It is not the first time that we use the word “imposture”. When we were student, we decided to cut the node of the fables which assign us with residence and handle us in this system of being able, we knew all the weight of the lies, cynicisms and hypocrisies which are vis-a-vis us. We are not only, certainly not but this financial crisis and economic, this economic war since 2007 revealed the operations, the dogmas, the lies, the cynicism of our adversaries. In January 2011, in the speech of the poet in Glières, we gave the course, designated our enemies: winners of the Second World War. Winners since it is them which wanted it, like the first of 1914-1918; it is them which armed the Nazis after having financed and having involved the band with Trotsky in January 1917 in the buildings of Sandard Oil of Rockefeller close to New York in preparation for the wars which were going to enrich them fabulously when Soviet and Nazis would finish by entretuer to leave room to a world government of the financial oligarchy which will proclaim that it is the only able one to avoid the world wars by ensuring the economic development of all the people through the free trade and the theories of Ricardo, Malthus and others. On February 8th, 2010, in a restaurant of New York, 5 leaders of hedges funds on the councils and information of the banks, in particular of Goldman Sachs, D ` agreement are put to speculate against the euro while being attacked in first against Greece and its national debt which they explode through the increase talked nonsense in interest rates which apply to the loans of the European states. These operations are followed from day to day, particularly during the autumn 2011 then in 2012 when the states of the European Union decide to reinforce the governance of their single currency with treaties which found a new private financial technocratic power central over the governments and the people.
Concurrently to this financial war and of this dictatorship of the investment fund and the private central banks, certain economists also give voice and feather to denounce and update the economic imposture which controls the liberalism and its doctrines of the free trade, of the freedom necessary of the markets to which the people must yield in a freely authorized tender, if possible, considering it does not have other alternatives according to these impostors and as declared it with the superb insolence of the ignorami and naive and stupid guilty obstinacy, Mrs. Thatcher at London in the years 1980: the company does not exist, it has only the markets there, therefore there is no alternative to the economic liberalism. At the beginning of March 2012, left the French translation the book of the economist Erik S. Reinert: “How the rich countries became rich. Why the poor countries remain poor”, published in the editions of the Rock. The author us gratifie of an enlightened presentation of the history of the economy, the two schools, and especially it highlights the creative process of wealths, the virtuous circle of the increasing outputs as well as the vicious circle of the decreasing outputs which leaves the countries in poverty. The history of the authors and the economic facts show that since antiquity, some knew how to develop a city, an area, a country just like of others knew to plunge and maintain people in poverty, mainly through the decreasing colonialism and outputs. We will use this book to consolidate our position on fileane.com. We here will not retain the history of the economic thinking nor the demonstration which explains how the institutions of Washington, the IMF and the World Bank, knew désindustrialiser countries like Mongolia, Peru to make them poor. Some refused these doctrines of the free trade of Ricardo and they have escaped with poverty, we find the examples of Argentina, Ireland and especially the countries Asian, South Korea, Japan and China. It is a significant component of imposture towards the poor countries: we, rich countries developed our industry thanks to protectionism but you, the poor countries, we prohibit protectionism to you and so much worse if you cannot industrialize you. These poor countries must thus make as made the rich countries but especially not adopt the current speeches of the latter. The second element of imposture relates to the control of the creative process of the wealths with the increasing outputs. The leaders of the systems of economic power always knew it since Antiquity but according to their private interests, they prohibited it or handled, arranged on several occasions and this always ended in periods of misery and revolt of misery. However, they hide us that we are today during such a crisis period and back from poverty because they chose to use these contrary liberal doctrines with the virtuous circle of the growth, to precisely defend their personal revenues and their wealths of sacrificing once more the community property. We retain the heart of the matter of Reinert in this book: the creative process of wealths which succeeded yesterday in cities organized in networks, in systems of being able and which we will use tomorrow in the development of the networks of life.
Our reader knows our remarks over the time of the cathedrals, this flourishing period in Europe between 1100 and 1307. Filiation between the knights Templars, the monks Benedictines, the movement coenobite since year 500 with the Cassin Mount and filiation, the direct relationship between the Cassin Mount and the safeguarding of the lesson and the knowledge of Dendérah and Eleusis, do not suffer any dispute. The contents of this safeguarded knowledge of the Egyptian temples were fought by papacy because it comes to contradict the dogmas of the Roman Church and especially, it emphasizes the initiatory source, the spiritual approach which are opposed to the theocratic will of the leaders of the systems of religious powers, initially of the system of Christian theocratic power like in the second place of the Moslem theocratic powers and other religious theocracies which prohibit the spiritual individual approach. The book of Reinert published in 2007 in London rests on the history of the economy to confront the theories and the real situations which show how certain countries, certain cities grew rich and developed whereas others remained poor or are condemned today to remain poor by the rich countries. Until now on fileane.com, we showed the operation of the network organizations on legal” and institutional level a “: the principle of subsidiarity, the alliance of the opposites, the participative local democracy, the indissociable capitalization of the social rights of the capitalization of the commercial actions and yet prohibited and taboo. With the book of Reinert, we have the economic bases which come to supplement the institutional bases: how the virtuous circle of the economic growth is built, how the cities and the campaigns developed, then the industrialized countries, how the vicious circle of the poverty and the absence of economic growth functions. Reinert leaves the examples and of the theories since 1400 approximately, it sticks especially to the authors and achievements of the Rebirth then Age of Enlightenment until today. He writes that this virtuous circle of the growth existed already in antiquity but this author does not set off to Egypt and Dendérah (probably that no editor would have followed it on this however so excellent way, at least for a poet).
