Money and Paths to a Post-Capitalist Society

While reading today, a couple of things jumped out at me that hold relevance for my previous post on fiat money and capital. One was a passage in the The Great Transformation by Karl Polanyi. The other was an observation by David Graeber in an interesting article in the Guardian. Thanks to Tom Hickey and Matt Franko for drawing my attention to Graeber’s article. In considering a few of the issues raised, this post is really just exploratory. I think the topic is important, but my thinking is only at an early stage.

The first thing that caught my attention was a passage from The Great Transformation. On page 71, Polanyi argues that in all social systems prior to the industrial revolution, “the economic order is merely a function of the social, in which it is contained”. In contrast, the failed, roughly century-long attempt, during early capitalism, to establish a purely self-regulating market economy “demands nothing less than the institutional separation of society into an economic and political sphere”. For this to occur, society had to be subordinated to the requirements of a market economy:

A market economy must comprise all elements of industry, including labor, land, and money. (emphasis added)

The inclusion of money in this sentence is what most caught my attention. That is, not only must labor power and nature (“land”) be subjected to the logic of the self-regulating market economy, but money must also be subordinated to its requirements. In reference to this list of fictitious commodities – labor, land, and money – Polanyi adds the following parenthetical remark:

In a market economy the last [i.e. money] also is an essential element of industrial life and its inclusion in the market mechanism has, as we will see, far-reaching institutional consequences.

Here, of course, Polanyi is referring to the gold standard. I have suggested previously that the gold standard was basically an attempt to compel governments to behave in accordance with the “logic of capital”. In Polanyi’s terms, this attempt to restrict the behavior of democratically elected governments through its money-creating function was an attempt to subordinate society to the requirements of a market economy.

In thinking about what is necessary to establish a post-capitalist society, an implication of Polanyi’s argument is that it is not just a matter of eliminating wage labor (the commodification of labor power) and the market-driven destruction of nature but also important to reformulate money in such a way as to make it independent of the imperatives of capital and the profit motive. For society to reassert its autonomy requires money to be under society’s direction rather than dictated by the market mechanism.

Among the consequences of the gold standard were an extreme volatility in economic outcomes and terrible hardship for many. Even the softer form of commodity-backed money under Bretton Woods, though accommodating significant fiscal measures and considerably smoother economic performance, nonetheless broke down. Although less extreme than the gold standard, Bretton Woods still represented an attempt to tie money creation in some respect to the logic of capital. Currently, we are seeing the ramifications of a more recent attempt in Europe to tie money creation, albeit less rigidly, to the logic of capital.

All such attempts seem doomed to fail. The reason for this is that capitalism is inherently unstable. Therefore, anything that is tied to its internal logic (such as a commodity-backed monetary system) will also be unstable. The solution is for society to refuse to be subordinated to the logic of capital. As a society we need to reassert our autonomy and ensure economic arrangements are functional to our needs, not vice versa. That requires a monetary system – if money is retained at all – that is responsive to the needs of society as a whole, rather than one that is run in the interests of a particular class.

Without such a reformulation of money, attempts to reassert the autonomy of society over economy are likely to be unsuccessful. For example, the failed attempt to establish a pure market economy informed post-war efforts to regulate markets, redistribute income and improve macroeconomic performance. Yet, these measures were ultimately hampered by the commodity-backed monetary system, especially in trade-deficit nations. One or the other had to fall. In the end, it was Bretton Woods.

Fiat money, if run under a floating exchange rate, seems to offer significant policy freedom in this respect. I have argued in Taxation, Money, Freedom and Economy that:

Fiat money seems especially conducive to the democratic selection of paths that are neither purely capitalistic nor purely socialistic. The fact that in our present system a sovereign government need not be financially constrained means that we can do things as a society that capitalists would never do following the dictates of profit. The result is something other than pure capitalism. And the more things we do that ignore the logic of capital and the profit motive, the less like capitalism the system will become.

