money does not grow on trees

.. so-called representatives acting ...

  .. *against* the people's interests ...

    .. are un- & anti-democratic *tyrants*

Thesis/Subtitle: a fair exchange is no robbery

Concomitant: money *should be* a medium of exchange and store of value

Corollary 1: debasing the currency *AND* usury are both crimes

Corollary 2: only just law may earn respect

-=*=-

Prologue (aka scene-setting):

Musing 1: In a two-party system, if both 'sides' offer the same policy that's called 'bipartisan;' since this offers the voters *no* effective choice, it's both un- & anti-democratic, and regardless of who is elected, such representatives act like tyrants = they *are* tyrants.

-=*=-

Musing 2: Some things *obviously* belong to us all - our earth, its air, water and any such etc.. This is called 'the commons.' Other constructed necessities, like electricity, sewage systems and transport = road & rail, say, are 'natural monopolies,' since they usually exist as a single network (duplication makes little to zero sense, except perhaps to add capacity, as opposed to alternatives). Telephone systems are 'borderline;' a fixed-line system is partly or wholly a 'natural monopoly' but 'wireless' systems (like GSM, say), may accommodate some duplication. Such 'natural monopoly' necessities by definition exclude competition; it is only by extreme contortions that 'competition' may be artificially arranged; it used to be that governments owned and ran many such 'utilities' - but then we got bipartisan neoliberalism, including privatisation = the flogging-off of publicly owned natural monopoly necessities = theft of 'the commons.' Q: Why 'theft?' A: Simple, what was formerly provided 'at cost' now comes at cost+interest+profit; private, for-profit ownership/management puts profit and personal enrichment before services, which themselves may decline in quality due to possible downsizing = 'lean- and mean-ing' plus other 'MBA' = shonky practices. For proof, look to before/after privatised electricity almost anywhere. The extreme example of privatisation is 'medicine for profit;' one may expect profit to take precedence and we see that it does, proof = US 'health' system = worst *overall* result for them, the US people. Privatisation is part of the financialisation swindle, see 'toll-booth' economy below.

-=*=-

Musing 3: Money is also a 'natural monopoly' and used to be the prerogative of (detested, un- & anti-democratic) royalty, hence 'sovereign' as both ruler and a name for money, then 'sovereignty' which is what we, the people *have*, and supposedly 'delegate' *to* 'representatives' in our so-called 'democracies.' Our money system is based on banks; there may or may not be a central bank, one or more trading banks and/or investment banks. Whatever the system, it is under the *total* control of our so-called representatives; IF they stuff up (on any item, but especially here, vis-à-vis money), THEN they should be dismissed and/or punished = incarcerated OR tougher (i.e. tumbrels).

-=*=-

Trigger article 1:

The Toll Booth Economy
By Michael Hudson
May 20, 2009
  «Today, the financial sector is translating its affluence (at taxpayer expense), into the political power to pry yet more public infrastructure away from state and local communities and from the public domain at the national level, Thatcher- and Blair-style as it is sold off to absentee buyers-on-credit to pay off public debt (while cutting taxes on wealth yet further). No one remembers the cry for what Keynes called “euthanasia of the rentier.” We have entered the most oppressive rentier epoch since feudal European times. Instead of providing basic infrastructure services at cost or subsidized rates to lower the national cost structure and thus make it more affordable – and internationally competitive – the economy is being turned into a collection of tollbooths.» 
[ICH/Hudson]

Comment: Cited to get the 'flavour' of the 'toll-booth' economy. As usual, one should read the lot.

-=*=-

Trigger article 2:

Money, Inflation, Fraud and Slavery; Even a Child Can Understand It
A Monetary Policy for the 99%: Twelve-Year-Old Reformer Goes Viral
By Ellen Brown
May 30, 2012
  «Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created - new deposits - brand new money. Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.
Towers was asked, “Will you tell me why a government with power to create money, should give that power away to a private monopoly, and then borrow that which parliament can create itself, back at interest, to the point of national bankruptcy?” He replied, “If Parliament wants to change the form of operating the banking system, then certainly that is within the power of Parliament.”» 
[ICH/Brown]

Comment: Cited to get the 'flavour' of 'money(debt) creation;' see elsewhere for a 'proper' central bank = BND.

Trigger article 3:

July 24, 2012
by Morris Berman
Sociopaths Rule: A Review of Heist: Who Stole the American Dream?, by Frances Causey and Donald Goldmacher (2011)
  «... and the general consensus boils down to a remark once made by John Steinbeck: “In the U.S., the poor regard themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” In ideological terms, the only difference between rich and poor in this country is that the latter don’t have any money.» 
[morrisberman]

Comment 1: An interesting one; it posits that there is *no* 1%:99% split, *all* US people think that they are of the same sort, the 99% (only 'temporarily') without (enough) $s, feel themselves to be completely interchangeable with the 1% who do have (obscenely, far too many) $s. Odd.

Comment 2: The expression "Joe 6-pack" amuses me, although it is part of 'detested US-speak.' In Aus at least, buying beer 'by the 6-pack' is inordinately expensive - compared to buying it 'slab-wise,' say. So much more expensive (~100%+, say), that I can't understand why anyone *in their right mind* would do so - but nevertheless, they do, and quite often. I can only theorise that they do so - because they 'learned' it from some TV-show or other. (How-bloody-else?) But my point here is different; SINCE the ordinary people have no (effective) democratic say, THEN it is totally irrelevant what they may or may not do - or think. Sooo, any supposed 1%:99% split is moot.

Comment 3: The implication of (2) is: What or if the Joe 6-packs do or do not think is totally irrelevant; *only* what the US-regime *does* has any relevance. Well, we know very well - or at least, with eyes (newly) opened wide enough - should be able to see, that what the US (rogue) regime *does* is *totally disastrous* - for all non-1%-types, including the rest of the world.

