critique of loon theories around banking/money creation/the federal reserve

[Random]

One of the reasons for the downturn in real working class movements is that bread and butter organising is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing a radical political group these days as compared to chucking conspiracy theories into a google search and indulging in a feeling of superiority while following a series of self serving media frauds.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

This is demonstrable nonsense. You've got it completely back to front. Why did people start engaging in obviously dodgy and unsustainable financial practices? Why now, and not before?

Heard of "light touch regulation"? It was quite well known among watchers of "current affairs".

Of course the premise isn't bollocks. It's less cumbersome and inefficient to invest via "exotic instruments" in a market that may well be rigged to your favour than to bother with all the financial friction involved in cumbersome old actual production of actual things.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Heard of "light touch regulation"? It was quite well known among watchers of "current affairs".

Of course the premise isn't bollocks. It's less cumbersome and inefficient to invest via "exotic instruments" in a market that may well be rigged to your favour than to bother with all the financial friction involved in cumbersome old actual production of actual things.

And why was light touch regulation introduced? Why then and not before?

We'll get there in the end.

 

[Blagsta]

One last thing, fractional reserve does facilitate creation of money "from thin air". The clue is in the word "fraction". It's predicated on the generality that not everyone asks for their money back at once. It serves some useful functions but it has got way out of hand via such practices as re-hypothication.

Nooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Here's a tip - if you're trying to persuade people that proponents of loon theories aren't loons it's probably not a good idea to then link to Max Keiser propounding loon theories

Which loon theories are you talking about? That link is well sourced and comprehensive. You were honest enough to say that you don't understand the system fully enough. Max Keiser appears to understand it very well, and he is quite far from the type of loon that you are having a go at.

This frankly appears to be another "lets slag off conspiracy theories because we know better and they think they know better" threads. It's possible that neither side doesn't fully know better. That the "truth", whatever that may be and however it may be discerned, is more nuanced.

But one thing is very plain, and I hope we can agree on it. The prime current function of government is to attribute public monies (via taxes) that are generally understood to be for services, to finance insitutions to cover bailouts, the effects of QE etc. Such institutions are riddled with fraud and have indulged in such practice as money laundering for a variety of mass murderers.

The system is criminal and psychopathic. What is needed among sincere opponents is sincere discussion, patience and respect, not name-calling and one-upman jibes. I've seen plenty of shit coming the other way of course, I don't hold one side responsible. For example, it's a standard enough conspiracist orthodoxy to think that all of this is a Marxist plot. A whole generation of neoliberalism = Marxist. Utter fucking manure, it's hard not to deride such positions but the less derisive one is, the more chance one may have of brining people round.

I often think the raw vitriol in these exchanges is directly related to an impotent but understandable rage of those taking part. It's also very ego and testosterone fuelled. Though I am not above and beyond it myself, it generally tends to "sound and fury, signifying nothing"

 

[sihhi]

One of the reasons for the downturn in real working class movements is that bread and butter organising is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing a radical political group these days as compared to chucking conspiracy theories into a google search and indulging in a feeling of superiority while following a series of self serving media frauds.

I had someone talking to me recently about about Russia Today being the best channel and Max Keiser.
I'm drawn to trying to refute conspiracies in foreign policy and Middle East. What's the real skinny on him?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Which loon theories are you talking about? That link is well sourced and comprehensive. You were honest enough to say that you don't understand the system fully enough. Max Keiser appears to understand it very well, and he is quite far from the type of loon that you are having a go at.

He's a complete and utter fucking loon. He does alien impressions on what's supposed to be a current affairs program for fuck's sake. And I types the OP nearly a year ago - since then I've done what all serious people do when they don't understand something - I've gone away and learned more about it.

This frankly appears to be another "lets slag off conspiracy theories because we know better and they think they know better" threads. It's possible that neither side doesn't fully know better. That the "truth", whatever that may be and however it may be discerned, is more nuanced.

Nope, it's a let's critique misleading, superficial and incorrect theories.

But one thing is very plain, and I hope we can agree on it. The prime current function of government is to attribute public monies (via taxes) that are generally understood to be for services, to finance insitutions to cover bailouts, the effects of QE etc. Such institutions are riddled with fraud and have indulged in such practice as money laundering for a variety of mass murderers.

