NUSA IS NOT MARXISM⁽¹⁾

There are many people who will say that NUSA is Marxist, Communist, or Socialist. Such is not the case. Such criticism is unjustified. In many cases, the speaker will not have read the NUSA or AESOP writings. Or, the speaker is part of the problems. In particular, those who inflationarily gain income by producing little or nothing--the causers of inflationary suffering--will complain the most. They are the over-compensated underproducers. They are the economically over-privileged behind the economically deprived. Of the former, they will clutch at any form of demagoguery in order to hoard their undeserved wealth. In most cases, the criticism of NUSA will be valid of the criticizer.

The corrupt and incompetent politicians will be foremost among those who will call democratic capitalism everything but what it is: pure capitalism, capitalism untainted by acquisitionism. Do the habitual politicians productively deserve the power, position, and wealth which they possess? No. As national policy makers, the habitual politicians deserve less than nothing. Based on their poor management, integration, and engineering of the American economic system of production they owe every suffering American more than they the politicians can ever repay. America is plagued by inflation, unemployment, over-taxation, and violence.

Despite the clear symptoms of their incompetency and corruptness as policy makers, will the habitual politicians readily admit culpability? Or will they place the blame everywhere but with themselves? Will they blame poor workmanship, poor savings, or OPEC? Yes? Who burdened the worker until a national "malaise" displaced a national work ethic? Who allowed the bankers and financiers to channel the small savings of the worker away from capitalizing new production. Who nurtured the OPEC nations into raising the oil prices that curtail not only travel and entertainment but essential production. Who is responsible for the farmers being unable to afford petroleum-based fuel and fertilizer ... or loans? Who? The average American? No, you know who.

From these corrupt and incompetent mouths, guilty of destroying the American and Human dream will come falsehoods about democratic capitalism. As a group of inflationarily overpaid policy makers, the habitual politicians will be in the forefront grasping to retain underserved powers and income. They do not productively use the powers for a better world. But truth will triumph in Democratic Capitalism.

Only for a while will the habitual politicians be able to degrade democratic capitalism. Only for a while will enough people remain unfamiliar with it to allow the habitual politicians to retain a power base among the blissful. But at a certain point, enough people will know about democratic capitalism. At that point, not only will the corrupt and incompetent politicians lose their powers, but probably more for having resisted the development of better democracy and better capitalism. How much more will they lose? It depends on how long they attempt to retain policy making powers which they destructively use.

Democratic capitalism is everything that the habitual politicians talk about, but don't understand so as to implement. Through NUSA, democratic capitalism can be and will be implemented so that everyone can take part in the Human Dream of which the American Dream is but a part. Read on and you decide: Is democratic capitalism anathema to survival as are necronomics, necrocracy, and decapitalism? Or, is Democratic Capitalism the tao, the way to eco nomos.

Collectivism is often cited as one of the reasons that marxism and communism are failing. However, it is not merely collectivism which is causing these conceptual systems to fail, to fail as guidelines for the real systems of production. Rather, it is centristic collectivism, a condition that is not only counter productively plaguing foreign economies but also the American economy.

As defined by an edition of Websters, collectivism is "the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively." Do any of the countries following the tenets of Marx pragmatically observe this simple definition? Do any of the communistic countries use habitual telecommunication to organize collections of people so that they can democratically decide what to produce and where to distribute the products? No. Consequently, collectivism per se does not exist in fact. Therefore, before one says that marxism, communism, and socialism fail because of collectivism, one should qualify that these social concepts merely collect people together so that the can be centrally ruled.

Whether people prosper or perish depends on the extent that they rule themselves. Are they collectively ruled by themselves or by some centrally organized process that is apart from the collection of people? All forms of marxism fail from centristic collectivism; the forms are not productive, democratic collections of people. With the latter, the people are organized into divisions of people to rule themselves. With democratic collectivism, divisions of people are optimally apportioned the power and the responsibility to rule the problems out of their lives. Marxism, communism, and socialism fail because they have centristic collectivism. For the same reason, the United States is failing as a system of production.

Centrism is benevolent or malevolent despotism depending on the characteristics of the person holding too much problem solving power and responsibility. Referencing Webster's once again, one finds the definition of despotism to be in agreement: a displacement of problem solving power from the source of the problems, namely,

The meaning of the word "despot" has an interesting and informative evolution. The evolution, obvious in the dictionary listing of the definitions, substantiates not only how centrism fails to solve problems but also how an initially benevolent despot becomes malevolent.

Originally, the word meant merely "master" without any emotive qualification. The word is a synthesis of two more rudimentary roots meaning "house master" or husband. Thereafter the word takes on the meaning of absolute ruler followed by the definition with which most people are contemporarily familiar: tyrant. As a word, the evolution of the meaning of despot pragmatically reflects an inevitable degenerative sequence, when an over-centralization of problem solving power occurs within a system of production.

