Banking and Conspiracies

[ViolentPanda]

Regardless of what you've stated or how many times you do so, it is a fact that accusations of that type effectively do limit discussion.

My concern is that such an effect can potentially and effectively be used to give the discussion of 'International Banking' a 'taboo' status.

Obviously the Rothschilds are a Jewish family, and undeniably they are still among the richest and most powerful people on the planet.

If the fear of being branded an 'anti-semite' effectively prevents people engaging in discussions regarding their 'occult-like' use of the mechanisms of 'International Banking' for whatever purposes, such as as a 'method of social control', who's interests does that really serve?

So, let me get this straight, you believe that I (or anyone else for that matter) should not mention the fact that "international banker" is, to some idiots, a code for "evil Jew moneylenders trying to take over the world" because to do so might tend to close down discussion?

Or are you objecting only to pre-emptive deployment, so to speak?

 

[phildwyer]

Karl Marx lived over a century and a half ago, his usage back then may have been entirely acceptable to him. That doesn't mean it's an acceptable synonym now, does it?

No. There are however conceptual and empirical links between Judaism (as constructed by Christianity) and usury, and it is not anti-semitic to point these out.

 

[soulman]

This doesn't make any sense. Changing the mode of production is a common feature of alternative economic streams of thought, including parecon. I happen not to agree with them, by and large, but they're there. You seem to think all conceivable economics is capitalist, which is a somewhat peculiar argument.

No, parecon, like 'green' economics or 'marxist' economics, or 'keynesian' economics seeks only to change the balance of how people are rewarded for their labour, rather than change the mode of production, the social relationship that results from the exploitative relations between producer and owner.

 

[slaar]

No, parecon, like 'green' economics or 'marxist' economics, or 'keynesian' economics seeks only to change the balance of how people are rewarded for their labour, rather than change the mode of production, the social relationship that results from the exploitative relations between producer and owner.

Keynes was arguably the saviour of capitalism in the 1930s, no arguments there. But, for example, have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? You don't think that whilst being a document of Marxist economics and politics it might also be faintly more revolutionary than you suggest?

Communists have economics too.

 

[Blagsta]

Marx analysed capitalist economics. It is an analysis of capitalism. The purpose of communism is to do away with the social relations of capital and the commodity form. However, there would still be economics, as economics is about how we organise resources.

 

[Crispy]

Until we have magic matter transmutation and assembly devices (dogshit in, faberge eggs out) then there will always be ecomics.

Either that, or we kill 99% of the population and live in the few regions of the world where there is natural plenty.

 

[soulman]

Keynes was arguably the saviour of capitalism in the 1930s, no arguments there. But, for example, have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? You don't think that whilst being a document of Marxist economics and politics it might also be faintly more revolutionary than you suggest?

Communists have economics too.

Yep have read The Communist Manifesto and some more Marx besides, tho to be fair it was many years ago. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I can't recollect a so called marxist or communist state (and therein lies the answer) that has gone beyond tinkering with how workers are rewarded for their labour. The mode of production, and the resulting social relations such as laws, property and social classes have remained intact.

 

[Negativland]

Is this critique of usury applicable to a work situation or is it different in nature? I mean: the capitalist loans the worker their means of production, which they charge interest for in the form of the surplus value they keep.

Would fractional reserve banking here be analogous to a boss who owns productive capacity on credit, and gains extra surplus value in the meantime off the borrowed capacity?

 

[slaar]

Yep have read The Communist Manifesto and some more Marx besides, tho to be fair it was many years ago. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I can't recollect a so called marxist or communist state (and therein lies the answer) that has gone beyond tinkering with how workers are rewarded for their labour. The mode of production, and the resulting social relations such as laws, property and social classes have remained intact.

You don't think that any of the revolutions of the 20th century changed anything fundamental even for a little while? I'm sure Lenin or Mao would disagree.

Economics is concerned with the use of resources. In what socio-political scenario that you envisage would a study of the use of resources not be relevant?

Crispy - Even that would require economics. Something is always scarce, relative to the demands that different individuals and groups have over resources.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

So, let me get this straight, you believe that I (or anyone else for that matter) should not mention the fact that "international banker" is, to some idiots, a code for "evil Jew moneylenders trying to take over the world" because to do so might tend to close down discussion?

Or are you objecting only to pre-emptive deployment, so to speak?

