© May 21, 2016, Alexander Sigismund Gruber, Germany, bluewinds44@gmail.com



The most important societal precondition for a life, which is in dignity, seems to me a functioning and just economy. Billions of people go to work every day and are living from the wages, which they earn in this way. All these people need a functioning financial system. Therefor it is not wrong to propose a humanist and internationalist reform of the financial system. Within the coming age of scarcity of natural resources a money economy seems to be essential. Money is a measure for and counterpart of access to natural resource by the individual, while she or he is still free for which commodities to spend it. And as natural resources will become scarce, it is necessary to have such a limitation by income. Hence I don’t agree with some ultra-left, who want to abolish money. And additionally a money economy is essential to drive the optimization of products and production, which is an advantage of capitalism.
The major problem, which I found with the present system, is that capitalism lacks a coherent method to expand its total money volume in circulation. But such a method is indispensable for real economic growth of the world economy. Within the first chapter I am analyzing this situation and within the second chapter I am presenting my idea for a solution. This idea I have directly combined with a solution also for the problems of poverty and hunger on the planet (qualitative growth). The policy, which I describe in the essay, is meant as a minimum claim for a functioning capitalism, of course to be amended by many specific or specialized claims. On my opinion this policy can combat poverty and hunger effectively on the planet and it would lead to a more ecological capitalism.
Within the two concluding chapters I am extending the view on the situation of mankind in general and giving a creative view on my initiative.

Table of contents:



Let me start with a question, which allows me to explain my idea in an especially transparent way. How does capitalism expand its global money volume, such that the word economy can grow? I want to address the macroeconomic balance here, I am not speaking of special industrialized Economies, which by export surplus absorb money volume from foreign sources and maintain in this way their stock of jobs and their welfare state. If one considers the world economy as a closed system (there is no trade with extraterrestrials), then to real economic growth must exist a matching money volume, which allows to buy the newly produced commodities. I am asking, where does it come from?
I can only see two possibilities here. Either states – their central banks – print money and devalue their currencies in this way. Or states or private persons go into debt, whereby a part of the financial capital, which has accumulated within the big bubble of the gains, is redistributed into the cycle of the real economy.
I am analyzing here the economy in a simple picture in two parts. There is the cycle of the real economy. Within this cycle rotates money, while it is spent and re-earned with the clock of the wages. And there is money, which is not immediately spent again. This is the portion of the gains with any purchase, after subtraction of the payment of human labor, natural resources, taxes, preliminary products etc. The latter gains are collecting in a bubble of money, the big bubble of the gains. The problem is that the gains are thinning the cycle of the real economy, until in the end they cannot be reinvested profitably. Ten years of lowering real wages in Germany, while corporate gains were increasing. Ultimately for missing money volume within the cycle of the real economy – for missing demand – it comes to crisis like the bursting of the real estate bubble. This phenomenon of the thinning of the cycle of the real economy, until no money volume is left to realize new gains, would be much more emphasized, if not the this cycle would be buffered all the time by borrowed or printed money.
But both presented options to expand the money volume of capitalism have severe disadvantages. The devaluation of currencies sure leads for those countries, which choose for this option, to a boosting of their export. But foreign goods, especially imported natural resources, become more expensive in this way. For example the fuel prices in India did excessively grow on occasion of the devaluation of the Indian Rupee. Additionally by the devaluation of currencies the international economic situation is distorted. The markets are biased. One speaks also of “currency dumping”.
Public debt on the other hand is not sustainable at all. The loans have today reached a volume in the range of 10 – 20% of the public budgets. This system stumbles over its own feet. The total worldwide debt has reached the level of 100 trillion USD by summer of 2013. Between the years 2007 and 2013 the worldwide debt grew by 40% ([1], original source: Bank for International Settlements (BIS)). Corporate debt grew by 21 trillion USD [1]. Much of the present cycle of the real economy consists of borrowed money. Thereby the policy of the cheap money of the central banks after the crisis of 2007 plays a major role. There was printed money in large dimension by the European Central Bank, as well as by the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA. And this money was lend at zero or almost zero interest rate to the commercial banks. The scarcity of money in the hands of the banks, which was due to the bursting of the housing bubble, was far overcompensated. This can be seen with the low interest rates in the most important industrial countries of Europe. Basically there was created a climate, which allowed big corporations to make their investments cheaper (with the cheap interest rate credits), such that the production as a whole became more profitable. With the option to lower export prices. This policy is part of the supply oriented policy of neo-liberalism, to which also belong tax reliefs for the rich and super-rich, cuttings of wages and building down of social welfare. The target is to make the Western economy more competitive, on the cost of the threshold countries, as well as of China and on cost of the standard of living of the own population.

But someday the credits have to be payed back. And when the world economic cycle would be deprived of the whole demand, which was inserted recently by the policy of the cheap money, then there remains no money for real economic growth. The consequence only could be that further investment bubbles are busting and the labor market would exhibit another crisis. I guess that the overproduction crisis on the markets of petroleum and food are already a consequence of the over-capitalization by the flood of cheap money. These are the new bubbles, which are bursting soon.
The celebrated “innovations” are neither the solution. Innovative products only shift production from one sector to another or from one product to another. Instead of fixed net phones the people buy mobile phones or smart phones. Instead of desktop computers they buy tablets. For one production, which booms, another one is closed down. The money within the global economic cycle can only be spent one time per cycle.
The true problem is that with capitalism the cycle of the real economy is always thinned by gains, until in the end there is as little demand left that gains cannot be reinvested profitably. This thinning is expressed by joblessness and lowering real wages. As I said: Ten years of lowering real wages in Germany, but rising corporate gains. There is missing demand then. Financial capital is becoming “jobless” and begins to speculate. And states got used to buffer the cycle of the real economy by going into debt on large scale. That is they redistributed money volume from the big bubble of the gains back into the cycle of the real economy. This system has reached its limits. And the central banks printed this flood of cheap money and have lowered interest rates in this way to a minimum. Thus states can go on with this cheap interest rate to borrow more money. This is part of the policy of the “cheap” money.
In the end the system of the cheap money can never finish, without exhibiting a crisis. Credits have to be refinanced by new credits. The bubble of credits has to be enlarged all the time that it does not burst. And this system will stumble over its own feet one day. This will happen, when the loans have accumulated so much that they cannot be paid any more by most states. At the same time entrepreneurs try to press down the wages most to pay back their credits and additionally they expose the workforce of the world to direct competition for the lowest wages and labor standards by free trade agreements like the TTIP (“Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership”). An unacceptable state of affairs.



Hence what is missing is a sustainable policy of expansion of the money volume of capitalism. To any real economic growth there must exist a matching money volume, which is needed, to buy the additionally produced goods and services. And to provide this money volume, there is needed a worldwide, coherent and cooperative mechanism.
The policy of the sporadic expansion of the money volume by insular devaluation of currencies (states printing money sporadically) and cheap giant credits must be replaced by an economically sustainable policy, which serves all economies. Without the generation of money, capitalism cannot expand from a point on, when not more money from foreign sources can be absorbed. Gains are reinvested to realize even bigger gains, not for its own sake. And without money expansion this has a limit (or big losses are encountered: housing bubble). This is a question of the macroeconomic balance.
And here comes my plot. A better capitalism is possible. Let me introduce my system at this point as a new global financial architecture. Instead of the policy of the cheap money (credit basis) I am proposing a coherent way of money expansion. I am actually proposing that not only some countries are printing money, but that all countries are printing money simultaneously and coordinately. This should happen under the framework of a multilateral agreement within the UN or WTO. To each country would be designated a certain printing facility, a certain percentage of its GDP, which it is allowed to print annually. I would recommend 2% – 5% of the GDP as a rule. Thereby a certain inflation would be caused, but it should be done in a way that all currencies remain stable in relation to each other (retain their exchange ratios). This means, because all countries print the same amount of money in comparison to the productivity of their economy, currencies would not shift significantly in their ratio to one another. To express it seemingly paradoxical, because all countries are devaluing their currencies the same, no currency would be devalued towards the other. The inflation (devaluation) would be majorly a domestic phenomenon. A kind of world domestic inflation. Hence the disadvantages of devaluing currencies with single states printing money would be avoided. Meanwhile the money expansion on credit basis would be replaced by a true money expansion.