Reinert distinguishes two designs being human at the base from the economic scenes, two visions of humanity which are summarized in the declarations of Adam Smith and those of Abraham Lincoln.
We take again the following extracts of this book:
The differences between the two theories of the economy are deep, and are the result of two opposite ideas of the most fundamental characteristics of the man, and the most fundamental activity of the man. Adam Smith and Abraham Lincoln carefully defined these two points of view different from the human nature and the economic theories which result from this.
The theory based on barter was exposed in the Wealths of the Nations of Adam Smith:
The division of the labor results from a tendency of the human nature to… charging, to exchange and exchange a thing for another… It is common to all the men, and does not find at any other animal specie which seems to know neither this nor no other species of contracts… Nobody never saw a dog exchanging equitably and voluntarily a bone with another dog.
Lincoln described its theory based on the production and the innovation in a speech of the electoral campaign of 1860:
The beavers build houses, but they differently build them neither nor better, this since nearly five thousand years… The man is not the only animal which works, but it is the only one which improves its work. These improvements, it carries out them by discoveries and inventions.
These two visions different from the fundamental economic characteristics of the human beings lead to the theoretical economic ones and completely divergent proposals for an economic policy. Adam Smith speaks well about inventions, but they come besides, apart from the economic system (they are exogenic), they are free (perfect information) and they tend to assign all the companies and all the people simultaneously. In the same way, the innovations and new technologies are created automatically and free by an invisible hand which, in the current economic ideology, is called “the market”.
The two theories stated two very different origins for humanity: maybe, for that of Abraham Lincoln, at the beginning there were social relations whereas for Adam Smith, at the beginning, there were the markets….The point of view of Smith, in the English tradition leads to a hedonist barter economy and a system of value and incentive. The economic growth tends to being regarded as a mechanical addition of the capital to work. In the continental tradition, the petrol human being is a potentially noble spirit, with an active brain which constantly records and classifies the world around him, according to the definite diagrams. The economy is then centered on the production rather than on barter, and the production, the assimilation and the diffusion of knowledge and the innovations. The driving force of this economy is not the capital in oneself but the human spirit and the will. The first sight of humanity makes possible a static, simple, calculable and quantifiable theory economic. The second point of view, much more complex, also needs a theory much more complex and dynamic, whose core cannot be reduced to figures and symbols. It is important to note that “orthodoxe wisdom”, in a theory can be considered under one day entirely different in the other theory. For Jeremy Bentham, “curiosity” was bad habits; for Thorstein Veblen in 1898, “free curiosity” became the mechanism by which the human society accumulates knowledge.
Following Adam Smith, four of the important concepts to understand economic development were isolated model dominating:
The concept of innovation, which had played a significant role in English social sciences during more than one hundred fifty years.
The idea that economic development is the result of a synergy and that the person dividing the same job market made up of innovating industries, will have wages more raised than of others, idea present in the European economic thinking since the 15th century.
The awakening that various economic activities can be differently carrying economic development.
The reduction by Adam Smith of the production and the trade at work hours opened up the way for the theory ricardienne trade, still dominant today, by which the worldwide economy is conceived and understood like the example of barter of Adam Smith, when dogs exchange work hours without any quality.
The first time that a theory of type “barter and exchange” prevailed, it was with the physiocrats in France, in the years 1760. The second time was during the years 1840. Mainly to provide to its blue-collar workers of industry of the bread at a cheap rate, England stopped protecting its agriculture by tariff barriers and, at the same time, sought to encourage other countries to make in the same way with their industry. It was thought whereas the growth of the social inequalities - what during one century, will be called the “social question” - disappears as soon as all the restrictions on the economy would be removed. In the final analysis, that involved social disturbances much more serious. The modern Welfare state was built step by step starting from this chaos.
