Economics I

Economics II

Economics III

It has been claimed that if the entire six thousand million members of the world population stood shoulder to shoulder and chest to back they could fit comfortably onto the Isle of White. This being the case it shouldn’t be beyond the powers of human intelligence, science, technology and improvisation to feed them all.

You go into a shop looking for food, you see what is available and you take what you need. Simple idea isn’t it?

If everybody did that there would soon be nothing on the shelves.

Sorry but I don’t agree with that observation. Go to any supermarket in Britain on a Friday night and check out the trolleys of the shoppers. Crammed full. In Britain hardly anybody goes without food, the average Englishman or woman couldn’t eat more than they do already if they tried. So it is not necessary to produce more to accommodate their needs. Which means even if you introduced a system of free groceries right at this moment they wouldn’t take any more than they already do because they cannot use more.

Of course most people does not include everybody. How do we create the abundance of food for the remainder?

Suppose in those supermarkets the food is free what happens? Immediately the tills are taken out as are the girls operating them so the expense of both is saved. What would happen to the money saved? In the current situation it would go straight into the coffers of the parasites but in a fair society it would go onto the price of the produce in the shop thus reducing it.

Let’s see if we can’t get those prices down a bit lower. In the same supermarket there is an accountancy department using computers to do the costings the wages and the buying. They use computers and calculators they have company vehicles more cost. If the goods being sold are free their services are no longer required down again come the prices.

Now let us presume that we take all the people in the world in the business of money manipulation completely out of circulation; accountants, bankers, tax workers, sales people, cashiers estate agents, auditors, bookkeepers, stockbrokers, and the majority of people whose lives are mostly taken up with defending, judging, policing, incarcerating, prosecuting rehabilitating those who steal it. How much more would we be able to save?

And suppose we put all of these now redundant people into one corner out of the way and ask the farmers and manufacturers to feed and otherwise take care of them how much worse would they manage this problem than they are doing at the moment since already they are doing just that without the members of the parasitic professions making a contribution? In fact their contribution is negative.

In a society where everyone is involved in the business of making a useful contribution where everyone’s requirements are provided for, a society that does not operate a hoarding system it is impossible to fail.

What do you mean by a hoarding system?

I mean a banking system where a man can hoard 15 or a thousand houses that he doesn’t need. In a fair society a man will be told that if he can live in two houses at the same time he can have them?

Meaning if he can’t, he can’t I presume.

Precisely.

But a man may need two houses. What about an entertainer who moves around a lot?

It is not a good idea for you to talk to me about actors and singers and sportsmen who are - in contemporary society - paid ridiculous sums of money for doing very little. Actors whose professions give them a great lifestyle and notoriety that compared with other members of society they do not deserve. These people must be brought back to earth with the other members of society who are more deserving but not so pampered.

However I take your point about the man who for whatever reason travels the world. The criterion must be; does society need him to have two houses? If for instance he is a temperamental scientist upon whom the world depends for whatever, somebody like Einstein who cannot concentrate to do the work he is required to do with only one house – unlikely I know but hypothetically possible - then by all means give him another one- for the duration at least- but for everyone else it will be one house and temporary accommodation in the other place.

So it will be one house for everybody one car presumably, how big will the house be how big the car?

This is not pie in the sky unrealistic dreamland we are talking about here. The world does not have infinite quantities of fossil fuel that can be called upon to energize motor vehicles forever. Some day the oil will run out and in the not too distant future, certainly this century. This means that the inhabitants of this planet for the 20th and 21st centuries have between them used up the entire human race’s allocation of fossil fuel. If we don’t care about future generations; let’s not complain if those future generations turn out to be ourselves. So we really need to be talking free public transport here. Free everything includes public transport and even if people don’t like the idea of public transport they have to get used to it because it will be one day forced onto them.

Think about the wastage of fuel that takes place because of private cars. One bus could do the work of 20 cars, one train the work of two hundred cars. A train goes from one end of the country to the other half empty while hundreds of cars do the same journey with a driver and no passengers. This wastage must be brought to a halt.

Taking a truckload of bricks on a hundred mile trip because the bricks down country are cheaper than the same bricks next door has to be stopped also. The bricks are not and cannot be cheaper, they simply cost less money but the cost to society in fuel labour wear and tear on vehicles and roads is high. It must stop. The practice of moving people around must also be discouraged for the same reasons and the way to do that is to give them reason not to go.

How do you do that?

By making life, wherever they are, so pleasant that they have no reason to believe the grass is greener on the other side; which is the main reason why people travel around so much.

In this new world of yours there is to be no privatisation I presume?

