What Guarantees the Ruin of Economy? 4 страница
And that is the danger of having bankers[27] in business. They <usurers> think solely in terms of money. They think of a factory as making money, not goods. They want to watch the money, not the efficiency of production (put in bold type by the authors). They cannot comprehend that a business never stands still, it must go forward or go back. They regard a reduction in prices as a throwing away of profit instead of as a building of business.
Bankers play far too great a part in the conduct of industry. Most businessmen will privately admit that fact. They will seldom publicly admit it because they are afraid of their bankers <organized on mafia-like principles>. It required less skill to make a fortune dealing in money than dealing in production (put in bold type by the authors: the same conditions were created by the rascal-reformers[28] in Russia). The average successful banker is by no means so intelligent and resourceful a man as is the average successful businessman. Yet the banker through his control of credit[29] practically controls the average businessman.
There has been a great reaching out by bankers <usurious institutions> in the last fifteen or twenty years — and especially since the war — and the Federal Reserve System for a time put into their hands an almost limitless supply of credit. The banker is, as I have noted, by training[30] and because of his position, totally unsuited to the conduct of industry. If, therefore, the controllers of credit have lately acquired this very large power, is it not to be taken as a sign that there is something wrong with the financial system that gives to finance instead of to service the predominant power in industry? It was not the industrial acumen of the bankers that brought them into the management of industry. Everyone will admit that. They were pushed there, willy-nilly, by the system itself[31]. Therefore, I personally want to discover whether we are operating under the best financial system.
Now, let me say at once that my objection to bankers has nothing to do with personalities. I am not against bankers as such. We stand very much in need of thoughtful men, skilled in finance[32]. The world cannot go on without banking facilities. We have to have money. We have to have credit. Otherwise the fruits of production could not be exchanged. We have to have capital. Without it there could be no production. But whether we have based our banking and our credit on the right foundation is quite another matter.
|
|
|
It is no part of my thought to attack our financial system. I am not in the position of one who has been beaten by the system and wants revenge.It does not make the least difference to me personally what bankers do because we have been able to manage our affairs without outside financial aid. My inquiry is prompted by no personal motive whatsoever. I only want to know whether the greatest good is being rendered to the greatest number» (Ch. 12. “Money — Master or Servant”).
In his book Ford tells about the abject state of the Detroit-Toledo-Ironton railroad before it was acquired by «Ford Motors» and about his own relations with the usurious and stock exchange speculations sector of economy. And it is easy to see that these examples completely explain why all the post-1991 reforms bring no tangible result to the «average man». The point is that the «financiers» and lawyers in their majority (with minor exceptions), i.e. as professional corporations which took the cause of introducing reforms into their hands are capable of establishing neither an ethic nor a technical progress simply because those «financiers» and lawyers have knowledge neither of sciences and applied technologies nor of how enterprises are organized internally and communicate with their environments in every branch of industry. They are unfamiliar with the employee’s psychology and with the psychology of society on the whole. And they presumptuously turn a deaf ear on the words of true experts in those fields[33].
But by having said all of this Ford has in fact stood up against the very basis of the US financial system and consequently against capitalism of the Western type. His words about that «it was no part of his thought to attack» their financial system are no more than sheer politeness and a provision for some of his readers’ folly made after he has already disclosed every flaw belonging to the credit and financing system of the biblical type that is mollified or meticulously concealed by the dominating trend of economic science.
Those few quotations from Ford name the essential thing about Western capitalism that remained undisclosed by Marx in the implications and idle talk of his “Capital”. This essential is to this day being concealed under the cover of implications, idle talk and ignorance by Marxists who pretend to oppose capitalism which is a system of minority being parasitic on the majority yet by their ignorance and twaddle they back up this systemic parasitism.
|
|
|
These revelation-like statements Ford makes regarding the system-forming role that usury and stock exchange speculations play in the economy of Western capitalism are also one of the reasons why true «esoteric» Marxists and their masters have had to put it mildly a grudge against Ford while he was alive and continue having a grudge against him half a century after his death. That is why Marxists keep establishing an image of Ford being a fierce exploiter of the working class.[34]
On the other hand the liberal bourgeois «democrats» who support market economy are also in a predicament. Ford’s writings indicate that it is hardly possible to turn him into a propagandist image of a capitalist entrepreneur, a «self-made man» who personifies the fact that it is possible to make the «American dream» come true when following the «American way of life». In fact one can turn Ford into such an image only by slandering him and creating false notions of his personality, his approach to business and people, his very work in the society. But it is too tempting to get an ally of such a formidable authority: Ford is truly an outstanding personality. And so the liberal supporters of the market make every effort to do it. Let us give as an example the article headed “Henry Ford in Russia” by Alexander Livshits[35] printed in the “Izvestia” newspaper of January 11, 2002 (p. 2, «Observer’s column»).
