Ed Weick wrote: > So government, wanting to stay elected, borrows to give > us at least a measure of what we want and thereby can accumulate huge debts. > Government must also keep the economy in a state of minimum disorder, which > can, if necessary, mean bank bailouts like the US TARP program and it may > feel it has to do whatever is possible to keep automobile producers and > their labour force going. Again huge borrowings may be needed. And of > course it must fight wars, which may again require huge expenditures funded > by borrowing. > > It is not only government, however. Because everyone in the advanced world > feels entitled to the good life, consumers on average are way over their > head in dept.
High consumer debt is mainly a US phenomenon, and per se wouldn't require state debt. Printing money at will to import stuff for free is also only a US phenomenon, because the USD is the world's oil currency. State debt is mainly a mechanism of re-distributing money bottom-up, from the middle class (tax payers) to the rich (holders of state bonds reaping the interests paid by taxes). The system of state indebtment was introduced by & for the Predator class, not by & for "the masses". And why the state "must" borrow: > bank bailouts That's a symptom of billions stolen by the speculators. (Note that you are confusing cause and effect, also in the timeline.) The housing bubble is only a US phenomenon, but bank bailouts for hundreds of billions happened all over Europe too -- guess why, and where did those billions disappear? > And of course it must fight wars It doesn't have to. The US is fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on a false-flag incident by billionaires like Larry Silverstein (9/11). For example, he saved the expensive, long overdue WTC asbestos refurbishment and instead he reaped billions from the insurance, bought 7 weeks before 9/11 (after the WTC had been UNinsured for 30 years, since construction). Again, not "the masses" are to blame! Which war is Greece fighting, anyway? > I'm not saying that Soros and your other predators have nothing to do with > it. All I'm saying is that we are all guilty. The key question is: Who could easily make a big difference? The billionaires could stop speculating immediately, and stop charging interest (or only very low interest) -- they're philanthropes, after all!? This alone would be sufficient to end the crisis (and not have it caused in the first place)! But guess what, they don't stop because they want to keep making billions -- they just can't get enough. "The masses" (outside the US, anyway) are not significantly indebted. What could they do to make a big difference (and do they have to change at all)? Consume less? That would make things worse! Can you answer these questions? Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
