| Subject: Trance Seance - ECONOMIC FREEDOM - Part 1 |
Author:
Maryse
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:20:10 05/18/08 Sun
In reply to:
Albert Tucker
's message, "New World Order" on 20:33:32 01/25/08 Fri
The purpose of offering these trance séance reports are to present some ideas and concepts and principles that are worth reading about, examining, and putting into practice. Here we are dealing with high quality of interchanges, i.e. with a much different level of mediumship than is usually associated with the idea of mediumistic work. In most mediumship, the focus of the conversation is in bringing through memories and comments dealing strictly with the personality of the spirit. It is a lot easier to dabble in the lower forms of mediumship, and it can be a lot of fun to do it. But that's not the goal of these interviews.
The aim here is to seek to achieve a level of communication which dealt primarily with ideas and the qualities of the inner being. Yet that is almost paradoxical, because as the personality is dropped and the transition to the inner planes occur after the end of life on the physical plane, only a selective number of memories and concepts about these kind of ideas and qualities remains. The major philosophical theme of these discussions would be that life is evolving. Ideas and concepts and individuals are evolving and continuously updating, changing, and growing.
Each statement that is made by an individual life is only a momentary statement of a much greater whole. And the work of the great leaders and geniuses of mankind continues on; it does not stop when they leave the physical plane. A single life, however great it may be, is only one step on the road to enlightenment – a snapshot in a series of snapshots. These discussions have demonstrated that the interest of these great people continues just as their work continues. It’s not just one-shot contribution. These discussions have demonstrated also that good creative work is supported by invisible beings. This is a reassurance to many people to learn that as they take on important projects on earth, they may well find that invisible entities are interested in what they are doing and can help out in subtle ways…And there is the higher correspondence of it also: when spirits try to initiate a project on earth, they are able to find individuals who are interested in and capable of providing the physical support of it (although it was a great strain... )
There are spirits and personalities for countries as well as individuals. The spirit or inner being of a country would be THE IDEALS the country has represented since its founding. The personality would be the actual public expression of these ideals in the physical plane. For example, the spirit of inner being of America would be the ideal the United Sates has represented since its founding.
Spirits said that « unfortunately, the personality of the United States has been somewhat ILL and has not been fulfilling the destiny of the spirit of America. And this country was formed with such promise and solid ideals that it is a real disappointment and cause of alarm to see its personality – the populace, really – losing sight of them. This has become a hindrance to the growth of the country as a whole, but it is more than this alone – it is a cloud over the whole world. At one time, the United States represented a beacon of light and hope to the rest of the world, but this has been altered approximately in the last 30 years.
Spirits still hope that the United States will take the leadership role in the world – not by dint of its military and economic power, but by once again living the principles on which the country was founded. Spirits think that America’s potential for true enlightened leadership can once again be tapped.
In the hope that my long work of typing, my time and energy will be useful to provoke intelligent thinking about the present, I leave some Spirit individuals, who have been leaders at different stages of the history of the United States, talk about the problems and challenges facing the United States today, as it struggles to fulfil its destiny:
-- ********--
Spirit Alexander Hamilton: « Historically, the role I’m most noted for as Alexander Hamilton was the part I played in the creation of the American economic system. I was the first secretary of the Treasury, which meant it fell to me to try to figure out a system of monetary and fiscal responsibility. So I would like to spend my limited time in this interview commenting on the economic policy of today, as well as the government’s role in the economy, the government’s role in the private sector, and the vast accumulation of power by the government over the years, especially in the realm of economy. I have an old, old friend who has stated many times – and is oft quoted by economics and political scientists – that one of the major drawbacks of the democratic system is that once individuals discover the power of the vote, they begin voting themselves benefits from the coffers of the government, particularly as the tax receipts grow in size and the government has more and more money to disburse. One of the major changes that has occurred politically since the beginning of this country has been the enfranchisement of a large number of voters who are not productive but who wield a great deal of power, because their vote, EN MASSE, is critical to the election of government officials. In the early years of the Republic, each man and woman had to be productive, because the government at that time did not dish out money to people for merely existing. This major shift in the function of the government over the years has caused some major dislocations.
