Financial freedom seems to be feudalsim in different clothes

Money as Felix Martin has suggested, seems to give you both freedom and stability. He wonders whether this proposition is possible?

After all it used not to be:

Barons were for life and inherited that life – and feudal peasants the same.

Today’s ‘freedom’ was unknown.

Of course today’s freedom includes the freedom to be homeless and jobless – something unknown in feudalism. Yet surprisingly, common in capitalism.

Perhaps only the barons could be considered, nowadays, to have that overt freedom, struggling as they may be to keep their properties and lands in tact by renting them both to serious tenants and to lots of visitors.

But of course, unless they have a primordial wish to preserve their inheritance, they could easily sell up, take their money and run with their freedom…

People without an inheritance are, it seems to me, little better off than they ever were – without any inheritance, monetary ‘freedom’ today is usually largely illusory.

Somewhere to live could be thought (well actually is) a human right, yet to leave home, with your monetary ‘freedom’ you certainly have little else – and sometimes not a home.

Which is no real freedom at all.

Do we not arrive at the conclusion that a more real freedom is not monetary but actually a freedom to be entitled as a member of a state to some state provided rights?

These are or should be at least, services that we jointly arrange in order to benefit society.

It should include health and housing as a minimum, and probably transport and also water and broadband.

That provision is a much more real freedom.

And should be seen as a reason that we are all part of a state.

So we still have money.

But we have a more obvious state originated freedom too.

Meanwhile what of that monetary stability?

In order to achieve stability money has to be distributed sufficiently widely in order to achieve acceptability. Without it’s passably equitable distribution there will be much pressure both to distribute it more widely and actually more equitably – otherwise people will begin to lose confidence in it and maybe take things and organise things for themselves.

Indeed surely foodbanks can be seen as the start of this process – money not working for many so benefit in kind (and a consequence of the kindness of others) is the result.

This is surely far more important to society than the alleged and remote danger of hyperinflation.

Indeed this is what the Tories should actually realise and Labour should broadcast.

The current government-created British social order is all about penalising and distrust of the poor (where the poor are seen as robbing the rich rather than the other way around), and about making life as obligational as possible.

Britain has become a cruel country, which has been deceived about where money comes from.

That the Brits have voted to live in this new feudalism is no more or less than a Tory Party miracle.


  1. Schofield -

    When it comes to understanding currency creation whether public or private sector created the fact that it’s created from nowhere has been carefully hidden from the British people for centuries by “the high priests of fat cat vested interests.”

    Amongst those high priests are of course Conservative politicians but surprisingly the politicians who publicly make a big point of wearing their heart on their sleeves, the vast majority in the Labour Party, believe government operates on a credit card which is simply Loanable Funds Theory. A theory which kicks the can down the road in regard to how “the funds” were created in the first place!

    1. Peter May -

      As ever thanks for the interesting link

  2. Schofield -

    A definition of “Loanable Funds” is required which strips out the complication of the effects of interest rates rising and falling Here it is:-

    “Borrowers demand loanable funds and savers supply loanable funds.”

Write a reply or comment Comments Policy

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

Name *