Re: OT: Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy

On Nov 24, 6:45

        Do you mean equally, or uniformly?

Neither, I mean generally.

 And if you include me as an
"elite", viewing myself as "superior to the plebiscite", why should I
not take this personally?

I don't view you that way. I like you a lot. Look, I spend a lot of
time around lawyers, and some around MDs, and I know how they are.
Jackson is typical in that he believes his IQ and degree make him
better than others. We also call that "status". It's an important
reward to give to professionals, who sacrifice so much and often
really don't make a proportionate amount of money. I'm not judging,
just describing what I perceive.

 If you are willing to characterize the views
of hundreds of thousands of people in one sentence, doesn't that take us
down a road we've traveled all too often?

Actually, I think it's easier to characterize aggregate views than
individual ones. Polls and statistics allow us to do that, whereas
one person's views tend to change over time, perhaps over minutes,
what with the stock market! Look at Larry, who a week ago was
chastising me for characterizing TG and Wolly as "evil" (a caricature,
obviously, since I never said that), and now is saying the exact
things I was harping on!




What follows banks is the concentration of wealth, "the rich getting
richer (and poor getting poorer)."  The mechanism is the fractional
reserve system, which allows the banks to lend out far more than is
originally deposited (Wolly calls it a "money multiplier"--I call it
printing money.)  A Ponzi scheme ensues, with the money supply growing
more and more, and greater and greater interest being levied on the
real economy (that is, on people who actually do something).  Since
the real economy can only grow arithmetically, and the finance sector
can grow geomentrically, the banks become ever more powerful.  They
then leech more and more of a percentage of the real economy.

The essential problem will remain until society decides that the money
supply should be controlled by the people, not banking cartels.

Do you mean by nationalizing the banks?

Yes. It's hard to conceive of, isn't it? We should ask ourself what
is the process that makes it hard to conceive.


  Given

that debt and interest on debt has a net negative effect on the
economy, the banking function should be returned to the government,
which could charge little or no interest; and that interest truly
would be rolled back into the country as opposed as Cheney's house in
Dubai, etc.  This would solve the frantic lust for consumption and
economic bubbles that are the consequences of the current financial
regime.

There is a reason FDR called them "banksters".

        There are plenty of people out there who do not see debt as evil.  Once
the government takes over the banking function and charges little or no
interest, what will happen to the money supply?  Inflation?  I'm no
rabid capitalist, but...

There are also plenty of people who think Thomas Friedman is a wise
man. What has been happening now is inflation. One of my
grandfather's favorite stories is the 5 cent hamburger. Remember the
1930s, when we were a step away from true fascism, and realize that we
may be heading into a similar thing right now.

The government already controls the money supply (see dollar hegemony,
see inflation as imperial tribute). The reason "free market" is a
euphemism is because there is no such thing; the word is a stand-in
for a type of imperialism or gunboat diplomacy. It turns out Marx was
right, when he predicted 100 years ago that capitalism led, not to a
happy marketplace of energy and innovation, but corporate oligarchy.

I don't know what ultimate action would lead to some kind of utopia,
but given that the government already controls the money supply, that
we already have inflation--why do we still allow banks to skim
trillions, and a greater % everyday, off the top? Inflation affects
money, and debt affects people. Which is more important?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Barmy pinko control freaks
    ... banks or capitalists generally, to do. ... have (something that the government did encourage and is different ... people's savings, pensions and mortgages. ... money, that is, actual inflation. ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • How the American economy works #3
    ... The banks don't pay for these crime costs, ... Illegal drugs - Anything people do for money can result in money being ... if the government got the newly printed currency ...
    (soc.culture.europe)
  • How the American economy works #3
    ... The banks don't pay for these crime costs, ... Illegal drugs - Anything people do for money can result in money being ... if the government got the newly printed currency ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: Bankers pocket billions of public bailout funds
    ... Well Lloyds TSB is in fact going to pay bonuses.' ... and earnings for the shareholders suspended. ... government shares. ... assuming banks and markets operate ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • the "populists" v. the "greenbackers"
    ... contribution to my understanding of Douglas and his ... government or any organization. ... money for spending, except in times of emergency like ... In respect to banks specifically, ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading