political clout to impede the capitalization of new production, e.g., legisflation. The Federal Reserve System, by putting the handling and direction of the money supply in the hands of private financiers, permitted existing industrial powers a monopoly on the available cash. Thus capitalizing new production suffers as existing monied folks outbid others for the acquisition of existing production: capitalism for a fewer few. Examples include the corporate takeovers in which people borrow money to buy existing production, even against the will of the originating or existing owners. Both high tariffs and a poorly-regulated central bank--the Fed--catalyze a monopolization of existing production at the expense of capitalizing new production or levels of productivity.

Wilson could have achieved his goal of improved production and better prices if he had restricted the expansion of the money supply to the budgetary/taxation system. By so doing, he would have kept the needed income tax to a minimum or nothing at all. The individuals would have had more disposable income with which to save or spend on private enterprises. It is not too late to restrict the expansion of the money supply through a less inflationary channel. The Fed does this on occasion when no one else wants to buy the Treasury Notes which fund deficit spending because the taxes are missing. This occasional acquisition of Treasury issues by the Fed can be called "piece-meal" productive monetarism.

Wilson's overall achievements eclipse an economic subtlety--divorcing currency from its namesake through the Fed's charter--that he was not alone in overlooking. His "New Freedom" program would have permanently promoted increased freedom from the problems of life for a better pursuit of happiness if he had recognized the need to standardized the symbols of production time in the implementation of the Fed's charter. As is, the freedoms are lost; the manipulators of the symbols ratchet wealth from the producers--akin to the merchant who does not use a standardized foot in buying or selling goods, buying long with a giant's foot but selling short with the use of a midget's foot in measuring the size of the transactions. With the explosion of new, soppy financial instruments and services, the productive individuals and industries are not only losing the Wilson's New Freedoms but Roosevelt's New Deal. Instead, the future is fraught with the enslavement of a raw deal.

Multiflation and Necronomic Monetarism

Under necronomic monetarism, the money supply of a system of production is expanded through the banks rather than through the people. This expansion involves multifarious instances of inflation: multiflation.

1. Banks tack on at least a 2% handling charge above the discount rate set by the Federal Reserve's discount window, from where the bankers borrow the money. Consequently, by the time the people do get the money, they have to pay the banker's handling cost, a service fee set by the bankers to whatever the traffic will bear: price-gouging inflation.

2. If the money had gone through the government budgetary/taxation process, individual and industrial tax loads would have been less. People would have more disposable income to offset their inflationary suffering, or to save, or to invest. Failure to consistently expand the money supply through the budgetary process exacts an inflationary cost upon the average tax-payer.

3. Everyone would have benefitted fairly and equally from a public expansion of the money supply in proportion to their tax load. Presently, the expansion of the money supply is unfair and unfree. Necronomic monetarism favors the highest bidder in gaining control of the freshly printed money. As the acquisition loan to Seagrams of Canada shows, the money is not used to capitalize production. Acquiring and streamlining production is a very counterproductive use of public monies yielding sinflation.

4. Less inflationary imbalancing and lop-siding of the system of production would occur. With public disbursement of the expanded money supply, the money is not immediately pooled into counterproductive channels or into capitalizing non-essential production at the expense of essential production (re: Seagrams or the Hunt Brothers Silver Pyramid, the cost of which the tax-payer picked-up through federally guaranteed loans): sinflation and coflation.

5. As with a return to a gold standard--which would unnecessarily direct people away from other forms of production--necronomic monetarism catalyzes the growth of an redundant service industry (banking) to handle the expansion of currency. This diversion of human resources from other production generates higher prices in the other products than what they would cost if the resources were not misdirected: sinflation.

On the basis of the above reasons, as well as others, the necronomic expansion of the public money supply through bankers is a source of multiflation.

Think of all the tax dollars that would not have had to been collected if productive, rather necronomic monetary, policies were used to expand the public money supply. Think of all the dollars for personally-relevant investment into production that would prevent a system of production from becoming imbalanced, lopsided, and tottering toward collapse. Think of how productive monetarism, replacing necronomic monetarism, could re-industrialize without an inflationary tax-cut that increases the federal deficit.

Inferred in the previous paragraph is that all the talk of tax-cuts in 1980-81 is for naught. Presently, one has falls hopes if he expects productive benefits from a tax-cut concocted by necronomists. You can't get something for nothing which is what necronomic monetarism and political promises are all about. With their Kemp-Roth type across-the-board tax-cuts, they are unknowingly trying to cancel all the individual special-interest tax-exemptions and -shelters that have had a counter-productive effect upon the

American Economic System Of Production.

It won't work. Nor will the worse extreme of this necrosis work, namely, additional "rifle-shot" tax-breaks.

Another phrase for rifle-shot tax-breaks is "special interest" tax breaks. They are for the financiers who merely acquire old stale production, stale products, or stale symbols of production. More money through loans or the tax system for the acquisitive decapitalists will not re-industrialize America. Such people do not capitalize the engineering of new production or productivity, e.g. Seagrams and Hunts. Such people, and the loans and the tax-exemptions behind them, merely acquire, consolidate, and streamline production; as a result, the whole system of production has less production and fewer products, i.e., more unemployment and more sinflation.

The Hunt Brothers, and other "acquisitors" are a major production problem and give "capitalism" a bad name. Acquisitors use all the trappings, means, and vocabulary of those who capitalize new production. However, merely using the symbols of the good guys does not make bad actions good. Rather, the use of capitalistic symbols to reduce production/productivity per capita is not capitalism. They are not capitalists.

They are decapitalists who have divorced the symbols of capital, production, and time from the substance of reality. As instruments of measurements, the current economic symbols of time should be as constant as the foot, the pound, the microsecond, and year is for the physicists. Until the standardization of currency is achieved, economics will never be a science, and the ability to steal will be the same as if each person was able to determine the size of a gallon, foot, or hour so as to cheat for short-term returns. Through the divorcing of symbols from substance, the necronomists and decapitalists can manipulate, hedge, and leverage wealth away from those who put their heads and time--real capital--into the production of wealth. Decapitalists do not use economics per se, but rather practice necronomics as they divorce, vivisect and necrotize the environment to benefit a fewer few.

Warning: Anyone found stealing lifehours will be forever banned from participation in and rewards of Better Democracy and Capitalism.
 Homepage
 Index