End prologue.

-=*=-

Argument/intro: To summarise Brown/Grant; consider:

1. 'Real' money = specie; gold, silver or (in extremis) rum or tobacco, say.

2. 'Semi-real' money = fractional-reserve banking, possibly 'real' money based.

3. 'Fully-unreal' money = fiat, since 15Aug'71 as good as universal.

Argument/extension: In the 'non-unreal' cases (rm, %m), there is something of tangible value 'at the end of the rainbow;' in the 'unreal' case (fu) there is nothing - except a 'book-entry,' or these days, a 'computer-keystroke.'

IF rm AND trouble THEN go to bank, get gold (or some equiv. ersatz)

IF %m AND trouble THEN go to bank, early-birds may get gold

IF fu AND trouble THEN tough luck = instant bank failure

  - EXCEPT if govt.(taxpayer) bailout

Argument/discussion:

1. I don't much care if money is 'real' or fiat, only that it works.

2. I don't (much) care about paying %(d) on debt, it's said to be 'the price of money' - so as to regulate its issue; IF %(d) = 0 = free $s THEN everyone would get bucketfuls = inflation in a hurry - say, and the 'reverse' of the coin is that I get some %(c) on any 'savings' I may deposit to my credit. But I *do* care if %(c) is too much less than %(d).

3. (The crux:) I *do* care, and that *a lot*, as *to whom* I (or my analogues = we the people) pay any %.

4. Under a fully-unreal money = fiat system, whether fractional-reserve (nominal 10%, say) or not, the great bulk of our money is 'created' by private banks then lent out; all interest accrues to such 'money creators.'

5. I do *not* understand why any 'private bank' may create money at *zero* cost to itself, then loan such creations out only to charge some % - for doing, essentially, *zero work*. This is not 'value for money' by any means, only 'money for jam,' and in our so-called 'democracies,' our so-called 'representatives' allow this *utter scam* to be perpetrated upon us, we the people.

Not only that, but when neoliberal ideology is used to force governments to cut taxes (mostly off the already-rich), simultaneously being unable to reduce (essential!) services to compensate, then govts. go further into debt, forcing them to borrow *even more*, AND (again), we the taxpayers then pay the interest falling due.

Not only that, but when neoliberal ideology is used to force governments to not merely allow but encourage foreign direct investment (FDI), then all related profits+interest 'earned' flow out of the country - except any possibly 'clawed back' (detested US-speak) by taxes (kept as low as possible, again by neoliberalism.)

Not only that, but when neoliberal ideology is used to force governments themselves to borrow money on the 'free market' (as opposed to 'borrowing' from a central bank, say), such as currently in the fully synthetic EU, we the people/they the local taxpayers, then pay the interest falling due.

Now, after some and or all of the above, countries all over the place, *including* the US, are falling into so-called 'debt crises,' for which they are all rushing to implement 'austerity programs' - what I call 'spiral down.'

Suggestion: If you haven't then please consider reading Perkins' "Economic Hit Man," then compare to Greece, say. An economic crime in progress, and not just the only one, not by a long way.

More discussion: As Berman points out, greed did not arrive with neoliberalism, itself arriving with Thatcher (TINA!), Reagan (voodoo economics) & Hawke/Keating (economic rationalism) in their respective 'spheres.' In each case, the rhetoric far exceeded any benefits - as we now see, and that in spades. In each case, changes of government brought no effective changes in policy; neoliberalism = bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic.

Part of the rhetoric was supplied by Hollywood: i.e. Gordon Gecko's "Greed is good." All of the rhetoric was supported by the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs. All of the rhetoric (i.e. a rising tide lifts all boats, a smaller slice of larger pie may nevertheless be bigger, pulling people out of poverty, etc.) - failed us, we the people, across the world, as those with eyes open wide enough may see.

Nor is the banking system (wholly) new (the creating $s at zero-cost to be loaned at interest was always there), only the abuses have multiplied; keywords deregulation, speculation, 'the market,' outright fraud. (Democratic) society is *supposedly* of, by, for the people - that's simply not what our so-called representatives are delivering - totally = 99% the opposite.

-=*=-

One other thing: From my headline, debasing and usury. What the private banks are doing to us is nothing short of usury, repeat: This, our govt. allows. Part of neoliberalism is 'an independent Central Bank.' One function of a 'proper' central bank *should be* as sole $-creator, thus bypassing the trading banks' 'free-lunch' and returning any (net) % income to us, we the people; see BND discussion (so far not much 'in here' = research required, start with the 'elsewhere' link and/or here or here.) As it is, a function of neoliberalism's central banks is to 'control' inflation; in Aus they are given a somewhat arbitrary target of 2-3% - which, by definition, leads to debasing the currency. To avoid such a possibility, why is the target not set to 0% inflation?

-=*=-

Fazit: Sheer, utter, complete (and criminal!) idiocy, and 'they' *dare* call it 'modern-word progress.'

-=*end*=-

Ref(s):

[1] debase  v. (-sing) 1 lower in quality, value, or character. 2 depreciate (a coin) by alloying etc.  debasement n. [from *de-, *abase] [POD]

[2] inflation  n. 1 inflating. 2 Econ. a general increase in prices. b increase in the supply of money regarded as causing this.  inflationary adj. [ibid.]

[3] usury  n. 1 lending of money at interest, esp. at an exorbitant or illegal rate. 2 interest at this rate.  usurious adj. [Anglo-French or medieval Latin: related to *use] [ibid.]

[4] tyrant  n. 1 oppressive or cruel ruler. 2 person exercising power arbitrarily or cruelly. [Greek turannos][ibid.]