Despite the greater policy freedom inherent in fiat money, governments have not made use of the potential. To the contrary, they have participated in a neo-liberal propaganda blitz since the breakdown of Bretton Woods, pushing the line that government is financially constrained, like a household, and that “sound finance” requires austerity, and whenever possible, budget surpluses. In my opinion, this does not reflect a lack of understanding on the part of politicians as much as it indicates whose political interests politicians currently intend to serve. The intensity of the propaganda drive of the last thirty-five years actually reinforces my impression that governments do understand the democratic potential of fiat money and are hell-bent on concealing this potential from the general population:

The breakdown of Bretton Woods and the adoption of fiat money with no convertibility into gold or some other commodity actually represented a significant concession on the part of the elites. It was a concession forced by circumstances and the inability of capitalism to resolve its own internal contradictions other than through crises and war. The tendency toward crisis and war is still with us, but fiat money has opened up a real possibility for positive change, and I think capitalists and capitalist governments know it, at least instinctively, and it unsettles them.

None of this is to argue that fiat money is the answer to everything. It is merely to suggest that it offers social possibilities that are unavailable, or at least unsustainable, under a gold standard or commodity-backed money system.

Further, fiat money seems to offer a path to a post-capitalist society:

Fiat money allows us to express our democratically determined collective desire independently of what capital demands. If this is so, the first true half-step away from pure capitalism may already have occurred without us realizing it. And because we haven’t realized it, we haven’t completed that first step. We have fiat money, but we haven’t made full use of it.

The ideal society may not involve money at all. And moving toward such an ideal society may well require additional steps involving more democratic forms of money than we possess at present. Even so, we have not even scratched the surface of what is possible, in terms of economic democracy, with our current form of fiat money. In principle, in a fiat-money system there is tremendous scope for economic activity run along lines other than the profit motive and the logic of capital, to the extent that we deem this to be appropriate. But right now governments are not serving the interests of general populations – our interests – and they are not interested in doing so. The only way this will change is for us to put our collective foot down. We have to exert massive pressure from below. Maybe the OWS movement is the start of something big in this respect.

The second thing that jumped out at me today during my reading was this paragraph from David Graeber’s article:

Money has always been a particular problem for revolutionaries and anti-capitalists. What will money look like “after the revolution”? How will it function? Will it exist at all? It’s hard to answer the question if you don’t know what money actually is. Proposing to eliminate it entirely seems utopian and naïve. Suggesting money will still exist sounds as though one is admitting to the inevitability of some kind of market. (emphasis added)

It is Graeber’s reference to the utopianism of suggesting an immediate break to a post-capitalist society without money that especially caught my attention, because it is here that I think the democratic possibilities latent in fiat money are so relevant. For this reason, in my post linked to earlier I wrote:

[M]aking full use of fiat money’s social potential may offer a non-utopian path to socialism. The path is non-utopian because the starting point is grounded in the existing system, and is therefore concrete and understandable. Fiat money has grown out of the existing system, as a response to crisis, and offers a new logic. If we follow this new logic – which enables true independence of some activities from capital’s logic, rather than a strained separation of those activities, with capital always encroaching, always exerting pressure to conform to its demands – attempts at social cooperation may have a firmer footing. If we get a taste for this, we may want more of it. Capital might whither away slowly, or abruptly. But even if the process were only gradual, the qualitative change would be revolutionary. To the extent that capital survived for a time, it would be on our terms, not its own.

Capital, to the extent it remained, would operate on our terms because we would have recognized that fiat money is logically prior to capital, and would act in such a way as to assert the priority of society over economy. Fiat money could then be put to democratically determined uses, unconstrained by the logic of capital.

The current flexible exchange-rate fiat-currency systems did not emerge as the preferred option of capitalists or capitalist governments. They came only after the failure to maintain a gold standard, and the subsequent failure to maintain a watered down version of the gold standard in Bretton Woods. Even after this, the Europeans have groped around for some alternative more suitable to capitalists than the horrifying prospect (to capitalists) of democratically elected national governments issuing their own flexible-exchange rate fiat currencies in accordance with the will of their electorates. As with the earlier anti-democratic missions, the EMU project has run into difficulties. But as long as general populations accept the neo-liberal rhetoric, these difficulties will merely be used to justify more austerity, more attacks on organized labor and more dismantling of the welfare state.

We need to recognize what’s possible with fiat currency – complete that first step away from pure capitalism – and exert our collective will through democratic means.

Share

21 thoughts on “Money and Paths to a Post-Capitalist Society

  1. I’m quite sure I’ve not absorbed the full meaning you’ve covered in your post.

    But let me ask the following question, which includes a question within a question:

    ——————

    How much of what you are driving at here can be addressed by answering in a fairly comprehensive way the following question, which happens to be framed in an MMT context:

    “Why do currency issuers (as defined by MMT) issue bonds?”

