[GJM] interest-free loans for public capital -- Kucinich and the AMI

[Steve Consilvio]

Hi Rodney,

You may be following the twists and turns of AMI, BE and Kucinich  
closer than I have been, but I think the point still stands.  In any  
case, if Kucinich isn't saying everything he believes, then that just  
makes him another gutless wonder.  However, I think he does say what  
he believes, the same as everyone else, for better and worse.

There are a great many "regressive progressives" in the world today.   
That is the nature of the Orwellian knot.  People have compassion, a  
sense of who or what to blame, but it does not necessarily form a  
consistent whole.  For example, when a large union-labor supermarket  
closed recently in Ohio, Kucinich went on a rage about lost jobs and  
lost services to the community, but he didn't say anything that  
indicated that he understood why the supermarket closed.  The  
business closed for a simple economic reason: 5=2+2.  The bust must  
follow the boom (2+2=5).

We can all argue theory until the cows come home, but the reality is  
that economics is the study of numbers, not of human behavior.   
Numbers have no mercy, and it is the desire to create merciful  
numbers that is an exercise in futility.  Only people have mercy.   
And 2+2=4 must be the basis for any economic system to work.

We cannot invent our own math.  If the union employee is going to be  
paid more, then that puts a burden on the price the customer pays.   
If the company and stockholders are going to be paid more, then that  
puts a burden on the employees and the vendors.  It doesn't matter  
what we call it, AMI, BE, TFE, surplus value, socialism, capitalism,  
charitable giving, endowments, proceeds, profits, capital gain,  
dividends, interest, etc., it is all cost-shifting or number  
shifting.  The economy is a zero-sum game, but everybody believes in  
"growth."  Every gain must be offset by a loss somewhere.  All profit  
is somebody else's expense.

I think the central problem in all economic theories is that  
consumption and creation are not accounted for.  Only the middle of  
the process is being studied.  It's kind of like evolution.   
Evolution is a great theory, and is probably true, but it still  
doesn't explain creation or death.

Kucinich is one of 500 people that rule the world.  Now he wants to  
be President.  If he couldn't build a consensus with the other 499  
people that he is right, then what are the odds of his convincing  
others, with or without more power?  Democracy is a farce, but it is  
the only farce we have.

Everybody is sure that money is real and that profits are good and  
that growth is the solution.  I'm not, obviously.  I see people  
chasing numbers that cannot be caught, landfills  filling up with  
wasted labor and wasted lives, and people believing a delusion.  Of  
course, everybody at the GJM probably sees the same thing, but as far  
as I know, I am the only one with a mathematical formula to explain it.

I wish you or someone here would try to refute my theory.  I've tried  
to destroy it, but I can't.  Whereas I did destroy my previous theory  
about interest-free money.  Once you get to the political situation  
where you can lend money by fiat, what is the point of collecting it  
back?  It would make more sense just to give everyone capital as a  
birthright. All lending is based on a surplus, but how did the  
surplus form in a "working" system?

If a surplus exists then poverty must exist, too.  If a system is  
based on 2+2=5 (profit) then nothing that follows can work.  It is  
mathematically impossible.  The best you can do is stretch out the  
geometric progression over a number of years, but eventually the pace  
and size of the compounding quickens.  That is where we are now.  The  
collapse is a mathematical phenomenon, too.  The poor can't afford to  
be poor and the rich can't afford to stay rich.  The contradiction  
swallows everyone up, usually in a state of Civil War.

Economics is the study of numbers.  History is the story of how  
people respond to the numbers.  Religion is the story of conquering  
the numbers, which is the thing that everyone wants to do.

In any case, interest-free loans for real estate would go a long way  
to solving most of our problems, IF (huge if) it were also tied to  
some type of property valuation check, like .005% per year.   
Ultimately it is the inflation in land values that is distorting  
everything in the economy.  The President/King still has the power to  
control land value, but not the wisdom.

peace,
steve consilvio
www.behappyandfree.com


On Aug 9, 2007, at 3:09 PM, discussion- 
request at globaljusticemovement.net wrote:

>
> Dear Steve,
>
> 1.    Are you joking?   Kucinich follows Zarlenga?  Kucinich is  
> behoven to Zarlenga because he married Zarlengas's researcher ?  
> Purleez.
>
> Forgive me for being so blunt, but you've got things back to  
> front.  Yes, Elizabeth Kucinich was Zarlenga's researcher but if  
> you listen to Kucinich's speech to the AMI last year there is  
> nothing about debt-free issuance.  Kucinich has had years of  
> fighting for interest-free loan issuance (he's doing it at this  
> very moment since the failure of that USA bridge),  he's done  
> everything (legislation etc) for interest-free loans for public  
> capital projects and I am not aware of him ever supporting debt- 
> free issuance.  Any American politician who did that would be shot  
> to pieces by opponents as being an inflation-monger and Funny Money  
> specialist.  Get real.
>
> The truth is that if the AMI wants to have Kucinich's continued,  
> public support it will not be allowed to compromise Kucinich's  
> political positions (and the Democratic party won't allow it  
> either).  I am not aware of any evidence that Kuciinich supports  
> anything except interest-free loans issuance -- the same as binary  
> economics for public capital (but binary economics also supports  
> the much wider use of such loans).
>
>  Have a look at the speakers at last year's AMI conference -- all  
> the main political and intellectual power there was for interest- 
> free issuance --  Kucinich and Ken Bohnsack, in particular.  The  
> AMI is now having to straddle two horses -- debt-free (its previous  
> position) and interest-free (the impact of Kucinich, Bohnsack and  
> colleagues).  My guess is that the situation will soon be out in  
> the open because Kucinich (as Democratic Chairman of the key  
> committee overseeing all USA domestic legislation) is not going to  
> risk everything for something he has never (as far as I am aware)  
> indicated support for.  Even more relevantly, he does not need to  
> do anything except continue with interest-free loans -- since  
> Katrina, and now that recent  bridge etc he's on a winner and he  
> knows it.  Why stick a knife into your own winning horse?
>
> I  think there has been a big change in the AMI's underlying  
> position simply because Kucinich is refusing to be identified with  
> debt-free issuance.  At some point this matter will break out into  
> the open -- most likely at this year's AMI conference in Chicago.  
> So time will tell and we shall see.
>
> Of course, as soon as I say this Zarlenga will jump in to deny it.  
> (And isn't it strange -- he did a Manhattan Neighbourhood tv  
> program with me in which he gave solid support to  interest-free  
> loans for public capital -- and explained the Grade D that the  
> American Society of Engineers is giving to public infrastructure.  
> Harold Channer and I would certainly have noticed if he was saying  
> anything else.).
>
> 2.   I hear a rumour that Zarlenga and Michael Hudson will be  
> attacking binary economics-- again.  The interesting thing is --  
> why?  It's very odd.  You cannot accuse binary economics of  
> supporting inflation; it is focussed on the development and  
> spreading of productive (and the associated consuming) power to all  
> individuals in the population. It balances supply and demand.  In  
> other words, it is fundamentally economically sound and that,  
> presumably, is what Zarlenga and Hudson don't like.  Hudson also  
> has a record of not having read the main binary book (in his  
> possession) which explains why he does not know basic basic things  
> like binary economics uses interest-free loans.
>
> Yes, Robert Searle naturally (and understandably given his  
> intellectual position) thinks that binary economics does not go far  
> enough but that is an entirely different matter.
>
> Rodney Shakespeare.
>
> PS.  In other emails I shall be informing the GJM of the  
> publication of The Modern Universal Paradigm and other news about  
> The Universal Paradigm and website information.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070809/a662877f/attachment.html