| Author | Message | ||
     Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 6597 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Its an entertaining indulgence  aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Pplsuck Comedian Username: Pplsuck Post Number: 1428 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 99.239.247.178 Rating: N/A |
>>>>>>>> Is this not applicable to any kind of collective - was my question? Whether you look at family, community, employer , religion or nation...morality is subjective to that entity and its relation with the rest of the world :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why not...all systems are built by people....and you already know people suck :-)......so there ain't no system vulnerable to this phenomenon of the collective being misused and abused to an extent that at some point it outruns its utility for the people and then either it corrects/changes/adapts or gives way to another system that is viable at that point in time...... >>>>>>>> Once you swear allegiance to something it is the collective vision of that entity that drives you - you have signed over your individuality and your vision to that collective vision or are deemed a traitor ...where does the quest for absolute morality end and how deep into the organisation does it go... understood the writer's view point but just pondering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is not about swearing allegiance to the collective vision or strategy....although all collective systems start out with good/great intentions, the sanctity gets lost over time due to operational problems as these "people suck" people carry on the day to day activities.......this is the second order march towards that abuse of the system slowly and relentlessly as time passes......the first order problem could be those stated ideals of the collective may not be ideal enough to sustain for a long periods of time......and there could be many more reasons that these systems fail.....so this quest for absolute morality should not be the goal....I don't even know whether such thing exists......or how it could be defined..... I posted this article as it is relevant for today's system in place and lay out the problems with the system........it ain't an effort to make any statement about the best and absolute or say that some other systems are good and this is bad......as a matter of principle, I quit indulging myself in philosophical discussions....:-) BTW, individual gets sucked into collective......and this collective is again defined by individuals.........so it is a circle jerk......they ain't really two different things if you delve deep into it..... | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 6583 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
ejjactly - intiki velli chadavachu le ani skip chesa  aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Vjavasi Comedian Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 1558 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.199.90 Rating: N/A |
second part chinnade bedar | ||
| Kamal Side Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 6320 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 130.36.62.140 Rating: N/A |
 first part ee .. Ramayanam antha undi .. Second part Mahabharatam antha untunda annai?  Sach aur saahas hai jiske mann mein - anth mein jeeth usee ki rahe .. | ||
| Vjavasi Comedian Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 1557 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.199.90 Rating: N/A |
second part of the article below http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14552 | ||
| Vjavasi Comedian Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 1556 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.199.90 Rating: N/A |
link for the article below http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14464 | ||
| Vjavasi Comedian Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 1555 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.199.90 Rating: N/A |
Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System Part 1 by Andrew Gavin Marshall Global Research, July 21, 2009 - 2009-07-20 Email this article to a friend Print this article StumbleUpon Submit Introduction Humanity is on the verge of entering into the most tumultuous period in our history. The prospects of a global depression, the likes of which have never been seen before; a truly global war, on a scale never before imagined; and societal collapse, for which nations of the world are building totalitarian police states to control populations; are increasing by the day. The major global trend forecasters are sounding the alarms on economic depression, war, a return to fascism and a total reorganization of society. Through crisis, we are seeing the reorganization of the global political economy, and the transformation of capitalism into a totalitarian capitalist world government. Capitalism has never stayed the same through its history; it has always changed and will continue to do so. Its changes are explained and analyzed through political-economic theory, both mainstream theory and critical. The changes are undertaken over years, decades and centuries. The next phase of capitalism is one in which the world moves to a state-controlled economic system, much like China, of totalitarian capitalism. The global political economy itself is being reorganized into a world government body, consisting of one center of global power where the socio-political-economic power of the world is centralized in one institution. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a reality. Nor is this a subject confined to the realm of âinternet conspiracy theorists,â but in fact, the concept of world government originates and evolves throughout the history of capitalism and the global political economy. Mainstream and critical political-economic theory has addressed the concept of world government for centuries. The notion of a world government has such a long history, as the forces driving the world into such a structure intertwine with the history of the modern global political economy itself. The purpose of this report is to examine the history of the global political economy in taking steps toward forming a world government, in both theory and practice. How did we get here and where are we going? Why Study Theory? Within the academic realm of Political Science, specifically the field of Global Political Economy (GPE), it is essential to understand the various theoretical perspectives of political economy so as to understand the actions and directions taken within the global political economy, and how capitalism has been and continues to be reorganized and altered. Theory provides the foundation upon which actors are understandable and actions are undertaken. As the political economist Robert Cox once stated, âTheory is always for someone and for some purpose.â It is important to understand and analyze the theoretical leanings of those making changes in the global political economy, in order to understand the changes being made, specifically the theoretical foundations of a world government. As well as this, it is important to examine critical theory in how it interprets both how and why a world government is being constructed. Mercantilism The history of political economic theory shows a continued fascination with the concept of constructing such a cosmopolitan or global community. The earliest forms of western Global Political Economy theorists lie in the early mercantilist period, and with the emergence of Liberal theory, following Adam Smithâs Wealth of Nations, mercantilist writers such as Friedrich List and Alexander Hamilton wrote critiques of the underlying Liberal concepts. List wrote in Political and Cosmopolitical Economy that Smith dispersed with the idea of a ânational economyâ in which nationâs determined economic conditions, and instead advocated replacing the ânationalâ economy with a âcosmopolitical or world-wide economy.