… and some serious
considerations.
What we now need
to think seriously about is
why we consider this
idea a joke?
What would prevent
a parliament, the Greek,
the German, the French,
the Italian to take
the decision for
seisachtheia / debt relief?
That such a
decision would be for the benefit of the
state and its citizens;
we do not need to argue about.
It wouldn't simply
be good. It would be our salvation.
It would free us from
an insolvable problem,
which is leading
society to certain disaster.
After all, Solon
tried this measure,
and we saw what
wonderful fruit it yielded.
Then what are our
representatives in Parliament waiting for?
They have exactly
the same absolute
legislative power which
Solon had.
•
Why
don't they exercise it?
•
Why
don't they apply this sure and tested solution which would save us?
•
Don't
they see that the state and society are falling apart?
•
Don't
they represent the interests of the citizens and the state in Parliament?
•
Aren't
they elected for this purpose?
•
Aren't
they obliged to fight for these interests?
In this regard,
there is an
opinion that this is
not so.
The
deputies do not represent the interests of
the
citizens, but the interests of the capitalists,
because
they are dependent on them.
When
they were elected, they are
indeed
selected by the people but under
the
management of the mass media
As the mass media
belong
to the capital owners
the deputies are now
obliged to carry out
their commands.
But this I can't
believe or I don't want to believe.
At least I can't
believe that it applies to the majority.
Maybe there are
some among
them who are
"remote controlled",
but they can't form the
majority.
Is it possible
that honest people are a minority
and therefore it is
impossible to carry a law
through parliament for
the salvation of society?
But even if there
is a considerable number of
delegates who do not
want the good of the
country, again it seems
to me difficult for them
in a debate in
parliament to stand up and say:
― "We
are here to represent the interests of capital,
and therefore we are
voting against the proposal
for debt
cancellation".
They will say
something else.
They will say that
there are difficulties
which make the proposal
unrealistic.
So to be ready for
such a discussion we
must look to find these
difficulties ourselves.
We need to analyse
them and see how serious they are.
We have seen the
pleasant effects of such a decision;
we don't need to
examine them. Let's look at what the
unpleasant consequences
will be.
What can happen to
a country if it refuses to pay its debts?
The first thing
that happens is that nobody will now
ever lend it a single
penny.
The country must
learn to live without credit.
Let us consider
then how bad this would be.
If anyone, whether
individual or state, borrows money,
this is done for two
reasons:
1. The first is that he needs the money
for an investment
to increase production.
When this growth occurs, he will
not only be able to pay
off his debt, but will be able to lead
a better life, as well.
2. The second is that, although he can't
increase production,
he wants right now to
live on borrowed money a richer
life than his income
allows, without worrying how to pay
back the money.
This second reason
is why states
currently borrow money.
We can't have more
growth.
However, as we are
accustomed to the constant
improvement of our
living conditions and its
excessive luxury, we
want a better life than
our income allows.
And this will
probably stop if we
decide to apply
"Solon's patent".