Historically, the word despot initially described a powerful ruler who no doubt became the master of many houses by virtue of solving problems. More than likely the problems of productive or destructive warfare were solved as a basis for the despot's power base. Consistently, systems of production have ended up declining under despotic rule. This is especially true if the despot intentionally tries to warp the system of production so as to fulfill his own needs and desires, regardless of the general population. Such action necessitates that the problems of the population must be ignored and left unsolved. Even without intentional imbalancing of production to suit his needs, the system of production would suffer if he tried to retained too much power. The underpowered people would not be to able rule on their biological and emotional problems. Either way, the system of production would be plagued with unsolved problems.

Progressively, the unsolved problems would prompt popular resentment toward the ruler who retained too much power. Even if the ruler was initially benevolent, the despot's perception of popular resentment toward him would cause a shift toward malevolence on his part. From the standpoint of the benevolent ruler, he had done nothing wrong. He would recount all the problems which he had solved and would wonder why the people were not grateful; his resentment would catalyze an intentional insensitivity to the people's problems: malevolent despotism.

As the reader can hopefully see, over-centralized policy making power is the root of its own demise. A period of rising problems generates mutual resentment between the rulers and the ruled. The sequence of benevolence into malevolence occurs more frequently when there is nepotistic cloning of the next generation of problem solvers. This sequence is not just a thing of the past: it is here, now and today ... on both sides of the Iron Curtain. One can see how the American citizens and American politicians mutually distrust and resent each other. One can catalogue a shift in the Jimmy Carter's attitude toward the American people during his tenure. Hard-working Jimmy did not realize how his trying to do everything precluded his organizing people to solve their own problems.

The prevention of greater hostility between the rulers and the ruled can only come from democratically decentralizing policy making. Power and responsibility to solve problems must be apportioned to the collections of people (demos) from which the problems arise. The rebalancing of policy making can come from the politicians initiating reform or from people voting with their dollars and cents. The imbalance has gone too far for correction through voting in the politicized primaries to elect reformers. Incumbency, cloning, and nepotism sterilize the primaries of any meaningful manner in correcting politicized over-centralization. Through NUSA people can vote with their dollars and cents in ways to prevent the following examples of public and private centristic collectivism.

While collectivism upon the other side of the Iron Curtain is decried by many Western policy-makers, collectivism is very much a part of the West ... and is ignored. Unfortunately, it is not democratic collectivism, but centristic. Publicly, one of the best examples of centristic collectivism in the U.S. is the Unemployment Compensation program.

As presently configured, unemployment compensation is a massive collective loan program in which everyone is forced by law to contribute

and allowed to borrow--without direct personal responsibility of repayment--

The accorded needs, like those of the despotic ruler, can be real or unreal, honest or fake.

People are able to draw unemployment based on what they state as being their needs, and many accounts abound of fraud within this centristic collectivism that is organized by the habitual politicians. As configured, unemployment compensation rewards the dishonest takers rather than the productive initiators. As configured, unemployment compensation is the means by which the less-than-honest can disenfranchises the honest, steady-working producer.

There is no question that certain means should be available for those who are suddenly unemployed without warning. However, the solution is not an easily abused collective loan program in which anyone can be a veritable despot warping the system to his needs. Rather, an unemployment compensation program with individual loans requiring repayment could end much fraud.

Individual loans would eliminate the chronically unemployed who always find reasons for justifying termination of employment. Also individual loan programs would eliminate the seasonal workers who take lengthy vacations using unemployment funds, funds which they can never repay within a year's time. These are funds that are inflationarily taken from the honest, hard-working, productive person. You may say that individual loans would be too much of a hassle. Considered how individual loans are made all the time.

The same arguments levied against unemployment can be argued against social security, welfare, medicaid, and medicare. (For a more complete assessment of Social Security, see the below section on it.) All are forms of easily abused centristic collectivism. All require forced payment according to ability. All tolerate and encourage fraudulent artificial needs. All bankrupt not only the finances of the productive person, but bankrupt the morality of the borderline despots.

All these instances of politically initiated collectivism are a part of the counterproductive, inflationary bureaucratic mess destroying the American economy. All these services could be more efficiently organized so that people individually capitalized their unemployment loans, social security, welfare, and medical costs. All these services could become forms of self-service, of row-your-own-boat, using modern telecommunications. Will the politicians lead the way in decentralizing collectivism? No. Instead, they will legisflate more centristic collectivism: national health and auto insurance.

Bankers Collect Loans and Centristically Misdirect

For a good number of years now, people have foolishly lent their earnings to the banking community in the way of passbook savings, checking, or certificates of savings. Make no mistake, one's saving and checking constitutes a loan of one's buying power (excess production time) to the bankers. Bankers have collected all these small loans into large pools of money for relending to others.