1) One of the first problems that must be dealt with in order to refocus the economy so its reflects the ideals of the spirit of America again is this transfer of funds from productive to non-productive individuals. As the ratio of non-productive to productive individuals has grown over the years, with more and more people receiving government funds, it has put a severe strain on those who are producing. This strain is evidenced primarily in higher taxes. But what is the incentive to produce more, when the more you produce, the less you are rewarded?
I do not think that there is enough focus on the part of the government, the populace in general, and the thinkers in this country on the actual problem. It’s talked about in different ways. It’s talked about by politicians in ways that won’t offend the non-productive voters, and it’s talked about by the productive members of society in terms of the heavy burden of taxation. But that sets them up to be accused of being greedy. They are told that they should be willing to give up the fruits of their labours for the good of the country. But it’s not for the good of the country – it’s only for the good of the non-productive members of the country.
The reason why this is such a serious problem is because it is the nature of a democracy to ignore this kind of inequity. The non-productive obviously aren’t going to complain about it, and the politicians don’t want to upset them, so the only people who are overtly concerned about it are those being taxed – and they get criticised for being greedy. So the problem gets larger without anyone doing anything about it. But sooner or later it will reach a crisis stage, and this will happen in either one of two ways:
- Either it will become fiscally impossible to continue transferring the wealth of the country in this way – at which time those who are non-productive will have to face the stark reality that they will no longer receive funds for doing nothing –
- Or, those who are non-productive will become so dominant that they will vote in officials who will take away all incentive for being productive, in order to protect the non-productive, much as Ayn Rand portrayed it in her fine book.
Sitter: « Atlas Shrugged ».
Hamilton: Yes. To avoid either one of these two extremes, it will be necessary for the public to work toward an « in-between » solution. And I would emphasise the words IN-BETWEEN and COMPROMISE. It’s very easy to become polarised on this crucial economic issue either you are for welfare transfer payments or you are for private enterprise and business incentive. Each side tends to polarise on the issue and accuse the other of ruining business on the one hand or being heartless on the other. It’s the old liberal and conservative conflict. But the fact remains that this is an issue which must be dealt with. It has become clear to every individual in this country that continuing these massive transfers of wealth from the productive to the non-productive can only lead to an economic crisis. Unless some limits are put on the taxation of productivity and some meaningful ceilings are put on the welfare portion of the federal budget, this problem will get worse instead of better.
In the early days of the United States, we had very low taxes. After all, we had fought a war in order to rid ourselves of what we felt was an excessive tax on our productivity. We did not think that anyone across the sea had the right to tax the products of our labours just because they had claimed our shoreline once upon a time. But the incentive of the American economic dream has in a sense been lost. The more that wealth is transferred from the productive to the non-productive, the less and less incentive there is to produce.
So along with placing limits on what the non-productive should be entitled to, the shackles must be removed from private enterprise. The individual needs greater incentive to work harder and longer – to be more productive – whether he’s a small businessperson, a worker in a factory, or someone providing professional services. And that means being able to keep more of what he or she earns – which means limiting taxation.
This issue is simple and straightforward. Yet when it is taken before the Congress, it becomes complex, because of all the special interests that have cropped up in this country – and the tremendous economic power the government now wields. And yet, it is the biggest problem that exists in America today, and it’s not being solved.
2) Now, there has been a lot of discussion lately [1981] about inflation being the all-encompassing problem today – the cause of all economic problems. Inflation has always moved in cycles throughout history. If one dares look at economic history going as far back as ancient Egypt – which is, I daresay, farther than we want to go – the inflationary cycle has always existed. And it has always existed because it is a hidden and devious means for extracting more tax from the populace. I don’t intend to go into a textbook explanation of what inflation is. I just want to say that inflation is caused by the bureaucrats and the government. Rather than raise taxes and take the consequences, the government – whether it’s a democracy, a theocracy, a monarchy, or a fascist dictatorship – makes the decision to inflate the currency. This is done by printing more money or by massive borrowing – I don’t want to go into the mechanics of inflation – but it’s really a subtle form o raising more money for the government.
Make no mistake about it – it’s the government that inflates. Nobody else does. The individual worker doesn’t inflate. The owner of a business doesn’t inflate. Nobody inflates but the bureaucrats and the politicians.
