The UK banking system

[118118]

The industrial revolution emerged out of the debt based monetary system with morals and ethics emerging out of this very system.
True ethics and morals are conpletely subsumed and incompatible with this system. They are dominated and eventually obliterated.

Erm, you haven't denied that a real economy exists (with a buying of labour power as a commodity and in its consumption materializing surplus labour). So there are two economies, both a fake (apparently, how would I know) and something that exists after the neutralization of the simulacra - something resolutely real. Could Marx have not seen beyond the simulacra, despite missing that the economy is debt based.
I mean interest free banks would nuetralize the simulacra, but it would still exists as a capitalist economy - it would still fit Marx's definition of capitalism however right or wrong he is about its processes.

 

[slaar]

IMO, more symptomatic of a systemic fault in 'debt based economics' than any physical or geographical limitations.

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/0205list/1425trad.pdf

It's the inevitable consequence of the systemic defects in 'money', as identified by zArk... and Gesell. There is no 'conspiracy' amongst evil stuffed suits in Wall Street and the Square Mile to starve Africa - no 'sheer bloody mindedness'.

So it wouldn't have much to do with rampant over-population with nowhere near as big an increase in farming output (as most farming is still subsistence) would it? There aren't such simple solutions as just abolishing money, it's a red herring.

That article isn't very relevant. It's not too hard to work out that liberalising trade doesn't lead to increases in local production, that often barriers to trade as well as mechanisation have been required to boost local food production, and that if a country doesn't produce much of value then it can't buy much of value. That's linked to complexities and inequalities in the global production and trading system, but it goes much deeper than issues of money.

 

[zArk]

Erm, you haven't denied that a real economy exists (with a buying of labour power as a commodity and in its consumption materializing surplus labour). So there are two economies, both a fake (apparently, how would I know) and something that exists after the neutralization of the simulacra - something resolutely real. Could Marx have not seen beyond the simulacra, despite missing that the economy is debt based.
I mean interest free banks would nuetralize the simulacra, but it would still exists as a capitalist economy - it would still fit Marx's definition of capitalism however right or wrong he is about its processes.

economy = simulacra = debt based banking system

without the debt based banking system there is no eocnomy or economics.

capitalism doesnt exist, it is derived through the economy whcih is founded upon myth.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

capitalism doesnt exist

Shhhh, son't say that, all the anarchists round here will have nothing to live for

 

[zArk]

Shhhh, son't say that, all the anarchists round here will have nothing to live for

ahhh but in defense

the hard work by established theorists is not invalidated instead it is re-invigorated.

all theories are valid and can be used to analyse the simulacra.

their basis just needs a tweak.

sign value.

ps. gretting threatened with a kick from admin.
if i go i have enjoyed this thread, thanks for all the posts but not the abuse (you know who you are)

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

gretting threatened with a kick from admin.

Try talking about something else then?

Just a thought like.

 

[zArk]

Try talking about something else then?

Just a thought like.

ahhh in the conspiraloon thread/general forum someone mentioned that no-one knows what happened on 9/11....

so i jumped in and stated a few things

then admin said i was repetitive, boring and monotonous. a fucking fruitlloop.

nice one.

I think it may be time to show zArk the door as he seems stuck in some strange, endless cycle of conspiraloonery and I suspect things aren't going to get any better

You're just posting up the same fact-free fruitloop shit and repeating yourself endlessly like some weird mantra.

It's dull, it's boring and not what these boards were set up for.

We've already 'done' 9/11. About a million fucking times, in fact.


btw he/she changed the word 'fucking' to 'fact-free' and no i cannot prove it

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

ahhh in the conspiraloon thread/general forum someone mentioned that no-one knows what happened on 9/11....

so i jumped in and stated a few things

You spouted a load of evidence free bonkers nonsense. Quite similar to parts of this thread really.

Seriously, try stepping away from the paranoid stuff and have a look in the other forums, "one issue" people tend not to last very long round here...

 

[zArk]

You spouted a load of evidence free bonkers nonsense. Quite similar to parts of this thread really.

Seriously, try stepping away from the paranoid stuff and have a look in the other forums, "one issue" people tend not to last very long round here...

has been corrected with links

mr bees, i can talk about any issue and yes it will always lead back to money because the economy drives this country and the US. It is fundamental to all issues, as i have shown through this thread

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

mr bees, i can talk about any issue and yes it will always lead back to money because the economy drives this country and the US. It is fundamental to all issues, as i have shown through this thread

Is it fuck.