Have the pooled loans of the small persons money capitalized expanded production? Or merely acquired old production, old products, or old stale stocks? Centristically independent of the concerns and problems of the savers, bankers have counterproductively relent the small people's money. Acquisition and speculative loans not only reduce people's buying power but reduce or eliminate their production time employment.

Would you foolishly lend money to someone that would reduce your buying power or put you out of work? Are you mistakenly allowing a bank to collect a lot of small loans and channel the funds away from production that will fill your needs, production that will solve your time-wasting problems? Are you one of the auto, steel, rubber, or glass workers who naively or blissfully was the source of the dollars collected to make the $3.2 billion dollar acquisition loan to Seagram's of Canada? Are you one of the auto workers at Ford for whom the following front-page lines has existential import?⁽²⁾

Are you an auto worker that allowed your money to go to Canada for U.S. production acquisition? Are your dollars not staying home to lubricate your production job at interest rates which either Ford or Chrysler can afford? If you are lending your dollars to the wrong type of borrower, then you made your own grave.

Anyone that has money in any U.S. bank is aiding the collapse of not only their job but the American economic system of production. Each day, banks increasing channel more of the collected savings away from production capitalization into mere production acquisition--read the Wall Street Journal. Figure out the approximate ratio yourself.

Private banking has become the prime example of American centristic collectivism; it is draining and killing the system of production. When the bankers centristically decide to make loans, whose needs do they consider? Do they consider the effect of the loans on the buying power or jobs of the people from whom the money was initially borrowed, through savings and checking accounts? Are bankers interested merely in acquiring more symbols of production, more sopps, or are they interested in capitalizing production that will lower the cost of a loaf of bread? In agreement with the "Bankers' Law of Production Division", they consistently have ignored the effects of their collective loans upon local and national production, as their relending records show. Bankers are despotically tuning the economy not for the human environment, but for a fewer few.

A bank may be paying you an interest rate of 5% to 12% in money for borrowing money from you. However, they are also paying you a higher inflation and unemployment rate through how they counterproductively re-lend the deposits of many small people. For the small saver, the choice is obvious. Each day that bankers control your money is a day in which you owe more of your soul and sol to the store of inflation, unemployment, taxation, and violence.

On the other hand, if all the small people took their money out of banks the rate of inflation and unemployment would drop. Banks would no longer make the counter productive loans that outnumber destroy production and jobs. The inflation and unemployment rate would drop if people organized themselves into democratic divisions. Thus organized, people could collect, pool, and direct their savings into the production relevant to their personal needs.

When people control their savings so as to make loans to benefit them, the economy will be democratically tuned. Do you willingly want your money merely capitalizing and fulfilling the needs of the banker who might want faster jets for corporate travel? Do you need a corporate jet? Is that where your small savings are capitalizing new gains in productivity at the expense of food, medicine, and energy? If so, that is where you ultimately lent your money by giving bankers control of your savings and checking.

Insurance Companies

Collectively, bankers are not the only private instances of counterproductive centristic collectivism. Insurance companies do the same thing. Make no mistake, when you make an insurance payment, you are making a loan to a collective loan program that is not controlled by you. Your insurance payment constitutes a small loan of your production time to a general collective loan. While not expressed in these words, unfortunately, your insurance payment constitutes a loan made with the stipulation that if some accident befalls you, the insurance company will give back your loan and more if NEED be.

If need be? Therein lies the marxist principle which takes from each according to his ability but pays out according to one's needs: real of fake. If need be? Therein lies the fraud that bedevils the productive individual. The basic producer pays increased rates because insurance companies, too quickly from a distance, pay off a claim because they lack the local awareness needed to quickly detect and eliminate fraud. Rapid pay-off is the most economical measure relative to their overall need of a certain "profit" picture. It is a profit picture composed of de facto inflationary returns because the producer has not organized a local insurance company less susceptible to fraud and the other foibles of distantly based insurance companies.

The over-centralization of the insurance industry costs the individual in more than higher premiums for preventable fraud. Like the banks, insurance companies have large pools of money with which to either capitalize new production or merely speculate into the acquisitionism. As an example, consider the following excerpts from an ad in a newsweekly

Let's have disposable retirement income, not disposable retirees.

Neither last nor least, pensions should be better designed to stave off the munching of inflation. AEtna's acutely aware of this problem, and we're working on it.

Our real estate and participating mortgage separate accounts, for example, are designed to offer larger returns in the face of double-digit inflation.

AEtna wants retirement to be affordable.⁽³⁾

What a blind farce! AEtna punctuates this two page ad with a picture of senior citizens in trash cans. Don't they realize that if they tie up money in real estate acquisitions and speculation, the product worth return will never equal the product worth loss, due to cash-starved production plants? Can senior citizens eat paper money? That is what AEtna's retirement plans really offer: paper money with less and less product worth. AEtna is not the only insurance company counterproductively using their reserves.