â List discusses the perspective of Jean-Baptiste Say (J.B. Say), a French liberal economist, saying that Say âopenly demands that we should imagine the existence of a universal republic in order to comprehend the idea of general free trade.â[1] List states that, âIf, as the prevailing school [of political-economic thought] requires, we assume a universal union or confederation of nations as the guarantee for an everlasting peace, the principle of international free trade seems to be perfectly justified,â however, this prevailing thought âassumes the existence of a universal union and a state of perpetual peace, and deduces therefrom the great benefits of free trade. In this manner it confounds effects with causes.â List elaborates in explaining that, âAmong the provinces and states which are already politically united, there exists a state of perpetual peace; from this political union originates their commercial union.â Further, âAll examples which history can show are those in which the political union has led the way, and the commercial union has followed. Not a single instance can be adduced in which the latter has taken the lead, and the former has grown up from it.â[2] It must be addressed that List is a mercantilist theorist. This means that he views the realm of the political and economic as an interacting realm in which they are intertwined and merged, however, the political realm remains above the economic, which is subject to the dictates of the political element. Liberal theorists believe that the political and economic realms are separate, and that they should be separated, so that political elements interact separately and without influence over the economic realm, which itself acts independently and separately of the political. This is the foundation for the ideas of the âfree marketâ and the oft-quoted Adam Smith phrase, âthe invisible hand of the free market,â which was only mentioned once in his entire volume of the Wealth of Nations. The ascension of liberal theorists marked a separation in the academic and theoretical studies, in which Political Economy was separated as a field, and saw the emergence of Political Science and Economics as separate studies. As political economist Robert Cox stated, âTheory is always for someone and for some purpose.â The purpose of this separation was to compartmentalize academic thought and separate the realms of politics and economy, so as to better control both â as the banking interests, which dominated both the realms of politics and economics since the late 1600s, continued to view the world in terms of political-economic theory. It was a strategy of âdivide and conquer,â in which theory and academia was divided in order to conquer and control thought on both sides. This separation continues to this day, as even the field of Political Economy is placed underneath and subjective to Political Science, whereas it would make more sense that Political Science and Economics would be under the umbrella of Political Economy. Again, compartmentalize thought and then the control of discussion and debate becomes much easier. What List was arguing in his essay was a critique of the liberal concept of a cosmopolitical society, in which all nations are united in a world federation. Naturally, this was not the case in that era, it was an incorrect and dubious assumption on the part of liberal theorists. List explained that never before had economic or commercial interdependence and union led to a political union. List postulated that history showed that political union had to precede an economic union. However, List was writing in the first half of the 19th century, and history has changed the course of events and Political Economic theory. I would argue that the major banking interests, essentially made up of a dynasty of banking families (the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and later the Morgans and Rockefellers, among many others), decided to chart a different course, in which they would pursue a strategy in which economic union would be incrementally undertaken with the aim of constructing a political union to follow in its footsteps. Central Banking Thus, liberal economic theory came to the forefront, championed by the global hegemonic power of the day, Great Britain, which was firmly under the control of the banking dynasties. In 1694, the Bank of England was formed as a private central bank, which would issue the currency of the nation, lending it to the government and industry at interest, which would be paid back to the Bank of Englandâs shareholders, made up of these private banking dynasties.[3] The 16th to the 19th centuries was the period in which both the nation-state and capitalism emerged, soon followed by central banking in the late 1600s. This is when the origins of what was known as a âworld economyâ took place. Mercantilist economic theory dominated this period, in which the economy was secondary and submissive to the political structure of nations. Liberal theorists rose in opposition to this. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the same year that the American colonies revolted against the British imperial forces in the country, and ultimately gained independence from the British Empire. Among many of the primary motivating factors for the Revolution were the British military presence in the American colonies, acting above the law; a heavy imposition of colonial taxes, particularly on tea and other imports from foreign nations such as France, in an effort to promote the mercantilist assumptions that the colony should only survive and trade with the metropole (imperial hegemon) â which extracts the resources of the nation in trade for material goods to that nation, creating a dependence upon the colonial power. Arguably one of the primary motivations for the Revolution was the control of currency by a foreign imperial power, with the ability to control inflation and devaluation, essentially controlling the entire economic conditions of the colony from abroad. The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the necessity of controlling oneâs own currency if one was to preserve sovereignty and independence. Following Britainâs humiliating defeat, which was aided by the French who supported the American revolt, European banking interests suffered a significant blow against their mercantilist expansion. Capitalism functions in that it constantly needs to expand and consume more. Central banking functions in a very similar, although much more dubious manner, in which it needs to expand its control over industry, nations and people through the expansion of debt, continually needing to bring more individuals, nations and industries under debt bondage. Debt is the source of all power and wealth for the central banking system â as they do not actually produce any tradable good, such as industry; nor do they provide any necessary service, such as government. Interest on debt is the source of income and authority for the central banking system, and thus, it needs to continually advance credit and expand debt. Thus, the loss of the American colonies as a source of expansionary credit and debt was a massive blow to their entrenched interests. The European banking interests quickly learned their lesson regarding not falling under the imperial hubris of believing people of a given region or nation could never defeat imperial might and armies. Revolution had become a great threat to the entrenched capitalist, and particularly, banking interests. Within a decade of the American Revolutionary War, which ended in 1783, another nation was going down the road of revolutionary zeal, in part inspired by the American example. However, this nation was no colony, but rather a mercantilist imperial power, and thus, its loss would be too great a loss to allow. In 1788, the French Monarchy was bankrupt, and as tensions grew between the increasingly desperate people of France and the aristocratic and particularly monarchic establishment, European bankers decided to pre-empt and co-opt the revolution. In 1788, prominent French bankers refused âto extend necessary short-term credit to the government,â[4] and they arranged to have shipments of grain and food to Paris âdelayedâ which triggered the hunger riots of the Parisians.