In terms of economic policy, no historical period resembles years 1990 as much as the years 1840. The two periods are characterized by an immense and irrational optimism based on a technological revolution. In 1840 the age of the vapor was into full expansion. In 1971, Intel developed its first microprocessor and, in the years 1990, a new economic paradigm techno was spread again. Such paradigms, founded to the goods of the productivity of specific sectors, relate in them of possible quantum jumps of development. But they also carry in them a speculative frenzy and many projects and practices which would like that normal industries behave like industries in the middle of this paradigm. (page 188) During these two periods, they were encouraged by an euphoric stock market which wanted firmly to believe that could be real - and for a long time, it was real - simply because sufficient people believed in it. But most case did not balance themselves in a happy way. (page 189).
End of the extracts of the book of Reinert.
Useless to specify that this comparison between the dogs or the beavers and the human being remains very down to earth and that we are very far from the vision which the poet brings back on ground since his dialogs of the heart for the heart and its confrontation with the mysteries of the life. Of course, the vision of Lincoln is in the right wire of the intelligent design and alive human being which exist since the origins of humanity and it is very close to that which we develop in the organization of the networks of life. It misses a bit of spiritual advance incontestably but this limit is not annoying for us since the orientation is the good one… and that to ask moreover one economist who in his book does much effort to remain comprehensible other orthodoxe economists that it seeks more to convince that a poet already convinced since the night of times!
Much more than this question of vision human being, we find in the book of Reinert, the clear and clear economic explanation of the process of the virtuous growth towards economic development. We missed this mechanism whereas we are writing in the fourth part, the operation of the networks and in particular now the operation of the networks of production of goods and services essential to survival then the operation of the realization of works which raise the standard of living. This book at the right moment and removes us a serious difficulty to make our remarks clear and Nets, limpid also on the economic ground. We knew that we must hold of other remarks that those held by the orthodoxe economists who defend the dogma of the economic liberalism on which the system of being able of capitalism rests. We took as bases our remarks the free urban development at the time of cathedrals, the example of Décapole of Alsace after 1354 is nearly fifty years after the destruction about the Temple. We knew that these examples understand the technical solution, the economic development process which we want to bring up to date in the organization of the networks of life, once left our systems of powers. With this book of Reinert, we have this process and we know when and how it was used, how and when the leaders of the systems of being able prohibited this development process to force other theories in order to protect their personal wealths and their political powers.
Reinert poses the fundamental distinction that all the economic activities are not worth to create wealths. Certain activities contain more intelligence than others and certain situations bring productivity gains and synergies that others will never have. We must thus choose the good activities and the good situations to ensure the development of the wealths in our organizations in system or networks.
Extracted the book:
For an unmemorable time, the majority of the inhabitants of the Earth live simply, in a relative poverty, and an often fragile balance between the size of the population and the available resources. As Alfred Marshall expressed it, one of the founders of the neo-classic economy, all the migrations in the history were created by a reduction in the outputs: one population density increasing counterbalanced by an availability of the natural resources and an unchanged technology. This mechanism is described in the Bible in connection with the tribes of Israel which had to separate since the ground could not carry them to remain together. In such a world, the wealth and poverty were connected with a play with worthless sum; the wealth was primarily acquired via already existing goods which change owner. This vision of the world was codified by Aristote. At the end of the Rebirth a change of mentality occurs: many factors combined to cause the progressive disappearance of the play with worthless sum as a dominant vision of the world for in same time to in addition introduce an element of progress to the cyclic nature of the history. (page 206).
The vision of the world of Aristote, like a play with worthless sum, slowly gave way to the increasing comprehension that the new wealth could be created - and not only conquered - thanks to the innovation and with the creativity. (page 208).
“Towards the 13th century, Florentins, Pisans., Amalfitains, the Venetian ones and the Genoese ones started to adopt a different policy in order to increase their wealth and their power, having noticed that sciences, the culture of the ground, the application of arts and industry, as well as the introduction of the extensive trade, could enable them to generate an important population, to provide for their innumerable needs, to maintain a high level of luxury and to acquire immense wealths, without having to conquer new territories. ” Sebastiano Franci, reformer of the Milanese Lights, 1764. (page 205)
Very early, it was clearly, for people, that most wealths were in the cities, and more particularly in certain cities. The cities sheltered free citizens; in the countryside, people were generally serfs who belonged to the ground and to the local lord. Starting from these observations, investigations were carried out to manage to understand which factors returned the cities at this point richer than the countryside. Little by little, the wealth of the cities was perceived like the result of synergies: people coming from many and various trade and professions and forming a community. The scholar Florentin and statesmen, Brunetto Latini (1220 - 1294) described this synergy as being “it Ben commune”, i.e. to open “the community property”. Most first economists, the German mercantilists and their counterparts - cameralists - used these synergies as basic element to understand the wealth and poverty. It is the community property which makes the cities large, repeats Nicolas Machiavel (1469 - 1527), almost 300 years after Brunetto Latini. (page 207)
By the means of this social comprehension of the wealth which can be understood only like one collective phenomenon, the rebirth rediscovered and stressed the importance and the creativity of the individual. If account of these two prospects is not taken - the community property and the role of the individual - one can understand neither the vision of the company to the Rebirth nor the phenomenon of economic growth. (page 207).
