II
HOW
MONEY DOMINATES
HOW
THE POLITICAL MONEY SYSTEM PERVERTS
ALL
ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES AND POLITICAL
POLICIES
AND BREEDS WAR
As
has been stated, the purpose of money is to split barter into two
parts so that the seller is free to find his source of supply later
and elsewhere. This is the sole purpose of money. Any effort to use
money to serve another purpose is perversive; and this statement
condemns the entire managed money philosophy.
In
a succeeding study (No. 5) we will have a complete definition of
money. At this time an effort is made to bring our minds into accord,
as to the source of money, by the following challenging statement:
There
has never been and can never be an issue of money except by a buyer
in the act of purchase.
Any
effort made to refute this statement (and strong effort to do so
should be made) will bring a great clarification of the subject. But
we must understand what "issue" means. Paper and ink or
coinage do not make money. These are but evidences of intent to
issue. They have no more significance than writing a check and
leaving it in your check book. No actual issue can take place until
there has been an exchange for value. In other words, issue is not
effected until accepted by the seller who surrenders value therefor.
Issue is solely a concomitant of purchase, and inseparable from it.
This being so, it follows that there can be no such thing as
political power to issue for the community; no vicarious money power.
To issue money, the issuer must buy.
When
a government issues money it exerts merely its economic power to buy
and not its political power. A government's political power over
money is purely negative, in that it fails to sponsor the economic
power of others as buyers to issue money. When it grants subsidies or
pensions or any other benefits, it merely relaxes its negative power
and sponsors the power of the recipients to issue money to the extent
prescribed. No issue takes place, however, until the recipients of
the alloted money power issue it by some purchase. Government cannot
grant the issue power to the citizen; it can merely give sanction to
the natural issue power which resides solely in the buyer, and which
he can assert without sanction by the use of a unit other than the
Government unit. Nor can the citizen delegate the issue power to the
government; it cannot be delegated or conferred, it is inherent in
the buyer. The prohibition by government against the private issuance
of money applies solely to the political unit; there is no
prohibition against the private issuance of a private money unit.
If
it is a fact - and it is - that money can spring into being only from
a buyer in the act of purchase, and that no one, whether government
or private individual or institution, can issue money for another -
we are obliged to answer this all-determining question:
Which
buyers shall be permitted to exert their natural money issuing power;
and which shall not, and why?
We
will deal with this question when we reach the constructive part of
our study. The purpose now is to show that the question has been
answered in the political money system, thus:
The
national government is the only buyer that by right can issue money
and it can release the power in others at its discretion.
So
we see that the political money system follows the divine right
theory and ignores natural rights. It is by far the most subjecting
tenet of autocracy ever asserted; and the denying of it offers man
the greatest liberation ever attained by the assertion of human
rights.
Let
us trace the consequences of this, the postulate of the political
money system. Having asserted exclusive money issuing power, the
government is immediately confronted with problems inevitably
springing from a false premise. The first is:
How
can the constituency support the state without private enterprise and
how can private enterprise function without money-creating power?
Obviously,
this exclusion, unless modified, defeats politics as well as private
enterprise. The state, by its own spending, provides some
circulation, giving to the recipients of its patronage, the power to
release, by further buying, what money they receive therefor. But
this is not enough for the economy. Some additional supply must be
created. By the postulate of the political money system the entire
nation of citizens is declared incompetent to issue money - yet,
since the state can issue money only by buying, there is not (unless
the state goes extensively into industry) enough money for the
economy. What is the solution of the dilemma?
By
a mental quirk the conception is hit upon that although a citizen is
not responsible enough to create political money, he may be
competent to create substitute or credit money. But this brings
another problem. How can the state, which professes to be democratic
and impartial, grant credit to some and deny it to others? A solution
of this problem is found by delegating to bankers the power to "loan"
at their discretion; and laws are passed to authorize them to permit
business men to "borrow" and thus create, not political
money, but a substitute private money. By this pross the state hides
behind the banker, and escapes the political embarrassment of
separating the sheep from the goats. The banker thus becomes a
sub-autocrat over private enterprise, and a double standard money
system is created, i.e., a primary and secondary or substitute.
