Banking and Conspiracies

[phildwyer]

I'm confused and disappointed to see the reaction to the various discussions of international banking that have been started on these boards recently. On a recent thread (binned without explanation) Tarannau wrote:

"It's one of those threads again isn't it. How could we unsuspecting proles not have noticed those strings being pulled in the shadowy world of international banking. We need someone to educate and inform us how it really works."

Now, I don't know if Tarannau is an expert on the philosophy of money, but I am, or at least I've published quite a bit on the subject. What immediately strikes me about Tarannau´s statement is the fact that it is absolutely *true,* despìte the lumbering, heavy-handed sarcasm with which he intends it. International banking *is* a conspiracy, and the working class *do* need this consipracy explained to them.

Furthermore, as several people have attempted to point out, much to the scorn of Tarannau and his ilk, banking *does* work by conjuring money out of thin air. What else is interest but money from nothing? The absurd rationalizations that capitalist theorists try to come up with to hide this fact simply fly in the face of common sense. Usury *is* legalized robbery.

Now, this was once considered a fairly uncontroversial point on the Left. Indeed any Marxist would still concede it readily, and the vast majority of socialists would have been unshakeable on this point a generation ago. And yet today those who try to bring this to our attention are hooted from the stage by such experts as Tarannau. Violent Panda sank so low as to express the hope that Jazzz´s head would be smashed by a baseball bat for stating this perfectly sensible observation.

What has happened? Have we really reached the point where Marxist economists are to be equated with 'conspiraloons?' A sad day if so. Any thoughts?

 

[fela fan]

C'mon phil, give us some explaining then man! I'm a bit of a laymen on this subject although i've often thought about a few pertinent things without knowing the answers. Don't know if they're connected but...

the price of dope seems to have remained the same in the 20 years or so that i've bought it in britain. No inflation whatsoever. Why?

Why can't a bank simply print out a load of money and give it to the people who don't have any? Let's say we could find the one million poorest people in britain, and simply print enough money to give them a grand each. How would that cause any problem to anybody?

Back to the international banking bit, i'd like to know more. I intuitively suspect that just a few people weild incredible power, but some on these boards will immediately shout conspiracist, and that i'm being stupid and naive in thinking that a few men run our world. I don't of course give a fuck about them, but would like to know if my intuition is correct or misguided.

Can you write more on this?

 

[editor]

On a recent thread (binned without explanation)

Did you bother to PM a mod and ask why or were you expecting a personal, hand written explanation?

 

[phildwyer]

Did you bother to PM a mod and ask why or were you expecting a personal, hand written explanation?

No, I was simply remarking on the fact that it was binned without explanation. A fact that I took to be symptomatic of the dismissive way in which arguments that suggest the international banking system is a conspiracy have been treated on Urban recently. But there may well have been a perfectly good other reason too.

 

[phildwyer]

C'mon phil, give us some explaining then man! I'm a bit of a laymen on this subject although i've often thought about a few pertinent things without knowing the answers. Don't know if they're connected but...

the price of dope seems to have remained the same in the 20 years or so that i've bought it in britain. No inflation whatsoever. Why?

Why can't a bank simply print out a load of money and give it to the people who don't have any? Let's say we could find the one million poorest people in britain, and simply print enough money to give them a grand each. How would that cause any problem to anybody?

Back to the international banking bit, i'd like to know more. I intuitively suspect that just a few people weild incredible power, but some on these boards will immediately shout conspiracist, and that i'm being stupid and naive in thinking that a few men run our world. I don't of course give a fuck about them, but would like to know if my intuition is correct or misguided.

Can you write more on this?

Well first of all your intuition is most certainly correct: a very few people do indeed control the world financial system. Government ministers in the big 7 industrialized nations, the officials of the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and so on. Secondly, the reason why they don't just print money and give it away is that money represents human labour-power. Money is the symbol, labour-power is the reality. But turning labour-power into symbolic form allows it to be expropriated and controlled by people other than those who actually perform it. In this sense, the idea that financial value even exists at all is a conspiracy.

