»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.
No comments:
Post a Comment