If your insurance company speculates in land rather than production, you are going to suffer in a lot of different ways. First of all, production will suffer from being under-capitalized. The production short-falls will show up in rising unemployment, inflation, taxation, and violence. Secondly, you can expect inflated land prices because of additional buyers in the market speculating for income from real estate appreciation.

Are you one of the foolish people who cannot afford a home but whose auto, health, or life insurance company has a heavy real estate acquisition program competing against your limited resources. This money may be not only driving you out of the housing market but maybe out of a job, and maybe protestingly into the streets. The best example of counterproductive insurance companies creating economic havoc in TWO economies is to consider the Dutch insurance companies. Consistent riots over housing shortage have occurred in the Netherlands while it is the case that the Dutch insurance companies have billions of dollars tied up in American real estate. These dollars from abroad have inflationarily driven a lot of would-be Americans out of the housing market, directly and indirectly.

The alternative to the centristic collectivism that now pervades the insurance industry is NUSA. Through NUSA, smaller and smaller insurance companies will be incorporated so as to keep control of the reserves within the hands of the people from which the reserves were borrowed in the first place. Through NUSA people will be organized along the lines of Lloyds of London to syndicate the insuring of themselves. So syndicated, and using modern telecomputation for less centrism rather than more over-centralization of economic power, the people will have cheap, efficient, effective and productive insurance to fulfill their needs. We don't need national insurance companies that are insensitive to the needs of the policy-holders. The policy-holders can incorporate and insure themselves so as to capitalistically retain the profits of their production time, directly and indirectly.

The examples of the banking and insurance companies misusing the collected resources in the counterproductive action of acquiring production shows how uncapitalistic they really are. They do not capitalize production ... as they would have people believe. Only their smooth-talking necronomic P.R. fronts have kept people from realizing the misleading mud on the acquisitors' faces.

People will cease suffering from inflation and unemployment when they avoid lending money to financial institutions that channel the collected funds away from production. Organize to save your buying power and jobs; incorporate your own bank and insurance company in conjunction with others. Democratic capitalism is not marxism but is capitalism for one and all using modern telecommunications.

Frequently, one hears criticism of capitalism on the basis of monopolies. What is monopolistic capitalism Most obviously, someone or someones acquire a complete control (a monopoly) of a part of an economy; usually, the monopolists use their privileged position for price-gouging and inflationary returns. Based on how NUSA attempts to democratically organize people so that they control their own economic power, NUSA is not monopolistic capitalism, nor is it for the Russian variety of monopolistic capitalism (state capitalism).

It should be readily apparent that the manner in which bankers pool funds into large acquisition loans allows for the growth of monopolistic capitalism in two ways. First, the recipient of the loan will own more of production after use of the acquisition loan. Secondly, like most acquisitions, the production monopolists will streamline, reduce, and decapitate part of the production which he acquired (he didn't capitalize it) with the banker's loan. As a result of production streamlining, the whole production system has contracted; the proportion of the total system monopolistically controlled by the acquisitor has increased.

By prompting individual capitalism, democratic capitalism eliminates monopolistic capitalism and the evils that come with monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels: price-gouging and problem-ignoring.

Many of the reputed capitalists in Washington and on Wall Street (actually decapitalist) never pass up an opportunity to show how nationalism under marxism, communism, or socialism has caused economic turmoil. By choice or from ignorance, they fail to see how despotic nationalism can occur either by public or private action. They fail to see how acquisitionism is the antithesis of capitalism, namely, decapitalism. Decapitalism generates the economic turmoil that comes with any form of despotic over-centralization, public or private. They fail to see how all the mergers, take-overs, and acquisitions are saddling America with the economic short-falls of countries that are suffering from past public nationalization.

For example, when Mobil Oil bought Montgomery Wards, private nationalization occurred. This nationalization by private management unexperienced in the acquired industry planted the economic seeds that later blossomed into how "Mobil loaned its ailing Montgomery Ward retail unit another $100 million, for a total of $300 million ...."⁽⁴⁾ Other cases can be cited where private management bought up another company which by incompetent or corrupt management ended up running deficits, e.g., Exxon and Reliance Electric.

If acquisitionism and nationalism were not occurring at rising frequencies, the workers out in the heartland would not be suffering the loss of buying power that guarantees that Montgomery Wards and other companies to lose customers and solvency. Mobil is but one oil company using "wind-fall profits" for something other than capitalizing cheaper energy. Like GM, Ford, and Chrysler expanding into the financial markets, the oil companies have in their private nationalization stepped onto economic quicksand.

Big is not better if it is private nationalization that establishes centristic collectivism using private policy makers instead of elected public officials. Big is great if it produces more freedom for the system of production, for the people therein. NUSA will establish not only the biggest conglomerate ever but will create the most democratic, capitalistic corporation.