But actually my point here is not economic. I was more interested in the intellectual process whereby once perfectly respectable economic theories, theories that demanded respect even from those who vehemently disagreed with them, are now often simply dismissed as fantasies, the preserve of the tinfoil hat brigade--as in the recent remarks by such sages as Tarranau and Violent Panda. This seems to me a significant historical change--anti-capitalism is now regarded as not just mistaken but *mad.* And it is so regarded even on ostensibly Leftist forums like this one.

In short, what interests me is the possibility that anti-capitalist thought may be about to become *impossible.*

 

[editor]

A fact that I took to be symptomatic of the dismissive way in which arguments that suggest the international banking system is a conspiracy have been treated on Urban recently.

Strange that you failed to see the answer to your question is in the 3rd post in that thread. And the other 24 page thread is still open for comments.

But hey! Why not just ignore that bit and moan about beastly urban instead!

 

[Aldebaran]

Philwyer, what you mention in post 5 is part of every introduction course economy (let alone if focussed on political economy).
So what is in your view so new and controversial about this subject that you have the impression it can't be talked about on a UK message board?

salaam.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Interesting topic for discussion, Phil.

So what is in your view so new and controversial about this subject that you have the impression it can't be talked about on a UK message board?

salaam.

What is quite apparent is the fact that whenever the topic (Money and the systems/mechanisms involved in it's creation) comes up for discussion, it isn't long before a baying mob of posters who don't actually seem to have the intellectual capacity to understand the basic systemic failings, or the underlying fundamental mechanisms that hardwire into the system the inevitable catastrophic effects that we all have to endure, start screaming 'conspiraloon' etc.

This makes any honest, rigorous and therefore *useful* discussion regarding or examination of the systemic problems nigh on impossible.

Take, for example, a recent thread Phil started in General regarding 'Atheism and Capital'.

427 posts into the thread, I felt obliged to comment:

To return (yeah, I know) to the topic in the O/P:

After reading most of the comments on this thread, what struck me is the absence of any real examination of what 'usury' actually is, what it does or what it's alternatives are.

To my mind, you don't need faith, a sense of aesthetics or even a silly apron to appreciate what an socially and morally corrosive insidious evil the practice of usury unleashes into our world.

A bit of simple maths is all that is required:

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/smb/printusury.htm

The article I linked to there is written by a Scholar and sits on the website of The British Library. It provides what I consider to be a fairly simple explanation of these fundamental mechanisms which dictate the course of much of our lives - essential reading if you've never come across the idea of 'usury' or have never really looked very hard at it's nature.

The pavlovian response my posting elicited from, for example, 'Laptop' - a poster who I'm sure you'll all agree appears to be among the more 'rational' and 'authoritative' on these boards - is a testament to the accuracy of Phil's observation in the O/P of this thread:

Not read the piece - but we can tell instantly that the author is some species of conspiraloon, infected by memes chanelled by Lyndon Larouche (whether the author is aware of their progeny or not). I'm betting they rant about money-printing?

'Not read the piece - but...'? 'some species of conspiraloon'?

Toward the end of that particular thread, I managed to engage one of our resident economists (slaar) in a fairly well mannered discussion regarding the nature of interest and the mechanisms involved in the creation of money.

Rather that reiterate the details, I'll post a summary of our exchange offered by another poster:

..Slaar - this seems to be your argument.

Backatcha Bandit: Banks lend money that doesn't exist, money that isn't backed up by any asset.

Slaar: No they don't, - not if you count the loans as an asset.

Backatcha bandit, - but the loans are of money that they don't have assets to back up.

Slaar: No they aren't, accountants and economists can prove it.

To me this does look like just talking shit for the sake of it. You couldn't have come up with a better example of the total duplicity of capitalists if you'd tried, - maybe that's what you were doing...

What slaar appeared to be telling me was that 'yes, the description of the mechanisms as I articulated them are correct' but that not being a professional economist myself I somehow couldn't really understand them or the need for them, and that basically 'things are the way they are because they are' and there is nothing that can be done to sort them out.

