… and some serious considerations.

What we now need to think seriously about is
why we consider this idea a joke?

What would prevent a parliament, the Greek,
the German, the French, the Italian to take
the decision for seisachtheia / debt relief?

That such a decision would be for the benefit of the
state and its citizens; we do not need to argue about.

It wouldn't simply be good. It would be our salvation.
It would free us from an insolvable problem,
which is leading society to certain disaster.

After all, Solon tried this measure,
and we saw what wonderful fruit it yielded.

Then what are our representatives in Parliament waiting for?

They have exactly the same absolute
legislative power which Solon had.

   Why don't they exercise it?

   Why don't they apply this sure and tested solution which would save us?

   Don't they see that the state and society are falling apart?

   Don't they represent the interests of the citizens and the state in Parliament?

   Aren't they elected for this purpose?

   Aren't they obliged to fight for these interests?

In this regard, there is an
opinion that this is not so.

The deputies do not represent the interests of
the citizens, but the interests of the capitalists,
because they are dependent on them.


When they were elected, they are
indeed selected by the people but under
the management of the mass media

As the mass media belong
to the capital owners the deputies are now
obliged to carry out their commands.

But this I can't believe or I don't want to believe.

At least I can't believe that it applies to the majority.

Maybe there are some among
them who are "remote controlled",
but they can't form the majority.

Is it possible that honest people are a minority
and therefore it is impossible to carry a law
through parliament for the salvation of society?

But even if there is a considerable number of
delegates who do not want the good of the
country, again it seems to me difficult for them
in a debate in parliament to stand up and say:

       "We are here to represent the interests of capital,
and therefore we are voting against the proposal
for debt cancellation".

They will say something else.

They will say that there are difficulties
which make the proposal unrealistic.

So to be ready for such a discussion we
must look to find these difficulties ourselves.

We need to analyse them and see how serious they are.
We have seen the pleasant effects of such a decision;
we don't need to examine them. Let's look at what the
unpleasant consequences will be.

What can happen to a country if it refuses to pay its debts?

The first thing that happens is that nobody will now
ever lend it a single penny.

The country must learn to live without credit.

Let us consider then how bad this would be.

If anyone, whether individual or state, borrows money,
this is done for two reasons:

1.  The first is that he needs the money for an investment
to increase production. When this growth occurs, he will
not only be able to pay off his debt, but will be able to lead
a better life, as well.

2.  The second is that, although he can't increase production,
he wants right now to live on borrowed money a richer
life than his income allows, without worrying how to pay
back the money.

This second reason is why states
currently borrow money.

We can't have more growth.

However, as we are accustomed to the constant
improvement of our living conditions and its
excessive luxury, we want a better life than
our income allows.

And this will probably stop if we
decide to apply "Solon's patent".

Back                                        Contents                                        Continue