On 5/17/2010 4:38 PM, Christoph Reuss wrote: > 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.)
Debunked already. > The housing bubble is > only a US phenomenon, false > but bank bailouts for hundreds of billions happened > all over Europe too -- guess why, and where did those billions disappear? > Good question. I have never supported bailouts of capitalist, for profit businesses. The populace pays, and many extremely overpaid execs should be the ones first tapped in my opinion. The pension plans of millions are invested in (unwisely if not bailed out) banks, insurance companies, and auto manufacturers to name a few. If the system let them go under when they did stupid things, the pensions would decline even more than they have WITH the bailouts. (another zero sum redistribution, and the poor lose even more as they have few pensions except govt ones) > > > > > The key question is: Who could easily make a big difference? > Discipline re govt spending, envir protection, and controls of usury and fraudf (as examples) are tough when govts get corrupted which I believe most are. > The billionaires could stop speculating immediately, If a capitalist system had no specs, liquidity would dry up. Bad for any hedging of future agric. & mining production, shipping costs, weather risks etc > and stop charging interest > (or only very low interest) -- they're philanthropes, after all!? interest is set by supply/demand. If artificially low, people borrow too much and create bubbles like housing or dot com (cheap margin) > This alone > would be sufficient to end the crisis (and not have it caused in the first > place)! false see artificially low above > But guess what, they don't stop because they want to keep making > billions -- they just can't get enough. > Some yes, it is a disease/addiction. But many are not like that in my opinion. > "The masses" (outside the US, anyway) are not significantly indebted. The UK and Canada and Australia and others are in pretty much the same boat as US re consumer debt. > What > could they do to make a big difference (and do they have to change at all)? > Consume less? That would make things worse! > Too many of us chasing limited stuff/energy = conflict and rape of envir. > Can you answer these questions? > > Chris > > > > > This was a one shot response. If documentation for a specific numerical item is desired, I'll give that a shot. I know I've seen consumer and housing debt stats recently Steve _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