End of the extracts of the book of Reinert.
We are well at the 13th century, this flourishing century organized around the monastic orders and knights who spread the knowledge and defended it against the kings and the popes. We showed the part of downward subsidiarity played by this knowledge saved since Dendérah and Egypt by Jean, Antoine, Pacôme then into 500 per Bernard de Nurcie, knowledge which was transferred to Cluny in years 900 to be put safe from threats of the popes of Rome. The process of the virtuous circle of economic development is an always masterly lesson of management of the organizations: to gather the people educated and trained in multiple trades to create a joint project: a free city, released of the system of being able dominating, yesterday the feudal system, today the liberal capitalist system. The joint project: yesterday a free city, today our networks citizens of life. This group will develop synergies. The increasing outputs rest on the effect of training (the rise in competences, always possible source of productivity gains), the economies of scale which come from the innovations in the production to save the quantities of factors of production and especially from the trade with long distance able to bring new customers especially when this trade is defended by average soldiers. The merchant fleets protected by the navies were thus the instruments of the development of the wealths of the first rich countries just like the barrel the fleet about the Temple which traded with Americas well before 1492. Synergies then come to reinforce this process of wealths based at the beginning on knowledge, the development of the knowledge. The decreasing outputs are all the opposite and apply especially to agriculture: extensive decreasing outputs when it is a question of using always more grounds to nourish a population or the cattle. Intensive decreasing outputs when one needs always more work to cultivate a ground or that the grounds are not enough any more to nourish a population increasingly large without finding least synergy.
We take again here a definition of the concept of synergy: synergy commonly reflects a phenomenon by which several actors, factors or influences acting together create an effect greater than the sum of the expected effects if they had operated independently, or create an effect that each one of them could not have obtained while acting separately. In the language running, the word is rather connoted positively, and it is used to indicate a more favorable result when several elements of a system or an organization act in concert. More prosaically, there is positive synergy when the result of an action or an element is higher than the sum of the results of the parts. This is summarized very simply by the aphorism one and one makes three. The workers of the fields, the serfs are trained at the beginning by the monks of the abbey. They become blacksmiths, masons, carpenters, musicians, doctors, fishermen, tisserands, etc Ensemble they will build the city and its ramparts, its fortifications. When a feudal lord wants to come to recover some families which gave up her ground, even with about fifty men-at-arms, it must stop in front of the walls of the city and if this lord insists, they are thousands of men-at-arms which go up on the ramparts or will make an exit to drive out it. This new power struggle is also the result of a synergy developed within the framework of the new free city. This power as well economic, cultural that political this community property cements, this property common to the town community. But the process of the development is not limited to the city.
Like Reinert shows it, there is complementarity between the countryside and urban development close to the city. The townsmen to nourish itself will use their incomes of craftsmen, tradesmen, civils servant, artists, professors to buy harvests of the peasants in the neighborhoods. The peasants will produce more, to make economies of scale and with the assistance of the craftsmen of the city, they will improve their tools, their agricultural methods. Harvests will be put at the shelter in attics behind the ramparts, within the boundary of abbeys. The monks who make wish of poverty, guarantee the equal share of the reserves at the time of the food shortages or the periods of bad harvests. Confidence develops everywhere and the surpluses are the object of trade with the close cities. The report is simple during this historical period: the complementarity city-countryside gives birth to local development. A campaign which does not have in the vicinity a city remains poor. A city built without agricultural lands will develop because the wealths which it creates will enable him to develop agriculture in the close area. The examples are known: Venice, the Italian ports, the towns of Holland thus do not have agricultural lands at them they can count only on their craftsmen, their sailors, their tradesmen. The seaboard towns will develop more quickly because they use thousands of craftsmen, carpenters, blue-collar workers to build their commercial fleets and of war. The example of the urban development of Delft in Holland is an academic case: starting from the size and polishing of glass to manufacture lenses, the city produces long-sights for the navy and the commercial marine. She attracts the scientists who develop and use the first microscopes. The painters start to use the magnifying glass to carry out extremely precise and meticulous tables by restoring in a perfect way the plays of lights, the details of a portrait like a photograph vant the hour. The lenses are also used for the artists to make darkrooms and magic lanterns good before the cinema. Trade, armament, sciences, artists involve a rise in knowledge and incomes all around the city.