In other words, the systems are in some way 'natural'.

That's pretty much where it ended, bar an interesting and revealing (in the context of this thread) comment from '118118':

I haven't followed the argument at all. Anyone said anything interesting about technology? More interesting topic than "culture". Ffs, you can't wish money away lol.

That 'lol' sounded somewhat hollow, but the words preceding it demonstrate the prevalent notion regarding the subject, in that the problems as identified should be ignored as there is 'nothing we can do about them'.

Perhaps the feelings of bewilderment and helplessness when faced with the enormity and pervasiveness of the *scam* leave us floundering, with many finding recourse in being able to 'shut out' the unsettling 'cognitive dissonance' by applying those time-honoured mechanisms of shouting 'Conspiraloon' or 'Anti-semite' which render any further thought on the subject 'unnecessary'.

Perhaps even, in the way that '419 scam' or 'pyramid scheme' victims continue to send progressively greater sums, even when they must have a suspicion that they are being 'taken', the psychological costs of admitting that they've been duped allow their fears to be outweighed by their sense of hope that their endeavour will, in the end, pay off.

-

As I'm sure you are aware, the first stage in 'fixing' a problems must be in identifying the cause of the problem, as if you just go in and fix the symptoms, the problem itself will reoccur.

It's like repairing an electrical appliance. If the fuse blows and you simply replace the fuse, you've done nothing to address the problem of why the fuse blew in the first place.

It could simply be that the appliance was abused in some way, which temporarily overloaded the circuit and caused the fuse to do it's job. Alternatively, the blown fuse might well indicate a more serious problem which, if left unaddressed, might eventually result in your house burning down.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . . a very few people do indeed control the world financial system. Government ministers in the big 7 industrialized nations, the officials of the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and so on.

. . . absolutely, but most conspiriloons than make that giant leap and say that all of those guys are working together in some secret organisation

Secondly, the reason why they don't just print money and give it away is that money represents human labour-power.

Well, firstly they do print money but that procedure takes the form of issuing bonds rather than printing banknotes. Secondly, I'd have said that they don't do this on a whim as the inflationary effects of this are well documented.

Apols for being practical as I appreciate that you're coming from a more socio/political/philosophic (?) angle.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

. . . absolutely, but most conspiriloons than make that giant leap and say that all of those guys are working together in some secret organisation

Indeed, it is completely unnecessary to introduce the notion of a 'conspiracy' to a discussion of this nature.

Primarily, because an examination of the mechanisms at work within the system reveals it's nature, parameters and inevitable outcomes without the need to introduce speculative accounts regarding the relationships between the actors performing within it, and;

Secondly, it is safe to assume that these actors will behave in a way which is to their own perceived benefit, thus when the opportunity arises to act, in co-operation with others who have similar goals, to their mutual benefit, (what could be termed 'conspiring') they will do so.

..they do print money but that procedure takes the form of issuing bonds rather than printing banknotes.

Absolutely. If they only 'printed banknotes' rather than issuing 'bonds' (which carry the additional burden in the form of 'interest') we wouldn't have the problem.

Back on topic...

With reference to my second point above, why exactly do you find the notion of 'conspiracy' so unappealing?

If we take as example the meeting that took place on Jekyll Island in November, 1910... what are we to call what took place there if not 'conspiracy'?

 

[bluestreak]

economics in "big crock of shit" storm. the whole thing is smoke and mirrors. most money isn't real, it's numbers on a spreadsheet. that's how the system works (or doesn't, depending on your POV). it's bloody obvious isn't it.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, Bluestreak, do you have any thoughts as to why, if 'it's bloody obvious', discussion of the topic provokes such responses as we saw on the thread (I.E. Accusations of anti-semitism, poor mental health and threats of violence, topped off with the wholesale unexplained removal of the thread) that seems to have prompted Phil to bring the subject up?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Indeed, it is completely unnecessary to introduce the notion of a 'conspiracy' to a discussion of this nature.