In
the process of "loaning," the banker authorizes the
"borrower" to create private bank dollars; but the note
evidencing the "loan," the deposit created thereby and the
checks drawn against the deposit, all use the simple word "dollar"
without qualification. Thus private or substitute dollars and
political dollars become mixed in bank deposits and a double standard
is thus established though without differentiation on the banks'
books, thus bringing a train of delusions.
Since
the government does not provide the banks with political dollars to
loan, the banker must utilize promise-to-pay dollars; but these are
based on false representations - since there are not, of course,
enough political dollars available to make good the promises to pay
political dollars. Having, however, given the banker a monopoly on
the business of licensing business men to create substitute money,
the government finds it must put a limit upon the banker's avarice
and accordingly provides usury laws. But the banker is under no law
requiring him to "grant loans" - while business is under
the necessity of seeking loans. Hence - to induce the banker to make
"loans" – other considerations are offered, and this
explains how the banker gains a powerful position in industrial and
mercantile corporations. The political money system, we shall see, is
the creator of the very monopolies the government professes to be
opposed to and against which it passes futile laws.
What
actually exists, though arrived at by error rather than design, is a
conspiracy between the government and the banking interests to put
private enterprise in a position whereunder it must pay tribute to
the money lender to gain the exchange power it needs to function, and
which, if it were intelligent enough, it could provide for itself
without consent or tribute payment. This conspiracy develops an
aristocracy of business, composed of those who are recipients of
immunity from the prohibition against the assertion of money power.
The grant ofimmunity comes from the throne, vicariously issued
through the banker. This aristocracy, by reason of the competitive
advantage it enjoys (due to a money power it is permitted to exert,
but which is denied to others) throws the burden of the cost of the
tribute system upon the ostracized part of the community. Thus
competition becomes perverted - producing a perverted enterprise
system.
As
we have seen, the political money system consists of two wings, the
government and the banks, and two kinds of money, political and
private substitute. Let us examine its functioning. Assume first, a
government of limited functions and expenditures and a balanced
budget. Such government creates through its expenditures an amount of
circulation that is inadequate for the economy. The deficiency must
be supplied through the banks (insofar as they permit) and thus a
conservative government magnifies the importance and power of the
banks.
MYSTERY
DISPELLED
There
has always been a mystery about the banking function but it is very
simple. The banker is authorized by the government, within limits, to
"loan" money to "borrowers," and this involves
the following process: The bank credits the account of the borrower
with a sum as a deposit against which the borrower may draw checks
which will be honored by the bank on presentation. The bank holds a
claim upon the borrower for the amount of the loan, plus interest,
which is payable at a later specified date. As the borrower writes
checks he creates private substitute money which, with any unused
credit remaining in his account, is sufficient to meet the principal
of his note when due - provided he can retrieve the money he has
given out before that date. He does not and cannot, however, create
the sum necessary to pay the bank its interest. This sum must come,
if at all, from the supply of political money.
The
idea, therefore, that the banker creates money is upside down. He
actually depletes the money supply of private enterprise by setting
up against it an obligation to deliver a sum (the interest) for the
creating of which no power has been granted to the "borrower."
To illustrate: assuming the annual rate of discount to be 6%, the
banker credits the account of the borrower 94 and holds his note for
100. The deficiency of 6 cannot be created by the borrower and must
be extracted from existing money supply, which can only be political
money since the deficiency in substitute money exists also in all
other bank loans. Thus at a rate of 6%, the banker creates over a
period of ten years a 60% deficiency between the money created by the
loaning process and the sum of the debt incurred thereby. This
deficiency is held in suspense during the illusive "boom"
phase - but manifests itself when the call or "depression"
phase occurs. It is plain, therefore, that the banking system is the
manufacturer of the business cycle of boom and depression that
develops through the positive action of loaning and the negative
action of calling loans. It is also plain that its basis is a
conspiracy between the state and the banking system against private
enterprise, since the banking business and its function are the
result of government's assertion of money monopoly, and of the denial
of money power to private enterprise, except as licensed by the
banker on the perilous basis just outlined.