Trying chatting about what bands you like in music, or any favorite recipies you have in suburban. Hell, you could even get your kit off on the naked urbanites thread

 

[zArk]

Is it fuck.

Trying chatting about what bands you like in music, or any favorite recipies you have in suburban. Hell, you could even get your kit off on the naked urbanites thread

sorry, i best go out and drink loads of aspartame based fizzy drinks with loads of benzene in them. Then go and get leathered in the pub, turning my brain into the equivalent of jelly.

duuuuhhhhh i think the biggest issue in life is getting the pot holes in my road fixed and stopping Gary Glitter. Fucking hell what about that minister and her mortgage... duuuuhhhhhh. Ruth Kelly who? duuuuhhhhh my council tax is going up? its about fucking time, and when are they going to increase my income tax... duuuuhhhhh

 

[editor]

then admin said i was repetitive, boring and monotonous. a fucking fruitlloop.

Looks like I was on good form there.

 

[FruitandNut]

so you, FRUITANDNUT, are saying that it was a Biblical event?

Humour, my dear boy, led me to such a choice of maritime vessel - I was attempting an exercise in whimsey based upon your site-name/handle.

Actually if I were to build a boat it would not be modelled on the Ark. The Royal Navy built a scale model based on the info in the OT and in sank in a test tank (calm water) in a couple of minutes!

 

[nino_savatte]

ahhh in the conspiraloon thread/general forum someone mentioned that no-one knows what happened on 9/11....

so i jumped in and stated a few things

then admin said i was repetitive, boring and monotonous. a fucking fruitlloop.

nice one.

I think it may be time to show zArk the door as he seems stuck in some strange, endless cycle of conspiraloonery and I suspect things aren't going to get any better

You're just posting up the same fact-free fruitloop shit and repeating yourself endlessly like some weird mantra.

It's dull, it's boring and not what these boards were set up for.

We've already 'done' 9/11. About a million fucking times, in fact.


btw he/she changed the word 'fucking' to 'fact-free' and no i cannot prove it

Well, it's easy to see why. Were these boards set up with you in mind?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

go and get leathered in the pub

The most sensible and reality based thing you've said since you arrived

 

[118118]

economy = simulacra = debt based banking system

without the debt based banking system there is no eocnomy or economics.

capitalism doesnt exist, it is derived through the economy whcih is founded upon myth.

I don't know if you've been banned now, but the fact that it was founded on a myth does not make it a myth!!!111!! I thought you may have agreed with me that despite M>M>M occuring M>C>M still occurs, so there is something "real" out there - so that means negating M>M>M does not stop M>C>M - part of the economy lives on. Unless you have proof that M>C>M would collapse without M>M>M.
That in some ways that the eonomy is a myth, does not mean that "real" processes are not at work, just not at its alledged "base", so that the base does not determine the whole economy.
IYSWIM!!!111!!!

 

[zArk]

I thought you may have agreed with me that despite M>M>M occuring M>C>M still occurs, so there is something "real" out there - so that means negating M>M>M does not stop M>C>M - part of the economy lives on. Unless you have proof that M>C>M would collapse without M>M>M.
That in some ways that the eonomy is a myth, does not mean that "real" processes are not at work, just not at its alledged "base", so that the base does not determine the whole economy.
IYSWIM!!!111!!!

The economy re-produces the real.

 

[118118]

The economy re-produces the real.

But doesn't the real reproduce itself - as well.

 

[zArk]

But doesn't the real reproduce itself - as well.

hmmm difficult question to answer as the term used by baudrillard 're-produced' is specific.

From my position;

"no, the real doesnt re-produce"

but hey if you want to explain to me how it can then i am all eyes or rephrase the question.

 

[118118]

or rephrase the question.

Yeah I probably meant we reproduce the real. I shouldn't post in theory

 

[zArk]

Yeah I probably meant we reproduce the real. I shouldn't post in theory

the royal "we" -- love that phrase, my nan always used it for shits and giggles

we reproduce --- this is where i include Foucault and internalisation.

yeah, we reproduce the real but who is this 'we'? or "I"?

It is the simulacra acting through us. In some people the simulacra totally dominates agency and freewill, in others it is a sliding scale.

