Home > Uncategorized > Biggest lesson from Financial Crisis: Wall Street gets what it wants

Biggest lesson from Financial Crisis: Wall Street gets what it wants

from Dean Baker

Seven years ago this week, the world’s financial system was teetering on the brink of collapse. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers had completely shaken confidence in the banking industry. First, no one could trust the banks books; no one knew how much bad debt banks were concealing. Second, the too big to fail insurance seemed not to exist. After all, if Lehman was not too big to fail, who was?

At that point, policy could have gone two directions. One direction would have been to take advantage of this moment and let the market work its magic. The bloated financial structure that had developed over the last three decades was collapsing from its own excesses. The industry would have paid the price for the issuing and packaging of hundreds of billions of dollars of fraudulent loans, as they finally ran out of suckers to buy the junk.
The other route was to have the government rush to the rescue and keep Wall Street largely intact. This would involve an enormous amount of below market interest rate loans from the Fed and Treasury and an even larger amount of loan guarantees.

As we all know, we went the route of the Wall Street bailout. When the House of Representatives responded to an outcry from constituents across the political spectrum and voted down the original bailout, the Wall Street gang doubled down.

They endlessly pushed the line that we would face another Great Depression if Congress didn’t rescue Wall Street. Leading news outlets like the New York Times, National Public Radio, and the PBS News Hour were filled with stories about how we would be condemned to a decade of double digit unemployment if the government didn’t bailout Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

The implication was that we somehow had forgotten how to do fiscal policy—the government would not know how to spend money—if the Wall Street banks went under. Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke, along with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and Timothy Geithner, who was then head of the New York Fed, led the charge. Bernanke apparently had no problem warning of a second Great Depression even though just a few years earlier he had mocked people who questioned the government’s ability to generate demand by pointing out that the government “…has a technology, called a printing press…”

There is no doubt that the initial downturn would have been worse if the banks were allowed to fail. But it is difficult to envision the force that would prevent us from rebooting the economy and getting it back up to its capacity without the albatross of a bloated financial sector. Would the ghost of Citigroup prevent members of Congress from supporting stimulus, something even Republicans had done in large numbers in February of 2008?

The story of the decade of double-digit unemployment from which we were supposedly spared by the bailout depends on Congress sitting on its hands and doing nothing through the worst slump in 70 years. This is a political prediction, not an issue of economics. And it is a political prediction that has absolutely zero basis in modern history.

Seven years after the Lehman collapse, the country is still far from recovering. We are still down between 3 million to 4 million jobs from the trend growth path. For most workers, real wages still have not recovered to their pre-recession level. And millions of families have lost their homes due to either or both the bad timing of having bought at bubble-inflated prices or having taken out a high-risk loan.

Meanwhile, Wall Street is doing just fine. The big banks are bigger than ever. And the folks who lead the bailout, like Timothy Geithner, who as President Obama’s Treasury Secretary made “no more Lehmans” his motto, are making multi-million dollar salaries.

And of course no Wall Street-types were prosecuted for issuing or passing on fraudulent mortgages. In short, Wall Street gets what it wants, the people who help along the way get their rewards, and the rest of the country…well, life is tough.

View article at original source.

  1. BC
    September 18, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Hyper-financialization (via increasing debt-money to wages and GDP via the colossal fraud of fractional reserve banking) and rentier-parasitism is the normative model for the English-speaking world, having spread to Japan and the EZ, and now China.

    One of the tangible results is that total net flows to the financial sector now equal total US GDP output.

    Moreover, cumulative imputed compounding interest to total credit market debt outstanding to average term now equals 100% of GDP in perpetuity. That is to say, all current and future growth of value-added output is currently pledged to the financial and financialized sectors and their principal top 0.001-1% owners for all time.

    The US economy cannot grow in real terms per capita after net flows to the top 0.001-1% and the financialized sectors.

    The French, American, Russian, and Maoist revolutions and the collapse of the Weimar Republic and rise of the Nazis occurred following similar conditions of obscene wealth and income inequality and when an infinitesimally small elite enjoyed overwhelmingly disproportionate income, wealth, privilege, influence, and power over the economy, society, and political system.

    History is rhyming yet again.

  2. September 18, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    “And millions of families have lost their homes due to either or both the bad timing of having bought at bubble-inflated prices or having taken out a high-risk loan.”

    OR… their default was “baked in” by the fact that the bank credit money they created when they borrowed it and promised to pay it back on a schedule, was sequestered indefinitely in some corporation’s savings account where it will NEVER be available to be earned by the borrower unless it has been BORROWED a SECOND TIME by someone. It is the re-lending of SAVINGS that is the problem. The problem is so basic to the money system that economists are as utterly blind to it now as they used to be about money being created as debt by banks.

    WAKE UP!!!! PLEASE!!!!

    moneyasdebt.net

    • BC
      September 19, 2015 at 7:28 pm

      Paul, well said, but most eCONomists are not blind to the fraud and debilitating cost of the debt-money system; rather, they don’t get paid to inform us–quite the opposite.

  3. September 18, 2015 at 8:45 pm

    I think the societies that created the great stone structures of antiquity were rather top heavy as well. And they created their own tombstones.

  4. September 18, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    WOW ! BC, “…Hyper-financialization (via increasing debt-money to wages and GDP via the colossal fraud of fractional reserve banking) and rentier-parasitism is the normative model for the English-speaking world.”
    “…Moreover, cumulative imputed compounding interest to total credit market debt outstanding to average term now equals 100% of GDP in perpetuity. That is to say, all current and future growth of value-added output is currently pledged to the financial and financialized sectors and their principal top 0.001-1% owners for all time.”

    May I use the words of Frederick Soddy,
    “…It was recognized in Athens and Sparta ten
    centuries before the birth of Christ that one
    of the most vital prerogatives of the State was
    the sole right to issue money. How curious that
    the unique quality of this prerogative is only now
    being re-discovered. The” money-power ” which
    has been able to overshadow ostensibly responsible
    government, is not the power of the merely ultra-
    rich, but is nothing more nor less than a new
    technique designed to create and destroy money
    by adding and withdrawing figures in bank ledgers,
    without the slightest concern for the interests of
    the community or the real rdle that money ought
    to perform therein….(E)very monetary system must at
    long last conform, if it is to fulfil its proper role
    as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow
    it to become a source of revenue to private issuers
    is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the
    government and, last, a rival power strong enough
    ultimately to overthrow all other forms of
    government. ” (Preface “The Role of Money”)

    Written in 1934
    Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
    Doesn’t it say that Banks print money and DEPOSIT their loans, yet everyone else
    must WITHDRAW money in order to loan.
    No one would disagree that being allowed to charge interest makes the loan a means to gain money. Yes, we have legislated this… to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the
    government and, last, a rival power strong enough
    ultimately to overthrow all other forms of
    government.
    ( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
    Read and challenge:
    Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
    (Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp

    DEAN BAKER, “… policy could have gone two directions.”
    There was and even now is an alternate:
    “Fix Where We Went Wrong; In God We Trust”. How the federal reserve do for us what they have done for the banks-issue our money and charge interest… to fund…a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”

  5. September 19, 2015 at 12:53 am

    DEAN BAKER:,
    (A)…” The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers had completely shaken confidence in the banking industry”
    The bankruptcy only helped to show ‘confidence in the banking and insurance industry was so shaken that there could be a run on both industries which could have caused a ‘total collapse of the monetary system as both were insolvent and would fail’.

    (B)…” The bloated financial structure that had developed over the last three decades was collapsing from its own excesses. The industry would have paid the price for the issuing and packaging of hundreds of billions of dollars of fraudulent loans, as they finally ran out of suckers to buy the junk.”
    Fraudulent mortgage loans do not, can not and will not cause “systemic failure”.
    The mortgage system is not flawed because it is based on lending against an asset.
    As long as the lender can reclaim the asset, even if at 50% of its original value, the lender will be able to recover over time. (If at 6%; 12 years.)
    The “suckers” were the Buyers of the MBS’s. The scheme collapsed when they discovered the banks and their insurers no longer could pay back the money they paid for the so-called ultra safe investment. The future interest income from the mortgages was what securitized
    the MBS’s—NOT THE LOANS, hell the banks could not sel them the loans; they didn’t even own the money they printed to make them.
    In order to make trillions of dollars in todays money, they sold and got cash for tomorrows money-the interest income.
    Mortgages were not supposed to be to make trillions of dollars for banks who in turn would make trillions for financial corps, they were supposed to be for helping people buy homes.
    IT ALL WENT WRONG-when the banks violated their fiduciary duty and abandoned their rights, no their obligation to “protect the asset” To keep the ‘suckers’ buying they ave up the right to foreclose to “the upper tiers” buyers!

    “…but they can’t get the mortgage notes written down to affordable levels for contractual reasons….” Quote Sheila Bair , (Former FDIC Chairman appointed in 2006),”How could things have deteriorated so quickly…? In a word, securitization. …Working with a Wall Street investment bank, the issuer packages the mortgages together into ‘pools’ and divides the right to the cash flows of these mortgages into securities that are sold to investors…” (“BULL BY THE HORNS”) THE KEY WORDS BEING, “… the right to the cash flows of these mortgages into securities that are sold to investors…” These contracts allowed the investors to take away the rights of the lenders to modify the mortgages: they sold “the cash flows” for cash . How could they get back the trillions of dollars they already spent so they could repurchase the MBSs ? The Fed would be able to “fix” the modification problem with a simple strokes on a computer: Allow all to stay at market value, with loans at 3% for 40 years,period. 85% would stay, the other 15% would become welcomed ‘short sales’. END OF CRISES, stabilizing the housing industry, saving millions of jobs and even creating more jobs. But if they were to reveal the banks made trillions of profit by selling-future interest income. The banks made a fatal error in that they turned over to the investors all control over the performance of the basic asset..with total disregard of their fiduciary duty- thereby making it impossible for the PFPB to make good on there “representations”. The only way available to the PFPB was to return the trillions they took since it was discovered that not only were they not of “good faith and credit” but also the insurers they paid were also not of “good faith and credit”. Has anyone asked ,why the Fed purchased almost $1 trillion of MBSs instead of the mortgages ? Would the Fed have exposed-we are in a system that is flawed and may result in catastrophic failure.
    WE MUST END: ISSUANCE AND TAXATION OF ISSUANCE OF OUR OWN CURRENCY BY PRIVATE FOR PROFIT BANKS! (PFPB)

    Please feel free to correct any errors and any profoud wisdom is welcomed.
    I hope, as one member stated,”… hope more of this blog’s 9,786 other followers will take the trouble to” … “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide.”- Buddha

  6. September 19, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Dean Baker having set the scene and BC seeing where it is leading us (the Nazi state), Paul Grignon and Lucky make extremely important contributions here.

    Paul, I totally agree the issue is not just that money is debt, it is that [not realising it is debt] we [want it and] allow it to be circulated [at interest]. My visual mind tends not to articulate the problem but to jump to alternatives in which the problem doesn’t arise – in this case a credit card economy in which the debts are entirely my own and I don’t pay interest unless I fail to meet agreed terms of repayment – but I’ve never seen this aspect of the problem so clearly before. Thank you – and Amen! to your WAKE UP!!!! PLEASE!!!!

    I’ve only recently agreed totally with Lucky on the significance of the economic analysis of the Nobel-recognised but [with a name like that] neglected 1920’s physical chemist Frederick Soddy. [He is ignored anyway by today’s economists and scholars, who have been taught to think TINA to today’s fashion, so history and hence even Adam Smith are bunk]. The Soddy paper I tried to draw attention to was called “Cartesian [in effect two-dimensional] Economics”, which itself drew attention to the 1860’s economics of John Ruskin (e.g. “Unto This Last” and “The Crown of Wild Olive”). He (along with G K Chesterton’s personality-sensitive “Small is Beautiful” Distributism) was my own inspiration, having seen his solutions of a Citizen’s Income and motivation by honorary rewards for Environmental Maintenance and its artistic development long before the debt problem led me to envisage financing them in credit card form.