Contrary
to popular belief, the banker is neither a money creator nor a money
lender. He merely profits from the ignorance of businessmen by
charging them for authorizing them to create money, a function that
is natural to the buyer and which he can exert without cost if he is
intelligent enough to form a reciprocal enabling pact with other
buyers. The process involves no cost and, therefore, justifies no
fee. Since the money is created only by the act of buying, the
banker, of course, does not lend it, and since he is not the buyer,
he does not create it. Money cannot be loaned or borrowed until it
has been created by the act of buying. Therefore it is correct to say
that a savings bank makes loans, but a commercial bank makes no
loans. It merely permits "borrowers" to create money. thus
increasing the money supply. Non-banking corporations, individuals,
pawnbrokers, etc., loan money from the existing supply. Therefore
interest may be justified in these cases of actual loans, whereas, it
cannot be justified where the "borrower" is the actual
creator.
Political
policy may vary the effects of the political money system, but it
cannot bring virtue out of a vice. In the foregoing example we
assumed a conservative government policy which resulted in magnifying
the power of the banking system over private enterprise with its
evils climaxing in the deflation phase of the business cycle. Let us
now contemplate a spendthrift government policy.
SPENDTHRIFT
FISCAL POLICY
By
emitting large sums of money through public works and bureaucracy and
extending loans and distributing bonuses, subsidies and benefits -
the state relieves the economy's need for petitioning the banker,
but this does not dispose of the banker. It merely alters his status;
since the government loans, that create new money, still go through
his books. It may seem absurd for the government, which has declared
itself the sole fountain of money, to go a-borrowing to the banking
system which it has created to authorize the creation of substitute
money, but political expediency dictates this course. Having, by its
spendthrift policy, diminished the banker's private loan business, it
must provide for him. By going through the motions of "borrowing,"
the government provides for the banking system a subsidy without
which the system would collapse - thus causing economic hardship,
since the banks serve a very essential purpose in check clearance. So
the government, which is the sole money authority, goes through the
make-believe of borrowing from the banks - even though it could write
checks on the Treasury with the same force and effect as if drawn on
a bank depository.
This
process - of going into debt by the government - produces an
entirely different effect from incurring of debt by private
"borrowers." A private "borrower" can produce
only private substitute dollars by the promise-to-pay process. When
the mixture of substitute dollars in the pool of political dollars
reaches the saturation point and the banks begin calling "loans"
and depositors begin demanding cash, somebody is bound to be caught
short. These are usually the marginal enterprisers who, being on the
outer fringes of the banking perimeter, must default to their banks
(which are usually the smaller banks) thus forcing them also into
bankruptcy. Thus money supply is diminished by wiping out deposits,
depression is suffered for a period, bank competition is reduced and
the cycle renews itself by a new season of bank "loans."
Not so, when the government does the borrowing and distributing of
money.
The
private borrower-spender creates substitute dollars which mix but do
not blend with political dollars. Sooner or later they are extracted
by the process of deflation and bankruptcy. When the government
borrows it pledges itself to supply currency money on demand and as
it creates additional supply, but, under a natural law of money that
old, making a new or weaker unit. Being the sole money power, the
government has unlimited power to create additional supply, but,
under a natural law of money that it cannot suspend, it automatically
reduces the power of each unit in the market place unless there is an
equivalent goods supply. In no event, however, is there any hazard by
banks in "loaning" to the government; since, regardless of
how much the unit falls in power, the same affect is had upon the
bank's deposit liabilities as upon its "loan" assets. In
other words, there is no double standard of dollars and substitute
dollars when the government "borrows", for the government
can print and deliver any amount of cash demanded. Thus the old and
new dollars are indistinguishable from each other and are of the same
power. Therefore no public or bank panic can arise to precipitate
deflation and hence there is no safety valve in political inflation
as there is in bank credit inflation.
Only
one action can bring deflation from political inflation. That is the
deliberate purpose of government to do so by switching from a deficit
budget to a surplus budget, thus making a net deduction in the money
supply. This being politically inexpedient, the nearest approach to a
corrective that may be expected is a discontinuance of added
inflation by the adopting of a balanced budget policy.
END
OF BANK CREDIT CYCLE
In
the political spendthrift policy, banker profit is no longer the
motive of money expansion, for the banker is now reduced to a
subsistance rate of interest and loses all opportunity to gain
commercial and industrial ascendency; since his loans are no longer
to private enterprise but to government. Political expediency -
rather than profit - is now the criterion; and in acting as dispenser
and lender of money, government gains direct control of private
enterprise.
Pressure
groups now form and march on the nation's capitol, and money power is
distributed under the vague profession of being in the public
interest - but is always received by particular interests. After this
process establishes a definite trend, we see how the political money
system reacts against the government with a disease that endangers
both the state and private enterprise. This is the disease of
inflation.