[5] This sparked the Revolution, in which a new ruling class emerged, driven by violent oppression and political and actual terrorism. However, its violence grew, and with that, so too did discontentment with the Revolutionary Regime, and its stability and sustainability was in question. Thus, the bankers threw their weight behind a general in the Revolutionary Army named Napoleon, whom they entrusted to restore order. Napoleon then gave the bankers his support, and in 1800, created the Bank of France, the privately owned central bank of France, and gave the bankers authority over the Bank. The bankers owned its shares, and even Napoleon himself bought shares in the bank.[6] The bankers thus sought to control commerce and government and restore order to their newly acquired and privately owned and operated empire. However, Napoleon continued with his war policies beyond the patience of the bankers, which had a negative impact upon commercial activities,[7] and Napoleon himself was interfering in the operations of the Bank of France and even declared that the Bank âbelongs more to the Emperor than to the shareholders.â[8] With that, the bankers again shifted their influence, and remained through regime change.[9] The Rothschilds ascended to the throne of international banking with the Battle of Waterloo. After having established banking houses in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, they profited off of all sides in the Napoleonic wars.[10] The British patriarch, Nathan Rothschild, was known for being the first with news in London, ahead of even the monarchy and the Parliament, and so everyone watched his moves on the stock market during the Battle of Waterloo. Following the battle, Nathan got the news that the British won over 24 hours before the government itself had news, and he quietly went into the London Stock Exchange and sold everything he had, implying to those watching that the British lost. A panic selling ensued, in which everyone sold stock, stock prices crumbled, and the market crashed. What resulted was that Rothschild then bought up the near-entire British stock market for pennies on the dollar, as when news arrived of the British victory at Waterloo, Rothschildâs newly acquired stocks soared in value, as did his fortune, and his rise as the pre-eminent economic figure in Britain.[11] As Goergetown University History professor, Carroll Quigley wrote in his monumental Tragedy and Hope, âThe merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market,â and that: In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.[12] The period from 1815 to 1914 was known as the British Imperial Century, in which they adopted the liberal economic concepts of Adam Smith, and manipulated and distorted them for their own imperial ambitions. Mercantilism was still strong in practice, but rode under the banner of a liberal economic order, âfree marketsâ and the âinvisible hand.â The âinvisible handâ was in fact, connected to a body made up of government and industry, molding the âfree marketâ according to its designs, and the body was controlled by the brain, the central bank, the Bank of England. Markets were hardly âfreeâ and the hand was visible to those who could see the rest of the body. The Liberal Revolution It was during this British imperial century that other nations, such as Germany and the United States, were pursuing mercantilist economic practices in order to protect their own nations from the British free-trade imperialism. It was in this context that mercantilist theorists such as Alexander Hamilton in the United States, and Friedrich List in Germany were writing in criticism of liberal economic theory. Mercantilism was dominant in political-economic theory until the mid 19th century when the âliberal revolutionâ manifested, largely in critical opposition to mercantilism. In liberal economic theory, the economic realm is autonomous and separate from the political realm, and functions according to its own logic. Within this theory, politics and economics, though separate spheres, are still connected, but remain independent of one another. Whereas mercantilists see the state as the primary actor in the global political economy, liberals see the individual (both producer and consumer) as being the major actor. Mercantilists see the international arena as inherently conflictual, justifying their policies of colonialism and empire building in an international arena in which if one state does not colonize foreign lands and extract resources, another state will, and thus, will deprive the state that does not create an empire of resources and economic growth. In this sense, mercantilists view the world in terms of a zero-sum gain, in which the progress of one state requires the regression of another. Liberal theorists argue that the international arena, made up of individuals, constitutes a positive-sum gain, in which all individuals act according to self-interest, and in doing so, benefit everyone, and foster cooperation and interdependence. In this sense, the international arena is not inherently conflictual, but rather a cooperative and interdependent sphere in which order and stability is upheld by international regimes â such as the British liberal imperial order and the gold standard it instituted. Where mercantilists view history as an amalgamation of conflicts and decisions made by states, liberal theorists view history as the sum of the unintended consequences of actions made by private individuals and activities. This implies almost an inherently natural progression of history â that it is not shaped by powerful forces in any designed or intended way, but is merely a natural response and reaction to the actions of individuals. This ties into the liberal concept of the natural state of a liberal economic order, bringing in the idea of the âinvisible hand of the free marketâ which will determine economic activities. Adam Smithâs notion of the âinvisible handâ has been used to advance the idea that private individuals who seek personal wealth and gain through self-interest will unintentionally aid the interests of all of society. However, the âinvisible handâ was mentioned merely once in Smithâs monumental Wealth of Nations, and was taken out of context. Smith was discussing how âEvery individual naturally inclines to employ his capital in the manner in which it is likely to afford the greatest support to domestic industry, and to give revenue and employment to the greatest number of people of his own country.â In addition to employing âhis capital in the support of domestic industry,â the private individual would âdirect that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value.â Therefore, the individual âneither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.â Smith explains that: "By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."[13] Smith had conceptualized the âinvisible handâ as the ânatural inclinationâ of an individual to promote domestic interests, yet the phrase has been manipulated to promote the concept of a âself regulating marketâ in which the less regulation and restrictions there are, the better all society will be, because industry will naturally benefit all people. The manipulation of this phrase has taken the notion of the âinvisible handâ away from the actions of individuals and transferred it to promoting non-regulation of economic activities. That is a far cry from Smithâs contention. Smith even stated in the Wealth of Nations that, âPeople of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.â[14] In discussing regulation regarding wages for workers and resolving equity issues between the employers, or âmastersâ and the labour class of âworkers,â Smith explained that, âWhenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.â Further, âWhen masters combine together in order to reduce the wages of their workmen, they commonly enter into a private bond or agreement, not to give more than a certain wage under a certain penalty. Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same kind, not to accept a certain wage under a certain penalty [such as a union], the law would punish them very severely; and if it dealt impartially, it would treat the masters in the same manner.â[15] These quotes by Adam Smith tend to fly in the face of the common perceptions and usage of Smithâs ideas, proving that liberal economy in practice is a far cry from the intent of its original theorist. In the 1870s, the notion of a âliberal economic orderâ was challenged as the major European empires undertook an incredible extension of their imperial presence across the globe, itself a mercantilist practice â the idea of obtaining colonies in order to extract its resources, create a captive market for the imperial nations manufactured goods, and deprive its economic competitors of access to that market. Between 1878 and 1913, European empires extended their control over much of the world, specifically with the Scramble for Africa, in which all of Africa, save Ethiopia, was colonized by European powers. This ânew imperialism,â as it was known, proliferated throughout Europe following the rapid expansion of banking throughout the continent, and the pre-eminence of international financiers over governments.[16] The growth of the continent-wide banking networks âfed the growth of colonial empiresâ as it stimulated a system in which âcreating debt that then had to be serviced by the purchase of more infrastructure,â and expansion of territory.[17] This led European nations to undertake a massive imperial effort across much of the globe, to find and control foreign markets and expand their capital. The Emergence of Marxism In the 19th century, the rise of critical IPE (International/Global Political Economy) theories emerged in opposition to the growing dominance of Liberal IPE. The most profound of these criticisms arose from Karl Marx. Marxism, as Marxâs critical theory came to be known, put an extensive focus on the relations of classes within society, as the class that owns the means of production is the central and most powerful class, subverting the other classes to a submissive position. Marxists also view capitalism as being inherently exploitative. Within this theory, the political and economic realms are not seen as separate spheres of action, but are seen as intertwined and internally related. Within this theory, the purpose of the state is not to serve the interests of the broader population that inhabits it, but to secure, maintain and advance the interests of the capitalist class. Marxist theorists also put emphasis on the nature of war and conflict as being intrinsically related to the expansionary nature of capitalism, which is one of the primary roles of states in advancing the interests of the capitalist ruling class. Marx defines what he perceives as capitalism: a system which is governed by capital, which is money that has been invested in order to generate more money; production, which is dominant within capitalist society, is designed for sale, not use â in that, it moves beyond subsistence and into what we refer to today as materialism and consumption; labour is commodified, thus people, through their labour, themselves become a tradable commodity; exchange occurs with money; ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the capitalist class; and competition between various capitalist forces is the logic of interaction. Marx places a large focus on the circuit of capital, in how money transforms into capital. Money (M), is invested in purchasing a Commodity (C), and then into Labour Power (LP) and the Mean of Production (MP), which make up the Production circuit (P), which produces a new Commodity (C1), which is then sold, creating expanding money (M1), or earned profits. Capital, thus, is money that is invested into production. Marx postulates that the inherent exploitative nature of capitalism is most apparent in the Production circuit, specifically with Labour Power. Diverging From Marx However, with the exploration and understanding of the central banking system, some of the circuit of capital must be called into question. Central banking functions not on âinvestmentâ of capital, but on the expansion and creation of money and debt, which is lent at interest, thus serving as the source of income for the central banking system. This cannot be called productive capital, for its purpose and intent is not to produce a new commodity, there is no labour power or means of production involved, and new money is not produced from the sale of such a new commodity, but rather profit is extracted from interest on the original money. This, for the sake of argument, can be called the Circuit of Debt: M --> L --> I --> M1 --> LID --> DB M = Money L = Loan I = Interest M1 = New Money LID = new money Loaned to debtor to pay Interest on Debt DB = debtor falls into Debt Bondage; owned by creditor Through the Marxist perspective of exploitation, there is no labour to exploit within the Circuit of Debt, so where does exploitation come into play? Exploitation comes into the process in that the debt (or loan) issued, is designed to exploit whoever the debtor is, be it an individual, a nation, or a corporation. Within this paradigm, class structure, although playing a significant part of the process of overall exploitation and exercise of power within the capitalist system is not the only, or arguably, even primary target of control and oppression within capitalism, as we know it. The target is the individual, the nation, and industry to the submission of the predatory nature of the central banking system. The central banking system has, from its inception, acted in ways which monopolize industry (thus negating Adam Smithâs concept of a âfree marketâ and âcompetitionâ); militarize nations (financing wars and conquest, imperialism); merging the interests of both the economic and political realms into a holistic ruling class (modeled upon the dual nature of a central bank itself â holding the authority and power of a government body, but representing the interests and submitting to the ownership of private individuals). Thus, the ruling class itself is a social construct which this tiny elite formed, hardly capable of the numbers to be termed a class, especially since class is most often defined in national terms, whereas this elite is international in nature. The central bank of a nation finances monopoly industry and imperial states, both of which are created out of debt bondage to the central bank. Both the commercial/industrial elites and political elites merge their interests â the state will pursue imperial policies that have the effect of benefiting industry, while industry will support the building of a strong, powerful state (and provide a cozy job for the political elite upon leaving the public sector). This makes up the ruling class of a nation, the capitalists, or owners of the means of production, merging with the political rulers of the nation. One does not represent or overpower the other, but rather, both serve the interests and are owned through interest, by a tiny international elite. One must ask: What would capitalism look like if it were not for the advent of the central banking system? Accumulation by Dispossession In discussing Marxist theory, I am not advocating a total support of its theoretical discussion and perspective. However, it is vital to address, as historically and presently, it has served as a very powerful source of criticism against the capitalist system and its importance cannot be underestimated. Having said that, it is also important to address in that it does, as a theory, identify many accurate and important aspects of how the capitalist system functions. For that reason, many of the critiques have been and are currently prescient and justified. In Marxist theory, the nature of accumulation plays a very important part, in that it holds a dual character. One is known as accumulation as expanded reproduction, which is concerned with commodity markets and production (the circuit of capital), where money is made through the labour process. The other