    For those who like to be up to date with their reading and citations, let me draw your attention to Stephen Pratten, ed: “Social Ontology and Modern Economics”, 2015, Routledge, and in particular to Tony Lawson’s contributions on evolution (ch 6) and the nature of money (ch 15.4).

    Even before I became immersed in what Tony is saying via experimental work with Algol-68R, I discovered Ruskin complaining:

    “It has not been without displeased surprise that I have found myself totally unable, as yet, by any repetition, or illustration, to force this plain thought into my readers’ heads, – that the wealth of nations, as of men, consists in substance, not in ciphers; and that the real good of all work, and of all commerce, depends on the final intrinsic worth of the things you make , or get by it. This is a ‘practical’ enough statement, one would think, but the English public has been so possessed by its modern school of economists that Business is always good, whether it be busy in mischief or in benefit; and that buying and selling are always salutary, whatever the intrinsic worth of what you buy or sell, that it seems impossible to gain so much as a patient hearing for the substantial result of our eager modern labour”.

    This was in 1866 (“The Crown of Wild Olive”); In 1862 the Cornhill Magazine had censored him after complaints about what “Unto This Last” was saying. (Apparently he invented paper backs and published them himself so he could still get a hearing). The business response was epitomised by Jevon’s “The Theory of Political Economy”, of which in 1862 Ruskin prophetically wrote

    “Modern political economy stands on a precisely similar basis [to a science of gymnastics assuming men have no skeletons]. Assuming, not that the human being has no skeleton, but that its is all skeleton, it founds an ossifiant theory of progress on this negation of a soul; and having shown the utmost that can be made of bones, and constructed a number of interesting figures with death’s heads and humeri, successfully proves the inconvenience of the reappearance of a soul among these corpuscular structures. I do not deny the truth of this theory: I simply deny its applicability to the present phase of the world”.

    It seems every generation has to discover these things for themselves, but we would do well to start our adolescents off with this stuff rather than Econ 101. Adults, too, may find it not only thought-provoking but fun.

  7. September 19, 2015 at 11:42 am

    The following statement by Lucky deserves the emphasis of standing alone:

    IT ALL WENT WRONG when the banks violated their fiduciary duty and abandoned their rights – no, their obligation – to “protect the asset”.

    • September 19, 2015 at 2:59 pm

      Thank you Dave Taylor, I wonder how many of the almost 10,000 “fellow discussants will
      seek the truth, “…It seems every generation has to discover… for themselves.”
      Please believe that it may be your privilege, obligation to …” “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide.”- Buddha
      Read and challenge:
      Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
      (Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp

      I have not even had Econ 101 (not that I can remember).
      Only by chance did I discover “The Role Of Money”.
      Only by chance could I have hoped that you would be called to…” My greatest challenge has been to change the mindset of people. Mindsets play strange tricks on us. We see things the way our minds have instructed our eyes to see.”,Muhammad Yunus

    • September 19, 2015 at 7:37 pm

      “…but they can’t get the mortgage notes written down to affordable levels for contractual reasons….”
      Quote Sheila Bair (Former FDIC Chairman),”How could things have deteriorated so quickly…? In a word, securitization.
      …Working with a Wall Street investment bank, the issuer packages the mortgages together into ‘pools’ and divides the right to the cash flows of these mortgages into securities that are sold to investors…”
      (“BULL BY THE HORNS”)

      THE KEY WORDS BEING, “… the right to the cash flows of these mortgages into securities that are sold to investors…”
      These contracts allowed the investors to take away the rights of the lenders to modify the mortgages: they sold “the cash flows” for cash .
      How could they get back the trillions of dollars they already spent so they could repurchase the MBSs ?
      The Fed would be able to “fix” the modification problem with a simple strokes on a computer: Allow all to stay at market value, with loans at 3% for 40 years,period. 85% would stay, the other 15% would become welcomed ‘short sales’. END OF CRISES, stabilizing the housing industry, saving millions of jobs and even creating more jobs.
      But if they were to reveal the banks made trillions of profit by selling-future interest income. The banks made a fatal error in that they turned over to the investors all control over the performance of the basic asset..with total disregard of their fiduciary duty- thereby making it impossible for the PFPBanks to make good on their “legal responsibilities”.The only way available to the PFPB was to return the trillions they took since it was discovered that not only were they not of “good faith and credit” but also the insurers they paid were also not of “good faith and credit”. Has anyone asked ,why the Fed purchased almost $1 trillion of MBSs instead of the mortgages ? Would the Fed have exposed-we are in a system that is flawed and may result in catastrophic failure? Did the Fed know they had to buy back the securities (securitization) or declare them to be fraudulent . WE MUST END: TAXATION OF ISSUANCE OF OUR OWN CURRENCY BY (PFPB) PRIVATE FOR PROFIT BANKS!

  8. September 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    Biggest lesson from Financial Crisis:
    Perhaps,

    IT ALL WENT WRONG when the banks violated their fiduciary duty and abandoned their rights – no, their obligation – to “protect the asset”.
    IT ALL WENT WRONG when the banks proved they can not be restrained in their issuance of money, if the Fed does not honor that issuance there could be a “total collapse of the monetary system”. A “systemic failure”.

    The lesson may lead to the solution:
    A Monetary Sovereignty must have a central bank that is an honest bank.
    A bank that is the guardian (not the owner of it) of the wealth of the community (the real owner of that wealth).
    *WHAT IF THE …The Fed Reserve were to become the CENTRAL BANK WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE (CBWFTP) instead of working for the Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) ?
    Is it not a fact that the PFPB have had a stream of income (profit) over the last 75 years of over $100 trillion dollars, money that could have been used…”to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”?

    Why not read, then challenge or improve:
    “The Role Of Money”
    (Entire book as a free download… http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp )

  9. September 19, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    Economics: ‘a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury’?
    Comment on Dean Baker on ‘Biggest lesson from Financial Crisis: Wall Street gets what it wants’

    You sum up: “The story of the decade of double-digit unemployment from which we were supposedly spared by the bailout depends on Congress sitting on its hands and doing nothing through the worst slump in 70 years. This is a political prediction, not an issue of economics.” (See intro)

    Indeed, this is the crucial point: the first thing an economist has to do is to realize whether he deals with politics or economics.

    The history of the U.S. economy since around the 1920s could be retold quite realistically as a tumbling from crisis to crisis with idiots, criminals, sociopaths, swindlers, fakers, etc. grabbing for power and money, with Wall St, FED, and the national institutions as main protagonists.

    The first question is, should this history be told by an economist or better by a political scientist? The answer depends on our understanding of economics. There always has been political economics and theoretical economics.

    Theoretical economics deals with THE ECONOMY in roughly the same way as physicists deal with NATURE. THE ECONOMY is the world economy as a whole and this is a rather abstract entity. Abstractions have not such a big fan group.

    Accordingly, the first difficulty of economics is that most people have a rather small event horizon. If they are at all interested in economic matters, myopic individuals want to learn from the economist not much more than whether the stock/property market goes up or down. Clearly, theoretical economics cannot meet these peoples’ expectations.

    The second difficulty of economics is that many economists feel the urge to satisfy the expectations of a vastly more important target group than the buy-low-sell-high crowd. The classicals advertized their core competence unmistakably: “That Political Economy is a science which teaches, or professes to teach, in what manner a nation may be made rich. This notion of what constitutes the science, is in some degree countenanced by the title and arrangement which Adam Smith gave to his invaluable work. (Mill, 1874, V.7)

    Note that the classicals’ definition of science departs somewhat from the genuine sciences. Note also that the focus is on ‘my’ concrete nation and not ‘the’ abstract world economy.

    The third difficulty of theoretical economics is that the format of communication is predetermined by the operational specifics of the entertainment industry, that is, all communication must take the form of an interesting story or a sitcom controversy full of sound and fury. The all-decisive criterion in the realm of entertainment (including economics blogs) is like/dislike and not true/false as it is in science. Because of this, there is an irresistible bias to explain the functioning of the economy as machinations of weird/evil characters. With some inner logic economics then resembles more a psychiatric/criminal investigation than scientific research.

    These three difficulties are sufficient to explain why economics never managed to rise above the level of a proto-science. As Schumpeter put it “… economics is a big omnibus which contains many passengers of incommensurable interests and abilities.” (1994, p. 827) It seems that the passengers, while busily telling their Walrasian, Keynesian, Marxian, Austrian etc. tales, are actually stranded in the middle of nowhere.

    What is the biggest lesson for Heterodoxy from the permanent failure of Orthodoxy? Quite simple: either Heterodoxy participates furthermore in political economics with storytelling or it produces the true theory of how THE ECONOMY works.

    Note well that already Marx realized that economics is NOT about human behavior: “To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose. But here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My stand-point, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them.” (Marx, 1906, M.9)

    Biggest lesson from the actual economic mess: economics is not about space-time specific individual human defects but about the structural defects of THE ECONOMY (2015).

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    References
    Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2624350.
    Marx, K. (1906). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. The Process of Capitalist Production. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL
    http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA.html.
    Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL http://www.econlib.org/library/
    Mill/mlUQP5.html#EssayV.OntheDefinitionofPoliticalEconomy.
    Schumpeter, J. A. (1994). History of Economic Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  10. BC
    September 19, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    https://app.box.com/s/ztgvh9e0u9skbdctnnrm29h2xpuq3854

    https://app.box.com/s/cik3teki4u11tj7erkxqh1t1lw0eayvj

    https://app.box.com/s/pay5b7az8brfh03womxnihm5psui2vtn

    https://app.box.com/s/rvlhbckx959xahjysa30zwyallimx0qb

    We’re are staring down yet another big bear market, financial shock, and a global deflationary Great(er) Recession/Depression, as the S&P 500 is rolling over as in early 2008 and early 2001; the ChiFed’s ANFCI is spiking above zero as in 2008 and 2001; the Baa-10-year spread is widening as it did prior to Lehman, 9/11, the 1987 Crash, Continental Illinois collapse, and the recessions in the early 1980s and in 1974-75; and the monetary base has decelerated to near 0% as occurred coincident with QE, “Operation Twist”, and “All In”.

    Not only will the Fed not raise the reserve rate and restrict or reduce bank reserves, they are likely to resume QE (“All In II”) perhaps later in the year. But the Fed and TBTE banks are loathed to permit this perception to occur as it risks 1930s- and Japan-like liquidity trap conditions and a deflationary mindset taking hold among businesses, households, and banks fearing their loans not being repaid.

    The Fed now faces a similar situation as did the BOJ in the early 2000s and the Fed did in the late 1930s.

    But the deflationary mindset is inevitable given unprecedented debt to wages and GDP, net flows to the financial sector absorbing an equivalent of all GDP, peak Boomer demographic drag effects, fiscal constraints, and increasing risk aversion and liquidity preference.

    Because US banks receive interest from the Fed on their $3 trillion in reserves, they are flush with gov’t-guaranteed assets, and their net margin continues to decline, they don’t want liabilities in the form of deposits, therefore, the yield curve will continue to flatten and the post-2007 secular trend rate of growth of bank lending will remain weak and thus so will growth of deposits/money supply and nominal GDP.

    Thus, the incipient deflation now occurring around the world implies that negative short-term interest rates are likely coming to the US, as well as the 10-year Treasury yield eventually at or below 1%.

  11. BC
    September 19, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    Our private debt-money is not “our money”; rather, it (and its many proxies) is (are) owned by the top 0.001% owners of the largest private banks that issue the debt-money at cumulative compounding interest at what is effectively an infinite term.

    The non-owners of the banks that lend the debt-money into existence only borrow the debt-money at interest and circulate it for subsistence, if we’re lucky. We own virtually nothing, not even the so-called equity in a primary residence, as one must borrow one’s own money from a debt-money lender to realize the debt-money equity’s purchasing power.

    Over half of the “market value” of US real estate is in the form of the cumulative imputed compounding interest in perpetuity on the monopoly land rent of monetized scarcity value of land that is enjoyed by the first lien holder or the owner of the lien holder. This feudal-like system increases the cost of land while restricting its use, reducing its productive value for firms, labor, and society. See Henry George.