“Privatisation” is a dangerous word and the cause of so much conflict between so-called socialists and so-called capitalists.

What does it matter who owns or who thinks he owns such and such a property? Can the farmer pick up his farm and take it away with him? Can the factory owner or the hotel owner do the same? The answer is no, so let them say they own it. As long as the farm produces food efficiently, as long as the factory produces goods efficiently as long as the hotel provides rooms and services efficiently, who cares who owns them?

The only time the government will interfere is if these institutions are not serving the community efficiently.

What if the workers complain that they don’t like the idea of having an owner? What if they want to own the company themselves?

Let them. Once again I ask; why should society care who owns what so long as the business is serving the community efficiently? - Let it be.

But it won’t operate efficiently if the “owner” and workers start arguing about who is the boss.

You are alluding to the problems that have haunted the trade union movements since somebody first thought of forming them.

Exactly. The “them against us” syndrome.

Why does it have to be them against us? I’ll tell you why. It is because the “owners” have never been fair. They have always paid their workers exactly enough to ensure their participation and kept whatever is left for themselves. Sometimes the balance is greater than the entire wage bill of the workers.

They wouldn’t have a job at all if the owner didn’t give them one.

That’s always the excuse but do the owners ever accept the counter argument that he wouldn’t have a business if the workers didn’t maintain it for him. There is a simple solution. If the owner can run his business on his own then let him, if he cannot then he must enter into an arrangement with his employees.

If the owner has to consult his employees on every single decision nothing will ever get done. There will be total anarchy, have you ever heard the expression too many cooks spoil the broth?

There is another one that says many hands make light work. I understand what you are saying but I don’t agree that worker participation automatically means that the company must grind to a halt despite the fact that union involvement has in the past created havoc within some industries. Notwithstanding this truth I think that when we understand the underlying causes of the trouble between unions and management we can calculate that the overriding conclusion that because the unions were involved they were therefore automatically to blame, is an erroneous one.

It is true that the more conflict, which exists between management and workers in any company the less likely it is that the company will run efficiently but does there have to be conflict? What is it that causes conflict? It is difference of opinions; the management want to take the company in this direction and the workers want to take it in another. Why the dichotomy? The answer is always Messianic Law. Take a look at the true reasons why the opinions differ and you find in every case self interest and in a monetary society you will almost certainly at the end the beginning and in the middle of every conflict find money and the need for an easy life.

If however money was to be taken out of the equation just watch how easy it will be to reach agreement. I will give you an example.

Suppose you are a member of a medical team in an operating theatre ready to perform an operation on the brain of a child. Every one on the team is a pragmatic down to earth human being with whom it is easy to get on, except the eccentric brain surgeon who despite the fact that he is the most eminent brain surgeon in the world is also the most difficult man you ever met. He is abusive he is cantankerous and he makes everybody’s life hell. Will you swap that surgeon for a less competent one with whom it is easier to work if the child on the table is yours?

The answer of course is no. Now apply the same principle - that helped me to answer the question for you before you answered it yourself - to a situation in a factory or any less threatening work-related situation:

Let us say that the factory makes ball bearings and in that factory you are a machine operator. You know nothing about the science of ball bearings but you work hard day in day out making bearings for the needs of the human race. Is it true that because you are not a metallurgical graduate, you know absolutely nothing about ball bearings and is it true that the politics involved in the manufacture of the ball bearings cannot possibly be understood by a mere operator?

Once again the answer is no. So why shouldn’t the operators be allowed an opinion? The presumed answer is; because people are “merely” operators it therefore follows that they are not intelligent enough to have valuable ideas. This in management-worker relations is a very big erroneous presumption.

The factory operator is no more likely to accept a second rate surgeon operating on his son - just because his is a nice man - than the university graduate is. Why? Because operator or no operator he is not stupid.

In a fair society with no monetary system, the operator will leave the factory after his shift, to live in a society in which his status is determined – because there will still be a class system - entirely by his personal contribution to the society of which he is a member. His status will be, in part, determined by the success of the company he works for, if it fails his status will be reduced; the same will apply to the managing director.

In such a system the success of the factory and not money will be the goal of both operator and manager. Is it likely that the operator will argue with the metallurgist in such a company about the properties of the metal used for the ball bearings? It isn’t is it? But if the metallurgist has a bad attitude that causes him to go onto the shop floor and insult the operators does it not seem reasonable that the operators collectively can decide that the flak they have to take from the metallurgist is not worth his usefulness to the company. And in such a situation would it not be reasonable for the shop floor workers to collectively decide to fire the metallurgist and risk not being able to find a better one rather than put up with his nonsense? And if the metallurgist were fired would this not reduce his standing in the pecking order of society.

