Here is a great video for discussion:
OK, some thoughts on this video:
At about the 6:00 mark, the speaker talks about the system as a "Ponzi scheme." I think this is inaccurate. I think it is more accurate to describe it as "parasitical." I think this is a more accurate way of thinking about it as those who loan money live off of the production of others. Granted, a Ponzi finance system is a very simple parasitical system where either one person, or a small group, feeds off of the production of other "investors." But the relationship between banks and lenders isn't purely a Ponzi system (it can be symbiotic, believe it or not).
At about the 6:30 mark, the speaker remarks that "people are realizing their debt slavery condition." I am not so sure. They might have a really good sense that something is wrong; but I think we are at a point where a straw man or red herring can be successfully employed.
At a little before the 11:00 minute mark, the speaker talks about "return on capital." This works as long as people pay back their debts. However, herein lies the risk. If the debt is not paid back, who suffers the risk of loss? On the one hand, (in theory) the holders of capital lose (because they lose their expected return and any capital that is not repaid). What they get in return, however, is control of any land or assets used as capital. Even if money is lost, power is gained (which I thought was his point based on the title referencing Machiavelli -- i.e. "power is it's own reward").
4 comments:
I haven't listened to the video. Mea culpa.
You should read attempter's piece on a related subject on his blog, Volatility, that you can find through Edwardo's place, Disaster Porn (sorry, I'm no good with links).
I see this major crisis that we are going through as much less.. THOUGHT OUT and DELIBERATE as many people seem to see it.
Because... how the hell could ANYBODY be intelligent enough to understand ALL the ramifications, and complex functioning of money these days ?
Like.. how can ANYBODY IMAGINE just how much those trillions REPRESENT ?
I say... crisis in the function of representation itself.
This is why I harp on about the collapse of our symbolic systems.
It's convenient to believe that there are bad guys out there who want to confiscate the land.
Believe it or not.. such an idea is truly preferable to the nightmare scenario where symbolic systems collapse and our society collapses in one big, repetitious CIVIL WAR/confusion.
This is not a nice thought at all.
I am a pragmatist, in CERTAIN respects.
And even if "the banks" confiscated "the land", JUST WHAT DO THOSE WORDS MEAN THESE DAYS to us ?
We don't even really know... what is behind those words these days. THAT'S THE REALLY SCARY PART.
The banks.. TOO BIG TO FAIL ?
While our eyes are trained on the finger... THE MOON IS DISINTEGRATING.
Why don't you cross-post your economics items over at the Saloon?
That's what I'm doing with my posts for now.
It's a more centralized argument area. Although if Debra is still banned from commenting...
Debra says:
"This is why I harp on about the collapse of our symbolic systems.
It's convenient to believe that there are bad guys out there who want to confiscate the land.
Believe it or not.. such an idea is truly preferable to the nightmare scenario where symbolic systems collapse and our society collapses in one big, repetitious CIVIL WAR/confusion.
This is not a nice thought at all."
It's Democracy/Money burning through the old political forms.
Next step: The victory of Force Poilitcs over money.
Ideally, we would find the next rising civilization and go there.
The West has already transitioned from Rome ---> Byzantium -----> Western Europe.
Na, I was never really banned from commenting. (Just once, I think, when Dink really lost his temper and he deleted my comment...)
But I don't have writing privileges any more.
I'm writing over at Toby's place, Econosophy and Other Musings.
End of ad.
Post a Comment