If you would study history, you would find that we were concerned about inflation in my day, too. We realised that it had its place – I certainly opted for the old inflationary technique myself at times, and saw massive depreciations of currency and all the effects of inflation.
How do we solve the problem of inflation? You solve it the way it’s always been solved, and that is to make the hard and fast decision that it is not in the best interest of the country to continue inflating. Now, that may sound very simple – and it is!
And the simplest way to halt inflation is to adopt a gold standard or silver standard or some value by which the currency is measured. Historically, we have been on the gold standard before, but presently are not. For any student of economics, the critical point in this country’s battle with inflation was the time when the currency was taken off the gold standard. That’s the time when the politicians said: « Get ready, folks, the money is going to come pouring out and inflation is going to get much worse. »
Just as a side note, it might behoove the people who have been very distressed by the recent problems of inflation to look at their history. They will find that during the period before America went off the gold standard, the government absolutely refused to inflate. But the economy was stagnating very badly, and there were those who accused the government of being heartless, cold and cruel. And the inflationists said that to get out of this economic mess, we must inflate. Of course, that is ironic when you look at what inflation has led us to now.
The solution is in between he extremes of inflation and stagnation. I would advocate a move back to the gold standard, bringing inflation under control and then moderating in between the extremes. As with the productivity issue, there are two sides in this country – the people who refuse to bite the bullet and bring down inflation because of the effects this would have on those whose income is improved by inflation, and the hard money crew, who have become more vocal in the last decade and who are saying that we should never inflate and we must do away with money and go back to gold bullion.
And again, the answer lies in compromise and prudent judgement – which is somewhat lacking today. I would propose a return to a gold-backed currency that the populace can be assured will retain its value – but in the same breath I would say a little flexibility must be permitted in working with the supply of money. A little inflation is better than none at all – or a lot.
3) There’s one more issue I would like to address before we get to the questions, and that is the world economic condition, which is much more interrelated than it was during my physical existence as Alexander Hamilton. The world is poised on a delicate economic thread. I would like to raise the flag for those who may not be sophisticated in economic terms but who may happen to read these words and mention that a massive amount of debt has been incurred by all countries. The United States has basically been operating by borrowing money for the last decade, and so has much of the world. Not only has the United States caused a lot of economic disruption by the transfer of wealth and the increase of public debt, but so have most other countries.
I might say that the transfer of wealth that is occurring on a micro scale in the United States is occurring on a macro scale in the world. Large amounts of money are being transferred from the most productive nations in the world to the non-productive, and this is most alarming. The vehicle for this transfer has largely been the oil producing countries, who have succeeded in extracting a very large “tax” from the industrialised countries and then have turned around and lent this money to the less-developed and non-productive countries, as well as consuming it themselves. And while I am not saying that all of this money has been mismanaged – many of the oil producing countries have many worthwhile projects going – a majority of the oil money has been directed into the hands of the non-productive, and this creates the potential for quite an economic dislocation.
We are finding there is a situation in the world where increasingly large amounts of debt are not able to be repaid. It is in the public press every day. If you read the paper with economic eyes, you can almost always find a story about some country which is having a big meeting with western benefactors because it can’t pay its debt and they want to restructure it so they can continue not having to repay it.
The solution to this problem is more complex than the first two I talked about. The first step is for the productive nations to recognise just what is going on – that the oil production has TAXED the productive countries. It should be clear to any student of history that the oil producing countries of the world were mostly non-productive countries. They did not have vibrant economies. But now, because they are able TO CONTROL the supply of oil and BLACKMAIL the productive countries, they are producing an extreme dislocation of world wealth.
Once the problem is understood, the solution lies in finding ways to reduce or eliminate this BLACKMAIL, by trying to provide other ways for developing nations to acquire the same economic benefits that the producing nations enjoy.
The point I am making here is that the same problem with the transfer of wealth that we find in the United States is occurring on a global scale. And this is a critical problem at both levels, because the productive are becoming less and less enchanted with working hard, since they have less and less incentive to produce. So it is absolutely vital to find ways to stop or lessen these massive transfers of wealth.
These are the three major points I wanted to make. Do you have questions?
Sitter: I’m a little bit of a loss to figure out how to handle the tax by the OPEC countries. Can you comment on that a little more specifically?
