These are some sources which you may want to look at.

https://www.youtube.com/@GregoryMannarino/videos
@GregoryMannarino‧254K subscribers‧3.4K videos

About me: Also known as "The Robin Hood Of Wall Street," my name is
Gregory Mannarino. I am an active/full time trader of the capital
markets with a world-wide following.

https://www.youtube.com/@itmtrading/videos
@itmtrading‧235K subscribers‧1.2K videos

ITM Trading & Lynette Zang uncover the truth about complex Financial
Banking, Currencies, and Economic Systems which allows people (and
investors) the ability to make educated choices and empower their
future. ITM Trading is A Precious Metals Company located in Phoenix
AZ. We specialize in Gold & Silver Strategies for Long-Term Wealth.

https://www.youtube.com/@gcelente/videos
@gcelente‧212K subscribers‧1.2K videos

Gerald Celente is the Founder/Director of the Trends Research Institute
and Publisher of the Trends Journal. With a 40-year track record of
identifying, tracking and forecasting trends, Celente is world-renowned
as today's #1 Trend Forecaster.

https://www.youtube.com/@RebelCapitalistChannel/videos
@RebelCapitalistChannel‧144K subscribers‧1.6K videos

This is an official George Gammon channel. I'll discuss the current
news related to Macro, Personal Liberty, and helping YOU build
wealth and thrive in a world of out of control central banks and big
governments. Videos will come out 2-3 times a day (time permitting).

End quote.

These are the people who should have been on the front page of the
newspapers. If they had been, we would probably have avoided World War
3. This not being the case, financial collapse, National Debt pyramid scam implosion, etc, is going full steam ahead. Result will almost certainly
have to be World War 3, nuclear, to deal with the likely social unrest resulting from economic hardship.

Only one problem remains: none of them has a serious economic reform
program, with the ability to set up an economy which can at least in
theory be permanently (forever) be stable, dynamic & prosperous. They
all neglect the fundamental wealth centralization effects in the current system. The biggest problem may be the trade in and ownership
in-perpetuity, but other problems might be just as bad: effectively
unlimited sized companies are being allowed, private wealth may build up infinitely as well, and rent seeking loans are allowed to have a great influence over the economy.

The program which I am suggesting is resolving these issues, and also
may do something about the democratic deficit, the gap between the
population and the politicians. I realize however that this program does
have a number of demands on ordinary people. It is unclear they will be
able to meet these demands. However, the current system has even greater demands on the population. This is what people usually don't care to
notice. For the Capitalist system to be stable in the long term, you
need a people generous enough to reverse all the effects of wealth centralization. Capitalism is a Utopia.

Which does not mean the system I am proposing, which is on principle
close to - similar - to the system in the Torah, will therefore stand
forever. There are a lot of uncertainties and details. In general, there
is no hope one way or the other for a badly behaving Nation. It doesn't
matter if you give a criminal a sword or a hammer, it will be bloodshed
one way or the other. Similarly it doesn't matter if you give a good man
a sword or a hammer, something good will come out of it. In that sense
the kind of system you have is less important than the kind of people
you have. However, a hammer works better for driving nails in the wood,
and a sword is better to cut down bad people.

If you have a mix of good and bad people, a good system makes it *easier*
for good people to defeat bad people. It doesn't do the job for them, but
it is easier. The difference can be important, especially if there is a contested balance between good, stupid and evil people in society. The difference in system could just make the difference for either good or
evil people. A certain system of society, economy and State can also
leave a longer term imprint on a people as a whole. If the system is
more of a meritocracy, such as you get in a system of trade with free
land for all which is not bogged down under a few megalomaniacal
businesses, over centuries time you can end up with a different kind of
people than you might for example have if you allowed a system of land
trade in perpetuity so that after a few centuries the land, money and
power is increasingly in the hands of the few, who gain a stranglehold
over the entire Nation. The people have a great effect on how a system
actually works in the present, while the system - what it actually is in practice - can have an influence in shaping the character of that people
in the long term.