By acknowledging the worth of all individuals as equal and by ensuring that they are all answerable to each other society would fairly and with reasonable efficiency control the excesses of society that currently dog its progress.

What you are saying, I do believe is, that the rules should be fair for everybody so if the boss can fire the workers the workers should be able to fire the boss.

When the rules are fair, most problems of society automatically disappear.

Even in such a system I don’t see how you can have true fairness, after all in such a company I’m sure if the boss came down onto the shop floor and found an operator drunk at his machine he would for the sake of the business have the authority to fire him on the spot but if the operator went to the bosses office and found the boss drunk the operator wouldn’t be able to fire the boss.

Why not? From where does the boss get his authority?

From the entire work force.

And if the entire workforce is asked if they agree with the dismissal of an operator drunk on his machine isn’t it likely that they too will agree that he deserves to be fired?

And the drunken boss?

The same principle will apply to him except in his case the workers will probably consider that it is not as dangerous and therefore not as serious a problem to be drunk in charge of a desk and filing cabinet as it is to be drunk in charge of a machine. They will also consider the boss’s usefulness to the company and his replaceable value so it may be less likely that he will be fired but the criterion for dismissal will be the same in each case, namely the interests of the entire workforce.

All trade union problems are and always have been created by the “them” and us mentality. Rarely, if ever do the workers have any say in the decisions of the company, in a fair society they will have as much say as any one else, if they want it.

And will they want it?

Probably not so long as they know that the men with all the brains can be kept in check, they will for the most part let them get on with it and the friction will dissipate.

And you don’t think worker participation will cause havoc?

Of course not, quite the opposite but even if it does surely the people who do all the work that builds the society we all live in have as much right to destroy it as any one else.

When I lived on earth I worked in factories with working class men and some of them were complete arseholes, if you will forgive the terminology.

And most of them were not. When the rules are fair those people in the factories who are arseholes will be kept in check by the ones who are not. So the people, who now - due to frustration - cause it, will not allow anarchy. By the way, you didn’t meet any members of the management class or university graduates who were also complete arseholes?

Touché.

 

On All Saints Day 1414 John XXIII preached at the formal opening of the General Council. It was a massive gathering of 300 bishops, three hundred theologians and the cardinals of all 3 obediences.

John Huss, rector of Prague University to whom emperor elect Sigmund granted safe conduct to the conference was promptly arrested on command of John XXIII and imprisoned.

The Council assumed full authority making a unanimous declaration of faith that has haunted the Roman Church ever since.

The holy Council of Constance - - - - declares, first, that it is lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, that it Constitutes a General Council representing the Catholic Church and that therefore it has its authority immediately from Jesus Christ; that all men of whatever rank and condition, including the pope himself are bound to obey it in matters of faith, the ending of schism and the reformation of the Church of God in its head and members.

Aenias Sylvie one day to become Pope Pius II wrote; “Hardly anyone doubts that a council is above a pope.” Why should anyone doubt? The church’s ancient teaching was that a General Council is supreme in faith and discipline. On the basis of this teaching more than one pope had been condemned by councils for heresy.

The consequences of Constance were momentous. If the pope is bound to obey the Church in matters of faith, he cannot of himself be infallible.

Having asserted its authority over the pope the Council of Constance then proceeded to implement that authority by first deposing Benedict who took flight and then deposing John XXIII. The fathers of the Council agreed that John was the legitimate pope but the church was more important than the papacy.

The charges against John were reduced from 54 to 5 the more serious ones being suppressed. Until then the only charge serious enough to depose a pope was heresy but since John never had a religious thought one way or the other in his entire life it was considered impossible for him to be heretical. The charges levelled against him therefore were piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest.

On the 29 May 1415 John XIII’s seals of office were solemnly smashed. But an ex pope is entitled to consideration so his punishment despite the severity of his crimes was a meagre 3 years imprisonment. Huss on the other hand, a saint by any measure of consideration was not so fortunate. Tried on trumped up charges by the Dominicans he was taken from his prison cell, paraded through the streets and burnt at the stake. His crime? Saying, as does the bible that the bread of the Eucharist after consecration is still bread.

Finally Gregory XII in his ninetieth year convoked the Council and then resigned.

 

I was summing up.

Didn’t get far did you?

That’s because you introduce new ideas every time I try.

Sorry, I’ll keep quiet.

No don’t do that. We need to hear all of these ideas, how else are we going to find solutions?

But don’t you know all the ideas and solutions already?