  12. Ack Nice
    September 22, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Remove the ultimate motive for the crimes and the crimes stop. Don’t remove the motive and the crimes continue no matter what old and new hurdles the perps have to jump over in their pursuit of unlimited personal fortunes.

    if a man fills his house with newspapers, we think he is crazy – if a woman has 70 cats we think she is nuts – but if a person hoards money we put them on the cover of fortune magazine and pretend they are a role model

    The state built on injustice cannot stand. For 1000s of years, people have not been clear enough to control galloping inequality. It is the issue of humanity. It is at the root of all our sufferings and disorder. It is at the root of war and crime.

    50 million working poor sacrificed on the altar of unlimited personal fortunes every year – and still no economist gets it.

    People think that justice is a sacrifice, a limitation of freedom, and they (99%) go on getting poorer, more underpaid, and more angry, till revolution, when the 1% overpaid get pulled down, and then they grow inequality and violence all over again. Like 100 children with 1000 sweets, and a game-rule: grab as much as you can and grab from each other as well, which results in mayhem, ever-growing violence. The fever of climbing the ladder, the competitive race, totally absorbs them, and they do not learn the lesson of history, that perfectly simple-minded freedom is hell, is chaos, is war, crime, riot and revolution, is destruction for all.

    What is supposed to happen is that a working person’s wealth after a transaction is the same as it was before, just in different work-products. We invented job specialisation, which necessitated trade, and trade is to give out the specialised products we produce, and get the products we want. Trade shouldn’t leave us better off or worse off in work-value. The amount of work in the products we buy should be equal to the amount of work we do. Anything else is theft, that is, unilateral shift of wealth. Even if people are perfectly honest and friendly with each other, with no desire to take advantage, to get advantage (to steal), they cannot avoid inequality between the work content of the two things exchanged. And that causes legal theft. Over many transactions, that has to cause a bell curve of net gains and losses from large gain to large loss. Just as tossing heads and tails has to result in strings of heads, and strings of tails, with longer strings rarer, but inevitable. So, ever-growing inequality (theft) is built in to transaction itself. The bell curve widens with every transaction.

    No economist – even though some of them have had it explained to them – has to-date admitted that inequality is indeed built in to trade. Part of the reason is that they don’t want to see it. They find it easy to believe what they want to believe, and they want to believe in the equality of trade because they believe in the goodness of all levels of wealth. The universal idea is that more money is always better. But wealth contribution by work is limited, so unlimited fortune has to be theft.

    The individual contribution of the individual to wealth by work is limited, why should fortune be unlimited? Ask the question a thousand times and a thousand times the orthodox and heterodox economists will unite in perfect, perpetual refusal to answer.

    How simple is it that tyranny is utterly dependent on super-overfortunes? That where superwealth is, tyranny is. How simple is it that everyone’s contribution to wealth is limited, not unlimited?

    Each working person, including housewives and students, earns and creates around $100,000 of wealth, of work-products, a year. Plenty and peace. Non-injury. Abundance of order and democracy. 100 times faster technology progress. And look around at what we have made, with our simple minds. Devastation, chaos, dis-information, confusion, terrors, horrors, waste, destruction.

    Pay justice is the most important justice, because money buys virtually everything, including social power.

    If people have open grabs on limited wealth, all-grab-all, you get ever-growing inequality, violence, disorder and unhappiness. Like 100 children, 1000 sweets, with a game rule to grab from each other too. Perpetual escalating fighting, hostility, suspicion, enmity, instead of eating fairshares and playing happily perpetually. $40 an hour for every working person including housewives and students, $100,000 per working person including homemakers and students, $200,000 per family.

    America (and every other empire) has not confined its all-grab-all within borders, but exported it everywhere, and so its danger, labour, fighting, fatigue, are all the larger.

    Justice is a virtue. Virtues are causes of happiness. Injustice is injury. Each injury causes an endless escalating vendetta back-and-forth of injury. It is in everyone’s interests to pursue and capture justice, especially pay justice, if you want to play perpetually in amity together rather than fight to exhaustion and extinction. (Pay injustice produces all the other forms of injustice, like corruption of officials.)

    What has freedom to pursue unlimited fortunes given humanity? Freedom for everyone, from richest to poorest, to be embroiled in super-extreme escalating violence, rising to nuclear extinction soon, freedom for 99% to be underpaid, freedom for 90% to be paid less than 100th of average pay per unit of work, freedom for 1% to perpetually try to fight off the 99%, and the others in the 1%. Freedom for everyone to be extremely poor in enjoyment, peace, safety, leisure, relaxation, company, community, health, sanity, order, maturity, education, trust, generosity, kindness, beauty. To be extremely rich in danger, labour, war, crime, fatigue, insanity, mis and dis and un education, corruption, horror, terror. Nuclear fear fatigue will not stop nuclear extinction coming. Global extinction bombs and super-extreme (giga-astronomical) pay injustice, increasing fast, means a boiler, relief valve stuck, pressure gauge in the red and rising. It must blow soon.

    The defense costs are exhausting the first world, as they exhausted every empire and plutocracy in history. We can no longer afford a war. A 60th of the bombs will create enough fires to put up enough smoke to drop the temperature 25 C, three times colder than a natural ice-age.

    It is no time for closed-mindedness, immaturity or delay. It is time to get real like we never got before. Bite the bullet of the adamantine golden rule: don’t hit people, they hit back. Pay justice or misery and extinction. Pay justice is not a hardship, is not a loss. It is social, economic and psychological riches. 100-fold happiness. Would anyone (outside a madhouse, or even in a madhouse) suggest taking 90% of wealth off 90% of people and giving it to 1%? No, not in a million years. So take to deepest heart the fact that we have pay injustice, and misery, over a million times worse. Take to heart the fact that we can be super-extremely happier, like children who stop all-grab-all with the sweets and eat 10 sweets each ($200,000 per family) and then play together.

    I am not talking about giving money to people regardless of whether they deserve it. I am talking about giving money back to people who have earned it. Learn to hate the false justifications for pay for no work as you hate misery and extinction, because that is what they are. Exorcising the false justifications for pay for no work will lift you and everyone up into maximal freedom, unimaginable happiness, incredible productivity and progress, extreme reduction of war and crime.

    ‘The rich get richer and the poor get poorer’ has been going on for a very long time, and therefore has gone a very long way. The richest are very very rich indeed, the poor are very poor indeed. And money is power, so the richest are very very powerful, tyrannical, and corrupt. And tyrannical means the rich do many terrible things, like murdering millions of people, more or less at will. And poverty is anger, and desperation, and violence. The income or increase in fortune for a fortnight’s work ranges from US$1 billion to $1. That is, from a million times the average pay, to a thousandth the average pay. A billion times as much for the same amount of work! A billionth as much for the same amount of work! I think people cannot really take that range in. It is beyond the general human powers of imagination. It is staggering. It is the mother of all facts about human existence. Say that the range of pay for a fortnight’s work is from $1 to $1 billion and you have told the story of human existence. That fact is enough to deduce enormous violence, enormous suffering, enormous disorder, enormous waste of happiness. A perpetual storm of crisis and disaster, chaos and craziness.

    And yet, there is this powerful reluctance to even think of the rich as having money that belongs to others. Individual minds come to that conclusion, but it makes no headway in the general thinking: well-tamed economists exhaust ingenuity keeping crucial big-picture clarity at bay. And this reluctance is the cause we are wedded, welded to war. And war is escalating. War and weaponry have been escalating steadily for thousands of years, and war and weaponry have escalated very dramatically in the last century, and yet there is a lack of concern, a lack of a general search for answers. We ought to be desperately seeking the answer, the exit from this nightmare, and we are not. At the same time, there must be consciousness of the injustice and theft, for it is that understanding that drives the violence and other disturbance. It is as obvious as obvious can be that there is enormous poverty and enormous wealth, and that this cannot be right, that is, that it must be theft, and the cause of most violence, and yet there is also at the same time a failure to grasp and face these obvious points.

    Will humans act with wise self-interest? Will we re-activate our pursuit of happiness with realism? Will we after all these years dive into the ocean of gifts that pay justice has for us? Will we ever jump out of the well-worn mental grooves economists have dug? Imagine if we did institute equal shares of a 1%-a-month money supply increase and made private inheritance public. The well of humanity would start to fill. I think there would be rejoicing. I think we would begin to feel proud of ourselves. I think our spirits would lift. I think we would recognize with relief that we had at last conquered that disease of pursuit of unhappiness.

    Economics is still squillions of miles away from the necessary laser-focus on pay justice; economics is still blocking the view, preventing everyone getting clarity about work and wealth, it’s still just a long list of attempted excuses for overpay, still just static and noise taking humanity to autoextinction, never going near what will solve all the problems. RWER keeps strict silence about the imperative limitation of personal fortunes to the just maximum, it is just the latest gaudy float in the far-too-little, far-too-late parade of all-consuming madness. The CEPR float follows right behind it.

    Wall Street gets what it wants, eh? Hey, who knew? What a breakthrough insight!

    ——-

    I was hungry – and you created an economics forum to hold an academic debate between orthodoxy and heterodoxy

    I was imprisoned for stealing bread for my children – so you discussed how the price of bread is set, lamented street crime, and built another for-profit prison to cage my ever-hungrier children

    I was naked – so you explained how new fashion trends grow the economy for my benefit

    I was sick – and you used a professional medical association to strictly limit the number of doctors and thanked God you can afford to buy for-private-profit health insurance

    I was homeless – and you reported on foreclosures and rising prices for housing, and invested in real estate speculation and kept houses off the market

    I was lonely – and you left me alone to go advertise your latest book on economic theories

    I was uneducated – and you told me to go buy an education while you steadily raised the interest rate on unpayable student loans

    I clamored for justice – and you praised charity while using every trick to rename legal thieves ‘philanthropists’

    I was a refugee from a country you kept bombing for its government’s failure to comply with orders from NATO to submit to the arbitrary will of bankers – and you were disturbed for five minutes by the stench of my liquefying body leaking onto your highway

    I begged for work so I could feed my stomach – and you blamed lack of jobs on advanced technology

    You seem so learned, so steeped in the history of economic theories and theorists

    But I’m still very hungry, cold, lonely, sick, homeless, uneducated, impoverished, imprisoned, overworked:

    Underpaid

    ——–

    You can ban me now – I won’t mind a bit

    • September 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      I can feel your pain but at the same time I must ask,”Why would you not “***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC)?
      I ask the more than 9000 members, “Why would you not DESTROY THESE LIES
      IF AFTER DUE EXAMINATION AND ANALYSIS they are found to be just that?

      3 Step QE Plan: Raise net wages, Increase Jobs, Decrease Federal Debt, Poverty & Inequality.

      3 Step QE Plan: Raise Net Wages, Increase Jobs, Decrease Poverty & Inequality….
      while at the same time Reduce the Federal Debt !
      WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT PROSPERITY FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR CHILDREN?
      When a bank charges interest, it may be usury.
      When the government charges interest it is taxation.
      When a government has a mandate .. “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”
      What better way is there than:
      DO FOR OURSELVES WHAT WE HAD ALLOWED THE CENTRAL BANK TO DO FOR THE Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) !

      CREATE AS LOANS OUR own MONEY and CHARGE (interest) A TAX ON IT.
      For close to a century, we have allowed the private for profit banks to legally reap more than $100 TRILLION profit by this method of taxation which they call “Net Interest Income”.
      AMEND THE FEDERAL RESERVE CHARTER; TURN THE FED RESERVE INTO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF AMERICA (FRBA),RESTORE MONETARY POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE ,OPERATE THE FRBA WITH ABSOLUTE TRANSPARENCY, (“GLINDA,the Good Witch, owns a Great Book of Records that allows her to track everything that goes on in the world from the instant it happens.”_The Road to Oz)
      Form a more perfect “capitalistic “monetary circle: $100 trillion issued as loans to come back as $200 trillion as payment while at the same time as it returns creates a revenue strean for $100 trillion in new loans while spending $100 trillion as Congressional appropriations for the benefit of the people.Simply a better, fairer taxation.
      No inflation or deflation for there is zero change in the capital value of the sovereignty.
      There is zero change on the balance sheet of the Central Bank; a true zero net change.
      For any nation to be a Monetary Sovereignty….
      .. it must be the sole creator of its sovereign currency.
      …it must have the ways and means to control its sovereign currency for quality and quantity.
      …it must under modern money systems be fiat since its money is transferable “thru thin air”.
      …it must understand that it is the guardian of the value of the currency , if it wishes to be capitalistic; otherwise that nation will be totalitarian. As a guardian (recording and exchanging) it does not own the value of the currency it creates.
      …it must use that currency knowing that it must also return it back to the community (the rightful owners).
      …all transactions using sovereign currency must be “REAL”, meaning backed by 100% of issued sovereign currency.In order to prevent “systemic failure” it must make available the currency as loans at a fixed rate and duration in amounts deemed necessary to allow the private banking system to be solvent.
      ****The 3 Step Plan.