At the risk of repeating myself - it is the 'pre-emptive' nature that I object to.

Well, that and the stuff to do with peoples 'faces' and 'baseball bats'.

You can take it as read that, in the event of some neo-nazi 'rascist!!!1!' turning up to inform us that 'teh j00z r takin ov3r teh wurld', I'll gladly hold your coat...

The best way, IMO, to deprive such fuckwits of their 'code' is not to surrender swathes of our language to them, but to take it back - reclaim words to their proper usage.

'International Banking' has a place in the lexicon. Quite probably alongside words like 'Evil' and 'Usury'.

(I take a certain pride in helping to rescue that last one from the abyss - if only because nothing else means what it does).

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Keynes was arguably the saviour of capitalism in the 1930s, no arguments there.

Quote time!

“I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour, and the love of money is detestable, that those walk most truly in the paths of virtue and sane wisdom who take least thought for the morrow. We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful. We shall honour those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well, the delightful people who are capable of taking direct enjoyment in things, the lilies of the field who toil not, neither do they spin."

“But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.”

Anyone know when the 100 is up?

 

[exosculate]

Is this an appropriate point to start lending people fivers?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Did Keynes take a lot of drugs then?

 

[exosculate]

I thought the military industrial complex was Keynsian.

 

[slaar]

Keynes was a highly elitist, highly nationalist economist. But that's not a exactly controversial statement.

It does sound from that quote however like he predicted the timescale of the downfall of capitalism about as accurately as Marx, i.e. not very.

 

[exosculate]

Keynes was a highly elitist, highly nationalist economist. But that's not a exactly controversial statement.

It does sound from that quote however like he predicted the timescale of the downfall of capitalism about as accurately as Marx, i.e. not very.

Oh yes, capitalism is doing very well, very successful.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Is this critique of usury applicable to a work situation or is it different in nature? I mean: the capitalist loans the worker their means of production, which they charge interest for in the form of the surplus value they keep.

Would fractional reserve banking here be analogous to a boss who owns productive capacity on credit, and gains extra surplus value in the meantime off the borrowed capacity?

Good question.

My view, simply, is that once the mechanism of usury has be disengaged from the source of 'money' - that is the interest bearing bond - the absolute *need* for 'growth' is short-circuited and ceases to drive the system to demand the sorts of arrangements and relationships such as the one between 'capitalist' and 'worker' you describe - perhaps facilitating a fundamental shift in our views regarding which system of economics is most appropriate to fulfil our needs.

The analogue breaks down as the boss's productive capacity is a real, tangible asset - it is subject to 'rats, moths and rust'.

The Banks money that they've *magically* created through the 'fractional reserve' trick is not real.

If the distinction, or why it matters is in any way unclear, I can only suggest (yeah, I know...) Gesell's 'Crusoe' thing again.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Keynes was a highly elitist, highly nationalist economist. But that's not a exactly controversial statement.

I work for a Government I despise for ends I think criminal

 

[slaar]

He was a complex character alright, member of the Bloomsbury group, joint-founder of the Bretton Woods Institutions although he lost out to Harry White, Cambridge fellow. I have Skidelsky's epic of a biography right next to me as I type in fact, well worth a look. But he knew his theories were going to save capitalism, and he tried his best to save the British economy too.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He was a complex character alright, member of the Bloomsbury group, joint-founder of the Bretton Woods Institutions although he lost out to Harry White, Cambridge fellow. I have Skidelsky's epic of a biography right next to me as I type in fact, well worth a look. But he knew his theories were going to save capitalism, and he tried his best to save the British economy too.

Save it for who though? In a class sense.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Save it for who though? In a class sense.

Well, exactly.

Mind you, he did concede that:

The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn’t deliver the goods.

 

[slaar]

For "Britain", mainly represented by the upper classes, I've said he was incredibly elitist in many ways. But the workers didn't do so badly out of it either in the short run, much better than under, say, some kind of budget-deficit-phobic crazed right wing post-war settlement.

I'm certainly not claiming he was any kind of revolutionary.

 

[slaar]

If he thought the post-war settlement was decadent, imagine what he would have made of what we have today.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You're ascribing your own interpretation of the word 'decadent'. His meaning is more in the cultural or moral sense, while your econo-goggles only reveal a material connotation.

Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.