    Assuming there’s more to it (i.e. your full meaning) than that, how much more?

    ——————

  2. Actually, I think that even under current arrangements there is tremendous policy freedom compared to commodity-backed monetary systems or the gold standard. Yes, personally I would prefer to see further changes in monetary arrangements, such as no public debt issuance and a zero-interest rate policy. But my view in this post is not predicated on that. I think already there is much more policy freedom than is usually recognized by the general community. I do think in policymaking and academic circles there is more understanding, but this understanding is being mystified for public consumption for political and class-interested reasons.

    I should also mention that my argument here (and political preference) is in no necessary relation to MMT. It is just my interpretation of the possibilities under fiat money in light of MMT, and what I personally make of that politically.

  3. PS: I always tend to emphasize socialist possibilities because of my politics, but I think the point I am trying to make holds irrespective of whether we want capitalism, socialism or something else. I am just trying to say that if we want, for example, 95% of activity run along capitalist lines and 5% run along socialist lines, fiat money makes that possible. If we want the reverse, fiat money also makes that possible. Fiat money under a floating exchange rate makes it possible to “cordon off” the activity run according to the “logic of capital” from other social activity, and also to regulate it to the extent this is deemed appropriate. In contrast, less capitalistic possibilities would not be sustainable under a gold standard. So my basic point is that fiat money opens up social possibilities across the political spectrum.

  4. Have a lot of disagreements as you figured out from my comments. (Nothing here in substance in this post particularly). However, this blog is highly useful in figuring why MMTers think the way they think.

  5. Peter,

    My sense is that you’re at least temporarily trying to get some escape velocity from being too interconnected with the MMT paradigm with this particular post. If that’s true, I can certainly understand it, given the heavy MMT related discussions recently.

    But just on another MMT tie, if I may:

    You said:

    “Actually, I think that even under current arrangements there is tremendous policy freedom compared to commodity-backed monetary systems or the gold standard.”

    I stumbled across the following post the other day by pure accident, and found it very interesting:

    http://andolfatto.blogspot.com/2011/03/out-of-thin-air.html

    But interesting almost entirely for this part:

    ” …. a point that I have been trying to make for some time now. The “gold standard” is nothing more than a promise made “out of thin air” by the government. Look at how easily Roosevelt abrogated that promise in 1933. What makes people believe that the same thing cannot happen again? (Related arguments apply to so-called “free banking” regimes.)”

    This fascinates me for two reasons:

    a) I am generally sceptical that the historic gold standard monetary system has been described in operational terms that are sufficiently accurate for comparison purposes against today’s fiat systems

    b) I am equally intrigued by the radical idea that the gold standard itself is a form of self-imposed constraint ranking parri passu in logical terms with the type of self-imposed constraints categorized by MMT as applied to today’s fiat systems

    Not sure where that leads me, but see if you find the above post of interest in any case.

  6. “Currently, we are seeing the ramifications of a more recent attempt in Europe to tie money creation, albeit less rigidly, to the logic of capital.”

    I think the Euro is far more rigid than the gold standard was. Under the gold standard, each country had its own paper money. It wasn’t a pure single currency system (though of course, that’s the vision of Rothbardian gold supporters).

  7. Good post. Democratic control of money does seem to be a potential back door toward socialism, the demand side so to speak versus attacking capitalism on the supply side – nationalizing industries, etc. Standard Marxists I think tend to think only in terms of the supply side attack and even get themselves into a position where they criticize “printing money”. They don’t seem to realize that capitalism has (at least) two sides open for attack. In that sense, MMT isn’t at all a back door – it’s fully as much a front door as the supply side.

    What I find limiting from many MMT’ers is that they seem to focus only on the demand side and seem uninterested in the supply side.

    The demand side attack has a great deal of purely “economic” logic behind it and could reasonably persuade a number of moderate liberal types if well presented. But so also a supply side attack. After all, only 500 corporations control 40% of global revenue. We regulate utilities and other monopolies in the public interest, why not these mega oligopolies which have similar pricing power? Once regulated, the door’s open. Why should they be permitted to operate only in the interest of a bunch of rentier absentee owners, etc. The mega corporations are ripe for such an argument, being so few yet so powerful.