      (1) eliminate FICA giving a automatic 15% raise to all earning less than $102K/year without any increase in money supply or any increase in labor cost.

      (2) Change tax code to : Federal Income Tax to be 1% for income up to $102,000.

      (3)” QE4JOBS”-a plan to create millions of jobs that will pay for themselves while decreasing federal debt,
      poverty, as well as the income gap.

      “QE 4 JOBS”
      Have the American financial system rush to the rescue with a generous and flexible legal funding that no other country could match.
      Not a bailout.
      Not a cost to all the taxpayers.
      Not an increase in deficit spending.
      Rather a magic economic proven golden bullet, (Bernanke should get Noble for this).
      QE! A simple change in direction of doing something for the common bettering of all the people. Especially those in need now.
      The FEDS did in fact QE for the Private For Profit Banks.
      The FEDS made direct purchase of bank assets.
      Why not have the FEDS do for the States exactly that-purchase
      $20 billion of State improvement bonds w/ terms of 2% for 36 years.
      Thereby creating 3-5 million jobs while at the same time producing an income stream of $1trillion (money that by law is to be turned over to Congress for appropriations.
      ***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC),
      “Yes, You Can Lower Taxes, Pay Off The Debt, And At The Same Time Increase Revenue.”(Justaluckyfool)

      Quote Frederick Soddy,”…(I)f it Money is to fulfill its proper role as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government. ”
      Based upon an opinion by “Justaluckyfool” of the concepts of Noble Laureate Frederick Soddy, “The Role Of Money” (1926,1933)

      Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
      ( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
      Read and challenge:
      Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
      (Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp

      • Ack Nice
        September 23, 2015 at 6:52 am

        As for the importance of nationalizing the fed reserve – it is very important, but is a branch problem. How are you going to do it before you fix the root problem, everyone thinking that overpay is good when it is evil for everyone? Fix the root problem and the branch problems fix themselves – or get fixed easily, with universal will to change it. If you nationalize the fed reserve without correcting the error in majority thinking, the same overpaid will dominate the nationalized reserve – nothing will change – the other legal thefts will still serve to shift money from earners to freebie-getters – ‘public money’ will still concentrate in private hands – the bad root will still drive the branch problems.

        The solution is never near the problem – did Pasteur find penicillin near the beds of the dying? No, he went away, following the causative line back from the beds to the root – and he cut the root and the people in the beds got well. People are trying to solve the problem near the problems – they are shortsighted.

        Same with all problems – they all go back to pay injustice, super-extreme undemocratic bias of power, the super-powerful way above the law, driven by defence costs to steal ever faster both internally and externally.

        Making the swimming pool of wealth vertical like a Las Vegas needle fountain (with all the water that rises falling) is like building a building ever-taller on an ever-shrinking base. It’s bound to collapse. Things haven’t changed since the tower of Babel, which was a metaphor for what was happening then – same as now – pay injustice creates confusion of tongues – everyone talking and no one learning or hearing.

        The point that needs to be strongly made is that pay injustice is not just one more problem: it is the root problem, fixing which fixes all the problems – fixes suffocating bureaucracy, disinformation, tyranny, war, warmongering, starvation, overcrowding, corporate fascism, corruption, poverty, terrorism – it fixes everything. How can anything work when a few have most of the money, which is the lubrication for the social machine, the blood of the social body?

        The elite have always been under extreme attack, always been miserable, desperate, hard-laboured, doomed. Happiness is horizontal not vertical. Kindness (non injury, non theft) is good, practical, real self interest, is happiness for everyone – therefore justice is good, beneficial, not a sacrifice for anyone. It’s amazing that history and story are unanimous, the desperate struggles of the overpaid, and no one has learned it.

        The rich may enjoy comforts and luxuries etc in the short run, but they can get no more enjoyment than the fairpaid on $40 an hour, because of physical limits of desires. All overestimation of rich enjoyment is moonshine glamour illusion – driven by underpaid people still having substantial desires to satisfy, by underpaid people living vicariously through their dreams of the fabulousness of being wealthy. The greater the underpay, the more glamourous and wonderful overpay appears. Ray Kroc said about his wealth: So what? I still only have two feet.

        Some rich do not fall within their own lifetimes, but people should be reminded that the overpaid experience power struggles all the time before they fall – family who want a piece of it, subordinates who want to take over – it is a hill of humans where everyone is being attacked from below and beside and above. Everyone below is trying to get higher to be less attacked/oppressed from above – corporate infighting, competing for jobs, golddiggers, kidnappers, thieves, embezzlers, hostile takeovers etc etc – necessarily so, inevitably, because no one settles for discomfort, everyone is uncomfortable, so everyone is moving in the hill.

        Equality: no one above or below, everyone happier, freer, safer, liberated from troubles, struggles, conflict, betrayal – in all groups – crime gangs, families, companies, nations, empires.

        Being rich – getting overpay – is not a win. It isn’t a win relative to pay justice, it is a vast loss of ease, trust, safety, leisure, relaxation, enjoyment, confidence. Everyone is a giant loser in the hill of humans – but people would rather kid themselves they are happy and right than face reality and improve their happiness really. Modern man’s pride is stronger than his will to live to be realistic to be sane to be practical to be happy.

        The rich have as much enjoyment as the fairpaid have – apart from the danger, which is proportional to the pay injustice – and the enjoyment is spoiled by the danger, by the absence of trust and safety. Like children with party cake – it is hard to enjoy what cake one has if everyone is constantly, ever more desperately and violently and sourly grabbing from everyone.

        It looks as though the problem is the human insistence that the solution be where people are looking – at the symptom level, at the detail level, at the part-picture level. People are mopping the floor instead of turning off the broken tap. They cannot understand why someone is leaving the problem of the wet floor in the living room and going away, upstairs (into the bathroom where the broken tap is) – they just ‘know’ that is the wrong thing to do – and they keep mopping the floor. They think the pay-justice solution is unrealistic because it isn’t addressing (directly) the wet floor.

        It is like looking for the lost keys where the light is better for looking, and not looking where the keys fell. You have to teach people that the solution (to the immediate problems and most other problems) is simple if they look where the keys fell, where the problem started. It takes mental discipline not to pluck off the vine where it is strangling the roses, but to trace the vine back to the root, where one cut will kill the whole vine and keep it in check permanently with little effort.

        People are fascinated by the immediate problems and can’t take their eyes off them to look at the big picture and see the root cause.

        Pay justice will always maximise spending, the efficiency of the cycle of production and consumption – and reduce violence which is a waste of money, lives, property, energy, resources, confidence. The giant sucking machine has taken spending away from most, breaking the cycle.

        Pay justice will always be the only answer – one can’t steal and steal and steal without end. They saw this (to some extent) at the end of the 19th century, when economics practice changed from low wages to high wages. The Marshall Plan saw this, as the way to avoid loss of European markets and thus global loss of confidence.

  13. September 23, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    So does Wall Street get what it wants? What it really wants? [That’s a reference to Mary Parker’s once-famous essay on “Constructive Conflict” in her collected papers: Metcalf and Urwick, eds, ‘Dynamic Administration’, 1945, Pitman] The situation is so serious we’ve all been moved to eloquence. Ack’s eloquence is amazing, but I reckon her simile backfires. She may not be mopping the floor downstairs, but the leak is in the loft and she’s all for mopping up the bedroom! The love of money is the root of all evil, and because we have been pursuaded of the lie that money is valuable we love it, despite the fact that it has long been simply an IOU, valuable only as a message calling us to gratitude and responsibility rather than self-indulgence and fear of loss.

    I’m busy responding to a splendid theological take on the same issue: Canon A Radcliffe in ‘The Newman’ September 2015), on “The Persistence of Idolatry”. The idolatry, of course; was the infamous worship of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32). Ack’s Tower of Babel, in economics the problem of instability, is not only mentioned but reinterpreted mathematically as the Halting Problem in Alan Turing’s theory of computation, following Russell’s discovery of logical paradox and Godel’s of mathematical incompleteness. I’m responding because Radcliffe (and here Egmont) isn’t seeing the solutions to the problems embodied in our Algol-68R, which originated from Claude Shannon’s work with Turing at Bletchley on deciphering encrypted German messages. Shannon generalised this to the descrambling of messages partly corrupted by noise, thereby creating information science and dynamic error-correcting logic acting in parallel with traditional static relational logic. Radcliffe points out the dangers of looping algorithms and conscienceless Artificial Intelligence. With Algol-68R, a “Check index, overflow” development tool enables program developers to eliminate Russell’s type errors and Turing’s looping algorithms before they caused problems in use. The language was first used to automate an operating system which corrected data errors and timed out looping processes if any occurred, using “redundant” information (e.g. parity check bits) built into the data. In other words, the operating system made good the failings of the program much as government needs to make good the failings of economists: above all their failure to tell the truth about money.

    I mentioned elegant Egmont because his fire is wasted when focussed on the mathematical structure of a pure economics, for the reality is an impure economics needing external political government to make good the change and corruption going on inside it, not least by cutting off the cancerous outgrowth of the evil financial shadow economy which has left government so financially anaemic as to be almost incapable of the necessary surgery.

    • September 23, 2015 at 4:23 pm

      Damn! When my wife needed help just as I finished this, I failed to proof-read it. “Mary Parker” in my opening quote should have read “Mary Parker Follett”.

    • Ack Nice
      September 25, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      it’s a lie that money is valuable? Hah. you don’t believe what you’ve proclaimed. if you really believe that money is not valuable then you won’t mind at all when I slip into your wallet and back accounts tonight while you sleep and take all your no-value money, eh?

      can we please get real? can we please stop dragging the definition of money away from reality and accuracy, and off into ‘money is an iou’ meaninglessness?

      All the wealth in the world = all the work in the world = all the workproducts. No work = no workproducts = money is worth nothing. Money is symbolic wealth, symbol of substantial wealth. Substantial wealth is workproducts; goods and services produced and provided by human work.

      Money is a license to take workproducts from the pool of workproducts produced by human work. Money represents workproducts, money only represents wealth creation by work.

      We humans started out hunting and gathering. Then we got agriculture, and settlement – food became storable. This freed us up to invent job specialization, division of labor, which necessitated trade.

      The purpose of trade is to give out the specialized products we ourselves produce, and get the products we want that are produced by the other specialists.

      What is supposed to happen is that a working person’s wealth after a transaction is the same as it was before, just in different work-products.

      Trade shouldn’t leave us better off or worse off in work-value. The amount of work in the products we buy should be equal to the amount of work we do. Anything else is theft, that is, unilateral or one-sided shift of wealth from an earner to a freebie-getter.

      People should – in justice economics, would – share the substantial wealth (produced only by work) in the same proportions they would without trade, when each person consumes what she produces, which is natural automatic justice.

      In any transaction the two things exchanged will not be equal in workvalue. There will be more work gone into one thing than the other thing. There is no way to determine with absolute precision the exact workvalue of the two things. They will be unequal. The chance of them being of exactly equal workvalue is infinitesimal, and equality of workvalue will occur in almost no transactions. This necessarily means that wealth will pass automatically from one person to another in every transaction, with or WITHOUT human agency helping this occur. Every transaction will be a fair-exchange-no-robbery, plus a robbery. The two things will be of workvalues x, and x + y. The x’s will be the fair exchange and the y will be the robbery. One of the specialists trading will get out more than he put in, the other will get out less. On top of the fair exchange, in which both work and both reap, one will work and the other will reap. Inevitably. Unavoidably.