nature of accumulation is accumulation by dispossession, which is usually framed in terms of relations between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production. This is accumulation derived from dispossessing someone of something. The Atlantic slave trade was an example of accumulation by dispossession, as Africans were dispossessed of their lives and freedom. Colonialism is another example, where resources are extracted, dispossessing the nation of its own resources. Perhaps it would be helpful to expand upon Marxâs ideas of accumulation by dispossession in regards to the central banking system. Central banking, not falling into the circuit of capital, and thus, accumulation as expanded reproduction, better represents an example of accumulation by dispossession. Money is given in loans at interest, to which the debtor is never meant to fully repay, and is dispossessed of its freedom and wealth through interest payments and debt bondage. Debt is just another word for slavery, therefore, the central banking system itself, functions through a system of accumulation by dispossession. However, conventional understanding of accumulation by dispossession describes it as an interaction between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production, where the capitalist mode will dispossess the non-capitalist mode of production. Central banking, however, is the pinnacle of the capitalist system, and ultimately, the primary source and avenue of its power, so it can hardly be said to be an interaction between capitalist and non-capitalist modes, as it is an interaction between central banks and ALL modes of production which need money â including the entirety of the capitalist system. Thus, industry/commerce, governments/nations, and individuals/people, are dispossessed of their freedom through debt bondage. This cannot simply be predicated in terms of class warfare or class-centric theory, but rather, an assault against all individuals, individuality, and freedom, in any and all forms. It is within this context that class structures are created, so as to play off one against the other â to compartmentalize people into classes, and thus, better control and manipulate the masses. It is a strategy of dividing and conquering people. Class, including the upper capitalist class, is constructed in an effort to conform thought within each class, and thus direct collective action of that class accordingly. The freethinking individual is the target in all cases. Individuality is to be removed from commerce, government, and society as a whole. The Communist Manifesto In the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Marx proclaims in the opening subtitle that, âThe history of all society hitherto is the history of class struggles.â However, if class itself is a construct of powerful individuals, albeit throughout human history, can it not be argued instead that the history of all society is the history of the struggle of the individual against collectivity and control? Class itself is a collective grouping designed to control a mass of people, whether it is upper class or lower class. Individuals are stifled within all classes, and thus, the history of class struggles itself, is a history of the struggle between the free thinking individual and the collective form of control. Within the Communist Manifesto, Marx (and Engels) outlined an initial program for an âadvancedâ nation to undertake in order to create a Communist system, with ten major points. (1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes; (2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax; (3) Abolition of all right of inheritance; (4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels; (5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly; (6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state; (7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state â the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan; (8) Equal liability of all to labour â Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture; (9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries â gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country; and (10) Free education for all children in public schools â Abolition of childrenâs factory labour in its present form [and] Combination of education with industrial production.[18] Of particular importance is number 5, in which a central bank is advocated. If nations have the ability to create and issue a currency through a Treasury department or even on a more regional or local level, why centralize and monopolize creation of a currency to a central bank? It should be noted that the recommendation was to have it centralized âin the hands of the state,â however, central banks are today, still widely perceived as being within the purview of governmental authority, while acting and functioning totally outside of it and above it. Imposing a tax on oneâs income (2), also seems to promote the commodification of labour, in that instead of industry exploiting oneâs labour and extracting a profit from it, that becomes the job of the state. All property would be owned by the state (1), and virtually the entire economy is subject to the control of the state. Even education, while free, is directed by the state. With the âConfiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels,â what room is there for dissenting thought in such a society? Dissent would not be encouraged within the âfree educationâ system. In fact, conformity would be enshrined. Is this not a form of âaccumulation by dispossessionâ in which the individual is dispossessed of free thought and action and submitted to the will of and restricted thinking allowed by the state? Within this paradigm the state accumulates power and authority by dispossessing people of individuality in thought and expression. The Communist Manifesto ends with the declaration of, âWorkers of all countries, Unite!â This, in and of itself, promotes class divisions within society, placing focus on the need for an international mobilization of the global working class to rise up against the capitalist class. Marx outlines that any successful workersâ revolution must be international.[19] Thus, this promotes the cosmopolitical notion of an international community, at least in initial terms of a transnational class system. Essentially, Marx argues that as capitalism expands, what we will later term âGlobalizes,â so too must the working class of the world âglobalizeâ and âinternationalize.â In a sense, this makes Marx, himself, an early globalist theorist, in promoting the concept of an international class uprising against the capitalist class. Ultimately, would this not simply replace the tyranny of one class for the tyranny of another? Throw out the capitalists and bring in the communists! Substituting one form of oppression for another is hardly a change in the right direction. In both systems, the individual suffers and free thought is stifled. Though much Marxist criticism is extremely pointed in analyzing the functions and structure of the capitalist system, such theory itself, even though critical, must be critically examined. Retaking America The history of the United States from its founding through the 19th century to the early 20th century, was marked by a continual political battle revolving around the creation of a central bank of the United States. Mercantilists such as Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Treasury Secretary, were in favour of such a bank, and his advice won over George Washington, much to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson, who was a strong opponent to central banking. However, â[Alexander] Hamilton, believing that government must ally itself with the richest elements of society to make itself strong, proposed to Congress a series of laws, which it enacted, expressing this philosophy,â and that, âA Bank of the United States was set up as a partnership between the government and certain banking interests,â[20] which lasted until the charter expired in 1811. Again, during the tenure of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), the primary political struggle was with the entrenched financial interests both domestic and from abroad (namely Western Europe), on the issue of creating a central bank of the US. Andrew Jackson stood in firm opposition to such a bank, saying that, âthe bank threatened the emerging order, hoarding too much economic power in too few hands,â and referred to it as âThe Monster.