Another term for private nationalization is "privatization." This word is increasingly appearing in print, e.g., "Privatization: Nobody Does It Better."⁽⁵⁾ Privatization is found in the company of such words as supply-side, deregulation, magic of the market place, market force. These words, including privatization, are nothing more than smoke to obscure old greedy, decapitalistic behavior that burns up the lifestyle of the basic, honest producer.

Since it is not monopolistic capitalism, NUSA is not capitalism for a fewer few. Rather, NUSA attempts to promote the benefits of capitalism for one and all, to promote individual capitalism in the spirit of the frontiersman. NUSA attempts to democratically organize people into collections so that they can rule themselves and have greater capitalism per capita.

As an example of how individual capitalism could solve a lot of problems, consider the nearly-bankrupt Social Security program. First understand (as the following shows) that Social Security is a form of communistic collectivism. The politicians have said that in proportion to your ability, you will pay to others in proportion to their need--real or faked.

We need a form of Social Security so that people will have something in their old age. The solution is not an easily abused, collective loan program; the present, politicized social security is no cure to the handicaps of old age. Not only is it self-destructive, but most people will have nothing in their old age. Ask anyone who is paying F.I.C.A. if they will get their money back.

Don't ask the politicians who have voted themselves a separate pension plan that must be the best in the land. The politicians' pension plan is an instance of how the logic of production has been corrupted by the legalities legisflated by counterproductive policy makers. The symbols of production (and their possession) is divorced from production, specifically, from one's productiveness in contributing to production. Politicians award themselves fat pension plans despite their lack of productive problem solving.

Make no mistake of it, Social Security is a forced loan program in which the most recently forced lenders will never be repaid. How could the fiasco of a collective, social security program have been prevented? Is it too late to change?

Correcting the short-comings of Social Security requires reassessing the original purpose of social security. Basically, social security is the government stating that you will save a portion of your income for your old age. Nothing wrong with that; after all, some people don't have enough smarts to save for rainy days or old age. The wrongness arose when the politicians said that they would manage your forced savings for you. In other words, they took the power to manage your forced savings from you. They added these financial, economic powers to their existing collection: centristic collectivism.

With increased federal control, the social security program has not responded to the needs and the problems of the distant people who fund it. The solution to the problems of saving for a rainy day and old age is as simple as it always was. Furthermore, as the reader reads it, recognize that it is an instance of not only capitalism per capita, but is the means by which America could be reindustrialized to fit the needs of the people in the system of production, not the despotic delusions of the Washington cesspool.

As a corrective solution to defunct Social Security consider: What if the government had said you will save a percentage of your pay and invest in production stocks which you could not sell during your life? Before huffing and puffing about how the government should have no role in telling you when you can sell, consider: Is that not what Social Security is basically all about right now? You will save a percentage of your pay and you will not sell any of your investment for the rest of your life.

The basic difference between private, unchangeable investment for retirement and Social Security is how the politicized forced savings of the latter is not invested into production so as to increase the buying power of your "forced savings" as you grow old. Instead, the forced savings of Social Security is diluted through a public bureaucracy which reduces your buying power even further as it diverts human resources away from anti-inflationary production. Rather, most people forcefully saving some of their income through Social Security will have their savings diluted to nothing when it goes bust! The solution is simple.

Think what would happen to the re-industrialization of America if everyone suddenly had their social security quarterly turned over to them with the easily reinforceable stipulation that only life long investment could be bought with the bonded check. Not only would massive amounts of private funding for recessed industries arise, but a rebalancing of industry would occur to fit the needs of the people. People would think "Do I want cheaper food, energy, and transportation in my old age or do I want to put money in busynesses that may provide more money but no more buying power, especially in essential production."

Through organizing people to democratically tailor their retirement income, people could look forward to more buying power through drops in prices with increased productivity: productive deflation. With democratic tailoring, economic disaster can be averted by rebalancing American industry to suit the needs of Americans as a whole, not a fewer few. Think how industrially strong America would be today if the politicians had instituted productive social security instead of necronomic, necrocratic, bureaucratic S.S. back in the '30s. Think of all the F.I.C.A. payments that would have capitalized expanded production.

You many wonder how the present recipients of Social Security will be funded if the present F.I.C.A. payments no longer come in. That specific answer is found in other related books by this author. As a general response, recognize that no one suffers when an economy is expanding at an unprecedented rate. People suffer when a system of production is centristically mismanaged into accelerating collapse, as is occurring presently.

Recognize that democratic capitalism includes "Productive Monetarism"--see Currency: Symbols or Substance. Productive monetarism eliminates all the public and private ways of counterfeiting and expanding the money supply. When the government ceases the private counterfeiting then the government will have to expand the official, public currency to prevent the evils of deflation due to monetary drought. (Do not confuse this necronomic deflation with productive deflation.) Recognize that when government solves problems, instead of throwing money at them, that this surplus of new and old money can take up the F.I.C.A. slack. Wouldn't it be better to expand the money supply through the hands of retired producers than through the necronomic hands of soppy, decapitalistic bankers?