      —–
      The love of money is NOT the root of all evil, Dave. Your confusion results from your failure to make the crucial distinction between self-earned and other-earned money.

      Having – and loving having – self-earned money is not evil at all – having self-earned money is all good – it is as good as eating the vegetables you grew yourself. It is loving having the chance to get and keep other-earned money that is the root of all evils, Dave. There is everything right with getting out of the pool of wealth the amount you contributed by your own sacrifice of time and energies to working, no more and no less. There is everything wrong with taking freebie wealth, taking out more than you worked to put in.

      • September 25, 2015 at 6:11 pm

        Ack, what is money, if not an IOU? It used to be things like gold and silver acquired by a lot of essentially useless and usually forced labour by other people, but now it is created at the stroke of a pen or a few key strokes on a computer, and bankers sell it you as if it were gold, extracting from you in repayment AND interest the hard-earned IOU’s your employer paid you with!

        We are not at odds about the facts, only the interpretation of them. A seemingly meaningless photographic negative contains exactly the same information you understand when you see a print of it. Take the value of money as positive and the effect is the negative one of people wanting to steal it.

        Your interpretation, well intentioned though it may be, does not allow for dispossessed peasants, housewives, volunteers, the unemployed, and unemployables like children, the sick and the decrepit old. As an old age pensioner I have been given a measure of free credit which I am well aware I haven’t already earned, so – feeling resonsible and grateful – I try to earn my keep as best I may by continuing to share here my experience of systems analysis and Christian community. That, I suggest, is the positive outcome of seeing money for what it is: a mere symbol of a negativite relationship, of its owner’s indebtedness to society insofar as it has not yet been repaid in contributions to society.

        Incidentally, your defensiveness below hardly becomes you.
        Just-a-lucky has quoted you verbatim, and like me, is merely objecting to your assumption of JOBS paid for in money. If we have done so clumsily, please allow for us thoughtful men not being so articulate as you.

  14. September 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm

    As for ACK NICE, “The point that needs to be strongly made is that pay injustice is not just one more problem: it is the root problem, fixing which fixes all the problems ”
    This statement is not correct.How does guaranteeing JOBS for all with a pay ten times todays wage fix all the problems? how does that fix SS, healthcare, freedom and justice for all?
    There is a solution. Reverse what is causing the problems.
    As Einstein said,”Make it simple.”
    Or as Justaluckfool, guided by Soddy’s “The Role Of Money” READ AND CHALLENGE: ” (Entire book as a free download… http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp ) asks,
    ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs ), “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide.”- Buddha

    “Capitalism is the “best” system to date devised by mankind. As it is administrated, perhaps, is where the “flaw” is manifested. If capitalism used its Central Bank properly,that is for the betterment of the common good, with equality and justice for all, capitalism would be the best ways and means to help “form a more perfect union….”, Pontifical Council.

    SOLUTION.
    “LEGISLATE FOR “We the People” WHAT WE HAD LEGISLATED THE CENTRAL BANK TO DO FOR THE Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) ! ISSUE OUR OWN MONEY AS LOANS AND CHARGE A TAX CALLED INTEREST ! ! ! ” Create an honest Central Bank that shall fund-
    ““We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…””

    DISCOVER THE REAL CAUSE.
    READ ( http://michael-hudson.com/2001/04/the-mathematical-economics-of-compound-rates-of-interest-a-four-thousand-year-overview-part-ii/
    By Michael Hudson
    “…. The Mathematics of Compound Interest
    A syndicate of less than one hundred American capitalists, if allowed to collect interest on their capital at a low rate and re-invest for 150 years or less, would at the end of that time own the earth and all real and personal property thereon. This is a simple mathematical proposition, capable of exact demonstration, and any one who doubts the truth of this statement may set all doubts at rest by computing compound interest on one and one-half billions of dollars for one hundred and fifty years, at five per cent per annum.
    …Flürscheim elaborated that “All exertions, all improvements in the methods and tools of labor, the strictest economy, the severest self-denial, are powerless to compete with the rapidity of self-increase possessed by capital placed at compound interest, and they cannot keep up with its demands.” To illustrate the dynamic at work, he composed an allegory (pp. 327ff.). Many ages after man was driven from Paradise and told “to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, mercy began to prevail. A loving angel was sent down by the Great Master, charged with the task of lightening the burden. The angel’s name was Spirit of Invention. He began his work by teaching man to make useful tools” and tame animals, and in time to mobilize water power, air and wind power, fire and steam power to drive machinery.
    “It seemed that at last the golden era had come of which men had dreamed for ages past,” but “that envious spirit, that fallen angel, Satan,” was jealous that his own empire would soon be over for ever. Among the follies of man, one little imp, called Interest, managed to attract his attention. “‘What is the matter with you, Interest?’ he asked the saucy imp. ‘You don’t seem to be so dejected as your comrades are?'”
    “‘Why should I be dejected, master?’ replied the spirit, ‘Am I not one of your favorite soldiers? Haven’t I always been victorious under your august guidance?'”
    But Satan answered sadly, “Alas, You are no match for the Spirit of Invention.” The Interest imp, however, volunteered to demonstrate his prowess in a dual, helped by his son, Compound Interest.
    At this point, Flürscheim introduced an image that Napier had suggested at the outset of his second book on logarithms in 1617, the Robdologia, likening the principle of geometric increase to that of a chess-board on which each square doubled the number assigned to the preceding one. An old Persian proverb told of a Shah who wished to reward the inventor of chess, a subject, and asked what he would like. To the Shah’s surprise, the man asked “as his only reward that the Shah would give him a single grain of corn, which was to be put on the first square of the chess-board, and to be doubled on each successive square; which, to the surprise of the king, produced an amount larger than the treasures of his whole kingdom could buy. It is this kind of chess-game which capital is continually playing with labor.” The remarkable growth of compound interest soon swallowed “products, capital, the earth and even the workers.”
    This was in essence the ploy that Flürscheim’s Compound Interest demon used. “Look at this chess-board,” he told the angel against whom Satan had pitted him. “It seems just like any other chess-board, with sixty-four squares,” but it “had the peculiar quality of extending the dimensions of the squares, so as always to be large enough” to hold whatever was placed on them. Instead of asking for grains of wheat to be placed on them, the Interest Imp asked for soldiers. “Now, listen well to what I propose,” he said to the angel, pointing to the latter’s huge army.
    I enter the first square with my son, and you match one of your warriors against us. We enter the second square doubled in number; you send two more warriors – and so on every succeeding square. . . . When we arrive at the last square, and you have a single soldier left after occupying the same, we shall declare ourselves vanquished, and Satan with all his troops will leave this world for ever. If I win, you and your army are to be at the commands of my master. Are you agreed?
    The angel agreed, expecting his horde of soldiers to easily exceed the number that the Interest Imp and his son, Compound Interest, seemed likely to accrue.
    In the beginning the angel laughed, for, though twenty squares were passed, no noticeable diminution of his forces was perceptible. Demon Interest said nothing, but attended to business, quietly doubling his army on every succeeding square. At the thirtieth square the angel ceased to laugh, and soon saw he was lost.
    ‘I despised you, little fellow,’ he signed despairingly, ‘and I am punished for my vanity. I see there is no use fighting against you. Demon Interest is more powerful than the Spirit of Invention. I am your slave. Command your servant!'”

    (THIS IS THE TIPPING POINT ! WHERE WE WENT WRONG.
    Justaluckyfool’s comment explained in next paragraph)

    ‘I am the only servant of my great master,’ dryly replied the demon.

    “Here I see him coming. He will give you his orders.’
    And Satan gave his orders. He commanded that the angel was to continue in his work with all his troops, which were to be increased with all possible exertion, so that humanity – which did not know the nature of the antagonist it had to fight against – would always keep in fresh hope of final success when the new troops were forthcoming. But as fast as they appeared, Demon Interest was to send forth a larger army to capture the new forces, to enslave them, and – instead of their benefiting man – make them increase the slave-chains which weigh him down.

    HOW WE COULD FIX IT !!! WHAT IF DEMON INTEREST WERE TO ANSWER?
    (Justaluckyfool’s comment )
    “I will now be the servant of a new master,one that will pursue happiness for all mankind.”

    The answer lies in how you redistribute the wealth, not in how you make it.
    As for the worlds wealth, there is the possibility of total accumulation through compound interest (the most powerful force in the universe) which then begs the question, “How would that wealth be redistributed ? Who will be the master?

    We must go back to “In God We Trust” and use that ‘most powerful force’ to fund
    “…a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…””

    • September 23, 2015 at 10:26 pm

      “We must go back to ‘In God We Trust’ …”

      The problem being (as a poet put it) “God has no hands but ours”.

      Having died (set free his ‘most powerful force’) that we might live, his Spirit [wind-power] lives on insofar as we continue to plant and reap the harvest of his truthfulness and love: the phenotype of the genetic information transmitted to us through the life of his Word.

      • September 24, 2015 at 12:41 am

        Perhaps, maybe history has always provided “true men of their times”, that being the reason for Pope Francis as he continues to go forward to ” continue to plant and reap the harvest of his truthfulness and love”.
        Perhaps, maybe “Having died (showing that all of what is physical may have a powerful force albeit finite) that we then might live.”

      • September 24, 2015 at 10:10 am

        Yes, nothing is certain – even the principle of Immortality in the Conservation of Energy – so having faith in the Information carried by Energy in the transient form of a Word involves being prepared to believe there is a Power generating a Carrier transmitting a Message which one finds to be true when one puts it into practice. And when the message is that God blew his power that we might live, believers like me realise they have a lot to be grateful for.

    • Ack Nice
      September 25, 2015 at 1:29 pm

      erecting a specious strawman argument to show as incorrect what I never said just makes you look disingenuous, L fool

  15. September 24, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    Once again, Thank you RWER for allowing all voices.
    Once again, Thank you Dave Taylor for showing that at least one time
    any voice may be heard.

    • September 25, 2015 at 12:32 pm

      Well, thank YOU, Lucky, for digging out that long Michael Hudson story about impish Interest and his son Compund Interest. I hope I wasn’t the only one who took the trouble to enjoy it.

  16. Ack Nice
    September 25, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    Happiness depends entirely on reality. There is no happiness outside reality, so pursuit of reality is essential to pursuit of happiness. Some people are not really, seriously, fully aware that anything is wrong, and so have no drive to find truth. Instead of thinking: Hey, things are bad, we must be doing something wrong, let’s look; they have not really crystallised a clear consciousness that things can be better, that we always must be doing things wrong, that with our limited wits there is always more truth and happiness to find. For some people, discussion is just: someone puts up their opinion, you put up your opinion, and that’s it.

    Life is a game between reality hiding, and us seeking it because we are totally dependent on it for happiness. Get reality wrong and we suffer. It is a challenging, exciting, dangerous game. Some people are not playing it. For some people, it is just: I’m here, and stuff is here, and I have my opinions, and that is that. Discussion isn’t just talk between two people, it is a tool in the game to hunt reality down, and thus more happiness. We come closest to truth when we hear all opinions. Others’ opinions are our whetstones, to sharpen our eyes and thus find more of life’s hidden treasures. Some people are not really fully awake to this.

    In order to really read, we have to be aware that the ideas we have are causing the problems. It is not enough to assume that widely or universally accepted ideas are not worth investigating for their realism. Test everything. We have to have working hypotheses, in order to function, but the best theory can be wrong. Test everything, and hold on to what seems good, and keep testing it, as the railway engineer regularly tests the wheels. Reality is very complex, a really good hider. And every statement, even of truth, is necessarily a summary, a shorthand, a partial statement, a finite expression of an infinite complexity. Some people want to pretend that truth is something they have, and they are therefore offended or disturbed by new opinions, but that attitude is fatal to pursuit of happiness (which is a duty to self as well as a right).