Because
it requires super-human courage to deliberately reverse the inflation
by adopting a surplus budget - or even to arrest it by a balanced
budget - only two courses lie open to the government. These are, (a)
to continue the inflation until the money unit is destroyed and the
economy is thrown into chaos and thereafter adopt a new unit, or, (b)
take over private enterprise and by summary process destroy exchange;
in short, adopt communistic dictatorship.
Thus
we see that private enterprise is constantly in the throes of one
type of cycle or another. The banking cycle inevitably follows from a
conservative government policy; and the inflationary cycle inevitably
follows when the government acts as the money provider. The private
enterprise system is merely a football that is kicked by banker or
government and the goal posts are cycles of one type or another. In
either process there are large segments of the community that are
touched but little by the flush phase of the cycle; they are in want
in both types of cycles and both phases thereof because they are not
permitted to invoke the money power in either case.
The
very essence of the principle of private enterprise is the power to
acquire and dispose of property. Since to acquire or dispose of
property requires exchange and since the government or its creature,
the banker, may veto exchange by withholding the exchange media, it
can be seen that there is no private enterprise system in the full
sense. Ours is, and has been from the beginning of political money, a
political enterprise system, completely dominated by government
directly or through its satellite, the banking system.
There
is an analogy between the patent granting power of government and its
money granting power. When a citizen invents a device, the government
grants him, through the patent office, a monopoly on the sale of it.
When a citizen produces anything, he is at liberty to use it; but, if
he wishes to sell it, his ability to do so is dependent upon his
ability to find someone who has the money. Since buyers can have only
such money as the government distributes through its purchases, loans
and gifts (or such substitute money as its creature, the banker, will
authorize) it may be seen that buying is subject to grant, just as,
in the case of a patent, selling is subject to grant. In the case of
patents, the patent holder is the grantee of veto power; in the case
of money, the banker is the grantee of the veto power. These two are
the breeders of our monopolies and of the two, the money granting and
vetoing power is by far the greater. It in fact makes possible the
acquisition of the patent granting power from inventors who, not
having money power, are obliged to sell to those who have. The
government, which promulgates laws against monopolies in restraint of
competition, is itself the author of these twin creators of
monopolies.
The
political money system cannot help but operate adversely to the small
enterpriser because his capital resources, on which banking credit is
based, entitles him to such a small credit that the process of
qualifying involves an expense far out of proportion to the possible
interest income for the banker, and his profit possibilities are too
limited to excite in the banker desire for participation. Therefore,
probably 95% of all enterprises are below the banking line. The usury
laws are, in effect, laws against loaning to small enterprises
because they confine loans to sums that are profitable at the maximum
rate stipulated. Thus enterprisers are divided between the
aristocratic monopolists and the ostracized "untouchables."
While the little fellows must engage in cut-throat competition, the
big fellows have only a modified competition. To get from the nether
to the upper level, the investment banker offers to smaller units the
escape of amalgamation and thus he sits in on the profits and
management of the new aristocratic corporation which thus acquires a
competitively privileged position over the remaining nether group.
Thus the political money system forces bigness as a means of
survival. To be little is to be excluded from money power.
Unless
we find a method whereby each enterpriser shall be able to create
exchange power commensurate with his size, we practice only sham
competition and make a mockery of so-called free enterprise.
It
must be obvious to any thinking person that our progress from
primitive to modern standards is due entirely to the specialization
of labor and that specialization of labor implies the efficient
producing of commodities that are not directly usable by the
producer. This implies the necessity of facile exchange of products
between producers, and that production can only be as profitable as
exchange is facile. Therefore; whatever limits the facility of
exchange limits the efficiency of production since production beyond
the capacity of exchange is waste.
EXCHANGE
IS BARTER
Exchange
proceeds by barter, always has and always will, since values will
exchange only for values. The introduction of money into the exchange
process is merely to split barter into two parts so that each part
may seek and find its reciprocal. Thus we see that we do not abandon
barter; its essence remains, only its operation is improved. It would
be shocking to our sense of freedom if the government, or a creature
of government, should try to make whole barter transactions subject
to special permission. We would denounce it as intolerable tyranny.