A political lesson applies: the cities must draw aside from the power the land great landowners who reason differently and are logical partisans of conservatism and ancestral traditions and whose private interests threaten the interests of the cities. The management of the common property, of the community property in a city is a lesson of participative local democracy like formerly in the Greek or Egyptian cities. Nothing to see with the despotic and feudal power of the lord of the ground. Florence, located in an agricultural area, will prohibit the access to the power of the landowners and they will be the tradesmen, the craftsmen, the artists who will manage the urban development. The research of the innovation, the exercise of the creativity passes by the principle of subsidiarity taught by the monks and who will find his application most visible still today in the plans of constructions of the cathedrals, once the urban development will allow a surplus of workers who it will be necessary to occupy in the realization of works on several generations.
This logic, this mechanism of development will reproduce at the beginning of the industrialization of the countries.
Extracts of free of Reinert with our summary and reformulation:
The competitive advantage in management gets temporarily a revenue, a surplus of benefit compared to the others, which ensures a place of leader on a market. The minority of the richest city-States, in Venice and in Holland, had a dominant position on the market in three fields: in economy, they were given revenues which generated increasing benefit able to support true wages and important taxes to finance their official structure (police, army, justice, teaching). These city-states had an industrial sector and artisanal very wide and diversified which controlled a raw material significant market: salt in Venice, the fish in Holland. Finally these city-states developed a very profitable foreign trade. (Venice was a long time capital commercial of slaves between Asia and the Middle East “large consumer of slaves” (even if towards 600, the messenger prophet Mohammed repurchased the slaves around him to free them), ndrl). The towns of Holland traded starting from their manufacturing output in the textile, the face of the precious stones, the lenses of glass and salted and marinated herring… The wealth created was protected behind from solid barriers at the entry on the market. These barriers at the entry were higher knowledge, techniques of manufacturing and especially the use of powerful synergies through diversified manufacturing activities. This production was supported by economies of scale obtained thanks to the trade made safe by the military power. After 1485, England imitated the structure of the triple revenue created by the city-States of Europe. By means of a very authoritative economic intervention, England created its own system of triple revenue: manufacturing industry, trade with long distance and a raw material revenue based on wool. The success of England was going finally to lead to the death of the city-States and the development of the State-nations, the synergies found in the city-states being extended to a broader geographical zone. (page 214).
End of the extract of the book of Reinert.
In England after 1485, the royal absolutism and autocratic management replaced the network organization defended by the order of the Temple and the attempt at restoration of the time of the cathedrals by Joan of Arc isolated and was destroyed by the papacy and the king of France combined for the circumstance with the English troops. It is not most important. Essence is that the virtuous process of development functions. The fleet templière made the trade with long distance with Americas: Iroquois Indians in north, Mexico and the Andes in the center and the south. The revenue about the Temple on the level of the raw materials rested on the management of 90% of the land and buildings of the ground of France, which ruined the king of France which did not have any more that 10% of the grounds to live and pay an inevitably unimportant army. One needed the crimes of Philippe the Beautiful one starting from October 1307 to destroy the Templars, the network organization of France and to found the royal absolutism. The system of industrial power will remain on this mechanism, this creative process of wealths except that in this system, in this process, the shared interest, the community property, the common property managed by the monks and defended by the Templars, will be prohibited and will disappear. To restore the community property, the common property in the creative process of wealths and political, economic and social development represents one of the fundamental missions of the movement expressed on fileane.com.
Consequently, the history of industrial development in the capitalist system of power can be briefly summarized clearly and through the means put in work by the owners of the funded capital in the factories and the trade. The countries of Europe understood that they were to develop a diversified industry and to guarantee the confidence of the investors in the capital of the industrial societies, the public authorities protected their emergent industry by tariff barriers. The original goal was to saturate the interior market with tangible properties product bulk in order to overcome misery (point of view of the states) and in order to reach a critical size to be able to make economies of scale on other markets (point of view of the capitalists). When the interior market was saturated, the solution of colonialism with respect to the countries which provided the raw materials imposed. The explanation becomes limpid through the book of Reinert: colonialism is the international prolongation of the protectionism which the states set up to protect their industries and to use the virtuous circle of the economic growth. In light, the colonialism prohibited with the exporting raw material countries to industrialize themselves. Obviously because if not, imparablement and logically these countries would come to ruin or at least slow down the development of the industrialized countries in first. There were few countries which were opposed to this colonialism. The most important first and was the United States of America which revolted against English colonialism at the end of the 18th century. As of the years 1800, the USA developed their industry according to the well-known process and by obviously using protectionism to support their young economy. The prohibition made with the countries colonized to industrialize itself inevitably leaves them in nonthe industrialization, i.e. openly in poverty and noneconomic development.
