Proles versus Elites: a review of the protests, part I

For some time on this website there has been a raging debate about the banking system, the protests, occupy movements, and who’s to blame for it all. In the discussion there’s basically two sides.

Side one points out that the captains of industry got where they are by hard labour and a degree of talent. The proles, meaning the lower classes, generally lack direction in life. Therefore they sign stupid contracts and readily allow themselves to be fooled. The proles try to live the MTV lifestyle and don’t consider longer-term financial considerations. If they wouldn’t be so insipid then the financial situation wouldn’t be so messed up to begin with.

Side two explicates that our current captains of industry are pretty much the entrepreneurs that got into power ever since the French and Industrial revolutions. After the ancient aristocratic order was dethroned it was replaced by a more neurotic system where the impulse to buy now forms the fundament of the economy. The bankers are just as greedy as the proles they are fooling – they want money out of everyone’s pocket and they don’t care if family values, honesty and common sense have to be sacrificed in the process.  

It’s time I took a personal hand in this debate, and of course I wouldn’t dare to do so without having personally attended the protest to make up my mind. I’m going to tell you all of the economic and philosophic consequences of this event, which amounts to quite a lot – therefore I’ve decided to cut the review up in parts.

At the very start of the debate, my interest was caught by the analogy of the crack dealer and the party-goer. Both know that the substance is ultimately harmful but the dealer doesn’t care because he’s out to make money, at the expense of others. It is in his interest if the party-goer becomes addicted, even if it means he goes broke, ruins his family by borrowing money, etc. The user knows the substance is slowly killing him but he finds himself somehow powerless to resist it.

Obviously, both are to blame here. Because they could have known that the substance was very harmful. We might say that the dealer is simply being smart. But he does help create another junkie who will roam the streets at night and might eventually slit a girl’s throat during a psychosis that could turn out to be the dealer’s own daughter. The dealer’s just reasoning from the mindset: “I’m gonna make a quick buck and when the shit hits the fan I’m outta here with my money.”

Which is exactly what the bankers think – they have made our nations dependent on their credit. From Greece to France to the U.S.A. – and although everyone knows governments have to cut costs they find themselves powerless to do so. But contrary to the crack scenario, where both know they’re playing a dangerous game, in the credit scenario nobody understands they’re in a game. It’s because: [A] The credit-takers don’t understand the monetary system. [B] The bankers don’t understand the monetary system. [C] The politicians don’t understand the monetary system. [D] Schools don’t teach the monetary system.

Some facts about the monetary system that school doesn’t teach you:

A bank is allowed to rent out one bar of gold it possesses, ten and often fourteen-fold. Imagine ten guys all putting one coin in a jar. They can take it out whenever they want to, they only have to ask the jar-keeper for permission. And he always says: “Sure, it’s your coin, after all.”

A new person comes in and says to the jar-keeper: “Hello, can I please have two coins? Don’t worry I’ll give you back three next week.”

The jar-keeper thinks: “Hmm, since it never happens that all of these ten people come to collect their coins simultaneously, I suppose it’s okay.”

So the guy comes back and he pays his three coins next week. The jar-keeper is happy. He takes out the one extra coin and keeps it to himself.

The week after that four new people come. They all say: “Hello, can I please have two coins? Don’t worry, I’ll pay three back next week.”

There’s still two coins left. So in case someone of the original ten wants a coin back, well . . . Let’s just hope that not more than two request their coin. (This is what a banker calls “risk”. Because he takes risks like any other entrepreneur, he considers himself allowed to make money by producing no actual good or service. This is what the religions call “usury”.)  

Next week, one of the guys doesn’t show up. It means a loss to the bank of two coins. That means the keeper officially only has eight coins left in the jar. However the three others each bring back three coins. That means there’s now eleven coins in the jar.

So he made a profit. This is why banks sometimes allow outrageous debts, because in general most people pay their debts. It’s calculated that the bank will take a loss from some clients from time to time. But most will play the role of predictable bourgeois and pay up; they’re too afraid that their families get thrown out on the streets. However, consider this:

Bankers are always covered. If they invest money and make a fortune, they win. The profit is theirs. If they invest money and lose, the government bails them out because the stakes at large are too great. Too big to fail.

You can say: “Hello bank, can I please get $40,000 to buy a car?” Bank will say: “Sure, but what if you can’t pay us back? Oh, then we’ll take the car.” This is a promise to pay.

A bank can count a promise to pay as its own capital. Capital they don’t even have yet. They may rent that out fourteenfold.

Now in most cases people will work real hard and pay the debt back. However when they don’t manage then the bank confiscates the car. Turns out the car was only worth $20,000 when confiscated and not $40,000. That means a loss of $20,000 right there. Money that never existed in physical form. Money that was never printed or made as coins. However if you consider that 20,000 x 14, it turns out that this amount never existed. It vaporised. This explains why during a housing crisis billions of dollars can vanish over night; because the properties were counted as capital for higher amounts than the bank could actually receive for them.