This is but one example of why NUSA is not Marxism. Through democratic tuning of retirement funds, Social Security would make each American a capitalist with an expanding, portly portfolio: capitalism per capita. Can the same be said of the present mutated form of capitalism? Decapitalistic necronomics limit capitalistic opportunities to a fewer few. NUSA is better capitalism than what America has at the start of the 1980s.

Productive capitalism, embodied within the principles of NUSA, promotes the benefits of capitalism for everyone, not just a few. What does capitalism mean? In one sense, capitalism means forming capital to capitalize new enterprises. In this sense, which is a better form of capitalism: capitalism in which only a few can participate or capitalism with capital gains for everyone? One of the above two forms of capitalism is closest to being both fair and free capitalism. Which one? Which one is better for America? Which one does America have?

A lot of people think that capitalism can only occur when big money is involved. Not true at all. All capitalism begins as the minute-to-minute efforts that represent pennies rather than dollars let alone billions of dollars. America was built on penny capitalism, on people saving their pennies. Either people pooled their pennies individually or financial institutions pooled the pennies to capitalize new production. Ultimately, penny capitalism determines whether a system of production grows or declines.

Today, as always, the pennies make or break a system of production. One may weekly or monthly put a hundred dollars into a saving account. However, the savings came from collecting and pooling pennies for each hour of busytime. For instance, consider someone who saves a hundred dollars a month and who works 160 hours a month in four forty-hour weeks. More enlightening is to consider that the person was saving at the rate of

about 60 pennies per workhour ($100/160) or
a penny per workminute or
14 pennies per lifehour ($100/720 hrs).
[based on 24 hrs in 30 days in month of life.]

Production rises or falls based on how all the collected pennies are used. Are they used productively or destructively? Said as your grandma might have said, you watchout for the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves.

Giving or lending a penny to an acquisitor is not watching out for the pennies. Nor is "a penny saved, a penny earned" if the penny ends up putting the saver out of an income earning job. The analysis of capital growth on the basis of pennies and minutes is parallel to how inflation does not come in steps once a month, but as a gradual theft each moment of your life.

In a readily quantifiable existential sense, inflation is the cheapening, theft, loss, or destruction of time. If you earn $5 an hour and save it for a year during a period of 20% inflation, your worktime was retroactively cheapened and treated as if you only worked 48 minutes instead of a full 60-minute workhour. Opposed to the inflationary loss of time is the capitalistic saving or creation of time. The successful capitalist is one who comes up with a way to save everyone a lot of time with a time-saving innovation.

Both inflationary loss and capitalistic creation of time are occurring every second of the day. They can be analyzed as a vector sum to indicate whether civilization is moving forward or backwards. Civilization is regressing. It is running out of time. It is consuming its past savings of time created by capitalistic enterprises.

Who is responsible for this increased loss of time each second of your life? Who has reversed the vector sum that indicated that capitalism was triumphing over inflation? Who has promoted the necrosis of time rather than the creation of time, of decapitalism instead of capitalism? Who? The habitual politicians, the necronomists, the bankers and the acquisitors.

Each second that you allow yourself to be organized by these nincompoops is a second in which you have given up more of your time, especially your future time. Your world is dying. Penny capitalism per capita through you can save it.

America was built on penny capitalism collected and channeled into an expanding, well-balanced system of production. The misdirection and misuse of the pennies is decapitating industries and individuals of their buying power and employment. Penny capitalism, once again productively channeled into capitalizing production, will revitalize and rehumanize America, not billion dollar tax-cuts for the acquisitors. Penny capitalism is up to the people who produce and save the pennies, not up to the bankers or the acquisitors. If people don't give the bankers their pennies, then the bankers won't have billions of dollars to lend counterproductively, e.g., Seagrams of Canada.

Penny capitalism embodies the thought of how it is the small miracles that add up to make big miracles. Or, how the small sins add up to the big sins for which a nation can dearly pay. If you are sinning with your pennies, you will suffer sinflation and joblessness.

This discussion of penny/minute capitalism as the ultimate source of all capital and wealth refutes the "trickle down" theory of wealth. This trickle down position says that if the well-to-do are allowed to have more wealth, the wealth will trickle down. Throughout history, the material wealth has been created by the minute to minute activity of the individual. Historically, from the mad emperor Nero to modern Marie Antoinettes, hummingbird tongues and fancy cakes do not trickle down. The consequence of the Reagan tax-cut can be seen in how basic industries tightened their belts while luxury stores planned on expanding inventory.