    Anyway, I think we who promote MMT ideas should add a few quivers to our arsenal rather than just focusing on things like guaranteed jobs.

  8. This is a bit long, but I wanted to respond to everyone in one reply rather than put up four comments in a row. Before I start, thanks to everyone for engaging in the topic.

    Max: Thanks for the correction. I guess I had in mind that with the Euro the ECB, as we are seeing, can always step in to preserve the system by buying sovereign debt of member nations in the secondary market. In this sense, the EMU is sustainable as long as the ECB continues to play backstop. The system will only break down if and when the measures required to preserve the system are no longer sufficiently satisfactory to the parties concerned.

    JKH: This point also partly relates to your comment. In particular, this part:

    b) I am equally intrigued by the radical idea that the gold standard itself is a form of self-imposed constraint ranking parri passu in logical terms with the type of self-imposed constraints categorized by MMT as applied to today’s fiat systems

    I strongly agree with the observation in the post you link to that, at any time, a monetary system can break down. I began to respond to this point and it turned into something quite long, so I have decided to make it the basis of a new post.

    Here, I should at least respond to your other points. I am not qualified to address your skepticism regarding the operational details of the gold standard. I would be very interested in reading any further thoughts you might have on this.

    You also wrote:

    My sense is that you’re at least temporarily trying to get some escape velocity from being too interconnected with the MMT paradigm with this particular post. If that’s true, I can certainly understand it, given the heavy MMT related discussions recently.

    This is true in the sense that I wanted to discuss the social possibilities of fiat money without necessarily implicating, or being confined to, MMT. This is not because of the recent, involved threads on MMT – at least not in a negative way – which I have very much enjoyed and continue to learn from, but because it is not clear to me that many MMTers would share my perspective on the topic of my last two posts. After seeing the diversity of opinion on the political openness or otherwise of MMT, I decided that it might be better for me just to base my thinking on the MMT understanding of monetary operations and accounting without any necessary reference to the policy prescriptions of the academic MMTers. For this reason, it is not clear that I am actually discussing MMT, so I thought it best to leave that question to one side and just focus on developing my own thoughts. It is not that I am necessarily opposed to the main MMT policy prescriptions so far as they go. It is just that I think the possibilities opened up by an understanding of the monetary operations and accounting are broader than those policy prescriptions, extending in both directions along the political spectrum.

    Ramanan: I should mention that my blog is not necessarily representative of the views of academic MMTers. I am sure you are aware of this, but I thought I should make it explicit for any newer readers. On politics and policy, the views expressed on this blog are not necessarily MMT views. In fact, I would be very surprised if even a sizable minority of MMTers agreed with a lot of what I am writing in the most recent posts.

    On theory, I am interested in drawing on economists that have not necessarily been influential in the development of MMT. I probably consider myself someone who is more influenced by Marx, Kalecki and Keynes but who is exploring the contributions of these economists in light of MMT (and also the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx).

    On technical matters – monetary operations and accounting – I am very much a neophyte and am simply trying to interpret the work produced by the academic MMTers, while also seeking to learn from the contributions of non-MMTers such as yourself, JKH and some of the BIS economists. On these matters, I am especially thankful that Scott Fullwiler has gone out of his way to clarify some aspects of the MMT analysis. When you guys debate operations, I try to follow as closely as I can, but at times it is well beyond my current level of understanding.

    Having said all that, I am glad that you find my blog of interest. I also follow your blog closely and especially appreciate your explanations of the EMU.

    Jim: Thanks for your thoughts. They always provide food for thought. I agree with your point in this thread. I think Marxists do a good job of explaining the role of social relations in production when it comes to grinding out surplus labor and also draw out broader consequences of private property, but perhaps they underemphasize the importance of demand and money. The latter greatly affect the (demand determined) level of production and therefore influence (in addition to factors tied to the production process) the total amount of surplus value produced and, of course, realized. I think they also underemphasize the extent to which society’s construction of money affects – for as long as the construction holds – the possibilities open to it.

  9. “Why should they be permitted to operate only in the interest of a bunch of rentier absentee owners,”

    I would have thought that falls into the general the state’s requirement to attack monopolies whenever it sees them.

    I find the obsession with large companies irritating amongst politicians, particularly as they are, by definition, the ones with the most endemic entropy and therefore are very inefficient structurally and organisationally. In many cases worse than public sector departments.

