http://normeconomics.com/distribution.html

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”1

This exercise, Mr. Hart has so painstakingly explained ,is just going round and round the bush of wealth redistribution in typical academia style were having many letters after your name makes you an expert in how people should live their lives and conduct their business of subsistence and prosperity. The practicality of addressing the perceived “inequalities” of the entire planet is absurd. Mr. Hart over looks the basic reason for our existence and that is to be happy. He sees his vision of the world through his learned eyes and views all others as lacking because they are not seeing things his way. He advocates and aspires to the many already failed attempts to make everyone equal. This is not only arrogant but totally illogical and impracticable. It reminds me of the old folk humorist Robert W (Bob) Murphey who told the story of the want to be “economic democrat” (the Mr. Hart et al name for a socialist) who offered his solutions to the “inequality in economy” this way: “If I was in charge I would take every bit of money, land, stock, bonds, and any other thing of value and put it in one big pile and divide it among every man, woman and child in the country.” Mr. Murphey replied “ Don’t you realize that before long some folks will get up a little earlier and work a little harder and pretty soon we will be right back in the same situation.” The economic democrat said “No Murphey, you don’t understand, I mean divide it up every day.”.
It should be evident that we are all unique. There is no two that are the same. Our idea of happiness may be the same or more than likely be different. Because people don’t live in a “modern society” and earn their living with their hands doesn’t mean they are unhappy and to be pitied. To them maybe they feel they are ahead of the virtual money economy. Agrarian society has offered and still offers levels of happiness that the modern virtual money world can only imagine. Rupert Sheldrake observed that on his visits to the Indian villages it was refreshing to see so many smiling faces. Then when walking down the streets of London and see none. Happiness is not always in the “modern society” nor a agrarian society.
Mr. Hart states and believes that “Everyone benefits from redistribution”. By everyone who is he referencing. If people want to donate their means or time to help others in need that is a correct and proper choice; however to take, by expropriation, from one to give to another is immoral and criminal. We recognize crime and its injustice. Those who have had their home broken into by burglars not only loose their valuables but also loose their feeling of security or lose of something sacred. The motivation for all crimes is simple. It is the idea that something can be gained for nothing. In other words very little or no work can gain prosperity. This is an old and lasting false idea and today it is more prevalent than ever in the history of the planet. It seems as if most all are in this “something for nothing” mode. Especially those who care not to work and want to depend on government charity for a living. There are very few who are unable to work and need our help. There are millions who feel it more profitable to receive government assistance than to work. There is a great concern that there are not enough workers to continue to provide for the non workers. In Italy where Parmesan/Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese, national treasure of Italy; however a labor intensive to produce. It is produced by foreigner immigrants because the Italians refuse to work. There are many such examples, too numerous to recount here, in the UK which make the Italians look like novices. When it comes to avoiding work a Brit is the quintessential example. This has come about by the very programs Mr. Hart is suggesting for the entire planet. This pseudo charity has taken the self respect from its recipients and has created more poor than it has ever helped. These programs were never intended to help the poor but control the masses. If the government were actually interested in helping people they would go about it in a completely different way. As it is they have created a situation where the bureaucracy controls the people and never helps them because it is a self perpetuating business. If the people were help in the correct way they would soon become independent and self reliant and would not need the governments make believe charity. So the bureaucrats keep giving them just enough to keep them living but not what they need to become independent of the false charity. Moses Maimonides gave the explanation of true charity in the twelfth century this way: (paraphrasing) “The greatest level, above which there is no greater, is to support a fellow by endowing him with a gift or loan, or entering into a partnership with him, or finding employment for him, in order to strengthen his hand until he need no longer be dependent upon others” . . .2
Reversing this crime of government taking from one to give to another is almost impossible without an all out revolution. It is the Pandora’s box that will bring down governments and societies because it is a two edge sword. On one hand it has created people dependent rather than independent and they are like the suckling pig who will raise the roof to be able to return to mothers teat. On the other it has created non workers which are desperately needed to continue the “modern society”. The non workers/dependent sucklings can not provider for themselves and will revolt or die.