A last proof of the frightening effectiveness of this method goes back to 1945 when with the Morgenthau plan decided by the American English and conservatives, it was a question of durably impoverishing Germany as sanction of war. The Western allies as Soviet started by destroying and recovering the machines of the German factories in order to transform Germany into a primarily agricultural country with decreasing outputs. By 1947, the results were disastrous and there was 25 million Germans in excess compared to the agricultural capacities of the country at this time there. Before even considering their death of hunger as Stalin had made for four million Ukrainians in 1930 through his land reform to collectivize the grounds, the Anglo-Saxon leaders understood that these German was going to prefer to join East Germany which was used then as window of Communism vis-a-vis the Occident. Very quickly the Marshall plan starting from 1947, was going réindustrialiser all the countries bordering on the Soviet block in order to develop them to be able to counter the threat of the Soviet Union. This Marshall plan did nothing but show the receipts of the past and that the USA had also adopted after their independence. The construction of the European Common Market rests on the same base, that of the increasing outputs. “The Common Market was presented to the voters on the postulate of increasing outputs which would increase the wealth (Cecchini report, 1988)” (page 171). Consequently, it becomes obvious that the development of a central structure in Brussels which is used as relay with the liberal doctrines of the free trade can be only in contradiction with the European roots and makes impossible the completion of construction European, European construction whose completion can be well better carried out through network organizations joined together in confederation. Remain that today the neo colonialism always prohibits with the exporting poor raw material countries to industrialize themselves to develop. The only difference with the past, it is that this policy is camouflaged, hidden under the theories of free trade and the economic liberalism.
The book of Reinert represents a remarkable contribution to this demystification of the free trade and a judgment relentless of the orthodoxe theories developed mainly by Adam Smith and David Ricardo whereas another school defended mainly by Schumpeter and Keynes continues the vision intelligent human being, innovating and creator which should not be dominated by the capital and of abstract mathematical calculations which found theories and models which do not take absolutely account of realities and even less of the experiments and the lessons of the history. We saw that they are the rare periods of great technological changes which offer to the speculators of all edges an unbounded belief in the forces of the markets. Their creed is only too known: all must freely be able to use these new technologies to grow rich on new markets which to develop should not meet any obstacle, particularly those related to the financing by the states and their social policies. Each time the history shows the failure of these liberal policies and the revolutions which followed these years of fast development and scandalous of social misery. The revolutions of 1789, of 1848 were the consequences of these monumental economic errors. The wars of 1870 to 1945 succeeded these revolutions as if the leaders of Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy had understood that they were better to organize themselves the human disasters to benefit from it rather than to see a working revolution finally badly turned for their private interests. The end of the cold war and the revolution technology of data processing and telecommunications are two major events which explain this belief unslung and unwise in the success of the business and the advent of a world government established by the financial powers of leading oligarchy. The speculation against the euro since February 2010 was slowed down by the purchases of euros of the Chinese central bank but it is not sufficient to draw aside the threat of an aggravation of the financial crisis and use of and the impoverishment austerity policies of the Western populations.
To leave this crisis and to eliminate this system from financial power, to leave capitalism, the way lights and is specified: the economic development process is always the same one, it supposes innovation, competences, productivity gains, creativity, synergies between the economic activities. So that the populations adhere to this development project, the community must divide a community property, a common property. Then the exit of our systems of being able and the development of the network organizations of life do not need more an orthodoxe or heterodox vision. Reinert can cling to the writings of Friederich Liste (1789-1846):
Extracted the book of Reinert:
This is why the most enthusiastic defenders of the industrialization (for tariff protection) like Friedrich List (1789-1846), were also the most enthusiastic defenders of the free trade of globalization, once all the countries will be industrialized. As of the years 1840, Friedrich List formulated a receipt of the “good globalization”: if free trade developed after all the countries of the world had been industrialized, free trade would be what there is best for everyone. The only point of divergence is the calendar established to adopt free trade and the structural geographical sequence in which the development proceeds towards free trade (page 226)
End of the extract of the book of Reinert.
Yes, the improvement of our economic system remains possible by correcting the errors of the free trade and liberalism, by controlling the financial markets and while putting out of state to harm financial oligarchy and its troop of cynical speculators. Keynes affirmed that the production remains national as much as possible, this to ensure the full employment and to eliminate unemployment. Keynes affirmed that the currency was to remain imperatively national to finance only the production and not to be used as means of speculation through an unverifiable hoarding by the states. Keynes indicated that in the year 2000 it would be necessary to work 20 hours per weeks so that all have the minimal incomes to obtain the goods and services essential to survival. On the other hand Keynes never explained what the citizens could do with the remainder of the working time available, in particular in the noncommercial economy or to use the first source of knowing. Today the debate is focused on intelligent protectionism: offensive protectionism to defend a young European industry like that of technologies of renewable energies against the imports at low cost of China. Defensive protectionism to protect agriculture and its decreasing outputs. Intelligent protectionism to defend the economy of the European Union against the misdeeds of globalization and the deregulation of the markets. In this political debate, Reinert takes again the remarks of Gunnar Myrdal (Nobel Prize 1974) to denounce imposture:
“opportunist ignorance” is based on the fact that we are opened in a world where the assumptions of economic “sciences” are handled to achieve policy goals. The increasing technology and outputs, which are the main sources of economic power, create barriers at the entry. By forgetting this, the economists serve the acquired interests of the nations which are with the power."