For example if you give a violent and hysterical people a high end
democracy, you will probably create a larger amount of small
dictatorships. Each smaller entity, be it a political party or voting
sector (group), could become a small gang ruled by shouting and
domineering behavior. In the inevitable fight for the largest influence,
all these smaller entities eventually fall under the reign of some
superior clique or person. This Nation lives in a dictatorship, even if officially they have voting and it might seem to be democratic. The
positive effects of a democracy, such as better conditions for the many,
or a cultural, social, political development for the common man as he is
asked to participate in the decision making at some level at least, will probably not exist.

If you have an unusually moral and caring people who for some reason
have a Monarchy, you could have a Monarch who is all the time listening
to his own people, and people uniting in groups to think about problems
and advice each other and really ponder the issues. Then the Monarch
listens carefully, and makes a decision he thinks makes his people
happy. This people live officially in a Dictatorship, but the essence of
their political proces would be one of the best forms of democracy. They
would have the benefits of a democracy. They effectively have a democracy.

I guess it could be argued that in the extremes, it might not matter
what the system is, because bad will result in bad, and good will result
in good. It gets more interesting where good and bad are a mixture. In
such cases the choice of a system might be a defining factor, or be just
enough of a push in the right direction to make it worthwhile to try to
have a certain system.

In the economy you have similar issues. If you have land distribution to
all by right, but there is so much violence in the people that you will
be extorted one way or the other even by your own neighbor, or forced
into whatever decision a local crime gang wants you to make with your
land, the whole thing is basically worthless. You have land, but you are
a slave anyway.

On the other extreme, if the land owners are social enough to make land available for cheap, if they behave themselves as good stewards of the
people, you might not have an official right to land, but in practice
you are in just as good a situation.

In general on Earth, it seems that the situation is usually somewhere in
the middle. It isn't great, but it could be a lot worse. In such a
condition, having a system which is more democratic, open, free, with
rights for all, a meritocracy, could make a difference. If it is not yet possible to implement something like that fully, it might exist as an
ideal worth striving for, giving direction and unity to the people who
want the best for their country and people. Compare the mess of often
shallow political and economic ideologies which Divide & Conquer the people today.

Hence, even though all these people above decry what is happening, and
they should, and if they where deciding on things we would probably
avoid World War 3 and the worst of the economic collapse, in the end
they do not seem to want or focus on more fundamental changes which have
lead to the current problems. I think they usually focus on symptoms,
such as Central Banks, rather than the original causes, such as markets
in land ownership in perpetuity. They are right (I think at least), but
there are deeper issues which they usually don't talk about (maybe they realized it is hopeless anyway, or what they talk about is more urgent
to fix first, I don't know).

Sometimes people think that these issues don't matter anymore, as if
land is an archaic entity. If you know that Bill Gates now owns
something like half the agricultural land in the USA, you should know
that this issue is more urgent than ever. I hope you also realize that
right now you are occupying space on Earth, and that what you are
sitting on once came from the Earth and will one day return to it, as
well as what you have eaten and what you are wearing. Even your own body
came and went from the Earth. The land, the place, is an absolutely
essential component of the economy. Without that, you are looking at a
very thin area of ionized gass. A place, a parcel of land, is
*everything*.

You are a computer programmer or traveling salesman ? While I see that
land is more important for some jobs and less for others, some for of
land and place is usually if not always important. It is the way to
equalize the economy, to make it fair between the "players". If you need
more land, just rent it from those who need less, and this way you bring
back the benefits of a market in land.

The other options are: total centralization under the commons, or markets
in land in perpetuity. The anarchists will add: chaos, everything to be
decided in the moment. Centralization on the size of current society is
too much. You end up with a dictatorship, people get squeezed out or
will be dictated to (Communism). Markets in perpetuity in land lead
eventually to centraziation of all land under a few. This also leads to
a dictatorship. While you can decide in the moment if you are a clan
living on the hills with nowhere around for many days travel, in a
densely packed settled society you need some basics for everyone to be
settled (heh), so that they have the security and trust to start doing
their thing. The logistics and time needed to decide every moment
something else is also impossible. You can do all that on your own
parcel with your own friends and family. That is what you really wanted,
and that is what you get if all have their right to land honored.