The current Keynesian economy Mr. Hart refers to as a”Remedy” for all our money ills is in fact the very cause of the stated inequality. Braudel3 believed that almost all capitalist were monopolist and to quote John D. Rockefeller “ competition is a sin.” helps to validate Braudel’s belief. Carlos Slim, said to be the riches man on the planet, got to be extremely wealthy through government intervention into the free market which gave him a way to monopolize the telephone business in Mexico and other countries. Government intervention is always a result of a monopolist miss using the power of the state to crush or fatally injure the competition by bribing the elected law makers who’s job it was, as Mr. Hart quoted Locke’s wise and important reason for government, to effectuate this: “The end of law is… to preserve and enlarge freedom”. Freedom is “…a liberty to dispose and order, as he lists, his person, actions, possessions and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.”. Governments have fostered monopolies under the guise of preventing them and miserably failed at securing Locke’s idea. Monopolies in business and the market are important however, these are small potatoes because the most important monopoly is the money monopoly.
Mr. Hart has well stated the problems with money monopolies and his solution is to create our own money. He searches for a medium of exchange that the entire planet would accept and suggest some form of digital money. He admits that money now days in the world market is computer entries or simply information or as he states memory. The whole world market has accepted this computer Keynesian money and it has been the cause of the continued wealth disparity. His solution has, at its root, the problem of who will be the one to administer the computer money. A computer functions on ones and zeros and most all personal and other computers have the same amount of ones and zeros. So the question arises why don’t I have as much money as everybody else because my computer has as many ones and zeros as everybody else. The cheating of the middle class and the poor by creating money from computer entries without work being done to justify such entries is the heart and cause of the entire wealth disparity situation. It is the central bankers and monopolist who have embraced this form of “something for nothing” which is also an immoral and criminal act.
When central banks create money it is virtual money or computer money. Money, as Mr. Hart points out, is suppose to be a store of value. How can these computer entries be a store of value for a few and not for everyone? Who is the one who is so intelligent or so corrupt to know exactly what is the value of these computer entries store of value? Money is the aid in creating a market based on the distribution of commodities based on human labor or work and raw material commodities illustrated by the example of wheat changed into bread here:

In this illustration the cycle of distribution begins with the farmer selling his wheat to the mill. Then he purchases a tractor in the inter circle illustration. The money paid for the tractor came from selling the wheat which the consumer, who was a worker in the tractor factory, bought in the form of bread with his wages that came from the tractor purchase. This illustration over looks the most important question of “where does the wheat come from?”.
The wheat is sown by the farmer after work to prepare the seed bed was accomplished and after the life of the grain was instilled by God. Without these works the grain would not germinate or be grown and thus no bread for the consumer. Benjamin Franklin explained this economy in his “Positions To Be Examined” written in 17694
The entire economy, illustrated here, depends on the growing of the wheat and is in essence the true creation of money and wealth. All new wealth comes from the land and human labor/work. Seventy percent from agriculture and the rest from mining. No central bank with all its computer entries can create wealth. Locke’s ideas were based on an age where honest money and wealth creation came through commodities or raw materials produced to a useful state by people. The freedom of exchange or trade is accomplished by honest money satisfying personal happiness through the definition given by Locke of agency or freewill choices.
Honest money and its value has been arrived at in all corrupt free markets for more than five thousand years by the laws of contracts.
Contracts (offer, acceptance and consideration) are omnipresent. Example you walk in to a McDonald’s and the menu board makes the offer. Your acceptance is demonstrated by your verbal or computer order. You part with your consideration(money) to the agent who took the order and the contract is complete. Both parties are happy, except they forgot to put your order of chips/fries on the tray and when you sat down to eat you returned to note that the order was not complete which the agent for McDonald’s cheerfully rectifies the deficiency of the contract. The store of value accepted by McDonald’s is one in which they have confidence. If they lose confidence in the computer entry money as not being a store of value they soon will accept something in which they have confidence. If I eat at McDonald’s and feel as if the value of what I received was not in line with the amount of consideration I paid, then I will not eat there again. How do I determine what I ordered and ate was not worth the value of my consideration? This is a very personal decision that no central bank can decide for me. The question then is “what do I want and what am I willing to pay for it or how much can I afford to pay and afterward be happy?” I never eat at McDonald’s voluntarily but only to make other people happy which in turn makes me happy. This whole transaction depends on my personal happiness. In his quest to make the money playing field level, Mr. Hart has talked all around this very important fact without mentioning its importance.