Hamilton: Well, I may let some of the diplomatic experts who will be participating in this interview handle that question, because it is a DIPLOMATIC ISSUE as well as an ECONOMIC ISSUE. But I will say that diplomacy without a sound economic policy has caused this problem. For many years, the foreign policy of this country has been directed without an extensive study of the economic consequences of particular actions. Although economic conditions often do lead to diplomatic actions, pure diplomatic policies are often undertaken without any thought of how they may be backing this country into an economic corner, or causing one country to unleash its economic wrath upon another.
Sitter: Is there someone in specific coming in later I should ask about the diplomatic factor?
Hamilton: Why, sure. It’s the individual [Benjamin Franklin] who refused to discuss diplomacy the last time you interviewed him. [Laughter]
Sitter: Good. I’m waiting to get him. [More laughter.]
Hamilton: we figured that.
Sitter: Then let me take up your second point. What do you have to say about those individuals who propose that we should have a constitutional limitation on taxes, limiting them to increases in the gross national product, or that we should amend the Constitution to mandate a balanced budget? Are these viable solutions?
Hamilton: Too much emphasis is placed upon the balanced budget. This is not to say that a balanced budget is not desirable. But over the years, the government has become so sophisticated that a balanced budget is really meaningless. First of all, there are so many items that are off the budget and out of control that even if the budget were balanced, it wouldn’t be. I’m trying to steer away from detailed economics, but I think I can give you an example of what I mean. When the government guarantees a loan to a farmer, that is an “off budget” item which could become “on budget” if the farmer defaults. And there are so many such “off budget” items that even if the published budget were balanced, it wouldn’t make any difference.
It is very hard to discuss this in simple terms, but suffice it to say that an unbalanced budget is not necessarily the cause of inflation. For many years the government operated without a balanced budget and with very large deficits, yet inflation was not very high. The government merely borrowed money. The point is that the government has borrowed so much money in the last ten years that it has reached the point where it is not going to be able to do it much longer.
The budget deficit should be brought back into reason. Bu it is misleading to assume that a balanced budget will end inflation. The government would find other ways to inflate. Many other governments in history have inflated without a budget deficit.
Sitter: What about a constitutional amendment to –
Hamilton: A constitutional amendment to limit federal spending would be a very good first step and would go a long way to providing a grasp on the problem.
Sitter: Tying spending to the gross national product or something like that.
Hamilton: Sure. It could be an arbitrary rate – it doesn’t really make much difference.
The problem is that many of the transfer payments are not budgeted at all. For instance, the government does not say at the beginning of the year that it is only going to spend ‘x’ number of dollars on welfare this year, so we will probably have to spend this much money.” Now, if more people end up on welfare than the government projected, the budget deficit will get worse. It is not budgeted in the usual sense.
Of course, you can anticipate the political difficulties of saying: “We will spend ‘x’ number of dollars on welfare and when the money runs out, no one will get any more.” It would be very healthy for the economy, however.
Sitter: Very healthy or very unhealthy?
Hamilton: Very healthy for the economy. It would be hard to do politically, but the problem must be addressed and government expenditures must be brought into line. That would be a good place to start – to limit federal spending to a particular level and let it grow only as the gross national product grows.
Sitter: Well, who’s going to successfully articulate these themes and translate them into policy when we have such strong pressure groups around that will fight such reform vigorously? And then there are the bureaucrats who administer these programs; he will tend to oppose any reform as well. And of course there are certain elected government officials who know they have a constituency they dare not anger.
Hamilton: This is true. But one of the beauties of the free enterprise system, if we can still call it that, is that if the public and the politicians and the bureaucrats refuse to face reality and correct this kind of problem, the problem will ultimately correct itself. Of course, it will correct itself in a most uncomfortable manner.
Sitter: A major depression?
Hamilton: Possibly. That’s not necessarily probable, but it might happen.
Sitter: What’s more uncomfortable than a major depression? [Laughter.]
Another sitter: Yes, what did you have in mind?
Hamilton: Well, I don’t know. One of the interesting things about economics is that all you have is history. All you have is the ability to look at the way things were ten years ago, the way things were twenty years ago, and so on. And by studying what happened in the past, you make your deduction hat if the economy continues as it has been going, hen we will have a depression, or a runaway inflation, or severe dislocations.
Generally, you will be surprised what actually does happen.
