We, as human beings, have been designed to produce goods and services of a highly superior value compared with the goods and services which we’ll consume. We might say that we’re capable of producing 50% more than we consume.

 

If we acknowledge the certainty of this indisputable difference between the human species and the animal kingdom, and independently of whether we concur that its cause is metaphysical, let’s analyse what happens in reality.

 

Only 10% of people achieve their 50% surplus objective.

They’re those whom we call enterprisers. Either because they delimit a plot of land, invent a machine or buy it, they can generate surpluses in said proportion.

  

Moreover, the potency of their human objective manages to drag with it another objective, as important as the human one, or more so: When they work with assets, they make that capital also produce 50% more than it consumes. In this manner, the wheel is set in motion, the most exquisite virtue of human beings: progress.

 

The rest of the people, the ones we call salaried, don’t achieve their objective because they don’t count on capital, and must use their boss’s capital. And since their boss doesn’t pay them for what they do, but rather for what they need, they end up producing scarcely a little above what they consume. In this aspect, they give the impression of existing more like an animal than a human being.

 

If the boss would pay them for what they do, he would surely cause his personnel to achieve their transcendent objective, so that this “drawing forward” would make their capital also achieve revenues four times higher than at present.

 

To do this, the boss would have to calculate the percentage that his company is achieving. He should compare the profits of his enterprise with the sum of the costs of frozen capital and those of his personnel, which is none other than what both protagonists consume.

 

Afterwards, he should apply that percentage as a plus over the salaries. However, he’s satisfied with lower yields because he resolves his own problem.

Yet the outcome is that his objective is not a social one.

 

However, the State should endeavour that labour relations attain viability for this transcendent objective of the salaried, because this would not only eradicate poverty but also make the progress of overall society constantly escalate. 

 

Nonetheless, strangely enough, the State does exactly the opposite. It taxes the profits of the firms but instead of redirecting that money towards the personnel of said firm, it uses it as assistance for the poor that its own error is generating.

 

The State is affixed to unnatural doctrines that constrict the greatest energy that exists on the planet: the attitude of the salaried.

 

For this reason, the damage becomes infinitely potent.

 

If Profits Tax were redirected towards the own personnel and the outside personnel of all enterprises, the salaried could achieve their objective (physical, psychological and spiritual) of producing around 50% more than they consume.

And all the capital invested in production would be highly profitable, doing away with unemployment and poverty.

 

It should be pointed out that Profits Tax punishes principally the enterprises with a higher load of personnel. And that is the chief reason why unemployment exists.

 

Synthesizing, we have been designed to produce far more than we consume. Besides, that innate interior potency which we all posses and which resides in the psyche (exclusive to human beings), is capable of making the capital used with the aforementioned objective, even if it’s not our own, also produce far more than it consumes, in identical proportion; that’s to say, it can achieve exceptional revenues.

 

We’ve decided to call the virtues of these novel labour relations “Drawing Forward Theory”. 

  

 

 

 (Translated from the Spanish by Silvia Maclagan de Grosso, September 2007)