Aggregate economic interests

Mass production leads to amassed wealth and so the question arises where it amasses.

Let us for now focus on two players

1. mass producers and
2. traders.

Mass producers control product availability and traders market access. To the degree that their operation requires capital they depend on credit. Exceptions to this need occur mostly in the digital economy and in the creation of money.

The individual economic interest of mass producers and traders is profit, but their aggregate economic interests diverge:

• producers join in order to consolidate prices and
• traders join in order to lobby for a particular economical environment.

Per definition a controlled procurement is leviathanical and a spontaneous procurement behemothical. Traders are the life-blood of the Leviathan.

The particular economical environment that traders lobby for is the one in which the middleman has all the power. Such an environment requires great flexibility from everybody else and that in turn requires low food prices, which thus are a central component of the environment that traders lobby for, i.e. one with the greatest possible efficiency in agriculture, and of all mass producers farmers are the least successful consolidating prices.

The most successful consolidating prices are mass producers of common, but fancied goods like cars, clothes and certain electronic products, who have their own dealerships or stores.

Let us consider credit now, for both mass producers and traders depend on it. Unless otherwise regulated, credit is produced by those who own capital, and as such they have the usual aggregate interest of consolidating the price of credit, like bringing their money only to the bank, if the bank pays them enough interest. This would be so, if gold and silver were the only legal tender.

Like it is regulated under the federal reserve system, the producer of credit is the state, selling treasury bonds, which are required for the creation of money, and supplying it. There is a fixed arrangement between the producer and the traders. The traders buy bonds, order money on a 10:1 basis for every bond they deposit, auction it off for the highest interest they can get on it and give 94% of the profit back to the supplier. Of course they also get paid interest for the bonds they originally purchased, but they don't have to in order to make a profit.

The outcome of this arrangement is fourfold:

1. artificially low interest rates,
2. exclusion of private citizens (who are not bankers) from seignorage gains,
3. income for the state,
4. income for bankers.

Since the state is an abstraction, it doesn't know its own interest directly, but only through the mediation of the media, which means that it is possible to divorce its actions to a significant degree from its interest. The media are of course traders themselves. So we see that federal reserve style central banking tips the scales of power further to the aggregate interest of traders, leads to additional lobbying and less price consolidation.

The outcome of which is a pervasive lack of independence or a leviathanical society:

• schools and the media control market access,
• banks control credit,
• traders control the prices of the necessities of life,
• news consists of instruction as opposed to observation,
• schools train as opposed to elevate cognition,
• quality is marketed as luxury.

All of this could be changed easily enough. Market access could be controlled through registers, capital owners could control credit (Italy's Mini-BOTs work in this direction by stabilising bond yields via stakeholders in the Italian economy, i.e. by allowing Italians to keep their government afloat at a reasonable cost to themselves), the prices of the necessities of life could be controlled by the local agricultural conditions and quality could be the core of a brand's value. What we see already happening today is that people pull away from instructive news and towards private observers.

The hard part consists of course of industry dependences, but the ability of the people to think and talk for themselves is certainly the beginning of any course correction.