Comment: 'supported' self intervention

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Who, what, when, where, and how. (see in situ)

'supported' self intervention

I was saying that we both already agreed there are many ways they are running their money scam on us. I was trying to stay out of that discussion and focus on the end game. The short version of what I'm suggesting is that we simply stop interacting with the banks at all. No more loans. No more interest. No IPOs. No savings stashed in their vaults. Zero, nada.

Picture a small startup business making polycarbonate widgets. (I'm using this because it's an actual example with actual numbers.) These things require $400 in materials alone and then about 3-4 man-days of labor, combined with a couple hours on some $10k equipment. Alternately, they could be done with 4 hours labor and 1 hr on some $80k equipment. Sales are basically self propagating up to production rates. The given starting position is no employees and the owner makes 1 unit per week with cludged together equipment.

Case 1: He goes through the steps to get a big investment to go route #2. In doing so, he racks up $400k in debt (services only) and pitches to investors (banks, essentially). By the time things go well, they have his employee list at 18, his salaries too high, his schedule starting 6 months out and his total "loan" at $2.3M. He then will be forced to make nearly 20 widgets per day and double prices to pay all expenses and still profit. Now he needs a sales force which further escalates the game.

Case 2: He borrows $100k from an existing company of similar mindset. He gets the equipment and begins making more widgets. As he can afford them, he hires 5 employees and they make very good money. 6 people now produce more than enough to pay expenses. They then take the profits and slowly automate the cumbersome steps to get production doubled. Now they get paid more than the average of all 28 employees in the original case. He is always in the black (after paying back the $110K) and he can now cut prices in half.

As you might guess, I'm leading you to see how since he took case #2, it took him longer to start up but his prices are 1/4th of case one, his wages are nearly triple, his personal profit is similar or higher (still 5 times his wage average) and his company is fully his own. Also, his product quality and longevity is constantly increasing.

How can there be such a difference between the two cases? It's because he shunned giving the banks any cut. In doing so, his community is benefiting from his and his employees' charity and he has just recently 'paid it forward' by lending to another local startup company. Another rarely noticed benefit is that he is no longer required to push junk on people who don't want to buy it. There's no commercialization aspect to his business. No ads. No wasted production getting pushed on people just to keep his company running. He can drop production by a whopping 80% and still pay his bills (less frills and charity, etc.) so he's able to operate on web and word of mouth sales. This flies in the face of today's perpetual growth paradigm which is causing all kinds of problems (like resource depletion and waste disposal).

What I'm saying is that we should stop worrying about what the fed and monetary policy is doing. We should get more companies going that run on this system. By doing this, we spread more wealth to a few workers who then spread it to their peers. The result is that more total people are supported by the company but 1/5th as many are working a job. This cuts the unemployment problem down.

Where does all this prosperity come from? It has simply been kept out of the hands of the banks.

I asked him a year ago if he planned on expanding and he said something interesting. He said he wanted to find a like minded person and lend them the startup money to copy his model in another region. No competition to his local market other than his web sales. I asked if he was going to own it and he said he has everything he wants paid off so his current salary was more than he needed.

Do you see now how the actions of the banks has no effect on his business? Do you see why I just don't care anymore what they do or propose to do? With the 16 or so companies I previously referred to all doing this same business model, the anti-bank movement will spread more than they can shut it down. And since they're offering better products at lower prices, they'll be out-competing the big corporations as well. In an ideal world, every product we need and want can be:

1) made on a local basis
2) sold for lower prices
3) made in minimum quantities to avoid waste
4) bought outright or company financed to eliminate bank interest
5) abundantly available to people desiring it
6) made with the quality that comes from no bean counters.

In conclusion, what I'm trying to say is that we need to stop spending our efforts tracking and fighting the banks. If we lived in communities where everyone had tremendous wealth and no use for banks, they would quickly go away. This is very doable and prosperous as well. All we have to do is give that snowball a little push from the top of the hill. Gravity (i.e. what you term 'self intervention') will do the rest.