«The American Henry Ford made a car-factory out of a bicycle-shop. He invented the assembly line[36]. Set up production of cheap cars. People started driving. So one had to build roads. And the whole economy followed. Henry himself became a rich man. Had Ford been born in the USSR, he would most probably end up at a defense factory. What’s the limit? World’s best armoured troop-carrier. An order conferred. A quarterly bonus payment. His business talent would have to be stifled. Or he would have been sent to chop trees in Siberia.[37]
|
|
|
Ford would also have a difficult time in modern Russia. How can one manufacture cars when banks refuse to give long-term loans? But this is not the main point. Russian bureaucracy would knock Henry down. Not only is it a fierce one. It requires lots of money to spend. And what the businessman spends on bribing officials he makes up in the price of his product.[38] (…)
Civilized businessmen think bribes unacceptable. That is why they pass Russia by. And investments are desperately needed. The government, so to say, has grasped the problem. It has passed three anti-bureaucratic laws. It has made registering and getting a license way easier for juridical persons. (…)
What did we get from the government’s innovations? Up to now only one thing is clear: that the government has made a move in the right direction. It is hard to say more. It all depends on how new legislation will be followed. What is even more important is whether regional authorities will start re-defining bureaucratic rules or not. Following the principle: «federal law prohibits giving orders and our local law allows it»[39]. Of course the local law is termed differently and uses different means to do it. (…)
Believe me, I am no reactionary. And I am not an enemy of the reforms. It is simply that I am sure that the average man is always right.[40] If he gains from reforms, everything has been done the right way[41]. If he loses, it’s the other way round.
We’ll see what we’ll see. It is still possible that in future both registration and licensing procedures will have to be made stricter. There is nothing here to be afraid of. It takes years to build a system of state control. It was so in America. And when the government finally set the firm rules there came Henry Ford. And things got on».
One may ask: has Alexander Livshits read books by Ford proper and lies intentionally? Or he has not read those books and writes nonsense about how «Ford Motors» got started and was running business regardless of what Ford himself wrote about it, telling lies in an impudent manner due to his ignorance and weak mind because he is prejudiced against Ford by gossip and myths?[42]
|
|
|
And this man holds a doctor’s degree, he is a professor… There are many doctors and professors of his like in Russia, they are the “elite”. It might well be time to disband the Supreme certification board and the whole hierarchy of academic degrees. So that scholars have no titles of honor but their own good name.
Actually Ford made the career of the industry’s founder and «Ford Motors» became a flourishing PRODUCTION and finance corporation (not a FINANCE and «industrial» group) without any help of long-term bank loans. The business returned the money because it was beneficial to the entire society. In that historic period loan interests were moderate in the US and the population’s solvent demand allowed for expanding business both in the qualitative and quantitative way because management efficiency ensured self-repayment.
Ford discovered how production and consumption development are paralyzed by the parasitic finance system based on mafia-like unhindered bank usury and stock exchange speculations. And he came to this conclusion even in a situation relatively favorable for renovating and expanding production.
Yet neither Alexander Livshits (former advisor on economic issues to the President of Russia, later supernumerary advisor to the government of the Russian Federation), nor the many chairmen of the RF Central Bank dismissed after a short time of holding the post, nor Russia’s economic science and conventional sociology do not see[43] the paralyzing effect usury and stock exchange speculations have on micro economy as well as macroeconomy. Over all the years of the reforms loan interest rates have by several times exceeded the probable production growth rate calculated in constant prices. Therefore no management no matter how efficient is capable of turning a furniture workshop into a high-tech enterprise of a national, let alone global scale. And if such loan interest rates remain valid and the outburst of «stock» transactions continues any enterprise that has advanced technology and organizational structure is bound to degrade to a most primitive rule-of-thumb production.
* * *
Digression 1:
On System-Forming Delusions
In this connection it would be a sin not to recall the system-forming nature of science[44] and higher education.
Do state officials including A. Livshits, politicians, businessmen, economic reporters of mass media, economists and lecturers of finance and economics faculties at universities and colleges turn a blind eye on the fact that loan interest and speculations with «stocks» paralyze the society’s economy because they are truly mistaken due to their weakness of mind, ignorance and amateurism? Or is this an evil design accomplished in a perfectly professional way by venal rascals and hypocrites whose objective is enslaving the rest of society while it is drugged by ignorance and stifled financially by the oligarchy of usurious bankers, stock exchange speculators and their backstage masters? Let everyone answer this question on one’s own and act accordingly.
We should also point out the fact that financial and economic «blindness» of politicians, academicians, and scholars, is of a selective nature. Those very «blind» people show an amazing acuteness of sight and act very actively in finding faults with the government for its policy on taxes and subsidies. All the years of reforms mass media supported by academic authorities have been wailing about high taxes which are strangling production, making capital seek cover abroad, provoking double-entry book-keeping and hiding income to escape taxation by physical and juridical persons etc. Therefore the issue of taxation in its connection with usury must also be elucidated correctly.
