As previously mentioned, the development of civilisation has made punishable offences of the above coarse and simple primordial methods or animal ways of appropriating things of value, and the use of these methods has thereby turned their originators into "offenders" or "criminals". But civilisation has not been able to perfect the distribution or administration of material things of value to a corresponding extent. Our daily bread is still our neighbour's "private property". As a consequence of this, this civilisation is compelled to tolerate a method of distributing goods that we call "business". The true nature of this method – the cosmic analysis of which is the principle of "paying like for like" – is thus logical and perfectly fair. But civilisation is not yet capable of maintaining it at such an elevated level. And not all trade is therefore as a rule carried out under the principle of "paying like for like", but, on the contrary, under the principle of "paying less for more". This in turn means that an article must be paid for not only at its intrinsic value but with the addition of an extra percentage. How many per cent extra must be paid for the article will, as we shall see, be precisely the very highest price that the seller, under the given circumstances, can force the buyer to pay.
      Since civilisation is only in its frail infancy as regards transferring the world's things of value from being "private property" to being the collective "common property" of the entire population of the world, independent of nations and states (see the fourth chapter of Livets Bog (The Book of Life), Vol.1), and since the possibility of any person without private means making a living actually exists only as the "private property" of the people with private means, and therefore as an "article of commerce" that they are compelled to buy, it is a matter of course that being without means is not popular, and that the fear or dread of poverty or destitution has entered the bloodstream of the great majority. So anyone who has things of value sees a great risk in losing them and is not only rather unwilling to give them away, but in most cases would far rather use them to appropriate even more things of value.
      But if a person, from whom someone with limited or no means is forced to buy his existence, has this attitude to this sale, it goes without saying that this is to a great extent the opposite of what it really should be according to its cosmic analysis, that is, "paying like for like". It is a matter of course that the buyer comes to pay "dearly" when the seller is interested only in selling for as high as price as can be obtained, quite regardless of the article's true or intrinsic value.
      But to demand that lesser amounts be paid for by greater amounts is of course "fraud". As civilisation and its legal and judicial system are against this, such a transaction can take place only when it is camouflaged so as to appear fair, which means so as to fulfil the principle of "paying like for like". The consequence of this has in turn been that the business world has on a large scale and to nothing short of a level of genius developed the ability to promote or practise this camouflage to protect the principle of fraud.
      The business world gets a lot of help to do so from what we refer to as "advertising". From a cosmic point of view, this should constitute only honest information about the existence of an article and its real, true value, that is, what it costs to produce, in other words an undisguised, true declaration of the cost of material and wages. But is this how modern advertising is? Is it not true that such information is a "trade secret"? And has this advertising not also become a means whereby an attempt is made to veil the information as much as possible? Has this not become a tool by which one tries as hard as possible to induce the customer to believe in the great advantages of dealing with one? Are there not large companies that spend millions of kroner* per year in order to keep such propaganda or the art of suggestion going? Do they not use beautifully produced catalogues and expensive, whole-page and half-page advertisements in the current biggest daily and weekly newspapers to try to tell people how infinitely "cheaply" they can buy from them?
      But buying "cheaply" is, from a cosmic point of view, the same as paying a lower amount for a higher one, which means getting something for nothing. The millions spent on advertising thus maintain propaganda or information so as to make customers believe that they will get so or so much "for nothing" by dealing with the firms in question. But where do these advertising millions come from? How can a firm exist on the basis of letting the customers pay only "lower amounts for higher ones"? This must result in an increasing deficit and ultimately in inevitable ruin. But is the opposite of this not a well-known fact? Does one not see many department stores with expensive advertising grow in prosperity and luxury providing shareholders or owners with greater or lesser dividends? Where do these amounts of money come from? Well, they cannot come from the customers, since, as previously shown, these department stores, according to their own expensive advertising propaganda, sell only at a loss. What kind of secret source of wealth is it that these firms can draw on so generously that they can to some extent be described as almost philanthropic?
      Surely there is something wrong with the assumption here? Surely the secret source of wealth is the customers? Surely the advertised "cut price" is a camouflage concealing the fact that the customer is actually paying an excessive price? This in turn means that the firm does not at all deliver "greater amounts for lesser amounts" as payment but, on the contrary, that it is the customer who pays "greater amounts for lesser amounts". The customer thus pays not only the real price for the article received but he also contributes to paying the firm the money that has, among other things, enabled it to produce the advertising that has induced or lead him to believe that he has made a good buy, that he has got his article "on the cheap", that he has got something "for nothing". And he is happy in this belief and feels inspired to make a new transaction with the "lucrative" firms. And one thus better understands why firms have "trade secrets".
      The above must of course not be construed as destructive criticism of any particular firm, since such would be meaningless or unloving. The entire problem must, on the contrary, be understood only as a question of evolution. The present circumstances are the fruits or characteristics of a particular evolutionary standard and are mentioned here only in order to show that the current social order is precisely of this standard, the nature of which expresses itself through the very circumstances mentioned above and, in this way, plays a part in determining people's present mentality or attitude to the noblest and most sacred principle of life, namely "giving".
 
____________
* Translator's note: A Danish monetary unit