â[21] Congress passed the bill allowing for the creation of a Second Bank of the United States, however, Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill, much to the dismay of the banking interests. It was in the later half of the 1800s that âEuropean financiers were in favor of an American Civil War that would return the United States to its colonial status, they admitted privately that they were not necessarily interested in preserving slavery,â as it had become unprofitable.[22] The Civil War was not based upon the liberation of slaves, it was, as Howard Zinn described it, a clash âof elites,â with the northern elite wanting âeconomic expansion â free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, [and] a bank of the United States. [Whereas] The slave interests opposed all that.â[23] The Civil War, which lasted from 1861 until 1865, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, during which, âCongress also set up a national bank, putting the government into partnership with the banking interests, guaranteeing their profits.â[24] As Lincoln himself stated: The money powers prey on the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. As a most undesirable consequence of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.[25] Throughout much of the 1800s and into the 1900s, the United States suffered several economic crises, one of the most significant of which was the Great Depression of 1873. As Howard Zinn explained: The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crises â 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929) â that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie was capturing the steel market, Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.[26] Massive industrial consolidation by a few oligarchic elites was the rule of the day, as J.P. Morgan expanded total control over railroad and banking interests, and John D. Rockefeller took control of the oil market, and expanded into banking. Zinn explained that, âThe imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests). Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.â[27] These banking interests, particularly those of Morgan, were very much allied with European banking interests. On the European side, specifically in Britain, the elite were largely involved in the Scramble for Africa at this time. Infamous among them was Cecil Rhodes, who made his fortune in the diamond and gold mining in Africa, as âWith financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields.â[28] Interestingly, âRhodes could not have won his near-monopoly over South African diamond production without the assistance of his friends in the City of London: in particular, the Rothschild bank, at that time the biggest concentration of financial capital in the world.â[29] As historian Niall Ferguson explained, âIt is usually assumed that Rhodes owned De Beers, but this was not the case. Nathaniel de Rothschild was a bigger shareholder than Rhodes himself; indeed, by 1899 the Rothschildsâ stake was twice that of Rhodes.â[30] Cecil Rhodes was also known for his radical views regarding America, particularly in that he would âtalk with total seriousness of âthe ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empireâ.â[31] Rhodes saw himself not simply as a money maker, but primarily as an âempire builder.â As historian Carroll Quigley explained, in 1891, three British elites met with the intent to create a secret society. The three men were Cecil Rhodes, William T. Stead, a prominent journalist of the day, and Reginald Baliol Brett, a âfriend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V.â Within this secret society, âreal power was to be exercised by the leader, and a âJunta of Three.â The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner.â[32] In 1901, Rhodes chose Milner as his successor within the society, of which the purpose was, âThe extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise . . . [with] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.â[33] Essentially, it outlined a British-led cosmopolitical world order, one global system of governance under British hegemony. Among key players within this group were the Rothschilds and other banking interests.[34] In the early 20th century, European and American banking interests achieved what they had desired for over a century within America, the creation of a privately owned central bank. It was created through collaboration of American and European bankers, primarily the Morgans, Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loebs and Warburgs.[35] After the 1907 banking panic in the US, instigated by JP Morgan, pressure was placed upon the American political establishment to create a âstableâ banking system. In 1910, a secret meeting of financiers was held on Jekyll Island, where they planned for the âcreation of a National Reserve Association with fifteen major regions, controlled by a board of commercial bankers but empowered by the federal government to act like a central bank â creating money and lending reserves to private banks.â[36] President Woodrow Wilson followed the plan almost exactly as outlined by the Wall Street financiers, and added to it the creation of a Federal Reserve Board in Washington, which the President would appoint.[37] The Federal Reserve, or Fed, âraised its own revenue, drafted its own operating budget and submitted neither to Congress,â while âthe seven governors shared power with the presidents of the twelve Reserve Banks, each serving the private banks in its region,â and âthe commercial banks held stock shares in each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks.â[38] The retaking of the United States by international banking interests was achieved with barely a whimper of opposition. Where the British Empire failed in taking the United States militarily, international bankers succeeded covertly through the banking system. The Federal Reserve also had the effect of cementing an alliance between New York and London bankers.[39] | ||
| Bushu Junior Artist Username: Bushu Post Number: 412 Registered: 04-2009 Posted From: 12.30.230.138 Rating: N/A |
he needs a kool aid and a walk in the times square. froth is pouring forth. | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 6580 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Is this not applicable to any kind of collective - was my question? Whether you look at family, community, employer , religion or nation...morality is subjective to that entity and its relation with the rest of the world Once you swear allegiance to something it is the collective vision of that entity that drives you - you have signed over your individuality and your vision to that collective vision or are deemed a traitor ...where does the quest for absolute morality end and how deep into the organisation does it go... understood the writer's view point but just pondering aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Getafix Side Hero Username: Getafix Post Number: 4567 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 159.127.66.112 Rating: N/A |
Inkosari chadivina article.. ayn rand should have been alive to see what john galts are capable of.. hehehe. Communism wave got on to high note during industrialization and everybody was busy getting on to the bandwagon but come 80s commies bubble bursted and everything they saw was repression. Come 90s , hitech age started and everybody was busy getting onto Free market capitalism train and now the meltdown and everyone is gaga about free market's greedy side.. What works for us is the question we need to pontificate seriously going forward. | ||