The fundamental difference between the «pressure of taxation» belonging to true statehood and the usurious vampirism of the anti-national mafia consists in that after money circulation has emerged:
· Taxes take away from the producer a certain fraction of his actual production calculated in terms of value. After that if this fraction is not looted it is used to the benefit of the state. If the state represents the interests of the vast majority of conscientious laborers all that has been exempted from them in the form of taxes returns to the society in the form of social security provided by the state. In other words in such a state the «pressure of taxation» does not suppress anyone because everything exempted as taxes returns to the society this or that way.
· Usury sucks out of the society a pre-set fraction of produced items in value terms. This fraction historically really is almost always larger than the efficiency of taking the loan as shown by bookkeeping records. Consequently the society finds itself a slave of supra-national corporation of bloodsuckers — racist usurers.
Such blindness to the effect loan interest and tax rates have on production and consumption which cannot be neutralized by taxing the bank sector proves the fact that economic science and conventional sociology in Russia are of anti-national and anti-state nature because they act in the interests of the supra-national mafia of usurers and justify financial, investment and political strategies desirable for it in a believable «scientific» way.
At the same time there is an opinion widely spread in the society, which is essentially inconsistent: that loan interest is supposedly vital as the source to finance bank activities that are really necessary to the society[45].
Consequently those who adhere to this view think that the fundamental requirement of prohibiting loan interest (including interest on bank deposits[46]) by law is an anti-systemic demand by «extremist laymen» that can supposedly ruin the institution of credit and the whole of macroeconomy. In their view the annual interest of 240 % in Russia of the Chernomyrdin and Livshits era are one extreme and a 0 % annual interest as a system-forming requirement of organizing the credit and finance system in the future economy of the entire mankind and not only Russia are another extreme.
From their point of view «normal» macroeconomy should have some «moderate» loan interest rates. Those rates on the one hand should allow banks to finance their essential activities and to pay out interest on bank deposits in order to encourage people towards using their savings for financing the development of enterprises that constitute the macroeconomic system of the society. On the other hand they should enable the majority of enterprises to make profit in all branches of industry and should not impair the population’s solvent demand.
When specific figures are named for the highest possible loan interest rates they are usually within the bounds of 5 to 7 % per year.[47]
Actually the advocates of this point of view confuse two fundamentally different questions. They are:
· The question of financing the society’s infrastructure that among others includes bank infrastructure that serves for making payments and bank transfers. It also keeps books of the multiindustrial production and consumption system on the macro-level.
· The question about anyone having a right to claim income that is essentially unearned. This income therefore has nothing to do with remuneration for past and future contribution to the society’s welfare and with social security provided regardless of participation in labor.
Work is done by people, not by money. People make products and services that when consumed are paid for with money.
If one bears this in mind, one finds the confusion of the two above-mentioned questions done by supporters of the “moderate loan interest rates”. Such confusion is unacceptable in social life, in state policy, in social science. Because it substitutes the question of slavery brought about by «moderate» loan interest rates with the question about the necessity of financing bank infrastructure.And this slavery is historically really executed by means of systemic bank usury. This is the way by which this fundamental issue of organizing the society’s life is excluded from discussion by confusing the two questions.[48]
Systemic bank usury is a means of executing mafia financial slavery. And the institution of credit is a game in which only one team scores. Since usurious creditors always gain financially while the whole of the society loses out. But besides that the «moderate» loan interest is detrimental to the society for several other reasons.
In a society where the bank system uses loan interest the statistic of bank deposits made by citizens makes the statistic on the amount of those deposits rise due to loan interest added to them. Interest on deposits for some of the depositors turns out to be comparable to their earned income. And for some other depositors they exceed income figures needed for consumption by the highest life standards. And this happens even when «moderate» loan interest rates are used that pose no threat to the macroeconomic stability and integrity. Besides, descendants of the original depositors inherit bank deposits. And notwithstanding the fact that they have not contributed to accumulating the original savings they have a legal right to enjoy this unearned income.[49]
Therefore, having agreed to the introduction of «moderate» loan interest rates (including interest on bank deposits) and having legalized it, the society encourages the richest from among depositors to become parasites instead of cultivating respect towards conscientious labor and encouraging it. The society does so by acknowledging their right to enjoy unearned income and by re-distributing to their benefit products manufactured by those who have no bank deposits or bank only small savings that produce interest of no importance for their personal or family budget.
In a morally healthy society income can belong only to one of the following categories:
· Wages, salaries and bonuses paid for taking part in labor activity
· Payments from social security institutions financed by state and public funds-in-trust that are not a remuneration for taking part in labor activity
· Income received as a help from another person who has a motivation of his own. This help should be lent on the basis of a mutual agreement that does not violate the rights of the person receiving help (help should solve problems and not create new ones).
Дата добавления: 2019-09-02; просмотров: 179; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!