Sure I do. This exercise is not for me it’s for you. Right let’s see, where are we?

The monetary system has to go because it is inefficient, you have partly convinced me of that at least on the local level but what about the international level? What about the monetary exchange rates? The grants and loans given to Third World countries by western governments without which they would be in a worse state than they are at the moment.

Now there’s a confidence trick of monumental proportions if ever there was one. Let’s see if we can’t explain the true significance of international monetarism once and for all so that everybody understands that each of us, with a few notable exceptions, is being ripped off.

Which is the most omnipresent currency in the world?

The United States dollar, no question about it.

It is the safest currency, everybody wants it. And why is it the safest currency?

Because the United States government is the richest in the world so the government will almost certainly honour the payment of the currency.

Why is the United States Government the richest in the world?

You tell me.

There are a number of reasons, none of which points to the reason that the American people have convinced themselves is the true reason, namely superior intelligence or inherent superiority per se.

The true reasons are firstly; the United States of America is geographically situated within the richest real estate in the world. The Americans or should we say North American’s have all types of minerals that they need to run their industries right within their borders.

Secondly, the Americans have been spared the traumatic effects of history’s major wars, most notably the Second and First World Wars which devastated Europe and Asia, once more because of their geographical position which kept them out of harms way. In deed they were not only spared the effects but actually benefited from the conflict by selling arms to mostly Great Britain at a cost to Britain that included its empire.

Thirdly because they have harvested the knowledge, intellectual personnel and slave labour from the entire world, without ever having to pay the price to history.

Fourthly and most significantly they have the American dollar? What is it? It is a piece of paper. And its value? It’s true value is a piece of paper but its other value is as an illusionary concept that - rightly or wrongly - has tricked the world into cooperating, unintentionally, in the building of the world's richest empire.  And please don't tell me America is not an empire.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the American dollar is just a piece of paper. A currency note e.g. a dollar bill which carries the words, “I” meaning the governor of the national bank, “promise to pay the bearer on demand, the sum of,” and then it states an amount equal to the value figure printed on the note. What does this mean? All it means is that if you take the note to the governor of the national bank he will give you another note exactly the same as the one you are handing in, nothing else. If they let you in to see him that is, which is unlikely.

If I write on a piece of paper, “I Tommy Watkins,* promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of £5” then that piece of paper becomes monetary currency between you I and anyone else who will accept it as such. Why don’t we all do that? Because we don’t trust each other.

With national currency even though we may not trust the man who gives us, for our labour, the money to - in return - give us something “equal” to its value we are nevertheless fairly sure that somebody will.

The delusion and dishonesty creeps in however when everybody presumes that the government who issued the currency will give something other than another piece of paper for all the money in circulation.

The United States Government prints dollar bills, billions of dollars worth every year and it uses them to steal, from suckers all over the world, anything and everything it needs. How can it do this? It can do it because everybody has faith in the dollar. Why? Because of stupidity and ignorance.

* Not my real name

Do not allow yourself to believe - because the practice of monetary exchange has been going on for millennia and because it permeates every aspect of society - that the
concept is an extremely complicated one, for it is not, it is very very very simple and indeed the simplicity of it is part of the reason that people can’t bring themselves to accept that that’s the way it is.

Go into any bank in the world and ask for the exchange rate of the local currency against the United States Dollar and they will tell you. You may or you may not be able to buy some dollars with the local currency but for sure you will be able to buy local currency with dollars.

This exchange rate system deludes most people into believing that there is some fair international mechanism set up by - who knows - maybe God, that guarantees throughout the entire world, justice and fair play across the board for every country’s currency. That is the first myth that we must dispel.

Once again go into a bank, lets say in Zambia and you will have no problem selling your dollars but if you go into a bank in New York and try to exchange the Zambian Kwacha for dollars you will fail. The American’s will not accept the Zambian Kwacha. What does this mean? It means to America the Kwacha is worth nothing.

Now you may say to yourself that such a valuation is unfair, after all if an American goes to Zambia he will discover that he can spend Kwacha, so why will they not exchange dollars for Kwacha. The answer is that the Americans have no use whatsoever for Kwacha. They would be fools to accept Kwacha in payment for anything because to get those Kwacha Americans would have to give something substantial in return whereas if they purchase whatever they need from Zambia in dollars all they have to do is print the dollars.

“But they can’t do that” I hear the whole world in unison, “they can’t do that.” The whole world is wrong, not only can the Americans do it but they do, do it - all the time. Printing money and using it to purchase anything and anyone in the world that it needs to buy, is the secret to America’s phenomenal wealth. You don’t believe it?