In the so called Great Depression the Keynesian s like Mr. Hart and the central bankers of the world are under the belief that a lack of liquidity or not enough money was the whole of the problem and if there had only been enough “liquidity” the Depression would have only been a slight recession. The solution was for the government to spend its way out of the problem. So the current crises has seen an enormous amount of “liquidity” put in to prevent another Great Depression. Of course the Keynesian s crow that this is the case and they saved the world with their intervention. Not many will confess that their saving the world is only a speculation and unless the exact circumstances could be repeated without intervention no one can know the truth of their boasting.
The money of the 1930′s was coin money of gold and silver or redeemable certificates in gold or silver until Roosevelt declared gold illegal in March of 1933. Later Lyndon B. Johnson, not to be out done by his hero, created the “Great Society” intervention fashioned after Roosevelt’s “New Deal” intervention and in 1964 took the last of the silver left in the coin money and redeemable certificates out of circulation. The debasing went unnoticed by the public as a whole. Then Nixon followed by closing the gold window at the Federal Reserve in 1972. The age of fiat computer entry money was inaugurated and free to do its work of ruination by the “something for nothing” criminals.
In the Great Depression the problem was “liquidity” . It was a result of central bank manipulation with lower than normal interest rates and caused the stock market crash which lead to wide spread fear of bank failures so prudent people, not trusting banks, made a personal decision to save their gold coins for what might be a hard time ahead. This was and still is a very normal and reasonable reaction. The “liquidity” then was not in the market but under the proverbial mattress which was called savings before 1933 and then FDR derogatorily calling savings hoarding afterward. People had control of the “liquidity” not the bank, central bank nor the government. Roosevelt and the central planning bank decided , agreeing with Keynes, to change the money by removing the gold and replacing it with fiat called “Federal Reserve notes” and take the economic power away from the people and give it to the money monopoly Federal Reserve who proceeded to create their money the “something for nothing” way.
In the early years Federal Reserve notes were redeemable in gold or silver and were thus accepted by the people; however a scheme was cooked up to replace the gold coin and redeemable certificates with fiat notes. In other words the old “bait and switch” scam replacing real money with the “something for nothing” money.
The common universal currency or money that Mr. Hart is searching for was and has for five thousand years been used. It has been suppressed by the computer entry money and only functioned as a medium of exchange because people accepted it. This is no longer the case more and more people will not accept the central bank fiat. A bank may once again become a place to store money. The computer entries will be based on something that can not be produced by a few strokes of the key board. It will be based on a store of value accepted by everyone. No one I have personally interview would, and I feel certain Mr. Hart would be included, when given the choice, would select a one pound computer entry note that people have questionable confidence in, over a one pound gold sovereign. The same gold sovereign that Ian Fleming had James Bond carry on his foreign missions because no matter where he was or what the currency was he could always trade his sovereigns to get what he needed. Gold and silver are the earth wide acceptable money in which people have confidence.
There is validity in thinking that computer entries based on gold and silver can and will be the future of money. Verification of funds now is an important function of banking. It can be in the future when gold, silver or other precious metal are deposited to an account. Transactions can be exchanged denominated in grams for gold or silver. In contractual agreements, the price paid would be stated in the amount of grams of the precious metal acceptable as consideration. Plastic cards could still be used in the same manner as now only with precious metals on deposit. Credit is a different matter and maybe the Islamic and Old Testament view of interest and loans needs closer consideration. This of course is not the desire of current world market banks because they can not have the same advantage with these rules as with the current fiat computer money. They need “something for nothing” to operate their monopolies.
When money created by work and represented by a precious metal is the norm then Mr. Hart’s idea of a equality in the economy will exist as best it can. Commodities will be priced at their historical values in relation to gold and silver and poor people producing almost any commodity will be lifted from poverty. There will be a healthy and needed deflation of those things that fiat computer money has over the years inflated beyond reason. This will not come about without a war because the criminals who thrive on “something for nothing” will not give up their power to the people without a fight. Governments are not the peoples friend but their preconceived overlords with the intent to control them and their work. Honest people working the land have been creating wealth since the first contract traded consideration. The dishonest have done their best to down play the importance of commodities and of where wealth comes from because they want to gain the whole world without work. Computer entries where no work is involved will end and honest money is returning.