Where we differ is that you seem to think this is something new.

The system is criminal and psychopathic. What is needed among sincere opponents is sincere discussion, patience and respect, not name-calling and one-upman jibes. I've seen plenty of shit coming the other way of course, I don't hold one side responsible. For example, it's a standard enough conspiracist orthodoxy to think that all of this is a Marxist plot. A whole generation of neoliberalism = Marxist. Utter fucking manure, it's hard not to deride such positions but the less derisive one is, the more chance one may have of brining people round.

You're not really saying anything here.

I often think the raw vitriol in these exchanges is directly related to an impotent but understandable rage of those taking part.

Speak for yourself.

It's also very ego and testosterone fuelled. Though I am not above and beyond it myself, it generally tends to "sound and fury, signifying nothing"

As above.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I had someone talking to me recently about about Russia Today being the best channel and Max Keiser.
I'm drawn to trying to refute conspiracies in foreign policy and Middle East. What's the real skinny on him?

I freely admit to being a fan, but nonetheless he does know his subject, especially on banking fraud.

He worked on the stock market in the 80s. He is a free marketer in the sense that he supports competition, but also good regulation. He also backs causes like Sea Shepherd, UK Uncut etc. His partner, Stacey Herbert, is probably a bit more towards the traditional left.

He is a big advocate of gold and silver, especially of buying silver as a means to screw up JP Morgan via their overweighted short position.

He predicted the derivatives catastrophe at least as far back as 2005. He predicted the Iceland debacle some way ahead of time. He covers a huge range of topics I never hear discussed elsewhere, though they probably are in more niche areas of financial interest.

He has a certain flamboyant ranty style that annoys some people, but attracts others. I am in the latter. Aside from perhaps David Harvey, I have learned more about economics from him than anyone else. If you want to call out the fraud for what it is, he is invaluable.

Latest show is here, on Cyprus mostly, but some interesting things about tech stuff toward the end. Very good edition.

!

He first came to my attention in late 2008 for his "Goldman Sachs Are Scum" rant




As for Russia Today, I find it superior on many matters not pertaining to Russia. It loves to take the piss out of the UK and US, so is a useful slant to draw on.

 

[J Ed]

One of the reasons for the downturn in real working class movements is that bread and butter organising is too dull and cumbersome a means of producing a radical political group these days as compared to chucking conspiracy theories into a google search and indulging in a feeling of superiority while following a series of self serving media frauds.

You can combine the two, I guess. I noticed this on the Sheffield SWSS facebook page today:

1. I am officially declaring myself under a state of lawful revolution under article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 AD
   A.R.F
   
   Under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 (the founding document of our UK Constitution) we have a right to enter into lawful rebellion if we feel we are being governed unjustly. Contrary to common belief our Sovereign and her government are only there to govern us and not to rule us a...nd this must be done within the constraint of our Common Law and the freedoms asserted to us by such Law, nothing can become law in this country if it falls outside of this simple constraint.
   
   [History of Magna Carta]
   Magna Carta was the result of the Angevin king's disastrous foreign policy and overzealous financial administration. John had suffered a staggering blow the previous year, having lost an important battle to King Philip II at Bouvines and with it all hope of regaining the French lands he had inherited. When the defeated John returned from the Continent, he attempted to rebuild his coffers by demanding scutage (a fee paid in lieu of military service) from the barons who had not joined his war with Philip.
   [End of history]
   
   Our entire political and legal system is now acting in violation of these rights, article 61 shows quite clearly who really holds the power in this country, that being quite simply us the people; we have Sovereignty not any Parliament and nor can this be taken from us by any Parliament who claim to have taken the people’s Sovereignty. As defined above any act passed by a Parliament to remove the power the people possess, or to remove the power from the point of constraint we invested the power in, is invalid as it falls outside of the constraint laid down by Common/Constitutional Law.
   This is a simple safeguard put in place to protect our freedoms under said law and to never allow such freedoms to be removed or diminished. So in reality any Act, Statute and subsequent law or legislation formed by these actions, that effects our freedoms asserted to us, is quite evidently unjust, invalid and most certainly illegal.
   By invoking article 61 we are quite clearly stating that we feel we are being governed unjustly and after giving the head of state (Her Majesty) 40 day’s to correct this, if this is not corrected, then we can simply enter into lawful rebellion and we do this under the full protection of our Constitutional Law.
   
   Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse;
   (o) Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this country.
   (o) Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that is in breech of the Constitutional safeguard.
   (o) To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous government of this land, who have breached the Constitutional safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article 61.
   
   Above are listed the three main ways we can as a people rely upon article 61 and what this allows for. The British people were given over 700 years ago a Law to use as there recourse when faced with either a Parliamentary dictatorship, or a Sovereign trying to rule by Divine Right, which amounts to the same thing. We have a right, and a birth right at that, to be governed properly under our birth right law and no other and certainly not by laws introduced on the pretence of being British Law, when in fact all laws passed since 1973 have been European laws in the guise of British law. We have a right to freedom within our true law and no Parliament can remove this for they were not present in its implementation nor did it need any Parliament, or any Parliament involvement, this was quite simply a deal struck between the people and a Sovereign, a deal which can never be broken.
   
   In order to detach yourself from society, it is vitally important that you have officially revoked the your consent to be governed and have entered into lawful rebellion.
   We all know that should a significant portion of us manage successfully to live outside their system that the government will seek to regain control over us by any means it deems necessary and it will quote law (statute law) to justify itself.
   For those who have revoked their consent to be governed according to article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215 there can be no such justification, it would be like a store manager of Tesco's trying to enforce a company rule from the employee's handbook on a passing Traffic Warden, however, if you do happen to work for Tesco's then those rules are law and Tesco's can insist that you follow them or take action against you.
   Similarly, if you have not officially entered into lawful rebellion then the government will demand that you conform to its rules and feel justified in taking action against you if you do not follow them.
   
   To officially enter into a state of lawful rebellion send this letter guaranteed and recorded delivery to:
   
   Her Majesty The Queen
   Buckingham Palace
   London SW1A 1AA
   
   [Letter]
   
   1st line of address
   2nd line of address
   Town
   County
   Postcode
   [Date of postage]
   
   Madam
   
   I am [first name] of the family [surname], It upsets me to inform you that I can no longer accept being governed in direct violation of the common law rights.
   As this is the case I am asking you under Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215AD to remedy this situation and return us to a state of common law in our legal system and to remove the politicians that are directly violating common law by allowing and passing acts under the pretence of law in this country.
   I respectfully state that if this matter is not corrected in 40 days, the time limit set down by Article 61, then it is my legal duty as a freeman in this country to enter into a state of lawful rebellion.
   I hope this matter can be resolved and I humbly request that all correspondence related to this matter be made in writing to the address marked at the top of this letter only.
   
   With respect and the honour of England
   [First name] of the family [Surname]See more

 

[J Ed]

I freely admit to being a fan, but nonetheless he does know his subject, especially on banking fraud.

He worked on the stock market in the 80s. He is a free marketer in the sense that he supports competition, but also good regulation. He also backs causes like Sea Shepherd, UK Uncut etc. His partner, Stacey Herbert, is probably a bit more towards the traditional left.

Can't help but think that the rise of people like this and the 'libertarian' movement in general is a way of diverting opposition to neoliberalism into an ideology which allows it to flourish.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Can't help but think that the rise of people like this and the 'libertarian' movement in general is a way of diverting opposition to neoliberalism into an ideology which allows it to flourish.

I think that type of person is certainly not in short supply, but that MK isn't especially one of them. He supports good and strong regulation, he supports UK Uncut and other similar organisations. Libertarians who think he is on their side are making a mistake, even if they share a critique of fiat currency.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I think that type of person is certainly not in short supply, but that MK isn't especially one of them. He supports good and strong regulation, he supports UK Uncut and other similar organisations. Libertarians who think he is on their side are making a mistake, even if they share a critique of fiat currency.

He's a supporter of Ron Paul ffs

 

[frogwoman]

I had someone talking to me recently about about Russia Today being the best channel and Max Keiser.
I'm drawn to trying to refute conspiracies in foreign policy and Middle East. What's the real skinny on him?

i'd like to know more about him too.

 

[frogwoman]

He's a supporter of Ron Paul ffs

lots of conspiracy types are.