We find here the limit of these economic theories: the decreasing outputs and the free trade of Ricardo are useful to leave the populations in poverty or to destroy industry and the craft industry in a country in order to impoverish it. A poorer population will have less the means of revolting because it will be private especially of knowing and technologies. It will be put away from the virtuous circle of the increasing outputs and will be weaker in the power struggle with the richest countries. The leaders of financial oligarchy use the dogma of the free trade completely disconnected from realities to precisely break the education systems, the formations, the public services and the health services to weaken a company and to make it unable to be opposed to the plundering of its markets by the néo colonialism. When one period of great innovations arises, the wealths must normally increase all alone because of these innovations, therefore, like the trawl of the fisherman at sea, the leaders of world finance must arm themselves to collect these wealths as much as possible and thus to ask the populations to pay more taxes, taxes, to pay more for the goods and services of consumption. The financial mechanism is simple and it is used in a cyclic way since the 18th century: the private central banks draw pretext from the innovations to suddenly sell appropriations with profusion then, they require at the time of a financial crisis that they organized, the immediate refunding of these appropriations or they organize the insolvency of their creditors to oblige them at low prices to sell the goods which they bought, mainly real goods. These last years, this mechanism also related to the states which were involved in debt near the private central banks and we are in the crisis of the sovereign debts that the citizens must refund by sacrificing their standard of living. For Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, the current Masters of the world, the use of the decreasing outputs with respect to the exporting raw material countries and the use of the free trade to justify the deregulation of the financial markets are the two pillars of their power in the domination of the capitalist economic system.
Like Reinert following the authors of the other school writes it, that of the intelligence and of the knowledge, the increasing outputs are indeed “a hot potato” between the hands of the politicians. It is not difficult to create a virtuous circle of creation of wealths and development, but for a leading minority in a system of being able which wants to grow rich to the detriment of the others, the insurmountable difficulty appears when it is a question of distributing the produced wealths. It is absurd! Nobody can accept such a flight, such a spoliation of the wealths, except if the social group is dominated by a politiHow suddenly to explain that wealths produced by well formed, educated, intelligent and creative beings human, able to manage and find synergies, how to explain that these wealths produced in abundance return quasi exclusively to a leading minority and not to the remainder of the social group? cal regime which legitimates and hiding place this spoliation and maintains its domination through a power struggle guarantees by the army and is masked through social conformism towards this domination of a leading minority. We on fileane.com, showed the history of the permanent conflicts between the systems of powers and the network organizations. We have here a confirmation of the paradoxical caratère between these two manners of organizing a company: the network organization rests on the community property, the common property which is the only form of property able to distribute the wealths equitably produced; the systems of being able prohibit this common property to use the personal property or collective in order to monopolize the wealths produced for the profit of the leading minority. The democracies are the political regime which allowed up to now the best possible development without being able to avoid the digging of the inequalities and enrichment scandalous their leaders. The people do not believe any more in the merits of the democracies and they start were instruirent, to discover the knowledge, knowledge which is hidden to them under impostures of the leaders of our systems of being able. As Reinert indicates it and shows it through its book: knowledge of which we have need to leave our economic crises and financial organized by financial oligarchy, is touvent in the history, the facts of the political, economic and social history which show us how cities, people, nations developed. And the history of the people first, Moso, the confederation of the Iroquois nations, the natives of the Trobriands islands in Melanesia, those of Amazonia, Himalayas are not the last to show us how to better live, how to develop peace and our loves.
Indeed, that do we have to gain by saving this system of economic power? Let us can finally place in this system the common property, the community property which inspires confidence so much and distributes so well the wealths produced through synergies of the various trades and the diversified economic human activities? Let us can wait until all the countries are able to develop on the industrial sphere for finally knowing if the model of the free trade can or not function on the world plan? Does the power able to organize a humanity more developed and durably in progress pass obligatorily and only by the industrial stage of all the countries? The vision of an economist can limit to this prospect for questions for rationality, of logic, not the vision of a poet who uses the two sources of knowing.