But that not all politicians overbid each other in a race for the most appealing election goodies for their clientele, the role of the central banks must be determined anew. And what would be more just and better to do with the freshly printed money within the cycle of the world economy, than to combat the problems of poverty and hunger on the planet effectively? The new role of the central banks would be determined as poverty reduction (by the money printed by them). Besides that ecological transformation (against climate change and its consequences) and peace building could have a part. To these points the expenditure of the printed money should be restricted by multilateral agreements. But majorly the money coherently printed by the central banks of the world should be given to the poor and hungry. Note that hunger is not so much caused by that the people in the rich countries eat up the food for the poor, but it is caused by lack of money in the hands of the hungry to buy their own food and in this way driving the agricultural production to follow their demand. The printing facilities would equip the welfare state with the necessary money to give this demand into the hands of the hungry. In Sub-Saharan Africa the number of the hungry could be right away cut to half with 5% of the GDP there (62 USD per capita monthly, GDP: 1950 billion USD, 239 million hungry). And one and so many would find work in the growing agricultural sector with my policy. In North-Africa the social situation could be stabilized, which would also deprive the Islamic State of its recruiting basis. In Germany (already with 2% of the GDP) the minimum net income could be risen from about 800 Euro monthly to the 1050 Euro monthly, which the party “The Left” requires. This policy would also be an excellent business support program (to create jobs). The dilemma between investment policy and austerity policy would vanish, as the money from the printing facilities would be the investment program, while the usual public budget can stay balanced. This policy would be more ecological than the policy of the cheap money, because the real economy would grow especially by additional demand on the domestic markets, which would involve shorter transport ways (and hence would reduce CO2 emissions, which are caused by international trade). The economy would further grow from the side of the expenses of the poor and hungry (qualitative growth) and not from the side of the expenses for none-ecological luxury of the rich (additionally driven by the cheap money from the central banks). And with the booming economy social and environmental standards (against which the destruction of jobs is so often the argument) would be again feasible to be set forth with the majority of the working population. Hence the solution of many problems depends at the same time on the solution of the problem of the coherent money expansion within capitalism.

Thereby the printing facilities can be used also as a steering policy. For example countries, which take over refugees can be rewarded by a 0,5% – 1% of their GDP increase of their printing facility per million of refugees, which they host. The printing facilities would also improve the social situation within the countries of origin of the migration. There can be given a 0,5% – 1% of the GDP increase of the printing facility also for countries, which abolish coal-burning power plants and had favored them before, because of their own coal deposits. I am speaking of Poland here for example. In this way the printing facilities would additionally lead to a more ecological world. Thereby it is important that the new system would be a system of solidarity of currencies. Strong currencies would support weak currencies (by providing printed money), such that the worldwide system of currencies remains stable and the granted printing margins are reached at the same time. This is the development aid aspect or aspect of balance with my system. Mankind needs to cooperate to find the right answers to the challenges of the 21st century, the warmongering, the depletion of mineral resources, global warming and overpopulation.
The race for the lowest wages and the worst conditions of labor needs to be replaced by a system of international solidarity, from which benefit all countries. Instead of focusing on the insular absorption by export of the sporadic injections of money volume into the world economic cycle, the world economy would grow with the coordinated and cooperative inflow of fresh money for all countries. Instead of a race of currencies to underbid each other, all countries would get money and that is export chances would remain stable in relation to each other. My system somehow makes out of the the evil (race for devaluation by printed money) a virtue (all countries are slightly devaluing, but quantitatively coordinated). And this now does not happen any more to boost the export of single countries, but to provide the necessary money volume within global capitalism such that all economies can grow.

The issue of inflation is very important. To make a test on the ratio of inflation to real economic growth I experimentally tested the totally different economic periods for Germany from 1969 to 1978 and 2004 to 2013. The average of real economic growth during the first period, the boom period, is 3,6% and that of inflation 4,66%. The corresponding figures for the second period, the lean years, are 1,26% and 1,61%. If one computes now the ratios between real economic growth and inflation, one gets 78,3% for the first period and 77,1% for the second period. There seems to be a very constant ratio between real economic growth and inflation, if one selects the periods under consideration long enough to average out economic fluctuations, but short enough to compare enough periods. I have completed the investigation now, whereby I found a ratio of 78,0% for the period from 1979 to 1988 and 89,9% for the period from 1989 to 1998. The period after the reunion of Germany drops out significantly, but for the three other periods the ratio is very constant.
This means that usually inflation is right away a natural side effect of real economic growth. This is also systematically apprehensive, because when the money volume is expanded, such that more goods can be bought, then the prices are rising, until the production has followed the demand. And for this phenomenon there seems to exist a quit constant long term ratio (so far under the conditions of the German economy), which I still like to take over as being typical into the following considerations.
Inflation is no law of nature. It depends on many individual decisions of purchase and offer. Especially, if the money, which causes the inflation, is given to the poor and hungry, they will more likely than the well to do tend to buy more different goods at a cheap price, than paying for the same goods a higher price. This is an explanation for the 89,9% above, because after the reunion of Germany most East Germans were poor.

If now there are printed 2% of the GDP annually and given to the poor and hungry, then happens the following: A part of it will be set forth into real economic growth, while another part is set forth into inflation. Still these 2% are circulating several times during the year within the economic cycle. With each cycle the money contributes to the GDP, but each time diminished by the gains from the last rotation. The GDP rises in this way far above of 2%. This is the effectivity of this measure. I can think that this continual rotation causes an inflation of 5%. And therefor with the empirical factor from the last section, the world’s real economic growth would be 5% * 78% = 3,9% (for comparison, worldwide real economic growth was at 2,4% in 2015, according to the World Bank). Or 90% * 5% = 4,5% (because many of the world’s population are poor, which increases the ratio of real economic growth to inflation). These would be the expected or intended figures for the world economy. If one spends additionally the usual development aid for education and health care, then hunger and joblessness would be soon extinguished by this rate of growth (still the Third World children need their daily food, which would be given to them through the printing facilities, to enable them to go to school). The world economy would flourish. The problem of the present economy that it brings about worldwide mass joblessness and agony always together with wealth for a few would be overcome.

In this connection the new global financial architecture would exhibit tow factors, which drive financial capital into investments. The demand exited with the expenses of the poor and hungry would exhibit a “pull”-factor to drive financial capital into investments. Because of the additional demand, which is created by the printing facilities, investments would easily pay. Inflation would exhibit in turn a “push”-factor for financial capital to be invested. Thus both helping to combat joblessness. The inflation additionally would have the wanted side effect of melting away public and private debt. The 1050 Euro minimum income for Germany for example would also set a kind of wage standard and so it would be in other countries, always according to their level of welfare with their printing facilities. This is again a wanted effect of my system. Industrial revolution started with the promise for the people to have a better standard of living. And to fulfill this promise in my eyes it is necessary to have a reasonable surplus above the existential minimum for ones own life plans. In this way are meant the 250 Euro above the existential minimum for Germany. And the jobless need to be compensated sufficiently for that the system makes them jobless and just for serving as a reserve of labor.
I think that people have a right to have their share in the benefits of industrial revolution. I am trying to capture this by proclaiming a set of substantial social human rights, as are the freedoms of: clean water, food, housing, clothing, health care, mobility, communication, information, culture, life projects, education, provisions for childhood and old age. How this is meant by me, the fulfillment of these rights would amount to 1250 Euro monthly (without the health care) in Germany and for the USA – with the prices there – this amount needs roughly to be increased by one fourth.
Wages, pensions and welfare money would of course continually be adjusted to the inflation of maximally 5%. But this was no problem either during the boom period in Germany, when the inflation was at 4,66%. It remains that because of the inflation of maximally 5% a money change or reform is needed earliest after 46 years, just cutting one null on the new bank notes.
Naturally there exist other productive factors, than the available money volume within the cycle of the real economy. Education, technology and natural resources are such factors. To prevent that the new system leads into high inflation it should be started carefully. The other productive factors need to be given time to adjust to the new financial environment. Therefor I am proposing to start for the developing countries with 2% of the GDP too and then screening the effect and eventually rising their printing facilities to 5% later. On all hands a galloping inflation, which would be due to some underdeveloped productive factors, needs to be avoided.

Finally I like to say some words on my new global financial architecture and on other ideas of mine within this essay. I am mentally disabled and thus I had not yet occasion to build up a career of my own. But in fact I am seriously in need of money for my marriage in West-Africa and for my project of a dreams culture. Therefor I am really concerned about my authorship of the new ideas within this essay. This concerns not only my idea of a new global financial architecture, but also for example my interpretation of the Jungian archetype of “living in the sun” in chapter four and the proposal made there to throw LSD on the fighters of the Islamic State, instead of bombs. Of course I would be happy, if you invite me to lecture about my approach or if you quote me.
I am a far reaching intuitive thinker and philosopher (the Jungian archetype of the fish, the bringer of culture on societal level). I am not only working on this project of a new global financial architecture, but also on a political manifesto for a combined solution of the problems of the modern world, now at the dawning of the age of depletion or limitation of natural resources. This book will have the title:


The material in this essay is taken from this project. It is an essay concerning the part of the project, on how to combat poverty and hunger on the planet and to reach at a more ecological capitalism. The book project moreover consists of the four (complete) fields of politics:
1. culture (cultural development, ethical values, humanism, dreams culture),
2. the social question (how to solve the problems of joblessness, poverty and hunger),
3. human ecology (sustainable development, pollution of the environment, global warming, population growth),
4. peace building.
If you sponsor or otherwise support me, you would support this whole project. It is meant for the benefit of mankind as a combined, interconnected and cooperative approach. I have to say a lot on all four of the above items. If you invite me for an interview, this can start from the new global financial architecture and then covering a wider range of global affairs.