 

[treelover]

case in point - moldova and i suspect anywhere in the former soviet block, where people owning small businesses have had them confiscated and sold off to the mates of people in the government. the "communist" party did this (post 1995) btw. no conspiracy just gangsterism and the increased fact that the state in those regions is more and more intertwined with the interests of organised crime (although to be fair property confiscation of entirely innocent people by the state could happen anywhere)

Lots like that in McMafia, which documents how globalisation has led to globalised crime..

 

[frogwoman]

Lots like that in McMafia, which documents how globalisation has led to globalised crime..

that's a great book.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I can and do critique capitalism generally.

Since you don't seem especially keen on addressing my other posts let's try another angle. What is your general critique of capitalism?

 

[frogwoman]

As for Russia Today, I find it superior on many matters not pertaining to Russia.

Of course you do.

 

[butchersapron]

He has a certain flamboyant ranty style that annoys some people, but attracts others. I am in the latter. Aside from perhaps David Harvey, I have learned more about economics from him than anyone else. If you want to call out the fraud for what it is, he is invaluable.

What have you learned from Harvey? What have you learned from Keiser? Why is the latter indispensable for me? There is a odd contradiction in your post here as well - Harvey doesn't really think 'fraud' plays any major role in the crisis, it plays a a small role among the repertoire of "accumulations by dispossession" that capital has adopted as a strategy since the mid-70s, it's essentially a by-product rather than a the key structural motivation - whereas all this Keiser seems to see is the normal operations of as fraud, the crisis as fraud (but not his engaging in these same activities himself oddly enough - fraud fraud everywhere and can i be on your show i'll make lots of attention grabbing predictions and put your show across to a certain audience).

 

[redsquirrel]

You can combine the two, I guess. I noticed this on the Sheffield SWSS facebook page today:

So not just a loon but a massive bore too.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

He's a supporter of Ron Paul ffs

I expect he is on side with Nepotist Ron regarding The Fed and war, plenty are. I doubt he agrees with slashing food stamps by over 60% and all the other right wing shit. He frequently derides austerity.

Remember, austerity is basically screwing the people in order to pay off the banks. Why such an immense critic of that crimewave would be keen to see them given more money is beyond me.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I expect he is on side with Nepotist Ron regarding The Fed and war, plenty are. I doubt he agrees with slashing food stamps by over 60% and all the other right wing shit. He frequently derides austerity.

Remember, austerity is basically screwing the people in order to pay off the banks. Why such an immense critic of that crimewave would be keen to see them given more money is beyond me.

No, it's much more serious than that - austerity is screwing the people to save the system - the capitalist system. This what an absence of a wider critique of capitalism does - makes you focus on the symptoms rather than the disease.

In many ways Max Keiser is Russia Today's answer to Glen Beck. He's a ranting right wing populist who sometimes feigns left - we've seen people like that before.

 

[Frumious B.]

This thread should be merged with my UK financial implosion one. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/do-we-need-a-uk-financial-implosion-thread.307885/ Plenty of Max Keiser over there. And a bit of Peter Oborne, who I'm told is another right wing loon. I like both of them, even though I am permanently in poverty.

 

[frogwoman]

No, it's much more serious than that - austerity is screwing the people to save the system - the capitalist system. This what an absence of a wider critique of capitalism does - makes you focus on the symptoms rather than the disease.

In many ways Max Keiser is Russia Today's answer to Glen Beck. He's a ranting right wing populist who sometimes feigns left - we've seen people like that before.

a new movement against the bankers that goes beyond left and right.

 

[SpineyNorman]

This thread should be merged with my UK financial implosion one. http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/do-we-need-a-uk-financial-implosion-thread.307885/ Plenty of Max Keiser over there. And a bit of Peter Oborne, who I'm told is another right wing loon. I like both of them, even though I am permanently in poverty.

Listen 'ere sunshine, if there's any merging to be done it'll be your thread getting merged with mine, mine's been here longer

I wouldn't group Oborne with Keiser myself. Oborne is a right winger but he doesn't pretend to be anything else and does occasionally say something interesting. With Keiser it's always either stuff everyone knows anyway (we're getting shafted, oh noes!) or re-heated conspiracy theories. Where he's right he's not original, and where he's original he's not right.

 

[frogwoman]

What is incredible is that some people see Keiser, Paul etc as anti-establishment figures. Ron Paul is, weirdly, quite popular in the US (or was) with people who were into stuff like legalising cannabis etc, as an "alternative" candidate. Most of them probably weren't aware of his mad racism or his other political views.