We will write in our fourth part, the description of the networks of production of material wealths and services, the description of the networks which carry out works for the sustainable development and the rise in the standard of living. We will write in the fifth part, the transition between the abandonment from our systems from being able and the development of the networks of life by using this production process realistic and efficient highlighted by Reinert, Liste, Schumpeter, Keynes and so much of others since antiquity. Like List, we are in favor of a progression reasoned and controlled in this change of paradigm, of vision of the world. The industrialization of the states is indeed necessary to develop local area networks of life and to guarantee the participative direct democracy at the local level. This supposes the elimination of oligopolies and the elimination of the transnational power of the world groups of production, the restoration of the political action of the citizens among all the countries. We will come there. But it is not a question of remaining in Keynes, of joining the dismayed economists, made indignant or revolted against capitalism. Did they become able since 2002 and this first time where we asked this question about the Net, to clearly say what they want? To remain in a system to be able: to improve this one or one to found another, or to leave our systems of being able for the alternative of the network organization, which is well more than a “other gun”, another heterodox school more or less serious and lucid economists in their vision human being. Admittedly after 1400, the richest city-States had competition well more than with the 13th century but they were not any more in one network organization who guarantees a regulation with the service of the common property. By 1350, there was the financial crisis in Europe because of monetary policies carried out by Venice which capitalized the money brought of Mexico by the Templars and which Venice tapped in return for royal appropriations with the kings and the princes, and Florence which capitalized gold still available around the Mediterranean and whose origin went up in ancient Egypt when it was enough to bend down to collect the gold of Nubie.
Reinert speaks about the 13th century without speaking only once about the Temple, it is true that on the money market of London or in the office of an editor so much is worried little by the development and the growth of its activity, this taboo is not ready to fall and is not poet who wants. We at all do not make of it him reproach, each one its share of work and on the economic plan, its book is very useful for us, with we others which defend this vision of a human being which well better than the beavers and their clever stoppings of wood on the rivers knew during a few centuries built our cathedrals and to find the knowledge of the oldest temples of the edges of the Nile like the knowledge of the temples snuggled in the middle of more the high mountains of the Earth. This knowledge rests on our two sources of knowledge and since we want to use their complementarity, the choice of company is essential by logic, rationality and obviousness: this community property was never allowed in a system to be able so much it is likely to contradict the existence of a minority able to steal the work of the group social, able to legitimate its political power through the coarsest or perfidious impostures, by denying the history and the experiments of the past to take pleasure in unrealistic and inhuman mathematical models.
The history does not plead in the favor of our leaders, with us to restore it and use it in our humanistic project and as this development process of the wealths was always the same one, it remains always also the possibility that if they like so much to produce wealths, they end up coming to join our networks of life, it will be enough that they discover in their turn the pleasure of the division so that their conversion is successful and that these economic impostures disappear definitively. On fileane.com, we use the contribution of Hannah Arendt to structure and give form to the action. Arendt was based on the organization of quoted Greek, they same copied from the operation of the cities of the edge of the Nile to highlight the 3 levels of activity in an organization where the human being occupies the central place: work essential to survival, the realization of works able to ensure the development, the direct political action in participative local democracy. With the contribution of the book of Reinert, we supplement this form by his contents: the judicious use of the increasing outputs and the decreasing outputs to create the wealths and to ensure economic development. It is the engine under the cap of the vehicle; these are the gear ratios that the cyclist will use on his bicycle… We have the unit able to develop a company, a new civilization… and we do not have any more any reason to support these impostures coming from the leaders of our systems from being able and from the politicians to their services to subject to us to their evil companies.
The poet who further sees that the terrestrial horizon, once the imposture of the tyrants broken, repeats without wearying himself who tomorrow will be beautiful as are splendid the moments of the life according to the human life that it carries in him, in its glance, through the words which it chooses in his freedom to create of the wealths of life without limits and who do not have a price, on any human market because these words of the poets serve the social links since the children to the women and men until the bottom of their ages, since centuries and centuries well before the markets are used to make it possible some to monopolize production of whole people and to leave them in poverty. With this book of Reinert, let us know we it well more to want it still stronger because as yesterday our grandfathers experienced a strong economic development, we can it again except that this time we know that this humanistic development durable, will be anchored in the prevention, solidarity and the participation for our future generations and though it occurs of the vote-catching politicking adventures here or there inside the obsolete and impotent systems of power through their impostures and their lies which do not concern us any more. Tomorrow will be beautiful and it will make good things in life our happy days, with the flight of the wild gooses to Japan or here, the dogs, the beavers without forgetting the cats and all those and those which we like to divide their terrestrial existence.
And because we prefer by far the paddle and the dawn with the fingers of pink, the mornings which rise rather than the great evenings, we hum between poets “the world will be beautiful, I affirm it, I sign”….
English translation library plan of the site home