 

[slaar]

I'm doing no such thing. I'd say materially we're doing alright, until environmental catastrophe kicks in. Culturally and morally is where the problem is.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Culturally and morally is where the problem is.

I think we (you, me and JMK) can all agree on that.

The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems—the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behaviour and religion.

**strikes tiny finger-cymbals**

(ok, I'll stop now. )

 

[fela fan]

Nope. You're trying to pretend that the 'money' created when a bond is issued 'could have been use for an alternative profitable purpose', which is simply not true.

The 'money' created by a bond does not exist until the bond is issued.

This has come up a few times. Can anyone let this layman know in nice and easy language (!) the difference between issuing a bond and issuing a bill? All i ever see is money, cash, what is this bond?

 

[Jazzz]

This has come up a few times. Can anyone let this layman know in nice and easy language (!) the difference between issuing a bond and issuing a bill? All i ever see is money, cash, what is this bond?

You have nailed the very crux of the issue fela fan.

There's a massive difference between money created by the government in the form of bills, and that produced by bank loan (of which government bonds are a form).

But I'm too frazzled to attempt a 'nice and easy' explanation right now! I shall do my best tomorrow. But be warned - prepare for some serious headspinning. This is not easy stuff. If it was, they wouldn't get away with it!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I dunno, Jazzz... it's not that difficult. Especially when you've been here before.

Here you go, fela fan:

'Money' - as we know it - is borrowed into existence by 'Government' in the form of 'Bonds' - promissory notes - 'sold' to a central bank for their face value, secured against future tax revenues.

These 'bonds' carry a premium - or charge in addition to their face value - generally referred to as their 'yield' or 'interest'.

OK. Lets assume for the purpose of demonstration that we are on an island with a population of 10 individuals in the 'economy' and one Bank(er).

For these 10 individuals to trade goods and services they need a 'medium of exchange', which will be supplied by the Bank - 'lent' onto the 'economy' - at a premium of 10% (to keep the figures simple).

The Bank lends each of our islanders £100, expecting upon maturity of the loan a return of £110 - that's the initial sum plus the 10% interest. So the Bank stands to make £100 on top of the £1000. With me so far?

OK. So where is that £100 going to come from? The Bank only lent £1000 'into existence'. How is the 10th individual going to find the £110 to pay back to the Bank? Because only £1000 is in 'circulation' within our island 'economy', what we can see here is the mechanism by which our islanders are forced into unnatural 'competition' with each other in order to repay the loan.

By it's very nature, a 'competition' will have a 'loser'. In this case, the 'loser' will be the 10th individual who cannot repay the loan as ther is only £10 left in the 'economy' to do so. 9 X £110 paid back by the 'winners' is £990.

So what options are open to our 'loser'?

Their only option is to either borrow more from the Bank, forfeit property (real wealth) or perhaps engage in some 'overseas adventure' to bring 'wealth' in from some outside 'loser' on another island.

This is the fundamental mechanism that underpins the 'debt based monetary system'. The need for 'growth' is systemic.

A political tool that by it's very nature will concentrate real wealth in the hands of those with at the expense of those without.

...And you can't say that there is 'No Alternative'. If a 'Government' is able to issue a promissory note to a central bank (at interest), there is no reason that they cannot issue the equivalent in debt free currency themselves.

-

'Debt based' currency is an insidious evil that permeates every aspect of our lives.

 

[Jazzz]

... in the global case, it's entire countries that may draw the short straw, i.e., developing (screwed) nations. They don't have the option of going bankrupt!). It's a case of 'devil-take-the-hindmost'.

To take BBs desert island analogy further, suppose the bank keeps the £1000 in circulation by freely making new loans, so the repayments can be kept up. The result of the first loan cycle is that £110 interest remains with the islanders as debt (after the £1000 is paid back (and 'destroyed'). So now there are £1000 of new loans around, and the islanders owe the principal of £1000 plus interest of £110 + £110 = £220. After the third round, the interest owing will now be £330. The islanders will certainly be feeling the pinch now and bigger loans will be required. So maybe the next round is £1500 + £150 interest. Then again. Now the islanders have inflation and owe £520 interest. In inevitable course, the islanders will owe more interest than they actually have in circulation at any one time.

If the banker stops making loans, they can't possibly pay back, so he takes all the islander's stuff!

Which brings us nicely to another quote...