the neoliberal vision of the future

[littlebabyjesus]

It's a system that's very good at delivering massive chunks of cash to the useless rich for no fucking reason that makes any sense at all though.

Money that's going to have to come out of our funding for local libraries and as pounds of flesh from our grandchildren. Isn't sympathetic magic a wonderful thing when applied to global finance?

"Oh Oh, we're having a crisis due to lending to the racially inferior, give us fucking billions from the public purse or we'll refuse to provide the guarantess that allow normal useful trade to happen and let you all starve while we laugh at you from our superyachts"

"Hahah you fucking mugs, you gave us the money, we're going to use it to buy more yachts and other banks.

Meanwhile, better get some really fucking painful austerity measures going and try to at least double the suicide rate while we laugh at you from our superyachts and snort cocaine off the cleavage of some guffawing posh tart in a fucking tiara"

There's another aspect to this that was touched on on another thread, and that I admit I hadn't considered – namely that currently the central banks are lending money at a rate that is lower than the interest paid on government bonds! You (by you, of course, I mean approved institutions – banks) can borrow money from the government and then give it back to the government and be paid net interest on that money. It's nuts.

 

[SpineyNorman]

what is this guy's blog? i'd like to read it.

You have to read it via google translate (unless you speak Norwegian). Here: Onar's heroic stand against socialist rapist bullying fascists

 

[Bernie Gunther]

There's another aspect to this that was touched on on another thread, and that I admit I hadn't considered – namely that currently the central banks are lending money at a rate that is lower than the interest paid on government bonds! You (by you, of course, I mean approved institutions – banks) can borrow money from the government and then give it back to the government and be paid net interest on that money. It's nuts.

Sure, the bastards couldn't resist turning a crisis that they created into a massive opportunity to steal some more money off the general public. Why we aren't stringing them all up from lamp-posts right now I really don't understand.

 

[Crispy]

I'm free this weekend. Got any rope?

 

[phildwyer]

It's a system that's very good at delivering massive chunks of cash to the useless rich for no fucking reason that makes any sense at all though.

Money that's going to have to come out of our funding for local libraries and as pounds of flesh from our grandchildren. Isn't sympathetic magic a wonderful thing when applied to global finance?

"Oh Oh, we're having a crisis due to lending to the racially inferior, give us fucking billions from the public purse or we'll refuse to provide the guarantess that allow normal useful trade to happen and let you all starve while we laugh at you from our superyachts"

"Hahah you fucking mugs, you gave us the money! You oiks who didn't learn how to suck capitals cock in public school really are stupid aren't you? We're going to use the billions we stole from you to buy more yachts and other banks. I bet you all wish you'd been to public school you fucking oiks.

"Meanwhile, better get some really fucking painful austerity measures going and try to at least double the suicide rate by demonising the unemployed and blaming them for the fucking horrible mess we posh bastards created, while we laugh at you from our superyachts and snort cocaine off the well-fed cleavage of some guffawing posh tart in a fucking tiara."

On a more optimistic note, the fact that money doesn't exist ought to make expropriation very easy, since there is in fact nothing to expropriate.

 

[8ball]

You have to read it via google translate (unless you speak Norwegian). Here: Onar's heroic stand against socialist rapist bullying fascists

It makes a lot more sense once it's been through the Google translate thing - do you think if we ask nicely he'll put them through the traslator before posting?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm free this weekend. Got any rope?

I could probably borrow my Dad's step-ladder. Do you have any particular financial institution in mind?

 

[Crispy]

Was thinking about hanging round street corners in Canary Wharf and listening for tells in passing conversation.

 

[onarchy]

How can money "represent" debt when debt consists in a relation between different sums of money?

The same difficulty arises when we try to imagine debt as "creating" money.

It seems to me that we are actually dealing with a system of pure signification that neither represents nor creates anything at all outside of itself.

We have to distinguish between the current Keynesian fiat money system (which is inflationary and gradually turns all money to debt) and a monetary system based on free banking, no legal tender and (most likely) gold as the standard of value (which does NOT turn all money to debt).

The reason the current fiat system turns everything into debt is due to the Keynesian policies at its core. Basically the current monetary system chronically operates with a negative real interest rate. The consequence of this is that new money is continuously conjured out of nothing based on no underconsumption at all but purely on a promise to pay back sometimes in the FUTURE. Since the negative real interest is a chronic feature of our monetary system the future component of our money compounds and becomes ever greater. In plain language: more and more of the money is backed -- not by real production today as would be the case on a sound, objective monetary system -- but on future production.