Keiser is employed by the fuckin foreign state broadcaster of the Kremlin ffs!

 

[JimW]

Mentioning David Harvey, watched a talk he gave at Warwick University the other day and he mentions the libertarian right being on to something in their criticism of the fed, in that were a "true" bourgeois democracy possible it would require democratic control over the issuing of money and the founding of fed in 1913 ended possibility of that. The relevant bit starts about 20 mins in, though Harvey is of course talking about how a capitalist state forms to protect permanent property rights by having a monopoly over violence and monopoly over money (so the dream of a "genuine" bourgeois democracy is a fantasy anyway, I presume; if not the fed, then monopoly by other means would be necessary). So seem to say that the libertarian right are on to something in so far as they've noticed the massive transfer in asset values from the poor to the rich in recent years in recent years, though obv not in how they interpret causes of that:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/events/distinguishedlecture/davidharvey/

Later talks about money as a store of value and asking about possible forms of money that could work as medium of circulation but not a store of value - "stamped money" is an example he gives that had a time limit, which he says would be easy to do with electronic money and have different social implications.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Mentioning David Harvey, watched a talk he gave at Warwick University the other day and he mentions the libertarian right being on to something in their criticism of the fed, in that were a "true" bourgeois democracy possible it would require democratic control over the issuing of money and the founding of fed in 1913 ended possibility of that. The relevant bit starts about 20 mins in, though Harvey is of course talking about how a capitalist state forms to protect permanent property rights by having a monopoly over violence and monopoly over money (so the dream of a "genuine" bourgeois democracy is a fantasy anyway, I presume; if not the fed, then monopoly by other means would be necessary). So seem to say that the libertarian right are on to something in so far as they've noticed the massive transfer in asset values from the poor to the rich in recent years in recent years, though obv not in how they interpret causes of that:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/events/distinguishedlecture/davidharvey/

Later talks about money as a store of value and asking about possible forms of money that could work as medium of circulation but not a store of value - "stamped money" is an example he gives that had a time limit, which he says would be easy to do with electronic money and have different social implications.

Yeah this is sort of what I was getting at when I said that a lack of a systematic critique of capitalism leads you to focus on the symptoms rather than the disease. Unlike Harvey it appears that taffboy and Keiser believe that it's possible to have capitalism without this kind of stuff (it isn't).

However, I think this is where Harvey is at his weakest. He rejects the theory of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and so often ends up making underconsumptionist arguments that aren't that different from those of left keynesians (kind of like the Monthly Review). That's what the stamped money thing is all about, if it's the same arguments I've heard him making - it's about making it so money has to be spent because if it's hoarded it loses its value. Whereas if you recognise that all this shit ultimately stems from a crisis of the rate of profit that started to take effect in the 70s then deregulation, liberalisation, flexiblitisation of labour practices, privatisation, transfer of the tax burden from business to labour etc (neoliberalism) isn't some abberation brought in with the sole intention of making the rich richer at our expense, but rather a kind of hegemonic project aimed at sustaining the system despite the low rate of profit, by essentially using dodgy banking practices, state subsidies, low taxes, union busing etc to artificially raise after tax profits.

Rather than seeing it as some kind of conspiracy where the rich bankers sat down one day and plotted how they could get richer and enslave humanity, it was something they had to do (or at least they had to do something like this, something that would achieve similar ends - though it might have taken a different form if others had led it) if they were to keep the system in place.

 

[Frumious B.]

Keiser is employed by the fuckin foreign state broadcaster of the Kremlin ffs!

No, the production company which employs him is American.

 

[JimW]

...

However, I think this is where Harvey is at his weakest. He rejects the theory of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and so often ends up making underconsumptionist arguments that aren't that different from those of left keynesians (kind of like the Monthly Review). That's what the stamped money thing is all about, if it's the same arguments I've heard him making - it's about making it so money has to be spent because if it's hoarded it loses its value.....

I might have been doing him a disservice throwing that in (it was something new to me so piqued the old interest); here at least he's more saying we need to be thinking about presenting possible alternatives and this is just one idea about how we might preserve the convenience of money as a medium of exchange while limiting its propensity to store accumulated social power. Feel like I should add "Man" at the end of that