Letter to the ECF-group 2002-10-05



Hi Luis,



Yes, the problem is to find a language that will do the job. There are advantages 

in using a more scientific language but one problem is that I do not have access 

to the tribunes where scientific language is used so I have found that it does 

not work.



As you say the experts have created a fiscal language that they believe is serving 

them. They will not change it if they can avoid that. The only way is to make the 

layman  come with embarrassing  questions, questions that show that he has seen 

through the plot. That he has  realized that their language is serving nobody, not 

even the experts.



If we realize that the value of money is the flow of commodities divided with the 

flow of  money we see that  it is the flow of money that matters. The flow of money 

is the product  of  the amount of money and the circulating rate for a money-unit. 

Hence it does not matter if  we increase the flow through taxes that increase the 

circulation rate or by printing more money which will increase the amount of money.



When I try to say that I usually meet the argument that printing more money will give 

hyper-inflation and that this is a proven truth. But the proofs are proofs that we 

can not relieve a famine by printing money. And, of course, taxation will not 

relieve a famine either. So such examples  do not say anything about printing 

money instead of taking taxes.



The belief that we have to pay taxes is of religious nature. It is just as the belief  

we once had that we all must believe in the same God. With an economic system that 

use fiat money we can just as well take away all taxes and print the money we need 

for public needs.



But there are also other ways. One is to grant the citizens loans with a fair interest 

that can be used for public needs. This would make it possible for more of us to 

realize our ideas.



Suppose that one out of a thousand gets an idea that could be a substantial progress. 

Suppose that one out of a thousand has the economic means to realize an idea. Then one 

out of a million will be able to realize a substantial progress. For Sweden that is ten 

per generation which is just about what we have today.



Suppose that we gave everyone the economic means. This would also stimulate new ideas 

so that we might have one out of a hundred that realized a substantial progress. Instead 

of ten per generation we would have hundred thousand per generation. And still we would 

have capacity for everyday production.



That is my view of a “wealth-economy”.



Our unused potential for progress is enormous. I hope that your and Lars models can be 

used as tools to show this.





http://netec.wustl.edu/WoPEc/data/Papers/wpawuwpge9805002.html

http://home6.swipnet.se/~w-61407/english.htm



(I place this letter on my homepage for economy with links to your and Lars homepage).



Leif