I’m glad you don’t believe it because I am going to explain in very simple terms so that when I’m finished you will have no choice but to believe it, because it cannot possibly be any other way. Here goes:

Take any one of the trillions and trillions of United States currency notes anywhere in the world and put a match to it, burn it until it no longer exists. What happens? Not much except you lose some of your negotiating power. I ask you to do this so that you will appreciate that all dollar notes are just pieces of paper that can be burnt. If they can be burnt it is because they are just pieces of paper no different or little different to the newsprint that you read this morning or wrapped your chips in last night.

What then is it that gives it the value of currency? It is the thoughts in people’s heads. Somebody gives you a hundred dollar bill and says this is for your lounge suite and you give him your lounge suite then at that point you have given him your lounge suite for a piece of paper. Why would any one be foolish enough to do that? Because he believes that someone else will give him something more valuable to him than his lounge suite for the same piece of paper. A thought in his head. And is he right? Sure he is - usually.

So the hundred-dollar bill is not worth a piece of paper it is worth a lounge suite? No, the hundred-dollar bill is never worth any more than a piece of paper but the possession of it causes people to believe that it is worth more than it actually is and it is these thoughts that give it a different value. The Americans are the masters at making people believe that their pieces of paper are worth more than anybody else’s and because people believe it they hand over their valuable possessions for nothing. You still don’t believe it?

There’s a fifty dollar bill give me your box of matches. You’ll give me won’t you? Now let’s change the setting. We are stranded on a desert island; there’s fifty dollars, give me your box of matches. Funny that isn’t it, both deals are exactly the same but you won’t accept the second one, why? Because on the island the fifty dollar note loses its illusionary value.

All the Americans have to do is get everyone to play the game of illusionary value with their pieces of paper and they are laughing all the way to paradise America.

Almost everybody believes, sorry for repeating myself, that there is some kind of universal law or perhaps even divine law, which has something to do with exchange rates, which governs the amount of money that governments print and introduce into the International currency markets. This is another illusion; there is no such law and no controlling body of arbitration. Each country individually determines how much currency it prints and the amount is influenced once again 100% by the demanding rigours of the Messianic Law.

To give an idea of what exactly that means let us use the analogy of a man living in his own home with ten children and no job and no access to state benefits. We shall take it as read that the man would be in deep trouble, unable to feed, clothe or otherwise sustain himself or his family. Now let us say that in the house of the man there is a machine that prints money. Will he use it to solve his problems?

You are saying to yourself, “It depends what the consequences are for printing money.” So let us say that there are no negative consequences, God won’t punish him and civil authorities won’t punish him, now there is only one answer isn’t there, he will print his way out of his problems.

Apply the same principle to the United States government. Who is going to punish it for printing too much money? Nobody.

In a situation where there is no penalty to be paid for printing too much money, is it not absolutely certain that the limits placed on the amounts of money printed will be determined by the self interest of the people doing the printing? Common sense isn’t it?

So if the United States Government can get people to give them whatever they need for these bits of paper they would be fools not to print some and use them for the transaction wouldn’t they?

Come on Tommy its not as easy as all that. If the United States just printed money for all their needs the world would be awash with dollar bills and the currency would become worthless.

And the Americans are not so stupid that they are going to print an infinite amount of dollar bills that they know will destroy the goose that lays their golden eggs are they?

My point exactly.

So the Midas touch is not only useless but also dangerous if everything you touch turns to gold?

That’s right.

So you don’t want everything to turn to gold, you just want the things that you need turning into gold?

Yes.

And that’s what the Americans have. Provided their greed does not turn to the Midas touch and destroy them, they can have almost anything they want. All they have to do is get everyone to accept their currency – a situation that already exists – and they can buy from the world all or most of their needs simply by printing money.

That will create inflation and eventual but inevitable collapse in the value of the currency.

Not if it is managed properly and the Americans don’t get too greedy and too lazy. Printing money does not have to create inflation; it can in fact have the opposite effect, which is the reason why despite the fact that the Americans have been printing money and using it to buy up 30% of everything the world produces for many years the dollar has not plummeted in value. I’ll try to explain:

America goes to, let’s say; Zambia and with $1500 (realistically just bits of paper which the Americans printed) buys one tonne of copper. The $1500 that they printed for the transaction theoretically diluted the value of all the other money in circulation by a very small amount. But, it does not have any effect on the American economy until it actually goes back to America and is used to negotiate the purchase of something substantial. Until it does the Americans were given the copper for nothing.

But it will go back eventually.