Sitter: You’re not going to make a prediction?
Hamilton: Let see – AM I going to make a prediction?
Sitter: Oh, go ahead!
Another sitter: He’s going to predict whether or not he will make a prediction. [Laughter.]
Hamilton: Well, there are so many factors that it is very hard to make a prediction. Do not believe we will have a depression. I do believe that unless the government takes the action which is necessary to bring inflation under control, the chance of severe destruction of the currency is very high. I would say here’s about a ninety percent chance of inflation getting out of control and continuing for many years.
Sitter: You mean as bad as it is in South America, where the inflation is one hundred or two hundred percent a year?
Hamilton: it’s very possible. This would not mean that it would be unbearable to live. It just means you would have to adjust.
Sitter: Sure.
Hamilton: My major prediction, though, would be that those who are productive are going to revolt. This is already happening, actually. It is evident in the amount of commerce which transpires unrecorded – the so-called underground or cash economy.
Sitter: The barter system?
Hamilton: Yes, the barter system is regaining popularity. And IT’S THE NATURAL THING TO DO when the government takes too much of the fruits of your labour. When that happens, you might as well try to get around it as best as you can. It’s not legal, but not too many revolutions ARE legal.
It’s very possible that the underground economy would survive even if there was a severe economic dislocation.
Sitter: It would be very hard for people living on pensions and retirement funds, though.
Hamilton: The real problem is that if our economic problems were dealt with forthrightly, many individuals would suffer. And the people who would suffer would be those who are on the receiving end of transfer payments. Now, if you are a politician, or even the president of a large multinational corporation, you may make the decision that inflation is far superior to anarchy. Because anarchy is what would happen if you cut off payments to the non-productive members of society and they took to the streets. I’m sure this decision has been made – that 20 or 30 or even 50 percent inflation per year would be desirable than anarchy.
Sitter: Even when Milton Friedman discusses these reforms, he suggests they be phased over a period of years so that the momentum quietly slows down in a healthy way.
Hamilton: That’s the only way politically you can do it. The hard-liners on both ends of the spectrum are the ones who are wrong.
Sitter: As we speak here in the middle of 1981, are you pleased by the efforts of the current [Reagan] administration to institute some reforms?
Hamilton: Yes, it’s a very good first step. Unfortunately, the momentum is such that it is going to take much more than what has been done. What is being attempted at present will be much more watered down in its final form. The political realities will once again win out over the economic necessities, but it is a good first step. I think the democratic process spoke in the recent election. The people said: “Okay, we are tired of this now and we want something else.”
Sitter: I don’t want to get you off of the practical subjects you’ve been addressing – I’ve been very much interested in what you’ve been saying – but could you talk a little bit about the role of the economy in fulfilling the destiny of America? Is it a special role?
Hamilton: Thank you for bringing that up. In the past, America has been an outstanding demonstration of what A FREE INDIVIDUAL could produce when left on his or her own. The economy of this country was built on THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM, where the individual was FREE to enjoy the income he produced from his labours WITHOUT TAXATION. The free enterprise system gave every American the opportunity to produce whatever he wanted to for whatever price he wanted to charge. The American was free to pursue his own destiny with whatever measure of vigour – or lack thereof – he had.
The American economic system was the greatest demonstration in the history of the world of WHAT FREEDOM CAN DO TO MOTIVATE individuals and groups of individuals. And this demonstration of freedom provided us with the best standard of living and the greatest economic miracle the world has ever seen.
Of course, the free enterprise system is no longer free. As we talk here today, six countries now have a higher standard of living than America. Now, they do tend to be the oil producing nations, and this will eventually change. I don’t want to get into that.
But this country has lost sight of its economic ideal. It has gotten itself enmeshed in the same difficulties that other countries have. As the United State grew up and became more and more involved in WORLD POLITICS, some of the attitudes and priorities common in the rest of the world have rubbed off on our politicians. We have accepted ideas that have tarnished our FREEDOM.
After all, as government officials interact diplomatically with the members of other governments, they are able to see what is happening in those systems. And even though freedom may be in short supply in certains countries, it may appear that these countries are doing well economically and that the leaders of these countries are popular. So it is tempting to want to change your own system, thinking that maybe a new idea from over here and another one from over there will work in America, too.
