And yet in Maine, and probably most other states, the taxpayers subsidize the private ownership of the means of production justified with long-standing rhetoric about serving the public benefit under the rubric of job creation-which is only for a relatively few.

I often quote this from the Maine statutes, which I find to be outrageously dis1ngenuous:

"The Financial Authority of Maine corporate charter:

§962. Purpose

The authority will serve a public purpose and perform an essential governmental function in the exercise of the powers and duties conferred upon it by this chapter. Any benefits accruing to private individuals or associations, as a result of the activities of the authority, are deemed by the Legislature to be incidental to the public purposes to be achieved by the implementation of this chapter. [1985, c. 344, §5 (AMD).] (emphasis by author)"

The idea that the authority will serve a public purpose justifies the benefits going incidentally to private owners of the means of production based on a standard corporate entitlement that the public should capitalize at least 50% of the owner's capital investment. After all the owners are doing a great public service by creating jobs- as if the owners did not depend on the workers for their own profiteering- that's just incidental to the public good they do!

The government needs to get out of the business of economic development. We have a fiat currency so the government needs to manage that but it should be managed with the purpose of keeping within a certain GINI rating- rather than a government-managed economy we just need government-managed currency. When a currency is distributed into the economy it can be done either from the top down or the roots up according to what is needed to keep within an acceptable GINI rating.

Its a long story . What is most important is first in in about section on

Its a long story . What is most important is first in in about section on