Morals and ethics follows this slide, not in quality but where it emerges from. Simulacra ethics and morals are giltz which ultimately support itself.

eg the almighty pound is most important than following its ethics and morals

Human ethics and morals do exist but are rolled into the 'reproduced' ethics and morals which are mirror images of the human ones. This mirror effect is not opposite but a perfect reproduction.

When i have previously said MP's or other people have "lost their mind", i mean it literally. They are totally subsumed by the simulacra and their ethics and morals are entirely derived from the simulacra.

so yeah, we reproduce the real but we also attempt to produce the real yet the latter becomes lost within the growing perfect reproduction of it.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Any danger of someone translating that last post for me?

 

[nino_savatte]

Any danger of someone translating that last post for me?

You'll be lucky. I reckon zArk swallowed Baudrillard's Simualtion and Simulacra whole and is just belching out as much of it as he can.

 

[revol68]

the royal "we" -- love that phrase, my nan always used it for shits and giggles

we reproduce --- this is where i include Foucault and internalisation.

yeah, we reproduce the real but who is this 'we'? or "I"?

It is the simulacra acting through us. In some people the simulacra totally dominates agency and freewill, in others it is a sliding scale.

Morals and ethics follows this slide, not in quality but where it emerges from. Simulacra ethics and morals are giltz which ultimately support itself.

eg the almighty pound is most important then follow its ethics and morals

Human ethics and morals do exist but are rolled into the 'reproduced' ethics and morals which are mirror images of the human ones. This mirror effect is not opposite but a perfect reproduction.

When i have previously said MP's or other people have "lost their mind", i mean it literally. They are totally subsumed by the simulacra and their ethics and morals are entirely derived from the simulacra.

so yeah, we reproduce the real but we also attempt to produce the real yet the latter becomes lost within the growing perfect reproduction of it.

Just out of interest, if all is under the shackles of simulacra, if nothing escapes it, where are you critiquing from?

Or have you just conveniently maintained the bourgeois sovergein individual for yourself and other enlightened "questioners"?

If your gonna try and decentre shit you should atleast have the wit to start with the fucking subject you muppet.

 

[118118]

I don't understand what "decentre" means, but he didn't say it was an ethical critique did he!

 

[revol68]

I don't understand what "decentre" means, but he didn't say it was an ethical critique did he!

no, i mean how is he able to grasp the simulacra? How is he outside it to recognise it as such?

And if this isn't an ethical critique i don't know what is.

It is the simulacra acting through us. In some people the simulacra totally dominates agency and freewill, in others it is a sliding scale.

Morals and ethics follows this slide, not in quality but where it emerges from. Simulacra ethics and morals are giltz which ultimately support itself.

 

[118118]

And if this isn't an ethical critique i don't know what is.

Well obviously all the mad language is the simulacra talking.

no, i mean how is he able to grasp the simulacra? How is he outside it to recognise it as such?

I guess its not rediculous to say that there could be holes in it. If you stumble across its source - it must be connected to the the real in some way...

 

[revol68]

Well obviously all the mad language is the simulacra talking.
I guess its not rediculous to say that there could be holes in it. If you stumble across its source - it must be connected to the the real in some way...

yeah exactly there are huge fissures in it, but then we have to ask what is producing these rips, and that would mean that simulcar does not just reproduce itself whole perfectly, but rather because it is actually produced and reproduced by ACTUAL human activity it is always contradictary and incomplete.

which is exactly where you are correct in taking him to task for imagining m-m-m as the whole story, because of course m-m-m does not feed us, nurse us and clean us, and would collapse without m-c-m.

 

[zArk]

Well obviously all the mad language is the simulacra talking.
I guess its not rediculous to say that there could be holes in it. If you stumble across its source - it must be connected to the the real in some way...

ethics and morals are mentioned because of 'use value'.

holes? this is a critque and re-evaluation of sociology, psychoanalysis and cultural strudies which affects how the individual is produced and reporoduced. Baudrillard says everything is reproduced and takes it to the evential death of originality and production.
From my starting point of the banking system, i am saying the death of orginality and therefore the individual will occur when the cashless society is total.

 

[revol68]

ethics and morals are mentioned because of 'use value'.

holes? this is a critque and re-evaluation of sociology, psychoanalysis and cultural strudies which affects how the individual is produced and reporoduced. Baudrillard says everything is reproduced and takes it to the evential death of originality and production.
From my starting point of the banking system, i am saying the death of orginality and therefore the individual will occur when the cashless society is total.

a cashless society will still require production you cretinous tedious lil nonce.