[exit lurk mode]
And yet that's what does happen, which destroys otherwise interesting topics. Once the loons get their claws into the thread it's pretty much doomed.
[/exit lurk mode]

 

[phildwyer]

Strange that you failed to see the answer to your question is in the 3rd post in that thread. And the other 24 page thread is still open for comments.

The post to which you refer simply states 'subject already been covered,' as if the matter is all done and dusted. But I would have thought that the fact that the world is ruled by a magical, supernatural and evil power, which is invisible and unperceived by the vast majority of people, was a rather large, fairly important topic that might well repay analysis from a variety of angles.

I mean to say, there are about 50 threads about Pete Docherty on these boards. Surely the nature of international capital is a tad more significant, no?

In any case, my purpose in this thread is to begin a tangential discussion on a different subject, namely the reasons for the peculiar reaction of both U75 moderators and posters to discussions of this nature. Specifically: why are those who raise Marxist and neo-Marxist critiques of the international banking system labelled 'conspiraloons' by the likes of Tarannau? Have we reached the stage where criticisms of capital are perceived as simple insanity by the man in the street?

 

[phildwyer]

. . . absolutely, but most conspiriloons than make that giant leap and say that all of those guys are working together in some secret organisation

There's nothing 'secret' about it. The controllers of international capital are working together quite openly. The content of many of their discussions is indeed concealed from the public, but there is no dispute about the fact that they take place.

 

[Jazzz]

This topic - what is money? How is it brought into existence? Does it matter how it is brought into existence? Is it a scam?

- is in my opinion the single most important topic that could possibly be discussed here on urban75 - more important than the Iraq War, more important than 9/11.

Perhaps to demonstrate that things are not fine and dandy as they are - why not consider the US National Debt - it currently stands at

$8,833,183,947,747.23

This figure looks like something that is way out of control and indeed it is what it looks like. There is, as the money system stands, absolutely no way it can ever be paid back. The only way repayments can be kept up is if someone else borrows more into existence, on which more interest will become liable, and this only increases the total. Does this not bother us? It's the same with the UK debt.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

the fact that the world is ruled by a magical, supernatural and evil power,

... and this is why people switch off. People letting hyperbole get the better of them. Magical ffs Supernatural, the only possible response is : .

Fine, discuss it, but simply making utterly barking statements about how eeeevil it is just makes you look like a raving lunatic. Perhaps you wanted terms like : contrived, illogical and unfair.

 

[phildwyer]

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, Bluestreak, do you have any thoughts as to why, if 'it's bloody obvious', discussion of the topic provokes such responses as we saw on the thread (I.E. Accusations of anti-semitism, poor mental health and threats of violence, topped off with the wholesale unexplained removal of the thread) that seems to have prompted Phil to bring the subject up?

This is what really puzzles me, yes. Take for instance the aptly-named Violent Panda's response to Jazzz's eminently sensible (I am tempted to say 'common sense') observations concerning the fraudulent nature of banking.

Mr. Panda expressed the hope that Jazzz would be rewarded by having his head smashed in with a baseball bat.

The violent intimidation of those who dare to criticize capitalism was par for the course in Pinochet's Chile, but I was slightly taken aback to find it on a Leftist British message board in the year 2007. On reflection, however, I began to suspect that it might be a sign of the times. Hence this thread.

 

[Jonti]

The only true producer of wealth (i.e. goods and services) is Labour when it is applied to either Land or Capital. Unlike Land, Money is infinite when not artificially restricted, which it often is. Money is man-made out of nothing and at tiny real cost. This credit creation confers enormous economic power and influence on those usually private institutions who have secured for themselves monopoly rights in this money issue.

It is safe to assume that ... actors will behave in a way which is to their own perceived benefit, thus when the opportunity arises to act, in co-operation with others who have similar goals, to their mutual benefit, (what could be termed 'conspiring') they will do so.

The problem.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have to agree with dwyer on this. I've had a look at the threads in question and the idea that finance is a con-trick, which is intellectually perfectly respectable, does appear to be instantly equated with conspiraloonery. There is a danger that anything that isn't conventional thinking could end up being so-labelled - and that conventional=capitalism in today's world, even on U75.