Wealth accumulates in a society when a government maximizes the wealth that the small person can create, consume, or save. The big fish cannot grow fat without healthy small fish to prey upon. Reagonomics is ecologically unsound on the human level of ecos nomos, for the big individuals and industries cannot thrive without the small fry, e.g., auto, home, and other manufacturing concerns.

The distinction between direct and indirect capitalism should be obvious within the context of these writings. Clearly, if someone has personal control of his wealth so as to control investment of his excess capital (his excess production time symbolized foremost by currency) then an instance of direct capitalism would exist. This is the ideal capitalistic state toward which democratic capitalism aspires. Opposed to direct capitalism is indirect capitalism.

Indirect capitalism occurs when someone gives away control of his capital. Which is more likely to benefit the capital owner: direct or indirect control. America presently suffers from too much indirect capitalism that is not directed into the needed production of useful goods and services. As presently informed and organized by the politicians and necronomists, people basically have to trust other people to handle their soppy capital in productive manners. Such trust is being corruptly and incompetently abused in greater degrees each day.

Indirect capitalism allows the despotic misuse of capital (human resources per capita symbolized by sopps) to the detriment of the originating human beings. Indirect and undirected capitalism can only exist as long as people do not educate and organize themselves. Enlightened, organized people use their human resources which is their greatest asset and direct the symbols of their capital (their time) into anti-inflationary productive activities.

Democratic is not decapitalistic acquisitionism! Need more be said?

If one's pennies are collected into acquisition loans, one will find foreigner dominating one's place of employment ... for starters. No doubt, after Seagrams of Canada uses its $3.2 billion dollar acquisition loan, there will be Americans subject to foreign ownership. Foreign ownership is what centristic collectivism amounts to: distant, despotic over-centralized decision making. Foreign dominance will not be as sensitive to the local economic problems as domestic ownership of one's own production time.

When one thinks of foreign and domestic, one should think of economic boundaries which are more important than arbitrary, symbolic geographical boundaries. After all, and in addition, most geographical boundaries are the result of attempts to expand economic boundaries. Politicians confuse the symbolic nature of geographical boundaries with the logical, productive substance of economic boundaries. This confusion is but another instance of how they divorce the symbols from the substance of production.

Fordom and freedom reveal a big difference between necronomic bankers and productive capitalists. Bankers pool your pennies so as to allow others to buy your employment. Bankers do not organize others or you so that you can pool your money so as to buy your own place of employment. Isn't it patently absurd to lend your money to someone

who fails to help you own and rule your own live, and
who uses your money to finance acquisition of your livelihood

with the possibility of your being laid off or fired? NUSA is the opposite in its principles of capitalism per capita and democratic tuning as the means to greater freedom from the problems of live.

Through NUSA, people will find more freedom to rule on their problems, not only at home but at work. With democratic capitalism, the economic boundaries beyond which a "foreign" entity will dominate your life will become less and less as you are able to freely capitalize the ownership and control of your own life. Necronomics and acquisitionism multiply fordom, you not only have less control over the problems in your life, but the people with the power and responsibility are increasingly more distantly removed, insensitive, and isolated. NUSA is not fordom capitalism. It uses and promotes the problem-freeing benefits of democracy and capitalism so that humanity has greater freedom from problems. NUSA is freedom capitalism in which the free market is one of increasing people's freedom, not a free-for-all competition to enslave more and more people to foreign domination by fewer and fewer acquisitive, decapitalistic conglomerates.

So misused, computers allow a small section of the population to usurp people's right to own their time and solve their problems. Properly used, computers can increase people's control of their lives, can increase personal capitalistic control of their human resources, and can institute relevant problem solving power and responsibility. As is, computers are increasing enslaving people to a problem-filled existence instead of liberating them. Computers have negated the object of Keynesian economics. John Keynes promoted government spending as a way of stimulating recessed sectors of the economy. Like putting blood into an anemic body so will an infusion of currency stimulate a sluggish economy. The circulation of the currency multiplies production in the areas where it is injected. Computers, however, rapidly remove currency from economic divisions far distant from where the controllers of computers spend the money. Through telecomputation for a fewer few, money is drained from the economies in a colonial fashion.

Through computers, economic colonialism has grown at the expense of economic independence ... fordom, not freedom. Not only has the individual lost economic independence but so have all the larger economic divisions/levels of which he is a part; these demolevels are the block, the neighborhood, the "town", the zip, the district, and the nation as a whole. Economic colonialism through computers has drained money from all these economic units and levels, from their taxation structures into the tax-exemptions and tax-shelters elsewhere. The worst example of this is how foreign companies have their income exempted from taxes that an American entity would have to pay. Company-owned gas stations are hardly different. Consequently, computers have been decapitating public services as well as private production.

Used for economic colonialism, computers negate the concept of states' rights. Like the individual and his rights, if a state lacks economic strength, all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are useless.

A pragmatic, moral difference distinguishes freedom from fordom. Where lie the opportunities for one's greatest freedom? One achieves greater freedom from pursuing the unlimited freedom that comes by liberating people from their problems, by giving them the means to solve their own problems. When computers are used for draining buying power from economic units and levels, the people's capacity to deal with their problems decreases; inflation, unemployment, and taxation rise. At a certain point, the problem-ridden people will rightly or wrongly attack those who seem immune to the problems. At that point, all the freedom that the telecomputators gained will be lost.

For some telecomputators that point has already been reached. Rising crime makes targets of the surviving telecomputators. Everyone has a stake in stopping the telecomputators and acquisitionism, especially the productive well-to-do who are easily confused with the counter productive well-to-do. Any increased wealth acquired through telecomputation draining wealth from the unorganized is only temporary freedom from biological and emotional problems.

Democratic capitalism sees computers as the means to organize and liberate people, not disorganize and enslave. Through computers people can have freedom, nor fordom. If your wealth, power, and freedom comes form economically enslaving others, your possessions are less than if you liberated others and received not only their gratitude, but a gratuity. NUSA is organized within a timistic conceptualization: a problem solver receives a portion of the time that he saves others when solving a time-wasting problem.

When a people have one-man, one-vote democracy in its original meaning of "divisions of people rule" one has ideal capitalism, capitalism per capita. This unity of the two can be argued on the basis of problem solving and time. If people do not rule themselves, then they cannot rule time-consuming problems out of their lives.

Democracy is the best form of government. It organizes people into optimal divisions so that people have the power and responsibility to rule on the problems within their lives. By democracy being problem solving sine qua non, people waste or lose the least amount of time to unsolved problems. Fewer of their lifehours are consumed by unsolved problems. Thus democracy is the best time-saving, policy making process for a collection of people.

Is not capitalism also the best time-saving policy making process for a collection of people? What is a capitalist but someone who capitalizes new production or new levels of productivity that will produce a good or a service at a lower cost. By lower cost, it is meant how much time a person had to work in order to produce or buy the product. If a capitalist lowers the cost of a product, it really means that people have to work less time in order to have the product, directly or indirectly. The successful capitalist is the person who saves other people time and takes a portion of the time-savings as his reward.

An acquiring, monopolistic decapitalist, on the other hand, attempts to control production so as to artificially elevate the cost of a product far beyond its actual production time costs. The capitalist pursues profit from production, from gains in productivity, from saving time for all. Productivity is getting more done in a unit of time, or, said another way, lowering the amount or cost of time to produce a good or service.

The essence of capitalism is time-saving innovation, not for martians, but for human beings. The time-saving nature of capitalism was originally restricted mostly to physical inventions. However, as the years have passed, capitalism has increasingly shifted to deriving income from time-saving organizations of people, of time-saving organization of information. While it can be argued that capitalism and democracy have always been synonymous, only recently can the similarity between the two be clearly pointed out on a day-to-day basis. Democracy is a way of organizing people and so is private capitalism: both involve processing information to save human time. The question is whether the organization should be to save a few people some time or to save everyone a lot of time? The former is neither democratic or capitalistic; the latter is what people talk about, even if they don't realize it. Consequently, people confuse the enslavement of the former with the liberation of the latter.

Capitalism only succeeds when the productive time-saving individual, at all levels of the system of production, is allowed to retain and maintain any of his capital savings.

While the necronomist might restrict the word "capital" to only a few of the products of human production, all products represent a form of capital. All products contain production time content. The necronomists narrowly define capital to a few things, and only maintain and expand these few products that they have arbitrarily chosen as being capital, e.g., currency, stocks, bonds. Whereas once these capital products were tools of production, now, they are pursued only as symbols of production. The necronomists increasingly promote the manufacture and distribution of the symbols of production: sopps, scribbled-on paper products.

Through producing, distributing, and consuming the sopps, the banking and financing necronomists are able to ratchet the capital of the small person away from the small person. Through this soppy activity, more and more people turn from production profits to the something-for-nothing inflationary returns. Yet, increasingly, the politicians, bankers, and financiers undermine the foundation of a capitalistic system, they destroy the capitalistic worth of the small person who produces all the essential goods and services on which the essence of humanity depends. Undermining per capita capitalism metastasizes resentment within the abused lower-level capitalists. As occurs on the more grandiose level--the abused refuse to work, to try and save some of their production time. Unavoidably, the whole capitalistic system will collapse because the pennies are no longer being produced or saved.

1. This book, like most of the writings behind Democratic Capitalism, New United States of America and the American Employee Stock Ownership Plan, was written in the early 1980s. The author attempted to anticipate many things. One was the objection that these concepts were Communism or Marxism in disguise. Events in 1991 make these concerns somewhat moot.

2. 81FE2 Business Week

3. 80DE1-10 USNWR

4. 81JA26-1 WSJ

5. 81NV18-30 WSJ

 Homepage
 Index