|
The American System of Political Economy
How Lincoln Might Fix Our Economic Mess As America grapples with the worst economic chain-reaction since 1929, and as President-Elect Obama takes time to consider more closely the methods of Abraham Lincoln, it is time to reconsider a monetary method that Lincoln and the Civil War Republicans used, a monetary method that America’s leading economists attempted to revive in the 1930s. It’s a method that could work right now, but with a critical revision to adapt it to the methods and techniques of the Federal Reserve. hnn.us/articles/57568.html Constitutional national banking has struggled in a loosing battle to defeat the "evil" of usurious international banking, while international banking has conspired to end not only constitutional national money systems, but national governments themselves. But the solution may be a compromise called INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING! L.A. Gillespie has struggled for years to explain this, but words fail to make clear this simple idea. Rather than use Mr. Gillespie's difficult terminology exclusively, I will try to express it in my own words which borrow some terms from history and various authors and economists. I feel we are all trapped in a muddle of words which is congesting/blocking the pathway ahead, rather like a logjam. Internal Exchange Clearing: 1/5 of each national money supply needs to be debt-free fiat greenbacks issued by congress for public works. This would supply the money needed by each national economy to pay the usury based interest to the banks, and produce enough physical wealth/infrastructure to back the currency, justifying its valuation. Everyone would get what they want. Even the money lenders. Taxes would virtually vanish since the 1/5 formula would fund needed government projects and produce needed good paying jobs while balancing the money supply needed to pay interest on debt by government and citizens. And we would become citizens again, not merely breast-feeding consumers. The money supply of growing economies needs to grow anyway to keep up with overall production of goods. The centralized private banking system does that fairly well, but it fails to create the money needed to pay the interest on the money it creates, leading to the boom and bust cycle which centralizes wealth and power excessively. The world has survived this problem because "only" nations and empires were destroyed periodically. Now, the entire world will either sink or swim with no recovery possible if we miss this one chance to get it right. The world has been locked into monetary world war for at least 300 years because each side has sought absolute victory over its enemy, denying the right to exist for the other side. Personally, I've always been on the constitutional side against the "money changers". But I was wrong to take such an absolute position. I still feel I am on the "better" side, but I was mistaken to call it the "right" side seeking the elimination of the "wrong" side. Sound familiar? Some major conflicts in this world had/have opponents seeking the complete elimination of the right to exist of the other's point of view. Now, a harmonizing solution is in sight. But can we make the leap before it is too late? The choice before us so far has been between absolute debt-based capitalism which would lead to global fascism/feudalism, or constitutional national money systems favored by our founding fathers which produce wonderful prosperity and standards of living for the people, but ironically, have been vulnerable to degenerating into socialism. Each side in this war has been busy destabilizing or destroying successes on the other side instead of offering its complementary wisdom as a balance to help the other side. What we need now is a golden rule in foreign affairs: Help our enemies succeed. Transcend the Capitalist/Communist conflict. Both are wrong by themselves, and the solution is not exactly a hybrid of the two. The solution is a system that is neither Capitalist nor Communist. It is not a combination of those two, but it does include both as subsets. It is a new discovery of an old system which has never been fully vetted. And so its philosophy and practical functioning has never been fully developed: The American System of Political Economy. The best way to research it is to get to know the American Presidents who understood it and tried to establish it: George Washington Abraham Lincoln James Garfield Frankin Delano Roosevelt John Fitzgerald Kennedy Those who failed to understand and/or opposed the American System: Woodrow Wilson, though he repented and appologized Calvin Coolidge Harry Truman Lyndon Johnson Ronald Reagan George W. Bush Globalization is the near complete success of the lower factions, and the near total demonization of the more deserving upper group who deserve the higher moral ground. Now, please don't pick sides and demonize the presidents and ideologies of the side you hate. Don't try to destroy the other side. Try to win for your side by learning from the other side. The other side may contain an important piece of the puzzle which you need to add sustainability to your side. A puzzle which must be solved if your side is to win. A puzzle which must be solved so the world will stop merely flipping a coin labeled communism on one side and capitalism on the other with fascism thrown in occasionally to really stir the pot. Time's up folks. We're in the endgame. Educate yourself or the next sound you hear will be one side winning decisively, followed a few months/years later by all sides loosing in the biggest crack-up boom this solar system has ever self-inflicted on itself. The Great Emancipator Should we remember Abraham Lincoln as "The Great Emancipator" with an ingrained vision of justice and human equality? Or, as a compromising politician who held the common racist ideas of his era and who pragmatically and reluctantly chose to free the slaves? Richard Striner, Professor of History at Washington College, challenges recent theories of Lincoln's "passive abolitionism" in his new book Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery, just released by Oxford University Press. news.washcoll.edu/ History reveals nations can be conquered by the use of one or more of three methods. The most common is conquest by war. In time, though, this method usually fails, because the captives hate the captors and rise up and drive them out if they can. Much force is needed to maintain control, making it expensive for the conquering nation. A second method is by religion, where men are convinced they must give their captors part of their earnings as "obedience to God." Such a captivity is vulnerable to philosophical exposure or by overthrow by armed force, since religion by its nature lacks military force to regain control, once its captives become disillusioned. The third method can be called economic conquest. It takes place when nations are placed under "tribute" without the use of visible force or coercion, so that the victims do not realize they have been conquered. "Tribute" is collected from them in the form of "legal" debts and taxes, and they believe they are paying it for their own good, for the good of others, or to protect all from some enemy. Their captors become their "benefactors" and "protectors". www.justiceplus.org/ The Dictatorship of Rogue International Capital - The Global Transactions Bubble. macromouse.blogspot.com/ |