Another question is the long term stability of my system. There is a maximum size to which the real value of the money in the big bubble of gains can grow. When the melting away of the total money volume in the big bubble of the gains by inflation exceeds the inflow of money from gains out of the cycle of the real economy, the bubble will not grow any more. Also the cycle of the real economy has a maximum, when the inflow of printed money equals its melting away by inflation plus the outflow into the big bubble of the gains. The system is resembling a physical non-equilibrium system in floating balance. Alike all ecosystems it has a strong circular aspect. The inflow of printed money resembles the inflow of radiative energy from the sunlight and the inflation resembles the dissipation of energy.
The monetary system is overlaying the physical system of the planet. When the inflow of printed money does not excite more real economic growth, but only rising prices, this is an indicator that the monetary system has reached the boundary of physical resource limits.
Let me say something on Malthus’s theory at this point. If the population is growing exponentially, then also the work force and technology grow exponentially. Additional surfaces are cultivated and the efficiency of agricultural production rises, such that also the food production grows exponentially. This is what happened since the Second World War. The resource limit – the Malthusian trap – will be indicated instead of growth rate problems by a sudden bounce of the process at this limit (rising prices, rising child mortality and famine in the Third World). I am proposing to replace Malthus’s growth rate theory by a “bounce”-theory of the Malthusian trap.
Moreover with the depletion of mineral resources, especially of petroleum, the highly industrialized agriculture of the world would face a breakdown, leaving an overhang of population without food. This I call the “Malthusian gap”. This is in my eyes an even more severe reason for decarbonization, than climate change. Coal liquefacation seems to be no alternative, given its high carbon output and costs. In the end the goal should be a totally solar and circular economy (I mean from the physical side of human ecology).
I consider the depletion of petroleum here in a kind of business as usual scenario. Fortunately the measures against climate change are mostly the same as those to prepare for the depletion of petroleum, which might weaken this scenario.

The pathway of catching up development is not open to all developing countries. If all countries are the producers of the same industrial mass products (cars, refrigerators, TV-sets, computers, mobile phones and the like), then in which countries are located their buyers? Hence to maintain the welfare state and big stock of jobs by export surplus of industrial goods cannot be open to all countries. Consequently, if some countries have no mineral resources either, there must exist countries with a lower density of population, than was reached in the industrial countries.
In fact Susan George is wrong, when demanding that capitalists want to kind of abolish superfluous population. This aim would only appear, if this hypertrophy of population on the planet would become a danger for the people of the rich and super-rich class themselves. This is almost nowhere the case yet. Moreover population growth results in harder competition of the youth for the few jobs in the Third World, which allows the entrepreneurs to press wages low the most and which makes the poor the more dependent on the wealthy. This is clearly in the interest of the class of the capitalists. This is the preference of the rich class, when outsourcing jobs. And this was recently recognized in the corporate centrals with feminist criticism on population policies. And that’s why they all support the feminist view now. Overpopulation is in fact no economic disadvantage (what feminists rightfully claim), quit to the contrary, by rising competition between the workers it is a factor of locational advantage, but at what price of underpayment and low labor standards? Still overpopulation is a stress on the resource situation of mankind.

Capitalist production by electric machines, which is rationalizing labor, in turn is not so non-ecological in comparison to manual labor, as one thinks. In fact the solar efficiency of electric labor (31% maximally) is more than ten times higher, than that of manual labor (1,8% maximally). Only bio-fuel propulsion is worse (with 0,14%). I have considered the solar surface efficiency here, by which the sunlight is converted into mechanical energy output through the intermediate step of conversion into the chemical energy of food by photosynthesis or into electrical energy by photovoltaic cells. And I have considered with electrical energy a factor for the harvesting with solar cells and for storage of electrical energy. Let me compare these systemic solar surface efficiencies to a very promising alternative for propulsion in the future, which is the use of synthetic fuels with the usual cars. The solar surface efficiency of synthetic fuels is maximally 11% today. To produce these fuels, electrical energy is used to convert CO2 from the atmosphere and water into fuels. The resulting propulsion is carbon-neutral and much cleaner than with fossil fuels. Taking the figures from above, it is 79 times more efficient, than bio-fuel, but still one third as efficient, as electrical propulsion. The car population needs not to be exchanged, hence long-range transport is maintained. These fuels could be produced in desert regions, where much sunlight is available, but no surface competition between food and fuel production occurs. If electrical propulsion or the new fuels are used may widely depend on the profile of use of the vehicles (city car or tractor or long-distance coach). Further the future development of electrical storage technology will play a large role.

The rejection of rationalization is besides the point, because I am really not fond of, if workers have again to paint cars in hard, boring manual toil with spray-guns at the conveyor belt for the only reason that there should be more work. I think that rationalization is an advantage, if it is set forth in the right way for the working class. To say a word on the loyalty of robots, it will practically reflect the hierarchical structures and conflicts among the humans, who are operating them.
When German ex-chancellor Helmut Schröder said: “There is no right for laziness in our society!”, this is simply wrong. Of course the working class has the right to convert higher productivity either into more consumption or into more free time, the two promises of industrial revolution. Within the present system of continually high joblessness especially corporate gains are rising. If there is an alternative for the working class, present capitalism exhibits more consumption. But this can be changed by struggle for shorter working hours.
Still there is a problem of shortening working hours within unlimited international competition. Thereby crisis and boom of the labor market unfortunately exhibit always an anti-cyclic behavior to the chances to take up the struggle for shorter working hours. During phases of recession, when jobs are rare and the need to split working hours is most obvious, the workers movement has not the force to combat for shorter working hours. And during phases of boom, when jobs are abundant, the entrepreneurs reject the shortening of working hours most, because they need labor. Hence there should be struggled for shorter working hours still during a phase of boom (which my policy would exhibit). For this reason the global trade union movement needs to network even more.

The policy to stop population growth may consist of three components: provisions for old age, being independent of the individual number of children, availability of contraceptives and political information campaigns about the consequences of population growth. “Act locally, think globally”, but first and foremost in reproductive behavior. It needs a strong informative counterpoint against traditional systems, which favor a hypertrophy of population to have combatants for the warmongering of their elites and to have provisions for old age. The point of decreasing per capita resources with population growth is no “abstract” dimension, but it is very concrete on local level with the competition between herdsmen and farmers for land resources in Guinea Conakry for example. Still the continent-wide land resources in Africa are not yet exhausted? But fine, then let’s try to stop population growth that it remains this way in anticipation of possible crisis (caused by global warming for example). Not only this or only that. Reality is multidimensional, multifunctional and multicausal. Both problems have to be addressed, population growth as well as global warming. This thinking in exclusive alternatives, whereby one is repressed for the sake of attacking the other, is so disastrous.
If Third World ladies are not aware of that many children are providing their income, when they are old, then this awareness should be risen by educational initiatives. My policy of the printing facilities is in the end some means to provide also for the old aged in the Third World, until they have developed their own system there. And of course women have no special responsibility to stop population growth, but the couples are responsible and in patriarchal surroundings the men. All these counterarguments of feminists, which are put forward against population policies, are easily replied, but they are used to distract from the truly vital point of decreasing per capita resources with population growth. At the same time capitalism maintains its dis-proportioned consumption patterns.

Basically we have a conflict of aims here: On one hand only the capitalist system can provide the technological resources to establish an ecological way of mass production of affordable products of advanced technology (computers and the like) as well as for basic needs and has the productivity to nourish the growing population on the planet. On the other hand this system establishes its hyper-cycle of the real economy of consumption of non-ecological, superfluous luxury (big cars and the like). Maybe a compromise should be made, not too much consumption, to stay ecological enough and not too little consumption to provide the necessary incentives for a functioning capitalism. The Tesla company with its electric sports car seems to show a workable way (but flights into space with solid-fueled rockets for super-rich are ecologically unacceptable). And at this point also my system of real economic growth from the side of the poor and hungry would take grip (to minimize inequalities by real economic growth “from below”). But this system should not be overheated too, to save natural resources. Still sustainable (or even subsistence [5]) agriculture and a growing population are a contradiction (for lack of productivity of the first). Hence the long term strategy should be to revert or at least to stop population growth and to fulfill the needs of the working class by my policy. Thereby I am on all hands concerned about a surplus above the existential minimum. A socialist economy of scarcity, which would be non-ecological at the same time, I would not accept. My economic theory is rather a philosophy of achievements for mankind, than one of only avoidance of crisis. It is rather a philosophy of reasonable surplus, than one of negligence and survival.



Our time seems to be getting out of track. When I wake up and listen to the news, I hear that fife millions of Chinese workers will become jobless to remove the overproduction of coal and steel and at the same time China will increase its military budget the second year in series by 10%. I hear that Kim Jong Un declared on occasion of his visit of a North-Korean missile base that his country should always be prepared to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike (after the sanctions had been tightened because of the missile tests of North-Korea). Berta Casseres, the Honduran activist, who lead the struggle against barrages and mining on indigenous land, had been shot. Twelve thousand refugees are waiting in Idomeni to cross the Macedonian border. These are news, which are appropriate to reflect our historical time. The fate and destiny of the individual human being becomes more and more irrelevant. The hazards of our time are effecting millions in one strike. It can be added that our time becomes more and more sensitive to secret information and hidden negotiations.