This is why the monetary system is a bubble that must burst. But it gets worse.

You can say: “Okay I’ll take this loan of 40,000 dollars.” But you can give this money to me. And I can put it on my bank account. Then the bank says: “Ah, 40,000 dollars of new capital.” And it can rent that amount out fourteen times again. Even though there was already money rented out over this same money. But the banks can do it simply because of my promise to pay. Money is not created as value, but money is created as debt.

If you borrow 1000 dollars from the bank, you have to pay back 1200 (interest). It means that you can spend the 1000 dollars in the name of the bank. But where do you get the extra 200 from? By working or selling products so that someone will pay you those 200 extra. How do those people get the money to pay you? They borrowed money from the bank at some point. So they too have to pay back interest over that amount. In the end, that amount of money is not to be found in the money pool. It means that even if everyone works their asses of, someone must eventually be bankrupted. It’s a game of vanishing chairs. When that moment draws closer, governments issue new money from banks. Thus creating more debts over which interest must be paid. It’s an ever-increasing cycle.

Economic growth cannot out-grow this. I spoke about this with some elderly professor on my way to the protests. He was talking about Keynesians versus non-Keynesians. He spoke of how people defending the contemporary form of finance-Capitalism selectively shop from the works of Keynes and Adam Smith to justify something that has absolutely nothing to do with what Capitalism really means: It means adding a product or service to the world, delivering good quality worthy of good pay, developing yourself in the process. Finance-Capitalism adds nothing to the world at all, except debt.

However I told him it’s irrelevant because the monetary system itself is Keynesian. Every single dollar or euro is multiplied many times. And with every percentage of economic growth we make, the debt on our shoulders grows exponentially along.

People will probably refuse to accept this, since they think it’s too unlikely that the foundation they’ve built their very lives upon is revealed to be a form of utter parasitism by some unknown guy on an obscure part of the internet. But still it is true – because the mainstream media won’t tell you this. Because they don’t want you to know.

Because society isn’t held together by money – which as I pointed out doesn’t represent value but debt – it’s held together by the alarm going off at 06.00 and you getting ready to teach kids the alphabet, bake bread in a bakery, or chop dead trees into firewood. Because these are basic life necessities. Because you possess a North-European Protestant-Weberian work ethic. Our economy thrives on trust. On you thinking that everything will be alright in the end and that business will continue as usual.

But think again – this is the place where you really could hear the Truth because nobody around here has any interest in deceiving you.

The U.S.A. is the cornerstone of the world economy. Because they can just print dollars and feed them to whoever wants to have them. However this money is covered by nothing, (it used to be covered by gold; see Bretton Woods but that’s abolished) and even the Feds (and Ben Bernanke) isn’t a government organisation, it’s a club of private entrepreneurs. The guy who gave those banks that caused the credit crisis a +++ rating had to do so, or – so he was told by the owners of that bank – his career would be in serious trouble.

It could very well be but a matter of time before nations like China won’t accept the United States’ currency anymore. Then everything starts to shift. Greece might fall, dragging along Spain and Portugal, then Italy and Ireland, and everything you know as economy will be flushed down the drain.

Perhaps I’ll write more about what happened once I arrived with this story on the protests. Because I think it’s seriously time for Amerika.org to change course. We have to stop supporting the myth of the Open Society – the notion bankers are good because some of the deluded see a reflection of the natural born aristocrat in their fraud that seems like success.

We have to acknowledge the closed society, and consequently attack it. The only people who have an interest in defending the closed society by painting it as an Open, meritocratic-based society, are the baby boomers.

People are ready to embrace a serious criticism of the finance situation, the credit crisis, the economy and the monetary system. The typical socialist-anarchists are pot-smoking nutjobs that ramble incoherently. We have to jump into that hole.

We have to hijack the protests, so to say, and replace them with better-argued, more clear criticism towards the current economic system. When something is found rotten, voices will be raised to amend and replace it. That gives a window of opportunities for new visionaries to climb up the ladders.

Ladders that are withheld from us now.

Parts: I II III IV

42 Comments

  1. Mihai says:

    This article is great, in many ways. It holds a view that I have always been supporting on the other articles, written on this site.

    The part that I don’t agree is the possibility of “hijacking” the protests to our cause. This I see it as not possible on two considerations:
    1. There are already certain leaders and voices at work that ever-increasingly feed the masses with dreams of ultimate democracy, socialism, anarchism etc.
    2. Those masses present there, even before being fed those notions during these protests, already held the above mentioned views to quite a high degree.

    The masses there want the opposite of order- they want total disorder. I really can’t see anyone convincing them of going back to traditional forms- towards hierarchy, elitism. genuine spirituality etc, because this is not what they want- all they want is a freedom from, literally, everything.