    Most banks are paragons of inefficiency and waste who only survive because the barriers to entry are so high.

    Quite why politicians are so obsessed with ‘inward investment’ by ‘large corporations’ is beyond me.

  10. “We need to recognize what’s possible with fiat currency – complete that first step away from pure capitalism – and exert our collective will through democratic means.”

    That’s like suggesting that shareholders should exert their will over the pay and conditions of their directors. De jure they can. De facto they don’t.

    Concentration of power and wealth matters.

    I’m not entirely sure that democracy is the first choice of the capitalists either, as we have seen in Europe in spades.

  11. “On politics and policy, the views expressed on this blog are not necessarily MMT views.”

    And as Warren Mosler always points out. MMT doesn’t have any views. It just is.

    Those trying to ascribe politics to MMT are generally trying to discredit it in favour of their own political views.

    MMT shows that the system is not fundamentally constrained to any particular viewpoint from an operational view point. Many of the things described as ‘inevitable’ in standard economic texts are not. They are all a matter of political choice.

    Once you understand MMT you understand that there is always an alternative.

  12. Thanks for your thoughts, Neil. My view is that understanding what is possible is an important step beyond falsely believing there is no alternative. However, all it means is that better possibilities can be pursued if the general population is able to exert sufficient pressure for change. Undoubtedly this is a big ask, but it is the only way I can see to effect change for the better. The New Deal came only after a large collective effort from below to exert such pressure for change. It may be even harder this time around because there is no “rival” soviet system already in existence “competing” for public affection.

    There are lots of “us” and few of “them”. If we act in solidarity, there may be hope. But to build solidarity, we need some kind of shared understanding of what is possible as well as an understanding of our shared interests in bringing about change.

  13. peterc,

    My impressions of gold standard explanations are too complicated (and probably muddled) to get into here, but for starters at a much more general level:

    MMT’ers know (and I agree) that the mainstream comprehension of today’s monetary system is quite weak. There are some specific examples to go to here, including the public MMT debate with Krugman, and (not to pick on him too much) the case of Scott Sumner. The points of contention in these cases are quite technical, but critical, such as the necessity for the central bank to pay interest on excess reserves beyond a certain point, the equivalence of such an arrangement to the issuance of a particular kind of debt security (or conversely, Mosler’s interpretation that bonds are equivalent to an interest bearing bank deposit at the CB), and the inability of the CB to force feed non-interest bearing notes into the system (an incapacity which often seems denied beneath the mainstream surface).

    So my opening general point, as a point of reasonable scepticism I think, is the following: When mainstream economics has such a demonstrably weak understanding of the technical characteristics of today’s monetary system, why would it be reasonable to assume they would have a notably more reliable understanding of the technical characteristics of a historic system? In direct connection with this, one specific historic example I would point to is the occasional piece I come across attempting to describes France’s role in contributing to the Great Depression through its gold policy. Such pieces can venture into highly technical territory in terms of the specific impact of the related activity on the balance sheets of the Fed and the Bank of France. And trying to parse those puzzling explanations is when I really start to wonder.

    There are some other issues that relate to historic comparisons in the context of the interpretation of today’s system on its own in such interesting discussions as we’ve had recently regarding the MMT paradigm and potential variations on it, etc. Hence my probing of where the uber-definition of a constraint really starts.

  14. JKH: Thanks for your reply. Very interesting. I agree with the need for skepticism concerning orthodoxies of the past.

    Regarding the potential variations and uber-definition, etc., I have just put up another post. As I mentioned, it started as an attempt to address your point b) at 17 December 10:04 PM, although in the end I suspect it will again raise more questions than answers. Maybe that’s a good thing. I am still trying to piece together what I think about all this stuff – perhaps others are too – so the back and forth is helpful.

  15. How is attempting to manage capitalism through monetary policy a road to socialism? When you talk about MMT exerting democratic control over the economy what exactly is the nature of this control? Isn’t it just the ability to stimulate growth through state spending? How is more capitalist growth a road to socialism? If anything MMT seems to be a theory of state capitalism…

  16. Peter,

    Yes I am aware of what you pointed out. For example, I would be very careful of quoting you to MMTers about something. What I was trying to say was that in spite of that, you seem to know about their work well.