But it would be like the struggle of Don Quijote against wind-mills to address these hazards without reflecting the underlying causes and movements within humanity. The latter I am trying to do within my essays. Thus I reflected on overproduction as a result of over-capitalization, which is due to the policy of the cheap money. I will reflect in my forthcoming book on the origins of warmongering. I have reflected within this essay on the issue of overpopulation of the planet. Because this is the issue, which is neglected most by critical authors, let me say a few more words about overpopulation and the embedded or connected issues.

I think that mankind with its continual population growth will run into a trap by a hard, unexpected bounce. But it is better for the poor and hungry to run into this trap with a just and functioning capitalism, than with the present unjust system. Eventually even the Malthusian trap, the Malthusian gap and crop losses due to climate change will coincide. Additionally the debt crisis will still burden coming generations then. A mega-crisis, which emerges by the superposition of different factors of crisis.

Amendment (September 2, 2016): I think now that the Malthusian gap due to the excessive use of petroleum will come even before the Malthusian gap due to the depletion of petroleum. Besides the signals of such a crisis due to global warming, which I received personally and about which I published already in June 2015 in my video about human ecology and expected crop losses in Africa [9], there exist projections of the UNCCD and the IPCC, which point in the same direction. The UNCCD writes:

“Two-thirds of the African continent is desert or dry-lands. This land is vital for agriculture and food production, however nearly three-fourths of it is estimated to be degraded to varying degrees. The region is affected by frequent and severe droughts, which have been particularly severe in recent years in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel.” [10]

I did not trust my own anxieties so much, thus I hesitated to publish such an alert in the first version of my essay. In fact an IPCC based report of the AMCEN (African Ministerial Conference on the Environment) draws a much less severe conclusion, than the UNCCD:

“By 2080, an increase of 5 to 8% of arid and semi-arid land in Africa is projected under a
range of climate scenarios (TS).” [11]

Thus not 75% of two third of the whole continent (roughly half of Africa). But to imagine the impact:

“By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people in Africa are projected to be exposed to
increased water stress due to climate change. […] in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.“ [11]

What are the signals (from which to extrapolate the situation)? FAO called this year for 109 million USD because of expected droughts in South Africa:

“Two consecutive seasons of droughts, including the worst in 35 years that occurred this year, have particularly hit vulnerable families in rural areas, as prices of maize and other staple foods have risen. The result is that almost 40 million people in the region are expected to face food insecurity by the peak of the coming lean season in early 2017. All countries in Southern Africa are affected.“ [12]

The expected crop losses are related to the El Niño phenomenon (droughts), as well as to the La Niña phenomenon (flash floods). As such phenomena are seldom isolated and vast drought sensitive regions throughout Asia might become effected by climate change too during the decades to come, I am asking myself, if there would not to be expected a world food crisis due to climate change and its unexpected outcomes within the next two decades.
Already with the above scenario in Africa, millions of climate refugees are to be expected at the shores and borders of Europe. This brain drain of the little better to do is not desirable for those countries in Africa. And of course then feminists will try to make forget, how many millions of climate refugees less it would have been, if they would not have succeeded in blocking population policies on the global agenda.
Now the effects of population growth, as well as those of global warming have to be responded to by transfers into the developing world, which by demand develop these regions. And my printing facilities are just the right measure to provide the necessary money, without negative effects on the public budgets and labor markets in the rich countries.
The children are not responsible for that they have been put into this world by their parents (I am responding here to the opposite of Malthus himself). And climate change is majorly due to the rich countries, which would provide much of their printing facilities for the transfers.

On one hand with such factors of crisis my new global financial architecture would be needed more than ever. Just for the poor to survive. On the other hand lifting for example the 239 million hungry in Sub-Saharan Africa out of poverty and giving a reasonable surplus above the existential minimum to those poor in the industrialized countries – will it not cause additional ecological stress on the environment? We live in an interconnected world. In Africa the printing facilities would not only stimulate the food production, but cars and mobile phones and the like would be bought from the money earned with the poor. This would also stimulate the economies in the industrialized countries. Hence additional ecological stress seems to be unavoidable. In the end with my system and the present population growth (two billion persons more until 2050) I would estimate that global CO2-emissions would be 10% higher than without the population growth (roughly 30% population growth and an estimated effect of one third of the average proportional effect, because the population growth happens almost entirely within the developing countries, having less CO2-emission).
Amendment (September 4, 2016): About the connection of climate change and population growth I found now an inquiry by Brian C. O’Neill and others, which well supports my forgoing estimate [13]. The study has the result that the difference in CO2-emissions between the low and the medium population growth scenario of the UN (8 billion and 9 billion people on earth by 2050) would be around 2 billion tons annually. Combining this find with the OECD-projection of the growth of CO2-emissions until 2050 (50%) and the most actual UN data about global emissions (33 billion tons annually), I am computing a 4% share of this population difference in the total CO2-emissions by the year 2050. This is for 1 billion of the population growth. Making the simple extrapolation that this figure can be doubled to reach at 2 billion of total population growth, I end up with 8%. Almost precisely my above guess.
But public debt is already a kind of slavery for the coming generations. And the question, which arises here is, how much revenue is just and acceptable for those investors, who drive the economic growth and for those, who own these public bonds? How much inequality is acceptable in the face of ecological and social crisis on the planet? And in as much is usage of industrial products by the majority of the population on the planet ecologically affordable?
Concerning public debt, it would melt away with (maximally) 5% inflation with my system and further public debt would not be necessary (due to the introduction of the printing facilities for the expansion of the money volume of capitalism).
Concerning the question of inequality, I would clearly say that it should not exceed the limit, which would make it ecologically too costly to lift the poor and hungry out of poverty. The social human rights, which I have mentioned in chapter two, have to be the guideline of policy.
Concerning the usage of industrial products, this should be limited to a strict interpretation of these social human rights, which is already reflected by the low amount of money, which I had stated is needed to fulfill them (see my full version of the English essay about the new global financial architecture for a closer specification).

Let me reflect on the interconnections of different human issues: Poverty, ecological distortion, depletion of natural resources, warfare and population growth. If humans exploit each others, then many people will be as poor that they spend no look any more on caring for the environment. They will be ready to accept any exploitation of the planet by capitalist enterprises, if only it creates jobs. And conversely the predatory exploitation of the planet will be, by causing lack of natural resources, the motor of inter-human exploitation and thus also of poverty. A vicious circle. A disrupted biosphere becomes dangerous and unproductive for human beings and thus hurricanes, crop losses, rivers bursting their banks and the like disaster causes hard competition for income and deepens poverty. With inter-human exploitation the people show a trend also to accept warfare as a valve of this situation and to take over possession of the resources of other societies or nations by robbery. The predatory exploitation of the planet in turn can be the reason for warfare (driven by resource conflicts). And a likewise effect has the rise of population number above all limits, as this boosts the exploitation of the planet, causing again lack of natural resources. Hence overpopulation is also a cause of war in the end, of resource wars in especial.
Warfare again and again destroys the foundation of civilization: water supply, energy supply, communication and mobility etc. And it leads to a disruption of ethical values, lowering the psychical barrier to kill. Armament consumes a large part of the resources of the nations. Warfare brings endless suffering and sorrow over the people. For these reasons violence and the potentials of violence between the societies and nations must be cooled down on earth.
And a precondition for that is to minimize arms trade. As in other fields, jobs are so often the argument for the export of arms. As my new global financial architecture would create an abundance of jobs, it would be also a kind of cure against these arguments. Of course this is a complex issue, because arms production, driven by export, is also due to the interest of nations to have their own arms industry for their own military supply. This issue has to be addressed by productive symbiosis of allied states to avoid global export. This and my new global financial architecture have to be completed by multilateral agreements to stop competitive trade by the big arms producing powers in this world.