As a result, many of the principles of socialist, fascist, and communist systems have been brought into the American system, particularly in the area of economics. These all tend to favour a powerful centralised economy as opposed to a free enterprise system.
Sitter: You are saying that certain socialist, fascist, and communist economic concepts have infected the economy of the United States?
Hamilton: Yes. In many ways economically, we have become almost the same as a majority of the countries in the world, except in size. Our government CONTROLS the economy centrally just as much as it is CONTROLLED in other countries. Well, not as much as it is controlled in the Soviet Union, but certainly as much as it is in Germany, France, and England. We may call it by a different name, but it still smells the same!
Sitter: Are you suggesting, then, that we have lost a good deal of our ECONOMIC FREEDOM?
Hamilton: Our economic freedom is just a memory from the past. I would take a bet against anyone who thought he could prove that we still have very much economic freedom.
Sitter: You are not suggesting, though, that we should return to the unrestrained, unregulated economic climate of the mid-nineteenth century, are you?
Hamilton: No, I am not suggesting that we move backwards. But there are certain steps we could take to move BACK TOWARD OUR IDEALS that would be beneficial.
Sitter: Well, what does that mean? Is there a keynote or idea or purpose we should be heading toward in the future? Are we suppose to recapture what we had economically but have lost? Or are we supposed to hammer out some kind of a new definition which will restore America’s economic destiny?
Hamilton: I believe that WE HAVE ALL THE SEEDS NOW for making a new definition. The difficulty lies in needing to leave old ideas behind to make way for the new definition, yet at the same time incorporating the best of the old ideas into the new.
First of all, the United States needs a new sense of definition and direction. I think we all agree to that.
The American public is sort of muddling around here, wondering who we are and why we are here and what our role in the world is.
The central feature of America’s identity – of who we are – has always been FREEDOM. And the greatest demonstration of this freedom to the world has always been the way in which we manage our affairs INTERNALLY. You can’t convince a rational person in Argentina that you have good ideas they ought to adopt when they can look at the economic mess in your own country and chuckle, “YOU are going to help US?”
The definition of what America is to become economically must be made by seeing how the pendulum has swung from the excesses of the nineteenth century to the excesses of the twentieth century and finding a compromise in between those extremes which guarantees ECONOMIC FREEDOM for the productive and compassionate care for those members of the society who are UNABLE to be productive.
It is good to remember that during the early stages of this country’s development, there was always economic opportunity. If you were out of work, you simply moved West and began a new life. There was always more land to conquer and more factories to build. It was only as the United States moved into the twentieth century and there was no more land to develop that it began experiencing some of the same problems of caring for the economically disadvantaged that the older countries in the world has been facing right along. But unfortunately, instead of developing new ideas based on AMERICAN FREE ENTERPRISE, we tried to solve these problems with worn out ideas.
There is a solution to this problem which is uniquely American. It has yet to be found, however, because we have been relying more on outside help than our own initiative. We must return to the basic principle of American economic freedom and enunciate it once again. If we do, and we keep THE IDEAL OF INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC FREEDOM in the background of all economic decisions that are made, then not only will our modern politics get back on track but we will also see the new definition you speak of emerging in a way that will have real meaning.
Sitter: You almost seem to be implying that the ultimate resolution of the way we provide for those who are at the receiving end of welfare must be within the context of individual economic freedom, which is not at present. These people are as enslaved to our system as those who are being TAXED to support it.
Hamilton: Sure. I don’t think anyone living on welfare or receiving money from the government really feels good about it.
Sitter: Then in addition to economic reform, we need to promote the work ethic and incentives for PHILANTHROPY. Is this what you mean?
Hamilton: Sure. Some of the old ideas weren’t too bad. [Laughter.]
Sitter: Yes.
Hamilton: Well, I don’t know if I have said everything I should have, but I think it is time to yield the stand to the next person. We have a whole committee here, so I don’t want to hold things up. But I will be around for the rest of the session, so if you want me to pop in for another question or two, just speak the word.
Sitter: All right.
Hamilton: I thank you.
Sitters: Thank you.
[The spirit of Alexander Hamilton then withdrew from the body of the medium and was replaced by the spirit of Thomas Jefferson.]
-- ********--
.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