Land distribution is the logical, natural and economically correct
answer. Unless you want to live in a dictatorship I guess, probably run
by the greed driven.

*

P.S.

Israel doesn't want to get real, they decide against peace. They don't
want the Redemption, they don't want to listen to their Moshe Rabbeinu
and the Torah. Later when the dying is happening, and this might end up becoming the second holocaust, 7 times worse, with a death rate of 94%
of all Jewish people world wide, there will probably be many who are
angry with Hashem (heaven) for having allowed it.

The problem is that you think you can be protected and safe, while at
the same time you have violence inside of yourselves, and this violence
si already your failure to distribute the land to all by right. Denying
people their land is already violence. It becomes violence. The
centralization of power becomes violence, and if you are responsible for
not distributing the land to all by right, you become part of that
violence which the great land owners will likely pursue in an effort to
get even more land, money, wealth and power for themselves. How can a
group be protected and receive peace from heaven, when they themselves internally create this violence ?

You put a protecting barrier around Israel, let's say. They are all safe
and snug now, no goyim are anywhere near. Are they now safe ? No they
are not, because they start struggling against each other. Not
distributing the land to all is part of that already. You failed to give everyone their safe place in the whole, their starting point, their
fairness and justice. You see the point ? I'm sure you do. This is why
you cannot be protected from this second holocaust. The second holocaust becomes a tool, to drive you back to what is the real peace, so that you realize it by your mistake. You realize the mistake, because of the pain
you went through. The pain is caused by the dying and all the damage.
This is the bind you seem to be in.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, or if this upsets you, or if you
are just being a little rebel because you feel like it. That doesn't
change the broader reality you are in, the reality which is forced upon
you. You may deny this all you want, and you can. You can continue with
your failed economic model and continue with ignoring the Torah and all
that, you can make that choice, but you cannot choose the consequences
of these choices. You can throw an egg against the wall if you want, but
you do not have the ability to choose the consequences of the egg
bursting on the wall or not. An egg is an egg, it will burst on the
wall. If you choose certain laws for your Nation, you can do that
freely. However, you do not control the consequences of these laws. You
can of course try to make even other laws to lessen the impact of former
laws, and the total of that will have it's own consequences. You may
think all you want that doing charity is going to be enough to offset
not distributing the land to all, but that is just a thought. if that is actually true, is another thing, a thing you don't control. The human
condition is that we act, and then the consequences are echoed back to
us, and we don't control this echo.

It sometimes seems to me that this is what Israel is doing, that they
think they can make new and bad laws, but the results of these laws will
not be their natural consequences, but some fantasy consequences that
they had wanted from them. If that doesn't happen, such as with the
prosbul (not long after, Israel faces Exile), they just ignore it. You
can ignore "it", but "it" does not ignore you. If you pay off old debt
with new debt, eventually you run out. It cannot go on forever. That is
what the economy is now facing. It is a similar issue. Do things and
expect a result by wishful thinking, but then actually something else
happens.

The conclusion we should draw is; we have to make the right choice to
begin with, and then we get an echo we would like to hear. If you want
peace for all, you distribute the land to all by right for example, in
equal value. It is a good start at least. If you want a stable State,
you don't drown it into absurd debt, but you levy taxes to the degree
needed and possible, and then spend within those means. The consequences
should be a stable State, or at least more stable. You make the right
choice, and an echo you want to hear, a result, comes back to you on
it's own. This is at the root of this reality, isn't it. To act, and
then there is a consequence to it which comes on it's own.

You allow trade in land in perpetuity, and you know how wealth, power
and greed obsessed most people are, and how rare it is that people just
afford each other free land (like, basically never), and you know that
land equals power and wealth if used right and more power and wealth if
you have more land, then you know that those who end up with more will
end up with even more, and those with less will more likely constantly
have even less until they have nothing. That is the nature of the
problem, and that is indeed what we see happening in reality, or to put
it the other way around: because we see this happening, we know the
moral problems of humans with greed and wealth.

Sorry to belabor the point.
--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)