    I have already come to a point where I believe that nothing can be done anymore from inside this bubble, regardless of what side you take. What is needed is people to go outside the bubble and start a civilization anew.
    For this to happen, I guess, we first need the total collapse of what is at the present time. This is not a very heartening vision, but we must understand and work with REALITY, not dreams and illusions and blind hopes.

    1. There are already certain leaders and voices at work that ever-increasingly feed the masses with dreams of ultimate democracy, socialism, anarchism etc.

      This is the challenge in reaching out to OWS protesters: they formed and united around a leftist idea of people power against the rich (not the banks).

  2. Most of the posts on this site I can buy into and think, “These guys are doing something different and insightful.”

    On this post I feel like I’m reading CNN. You’re repeating the same line that the MSM and government are giving us.

    The poor 99%! They voted for the laws that bankers use and voted for the leaders who seem to have allowed this financial crisis to happen, but it’s not their fault! They didn’t want this to happen!

    Um, yea…

    We are a democracy. In a democracy, the people vote for leaders and those leaders make laws. If there are bad laws, the citizens have to form a consensus and vote in new leaders to fix those laws. This is the Tea Party approach. It doesn’t destroy society.

    Then there’s the kiddie hipster approach, which is to “protest” the laws that the people created. Instead of working together, we now work against each other.

    The OWS people are the same people who are behind all Communist, Socialism, Marxist, liberal, leftist, hippie, anarchist, Burning Man, Woodstock and such events. They have no money because they are useless people. They have money for their iPhones and Williamsburg apartments, but that’s between them and check-writing Dad.

    I would think that a supposedly “conservative” blog would not endorse the exact opposite principle of conservatism, which is the idea that the masses should be excused for having spent their money, time, votes and efforts badly.

    A conservative would say that we make the playing field fair and we all work together, and the rest is up to the moral choices of the individual. The OWS nutcases made bad choices. They are not good people. The people on Wall Street are for the most part trying to make enough money so they can escape the rat race. A minority of them may be corrupt, but that is the truth of every profession. What isn’t helping the situation is government regulation, which creates more loopholes than it fixes.

    OWS/Anonymous can’t seem to even state a clear demand, but it boils down to the same agenda that is at the heart of all left-wing movements for time immemorial, which is that all these people want something free from us because we’re all “on the same side” or at least in the same society. These people are not contributors, they’re parasites. They want wealth redistribution and free government money that they will take from you. In other words, they want to take from the productive and give to the unproductive.

    If our financial system is unfair, we should fix it so that it rewards the productive, intelligent and competent. If it’s not unfair, what are these people whining about? Are we sure they would not whine about just about anything because they are incapable of measuring their lives in terms of consequences of their own actions and so it’s “always” somebody elses’ fault?

    What this blog is dumping out onto the internet is just another form of disguised leftism. I will check in again in a few days, but if it’s crypto-leftism you’re shilling, I can find that at CNN or MSN and it will be a lot more concise and informative. If you’re still shilling this Marxist b.s. disguised as “conservatism,” that will be my last visit and I encourage others to do the same.

    1. The article is not defending any “anarchist-hipsters” who used their money in unwise ways. Read carefully, patiently, and you will notice. Print the thing out and sit down with a cup of tea and a cracker if that’s what’s necessary. We’re dealing with facts about the monetary system here, and our own inner fears and fantasies about Marxist biases shouldn’t distract us from recognizing those.

      If you’re serious about bringing in “left” versus “right” here, I ought to point you towards the following article:

      http://www.amerika.org/politics/the-inviolate-truth/

      1. RX-78 Alex says:

        Agreed; in fact this is the first honest to goodness balanced article on this issue that I’ve read on this site. Previous writings have touted the tired Randian “Hard working elites are being oppressed by the mindless rabble!’ narrative that is just a childish and stupid as its opposite extreme of “The Man is always keeping the little people down!”

        This situation is a product of a broken system that encourages dysfunctional behavior at all strata of the wealth/class spectrum.

        The character Kikuchiyo in Seven Samurai (one of the greatest pro Aristocracy films of all time I might add) put it best:

        “What do you think of farmers (i.e. peasants/proles)? You think they’re saints? Hah! They’re foxy beasts! They say, “We’ve got no rice, we’ve no wheat. We’ve got nothing!” But they have! They have everything! Dig under the floors! Or search the barns! You’ll find plenty! Beans, salt, rice, sake! Look in the valleys, they’ve got hidden warehouses! They pose as saints but are full of lies! If they smell a battle, they hunt the defeated! They’re nothing but stingy, greedy, blubbering, foxy, and mean! God damn it all! But then who made them such beasts? You did! You samurai (i.e. elite/entrepreneur/etc.) did it! You burn their villages! Destroy their farms! Steal their food! Force them to labour! Take their women! And kill them if they resist! So what should farmers do?”