    I have been thinking for several decades on the human situation. It took me that long to see our mistake clearly and simply.

    When things are this bad, one thing is for certain: we are thinking some things are good, when they are bad.

    It is the ideas we have that are causing the problem, and the idea we haven’t had yet that will be the solution.

    For thousands of years, people have been making a simple mistake which has caused untold unnecessary suffering and deprivation and has caused war and weaponry to grow to the present state of our being able to kill the planet.

    All our errors consist in seeing the small, and sometimes mythical, upside and not the colossal and killing downside of certain things. The error of seeing something, and taking it as if it were a whole, independent thing.

    For example; private inheritance. People have thought, understandably, private inheritance, that sounds good. A bit of money may come my way. That can’t be bad, so let private inheritance exist, and people get angry at anyone who says otherwise. People have failed to see the big picture, that private inheritance has prevented public inheritance. With public inheritance, people will receive a share of ALL deceased estates. Private inheritance prevents us receiving our rightful share of all deceased estates. Private inheritance causes money to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. Which is why the founding fathers of America took steps to prevent unjust concentration of wealth by inheritance. Their efforts failed, but we can have another and better go, and save every human being from the global catastrophe, the vast unnecessary danger and suffering, that human society has become.

    Public inheritance will be sufficient to prevent the endless unjust concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands, will prevent wealth concentration causing ever-increasing usurpation of government, tyranny, war, crime, warmongering, cannonfoddering, assassination, chaos, anarchy, violence, danger, etc, etc. People have seen the advantage of private inheritance, which is easy to see, and failed to see the enormously greater disadvantages, which are a little harder to see. Public inheritance will mean that all the fortunes will come showering down on humanity generally, and this will not only make 99% people richer financially, it will also save the world from the endless escalation of universal misery to the point where the tension and anger and madness are enough to use enough of the bombs to kill all planet life. It will make 100% of people 100 times happier.

    The founding fathers of America saw clearly that wealth concentration would destroy freedom and democracy, would raise the immense misery and danger of tyranny, with its ever-escalating warmongering and cannonfoddering of the people. But they saw it insufficiently clearly, in too small numbers, to prevent the regrowth of tyranny in the land of the free. Not all the founding fathers were free from myopic ideas of their self-interest, and even the most free from such myopic, incorrect ideas were not perfectly free. The steps they took to prevent unjust wealth concentration, theft of the nation’s wealth and existence, were insufficient to prevent the American people reproducing the basic mistake, and allowing wealth to concentrate, and consequently for tyranny, extreme range of political power, to regrow.

    The French revolution also took steps to break up unjust concentrations of overpay. And those steps were also unsuccessful.

    By allowing private inheritance, all people of all nations have allowed the endless accumulation of ever-greater fortunes, the endless march of ever-greater wealth and poverty, with its endless growth of violence, war and weaponry. It has allowed overpay and injustice and tyranny to accumulate endlessly.

    Everyone benefits from public inheritance. With public inheritance, everyone receives an equal share of all deceased estates. With private inheritance, wealth naturally automatically concentrates, money makes money, the rich get ever-richer, the poor get ever-poorer, and anger, conflict and weaponry ever-grows.

    Public inheritance provides an effective counter to this ever-more-horrible situation. At present, the overpaid are constantly being torn down from the heights of wealth and power, the underpaid are constantly exploited, and driven to conflict as the only way to try to get back their earnings. Plutocracies grow up, become more and more intolerable, and the people tear them down. Although money is power, the people have a greater power, and they have never failed through all history to bring an extreme plutocracy down. So plutocracy is disastrous for the overpaid. The super-overpaid are dancing on the edge of a volcano, as the saying goes.

    Overpay is disastrous for the overpaid individual, because the overpay attracts people, rich and poor, who try to take it in many ways. Plutocracies are disastrous for the overpaid as a group in the long run, when the worm at last turns, and the people steal justice back with all the pent-up anger of centuries of oppression, suffering and slavery. The endless cycle of unjust wealth concentration and revolution to restore fairpay. But after revolutions, the same mistake is repeated. Private inheritance causes wealth concentration again. With public inheritance, everyone will justly be on the receiving end of all deceased estates. There will be a steady flow into everyone’s estates of all deceased estates. And the global catastrophe of relentlessly ever-growing violence, in the forms of war, crime, riots, strikes, massacres, genocides, terrorism, etc, climaxing in global annihilation soon, will be avoided.

    People instinctively feel that public inheritance would be unfair. People’s mistaken sense of justice inhibits the promotion of public inheritance. They feel: But that person earned that money, and they have a right to give it to whom they wish. They think: I don’t want a system that doesn’t allow me to dispose of my fortune how I wish.

    The heirs have done nothing to earn that money. Giving it to them forces others to work for no pay. It is everyone who has earned that money. Wealth concentration is unjust, is legal theft.

    But, all the time, everyone identifies with the wealthy, and everyone feels very protective of unlimited fortunes, as if the fortunes were their own. 99% of people are sacrificing their real wealth on the altar of their imaginary wealth. And 100% of people are sacrificing their real happiness on the altar of their imaginary happiness.

    It’s like the story of the golden idol. People felt richer having the golden idol. But they had given up their wealth to make the golden calf. And we are still being this foolish. And then getting angry because we are poor.

    In one way, this is a very simple error which a moment’s thought can dispel. But in another way it is a very difficult error to rout. Evolution has programmed us to believe very strongly in holding on to whatever we get hold of. And, out of nature, in society, this belief is crucifying us, year after year, century after century, millenium after millenium.

    Public inheritance is a correction of a wrong, a very dangerous and ultimately fatal error, which engulfs everyone. People seem to see that the legal owner of the money has earned it. People do not see that everyone has in fact earned it. When they can see this, the global catastrophe of poverty amidst plenty, the violence of maldistribution, nuclear extinction, and universal colossal destruction of happiness will cease. Would cease as easily as cat fatalities on the road would cease if cats clearly, fully understood traffic. Cats are relying on nature-given attitudes in a non-nature situation. And it is killing them, and they are not changing their behaviour. They are not thinking: Hmmm, something is wrong somewhere. They are writing the losses off as natural losses. Because they are cats. But we humans are still doing the same. We are handicapped by still being 98% identical to chimpanzees, genetically more similar to chimpanzees than zebras are to horses, and porpoises are to dolphins, while we have made a whole new alternative to nature with our technological, toolmaking brains. We are still writing off vastly worse unnatural war as natural war. We haven’t yet really seen society’s wars as a problem with a root cause and a solution. We think it is nature.

    Money is a license to take products of people’s work from the social pool of wealth. The only proper thing that entitles people to take out of the social pool of wealth is having put an equal work-value of goods into the social pool of wealth by their own work.

    We have a social pool of the products of work because we specialise in tasks. So we pool the products of work so that everyone can get out the variety of goods they need and desire. Ideally, the money we get paid for work accurately measures the amount of work we put in to the social pool of wealth, and gives us license to take out the same amount of work, in the form of a variety of goods, so that no one takes out more or less than they put in. The proper function of money is to facilitate the remixing of goods that have been separated by job specialisation.

    Justice, nontheft, demands an equality in workvalue between what each person puts in and what they take out. That is, the work that has gone into the goods and services they take out has to equal the quantity of work that went into the goods and services they put into the social pool of work and wealth. Otherwise theft has occurred, which causes the endless escalation of anger and violence. Bill Gates puts in an hours’ work, and on a very good day, takes out US$10 million. That is, US$10 million of other people’s work. In return for one hour of his work. For example, 10 US$1 million dollar houses. Every hour, on a very good day. His lifetime average is only half of a $1 million dollar house every hour of work. Whereas of course Bill Gates, even with all his putative talent, could not design the door handles, nor make one beam, in one hour. So are we wrong or are we right to allow this? Are the arguments for doing this sound, or are they biased by myopic, incorrect ideas of self-interest? Do overpay and underpay exist? We are handicapped by assuming that whatever is, must be right, an assumption that applies in nature, not in society.

    Private inheritance breaks this iron rule of justice. The heir has generally done nothing to earn that money. So the heir steals legally from humanity. He takes out where he did not put in, which means others have to put in more than they take out. He steals safety, peace, freedom, democracy, social stability and order, and finally survival, from all others and from himself. Causes every single human to be thrown into a vicious, cruel, sadistic and masochistic, endlessly escalating battle for fairness. Causes every single human being to be thrown into every human-caused suffering in Europe and other lands that people fled to America and other places in the hope of avoiding.

    The net effect of private inheritance is to make 99% of people poorer, because they are financing this pay without work. But we look at the upside only, not the whole picture, and yet we think we are seeing reality clearly. There is a reason why some people have hinted that people are often in error.

    People have supported and still support and believe in private inheritance because they see only the close-up upside, the chance to inherit something. They do not yet see that, in all the cases where they don’t inherit, they are subsidising the overpay, they are subsidising, by work without pay, the licenses of heirs to raid the social pool of wealth. The net effect of all the private inheritance, and all the other legal and successful illegal thefts, is that 1% benefit financially, 99% lose financially, most of them horribly, and 100% of people are embroiled in relentlessly ever-nastier global disasters of millions of kinds, deeply scarring everyone emotionally, spiritually and physically.

    Everyone loses, massively. Therefore changing it will make everyone win massively.

    If you ever wondered why you are a wageslave, or if you ever wondered why 90% of people get between 10th and 1000th of the world-average hourly payrate, this is why. Seeing the close-up effects and not the longshot effects of private inheritance and other legal thefts. Seeing a part of the picture and assuming from this that we are seeing correctly. 90% of people get between a tenth and a thousandth of the world-average hourly payrate. Pay without work necessarily means work without pay. And that means violence. Any license to take out where they didn’t put the same amount in, means others left to put in more than they get to take out.

    We would not be happy if the Louvre showed only a tenth of the Mona Lisa. We would feel that we were being denied the view of the picture. And yet when it comes to life, we think we see clearly if we see something, if we see only a part. So we are in contradiction with our own good sense.

    For certain reasons, there is little sympathy for the poor. We mostly think that the poor are okay, despite the evidence, or that they deserve poverty, which is far more untrue than true. More on this later. But 99% of people are underpaid. 99% of people take out less than they put in. Wealth concentration not only relentlessly ever-widens the range of pay per unit of work, it relentlessly increases the percentage of people underpaid. There are now 99% of us who will net-profit financially by public inheritance replacing private inheritance. And 100% of humans who will benefit 99% in happiness and 100% in survival.

    Despite these arguments, people will still find it very difficult to make the transition from custom to reason. And here we are victims of mother nature’s mechanisms of survival which do not apply in society. What works in nature doesn’t work in society. The herd instinct is a great survival mechanism in nature. But it preserves herd errors just as much as it preserves the self-interest of the herd members.

    A cartoon: A herd of lemmings going over a cliff. A thought balloon over the head of one of the lemmings: Should we be thinking about this?

    And we are secondly handicapped by mother nature in our tunnel vision. Both hunters and gatherers, men and women, have focused vision, although the gatherers retain more ability to see peripherally, since they might spy something else useful in peripheral vision. But the natural way is to assume that the system is good, that tunnel vision works. There is a fundamental trust of mother nature. This trust is inappropriate in society, which has not been made with the wisdom of mother nature. There is a profound confidence in all animals that fundamentally everything is right. This confidence becomes very dangerous when it is humans, not mother nature, who have built the system. Tunnel vision, limited perspective, is overall good when mother nature has designed things, but not when the design is made by tunnel-vision animals like us. We are predators, with tunnel vision for focusing on prey. This works as long as the predator is not the object of prey. The eagle rarely has creatures attacking it while it is attacking rabbits and mice. And the designers of a system need to have the overview, the clear picture of the whole. Which we seriously lack. We see the preylike upside and not the vastly greater downside that preys on us. Our technological brains have connected the world with trains and boats and planes and satellites, and we are still using the mindset of creatures who do not need to have the overview, who can trust the designer to have the overview. We have made the world a village, we have put the whole world on our shopshelves, we have global transport, global finance, global communication, global weaponry, and we do not yet feel the need for global consciousness, global information, globally informed opinion, global ruling by the people. Nuclear giants and ethical infants. Technological giants and ethical nonstarters. Because ethics, that is, pursuit of happiness, requires big-picture awareness, perspective, non-tunnel vision.

