Search:
From the Archive
Fatwas: Part Forty-Seven
On the Special Sharia Laws that Applied Only to the Prophet Muhammad and his Wives
The Disobedience of the Israelites during the Absence of Moses at Mount Al-Tur
Reflections on Bin Laden and Pakistan – Will There Be a Reckoning?
10 POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS FOR ACADEMIC YEAR 2010/11
An Attempt to Understand the Secret Role Played by Muhammad's Companions Who Were Adamant in Hypocrisy
About God's Promise: "...That Is upon your Lord a Binding Promise." (Quran 25:16)
Une étude de cas d'un homme "mignon" sunnite qui est un poussin féroce!
This Islamic West
Leçons tirées du massacre de la Nouvelle-Zélande: Les faibles qui sont injustes envers eux-mêmes et le Seigneur Dieu
Iranian Propagandists in Kosova
Quranists and Bokharists
The Relation between Human Beings and the Metaphysical Realm of Barsakh
Why Do the Muhammadans Tell Lies?
With documents; Terrorism defeats America!
Quotes from The Founders about Resistanceþ
Questions to Test the Fanatics Muslim leaders in the US
"...Then Fight the Leaders of Disbelief..." (Quran 9:12)
Repeating the same mistakes
Fatwas: Part Twenty-One
Capital Homestead vs Current Stock Marketþ

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your note so that I can congratulate you personally for being a supporter of the ARP at Mission Viejo High, who are true and proud pioneers of the Second American Revolution.  I could not be more impressed with the high level of seriousness and sophistication of all your members who've contacted me.

Let me try to respond as briefly as I can (there are books and other writings that go into more detail) to each of your questions:



Brian Jackson wrote:
 Mr. Kurland:
 My name is Brian Jackson and I am part of the proud group of ARP supporters at Mission Viejo High School with whom you have been in contact for the last couple of weeks. I have enjoyed learning about your policies and am excited that people still exist that actively pursue the true ideals set forth by the original founders of our nation. I am not very politically/econimically knowledgeable, however, so I have failed to see the difference between your proposition of capital credit and asset-backed credit set forth in the Capital Homesteading Act and the current stock market. How would you change the current stock market to transform it into the ideals set forth in the CHA?
Start by realizing that speculation differs radically from investment.  The first involves very short-term thinking about pieces of paper that once represented real assets.  In contrast, investment involves long-term thinking about the real assets needed by workers and managers to produce goods and services for current or future customers.

The current stock market and all commodity and securities exchanges deal with gambling and speculation, dealing with short-term guesses about future trends that might affect the short-term value of already existing marketable securities, like shares of stock or bonds.  In other words, the securities traded in stock exchanges were once sold to finance investments in real productive capital assets, like rentable space, new machines, farms and other hard assets and technologies that actually contribute directly to the production, sales and distribution of marketable goods and services.  When those financial instruments are sold by their original owners and they become tradable in securities exchanges, they are known as secondary securities, not original or primary securities.
The Capital Homestead Act (CHA) would not end stock and commodity exchanges for those who wish to and can afford to gamble with their own money and past accumulations of capital.  But implementation of the Act would educate have-nots to discourage them from speculating and gambling and encouraging them to accumulate as long-term investors enough dividend-bearing ownership shares to supplement their incomes from jobs and meet their retirement needs.
We have increased the annual allocations of capital credit of $7,000 per citizen (up from the initial partial allocation of $3,000 in our 2004 book) for full implementation of the tax, credit and money-creation reforms under the CHA.  With new asset-backed, interest-free Fed-created money channeled in the form of capital credit at local banks into personal tax-sheltered CHA accounts, each citizen, with the advice of bankers, would have the means to invest in newly issued shares backed by newly formed real capital purchased or built with the proceeds of the sale of the new shares issued by the company needing the real assets to increase its productive capacity.  (See explanation and diagram at
We have increased the annual allocations of capital credit of $7,000 per citizen (up from the initial partial allocation of $3,000 in our 2004 book) for full implementation of the tax, credit and money-creation reforms under the CHA.  With new asset-backed, interest-free Fed-created money channeled in the form of capital credit at local banks into personal tax-sheltered CHA accounts, each citizen, with the advice of bankers, would have the means to invest in newly issued shares backed by newly formed real capital purchased or built with the proceeds of the sale of the new shares issued by the company needing the real assets to increase its productive capacity.  (See explanation and diagram at http://www.cesj.org/homestead/reforms/moneycredit/createmoney.html)  The full stream of future earnings generated by the new capital assets would first pay off the stock acquisition loan to the citizen's CHA account and then produce a dividend income to meet his or her consumption needs.  As you will see from our assumptions and projections on the rear side of this stock certificate at http://www.cesj.org/homestead/strategies/national/ch-stockcertificate.pdf <http://www.cesj.org/socialsecurity/projections-cha.htm>, a citizen born into the poorest family could receive about $46,000 in after-tax dividends at age 65, $1.6 million in consumption income from birth to age 65, and $460,000 in capital accumulations.

