Forum Thread

LaRouche encounter recounter

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    They'd set up their table in front of the post office. On it was various literature, from single page to pamphlet to booklet. I was handed a single page, and told that I could purchase a booklet. I asked price. "Twenty-five". "Cents?" I asked. "Dollars. It costs us a lot to have this quality of material written and printed," I was told.
    Having seen on the "apron" of their table the pictures of the swastika and Obama with Hitler mustache, I politely declined purchasing. Since debate on the sidewalk cost nothing, I took a few moments to try to find out from whence derives such divisive and detrimental doctrine. My lord, conflating any president of the United States with Hitler?!?!?!
    The LaRouche-ian perpsective is that we must go back to a founding-father-era CREDIT ECONOMY solely under the jurisdiction of the government, rather than in any private enterprise hands. For such as the House of Morgan (especially) . . . and ever since . . . the economy and country have been sacrificed to fascism. The difference between credit economy and monetary economy (where debts must be settled) is too complex to go into here.
    After my brief futile attempts to get a question in edgewise, the woman of the table-pair became annoyed with me because I wouldn't just listen to her spiel. She all but told me to go away.
    I did. Three minutes later I was home where I read the pamphlet the guy told me to take (he'd pay for it himself). I read it quickly and wrote the following. I think it's self-explanatory -- and, as well, reveals some of what LaRouche's credit economy is about.
    Along with the this little essay I handed the table-pair (she looking a bit sheepish) my book THE NEW SURVIVAL ECONOMY (available thru Amazon,, and elsewhere. On a post-it I also suggested they get my THE WAR EFFORT GOT US OUT OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION . . NOW WE NEED A PEACE EFFORT . . . (same availability).

    My retort-response ............. Monetarism has a substantive basis – a product or a crop or labor etc.
    The "liquidation of present goods into money" could be viewed as
    a "goods-standard" (compare to gold-standard) foundation of value,
    of which the money (scrip, share, bond, etc.) is a "construct", a
    device to simplify transactions.

    Credit system, which "operates on the confidence in the future" has been
    the means to the end of a viable productivity economy: substantive
    basis of valuations (rather than just speculative-"futures") – and keeping
    people working .
    "Within a credit system, debts are not self-evident objects; the action which generates value through the process of their extinguishment is included in their creation."
    "Money can be converted into capital and goods, but credit, though itself not capital, increases the efficiency of capital. Credit makes the same quantity of capital or labor more efficient and productive . . . . . "
    quoted from the LaRouche pamphlet

    On the basis of a "credit-system" economy, the "substantive patriotism" of
    establishing and maintaining American industries and jobs gave way to
    off-shoring based on the "mental powers which increase the productive
    powers of labor . . . ."
    and the mass-productivity and massive profitability
    resulting from dirt-cheap, foreign labor-force. And there's deleterious
    unemployment here!!
    On the basis of "credit-system" "mental powers", the processes of maximizing
    profit-projections (rather than retro-remunerations from monetarism's
    actual substantives such as products made) . . . . . :"credit-conceptuality"
    resulted in "bundling" mortgages, further combinations into "tranches"
    and all along, based on value-ascent assumptions, a real estate debacle.

    Monetarism represents a "stuff-standard" basis for an economy ("stuff" including
    jobs, real estate, products, and on and on.
    Credit-system had to be the economic instatement when the country was first
    being developed, its factories and farms and other forms of enterprise not
    in existence.

    We're so far beyond the Hamilton-Carey-Biddle, et. al. paradigm of country and
    economy that Larouchian promulgations are retro-simplistic.
    Without substantive basis, economy becomes mere construct, the "issue" of
    its economic representation a self-defining delusion of value.
    And in this era of communication and technology and trade and interinvolvement
    otherwise, to espouse any kind of Monro-doctrinal recidivism and isolation-
    ism would be ill-advised. Our inver-involvement with other nations in trade
    is a form of reciprocal DÉTENTE – and better an alms race than what would
    likely devolve into arms race (such as with China) were we not in symbiotic
    economic involvement.