My policy of the new global financial architecture would also give a perspective to the North-African youth, thus depriving the Islamic State of its recruiting basis. In fact population growth was high within the countries of the Arab Spring, between 1980 – 1990 for whole North Africa at an average of 2,70% annually, for Libya at 3,2% and for Syria at 3,3% annually. Note that a growth rate of 2,88% annually leads to a one third higher population number within one decade. Such wave of population was pushing on the labor market within the decade before the Arab Spring. Meanwhile economic growth rates were high too, between the years 2006 and 2010 for example Libya: At an average of 2,74%, Syria: At an average of 4,89% (source: Trading Economics). But the real economic growth in Syria was significantly lower, at 3,76% [2]. It seems that population growth outgrew the tolerance of the local elites before the Arab Spring to invest in humane projects, instead of increasing their own wealth. Now the average real GDP growth in the region declined from 4,2% in 2010 to 2,2% in 2011 and food inflation is today at 14% in Libya and at 40% in Syria. This makes the countries in the region so sensitive to the recruiting of the Islamic State.
One can rightfully claim that the emergence of the Arab Spring is the result of a relative overpopulation crisis (relative to the given economic resources). Given that most of the economic growth took place in the petroleum industry, which was governed by the elite and hence they took the revenue mostly for themselves. The silent agreement between the population and the elite to accept their rule, as long as the economic situation is improving, was broken due to population growth. I can see three factors that lead into the Arab Spring: population growth, the undemocratic and corrupt regime of the elites and the destabilization of the whole region by the Afghanistan war and Iraq war. Again it is not only this or only that. Reality is multidimensional, multifunctional and multicausal. But population growth is that fact, which some authors dodge to mention at all [3]. In fact population stress is also the breeding ground of corruption. Corruption is driven by excessive competition around the economic resources and this in turn is driven by population stress. Then again corruption withdraws economic resources from a majority of people, which drives the competition and excites more corruption.
Feminists are so proud of having succeeded that the criterion of lowering population growth was put away from the agenda for sustainable development of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio in 1992. I think in turn that any intelligent species of course has the task to regulate their population number on their planet, keeping it within an acceptable limit to enable a good standard of living for all people. Otherwise the human species would be subject to the same hazardous effects as any species, be it extraterrestrial, human or animal, which reproduces highly under good conditions and then bounces at the resource limit within its ecosystem. Feminists have still not abandoned the materialist world view, which treats the human species as not being part of their environment.
A certain inequality needs to be encountered with a capitalist system, which enables an appropriate standard of living. And the population number needs to be regulated accordingly. The criticizers on population policy are always putting up their arguments, as if mankind should only survive from its resources. As if any surplus could be consumed by further population growth. But I think that the human species should stay well beyond the limit of the maximal population number for survival. There should be always a surplus beyond this limit for all people. I am concerned about the happiness of the people in terms of certain social human rights, which go well beyond survival. The problem is that the system presently withholds this good standard of living from so many people and the inequality is too large and too much in vain. At this point my new global financial architecture would do something about that.

My opinion is still to negotiate with the Islamic State, which emergence is the result of the whole development. One century ago, we had this horrible World War I going on inside of Europe. And now one century later there is still a horrible war going on, this time in South-West Asia. I have expressed my reasoning about this issue in my open letter to US-president Barack Obama. The interventions of the USA have continually lowered the psychical barrier to killing within the region. One should not bomb all the victims of poverty into dust, who have seen their only escape form poverty in joining the Islamic State.
But our world has gone out of track. There are more and more violent extremists running around and waiting for their occasion to plunder a lost world, either politically or materially. I want to stem myself against the current with my book, but if it can be published is the question. It is written for another time, which soon will be past. (By the way I don’t have this word that our world has gotten out of track from Frank Walter Steinmeier, but my dreams made me see the world like that – any analysis and ideas in this essay are developed independently and on my own, as long as I don’t give a source – I try to bundle these ideas in my person to make them have the most positive effect for mankind). The left is setting their hopes on rage and anger, not on compromise and balance or on intelligent constructions like my new global financial architecture. Right wing parties spread all over Europe. Each few years social inequality reaches at a new record. The middle of the society stares paralyzed at the snake of corporate power (which is manifested in the TTIP). Crisis of overpopulation almost everywhere will develop or in Africa already had its catastrophic effects. Warmongering is so difficult to be stopped.

Let me say that we had an overproduction of food recently within the Western World. It was due to gen-tech and I guess due to the flood of cheap credits, which are invested. Especially meat is produced and exported. The forage for the livestock comes either from the overproduction within the Western World or it is produced within Third World countries. Western investors produce in Africa, but for the foreign market (for export). They tend to occupy the land, which Africans would need to grow their food. On the other hand population growth makes the families large, such that they sell their land, because the whole family cannot live any longer from the given farm size. And joblessness caused by population growth made African countries after the 2012 failure of the economic negotiations within the WTO to agree to bilateral treaties, which protect foreign investors. The so called “land grabbing” is thus in its true origins not the fault of the investors, but due to the failure of local policies to react to population growth [14]. Investors are often “greedy”, that makes them usually take over the position, which they have. And from this benefits the civil society by the creation of jobs and the optimization of products and production. The missing of a coherent mechanism of money expansion (causing missing demand) on one hand and too much competition due to the flood of cheap money on the other hand makes business to expand so easily on unethical grounds. This would all be adjusted with my system and good standards could be adopted globally without missing real economic growth (jobs).

At the same time the agriculture of Africa lacks development and fair prices. But it needs to be sustainable and hence protected against the Western subsidized food or these subsidies should end. On one hand we have food enough to nourish mankind and on the other hand the production is concentrated within the Western countries such that Africa cannot produce its own food and developing its local markets due to lack of competitiveness with the Western subsidized agriculture. To develop the local food markets of Africa would be the autonomous use of the printing facilities, instead of the more subsidiary use of them to import food. I think that Africa better right from the start develops by ecological farming, instead of industrialized agriculture. This because the depletion of petroleum would make industrial agriculture (with electric tractors) much more expensive, than an adjusted farming is.
It remains that the poor in Africa cannot buy their own food in the face of an overproduction of food. This situation my new global financial architecture is targeting.

It is gen-technically modified maize and soya, which are planted on large farms for example in Iowa (USA). This causes an overproduction of maize and soya beans. The price of maize fell by 40% and that of soya by 25% in 2014.
The method of production makes the farmers completely dependent on the gen-tech corporations (Monsanto, Bayer,…), because they have designed their plants to work specifically with the pesticides, which they sell.
The overproduction is sold as forage for livestock and to produce bio-fuel.
It is estimated that from the overproduction in fact the double population of planet earth could be nourished (but this seems to high an estimate to me, I would like to know the basis of this figure).
The problem, which now appears since a few years, is that the weed gets more and more resistant against the pesticide glyphosat, which is designed to be used with Monsanto’s GM-plants (GM: “genetically manipulated”). The new resistant plants are thus called “super-weeds”. The pesticide glyphosat, which is now sprayed in high dosage, also effect the growth of the maize plants. And in this dosage it questionable for human health reasons.
But the corporations still want to use the TTIP as a vehicle to gain access for their gen-food to the European market. I think that these corporations better restructure their corporate layout and find another array of products. But I am not sure about that. Should technologically advanced gen-food (usable with different pesticides, which damps the development of resistances) be held as a technological reserve to nourish mankind at a later stage of the development? Or should a sustainable agriculture solely rely on combating crop pests by the natural enemies of crop-pestiferous insects? But what about weeds?
The UN is in principle not against GM-crops [8]. I would propose that from the printing facilities or better else-wise is financed a GM-technology fund of the UN. From this fund would be developed adjusted GM-plants on order of the UN. The UN would hold and manage the patents then for the benefits of mankind.

(Amendment, September 11, 2016): Let me ask a strategic question here. Is ecological agriculture able to replace the present system of industrial agriculture on global scale? Breaking down this question to the major aspect of solar surface productivity it is the following: Can the loss of crop yield by converting industrial agriculture into ecological agriculture in the developed countries be fully balanced by the increase of yield in the developing countries, when changing from traditional agriculture to organic farming there?
I cannot find figures, which are directly related to this question on global scale. But the expected losses in yield, when converting the conventional industrial agriculture into industrial organic farming are given as high as up to 20% [7]. With GM-crops it would be even higher. We cannot rely on speculations and make believe, if the food security of mankind is involved. In fact Frances Moor Lappé’s example of recent experiments with organic farming (without tractors, majorly relying on composting) in Ethiopia shows that the smallholder framers there could not produce much of a surplus [6]. 70% of the African population lives from agriculture. But 50% of the worlds population lives now in urban areas, whereby they rather purchase food, than produce food. And this percentage will be increasing during the coming decades. Global agriculture would have to grow by 1,5% annually to catch up with population growth. As it looks like presently, global warming will reduce yields especially in the developing countries, but also flash floods are to be expected in Germany for example. I am not convinced that this all can be balanced by ecological agriculture (in this decisive point Lappé withholds the source information in her essay, only telling of a 2007 Michigan university study).
The challenge on the other hand to close the nutrient cycle (cycle of fertilizers) on global scale is at hand. Nitrate fertilizers even contribute significantly to global warming (in the form of nitrous oxide). Completely vegetarian food could reduce the solar surface demand of food production by a factor of five to seven.
Conclusively I would say the following: Who wants ecological farming needs to favor more vegetarian food and a stop of population growth at the same time. This to reach at a stable perspective for the sake of food security for mankind.
Even if ecological agriculture would be able to balance the losses in yield, which would occur, when transforming industrial agriculture – why has organic farming not long since occupied the markets, if it is so productive? Already Rudolf Steiner replied to the upcoming industrial agriculture by a bio-dynamic approach. Hence the idea of organic farming is as old as industrial agriculture. The answer seems to me that organic farming needs the more-fold manpower to be run, than industrial farming. And this determines the costs of the products, making it cost inefficient or uncompetitive. The poorer part of urban populations would not be able to afford this food, which springs from a switch to organic farming.