Those who laid into Jazzz should have a bit of a look at themselves. He selected quite an apposite quote, and the reaction of certain people to it just made them look like cunts.

 

[phildwyer]

... and this is why people switch off. People letting hyperbole get the better of them. Magical ffs Supernatural, the only possible response is : .

Fine, discuss it, but simply making utterly barking statements about how eeeevil it is just makes you look like a raving lunatic.

I beg to differ. Financial value is indeed a supernatural force. It does not exist in nature. It has no physical existence whatsoever. Like magic, it is effective only if people *believe* it to be effective. And they *do* believe it to be effective, so it *is* effective.

As to whether capital can accurately be described as 'evil,' I need only point to the destructive physical and spiritual impact it has had and continues to have throughout the world.

And so I repeat: the world is ruled by a magical, supernatural and evil power. And I also repeat what your post has just confirmed: the nature and even the existence of this power remain hidden from most of those who are subjected to it.

 

[Jazzz]

economics in "big crock of shit" storm. the whole thing is smoke and mirrors. most money isn't real, it's numbers on a spreadsheet. that's how the system works (or doesn't, depending on your POV). it's bloody obvious isn't it.

Of course it's obvious that if I write you a cheque, and you cash it, someone doesn't travel from my bank to yours with an equivalent value of gold. But that's not the point at all.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I beg to differ. Financial value is indeed a supernatural force. It does not exist in nature. It has no physical existence whatsoever. Like magic, it is effective only if people *believe* it to be effective. And they *do* believe it to be effective, so it *is* effective.

As to whether capital can accurately be described as 'evil,' I need only point to the destructive physical and spiritual impact it has had and continues to have throughout the world.

And so I repeat: the world is ruled by a magical, supernatural and evil power. And I also repeat what your post has just confirmed: the nature and even the existence of this power remain hidden from most of those who are subjected to it.

Usary does not exist in nature? If you say so, but does beauty exist in nature? Does marxism have any physical existence? That line of logic merely leads to a waste of time, chopping logic and complaining over semantics.

Evil is a word that isn't used much in sensible debate for similar reasons. It is a distraction. If your purpose is to discuss the financial system then why are you helping the debate to go off on a tangent? That is what your word choice is doing.

 

[phildwyer]

Evil is a word that isn't used much in sensible debate for similar reasons. It is a distraction. If your purpose is to discuss the financial system then why are you helping the debate to go off on a tangent? That is what your word choice is doing.

I think it is important to re-introduce ethics into economics. The modern discipline of economics was in fact invented as a discrete area of investigation precisely to exclude ethics. Capitalism being indefensible according traditional ethical systems, thinkers such as Smith and earlier Hobbes erected a cordon sanitaire around the pursuit of rational self-interest and called it 'economics.' But the idea that 'economic' behavior can be segregated or studied apart from the rest of human life is nothing but an ideological canard.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I think it is important to re-introduce ethics into economics. The modern discipline of economics was in fact invented as a discrete area of investigation precisely to exclude ethics. Capitalism being indefensible according traditional ethical systems, thinkers such as Smith and earlier Hobbes erected a cordon sanitaire around the pursuit of rational self-interest and called it 'economics.' But the idea that 'economic' behavior can be segregated or studied apart from the rest of human life is nothing but an ideological canard.

If you want to do that fine, but in doing so you hamstring your posts and disrupt your own threads.

As to how this relates to your orrignal gripe: Most of us here are aware, to some degree at least, how the banking system works. We do however find it very insulting to be talked down to by some people who deserve the title of "conspiraloon" who think they know more about the topic than everyone else because they read prisonplanet.

By using the same excessive style of writing you merely manage to make yourself sound like one of the loon camp. One that should be accompanied with lots of bold text and !!!!1!!s. One that does not merit reading, contemplation and response.