Who says it will? There are trillions of dollars floating around the world which have been used to purchase something yet the same dollars are now being used to make purchases between other non American countries so they may never go back and indeed even if they do more dollars are being printed and issued into the currency markets of the outside world to replace the ones coming back. This goose keeps laying golden eggs because almost everybody in the world has been coaxed over the years - even the Russians and the Chinese - into the business of feeding it.

So why if they can just print money for whatever they want, do the Americans have the best agricultural and manufacturing industry in the world? Why don’t they just buy in all their needs with the dollars that they print?

Good question, like it, keep them coming. There are a couple of reasons; firstly the Americans know that if they do that the rest of the world will quickly run out of things to “sell” them, secondly the world will quickly realise that they are being taken for a ride and refuse to accept the dollars.

Why don’t they do that now?

Because the world thinks it is buying into the American dream, they see the science and technology far in advance of their own, they see rockets going to the moon, they see Silicon Valley Hollywood, Jumbo Jets and they conclude; “Yes these people are civilised, that’s why they are so far ahead of us.” And so they continue to participate in the illusion. What they don’t realise is that the advanced civilisation has more than anything been created by their own willingness to hand over true wealth for bits of paper. This true wealth has helped to build and continues to sustain the strongest most technologically advanced country in the world. Not surprising when you realise how they did it, is it?

I suppose not. So now you are saying that the cheating must stop. How do you propose to do that?

There is more than one way to skin a cat so it depends which way most readily presents itself. For the time being though I just want to say that the United States of America is vulnerable and as a result susceptible to change. At this very moment they are, for reasons of greed, refusing to cooperate with a treaty to safeguard the atmosphere from greenhouse gases, despite the fact that they are responsible for 20% of the entire world emissions. They can be brought into line whether they like it or not because they are now dependent on the cooperation of the world to perpetuate the sumptuous lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. The solution to their intransigence is to organise the other world members to stop the cooperation.

Tell me how you intend to answer your critics who are bound to accuse you of the same selfishness as the monetarists. After all aren’t you being just as selfish as they are by wanting to change the world?

Just as selfish, no difference whatsoever, me, you the pope, Jesus, God there is no difference at all between our motives. Totally and unavoidably selfish, every one of us, there is nothing ambiguous about that – is there?

So why is it wrong for the monetarists to pursue their happiness through the medium of money and right for you to pursue your own happiness through an intention to rid the world of it?

Who said anything about right and wrong? Certainly not me, not in moral terms at least. The only reason I would suggest that they are wrong is because their system is inefficient and it will inevitably kill us all. Another reason is because they are blissfully unaware that they will reap what they sow and I am not. If I believed for one minute that this life is all there is and my enjoyment of it was the best I could hope for, then perhaps even I would join them in their “I’m all right Jack” attitude to life. But this attitude is extremely myopic, we have to take the power away from them and introduce a new system based on a selfishness, which understands that everyone in the universe is me.

So the plan is, if I may continue, that society must scrap monetarism and property ownership. Is that correct?

We have to be careful here because we are introducing emotion into the equation. Immediately when you say that, people start thinking about communism dictatorship and the historical negative effects of both, we must guard against that at all costs. The answer to both questions is yes and no.

Firstly we do not “scrap” monetarism because scrapping monetarism suggests that the morning after coming to power the government; which comes to power with these policies, immediately illegalises the use of money and that of course would be disastrous. The solution is to, one step at a time, make money redundant, put it out of business.

How?

Transferring the wealth of the nation and eventually the world from the pariah class to the working class will do it. “Put your money to work for you” have you ever heard that expression?

Yes.

It is a confidence trick designed and introduced by the pariahs to milk the workers. Money does not work, people work, animals work, machines work, money just sits there and does nothing except corrupt people into believing they can get something for nothing.

And they can.

Sure they can but the system is a lottery, for every winner there are thousands of losers and the pariahs are running the system. We must destroy it.This does not mean that we are going to create a classless society, we are not, in fact I venture to say that such is impossible but one’s status in society will be determined by hard work and contribution rather than the state of one’s bank balance.

I don’t know how you will administer such a system. How will a person’s contribution be measured recorded and recognised?

In this computer age, the solution to that problem is quite easy but before I explain let’s first take a look at the question you asked about property ownership.

The communists in a fit of rage at the dishonesty of property ownership started a bloody revolution that was supposed to correct the injustice. Unfortunately that revolution was founded on emotional, which clouded the vision and plan of the revolutionaries. In a fit of absolute rage at the ruling classes the proletariat set about the business of retribution with such gusto that it soon became obvious that retribution was the only solution they had. “Kill the ruling classes, kill the property owners” was the clarion call which drowned out the question from more rational personalities who quite sensibly asked, “And then what?”