„We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it is food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological diversity on which all our futures depend.”
—Professor Bob Watson, director, IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development)

Well he can talk like that, because as a professor he has a good salary. But I as a poor man, who has at the same time to support his girlfriend in West-Africa, could not pay the prices of ecologically produced food. I am only representative here (still with my special situation) for millions and millions of people. The printing facilities, if this money is given to the poor directly, seem to me the only way out of this dilemma. One has a political option here to allow for that the printing facilities are used together with a promotion campaign of ecological farming in Africa. Generally I welcome the approach, which is conveyed by Frances Moor Lappé, and the whole movement for the sake of mankind. I can only recommend to read her essay. It gives the ecological aspect and smallholder farmers a voice. But these interests have to be balanced with other aspects and interests of mankind.
Affordable green energy and the affordability of sustainably produced food need to be at the heart of any ecological initiative in the future.

But my global solution, which would give money into the hands of the hungry to buy their own food, this solution was rejected by these ultra-left (on the mailing list of the World Social Forum) by the words of a certain Willi Uebelherr: “Dear friends, we do not need a „new global financial architecture“, because we do not need any financial system. Old or new.” By the way I don’t think that it is important in this context, what he and his friends need, but what mankind needs. He and his friends seem to have well filled purses themselves that they can brush off the approach of a poor man to end poverty. The underlying problem still seems to be a political one. The ultra-right, as well as the ultra-left meet in that they put their own political interests (to tear down the system and to take over power themselves) above the interests of the working class. They are both not interested in the well being of the people on global scale, but only in their narrow keenness for power. This shows the above quoted reaction to my project (that the ultra-left, placed before the alternative to either end poverty, but making the system work, or to leave the system in agony, but profiting politically from this agony, decide for the latter alternative).
It is always the socialist party, which is the strongest political force after a violent revolution. It is simply pretenses, if they say that the working class would be released into their self-chosen democracy then. The rejection of my approach is to be expected with the ultra-right (I did not ask them, well for many reasons), but I was really disappointed and unhappy that the left did reject my approach. I had expected that this approach in favor of the poor and hungry would have been welcomed and praised by the World Social Forum. In fact these extremists seem only be interested in political solutions, which serve their keenness to tear down the system. They are convinced of the decay of capitalism and anything, which is adverse to that desired outcome, is not welcomed by them. In this way they neglect that the left was always fueled by reformist struggles, as long as it was successful. Moreover I would say that the working class deserves a reformist alternative, given the risks of a revolution. The reformist and the revolutionary left split over the disaster of the First World War. But they also did not reconciliate, because capitalism showed to be a much more flexible system, than was expected by Marxists. And it lead into the social partnership in Germany after the Second World War. Thus Marxists gave up reformist struggles, because it did not serve any more their political interests, not because it would be better for the working class.
About what these ultra-left persons are completely wrong is that they think that they can gain much power with the decay of capitalism. Instead the ultra-right would fill the place of the old system almost everywhere (especially within the industrialized world) by their semi-dictatorships (Erdogan, Putin, to be expected of Trump). By rejecting my approach, they are sawing on the branch, they are sitting on. In this way they distract young, ethical middle class persons from having a realistic world view: That the functioning of the capitalist economy is their protection against the hazards of the ultra-right. And they split the left again and again, like it ever was. And the critical aspirations of these young persons are misused by a kind of entrism to drag them into a violent undertaking against the system, while they better use their brains – letting the anger be converted into intellectual activity – to radically reform the system.
Together with my new global financial architecture I proposed a reconciliation of the reformist and revolutionary left by uniting under the motto: “Either a radical reform of present capitalism or a non-violent revolution that would be patterned according to the Arab Spring.” But I think that this Willi Uebelherr did not even read the start of my essay (the short version of the essay, which I am writing here).
With the party “The Left” here in Germany I made the same experience. I think from a humanist point of view that people, who put their own political interests above the straightforward interests of the poor and hungry of the planet, are not trustworthy and can be no political leaders for mankind. They have not the necessary empathy for that. They are not able to relativize their own attitude or being self-critical enough and this leads into ideological stubbornness.
And their attitude would end up in a socialist economy of scarcity, which the late example of Venezuela shows. I guess that when Chavez socialized projects of the heavy petroleum industry, he gave the lucrative jobs to head it to party functionaries, who do not understand much of the technological basis of a petroleum industry. This is a typically socialist way into scarcity.
But these issues need a closer look and I will do that at another place. I needed to simplify things here a bit to keep my essay short. Of course there is still an ethical bias in favor of the left between the ultra-right and the ultra-left. The ultra-left remain to be humanist and internationalist, while the ultra-right dwells on national egoism and on violent, dictatorial schemes right in their essence. But these ultra-left persons run around with too big a halo. This shows their reaction to my initiative.
I want to make policy for the middle of society. This middle of society gets trapped and polarized presently between four kinds of extremists: the ultra-right, the ultra-left, corporate power (the “free trade” fundamentalists) and religious fundamentalism. I am sitting between different chairs with my essays, between different ideological front-lines. This makes these essays and my book so difficult to be published in a way, which enables them to be visible to a wider public.
Fortunately in my situation as a mentally disabled person (with the welfare money in Germany) I am free in what I am writing. I am not paid by any employer or financially depending on any clientele. I am telling the truth, as good as I know it. And I have paid for this situation with almost lifelong poverty. But in this way I could say to almost all stakeholders, “what they don’t want to hear” (as George Orwell said that it should be). I never cared for money in my life. And if I am now concerned about my publishing (when I am concerned to support the life with such a wonderful bush flower), I am still searching me a clientele for what I found to be true and not the other way around, putting forward as truth, what a certain clientele wants to hear. If you want to tell the truth about human affairs, you cannot run around with a halo all the time. You have to say things, which are inconvenient even towards your own ethical aspirations.

On March 28, 2016 I wrote to my lady in Africa: “Sweet Angel, Smart Bush Flower, I am so much aware of the historical consequences of our failure to seek the public attention, among a few others. The most intelligent people should lead the world, not rule, but lead mankind. But in fact always the more stupid in character or IQ are the clientele, which the more intelligent are used to serve. That is the deeper problem behind it. Thus the media cannot fulfill their corrective role. And to solve this problem, a kind of principle of qualified initiative should be installed with the media. That it is the task of the public broadcasting stations to pick up qualified initiatives from below, from the population. Then we had a chance. With “qualified” I mean qualified by debating with people and I am thinking of the intellectual qualities of working it out. And an “initiative” is such a proposal as my new global financial architecture. It is a qualified initiative for total, as I have discussed it with intelligent people and worked it out logically and argumentatively perfect. All my intelligent friends, including you, think that I have found the philosopher’s stone to reform capitalism.”

The core principles of my humanism are the three h’s: happiness, harmony and human rights. Let me say that happiness and human rights are not so much controversial or new as a foundation of humanism (see comment [4] for a late controversy). But harmony is the principle, which is widely neglected. It is a principle of the unconscious spirit or the inner self, as it is expressed in dreams by the archetypal symbol of the mandala. To resolve this principle into further axioms, let me say that balance belongs certainly to harmony. Thereby in the political field I would mention ecological balance, social balance and the balance of powers. But harmony is more than balance. During the Cold War there existed a balance of powers, but it was not harmony. Hence let me name an axiom of accord as the one, which is missing. This axiom makes peace out of a balance of powers. Peace is more than absence from violence, it is a state of affairs, whereby the people do not want to make war against each other any more. And this comes close to harmony.
My new global financial architecture is a step towards economic balance. It balances inequality by giving to the hungry an existential minimum and by giving a surplus above the existential minimum to the poor within those countries, which can afford it with their printing facilities. And by stimulating real economic growth worldwide in a qualitative way, this system is also the pathway to social peace. Hence if this system is being introduced as a compromise between the classes, then it is also a step towards economic accord. The intellect has always stabilized history. The Cold War did not lead into a hot nuclear war, because the intellect – within insights, negotiations and treaties – stabilized history. As well I call the classes to stabilize history by their insight that my system provides the only functioning capitalism (maybe even the only functioning way of economy, given the present resource and demographic situation). An economy, which is working for the people, if the people are working for the economy. This is the best compromise between the classes, as being the best step towards economic balance and economic accord. The accord being here the aspect of social peace together with the willfulness of the compromise by the classes (as being a kind of peace between the classes).