    I too like Kalecki – but my knowledge of his work is restricted to what I read from others – not directly from his work. Maybe I should pick up his writings sometime. Unlike Keynes who confessed that:

    “The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds”,

    Kalecki had no such issues I believe.

  17. brendan: It’s good to see you post here. I follow your blog and have occasionally commented over there.

    It seems to be happening quite a bit lately that in starting to respond to a comment it gets longer and longer. I have decided to put it up as a new post. I have found it useful to quote your comment. I hope you don’t mind. If you take the time to respond further, I will be very interested to read your thoughts. For me, I think such a dialogue could be very helpful. I’m not sure what some of my readers would make of it all, given at a guess that most of them are probably not socialists or communists, or even necessarily left of center, but hopefully it would be of interest to some of them as well.

    Regarding the new post, as also seems to be happening lately, it may raise more questions than it answers. We’ll see.

  18. Peter C,

    I’ve been taking my time going through these latest posts and the replies they motivate and, well, it’s taking me some time. So, I hope not to be inconvenient by replying here.

    Anyway, if I understand the idea, you might be onto something with these posts and I may have been too quick in drawing conclusions.

    If I am not mistaken, you appear to see floating exchange-fiat money as a kind of stage in the evolution of capitalism, a stage into which capitalism may be entering after the gold standard and Bretton Woods stages failed. In this sense, it’s an stage that would contribute to capitalism’s survival, but that would open “back doors” (as someone else mentioned above) to control the mix profit motive/non profit motive and perhaps we have not yet realized these steps.

    It’s perhaps that last observation that makes me feel that you might be onto something here: social evolution does not come by design.

    We cannot foresee how socialism will be established and how it will evolve into communism. It’s probably literally impossible and not even Marx dared go into that territory.

    But we can look into the past and see how capitalism came to be and it most definitely did not come into being by design: it did not appear ready, with all its current characteristics and entirely different from the medieval social structures.

    And I could bet nobody could have predicted what path European societies would follow in this feudal to capitalist transition.

    My worry is that, as in the previous transition, this one may suffer detour and take time and perhaps we are running out of it.

  19. Magpie: Thanks. That is an excellent summary. You are basically correct in your interpretation of my argument. Actually, “argument” is probably too strong a word. It is really only a suggestion at this stage, as the ideas aren’t well formed and I am still trying to work them out. If anything you may have stated my suggestion better than I have. I’ll be interested in your thoughts when you’ve had time to read through the various posts in the “set”. But take your time.

    Just as a bit of personal background, when I first encountered and understood the basic MMT monetary insight (a couple of years ago now), it had an immediate impact on my thinking similar to the first time I understood the principle of effective demand or, most strikingly, Marx’s explanation of the origin of surplus value. They each dealt with conceptual problems that I had often pondered without being able to make proper sense of on my own. When I understood them, a lot of things seemed to fall into place. One thing that hit me straight away with the MMT monetary insight was that it might have implications for getting from capitalism to a better system. Until now, I haven’t really explored that initial thought much, but it was something I wondered about from the start.

  20. I just discovered your website, though I had read some of your essays via links from other blogs. I don’t know how to contact you other than by making this comment.

    I am 76 years old and due to an unusual set of circumstances I became, at a very early age, deeply interested in how our government and our economy work. This interest quickly grew into trying to devise ways to make them better. In 1949 I was introduced to the idea of unlimited money. I was a child sitting with adults when they suddenly to talk about Rocky Mountains made of gold. Over years this group of friends developed the idea that our government did not need to borrow to finance its needs, that it did not need taxation, and that our unlimited gold could be spent on worthwhile, non-inflationary projects, etc. In 1956, after thinking about this idea for years on my own, I decided to spend my adult life studying our systems and trying to insert this idea of unlimited money into useful revisions. I vowed that I would write a book about my ideas when I reached retirement age, which I did in 2004. Since that time I have been working on my book and it is ready to be printed. When I read your comment about a post-capitalist world, I immediately wanted to tell you that my design calls for a democrato-capitalist world in which the people control the supply of money and invest it, as capitalists. Thus tyranno-capitalism, which works only for a few, would be replaced by a system that works for everyone.
    My design includes functions that encompass and serve much of our current society’s important needs.

    If you are curious about my ideas, and I hope that you are, then please take a look at the Introduction at jerryrhamrick.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *