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

[SpineyNorman]

Phil joins Jazzz on both my ignore list and my other List.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As currently constituted, it's an iniquitous system. But not quite for the reasons you think it is, in my mind. The problem, as ever, is rooted in ownership. Who owns what, and what does that ownership allow the owner to do wrt exploiting others who do not own? In that sense, the banks are simply another aspect of the problem of capitalism. It is the nature of the ownership of the banks that produces the exploitation.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Money, in some form or other, is a very useful idea in complex societies. What alternative means of exchange would you suggest should replace it, phil? To be useful, a critique of a system has to include suggested alternatives. Otherwise, it is merely a description.

 

[phildwyer]

The problem, as ever, is rooted in ownership.

That is exactly what I've been saying.

It would be impossible to transfer ownership of labor away from the person who performs it without representing it in symbolic form.

 

[cesare]

Money, in some form or other, is a very useful idea in complex societies. What alternative means of exchange would you suggest should replace it, phil? To be useful, a critique of a system has to include suggested alternatives. Otherwise, it is merely a description.

The problem isn't the idea, it's that many people have forgotten/never realised that it's only a useful idea and have made it into a "thing" to be pursued/gathered.

 

[phildwyer]

If Jazzz were posting from an anti-Capitalist perspective I doubt we'd have the boring arguments about the minutiae of the process.

I'm not sure I understand. Jazzz's arguments seem unimpeachibly anti-capitalist to me.

There are plenty of pro-capitalists, or at least anti-anti-capitalists, posting here though. Remember Pig:

I distrust the term anticapitalist, (not least because it a negative term which Ill describes positivist alternatives to the present society)

Closely followed by wild, mad accusations of anti-semitism leveled at those brave enough to criticize capitalism. Pig's attitude shows what happens when identity politics overwhelms economics in the minds of Leftists.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That is exactly what I've been saying.

It would be impossible to transfer ownership of labor away from the person who performs it without representing it in symbolic form.

But it is possible to represent the value of a person's labour in symbolic form without exploiting them - specifically, where that person has an equal share of the ownership of the company that is paying them. They may still be exploited - but if they are, that is because the company exists within a system in which either the company itself is exploited, or there are sufficient other companies that do exploit their workers that wages are distorted.

The representation of the value of a person's labour with a monetary value does not in and of itself indicate exploitation. The nature of the wider society and ownership within that society determines that. Indeed, there are plenty of very highly paid people for whom the representation of their labour with money demonstrates the extent to which they are exploiting others.

 

[phildwyer]

The problem isn't the idea, it's that many people have forgotten/never realised that it's only a useful idea and have made it into a "thing" to be pursued/gathered.

Yep. They've fetishized it, in other words.

And the ultimate stage in this process is reached when money is treated as not only an object but also as a subject, capable of independent reproduction, as in usury.

 

[ymu]

Hmmm.

Problem is that both you and Jazzz think you have understood something deep and important that the rest of us have missed. I think the truth is something far more mundane - that far from not understanding that thing, they understand it full well; they just don't see anything remarkable, deep or important about it.

The only thing Dwyer is thinking is "how in fuck are they stupid enough to still be answering me as if I'm making a serious argument? "

The only thing Jazzz is thinking is "ooh, an argument I can understand that says most people are fools. I am special. "

 

[frogwoman]

I'm not sure I understand. Jazzz's arguments seem unimpeachibly anti-capitalist to me.

There are plenty of pro-capitalists, or at least anti-anti-capitalists, posting here though. Remember Pig:



Closely followed by wild, mad accusations of anti-semitism leveled at those brave enough to criticize capitalism. Pig's attitude shows what happens when identity politics overwhelms economics in the minds of Leftists.

no

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep. They've fetishized it, in other words.

And the ultimate stage in this process is reached when money is treated as not only an object but also as a subject, capable of independent reproduction, as in usury.

There is plenty of wealth to be garnered through manipulating money, but ultimately the value of that money is constrained by the real value of the real things the money represents.

I don't know what you mean by 'independent reproduction' in this sense. Yes, the money supply can be expanded through the creation of fictitious capital, but ultimately, that expansion will crash. In any case, the creation of money is a function of the demand for loans. More promises are created the more there are people willing to be on both sides of the promise.

Money isn't a subject. Money does not control us. Our desire for money may control us, but that's something quite different.

 

[cesare]

Yep. They've fetishized it, in other words.

And the ultimate stage in this process is reached when money is treated as not only an object but also as a subject, capable of independent reproduction, as in usury.

Yes, I agree as you know. But going back to your earlier point, I don't agree that Jazzz's position in unimpeachably anti-Capitalist. It may be in outcome, but the outcome is accidental to what he's doing - which is fetishising money himself.

 

[phildwyer]

no

Yes. What we're seeing here is the rise of the pro-capitalist Left.

People whose thinking is so dominated by identity politics, and so unconcerned with economics, that they can look at a critique of capitalism and actually see an anti-semitic diatribe.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, I agree as you know. But going back to your earlier point, I don't agree that Jazzz's position in unimpeachably anti-Capitalist. It may be in outcome, but the outcome is accidental to what he's doing - which is fetishising money himself.

I agree with this. It's a good point. Jazzz is very much fetishising money himself.

 

[frogwoman]

Yes. What we're seeing here is the rise of the pro-capitalist Left.

People whose thinking is so dominated by identity politics, and so unconcerned with economics, that they can look at a critique of capitalism and actually see an anti-semitic diatribe.

some anti-semitic diatribes are disguised as critiques of capitalism though.

Banking conspiracy theories never really criticise capitalism.

 

[frogwoman]

The essence of capitalism is the relationship between capital and labour. You don't need lizards or rothschilds or usurs or any of that shit. What have they got to say about that relationship? nothing.

 

[cesare]

some anti-semitic diatribes are disguised as critiques of capitalism though.

Banking conspiracy theories never really criticise capitalism.

There's another point to be made here: anti-Capitalism doesn't automatically equal a wish for social justice for all.

 

[frogwoman]

exactly, you only have to look at the likes of lenin and Stalin to know that. And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.

 

[phildwyer]

There's another point to be made here: anti-Capitalism doesn't automatically equal a wish for social justice for all.

That's right. Nor does it necessarily mean being a nice person. And it definitely doesn't preclude racism or sexism. Unlike identity politics, anti-capitalism is a matter of the head, not of the heart.

I'll return to address the other questions people have raised after I've had my breakfast.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.

Definitely. But isn't it worth engaging with people who are focussing in only on the money creation systems and not engaging with the wider societal relations that the money creation reflects? To show the wider context. For example, with Jazzz, what I'm mostly interested in is showing him that his ideas for 'full-reserve banking' are not the panacea he thinks they are by encouraging him to engage with other aspects of the wider process.

 

[frogwoman]

Definitely. But isn't it worth engaging with people who are focussing in only on the money creation systems and not engaging with the wider societal relations that the money creation reflects? To show the wider context. For example, with Jazzz, what I'm mostly interested in is showing him that his ideas for 'full-reserve banking' are not the panacea he thinks they are by encouraging him to engage with other aspects of the wider process.

yeah, it's definitely worth engaging. but it's still worth pointing out the flaws in these ideas. not criticising you at all.

 

[phildwyer]

The essence of capitalism is the relationship between capital and labour. You don't need lizards or rothschilds or usurs or any of that shit. What have they got to say about that relationship? nothing.

You don't need a proletariat or a bourgeoisie either.

The logical contradiction is between capital and labor. These forces may sometimes be incarnated in social classes, as they arguably were in the industrialized nations of the C19th. Or they may not--as in our situation today.

Really off for breakfast now.

 

[cesare]

exactly, you only have to look at the likes of lenin and Stalin to know that. And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.

You only have to look at the strange bedfellows Occupy attracted to see how anti-Capitalism *only* as an objective, plays out.

 

[frogwoman]

You don't need a proletariat or a bourgeoisie either.

The logical contradiction is between capital and labor. These forces may sometimes be incarnated in social classes, as they arguably were in the industrialized nations of the C19th. Or they may not--as in our situation today.

Really off for breakfast now.

they are the same thing though

 

[Idris2002]

And the "end the fed" stuff is at best a partial critique of capitalism.

Not even that. Look at all the stuff sihhi posted. It's about a fantasy of a kinder, gentler, volksgemeinschaft capitalism that would exist if only the wretched foreigners would stop their interference.

According to this, it's been taken up by Ron Paul's acolytes:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

 

[cesare]

Definitely. But isn't it worth engaging with people who are focussing in only on the money creation systems and not engaging with the wider societal relations that the money creation reflects? To show the wider context. For example, with Jazzz, what I'm mostly interested in is showing him that his ideas for 'full-reserve banking' are not the panacea he thinks they are by encouraging him to engage with other aspects of the wider process.

For the reasons discussed earlier, I think you might be wasting your time trying to change how Jazzz thinks.

 

[frogwoman]

Not even that. Look at all the stuff sihhi posted. It's about a fantasy of a kinder, gentler, volksgemeinschaft capitalism that would exist if only the wretched foreigners would stop their interference.

According to this, it's been taken up by Ron Paul's acolytes:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

at best.

These theories are basically similar (at best) to the fascist "critique of capitalism" tbh.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

For the reasons discussed earlier, I think you might be wasting your time trying to change how Jazzz thinks.

Perhaps, and I'm going to have to stop with him soon as we're now going round in circles. Perhaps I'll try to end it by picking up on what you said:

Jazzz, both cesare and I think that you are fetishising money in your analysis. Might you stop and consider that we may be right?

 

[cesare]

Perhaps, and I'm going to have to stop with him soon as we're now going round in circles. Perhaps I'll try to end it by picking up on what you said:

Jazzz, both cesare and I think that you are fetishising money in your analysis. Might you stop and consider that we may be right?

Why should he? And do we really want him to!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't know. Why should anybody do anything? But asking him to do it can't hurt.