| Pplsuck Comedian Username: Pplsuck Post Number: 1427 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 99.239.247.178 Rating: N/A |
>>>>>>>>> later castigates the indvidual for being too individualistic... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote the article what you mean by this, I can probably explain better...... anyways I will give it a try....once the corporate/business greed culture overtakes the individual......it is like selling soul to the devil....its not individualism anymore...its being greedy and these folks help oil the machine, being lost in it......they are just zombies..... | ||
| Ishan Comedian Username: Ishan Post Number: 1654 Registered: 01-2009 Posted From: 128.249.107.38 Rating: N/A |
In fact he must have been fired right at the moment he was found for tax evasion. The defense was even more horrible. How can United States Secretary of the Treasury can not differentiate self-employment from regular employment? Senate reports clearly disproved his defense and Obama still continued him and here comes the next scandal. All generalizations have exceptions, including this one | ||
| Getafix Side Hero Username: Getafix Post Number: 4566 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 159.127.66.112 Rating: N/A |
Timothy Geithner shouldnt have gotten away when he allowed bonuses to AIG execs.Obama and democrats were so desperate to justify their selection, they even allowed Chris Dodd to insert an exception to law governing the bonuses. That was bad..very bad.The blatant defense of geithner by Obama proves the loyalty point discussed in the article. | ||
| Vjavasi Comedian Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 1554 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 192.127.94.7 Rating: N/A |
Excellent article ....these are nothing short of monsters....our idiot economy planners blindly follow them.....time for economy localization...no more globalized economy...even americans are victims of these monsters | ||
| Anand_n Side Hero Username: Anand_n Post Number: 6576 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 167.24.104.150 Rating: N/A |
Nice read - however struck me as a lttle discordant ... initially he laments the subsuming of the individuality by the collective of the corporation as an evil and then later castigates the indvidual for being too individualistic... Though I guess he is looking at a bigger collective than the corporation.. Thanks for posting aa chal ke tujhe main leke chalu ik aise gagan ke tale jahan gam bhi na ho, aansoo bhi na ho,bas pyaar hi pyaar pale | ||
| Pplsuck Comedian Username: Pplsuck Post Number: 1426 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 99.239.247.178 Rating: N/A |
BTW, Larry Summers is mentioned in the article.....and the article can be related to our situation too..... http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/wall.... Posted on Jan 10, 2010 By Chris Hedges Corporations, which control the levers of power in government and finance, promote and empower the psychologically maimed. Those who lack the capacity for empathy and who embrace the goals of the corporationâpersonal power and wealthâas the highest good succeed. Those who possess moral autonomy and individuality do not. And these corporate heads, isolated from the mass of Americans by insular corporate structures and vast personal fortunes, are no more attuned to the misery, rage and pain they cause than were the courtiers and perfumed fops who populated Versailles on the eve of the French Revolution. They play their games of high finance as if the rest of us do not exist. And it is a game that will kill us. These companies exist in a pathological world where identity and personal worth are determined solely by the perverted code of the corporation. The corporation decides who has value and who does not, who advances and who is left behind. It rewards the most compliant, craven and manipulative, and discards the losers who canât play the game, those who do not accumulate wealth or status fast enough, or who fail to fully subsume their individuality into the corporate collective. It dominates the internal and external lives of its employees, leaving them without time for family or solitudeâwithout time for self-reflectionâand drives them into a state of perpetual nervous exhaustion. It breaks them down, especially in their early years in the firm, a period in which they are humiliated and pressured to work such long hours that many will sleep under their desks. This hazing process, one that is common at corporate newspapers where I worked, including The New York Times, eliminates from the system most of those with backbone, fortitude and dignity. No one thinks in groups. And this is the point. The employees who advance are vacant and supine. They are skilled drones, often possessed of a peculiar kind of analytical intelligence and drive, but morally, emotionally and creatively crippled. Their intellect is narrow and inhibited. They rely on the corporation, as they once relied on their high-priced elite universities and their SAT scores, for validation. They demand that they not be treated as individuals but as members of the great collective of Goldman Sachs or AIG or Citibank. They talk together. They exchange information. They make deals. They compromise. They debate. But they do not think. They do not create. All capacity for intuition, for unstructured thought, for questions of meaning deemed impractical or frivolous by the firm, the qualities that always precede discovery and creation, are banished, as William H. Whyte observed in his book âThe Organization Man.â The iron goals of greater and greater profit, order and corporate conformity dominate their squalid belief systems. And by the time these corporate automatons are managing partners or government bureaucrats they cannot distinguish between right and wrong. They are deaf, dumb and blind to the common good. These deeply stunted and maladjusted individuals, from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Robert Rubin to Lawrence Summers to the heads of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank of America, hold the fate of the nation in their hands. They have access to trillions of taxpayer dollars and are looting the U.S. Treasury to sustain reckless speculation. The financial and corporate system alone validates them. It defines them. It must be served. This is why e-mails from the New York Fed to AIG, telling the bailed-out insurer not to make public the overpaying of Wall Street firms with taxpayer money, were sent when Geithner was in charge of the government agency. These criminals sold the public investments they knew to be trash. They used campaign contributions and lobbyists to turn elected officials into stooges and gut oversight and regulation. They took over retirement savings and pensions and wiped them out. And then they seized some $13 trillion in taxpayer money so they could lend it to us with interest. It is circular theft. This is why we will endure another catastrophic financial collapse. This is why firms like Goldman Sachs are more dangerous to the nation than al-Qaida. âThe psychology is about winning, and winning is marked by the level of compensation and bonuses and the power you have within the firm,â Nomi Prins, the author of âIt Takes a Pillageâ and a former managing director at Goldman Sachs, told me by phone from California. âEvery investment bank is like a mini-country. The political maneuvering and the differences between individuals who run certain areas and move up the ladder of the company are not necessarily decided by a vote. They move up depending on how close they are to the person [above them]. If that person moves up they move up with them. A certain set of loyalties get created. It is an intense competition all the time. You have trading and doing deals with clients, but the result is to push people up the ladder and to make money.