Why is it so HARD to find a JOB?

       In light of the news that 24,500 people applied for 325 jobs at the Wal-Mart that opened Friday (January 27, 2006) just outside Chicago, I think it's appropriate to ask 'Why is it so hard to find a job?'

Are Americans too picky? Are immigrants taking all the jobs? Is it globalization? Is there something wrong with us? Are we not trying hard enough? Red-herrings, every last one of them; signs and symptoms of the same global pathology.

Where there's no money, there's no work. It's as simple as that. Ask Lewis Black; he knows...

"We have a two party system, the Democratic Party, a party of no ideas, and the Republican Party, a party of bad ideas." —Lewis Black

Does it mean that the unemployed are inherently unproductive? Or, that all of the economy's needs are already met? Of course not.

Take, for example NYC; unemployment is high, but many infrastructure projects and public services are needed. They can't be launched or provided because the city needs capital and without fail, government budgets fall short, no matter how much they collect in taxes, tolls, fares, fees, and fines. But, WHY?

There is no shortage of labor and no shortage of needs. It's always a shortage of money.

You gotta ask yourself, why isn't there enough money when the US Treasury prints it 24/7?

The answer lies in the nature of money, debt and interest.

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." — President James A. Garfield
Money has no intrinsic value. Bushels of it are printed every minute by our government, at nominal cost, only by the authority vested in them by us, through the Constitution.

You can't eat money, you can't ride it to work, it won't keep you warm, and it won't do the dishes. You can't do anything with it; it's worthless unless someone accepts it in exchange for something of REAL VALUE - labor or goods.

Money simply facilitates exchange (remember, in God we trust all others pay cash).

If we didn't use a standard currency, like the dollar, we would have to barter, which for obvious reasons is terribly inefficient. Hence the term currency, from the root word current, or flow.

And the only reason money is accepted in exchange for labor and goods is because the government says so. Those who accept it are receiving a promise that the next person will accept it, too. In other words, money is "valuable" by government decree. Hence, the term fiat currency.

So, if money has no intrinsic value, why is it taxed with interest from the minute it hops off the press?

Logically, the government should issue this 'promise to pay,' born at the press, interest-free in order to fuel the economy by launching needed non-profit public projects. In this context, money does not "buy" productivity. It simply facilitates it.

The money that circulates in the economy, as a result, now represents each person's contribution to productivity - the credit they earned. They can save it, spend it, lend it, or invest it. It never has to be returned to the government. It can continue to circulate until it is worn.

When new public needs arise the government could re-use money that it earns (as a non-profit corporation) in fares and fees for productive public services. If necessary, it could borrow money that's deposited in its trust as personal savings. Anything borrowed is returned interest-free. When warranted, the government issues new currency to accommodate productive growth. In such a system, taxes would be unnecessary.

Through a national network of non-profit banks, the government could also invest private money in entrepreneurial for-profit businesses that promise to employ others. In these ventures, the government assumes profit and risk on a pro-rata basis.

Or, these banks could loan money interest-free to individuals or businesses that demonstrate need. Anything that is loaned, would be eventually returned, interest-free, to be loaned to someone else in need.

There would be no inflation, because whether money is issued for public or private use it would only be issued and allocated according to productivity.

Because money is interest-free, billions of dollars that would be otherwise siphoned from both public and private economies, through fraud or exploitation, remain available to fuel public and private productivity.

But as it stands, central banks have a monopoly on issuing money; they issue it when they will and to whom they will, and they only allow it to circulate at interest. This is the crux of the problem.

Central bankers take money directly off the press and create credit from thin air. They lend cash and credit at their discretion; and they expect it re-paid (as if they earned it) in the same currency, only in a greater quantity than they or the government ever issue it--which is impossible.

This fraudulent system of lending at interest creates a zero-sum economy where some must lose for others to win. For example, let's say that $1000 is issued by the only bank in a fledgling nation of five. Each person borrows $200 at interest, and must compete with the others to pay off their loan, plus interest.

Once 4 of them raise enough money to get out of debt, there is not enough money left circulating for the fifth to pay his debt, no matter how hard he tries. This zero-sum result is inevitable in a system based on interest because interest is NEVER issued, it's only charged.

Interest is not productive. It's an instrument employed by LAZY, unimaginative investors who want to unload life's risks on to borrowers, workers, and consumers by exploiting their need for money.

Interest only works in a controlled economy where the money supply is constantly "tightened." It's glaringly obvious that no one would pay interest for money they could borrow from the government interest-free - if it was available.

But, it's not. So, interest acts as a giant vacuum siphoning all the money which the government supposedly issued for productive uses and channels it to inefficient, exploitative ones that bleed borrowers, workers, and consumers, alike and pits everyone against each other.

For instance, under an interest-based system, the person from our example who remains in debt will garner little sympathy if he is healthy, and suffered no natural disaster. But indeed, he is unable to pay his debt, not through his own fault, but because of a flawed monetary system.

If interest were not charged, he might still fall behind others. But, if it's because of a natural disaster (Katrina) or illness, the community would gladly extend credit at no interest until the crisis passes.

Or, if the loss was due to his negligence or inefficiency, he would no longer be trusted with loans. And unless he were incapacitated, he would have to work to pay it back, interest-free. That is both fair and it encourages cooperation and social responsibility.

He would not be targeted, as he is now, by moneylenders who don't care if he never pays anything but interest. That is unfair and facilitates and rewards exploitation.

But, private borrowing at interest is not our only problem. It gets MUCH worse.

A nation that borrows money at interest (by issuing bonds), instead of issuing bills interest-free, suffers the burden of perpetual debts that increase exponentially with time because of interest.

Interest on government bonds has been decimating America's physical economy and the quality and availability of its public services for decades. In 2005, the US government spent over $380 billion to pay interest on treasury bonds, almost six times the money it spent to fund education! We are kept ignorant so that central bankers and moneylenders can continue to defraud us unchallenged.

On top of all this, because moneylenders "own" all the credit they extend in the economy, they are free to call in those loans at any time, plunging the entire nation into economic depression and foreclosing on all its assets.

The bottom-line is that with the same legal authority that our government issues bonds at interest, it can issue interest-free bills. Both are promises to pay. The latter is honest and productive, the former is fraudulent and destructive. The choice should be clear.

So, when someone asks you why it's so hard to find a job, tell them that it's not their fault and that the people of this nation and the world are being manipulated and defrauded by those who control the money supply.

Let your voice be heard.

SOURCE: The Truth Will Set You Free: Why is it so HARD to find a JOB? (edited)


Don't Blame Capitalism For The Evils Of Globalization