        1. Ryan says:

          awesome movie, and similarly the natonalist movement of japan is a “great” (sans the insane foreign policy) template of how to properly “catch up” with the world’s zeitgeist, of course the last time a “modern, liberal democracy” (read: borg-esque assimilated central banking, secular plutocracy) in the west tried to “hijack” populist movements in the cause of nationalism, we had the whole, you know, second imperial european global civil war.

    2. crow says:

      Come now, Acerbic: this blog is made up of people who are different. It’s like a variety pack of cookies: there are always ones that you’ll prefer, and others you hope someone else will prefer. What good would a regiment of clones be?
      Anyway, nobody hits a home run every time. If they did, there would be no game.
      Still, I had a bad night, too. And it’s pouring rain and dark as a cave, outside today. Maybe tomorrow things will be more to my taste. And yours :)

    3. Ouroboros says:

      Wait, someone is actually accusing Amerika of pushing *leftist* views? Now I’ve seen it all.

      1. crow says:

        Well.
        When leftists don’t like someone, they call him all manner of cruel and unsupportable things.
        When rightists don’t like someone, they call him a leftist.

        Leftists have a larger repertoire of hate-words.
        Rightists are more single-minded.

        1. Ouroboros, this article has a leftist slant. I should instead that its foundation is leftist, even if on the surface it is rightist.

          See here:

          But he does help create another junkie who will roam the streets at night and might eventually slit a girl’s throat during a psychosis that could turn out to be the dealer’s own daughter.

          Typical leftism. Blame bankers for trying to make a buck in a dying system, instead of the voters who insisted on irrational policies that created this mess.

          Do we forget so quickly that the housing bubble was a regulatory creation, designed to get more minorities into homes? Do we forget how the regulation that our government has heaped on Wall Street has both made it less competitive and created more loopholes?

          From Greece to France to the U.S.A. – and although everyone knows governments have to cut costs they find themselves powerless to do so. But contrary to the crack scenario, where both know they’re playing a dangerous game, in the credit scenario nobody understands they’re in a game.

          The reason no one knows it is a game is that the voters demand free benefits with no accountability. In which Greek election was the rising debt hidden? And when was this information concealed from American voters?

          You’re blaming the banks to avoid putting the blame where it belongs, which is on the delusional leftist voters who made these bad decisions. Your entire article is an excuse for leftist failures, leftist psychological problems, and the bad decisions made by leftist with the explicit consent of American and European voters.

          A bank is allowed to rent out one bar of gold it possesses, ten and often fourteen-fold. Imagine ten guys all putting one coin in a jar. They can take it out whenever they want to, they only have to ask the jar-keeper for permission. And he always says: “Sure, it’s your coin, after all.”

          This enables us to keep money in motion through the economy, which makes it easier for you to borrow it, which makes it easier for you to start up new businesses. Do you want social mobility and competition? Well then you’re giong to want to have fast loans too.

          Bankers are always covered. If they invest money and make a fortune, they win.

          This is factually inaccurate. People who put their money in banks are covered up to $100,000 by the FDIC. The banks themselves are not covered. If you look at bank stocks, they’er all in the toilet at this point. Why is that you may ask. Why, because they have lost money.

          A few rogue speculators went crazy with the derivatives market, which is a regulatory creation. Like most liberals you are suggesting the very solutions that made the problems we are talking about here.

          However when they don’t manage then the bank confiscates the car. Turns out the car was only worth $20,000 when confiscated and not $40,000. That means a loss of $20,000 right there.

          Depreciation happens. The car is no longer worth $40,000 just like a $500 hooker is worth a lot less after age 50. This is part of life, not a bank conspiracy.

          It means that even if everyone works their asses of, someone must eventually be bankrupted.

          Someone is going to be bankrupted in any case. People go bankrupt no matter what you do. The banks have nothing to do that. If most people succeed, more value behind the money is generated, and the money goes up in value. That is why our economic system is worth something today despite 200 years of people going bankrupt.

          The U.S.A. is the cornerstone of the world economy. Because they can just print dollars and feed them to whoever wants to have them. However this money is covered by nothing, (it used to be covered by gold; see Bretton Woods but that’s abolished) and even the Feds (and Ben Bernanke) isn’t a government organisation, it’s a club of private entrepreneurs.

          Ron Paul is that you? The US dollar is backed by the worth of the US economy. The Fed is dubious except that it puts control of the financial system in the hands of professionals, and not the government which will just screw it up like everything else.

          The only people who have an interest in defending the closed society by painting it as an Open, meritocratic-based society, are the baby boomers.

          Do you know what a false dilemma is? There is no rule that says our only questions about our society should be about whether or not it is a closed society. Infact that very language is pure liberal theory. Our society is meritocratic in that people are able to go from having nothing to being in the middle class. That is what the US is famous for.

          When something is found rotten, voices will be raised to amend and replace it. That gives a window of opportunities for new visionaries to climb up the ladders.

          Ladders that are withheld from us now.