What if climate change leads into the tipping over of important climate systems? If it leads to a break down of agricultural production on the planet? The present overproduction may not last. I am not the only one, who thinks of such a scenario. Compare German author Karen Duves novel: “Macht” (“Power”). IAASTD writes in their 2009 report “Agriculture at a Crossroads” without further comment: “Abiotic stress as drought and salinity may reduce yields worldwide by up to 50% (Jauhar, 2006).” Scientists at the University of Washington predict that half of the world’s population could face a climate induced food crisis until the year 2100 [15]. This would of course rise market prices for staple food worldwide.
In this case would occur a Malthusian gap because of global warming even before this Malthusian gap, which will certainly occur because of the depletion of petroleum. Right wing tendencies would spread and occupy the world. With a world food crisis industrial products would be less demanded, but people around the world would care for that they can purchase their food. Hence the expectations of export of industrial products would not be met. Germany for example would be left with an overhang of skilled personnel and refugees, for whom would be no need any more. After the erosion of solidarity among people, which neo-liberalism already left, a big desolidarization of people would take place…democracy would be endangered, not alone refugees lives. A spiral downward of violence among nations and ethnic or religious groups might be excited, which would be impossible to be stopped any more. And against this danger mankind needs a balanced and accordant economy. Social peace and peace among nations and societal groups would be needed most with such a hazardous development (and peace among nations depends so much on social peace).
And even, if this development does not occur. Let the Western culture compete with other cultures for the best social conditions, not around the best weapons. We still have the resources for that. This is the best way out of this “clash of civilizations”…to motivate the world by a functioning economy in order to convince other cultures. Of course my system has to be applied carefully that not after a flash in the pan a world is left to the coming generations, which is physically burned out (by economic growth). For this reason the printing facilities should be coupled into the markets by qualitative growth (from the side of the poor and hungry, who need it most). One needs to see that mankind needs a sustainable world at best considered in the dimension of centuries. Compromise, balance and cooperation are again the keywords here. Inequality cannot stay above the limit, which does disrupt ecological and social balance. Clearly capitalism means competition. This is alike as in biological evolution its optimizing principle. Capitalism is highly optimizing. This is its biggest advantage. At best within the competition of capitalist enterprises evolve the most optimized products and ways of production by buyer’s selection. But while capitalism competes, mankind needs cooperation to respond to the social and ecological challenges of the 21st century. Hence global capitalism needs a cooperative super-structure on the multilateral level of states. This super-structure should care for the joint benefit of all people and should introduce the joint regulations, which govern the field of capitalist competition. And to introduce my new global financial architecture would be one and certainly not the only task for this cooperation.
We need peace, intellectual integrity and ingeniousness to cope with the present and coming challenges. Hence to be intellectually honest I did not withhold essential criticism on present capitalism. But I still think that a reformed capitalism is the best economic system for mankind.
What are points for such a reform, besides my new global financial architecture? I would introduce the Tobin tax within the whole economic area, where the printing facilities are introduced. This tax on all transactions (financial markets, resource markets) of 0,1% or so, which makes speculations unprofitable. And the producing countries of mineral resources should take part by 30% in the gains from the selling of their resources. This touches many third world countries, as for example the bauxite and iron ore exports of Guinea Conakry, where my girlfriend, my West-African bush flower, lives. It is a bit of a problem, because with the present overproduction of mineral resources some enterprises have to be shut down, if they are not profitable enough. It is an essential problem of capitalism that always those enterprises, which pay the better wages and observe the better standards need so easily to be shut down. And for this reason is needed an even playground concerning social and environmental standards. Capitalism needs to be regulated concerning such standards and within this embedding can then be competing around the best modes of production and the best products. Therefor it needs multilateral agreements for this embedding. And further it is no good idea to let vote by money (buyer’s decisions) for standards, because income is very uneven distributed within society and what often counts most for the buyers is the price. Hence standards cannot be left to the market. And I propose the founding of a world union to set forth this combined policy for example by introducing globally harmonized top level income taxes (as to avoid tax dumping). Further tax evasion and tax fraud need to be stopped for example by taxing the gains, where they occur. Mankind needs a multilateral tax agreement for that, which avoids double taxation, but establishes internationally accepted rules to end tax evasion. And in case of a world food crisis the development of drought or flash-flood resistant GM-crops must be on order of the UN. This to avoid that an oligopoly of gen-tech corporations would make the most of the crisis.
The issue of a world union is a wide field, I cannot treat it here in any depth.

Billionaire Warren Buffet: “If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end – people like myself – should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.”

Additionally I would recommend more vegetarian nourishment to mankind, as the production of vegetarian food needs fife to seven times less surface, than the production of meat (with the same output of calories). With a mixed food, without meat, but still including dairy products, certainly one and a half times of the present worlds population could be nourished. This is the relieving potential in case of crisis. And this is the alternative to gen-food. I would put selective taxes on meat, while using the revenues to subsidize grains by lowering the taxation of them. With TTIP: Could the meat industry then put states to court because of “missed gains”, for introducing such taxation? I am only asking.
Generally I think that free trade agreements are useless for the working class. If the money volume in circulation is not increased, then in the average for any job, which is created by such an agreement, a job elsewhere is destructed. And the good jobs will be destructed, while underpaid jobs are expanding. This was already the experience with NAFTA. The job creating capacity of such agreements is just a modern superstition. Hence free trade agreements are only a means to impose corporate power upon the people. They will block the further development of standards and regulations, which is urgently needed for social as well as ecological reasons. In the end they are – geo-politically seen – a kind of economic imperialism.

Conclusively we have vegetarian food, upgrading traditional farming and advanced GM-crops for the nourishment of mankind. But the two antagonistic Malthusian gaps (due to the usage of petroleum and due to the depletion of petroleum) as crisis perspectives are negative for mankind. Gen-food is rejected or will be made less efficient by biological resistance. Still resistances are also evolving with the conventional agriculture (based on the usage of different pesticides). And the two kinds of crisis will probably even overlap (global warming always lacks a few decades behind its cause in the CO2-emissions). Hence vegetarian food and stopping population growth (alone to avoid the Malthusian trap) are the only way out. Stop of population growth, vegetarian food, ecological, intensified (traditional) farming and transport reduced capitalism should be placed on top of the UN-agenda among other issues like circular economy, solar energy and energy efficiency. All these points contribute from different sides to a zero-carbon strategy, which lays at hand as early as possible. This would mean a double strategy of industrial and intensified traditional agriculture on the planet, which enables maximum food security. In Africa and elsewhere within the developing world increasing the yield of traditional agriculture and protecting it and trying to stop population growth there to enable future self-reliance and at the same time having the high yield of industrial agriculture, where there is anyway no other political solution, as a safeguarding. This is also the best protection against a world food crisis, like I have depicted above. Of course mankind needs change of human behavior to cope with the challenges of the 21st century. The UN dares not to call for a change of reproductive and nourishing behavior (stop of population growth and change to vegetarian food), as well as to call for a capitalism, which involves less transport. Opportunism towards human behavior is not the right choice in the present situation.
But mankind still needs the efficiency and technological resources of capitalism to cope in an acceptable way with the high population number and the ecological situation and fulfilling the needs of the people for a better life. I am thinking here of electric propulsion and photovoltaic energy for example. Hence there will be needed some overhang of inequality to run the system. My new global financial architecture is the core conception to let the system work for the people. Thereby the printing facilities can carry social and environmental standards in their back pack. Such standards need to replace eco-dumping, social dumping (wages, health care, pensions) and tax dumping, which make the world a victim of corporate power. International cooperation has to replace that isolated economies are advertizing themselves to corporate power by these ways of dumping. Where does this financial oligarchy derives its power from? It derives its power from the necessity for politicians to make these investors create jobs. And with missing a coherent method to expand the money volume within the cycle of real economy, investments inevitably remain scarce. For this reason politicians bow down to and are accepting the conditions for investments and the power of this oligarchy. This cannot be changed by simple vote, but is a deeper structural problem. This problem would be solved by my new global financial architecture. This is my strategic consequence so far.
Concerning my new global financial architecture remain two questions: How to distribute the printing facilities among the hungry within environments of corruption and how to care for that the printed money can excite economic growth on the local food markets of Africa?

What is the positive perspective of our time? I had a deep vision about that in my schizophrenia. Schizophrenic visions are often concerned with archetypal symbols, as are the Jungian archetypes. For example snakes, spiders, vampires, witches, the solar penis, fishes and finally the mandala. But the schizophrenic visions usually contain the more conflicting symbols, as the schizophrenia concerns a decomposition or division of the conscious ego. But with the healing of the division the symbols can get very harmonious or positive. In fact it needs to be distinguished between schizophrenia and schizoid thinking, while the latter is expressed by the mystical symbols of the unconscious spirit, but without more decomposition, than is needed to have the visions themselves.
On June 25, 2013 I had such schizoid visions, which were softly approaching and my unconscious spirit was talking to me by some statements it made from time to time. I wrote down the whole sequence, but it would be too long to quote it here. Finally I saw a fine-spotted sun, gleaming in deep, transparent orange. And from space came earthy looking human figures, who dipped into the surface of this sun. They were nestling down in this sun. It was a transparent and colorful vision and these human creatures seemed to be fine in their situation. I was spontaneously longing to do that too. My unconscious spirit meanwhile asked: “Can we live in the sun?”
I thought that this is impossible, even when our sun is burning out, because of the heat and radioactivity. But I think that this vision has another meaning.
When I had written the first English version of my new global financial architecture (the version for my book, which I wrote in 2014), there came the moment, when it was instantly clear to me. This archetype has the meaning that there can exist a world, which is organized such way that all human beings can be happy or content. A world, which has the technology and political and economic organization for the well being of all humans. This is for mankind as to “live in the sun”. The archetypal symbol is an analogy. The underlying principle is that of harmony again. The vision was very harmonious. Or lets say that such a world would rely on all three principles of my humanism. And I think that mankind still has this chance (for the first time in history). I hope that my attempts of publishing will not be useless, as the new global financial architecture is one of the core constructions within such a world.
My deeper vision of mankind is that all humans are painters, who paint in their position on a big picture, which is our world and viewing the whole of it by their dreams: “Act locally, dream globally.” A dreams culture, which is spiritual, yet at the same time relies on rationality and empiricism, seems to me the best alternative to the narrow minded parroting of their scriptures of typical religions. More than one section in this essay I just wrote down directly as inspired by a dream in the night, before standing up and going on to write. The unconscious (the source of dreams and intuition) is not only paranormal, but it represents the cooperative pole in biological evolution. That it has paranormal information about reality is a very important feature, which the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung discovered and I can confirm his discovery throughout my life.
One of the main statements of my psychology is: Schizophrenia develops life, but schizophrenia is not life. The archetypal symbols develop life. But the decomposition of the soul with schizophrenia is no good life. Still within schizoid thinking spiritual life and symbolic thinking are joint (non-pathological). Such a thinking is also exited with LSD. LSD is like a field of intuition that develops life. And for this reason I propose to throw LSD on the fighters of the Islamic State, instead of bombs. To develop their personality such that they cease to pursue their violent undertaking.