The problem with a negative rael interest is that it reverses the incentives. Spending and borrowing becomes the new way of saving, and saving becomes a form of consumption. So it promotes chronic overconsumption. How can overconsumption be possible in an economy? By consuming our capital, our savings. At some point that so much of our accumulated capital is consumed that the future starts catching up to us and it becomes clear to everyone that the debt is unsustainable and will never be repaid. That's what's happened in the United States (and also to European countries)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You're clueless, but you're pretty funny onarchy ...

 

[SpineyNorman]

His mates are scarily mental though. The comments on his blog are full of One of them explains how "libertarians" need to take control of the military and police in order to arrest and, one must assume, liquidate all socialists. (Remember that for this lot anyone who isn't a vulgar right libertarian is a "socialist" so that means getting rid of most of the population). The Pinochet apologetics make more sense now. In another place Onar tells someone that their grandmother is as bad as Hitler because she approves of state funded roads etc. Proper stone bonkers.

 

[camouflage]

Was thinking about hanging round street corners in Canary Wharf and listening for tells in passing conversation.

I'm sure you've better things to do with your time.

 

[phildwyer]

We have to distinguish between the current Keynesian fiat money system (which is inflationary and gradually turns all money to debt) and a monetary system based on free banking, no legal tender and (most likely) gold as the standard of value (which does NOT turn all money to debt).

I'd say the real distinction is between usorious and non-usorious financial systems.

When money is not allowed to reproduce autonomously, it will remain a tool for the convenience of human beings. But when it is allowed to reproduce autonomously, it will inevitably develop its own independent mode of existence.

Furthermore, since money is the alienated symbol of human life, and in this sense the antithesis of human life, there is every reason to expect that the independent life of money will reveal it as a force hostile to human beings.

We don't get many pro-capitalists here, so I wonder if you'd mind my asking you a question. What is your opinion of the morality of usury?

 

[camouflage]

I'd say the real distinction is between usorious and non-usorious financial systems.

When money is not allowed to reproduce autonomously, it will remain a tool for the convenience of human beings. But when it is allowed to reproduce autonomously, it will inevitably develop its own independent mode of existence.

Furthermore, since money is the alienated symbol of human life, and in this sense the antithesis of human life, there is every reason to expect that the independent life of money will reveal it as a force hostile to human beings.

Oh ffs

 

[phildwyer]

Oh ffs

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand our conversation would you mind just keeping quiet please?

This kind of mindless interjection makes you look stupid. But more important than that, it disrupts the flow of conversation, preventing us from making much progress.

If you do want to say something in the future, there should be no problem. But I must ask that you keep silent for the next couple of pages. Fair enough?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

His mates are scarily mental though. <snip>

Yeah, his whole 'it's ok to rape socialists with dogs' thing is quite worrying too ...

 

[phildwyer]

Not at all, I do it every day, and so do you. There are more forms of value than labour and money. I thought you as a religious person would've got that by now. LBJ already laid it out simply, bartering and sorts of non-monetary tit for tats all imply counting and tallying of diverse commodites and activities. No need for capital or money.

I don't really know how to put it in simpler terms.

The imposition of financial value on human activity mistakes the nature of that activity.* This is in fact the primary ethical objection to wage labor.

Do you understand now?

*by conceiving it as an objective thing rather than a subjective process.

 

[camouflage]

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand our conversation would you mind just keeping quiet please?

This kind of mindless interjection makes you look stupid. But more important than that, it disrupts the flow of conversation, preventing us from making much progress.

If you do want to say something in the future, there should be no problem. But I must ask that you keep silent for the next couple of pages. Fair enough?

If you promise not to spout the kind of pants you did just there than there'll be no need for me to register my facepalm-rolleyes combo.

All this zeitgeist stuff only goes so far you know. Yes money is debt, but there's no need to get silly about it. Next you'll start railing about how clocks make time up out of nothing.

 

[phildwyer]

If you promise not to spout the kind of pants you did just there than there'll be no need for me to register my facepalm-rolleyes combo.

All this zeitgeist stuff only goes so far you know. Yes money is debt, but there's no need to get silly about it. Next you'll start railing about how clocks make time up out of nothing.

It's not the fact that money is debt that bothers me, so much as the fact that it does not exist. Does it not seem strange to you that the world should be governed by a non-existent power?

 

[TruXta]

I'm telling you guys it's a real shame you can't read Norwegian. There's some comments on Onan's blog that are just out of this fucking world. I just spent the last 5 minutes giggling my tits off. google translate does not do it justice.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yeah, but ask yourself, what sort of person wants to get that close to onan while he's pleasuring himself in unnatural ways?