          You did spend too much time at those protests. You sound just like those people!

          All the doors are closed, we can’t get ahead, woe is us, the bankers did this to us. You know what this soudns like to me? The hippies blaming the establishment. The commies blaming capitalism. The Nazis blaming the Jews. Man you’re just looking for someone to blame.

          You can make money in this economy if you want. Most people don’t do it because they can barely get up every morning. Their jobs are not important. If they do not show up nothing really changes. The people who make the money have jobs you have to show up or things go wrong. Doctors, lawyers, leaders, generals, owners of small business.

          The OWS people want to blame someone else for their own unimportance but the reason they are unimportant is that they don’t do anything important. If they did they’d be the one percent.

          Let us look at what liberalism is. Liberals believe that the person in society is a victim of government and finance. They believe that if we just made people equal, and didn’t care about if their jobs were important or not, everything would be better. Conservatives do not believe that. We think that people need to be rewarded for doing well and that welfare, hand-outs, political correctness are moral wrongs that try to make people equal but really destroy our incentive to work toward a goal. Just like in Soviet Union, making people equal means no one cares anymore and everything falls apart.

          The Bible tells us that each should get according to his ability, not his (as he sees it) need. Communism tells us that we ignore ability and give to people based on what they think their needs aer. Which one works and which doesn’t?

          1. crow says:

            Wow, Acerbic! That really is single-minded. And ascerbic. And instigating.
            And very interesting.

          2. Nicholas Marville says:

            This man still has his own fears confused with the reality we live in. He points at something and says: “This somehow reminds me of Marxism. So it must be Marxism.” He pokes around hoping to strike at facts, but the bottom issues still escape him. Bretton Woods was a plug created to prevent the financial debacle that ushered in the economic crisis rise of Totalitarianism in Germany. This man mistakes contemporary finance-Capitalism with Capitalism as what it was intended as by men such as Smith and Ricardo. There is no “banking conspiracy” – this situation merely arose because it was possible. Because people saw opportunities to game the system. As is comparable to what the British did with their gold reserves the moment Bretton Woods was abolished.

            The speech he writes by chopping up the article into bits and then having a running commentary on it through his own “discourse”, in truly Postmodern fashion, is a speech I could easily write as well, with a bit of help from my eloquence and a tad of sophistry. IF I was out to get big-business and corporate banking on my side. But instead I prefer to write the Truth so that the reader may take knowledge of it.

            The Truth is that a bank A can bring one dollar to another bank, bank B, which can then legally borrow that money to others ten or even fourteen fold. Bank B can bring that money to bank C, and bank C can do the same again to bank A. By that time the money has increased without any actual product or service of value having been added to the world. Any TRUE conservative, and not a “Liberal”, to use your vocabulary, would recognize that as an outrage.

            Regardless of how much sophistry is brought to the table, this post can never be repealed. I understand the tactic – throw out loads of comments and hope that it will drown into the discourse and hope it will go unnoticed.

          3. YT says:

            “Ron Paul is that you? The US dollar is backed by the worth of the US economy. The Fed is dubious except that it puts control of the financial system in the hands of professionals, and not the government which will just screw it up like everything else.”

            Hank Paulson, is that you? Do you seriously not understand the mechanism that backs dollars and the incestuous relationship between the US treasury, its armed enforcer cops and a private cartel made up of old-world banking families that pulled these same stunts in centuries past?

            As the originator of the crack dealer metaphor, let me tell you that Joe McCarthy will buy me my first beer in hell due to my hate of all things commie, hipster, liberal and French. BUT an objective look at what has been happening reveals that our government, media and NGOs are thoroughly captured by financial interests. Furthermore, its not new and its not the first time.

            The fact of the matter is that the whole Left vs. Right paradigm is a distraction and it always has been. Its just that nobody noticed when the crack party was raging and so many were “getting rich” by flipping .com stocks, houses or generally being a retarded yuppie (i.e. baby boomer).

            What does the bible say about people who use secrecy and deceit to screw over entire nations of people?

      2. Nicholas Marville says:

        And the day that this article is advertised on MSN and covered on CNN is the day that I begin vacuum-cleaning, washing dishes and ironing clothes!

        1. And the day that this article is advertised on MSN and covered on CNN is the day

          If any of our stuff makes it to CNN, I’m going to take up knitting as a hobby. Actually sounds fun now that I think about it.

    4. YT says:

      Um, no. We are not a democracy. Our system was designed and is a constitutional republic. The problem is that we are no a constitutional republic but a Banana republic.

      That a democracy can be hijacked by demagauges, propagandists and credit-crack dealers is the reason for the whole constitutional limits on power/ checks and balances thing. You may have heard about in public school once, between learning about MLK and GW Carver and how mean white people were to Indians.