No one should ever think of “killing” the ruling classes for “there but for the grace of God go I”. There is no difference between the personality of a ruling class person and a person of any other category, kill them and you kill yourself.

Except in the case of the odd mature spirit among them we should not even expect them to help in the process of correcting the anomalies of monetarism so they must be rendered impotent by the rules of the new system.

How? Are you going to take the property away from the likes of the Duke of Westminster?

There are many ways to solve that problem without “stealing” or “nationalising” his property. I’ll give you an example:

On the day after our new government comes to power we issue a decree that the payment of interest will henceforth be illegal.

The banks will immediately close down.

Along with the decree will be a warning that any financial institution that closes its business transaction as a result of the new decree will have its assets confiscated by the state.

They will eventually go out of business whether or not they are compelled to remain open because of their inability to finance it.

The state will offer to purchase their business (with a cheque), which will then be run by the same people on behalf of the state.

What if they refuse to sell?

Do you think they will?

No.

Neither do I but if they do let them, they will grind to a halt eventually and then come on their knees begging us to take over for nothing.

Next?

We shall issue a second edict which states that the charging of rent for any property is henceforth forbidden.

That will surely put a cat amongst the pigeons. What are people like the Duke of Westminster - who depend on rent for their livelihoods - going to do?

Uuww my heart bleeds for the Duke of Westminster. Maybe he will have to get a job like the rest of us but never mind I’ll answer that question so that nobody feels we are cheating the poor chap when taking back “his” property for the people. We shall buy if from him.

With a cheque?

With a cheque.

And he will put the cheque in the bank?

He can do what he likes with it. He can burn it or frame it and put it on the wall for everyone to admire.

But if the law won’t allow him to buy property what is he going to do with that money?

Shame isn’t it? Seems like the poor man has a problem.

Never mind, even with that problem it would seem he has enough money for himself and a few generations of his descendants to live the life of Reilly without making a personal contribution.

Don’t bet on it.

Meaning.

Meaning there will be no freeloaders. His money will eventually become redundant but until it does the law will still require him to make a working contribution.

And if he refuses?

He will not be allowed to participate in normal society. He will be removed from the mainstream, have his rights taken away and then when he has no rights he will be compelled to work like a slave - measures that I am sure will persuade him to cooperate and make the contribution expected of him.

So you are going to bully him into cooperation?

Him and everybody else. If you think making laws in the interest of society and compelling everyone to obey those laws is bullying then that’s what we will do. Got any better ideas?

So what about everyone else’s property; the houses that the ordinary people own and have worked their entire lives for?

We shall buy those also.

And where will they go?

What do you mean, “where will they go?”

I mean where will they live?

They will live in the same houses that they live in now.

So you intend to nationalise all property?

You are using pejorative and emotional language. We shall nationalise nothing, the houses will be bought from the people and then we shall give them back to the same people provided they each own one house and no more.

Let me see if I have this straight. You are going to buy all the property in the world or at least in the countries you manage to take over and you are going to pay for this property with - - - - let me guess, cheques.

Correct.

But will there be enough money in the banks to pay these cheques if everyone decides to cash up?

The simple answer to that question is yes because the government can print all it needs but do remember that everyone will not decide to cash up. All that will happen is that peoples’ bank balances will be credited with the amount of money written on the cheques, a figure on a balance sheet.

So they will not be allowed to cash them because they are just figures on a balance sheet?

Of course they will be able to cash them, what will be the point of giving people cheques if the cheques can’t be cashed? What I am saying is that it will be difficult to spend large amounts of money if the law forbids people to purchase property so the major portion of their windfall will remain in the bank.

They might want to buy a Rolls Royce.

Good idea let them.

But there won’t be enough Rolls’ to go around.

Exactly.

So what will happen?

There will be a queue for Rollers.

And the price will go up causing inflation. You want to deliberately cause inflation?

I want to deliberately destroy the monetary system because monetarism stands in the way of our goal:

We care about the people, we want every human being on the planet to have a home, but unfortunately not everyone owns a home because of the monetary system. Some have a hundred and some have none.

The man who has a hundred doesn’t need them he can only live in one home at a time so we will take away from him the houses that are surplus to requirements.

Is that fair?

It is fairer than the present system, which in turn is subject to opinion. How for instance do we determine what is and what is not fair. No doubt if you ask the Duke of Westminster he will disagree with our opinion. Ultimately fairness is determined by the one with the power to impose his own version.

And you are going to impose your opinions on the Duke of Westminster?

If we can.

Where will you get the power to impose those opinions?