That poetrixx dude struck me as 'Scandinavia's next top serial killer" should that ever become a game show ...

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm telling you guys it's a real shame you can't read Norwegian. There's some comments on Onan's blog that are just out of this fucking world. I just spent the last 5 minutes giggling my tits off. google translate does not do it justice.

Are you commenting on his blog as Christian by any chance? If so good on you but I think you've got as much chance of getting any of them to see sense as I have of convincing Kent Hovind to accept the theory of evolution. I think any sane person who comes across that blog, and that post in particular, will be far more disturbed by the comments he and his disciples are making than by the violence of the internet debate rapist socialists.

 

[onarchy]

His mates are scarily mental though. The comments on his blog are full of One of them explains how "libertarians" need to take control of the military and police in order to arrest and, one must assume, liquidate all socialists. (Remember that for this lot anyone who isn't a vulgar right libertarian is a "socialist" so that means getting rid of most of the population). The Pinochet apologetics make more sense now. In another place Onar tells someone that their grandmother is as bad as Hitler because she approves of state funded roads etc. Proper stone bonkers.

I never said "as bad as Hitler." I said that there is no reason why she shouldn't be called a fascist if she is a proponent of the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. You guys agree with 95% of Hitler's policies AND ideology. Doesn't that bother you the slightest?

 

[Nylock]

* buys popcorn, resolves to read thread during lunch break tomorrow up to this point to find out what the batshit crazy poster is dribbling about.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I never said "as bad as Hitler." I said that there is no reason why she shouldn't be called a fascist if she is a proponent of the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. You guys agree with 95% of Hitler's policies AND ideology. Doesn't that bother you the slightest?

95% eh? That's a bold claim to make when you haven't got a fucking clue what any of our politics are isn't it? You demented Randroid cunt.

E2A: Sorry, it wasn't his grandmother - it was his mother. This is what you said: "You know your mother. You know she is kind and caring towards you and that he only has good intentions. She wants people to have good voices and she said because she believes the AP will help as many as possible. Based on this analysis is your mother a deeply good and warm human being. The problem is that exactly the same analysis could be performed on the Adolf Hitler and arrived at exactly the same answer. If you consider him privately, you will see a loving partner with great concern for children and a deep and sincere love for his country. He was an ardent dedicated politician who spent much of his adult life to think about what he could do to improve the lives of millions of Germans. If he saw injustice in the world, he was angry and he fought fiercely against the decay and the forces that he said brought down Germany." You disgusting, libelous worm. The daft thing is that you and the little cult you have gathered around you are far, far closer to Hitler in your politics than this lady or anyone posting on here.

 

[Idris2002]

I never said "as bad as Hitler." I said that there is no reason why she shouldn't be called a fascist if she is a proponent of the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. You guys agree with 95% of Hitler's policies AND ideology. Doesn't that bother you the slightest?

The fascist dictators Hitler and Mussolini privatised many key industries that had previously been owned by the German and Italian states. That may be counter-intuitive, but it happens to be true.

You support privatisation: therefore you, onar, can legitimately be called a fascist.

 

[audiotech]

You guys agree with 95% of Hitler's policies AND ideology.

That was the CEO and board of IG Farben.

 

[SpineyNorman]

In addition he's a social darwinist, just like Hitler. He also supports the torture and murder of "Marxists" and the imprisonment and torture of political undesirables like trade unionists if the population of a country is "irrational" enough to elect the wrong (ie left) government. Also, if his mates are anything to go by he'd like to see his comrades take over the police and military in preparation for a coup detat. I therefore conclude that Onar's a bigger fascist/socialist/communist/subjectivist (all the same) than any of us. In fact he's more fascist than the uber-fascist Norwegian government and the fascist mums who elected them. The fascist.

 

[WorkersUnite]

support privatisation: therefore you, onar, can legitimately be called a fascist.

The core element in fascism is not privatisation, but forced unity. Fascists also regulate private businesses heavily. I have been following this thread and it has been explained throughoughly. It's called corporatism.
You can't just pick a random element and just point it out as fascism. Then you must also be a fascist since both Hitler and UK (and other countries) has police?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The core element in fascism is not privatisation, but forced unity. Fascists also regulate private businesses heavily. I have been following this thread and it has been explained throughoughly. It's called corporatism.
You can't just pick a random element and just point it out as fascism. Then you must also be a fascist since both Hitler and UK (and other countries) has police?

You do know what a reductio ad absurdum is don't you?