Why is it that we tolerate the idea that split barter can take place
only when the trader holds a certificate (money) issued or authorized
by government or a substitute certificate issued by a banker? Why is
it that a whole barter transaction needs no license, while a half
barter transaction requires it? Why is it that a shoe maker and a
pants maker can exchange their products without interference, but if
they wish to buy one another's products by means of money, they are
subject to a veto power?
How
can we possibly develop the full inventive and productive genius of
man when such a veto power exists over private enterprise? How can
there possibly be free competition and fair play when the power to
defeat it lies in the hands of political usurpers and their grantees?
How can a government, however well disposed, possibly provide money
for private enterprise since, as we know, it cannot issue it without
buying, and the more it buys the more it invades private enterprise
and develops state ownership? If the producer of wealth cannot invoke
the money power to exchange that wealth, is not wealth production
hampered and need we seek any further for causes of our economic and
political maladies? Is it extravagant then to say, that our economic
and political ills are all traceable to our false money system? Why
must our genius for increasing production be forever thwarted by
man's inability to requisition his production into consumption?
The
political money power which involves an unnatural function of the
political system asserts a dictatorship that perverts not only
business but government itself - as autocratic power must always do.
It is idle for us to debate the comparative merits of democracy and
dictatorship when the die is already cast by the government's
usurpation of the money power. The ability of the citizen to control
the government simply does not exist while he is put in the position
of a suppliant to such government. Since money is indispensable to us
and since government controls money, we must beseech the government
and thus we are subjects - not citizens. This process of winning
governmental benefits begins as paternalism; but, as larger numbers
seek to secure special favors, its paternalism develops either into
communism or political and economic convulsion. We cannot be freemen
as long as we are money slaves; and under the political money system
our subjection becomes progressive.
MONETARY
AUTOCRACY
Compare
the states of the American Union with the Federal Government, and the
virtue of government without money power, and the vice of government
with that power, is apparent. Yet the states are not entirely without
money power - since they can create substitute money through the
banking system, just like private corporations. But this power is
limited, because the banker is under the same caution and hazard when
loaning to state and local governments as when he loans to private
borrowers. They become hazardous risks if they maintain an unbalanced
budget.
The
states are really nations that have mutually agreed to waive their
rights to raise tariff and trade barriers, coin money and make war.
They never intended to surrender their sovereignty to the Federal
government and of course, under the ignorance that has universally
prevailed, never realized that in surrendering the money power to the
Federal government they were impairing their sovereignty and
subordinating themselves, nor did Alexander Hamilton and his
contemporaries contemplate such eventuality. But it turns out to be
so.
A
money power government inescapably draws power to itself at the
expense of those that have surrendered this power because the money
power, as we are now finding out, is a very deceptive taxing power. A
non-money-power government must, at least, approximately balance its
budget and to do so must levy obvious and painful taxes. Thus the
constituency, conscious of the cost of government, holds such
government in check. Also, since such government is not a fountain of
money, it is not the object of money pressure groups and hence does
not develop bureaucracy.
Contrast
this with the Federal government which is the money sovereign. It is
the fountain of money, and can emit money without regard to tax
levies, and therefore is not under effective taxpayer restraint. It
can also meet any call for funds by money seekers, and of course it
attracts them. With the constant bids it receives for grants or loans
or subsidies or expenditures it is in position to win concessions
from the petitioners; and becomes the logical overseer of such funds,
developing naturally a bureaucracy and assuming more and more
governing functions.
If
it decides to distribute the costs of a program over the states,
these states must raise their share the hard way through taxes, while
it provides its share the easy way, by merely borrowing and
increasing its deficit. If it were obliged to present the bill
promptly to the taxpayer, as the states must do, the taxpayers would
protest and end the largess. But the taxpayer is kept under the
illusion of getting something for nothing until a later day of
reckoning. The policy of deficit financing, which is a policy of
partly deferring taxes, has been going on for twelve years with
pyramiding effect. It cannot now be stopped short of collapse. The
unlevied taxes which constitute the deficit will break upon the
citizenry with catastrophic suddenness through the process of
inflation, leaving them bewildered as to the cause. Yet inflation, in
its runaway phase is but the breaking of the tax dam that is hidden
behind the deficit. Through higher prices the people must pay their
delinquent, though unlevied taxes.
