The theory of the debitism was described by of Bremen professors Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto riser 1996 for the first time in the book "“property, interest and money"”. Paul C. Martin described, developed further and popularized this theory.

Theory

The debitism does not regard the national economy as sum of exchanges, as it is formulated in the neoclassical theory, but as sum of obligations. The out-formulated debitism calls today four groups of obligations:

1. The Urschuld (or Subsistenzpflicht) designates the obligation of the particular to consume for self-preservation. It can be erased by production and following use for one's own requirements of the produced one. The Urschuld corresponds to the reproduction costs of the working class defined by the marxism, while the neoclassical theory does not define necessary minimum consumption of the particular.

2. The religious debt designates the obligation of the particular to pay "“freiwillige"” to payments to its religious community. It is erased by victims and/or deliveries to religious instances. The tenth is raised belonged to the oldest form a religious debt, that from individual religious communities, for example the church Jesu Christi of the holy ones of the last days ("“Mormonen"”) and directions Islam (Zakat), this very day on freiwilliger basis parallel to the national control system. During default social proscription and/or a "“punishment"” takes place after dying the debtor ("“the other world conceptions"”).

3. The contract debt designates the contractually specified debt between contractable natural or legal entities after conclusion of an appropriate debt contract, the achievement and return, date as well as sanction during default to contain must (--> division of labor). The enforcement of a contract debt often resulted in earlier centuries in the economic and social ruin of the debtor.

4. The delivery debt designates and the delivery load of the particular called in determined by the respective ruling power (ruler, state) with exercised or threatened weapon delivery ("“coercive power"”). The introduction of a national force monopoly is a condition for the collection of a delivery debt. The demanded delivery property (in Japan it was rice, in Western Europe was it in accordance with bullionistischer view gold and silver) is considered as legal tender, which can be used also for the repayment of all other obligations. The delivery debt justifies the obligation of the particular after debitistic view to offer its produced goods or its worker on markets in order to acquire currencies for the repayment of its delivery debt.

The history and systematics of the taxes and deliveries is an emphasis of the debitistic research. After debitistic view the origin of the taxes lies in the tribute of subjected peoples, which is converted after assumption of the tribute areas and/or inclusion of the tributary ones into the original power area to the tax.

The existence of the national force monopoly (laws, courts, police) is on the other hand an also indispensable condition for functioning a free-market economy and justifies the property than nationally guaranteed possession right. For the financing of its exercise of power the state must be to blame for itself after debitistic view in the anticipation on future delivery debts ("“national debt"”).

For the payment these (of the ruling power of determined) taxes and deliveries also the citizens must take up private debts. The Zeitunterschied between (early) the due date for tax payments of the citizen and (late) the time of its income explains and justifies for Paul C. Martin the collection of interest. Thus begins a debt spiral, which can be interrupted only by periodic economic crises and associated revolutions.

It is outhesitated such crises by the fact that the modern states constantly expand their taxation basis by privatisation of ever wider ranges (in the USA e.g. even the prisons). The element of the menace of national force during default of the demands for delivery decreases opposite strongly.

The debitism rejects the neoclassical exchange concept as well as all macro-economic models developed from it, e.g. the quantity formula with the peripheral speed of the money. Instead all restaurant economics are defined as debt admission and/or debt retirement, which an appropriate formation of credit balances and/or asset destruction faces. The term time plays an extremely important role in the debitistic theory

Criticism

The concept of the robber state may have been valid for the states of the early modern times and during the colonialistic expansion European states. The modern European states are based however on a complex decision-making process, which does not plan income-independent taxes.

It is to be held for that again against that the Failing States (under the rule of "“being lords"” and/or "“force buyers"” (George Elwert) in the present material of the current Ethnologie and political science is.

The debitism underestimates the consequences of the owing jerk for economically weak ones and ignores the problems of the overloading of the participants in the economy.

Meaning

The debitism is not only discussed in the private circle. It is regarded of some professors (among other things Heinsohn and risers) as alternative to the present economic theory.

Related links

• Paul C. Martin: Power, the state and the institution of the property

Literature

• Gunnar Heinsohn, Otto riser: "“Property, interest and money"”, ISBN 3895183040
• Paul C. Martin: "“Capitalism - a system, that functions"”, to ISBN 3548346294

Articles in category "Debitism"

We found here 7 articles.