From the people.

So you are going to buy all the property and let people live in it free of charge what about mortgages?

We will pay off all the mortgages.

So that means people will have houses to live in and money in the bank because you paid them for their houses. Why should they bother to work?

Because they will be compelled to work. The system won’t function properly unless everyone works and I mean everyone from the queen - except that she is well into retirement age in which case she won’t have to work because she has already made her contribution. – down or up if you like.

You mean the monarchy will continue?

If it can be determined that it serves a useful purpose. Personally I can’t see that it does but I don’t want to frighten those monarchists who erroneously feel that the monarchy rules by divine authority. Like everything else of course, including the papacy it will evolve out of business. With a Messiah, who needs a monarchy?

What about the people who don’t own a house? They won’t have money in the bank for luxuries.

So they will have to forego those luxuries initially but eventually when the system gets going provided they put in a hundred percent effort their basic essentials; meaning food, housing, clothing, health care, education, leisure will be guaranteed.

When they need food all they need do is go into the supermarket and take it off the shelf?

That’s right.

It’s a wonderful idea but nobody is going to believe that.

They will believe it when we produce a manifesto that spells out in simple language how it can be done and why it must be done.

Free housing, free clothing, free education, free leisure, free health, free food, you do understand what I mean when I say it is a bit far fetched don’t you?

Sure I do but you do understand what I mean when I say that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a thought in one man’s head. Do remember that people who should have known better laughed off many of the world’s greatest ideas. It is only a hundred years ago that someone in the United States declared, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” He was wrong wasn’t he but at the time he said it I bet there were many of his contemporaries and peers who agreed with him.

Think about it, close down the armaments industry the tobacco industry and the monetary system then get everybody into the business of production and service. Turn the science and technology of the world loose onto the barren land of Africa and food will flood the pantries of the world.

We want to be happy, the reason for everything that we do must be achieving that happiness but for all of us not just the lucky few who are able to accumulate money.

All right I am with you, you seem to have all the answers.

Indeed I have all the answers and even if I haven’t they are there to be found. I can’t think of any answers that I don’t already have for those interested enough to ask but in the event that a question comes up that I can’t answer I still know that the answer is there to be found in God’s plan. He has never failed to give me the answers to the questions I have asked in the past and I have no reason to believe that he will fail in the future.

So where do we go from here?

I was hoping you would tell me.

Where in England is your family home?

Witton Park .

No it isn’t, the Witton Park that you grew up in barely exists any more and the people you grew up with have scattered to the four corners of the earth so where in England is your home now?

All right then Newton Aycliffe I suppose.

That’s the answer I was looking for and which parliamentary constituency is Newton Aycliffe in?

Sedgefield.

And who is the current MP for Sedgefield?

Tony Blair.

The Prime Minister .

What are you getting at?

Work it out.

You want me to go and challenge Tony Blaire for his parliamentary seat?

Would that make a splash?

If I beat him.

I am not telling you what to do but somewhere along the line you will have to make a splash .

I am not a politician.

Good, there’s a start. Didn’t you say yourself that the governance of this world must be taken out of the hands of politicians?

Yes I said that, I believe that the people who rule should be those who have lived long enough to have wisdom and to have made a contribution. Political prima donnas make me sick.

You are preaching to the converted Tommy. Go back to England and do what you have to do or try for the Presidency of Zambia but for heavens sake do something – make a splash.



Someone said of Pope Innocent VIII “His Holiness rises from his bed of harlots to bolt and unbolt the gates of heaven and purgatory”

Three youths were bled to death in order to give Pope Innocent the VIII a blood transfusion, “Buried in the tomb of Innocent the VIII is filth gluttony avarice and sloth”.

Syphilitic Franciscan Pope Julius II bribed his way to the papacy then declared that any pope who from then on bribed a conclave should be deposed. It was the same Julius who forced Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel

Cardinal Hugo in the pope’s name wrote to the people of Lyons a letter (dated 1250) of gratitude for their hospitality, which partially stated:

“During our residence in your city, we (the Roman Curia) have been of very charitable assistance to you. On our arrival, we found scarcely three or four purchasable sisters of love, whilst at our departure we leave you, so to speak, one brothel that extends from the western to the eastern gate.”

Machiavelli wrote: “The Italians owe a great debt to the Roman Church and its clergy. Through their example we have lost all religion and become complete unbelievers. Take it as a rule, the nearer a nation dwells to the Roman Curia, the less religion it has.

Catherine of Siena told Gregory XI that she did not have to go to the papal court to smell it. “The stink of the Curia Holiness has long since reached our city.”