What
we have in the United States is 48 democracies crowned by a monetary
autocracy that is subordinating these democracies and their citizens
by its money power. It is a law and power unto itself. Both the
citizens and their state and local governments must approach it hat
in hand for it controls the life blood of the nation. It is
imperiling both the economic and the political structure.
Political
government is a social system whereunder the citizen, in whom the
primary sovereignty resides, surrenders a part of his natural freedom
in exchange for real and fancied benefits; but the well-spring is
always the citizen and the flow of power cannot be reversed. This is
the democratic ideal. Under the American system our states are the
repositories of sovereignty from the citizen and in turnconfer powers
upon cities and other local governments within the state. In entering
the Federation, the states surrendered certain powers to the national
government - but not with the intent of subordinating themselves.
What is it then that has subordinated them and magnified the powers
of the Federal government? It is solely the money power which not
only subordinates government but the citizen himself because money
power is sovereignty. Take away man's money power and he has lost his
sovereignty for he becomes a suppliant instead of a master. Let it
repose in one government and not another and it will inevitably
subordinate the one without it. Money power is the very essence of
sovereignty and the failure by the citizen to assert it renders
democracy futile.
MONEY
POWER IS WAR POWER
The
war making power of the U. S. Government and of every other national
government is beyond the control of their citizens solely because of
the political money power. How could Germany, Italy and Japan have
prepared for war except for the deficit-making or money fabricating
power? In short, how could any people be brought into aggressive war
except by financial deception? Can war be planned or carried out on a
cash basis unless the people are in favor of it? Certainly not. The
money power is the war power; and the appetite for war in politicians
is created by their frustrations in their domestic affairs -
frustrations that are the result of the impossibility of operating a
successful economy under the political money system. The political
money system starves productive enterprise but finances lavishly the
destructive activities of war.
If
the government were obliged to come to the people for money instead
of vice-versa, the people would keep government under control and
operate their economy satisfactorily with prosperity and peace
resulting. The peoples of the nations do not make war. For them peace
is the natural and permanent order. Wars are planned and perpetrated
by politicians and their diplomats; and the money power of government
is the means by which the people are maneuvered into wars.
This
does not imply that wars could not occur if the money power were
exclusively in the hands of the people. It means that the veto power
would be in their hands and the purpose of the war must be purely
defensive, since it is inconceivable that they would finance
aggressive war.
So,
summing up, we find that the political money power makes constant
economic war upon us; and, in the extremity of its frustrations, it
takes our blood in military war. Old men suffer a life time of trials
from it; young men suffer death at its hands.
Let
this be said as an indictment of ourselves and our ignorance – and
not of the motives of the men who run our governments. They (with few
exceptions) are deeply concerned with the problems of private
enterprise and public service and peace, and strive earnestly to make
democracy work. We would not impugn their motives, but we would point
out their follies and their failures. They, as well as private
citizens, are victims of a system that could not work to the benefit
of the state and industry even if the law makers and administrators
were endowed with the wisdom of a Solomon and the virtues of a saint.
Good motives are no justification for the violation of natural laws.
We
have not even made a beginning in democracy by merely putting at the
disposal of man an occasional ballot to choose who should he his
governor under a system that is inherently paternalistic and
autocratic. Man must have untrammeled command of a daily – an
hourly ballot which he casts in the market place to support the
things and services he desires and which he withholds from others and
which he transmits to the state or denies it according as it merits
his patronage. He must have the power to create this money ballot in
a measure commensurate with his power to produce and serve his fellow
man without hindrance from his servant, the state. The moment we
limit or thwart or bias this money power, which is natural to man,
and the very criterion of his sovereignty, we pervert democracy
beyond the power of any political ballot or any parliament to remedy.
Money power cannot be separated from democratic power without
miscarriage and ensuing frustration - political and economic.
Democracy implies the sovereignty of man; and, since man cannot be
sovereign without the money power, there can not be democracy under
the political money system.
Until,
through the assertion of his money power, man can requisition from
industry all he produces, and put government under his direct
patronage, human aspirations will be unattainable.
Since
to create or issue money is to buy, and there is no other way money
can spring into existance, the government spending program leads
inevitably to government ownership and dictatorship and citizen
disposession and subjection. The challenge is clear. Either we shall
assert, through our money creating and buying power, mastery over our
economic and political affairs, or the money creating and buying
power will continue to be asserted by government to our utter
degradation.
No comments:
Post a Comment