  3. Ryan says:

    I assume that the primary goal to pass on to the protests, is a more coherant nationalist shool of thought, which would then lead to a possible american (white) nationalist political structure? is that the jist of you “call to action”?
    what exactly would be the contribution to the zeitgeist of this obviously populist and left leaning, and peppered with the main opponents to any sort of nationalist-thinking (in whites)

    1. Nicholas Marville says:

      If your question is adressed to me personally, then I would say to bring people in contact with our Truth-claims with the goal to injecting them into the zeitgeist. It would be to generate attention for this website, and to lure them towards it so that they can educate themselves with our arguments.

      1. Ryan says:

        I do my best to that end, but i have found it is easier to in the day-to-day discussion; during those “two-minute hates”, to simply bring up the concept of nationalism, and the ideals of the nation state. also in such marxist classes like anthropology, it is relatively easy to drive the discussion from native american identity politics to something much more “dangerous”. i agree whole heartedly, and great article as well.

        1. Ryan says:

          perhaps you all should collect your ideas into a massive tome, i would surely be glad to buy/distribute such materials at the pathetic local “occupy” events, which tend to be about medicinal marijuana laws (if that doesn’t reek of prolish stupidity, what does?)

          1. Nicholas Marville says:

            Excellent, and thanks for the compliment. Three points in response:

            –> All my inspiration is drawn from three sources. [1] Romance-novel style Reading of Epic philosophical works at night, for example Politeia, De l’esprit des lois, Atlas Shrugged, etc. [2] Discussions with my friends, fellow students and even complete strangers about the finer and more worthwhile matters of life. [3] My experiences as a part-time politician.

            –> If you’re still a student (like I am, technically) and you keep up with this website, you will never be defeated or outwitted in any intellectual or philosophical matter. It is because everything that happens here is cutting-edge production of Universal Truth, where anything can be brought to the table to be objectively considered. Disciplined Willpower combined with Objective Rationality is the most superior state of being that can ever be achieved by humans. Therefore, if this is made into an ideology, every form of knowledge, both Ancient and Modern, can be synthesized. If it can be pulled off and gain a following, it will ultimately and inevitably prevail. It will evolve beyond nationalism, Postmodernism and nihilism, because it has Universal Truth at its side, and possess the zeal to defend it.

            –> I’m currently working on the Tome (also there’s Project Classic Texts that I devoted my midsummer nights to but that I don’t hear about anymore). If you have any knowledge about how to acquire an agent and do all of that business involving publishing and promotion, you can certainly help me out. I already exchanged many emails about this matter with Brett.

          2. ryan says:

            Disciplined Willpower combined with Objective Rationality is the most superior state of being that can ever be achieved by humans.
            amen to that, sounds like the fourth turning, sounds like turgenev’s “son’s” are now the “father’s”. its all about the controlling the narrative, regardless of the fallacy of “absolute universal truth”, if the alternative right controls the “absolute, universal truth” then it is the universal truth in our time. but sadly, as a man of modest means i have no connections with any sort of publishing house, i think you could try this one group called arkitos (at the alt right)

            1. Well by “Universal Truth” I don’t mean, for example the “Freedom, Brotherhood, Equality for all mankind” meme of let’s say the French Revolution. I mean you can bring a Christian, a Muslim, an Atheist, etc, all together in one room. And then you can say: “Well I belong to tradition ‘A’ so I’m going to stand up for tradition ‘A’.” Yet that pretty much ends the dialogue and will possibly amount to open warfare. What I mean is having a discussion about a topic, and bringing every argument to the table from any perspective, and if conducted properly you will be left with arguments that no sane man can deny. Yet this often stumbles upon the stubbornness of people and the political correct sensitivities of society.

          3. Ryan says:

            yeah that would be true “race realism”, i could not separate the obvious socio-political implications of this type of “school of thought”, as that is utimately the way it would be done, i was being a bit too reductionist there earlier. laying it out all bare to the world, with nothing to hide is the true way to do things. again though, there is the implied soicio-political outcome, a return to the whole: “get the fuck out of here, this is my culture” open, aggressive and pragmatic (realistic as well) type of political thinking (and therefore structure, therefore change,etc).

  4. Don Plastic says:

    I enjoy reading thorough economic rebuttals such as yours, based on tried and true economic theory, in the face of home brew economics, based on what uneducated and probably unemployed kids and their professors of liberal junk analysis think would be ultimately cool, in the face of 300 years of evidence to the contrary.

  5. Ben says:

    Seems to me like barking up the wrond tree.
    Granted the system is a parasite, the host being society in this metaphore, we treating the symptom (parasite being contracted) wouldn’t do much to solve the problem. The body will still remain susceptible to such parasites, and most likely will again contract one of the sort.

    If, however, you work to starve off the parasite and let it die slowly, in a way the body’s other system could handle its dying and respond accordingly, you will help the bodie achieve a healthy homeostasis. Now, to the question of how to starve this specific parasite, the asnwer would be culture. This system is based on consumerism, which can only thrive, as proven time and time again in Amerika, in the absence of culture. Culture is almost like an immune system against hasty or bad desicions. If you have a strong enough culture, the parasite will die off slowly by itself, or even be made into a useful symbiote by the host body.