    Ethics, which is properly the pursuit of happiness, requires a knowledge and an instinctive sense of the connectedness and the cause-effect relationships among all things relevant to the individual. And we have made the whole world relevant to every individual. Coffee, coconuts and bananas are international items. Most products are international items. It is becoming ever-less true that this is a Japanese car, this is an American car. Obviously everyone should have a hand in decisions, because everyone has their happiness to pursue. This is what equality of human beings means and is based on, that everyone has their happiness to pursue. But this makes appropriate education essential. The necessity of sufficient relevant education follows from equality of human beings. And we are handicapped with minds that think that focusing on what is close and ignoring what is distant, and focusing on a part and not on the whole, are going to be okay for us. This confidence is based on millions of years of survival. In nature. In society, we need to lose this thoughtless confidence. We do not have global democracy. We do not have the people knowing global information.

    The suspicion that we need a wider vision is implicit in the timeless story of the hunter tracking the bear who is coming up behind the hunter. Too many indians, not enough chiefs. All indians, no chiefs. Everyone with little-picture consciousness, no one with big-picture consciousness. We have global reality without any global governance.

    Even global information is in its infancy. The word global has become a buzzword, while the data has remained merely international, that is, merely multi-national. Consciousness is stuck with information about many nations, and has not yet become information about the global realities. How many know that world topsoil is being lost at the rate of 1% a year? That is, that world topsoil will be a thing of the past in 100 years. Very few. And fewer grasp its grave importance. If we are childishly to let wiser minds than ours take care of governance, we need at least to be vigilant that the governors do have wiser minds than ours, and are free from corruption away from having the interests of everyone at heart, and that they do know that they need to have global information and consciousness. We have made the global society, and we have no one yet who can drive it. And it is necessary that all know at least broadly how to drive it, lest the unglobal voice of the people prevent global-minded governors from acting properly.

    And in the present situation, true governance, with everyone’s interests at heart, is usurped by wealth concentration. We are two steps from order. We need to get the true governors in place, and we need to get everyone thinking globally in harmony with the global reality our technological minds have made. It is impossible to get true governors in place while there is a golden carrot of US$70 trillion a year being offered to the richest.

    The human cortex has made our tool-making ability explode far, far, far beyond the other animals. But our 1% cortical rationality has had the disadvantage of making us assume that all our thinking is rational, and of making us hate to be wrong. While 99% of our brain and our thinking is driven, promoted and supported by evolutionary instincts inappropriate to our society. We have had enough brain to get into every trouble, without having enough brain to get us out. We are sorcerer’s apprentices without a sorcerer for back-up. To get us out of this giant trouble, we will have to quickly acquire global intelligence. To quickly make the 1% cortical intelligence dominate and control the 99% atavistic, instinctive, tunnel-vision, evolutionary ‘intelligence’ or unthinkingness. Before our technology drives us over the cliff.

    Why is there so very little alarm at the future of nuclear winter? Why is there so much facile and inappropriate confidence that it won’t happen?

    It is partly because of the immature, irresponsible and badly-named pleasure principle, which is the pain principle. That is: If it isn’t pleasant, it doesn’t exist. In other words, if you tilt your head back far enough so that your eyes cannot see the ground, you will never step in holes. And when you fall in holes, you will never know you are in a hole.

    It is partly because we have not adapted to the global reality which the toolmaking cortex has made, and so everyone thinks that nuclear winter is someone else’s problem, as if global doesn’t include your locality. It is partly the utter confidence in mother nature, which is inappropriate in society but which still dominates people’s thinking or unthinking. That is, if I just take care of my patch, or some patch, the whole will be okay. I am just one among many, so it can’t be my job to be responsible for the whole. Whereas the fact is that, unless everyone, or at least the 10% bellwethers of society, the people of love and intelligence and maturity and awareness, take responsiblity for the whole, there can be no governance.

  17. Ack Nice
    September 25, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    the end got cut off…

    At the moment we have only the appearance of governance, the error of thinking there is governance. Whereas wealth concentration, which is power concentration, means that the people with political power are the last people to have everyone’s interests at heart. Obviously, wealth concentration most attracts those who most want it. It most attracts those who are most impervious to the rational arguments 1. that satisfactions are limited and so overpay suffers rapidly diminishing returns in happiness after all needs, all major desires, and millions of minor desires, are satisfied, which they are by fairpay, and 2. that the danger and insecurity of overpay is proportional to the ratio of overpay and underpay. Astronomical overpay means astronomical danger and insecurity, means slip and fall is far and fast, means life and wealth are devoted to security. The crests on the financial seas always rush to fall.

    Examples: The tremendous labour of security Stalin laid on himself by taking all the money and power of all Russia and communism. Ceausescu. Caesar. Hoffa. Huey Long. The French so-called aristocracy, actually plutocracy, guillotined. The short lifespans of many of the Roman Emperors, especially in the later, extreme wealth-poverty, decline and fall, stage of that empire, some emperors lasting only days. The multitudinous kings, presidents, prelates and would-be kings in all times and places killed in battle and by poison and assassination. The Borgias. The boss of the Vatican bank. The top people in business and politics and organised crime who have toppled in just one year would make a long list. But we ignore the fallers, because of the pleasure principle, the unreality principle, the masochism principle, the selfblinding principle.

    And any such list of the superrich and superpowerful toppled by rich and poor would be only the tip of the iceberg, since concealment is paramount in these activities.

    Obviously the intensity of the battle is proportional to the size of the prize. There are few legal niceties in small estates. The greater the fortune, the shorter the stay. The whole world is tearing at fortunes in every way they can. Beggars fear no thieves. Uneasy rests the head that wears the crown. The greater the overfortunes, the greater, and more numerous, the underfortunes are. The rich are dancing on the edge of a volcano. And other such ignored sayings.

    Most people have some instinctive understanding that satisfactions are limited, that life is for a balance of enjoying as well as of getting, and that individual deserts are limited, because individual capacity to contribute is limited. The people at the top are the people who have least instinctive sense of these truths, and are therefore the last people you want governing. In the unlimited-fortunes system, they are unfortunately the first people in power. Hence the limitless cruelties of history to the present time.

    The error in thinking on private inheritance is all one with the attitude of gamblers. Las Vegas is built on the biased focus of minds on the upside of gambling. Most get poor and a few get wealthy on gambling, which obvious fact ought to make gambling unpopular. The fevered vision of wealth feeds money and power into the hands of a very few, draws money and power out of the hands of most. It will not stop until the idea that wealth has a net extreme negative effect on happiness is the generally accepted idea. Fortunately it is true that wealth does have an extremely negative net effect on happiness. All history shouts it. It needs only the domination of the 99% evolutionary, instinctive brain by the 1% rationally thinking brain for people to see where their self-interest lies.

    All wisdom has spoken of it, but for some reason, wisdom has never shouted it. And wisdom has been often distracted towards giving false arguments against wealth. Which has no doubt fed the assumption that there are no true arguments against wealth. In this way, the false arguments against wealth have worked to protect the error that unlimited wealth is totally good. We think: Money is good, therefore more money is always better. This is the simplistic, tunnel vision, pleasure principle, argument that universally prevails.

    The same error in thinking exists in the attitude to profits. We think: Profits are always good. Don’t take away profits. Profit good. Taking away profit very bad. The fact that most people who have wished to take away profits have only wanted the profits for themselves hasn’t helped. This attitude is firmly established despite the fact that there is a generally accepted idea that there are excess profits, profiteering, price-gouging, etc. Although the word profiteering seems to have disappeared lately. Sometimes people talk badly of profits.

    As a candid businessman said, business is just selling things for more than you paid for them. As the Greeks said a long time ago, the merchant buys cheap and sells dear. The honest purposes of trade are to facilitate exchange in a society where everyone specialises in what they produce, and to get a fairpay for your time spent providing the service of making the products available. We don’t know what can of worms we opened when we decided to go for the efficiency of job specialisation. Job specialisation was intended to make everyone 20% happier, producing the same products in 20% less time, but it has resulted in everyone being catastrophically unhappier, everyone being 99%, soon 100%, unhappier than they need be.

    —————

    it did NOT all go wrong with the establishment of the fed reserve!

    it all went wrong when we began to use division of labor as an excuse to ignore justice and pretend the natural order is something other than what it is!

    —————

    humans see ourselves as created beings – creator over there, doing his ongoing creator-ness thang, us over here, separated from that, created beings

    we do not see ourselves as we really are: impossible to be disconnected from the ongoing creator-ness

    it’s everyone’s self-deception trump card for evading our responsibility for what is going on

    • September 25, 2015 at 8:53 pm

      Much as I enjoy your style, Ack, my first reaction to this doubly long outpouring was to suspect “much ado about nothing”; which in the end, of course, it isn’t. But for me you got off on the wrong foot. Happiness doesn’t depend on the pursuit of happiness, or in any case one’s own happiness: it occurs more often when the good side of reality catches you unawares, like an unexpected gift, a breath-taking sunset.

      G K Chesterton discusses this in “Orthodoxy” when he contrasts “the old utitlitarian test of pleasure (clumsy of course, and easily mis-stated) and that which [George Bernard shaw propounds. The real difference between the test of happiness and the test will is that the test of happiness is a test and the other isn’t”. He says later: “The test of all happiness is gratitude; and I felt grateful, though I hardly knew to whom. … existence was a surprise, but it was a pleasant surprise”. All his first views, he says, were captured in a delightfully irrelevant question: “What did the first frog say”? And the answer was, “Lord, how you made me jump”! He moves on: “For the pleasure of pedantry I will call [the second great principle of fairyland] the Doctrine of Conditional Joy. … Happiness depended on NOT DOING SOMETHING which you could at any moment do and which, very often, it was not obvious why you should not do”. In any case, as grand old Polly Cartland (mother of romantic novelist Barbara Cartland) told my then little son, “when someone is kind to you it is your duty to say thank you”. If gratitude generates happiness, not a few lovers and parents have discovered how much unhappiness is generated by ingratitude.

      So isn’t ‘The Biggest Lesson from the Financial Crisis’ the ingratitude of Wall Street and its bankers after our governments bailed them out?

      • Ack Nice
        September 25, 2015 at 9:42 pm

        Permission to treat the witness as Hostile, your Honor?

        Dave. With all of human history from the ancient to the present to consult, are you seriously telling me you expected gratitude from Wall Street and its bankers – from wealthpower giants? for the latest round of worldwealth donated to them by the global underpaid billions? You really think a great lesson was taught there? “omg – why, the leisure class isn’t grateful afterall!” You actually find some surprise in the fact that getting free wealth didn’t make the wealthpower giants grow a scruple, change their ways, stop their legal thievery, start playing fair, reverse the flow of wealth from poor to rich?

        I can only wonder what you found in history that caused you surprise at finding wealthpower giants ungrateful unashamed unchanged in 2015

        personally, I do not expect people who lack scruples to use their lack of scruples to resist the biggest temptation. I find that to be insanely unrealistic, myself – so I remain utterly unsurprised that wealthpower giants DO what wealthpower giants DO, when they keep doing it everyday

        Now, Dave, will you please, PLEASE explain to me what in my definition of money is incorrect, untrue, wrong, illogical, not comprehensive, inaccurate, unimportant, or irrelevant?

