»Mankind must put an end to war,
before war puts an end to mankind.«
– John F. Kennedy
35th President of the USA, assassinated in 1963
Have you ever had the doubtful pleasure of listening to a war report on the radio, TV or in other media? In it they speak about human life, among other things. But sooner or later
they also come to speak of material damage. Who has to bear what costs of the war? And when the war is finally over, governments and firms are already queuing up to secure the biggest pieces of the reconstruction cake for themselves. One cannot escape the feeling that war is welcome business and much more important than the people who are killed.
I have a similar feeling when I hear the argument that the money supply must be equivalent to the goods and services produced. This argument is based on the assumption that money only keeps its value when you can buy the equivalent amount of goods for it. That is indeed an interesting approach but what consequences ensue from it? Quite simply, a large supply of money is allowed to circulate in countries that produce a large quantity of goods. On the other hand, there is only a little money in poor countries although the people there badly need it. The amount of goods thus has greater importance than people.
Should people serve the economy or the other way round? The Natural Economy of Life serves both people and nature. The supply of money is proportional to the size of the population. The quantity of goods is the answer to people’s needs and not the reverse. Humans and nature are in first place. In spite of and perhaps just because of this, we have a stable supply of money and a self-regulating system which ensures that the right quantity of goods and services is always available.