â How you make money and how you climb the ladder of the corporate structure are irrelevant. Success becomes its own morality. Those who do well in this environment possess the traits often exhibited by psychopathsâsuperficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance, a need for constant stimulation, a penchant for lying, deception and manipulation, and the incapacity for remorse or guilt. They, like competitors on a reality television program, lie, cheat and betray to climb over those around them and advance. These demented individuals are admired and envied within the firm. They achieve heroic status. The lower-ranking employees are supposed to emulate them. And this makes Goldman Sachs and other speculative financial firms upscale lunatic asylums where the inmates wear Brooks Brothers suits and drink expensive chardonnay. Our problem is that the lunatics have been let out of the asylum. They have been empowered to cannibalize the government on behalf of the corporations that spawned them like mutant carp. These corporations donât make anything. They donât produce anything. They gamble and bet and speculate. And when they lose vast sums they raid the U.S. Treasury so they can go back and do it again. Never mind that $50 trillion in global wealth was erased between September 2007 and March 2009, including $7 trillion in the U.S. stock market and $6 trillion in the housing market. Never mind that the total amount of retirement and household wealth trashed was $7.5 trillion or that we saw $2 trillion in 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts evaporate. Never mind the $1.9 trillion in traditional defined-benefit plans and the $2.6 trillion in nonpension assets that went up in smoke. Never mind the job losses, the foreclosures and the 35 percent jump in personal and small-business bankruptcies. There are bundles of new money, taken again from us, to make deals and hand out outrageous bonuses. And when these trillions run out they will come back for more until our currency becomes junk. Not that any of these people have thought this through. They are too busy focused on the pathetic, little monuments they are building to themselves and the intricacies of court intrigue. âThere are always internal conversations about taking credit for certain trades and deals,â Prins said of her time at Goldman Sachs. âIt is childish, except there is so much money at stake and so much power within the firm at stake. Power in the firm allows you to make money, but it also provides a certain status that everyone looks up to and covets. There can be a period of a month or two at the end of the year where closed-door conversations occur between managers and people who work for them about compensation. In these conversations they go something like: âMy group did that trade.â âI did that trade.â âNo, that was my money.â âNo, that was my profit and loss.â âThatâs my client.â âI know the other group said that it was their client but actually I had the relationship first.â A lot of these petty conversations go back and forth. All of it to attain money and acquire power and influence within the firm.â Those who advance in these institutions master the art of looking like they are doing more than they are actually doing. It does not matter who does the most. It matters who can take credit for doing the most. And that often means poaching someone elseâs work. Friendship becomes a meaningless word. So does compassion. So does honesty. So does truth. By any standard comprehensible within the tradition of Western civilization these people are illiterate. They cannot recognize the vital relationship between power and morality. They have forgotten, or never knew, that moral traditions are the product of civilization. Existence, for them, boils down to one overriding imperativeâme, me, me. âThe people who get the higher bonuses are not getting them because they are quietly doing whatever work they are supposed to do,â said Prins, who also ran the international analytics group at Bear Stearns in London. âThey are getting that money because they are constantly able to promote themselves.â âThe environment is very insular,â Prins said. âIt is all about what is happening in the firm. Who said what. Who is doing what. What did they say about you. How does it affect you. How does it affect your group. How does it affect the people above you and below you. It destroys individuality. You learn there is a certain way you are supposed to act to be successful. If you are not doing that, if you are fighting too hard to do something you believe is right, but your managers donât want to do, you defer. Or you fight and it gets marked as a stripe against you. You donât discuss interests that are counter to the firmâs interests or the firmâs positions.â âYou are not thinking whether it is ethical to dump a bunch of loans into the street or repackage them and re-rate them better,â she said. âYou are only thinking about getting the deal done. You donât think about how issuing certain securities or structuring certain deals will impact people [around you].â âWhen you are living, competing and winning in an environment where it is all about the money and the power, it creates a dividing line between you and the rest of the world,â Prins said. âYou do not bother to look over the dividing line. Your world is on your side of it and the rest of the world is on their side of it. You are not looking at people being kicked out of their homes and being foreclosed. You do not see the crying, the anger and the children in the street because [those in government] decided to give money to bail out Wall Street firms as opposed to renegotiate mortgage principals so people can continue to live their lives. You can be callous about it because it does not impact you. It is not something you notice. You might read about it. But you donât feel it, watch it or go through it. You are detached.â Banks are continuing to have hemorrhaging in consumer portfolios including mortgage loans, auto loans, credit card loans and other loans. Bankruptcies are endemic. Toxic assets if properly assessed would mean that many of our largest banks are insolvent. But the profits from the trading revenues and bonuses have climbed back to near-record highs. The sick mentality of the game, the one that created the first worldwide meltdown, dominates the nervous systems of our elite the way cravings overtake heroin addicts. They canât think of anything else. They do not know how. No one goes to Wall Street to further the common good. People go to make money. And money, like power, is a potent narcotic. âYou donât think you are doing anything wrong,â Prins said. âYou are working. You are making money. You are trying to have your bosses like you and pay you. You run things by legal [the companyâs legal department]. You run things by compliance. You donât believe you are committing a crime. You are just doing what you are doing.â âWe will have another crisis,â she lamented. âI donât know when, but it is brewing. If you donât fundamentally change the foundation of the banking system you are piling on capital and time into something that is faulty. This does not result in decades of stability. They are banking on trading. Nothing has changed. The rest of the consumer economy is continuing to deteriorate. These losses go into banks. You gain on trading and lose on more solid practices. The foundation has not changed. The regulations are bullshit. The old assets are still crap. The new assets created off the old assets are still crap. The banks are still levering them and still doing the same practices they did before. We will have another liquidity crunch. Banks will again stop trusting their assets and each other. ⦠The buying of complex assets will stop, although this time more quickly. People will remember what happened before. You will have a repeat of credit constricting between financial institutions. It is already constricted on the consumer side. The banking system will use up this federal capital and then go back for more.â Chris Hedges, a former Middle East bureau chief of The New York Times, shared the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism. He has written nine books, including âEmpire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacleâ (2009). His column appears on Truthdig every Monday. |