  18. Ack Nice
    September 25, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    Dave Taylor, only in your fantasies, or in your inability to comprehend what has actually been said does fairpay justice leave out the groups you mentioned. search on my name, Dave. re-read my actual words, my plan as according to me, not as according to what i’ve never said, eh?

    how CAN you ask me what money is if not an IOU right after I have for the umpteenth time laid it out as plainly as plainly gets that “Money is symbolic wealth, symbol of substantial wealth. Substantial wealth is workproducts; goods and services produced and provided by human work. Money is a license to take workproducts from the pool of workproducts produced by human work. Money represents workproducts, money only represents wealth creation by work.”

    no applause, please. just throw licenses to take work products from the pool of substantial wealth.

    as for jal fool, they quoted me verbatim, then immediately declared me to be wrong not by showing a hole in my logic or pointing out where my reasoning fell down – they tried to present me as wrong by taking down their own utter, willful misrepresentation of fairpay justice

    jal fool quoted me at first, but then said “This statement is not correct. How does guaranteeing JOBS for all with a pay ten times todays wage fix all the problems? how does that fix SS, healthcare, freedom and justice for all?”

    they just made up what they wanted to. I have never ever defined pay justice as (in jal fool’s strawman argument) “guaranteeing JOBS for all with a pay ten times todays wage”

    I HAVE defined pay justice as taking out of the pool of wealth the amount you contribute by your own sacrifice to working, no more and no less. See above where I said “Money is a license to take products of people’s work from the social pool of wealth. The only proper thing that entitles people to take out of the social pool of wealth is having put an equal work-value of goods into the social pool of wealth by their own work. We have a social pool of the products of work because we specialise in tasks. So we pool the products of work so that everyone can get out the variety of goods they need and desire. Ideally, the money we get paid for work accurately measures the amount of work we put in to the social pool of wealth, and gives us license to take out the same amount of work, in the form of a variety of goods, so that no one takes out more or less than they put in. The proper function of money is to facilitate the remixing of goods that have been separated by job specialisation. Justice, nontheft, demands an equality in workvalue between what each person puts in and what they take out. That is, the work that has gone into the goods and services they take out has to equal the quantity of work that went into the goods and services they put into the social pool of work and wealth. Otherwise theft has occurred, which causes the endless escalation of anger and violence.

    ——-

    Tell me, People, just what IS it you have against the justice idea to spread the wealth in the world as evenly as the work in the world is spread, eh???????????

    • September 25, 2015 at 10:26 pm

      Don’t spoil this discussion by getting angry at us, Ack. Cool down and have a look at where Lucky’s quotation marks ended his quote of you at 7.51 p.m. on Sept 23rd 2015.

      The reason I don’t rate the pursuit of justice is that it rouses hostile emotions on both sides: the righteous blaming the rich and the more powerful rich defending themselves. Rather than fight over rights and duties, and given that Nature can do enough of the necessary work to generate a surplus if we don’t waste it, it seems to me more productive to GIVE everybody what they need given their responsibilities, and EXPECT them to work and/or cooperate with others voluntarily, when and insofar as that is necessary or worth doing. That doesn’t mean demanding equal work for equal pay, it means aspiring to generous Citizen’s Incomes and Working Credits for worthwhile cooperatives and projects.

      The argument gets technical here, but percentage bonuses and profits are mathematically like compound interest, where the rate is a logarithm which multiplies when repeatedly added. A ten million to one ratio of pays based on employee turnover should therefore in decimal numbering be reduced to a ratio of seven to one. That range of differentials does not seem unjust. A number of companies have tried it and thrived.

      • September 25, 2015 at 11:42 pm

        Re your further comments at 8.08 and 9.42 p.m. today, “Permission to be hostile” refused. Counsel had better be careful she is not expelled for contempt of court!

        Pythagoras’s theorem dates back to c.500 b.c., yet each generation has to realize its greatness for itself. Of course I didn’t expect the banks to be grateful, yet I still found quite breathtaking the depth of their contempt for the people they had robbed and the government which rescued them.

        Ack, you expect me to try and re-read you when you write so much by now I haven’t got the time, and responded so quickly you obviously haven’t given yourself time to read, understand the implications of and inwardly digest what Lucky and I have been trying to say? You will be welcome to any debate, but we all need to respect the ‘Guidelines for Comments’ here (up near top right). Enough is enough: you are crowding us out.

      • Ack Nice
        September 26, 2015 at 2:45 am

        A, I have not said a single thing to you in this thread that I would not say to you if we were strapped into an airliner side by side for a 15 hour flight over the pacific ocean

        B, Science can prove that there is no less white space in this thread now, available for people to write their own posts, than there was before I wrote a word

        C, a lawyer asks a judge for permission “to treat the witness as Hostile” when said witness refuses to answer the questions

        D, if you cannot point to the inaccurate, irrelevant, unimportant etc bit in the definition of money I gave, IT ISN’T THERE

        E, giving money to people (able to work) for things that are NOT work is the PROBLEM, not the solution! there is no such thing as giving away money that is NOT a symbol of the substantial wealth created only by the sacrifice of a human being’s time! God does not drop pay from the sky! ALL money is a symbol that gives license to take workproducts from the pooled workproducts produced only by human work! People deserve to be paid money in proportion to their sacrifice – that’s what is under our control – the only money able people deserve to get for no-work is their rightful one ‘n’th share of the value of the work like making land that mother nature did for all for free, where ‘n’ = the population! EYE didn’t decree that the first fundamental of life shall be working to feed our stomachs – EYE didn’t curse us with having stomachs to feed – EYE am but seeing our reality, seeing the obvious for what it is! The pool of wealth is finite, not infinite. the number of workers working is finite, the number of hours they can work is finite – the pool of wealth cannot NOT be finite. which means overpay has NOWHERE TO COME FROM but from underpay! EYE have been calling loudest for a 1% increase in the money supply per month going directly, electronically, freely to every human as a no-shocks mechanism to, along with making private inheritance public instead, counter for the ceaseless drift of wealth away from its rightful earner-owners to non-earners, but EYE am NOT just taking a guess at what amount is justice. We have had far too much of guessing and pie in the sky for far too long.

        It takes no intellectual effort at all to come up with rationalizations for a still-unjust pay ratio of 7 to 1. What you can NOT do is give me the justification for underpaying one worker to get the overpay you want the other to have. There IS no justification for making one worker work for no pay so another can have pay for no work. NONE.

        And please don’t give me the argument of the subrational majority of people – that work is unequal, therefore unequal pay is just. The error here is that this justifies only one out of an infinite number of possible inequalities of pay. If one works twice as hard, justice pays him twice as much – not any unequal amount from 1000th as much as average to 7 or a million times as much as average. The argument doesn’t stand up to careful scrutiny. Also, it is not physically possible that anybody is, over a lifetime, working 7 times harder than average people working average hard do.

        Doing a small part of justice is not doing justice.
        It is doing not-justice.

        if you don’t like me being a tad cheesed off with you for re-blowing fog and irrationality and myopia and unreality right after I offer people real, important, sober, comprehensive crystal clarity about money, work, and wealth, maybe you should stop responding to my posts with your strict avoidance of my uniquely crucial points and your distractions, substitutions, obfuscations and demonstrably crooked thinking.

    • September 26, 2015 at 1:30 pm

      ACK NICE you ask (as 10,000 should), if you cannot point to the inaccurate, irrelevant, unimportant etc bit in the definition of money I gave, IT ISN’T THERE?
      “Money is a license to take products of people’s work from the social pool of wealth.”
      Money is not a license. Money is an agent, method of transferring wealth, a receipt of something of value to be held until there is a desire to exchange that agent into something else.

      The taking license is by rule of law, that which the Monetary Sovereignty enforces.
      Soddy has many answers available for you.
      Please read and challenge.
      Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money” (Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp
      May I sign off with a Frederick Soddy quote, from the Preface of “The Role Of Money”: “… It is concerned less with the details of particular schemes of monetary reform that have been advocated than with the general principles to which, in the author’s opinion, every monetary system must at long last conform, if it is to fulfil its proper role as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”

  19. September 26, 2015 at 12:48 am

    Please, prove either true or false.
    Biggest lesson from Financial Crisis:
    (A).Ben Bernache has proven the Fed can purchase assets using newly created issuance
    without creating new interest laden debt. Debt that can be replaced even if over 100 years
    at the exact nominal value as the day it was created.
    (B) Private For Profit Banks have proven they can not be restrained in order to “control the quality and quantity of new issuance.They have proven 36 times what was thought to be their limit was only a paper tiger. They can in fact issue 1,000’s of times their “reserve” simply because the reserve is already multipled by the deposit of their reserve backed previous loanThe Fed MUST HONOR this issuance or the world wll know that “the dollar” has only the value of “thin air”…..ergo; ‘systemic failure’, collapse of the dollar.

    Please help one fool with any profound reply.
    “WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT PROSPERITY FOR YOURSELVES
    AND YOUR CHILDREN?”
    Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
    ( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
    Read and challenge:
    Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
    (Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp

  20. Ack Nice
    September 26, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Why is the world allowing Wall Street wealthpower giants to take whatever they want from the world’s working families? Why is the world letting 1 in 60,000 people take better than 90% of worldwealth? Can’t anyone see how mad this is?

    Dear World, do you mean to tell me that 60,000 people can’t prevail against one person, one person who has stolen 90% of the wealth of 60,000, reducing people to direst poverty and pain, to fighting each other over scraps to the point of killing 1 in 50 every year of yourselves by starvation and violence, and 60,000 can’t get it together to get it back from one person? are you saying that you are so under a spell that you can’t see your way clear to stealing it back? – what spells are that powerful? – the spell of: you shouldn’t care about money? – what spell could hold you? – law and order? – obedience? – like little children, you just cant think of attacking your parent, even if that parent steals so much that parent in effect murders one in 50 of you every year? – seriously injures most of you, has 90% of you working over 90% of your worktime for nothing, for the parent’s insane aggrandisement? – has everyone against everyone, everyone having to fight everyone for a crust and a job? – has war escalating you to extinction soon, and you cannot resent that person, cannot get angry at that person, cannot condemn that person, cannot even take back your earnings, your life, your happiness, your freedom?

    when did you become so tame? so craven? so feeble? so magicked? you tamely go to war, and suffer all the horrible things there – for what? – when there is enough for all to be very well-off? – when there is enough work done by you to generate US$200,000 of wealth per family working average hard? – tamely go and fight some other poor robbed person instead of fighting your robbers? what a wonderful magic! – is it that something inside you says that someone in a beautiful suit or ceremonial outfit cannot be bad? – someone just has to get in a golden coach and you all go gaga and wave flags at your thieves and murderers? – when you protest, the ptb just get you shot at and you don’t get angry? – you tamely go off and nurse your wounds and promise to ‘be good’ in future?

    you don’t even work out what the world average pay is, so you can know how much you are donating to make your robbers richer, your tyrants more mad – everyone in the world, housewives and students included, would be paid US$15 an hour [2006, increasing about 6% p.a. with global inflation – $40 per hour in 2015] if you were not allowing one person in 60,000 to take 90% of it – one totally insane person who doesn’t care that war is growing to extinction – what is missing? – what a situation! one person takes 90% of the belongings of 60,000 and the 60,000 do not take it back! – when did the ptb magic you into such madness? such craven apathy? such participation in your destruction? such bovine UN-NESS???? how is it done?

    you let one person be paid a million paychecks – a million times the average per hour – although you know no one can work more than about 10% harder per hour than the average – which means a million people have to work and not get paid, so that that one person can do one hour’s work and be paid goods and services created by a million hours’ work – every hour he works – mad mad mad mad mad – and i can’t even get you talking about it – as if i am writing in a foreign language – and those million people are understandably hopping mad, and on your doorstep – and you accept it, and feel no anger at your robbers, who have made you so unsafe, exposed you to vast unnecessary increasing sufferings, who force you to kill and be killed in millions every year – you resent a childkiller, and you don’t resent the robbers who kill millions of children every year – are you fooled by all the noughts in 1,000,000 to thinking that 1,000,000 is less than 1? when did the ptb unplug your brain? can’t anybody see how mad this is?

  21. September 26, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    Dear Ack, you may have the gift of eloquence but this shrill verbal bullying does not become you.

    To briefly answer your fairest points:

    To kindly or even lovingly give more than justice (the Christian ideal) is not unjust.

    Income has to support the lifestyle necessary to prepare for and maintain one’s ability to perform one’s particular line of work. In my case that involves the costs and work of e.g. professional training, buying, reading and filing lots of books and papers, taking work home, sleeping on problems and worrying about how to respond to possible negative reactions to the choices I am having to make: none of which applies when I do the washing up. (For me washing up is a relaxation).

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s