I had set myself a page limit of 20 pages for this essay, which I almost observed. Some sections in this essay would need more explanation still. I would like to finance my work on a democratic basis by the contributions of the readers. I call the dear readers to send me a donation, according to the value, they think my project has for mankind or for them personally.

Here are the data to make such a donation:
Bank: Sparkasse Bodensee
Name: Alexander Gruber
(date of birth: March 17, 1963, address: Bücklestraße 74, 78467 Konstanz, Germany)
IBAN: DE24 6905 0001 3062 2567 18
usage: “Donation for Isatou Samura, dreams culture project” (then we can keep the money).


Sources and Comments:

[1] ZeroHedge, Tyler Durden: “Global Debt Crosses $100 Trillion; Rises By $30 Trillion Since 2007; $27 Trillion “Foreign Held””, March 9, 2014, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-09/global-debt-crosses-100-trillion-rises-30-trillion-2007-27-trillion-foreign-held

[2] Data from “Trading Economics”. The data are changed all the time on their Syria pages. I computed the fife years average before 2010 from their latest data. But let me say that real economic growth (constant prices) for Syria during the decade before the Arab Spring was even lower than 4,89%. Please see the following calculation.

Syria, GDP at constant prices. 2001: 950245 million SYP, 2010: 1469703 million SYP (source: “Trading Economics”). “Trading Economics” gives the Syrian central bank as the source of these data.

100 / 950245 = x / 1469703 yields: x = (1469703 / 950245) * 100 = 154,7%.

Thus during the decade from 2001 to 2010 the Syrian GDP at constant prices grew by 54,7%.

The annual growth rate one gets by the exponential approach:

1,547 = 1 * exp(y * 10 years),

wherein y is the annual growth rate, yielding:

ln(1,547) = ln(exp(y * 10 years))

ln(1,547) = y * 10 years

y = ln(1,547) / 10 years = 3,76% annually.

Hence the Syrian real economic growth was only slightly above its population growth of 3,3% annually (of the population entering the labor market during the decade before 2010).

[3] Muhammed Kürsad Özekin, Hassan Hüseyin Akkas: “An Empirical Look To The Arab Spring: Causes And Consequences”, https://www.ciaonet.org/attachments/27513/uploads

[4] Slavoj Zizek denies that people really want to desire happiness. He gives as an example that the scientist are ready to suffer for their discoveries, as for example with the discovery of radioactivity. But happiness is not defined as not suffering (as Zizek seems to think). Some people are happy, when they suffer. The point is that they can decide freely about this (to pursue their happiness). Hence I think that his opinion is majorly based on a confusion of concepts. The discovery makes scientists happy and the suffering or danger they encounter sometimes for that. Also people are wrong sometimes in what makes them happy or they don’t know, what would make them happy. But this all speaks not much against happiness as a humanist principle.

OPEN CULTURE, Slavoj Zizek: “What Fulfils You Creatively Isn’t What Makes You Happy”,http://www.openculture.com/2014/04/slavoj-zizek-what-fullfils-you-creatively-isnt-what-makes-you-happy.html

[5] Ashish Kotari, Pallav Das: “Towards radical democracy in India”, http://indiatogether.org/towards-radical-democracy-in-india-op-ed

[6] Grain, Frances Moor Lappé: „Farming for a small planet: agroecology now“, April 2016, https://www.grain.org/bulletin_board/entries/5457-farming-for-a-small-planet-agroecology-now

[7] IFOAM, Gunnar Rundgren: “Organic Agriculture and Food Security”, https://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/organic_agriculture_and_food_security_printcopy.pdf

[8] Thematic Group on Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems of the Sustainable Development Solutions Network: “Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems”,

[9] Alexander Gruber: “Hum. Ecol. and expected crop losses in Africa”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKM39eYH33A

[10] UNCCD: “Addressing desertification, land degradation and drought in Africa”, http://www.unccd.int/en/regional-access/Africa/Pages/alltext.aspx

Excerpts from IPCC reports, the Convention, & BAP
Compiled by AMCEN Secretariat“, http://www.unep.org/roa/amcen/docs/AMCEN_Events/climate-change/2ndExtra_15Dec/FACT_SHEET_CC_Africa.pdf

[12] FAO: „Race against time in drought-ravaged Southern Africa to ensure 23 million people receive farming support“, http://www.fao.org/emergencies/fao-in-action/stories/stories-detail/en/c/427358/

[13] Brian C. O’Neill and others: „Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions“

[14] In fact economic growth in many African countries cannot catch up with population growth. It seems to be a relative overpopulation crisis, a classical Malthusian growth rate crisis, not yet the bounce at the resource limit. But even this is a notion, which is repressed in public, suppressed intellectually and denied by feminists. They have infiltrated all humanitarian organizations, such that no-one can find any quantitative or qualitative inquiry about the connection of population growth and land-grabbing. It is really a kind of „hegemony“. But as the ultra-left did not occupy this place, but repressed the influence of population growth – in warmongering, on global warming, concerning climate refugees, concerning ecological farming – all what I have mentioned now – the ultra-right picks up these issues in their way. Such way feminists contribute to the late upcoming of the ultra-right, by repressing the issue of population growth, which lays at hand (not only intellectually, but by the effects of their repression). In turn I want to occupy this issue for the ethical middle of society by a differentiated and balanced view. But in the present situation I have in first place to deconstruct feminist positions, because organizations like the UN need to rethink their position towards human rights accordant population policies. Advocating such policies, one is confronted with an unholy alliance or front of feminists, the churches and corporate interests. And if feminists denounce persons, who are concerned about the well-being of mankind, as “population lobby”, then they have to face that one calls them a “women’s lobby” (understood in a very narrow way, as women are half of the population, which is effected by the problem of population growth).
A German feminist woman on Radio Germany: “We are not allowed to make population policies.” Who is “we” and who has the right to “allow” or forbid the public to make population policies? The pope, the feminists, US-president Obama? Well if it only serves their own purposes, then feminists ruthlessly employ the very same rhetorical methods for themselves, which they usually reject and criticize with men. Just saying. The statement shows that in Germany feminists are no longer in need to put forward any argument at all, but that they have occupied the public opinion and the media. They can just repress any debate by such a statement. To explain their brick-headed suppression of mentioning population growth as a factor of crisis, let me say that men’s solutions are often worse than the problem. This has shown so often in history. But we men have still to emancipate ourselves from women, who make of their view a moral institution.

The dear reader can take a look at the following source to know and example of this dodging the issue position:
The Guardian, Liz Alden Wily: “How African governments allow farmers to be pushed of their land”, March 2012,

Comment of prosegmr
2 Mar 2012 8:36
„Speaking to young people from rural parts of Africa recently, one of the most striking things was that rural land was being sold for small amounts of money for construction purposes, both to build houses as well as to Chinese companies for factories. The farmers were willing to sell the land for short-term gain, although the amount they received was not much. I don’t know what the legal status of the land was, but a key thing was that the young people no longer had the chance for agricultural work. They had left before completing secondary school (and some had no more than primary education). Other than working for a few days here and there on construction sites, their futures were bleak.“

This comment indicates, what really happened. Population growth caused shortage of land resources, which land was cheaply sold then. And this the author dodges to mention at all, instead she speaks vaguely of „Neocolonialism“. A word to put a label on something and everything is said? She does not explain, what African governments have from it to push farmers off their land. I am giving this missing explanation instead: They want to create the jobs, which are missing due to population growth, by attracting foreign investors.
Of course here Western subsidized food might play a role too (I am not repressing truth). But our farmers cannot compete with food, which is produced for Third World wages (by wage dumping). This is not fair either. And the food needs to be cheap to nourish the big urban populations. There are so many urban poor too. Agricultural surplus, intensified agriculture is urgently needed.

[15] UW Today (University of Washington), Vince Stricherz: “Half of world’s population could face climat induced food crisis by 2100”, January 8, 2009, http://www.washington.edu/news/2009/01/08/half-of-worlds-population-could-face-climate-induced-food-crisis-by-2100-2/



Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:


Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Verbinde mit %s