Under the Capital Homestead Act, new asset-backed money and capital credit would not be available for short-term gambling and speculation in already tradable securities.  The tax reforms under the CHA would also encourage companies to pay out higher dividends on all shares, allowing companies to reduce and even eliminate their corporate income taxes, while increasing taxable incomes at the individual level.  With higher dividend payouts and reduced retained earnings, all companies would have an incentive to issue new shares to finance their future capital needs from the interest-free new money supplied through the CHA accounts of many new shareholders, and becoming more democratically accountable in the bargain.

Are these asset-backed credits in large businesses or in the large-scale federal government, essentially a portion of the GDP?
Under the CHA, the new loans would not come out of past savings nor would it come out of current incomes from the GDP.  Just keep in mind that money and credit involve promises that something tangible stands behind them so that the promises can be kept.  The new capital credit would be repaid out of "future savings" generated from the earnings of the newly added capital assets for sustainable green growth.  As explained in the links above, the new asset-backed money for homesteading of real capital would be created out of thin air, just as over  $1 trillion of the stimulus money is being created today out of thin air by the Federal Reserve to bailout speculators and gamblers deemed "too big to fail."  We would use the Fed's money-creating power to actually grow the economy for green growth and allow those speculators and gamblers to undergo reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy laws (wiping down the inflated values of secondary securities from the speculator-induced "bubble economy" to more realistic levels), or go out of business.
Additonally, what is the cost in initiating a Capital Homestead Account with the included assets and would people be able to purchase more "shares" if they had more money?
Yes, but it makes more sense for the non-rich to meet their living needs out of their current incomes.  Why?  Because as Harold Moulton, former president of Brookings Institute pointed out in his 1935 book /The Formation of Capital/, the demand for capital goods follows the demand for consumption goods and services.  Hence, reducing consumption incomes to purchase new productive assets makes the new investments less feasible.  That's why Moulton and Kelso in his 1961 book called for "pure credit" to finance faster rates of investment growth.
 If so, would this not again separate the rich from the poor even further?
Absolutely, assuming our Capital Homestead Act is not passed.  But, if and when it is passed, we would encourage the rich to supply reserves for capital credit insurance, which supplemented by risk premiums for loan default insurance also paid for from future profits from the newly added capital assets, would eliminate the traditional requirement of asset lenders for "collateral", which is one of the artificial barriers depriving have-nots from ever attracting capital credit to become owners.  The rich can also invest in the most risky businesses and spend more of their unconsumed income to increase the rate of quality growth for helping to close the socially unhealthy and dangerous wealth gaps in the world.  And they can make loans from their excess incomes to raise the consumption levels of the poor or for other non-productive purposes or to help the governments to meet their past deficits.
 If this is not the case, does this mean all people receive the same amount of benefits, small as well as large families?
Each person would receive an equal allotment of $7,000 each year for investment in new productive assets, whether they're rich or poor or whether they're members of large or small families.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can stand in line with other citizens.  Just as access to the political ballot is a free "social good", so should equal access to capital credit be treated as a free "social good."  Equality of access and equal future ownership opportunities is not the same as equality of outcomes or results.  Some will accumulate more than others and make more intelligent choices than others.  That's a given under freedom of choice.
 I understand individuals gain shares of multiple companies, such as their employer and utilities, but do individuals get to pick the technological and industrial companies that they invest in?
Yes, the citizen should be able to choose, but if the investment choice was in a poorly managed and failing company, the premium from capital credit insurers to cover risk of default might be so high that the repayment would not feasible and no lender would make the loan to enable the citizen to purchase the shares on credit.
   Another topic that concerns me is the $3000 per year awarded to each citizen. It sounds like a great idea but the inevitable questions are where will it come from and what can it be used for.
As clearly stated in the Declaration of Monetary Justice (
http://www.cesj.org/about/programs/declarations/monetaryjustice.htm), the new interest-free money and credit (adding only the costs of transactions and risk premiums) is for widespread ownership of productive investments, not for consumer debt, speculation, government deficit spending, or other non-productive or monopolistic ownership-concentrating purposes.   The past savings of the wealthy can continue to be used for non-productive or speculative forms of credit at "old money" interest rates.  This would result in a two-tiered credit system with differentials in costs of money strongly favoring capital credit financed through CHA accounts.
> We both know $3000 doesn't go a long way in assisting families that need to provide food, shelter, clothing, and health care for themselves and their children. It seems that from what I have read this $3000 is not a pure cash check handed to the people, but rather an additional amount to be used to invest in the future of America, through the Capital Homesteading Act.
You're correct, except for the ammount now raised to $7,000 from $3,000.
 Please correct me if I'm wrong. And last but not least, you mention educational and health care vouchers for those who cannot afford education and health care. How do you expect to pay for these costs and what are the requirements for gaining these said vouchers?
When the economy begin to absorb all the unemployed, underemployed and mis-employed workers needed to build an operate the expanded private sector market economy and our tax reforms moving us to a single rate of taxation above generous exemption levels of $30,000 per adult and $20,000 per dependent to cover well-being needs from their own pockets (while totally eliminating payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare), we will have enough to cover all promised entitlements under Social Security and Medicare, retirements for government workers and members of Congress, and health and educational vouchers for the needy, all out of general revenues.  As all citizens begin to acquire ownership incomes from the dividend-bearing shares in their CHA accounts, most if not all of these entitlements and vouchers can eventually eliminated, radically reducing the single tax rate on incomes above their exemptions.
What would qualify one for a voucher?  The voucher is based on a lack of sufficient consumption in comes from one's work, one's growing capital accumulations, or both.  Until citizens accumulate enough capital assets to generate dividends to pay for the costs of paying the costs of a quality education of their choice, education vouchers would be provided out of general revenues to meet their income deficiencies.  And because an educated public capable of continued self-learning is critical for sustaining a democratic society, I would allocate educational vouchers according to measured educational needs.  In that way, somewhat more resources would be available to those with greater educational deficiencies and students with the higher learning skills would be encouraged to help teach those with lesser learning skills, benefiting both in the process as well as the general quality of civilized life.
 There are multiple charitable companies in existance today that provide extremely well-qualified health care for large amounts of people,
 but these are not available to everyone.
See our paper on universal health care at
http://www.cesj.org/homestead/strategies/national/healthcare-exsummary.pdf. <http://www.cesj.org/homestead/strategies/national/healthcare-exsummary.pdf>
When the American Revolutionary Party wins the White House or a candidate of another party wins by "stealing" the ARP platform and the Capital Homestead Act is passed into law, everyone will have access to comprehensive quality health care and the means to pay for it, without any government bureaucrat or health insurer standing between citizens and their chosen health providers.
Anything short of our Capital Homesteading strategy for financing a green growth economy will lead to Big Brother centralizing and controlling all health care decisions.  And the revolutionary ideals of America's founders and Lincoln will be lost.  That's the challenge faced by the ARP at Mission Viejo High.  We must win the election, not only for ourselves, but for the future of America and, by our example, for Peace, Prosperity and Freedom for all citizens on Spaceship Earth.

    I apoligize for the large amount of questions, but I am very interested in your responses and in the future of the ARP. I hope to use this information to "publish" an editorial in our party newspaper for this mock election, which will help many people to understand the finer points of the party platform, specifially the difference between the CHA and the current stock market. Thank you so much for all the support and interest you've given to our group and standing up for justice in a world of moral decline. 
Respectfully,
 Brian Jackson
  
I hope my responses are useful.  Please pass them on to all the patriots at Mission Viejo High who are working together with such a high level of solidarity in the American Revolutionary Party.

Again, I remind eveyone of the quote from Bucky Fuller : "We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims.  [Our challenge is to] make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation and without ecological damage or the disadvantage of anyone."

Can we meet that challenge?  Yes, we can.

Norm
         

The views and opinions of authors whose articles and comments are posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of IQC.