 

[slaar]

I think it is important to re-introduce ethics into economics. The modern discipline of economics was in fact invented as a discrete area of investigation precisely to exclude ethics. Capitalism being indefensible according traditional ethical systems, thinkers such as Smith and earlier Hobbes erected a cordon sanitaire around the pursuit of rational self-interest and called it 'economics.' But the idea that 'economic' behavior can be segregated or studied apart from the rest of human life is nothing but an ideological canard.

Again Phil, you're taking classical and neo-classical economics, equating it with the entire discipline, then knocking it down. There is ethical content to neo-classical economics, it's just not how most people, including me, would like to see society operating (i.e. rational, individual self-interest being the sole motivator). But to say there is no ethical content in, for example, Sen's writings on poverty and famine, even if you don't agree with what he says, would be silly.

On to the actual question, the reason discussions of banking are often accused of verging on "conspiraloons" is because we have had a succession of people arrive on these boards cutting and pasting huge treatises involving, variously, the Bilderbergs, lizards and the jews. I do not, obviously, include yourself or Bakatcha for example in this but it's something to bear in mind.

Bakatcha - It's a shame you've quoted a not particularly insightful comment on our discussion, because it was a reasonable exchange. I wouldn't characterise my approach as being patronising towards non economists, if I have failed to explain what I mean to the satisfaction of others then that's my failing, not anybody else's.

Finance and the debt that national economies take on is based on the assumption of future economic growth, but mortgaging current financial loans to future real economic activity provides great incentives for productive activity and isn't so unreasonable if it doesn't reach crazy proportions, which however arguably it now is.

Similarly, interest is, according to one way of seeing things, not a payment for nothing, but compensation for the fact that the money borrowed by somebody for one purpose could have been use for an alternative profitable purpose. This was true before money started assuming its modern properties and was indeed 100% backed by real reserves, and it is still true now.

The distributional effects of this are obviously open for massive debate, and the struggle between capital and labour is not going anywhere (see recent debates in the British papers on the size of city bonuses)...

 

[Jazzz]

The violent intimidation of those who dare to criticize capitalism was par for the course in Pinochet's Chile, but I was slightly taken aback to find it on a Leftist British message board in the year 2007. On reflection, however, I began to suspect that it might be a sign of the times. Hence this thread.

I'm quite relieved to find that others found that extraordinary and am grateful that they are willing to comment about it.

However I have to point out where this comment misrepresents me - I cannot see an issue here that is capitalism/anti-capitalism. I'm not attacking capitalism. Just fractional reserve banking. One can easily have the former without the latter. In fact, SO much more easily.

 

[slaar]

However I have to point out where this comment misrepresents me - I cannot see an issue here that is capitalism/anti-capitalism. I'm not attacking capitalism. Just fractional reserve banking. One can easily have the former without the latter. In fact, SO much more easily.

Interesting that you think that jazz. I'm not convinced, I think the role that FRB plays in providing incentives for future capitalist activity outweighs its negative effects in terms of risk of banking collapse, certainly for the system as a whole up to a very high amount of debt.

Whether we're at the critical level yet is open for debate, but the amount of potential economic activity in, for example, China and India is absolutely enormous. Suggesting that "capitalism has overstretched itself this time" is an old accusation with a poor pedigree.

 

[Jazzz]

sure slaar, we disagree strongly over whether FRB is a good or bad thing. But the purpose my last post was really to point out that I am in no way attacking capitalism by questioning FRB.

wikipedia defines capitalism as

"Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are mostly privately[1] owned and operated for profit, and in which distribution, production and pricing of goods and services are determined in a largely free market."

And all that's fine by me. Just wanted to make that clear.

 

[Blagsta]

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree with you, Bluestreak, do you have any thoughts as to why, if 'it's bloody obvious', discussion of the topic provokes such responses as we saw on the thread (I.E. Accusations of anti-semitism, poor mental health and threats of violence, topped off with the wholesale unexplained removal of the thread) that seems to have prompted Phil to bring the subject up?

Because of who posted it? Because Jazzz always bangs on about it, and he's a nutcase? Because phil then writes nonsense about money being supernatural?

It would be nice to see a discussion on the topic without the usual paranoid idiots.