    So my take is No, at least not directly. Amerika could propose or even push the view that the solution to the current problem is cultural, but economics, as an instrument of society, will just balance itself to suit a new enviorment, and won’t turn into a cancer if kept checked by culture, but hands off the economical issue in itself.

    1. We have to separate the symptoms from the cause. Many of these symptoms are not a bad thing by themselves but are in the wrong hands.

      This system is based on consumerism, which can only thrive, as proven time and time again in Amerika, in the absence of culture. Culture is almost like an immune system against hasty or bad desicions.

      This is true if we keep culture out of the hands of Hollywood, Madison Avenue and leftist professors. They will make a culture of death as they are doing right now.

      What we need to remember however is that capitalism is not a problem unless we have no values. Without values, every system fails us. Blaming the banks for the failure of our voters is a leftist smear that avoids looking directly at the problem which is no values and the masses who want to be lied to by their politicians.

      1. Ben says:

        I agree, and to clarify the cultural divide between organic-healthy and hollywood-money, we will define each culture by its goals: a culture which strives for something (but not equality, coming to that in a second), like making a better person, a nobler society, basically, a culture that wants to make more, better, stonger, and new. We’ll define it as positive. The culture that defines itself by negativity – less poor people, less injustice, less inequality, anti-someting, which is usually of lower origins and manipulated by people of low quality who have by a design flaw risen to power, we’ll call negative, because it never strives for anything, and usually against too many things.
        Equality in this perspective is just working against above average people. As with zombies, go for the brain first.

    2. crow says:

      Great viewpoint, Ben. Lateral thinking :)

  6. Stephan says:

    Indeed it’s right that the current banking system does not work. How about a system of banking where you can only store, and there’s nothing that happens to your money. You will only be able to store it and withdraw it and nothing more… As simple as it is. Your stock will increase, only if you use it for necessary stuff. You don’t need a bank for that, who will mislead you. That’s clear for sure now!
    And the governement shouldn’t be allowed to involve in any money cases except defending the country and upholding the order, and safety services like the hospital and firemen. Nothing more nothing less.

    And no taxes, because they will bind you to a repeating sum of money, which isn’t realistic. And will bring on the same system. Maybe only when entering a new jurisdiction? a travelng tax. So they can feed and equip the soldiers who are then paid to serve your protection with your paid money which is for them food for example.

    1. crow says:

      See? Who says nothing new ever gets dreamed up here?
      We are building something here, and even if it only turns out to be an idea, it is at least creating something.
      Create, or die.
      Evolution.

    2. Ron Paul would love you Stephan because this is exactly what he is talking about.

      How about a system of banking where you can only store, and there’s nothing that happens to your money.

      The problem with this is taht the value of the money will never change. You couldn’t do it with money, but you could do it with money that was backed by rare precious metals like gold and silver. If that currency was fixed to a static amount of each. Like if a dollar is one gram of gold.

      The Bible is not fond of usury and neither am I but interest and borrowing allow for a more flexible economy. We might not have our technology without them.

      1. B Lewis says:

        Friend, I respect your view point. You make sense. So does Mr. Marville. Between the two of you I’m learning a lot here tonight.

        However, if you are saying that usury is the price of technology, then to hell with technology. I’d rather live a 17th Century lifestyle — lice, chamber pots, polio, and all — than be a loan shark’s slave with a smartphone.

        No one is against banking. But the societal cost of fractional reserve banking ( = usury ) is just too high. It will always act to destroy the society that permits it. Some people are better than others at playing the Money Game, and if the Money Game becomes the basis for the economy they will eventually come to own all other players. Exit freedom. Not worth it.

        Perhaps the time has come to return to traditional “static” banking, and accept the reduced pace of technological development and economic velocity that might result.

        1. Stephan says:

          Thanks alot people.
          Do you have any tips on different economical systems though history? I can only think of involving a basic system into capitalism or communism. Since an overviewed capitalism without the bad fruits like renting, will rather result into communism or something that looks like it.

          1. B Lewis says:

            Despite what you may have been told, capitalism and free enterprise are not the same thing.

            Western Civ got along just fine before the advent of capital. Some say it could again. But be warned: you can’t have a medieval economy without a medieval culture. Going beyond capitalism and communism means going back to traditional European culture — and that means Christendom.

  7. I am all for returning to the original sources and connecting with ancient tradition, but one ought not to neglect the realization that we do make advances in knowledge and that in order to understand the situation as it is today, not to mention being prepared to set the world to rights, one really has an obligation to put in the work to understand what can be a slightly technical field.

    For some unknown reason, the theory of money and banking more than most requires a degree of discernment and training of one’s instincts that is easiest to obtain from studying with the right teachers initially. It is dreadfully easy to go wrong by reading something one reads on the internet that seems very convincing and to explain many features of the world neglected by other theories. As Keynes once unfairly remarked of Hakek, a remorseless logician starting with slightly flawed premises can end up in Bedlam!

    And then again theory and practice are two different things. One may have the most intimate understanding of the theoretical aspects of credit expansions, but get things subtly wrong when it comes to applying it in the real world. For example Peter Schiff, who I generally like as a polemicist, having nailed the existence of a bubble (note that it was a credit, more than a housing bubble), put his clients into a heavy weighting of emerging market equities and foreign currencies – two asset classes that were to perform worst during the unravelling phase. And Schiff overall can be said to have a creditable call on things, having also put his clients into precious metals, for example. Can somebody who does not grasp the nuances of the current world be depended upon to create a blueprint for the future? Perhaps, but it is a question open to debate.

    I do believe the most outstanding current practitioner of today is Marc Faber, with Jim Rogers, Jim Walker and Jim Grant also having rather pertinent things to say (albeit these three are less focused on day to day developments). Marc publishes two reports – it is the mailed, long-form “Gloom Boom Doom” report that is of the greatest intellectual interest. He has addressed again and again the flaws of our current monetary regimes (a couple of months ago he had a very interesting piece by the former head of the Banque Privee de Rothschild in Geneva, who formerly worked for Baron de Rothschild himself). I have pointed him in the direction of a couple of these columns – he reads a great deal, although I do not know if he read these ones in particular.

    So the key point with regards to the current system is that it is chronically easy monetary policy and the lack of a standard of value that is at the root of things (you couldn’t have chronically easy monetary policy whilst remaining on the gold standard). Easy money rewards debtors over creditors and forces people to buy assets with debt since putting money in the bank becomes a sucker’s game. It upends the scale of values, since it rewards the speculators, the money-shufflers, the spivs and those who cater to them over those honest, hard-working members of society that prospered in the 19th Century. For more on this, I highly recommend Paul Cantor’s take on Thomas Mann’s short story “Disorder and Early Sorrow”, set during the Weimar hyperinflation.

    You’re right that the current system is rotten. But it would be helpful to make sure one’s understanding of things is as refined as can feasibly be achieved. Otherwise we may end up with a cure initially worse than the disease.

    1. B Lewis says:

      Good points. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that:

      1. Leverage, which is the motor that drives the economy as we know it, is impossible without fractional reserve banking;

      2. that an economy without leverage would be based upon actual production of value, rather than the creation of “value” by currency manipulation; and

      3. that such an economy, while not without its downside, would be both morally and functionally superior to the current system.

      Interesting.

      1. B Lewis – not sure if your post was in response to me, and rather a hurried response.

        Leverage is entirely possible under a gold standard and without fractional reserve banking. Suppose you sell your house and have a bunch of money sitting on deposit that you have no immediate use for. Instead of actually paying the bank for the privilege of keeping your gold coins safe, you direct your bank to invest in the notes issued by large US industrial corporations of less than two year maturity. You receive an interest payment as a reward for locking up your money for a longer period (the notes are redeemed in gold within two years). Of course you don’t actually necessary need to wait two years to get your money back – you just rely upon there being a functioning money market and presume that prices will be liquid and stable enough that you can sell your holdings without taking much of a loss. The corporation might choose to fund part of its investment in fixed assets via issuing shorter term liabilities (in which you have invested). Now most of the time that is fine, but from time to time there will be a panic, with a drying up of liquidity and a collapse in prices of such notes. Provided you weren’t counting on getting the money in a hurry you will most likely be fine – provided the company planned prudently and is able to roll over its debt. Of course if you planned on getting the money back, or the company can’t roll over its debt then one or both of you may be in a world of pain.

        In other words evil arises from mismatching maturities of assets and liabilities, and is basically unavoidable in the real world. Even without fractional reserve banking, we will still have panics and we will still have business cycles.

        I think our present system is broken, and that in many ways the gold standard was more satisfactory. I am not sure that it would be feasible to return to that, and I think that some kind of synthetic commodity standard might turn out to be more workable. In the end it would be necessary to remove government from the provision of money, and the regulation of the banking sector. There is something to be said from having narrow banks, but the transition to such an arrangement is likely to make it very difficult for smaller firms to get credit for a while.

    2. YT says:

      checkout Eric Janzen and iTulip.com then if you like Faber but get a little sick of Schiff’s self-promotion.

  8. crow says:

    …Flaps off in disbelief, to sit in a treetop to ponder what is going on here…
    A more foolish bird would hang in there and chirp away like an idiot.
    A crow, however, is adept at deciding when it is out of its depth.
    It enjoys a bit of chaos, now and then.
    It knows that, come what may, any bodies that lie scattered after the carnage, will have it’s name carved into them.

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 1.123 seconds