Here is a grocer's store filled with good products in abundance; in front of this store, there is a penniless starving man.
Good products are made to be consumed. The grocer displays them to sell them. The consumer would like to purchase them, but he lacks the ticket to purchase them: he has got no money.
The result: the good products will not be consumed, and they will rot on the shelves. Yet, everybody would be happier if the situation was different — the grocer would be happy to sell, and the consumer would be happy to buy.
Why is it that something that would make everyone happy cannot take place among human beings?
∗ ∗ ∗
Among animals, things work differently.
Let us have a look at the monkeys. They see plenty of bananas on the banana trees. Since they need to eat bananas to live, they simply pick the bananas and eat them.
Monkeys never worked out complicated economic systems in their universities. In their heads of monkeys, they never examined the law of supply and demand, nor the difference between socialism and neo-liberalism. They simply saw good things in front of them, and they were smart enough to pick them in order not to starve.
But a monkey is a monkey, and a man is a man. A monkey has no mind, but a man can misuse his mind.
A monkey is led by its instinct, which does not mislead it. Man is led by his mind, which is often misled by pride. In such a case, man quibbles, uses dialectics, but forgets simple and pure reasoning based on common sense.: This foolish situation of a multitude of starving people amidst plenty of wealth is caused by the greed of those who base their power on the bondage of the masses. But one can say also that this foolish situation is supported and maintained by people allegedly learned in economics, who lead minds to the most stupid conclusions, under the pretence of reasoning with science and wisdom. For example, a skilled lawyer can defend a bad case, once he is convinced that he is right.
For the human beings who, like animals, do not trouble themselves with long theses, the same insoluble question arises: How can rules that prevent man from eating amidst plenty be justified?
The mere instinct of animals is often a lesson of humility to the proud intelligence of human beings.
This whole situation can also be summed up in the form of a joke, although the conclusion is very serious:
A group of monkeys in the jungle were arguing whether men were more intelligent than monkeys. Some said "yes"; others said "no". One of the monkeys said: "To be clear in my own mind, I will go to the city of the humans, and find out if they are really smarter than us." All the monkeys agreed that it was a good idea. So the monkey went, and saw a penniless man starving in front of a gro
cery store filled with bananas. The monkey came back to the jungle, and said to the other monkeys: "Don't worry, men are not smarter than us; they starve to death in front of bananas that rot on the shelves for lack of money."
Conclusion: Let's be smarter than the monkeys, and let us devise a money system that will allow us to eat the bananas and all the other products that are provided in plenty by God for all His children. (This smart money system exists; it is the one advocated in the "Michael" Journal.)