Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed Jeff, I am interested in keeping these conversations going, as conversations, as my concerns are purely intellectual here. I make no secret of my disenchantment with capitalism, but I don't know that I have a particular answer that I could realistically offer in its place. While I definitely see the appeal of various socialist theories, I have also spent a fair amount of time reading about libertarian and capitalist ideas... and I don't know that I could ever say they are absolutely wrong anymore than I can say that a hammer or a screwdriver is wrong. I only have questions about what these particular social technologies are good for. And I don't believe they are good for everything. But what is wrong with big government? Of course, big government and the future debts of the United States will impact my future income and the income of my children but if I look at many states in South America, for instance, I see that people NEED big government. I spent a couple months in Honduras, and that nation suffers from a very weak state, from businesses that can step in and push them around, and as a result poverty is widespread and devastating. At its biggest levels, the transnational corporation functions as governments do it writes laws and enforces its will with its army. And it gravitates to those places where governments are week, so that it does not have to deal with human rights. The only way that a corporation can be forced to address the question of human rights is either through the pressure of shareholders (indirect and unlikely), through consumer boycotts (more likely, but still indirect), or through law (direct, but only likely in strong states). I mean, all across the country we had these tea parties, yesterday. Which, on its face, seems like a quite reasonable thing. (Who isn't sickened by the idea that government taxes people and then serves the rich?). But if you went to any of these events, it was very clear that the organizers were just trying to seize legitimate frustration and then convince those in attendance that Obama is the problem, rather than the system itself. It's incredibly sad that all these frustrated people turned out to carry water for a handful of pro-business, GOP-connected foundations. I cannot deny the evil of ballooning budgets, particularly when they are being used to finance war and further privilege. (I would love to see the government spend more money on schools, libraries, infrastructure and socialized medicine). Of course, US politics is highly dysfunctional, but this is because big businesses realize that they cannot do business here unless they take the electoral process seriously, and spend billions every year on lobbying and propaganda. In the past, big business used to have to promise workers high-paying jobs in exchange for political influence, and this does seem kind of sleazy. But, on the other hand, the world is filled with examples of countries with workers who don't even have that bargaining power. I agree, absolutely, that it does need to be fixed. And I do blame the U.S. government for many of the absurdities, but at the same time, it doesn't mean that people could not get together and build a government that is an effective defender of the rights of its citizens. Take care! Davin ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Internet Explorer 8 makes surfing easier. Get it now! ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed
absolutely julian...like fergie might say, 'we need to stop those chickens from jacking our swagger' and further, 'we need to stop being so 2000 and late, and start being so 3008!' :-) NRIII Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D Editor, Kritikos http://intertheory.org - Original Message From: Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:40:56 PM Subject: Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed ..on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:03:13PM -0700, Nicholas Ruiz III wrote: bh...let us be fair ...i'm sure you spend and earn capital, so the idealization and/or criminalization of a legal and legitimate livelihood seems petty and trite...and an organization like Goldman Sachs employs tens of thousands of people, so why pick on all of them, when your issue probably applies to a handful of aristocracy across a number of institutions, financial and otherwise...and the phenomenon of greed applies to everyone in every discipline...that is what rules and laws are for, no? It sounds like you would outlaw financial trading...would you outlaw trade in art as well? A more realistic approach, I believe is to acknowledge one's complicity in exchange, and to argue for appropriate rules and regulations regarding the trade of whatever objects we have agreed could and should trade...in fact, this is how it works, and it is what we have done over the millenia, since Mesopotamia, at the very least. The true questions revolve around the Law, wherein, unfortunately, an Aristocracy stacks the odds in their favor, in every industry, and in every fashion...better law-making and not, 'egg-throwing' will serve all better in the long run, no? While you are writing to BH here and not me I thought I'd drop a couple of words on this. I agree with you Nick. I fear however we, as complicit yet critical subjects of the capital state, are forever detectives that turn up after the crime. The formation of new law, the re-definition and affirmation of existing laws, are inextricably dependent upon those that will act outside of them, a 'legal ecology' of sorts. Corporations have historically proven to operate at the threshold of what is legal, taking advantage of their disproportionate capital buffer in the event of retribution and/or state intervention. State regulation and rigorous critique - as building blocks for pre-emptive legal intervention and citizen safe-guarding - are always late. In this sense, state enforced transparency and fair-play are seeds of criminal innovation in the corporate sector. Nonetheless, this is a good thing: let's at least make it harder for them! I think it's necessary to underscore however that a capital state is /necessarily/ configured for the abuse of its subjects, it is just a question of what is bearable. Any 'economy' implies scarcity, the maldistribution of wealth and, as such, laws that operate within such a frame are innately disempowered at the citizen layer. Greetings from Lima, Peru, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Madrid, Spain currently: Lima, Peru about: http://julianoliver.com - Original Message From: Brian Holmes brian.hol...@wanadoo.fr To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 6:40:52 PM Subject: Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:26 PM, jeff pierce zentra...@live.ca wrote: I'm so tired of hearing about centralized this and globalization that as every time I hear it in the media I get the feeling that they're just warming us up to what will eventually be. Governments are too big to begin with, as they are a big part of this problem. They can't handle their affairs on a national level, what makes anybody think they can handle the affairs at a world level. The thought alone makes me shiver. Where would you hide if you didn't like the system that is in place? Nowhere as far as I can tell. At this point (and for about the last ten years) the same consensus rules the entire Western world. Asia and Latin America are of course different, so try your luck. Maybe you will find a place where entrepreneurs are allowed to commit climate change and foster horrendous social inequality without any oversight. You might be happy there, if you are rich and willing to have armed guards of course. At one point between October-December it was so hard to trade and carry any positions over the weekend because we (traders) feared some type of government intervention over the weekend which would cause the markets to move in totally random ways. This is still very much a concern, but it hasn't been as bad as of late. This is really neoliberal bullshit. You think the markets are free for your petty day-trading greed? That's foolish. The big government you abhor (with the very terms that Reagan, Thatcher Co. taught
Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed
Jeff/Davin J. Stiglitz's estimate is that the Iraq war has cost the USA in excess of 3 trillion dollars. And the standard yearly US military budget is in excess of 500 Billion. Numbers so big that it's reasonable to assume that the imperialistic and neo-liberal regimes that have been running the US for the past 30 years simply cannot be paying for itself through the imperial coffers. Rather than consider it in terms of big government you would be better advised to consider that the 46 million people without health insurance in the US are the ones paying for it...Surely it's not intellectually feasible to maintain that its a question of big or small government, but rather a question of what the ideologies being referenced mean. Americans really seem to like speaking of big and small government - whereas in truth you've been living with versions of liberal democracy and capitalism... The American tragedy was that not enough was nationalized in the 1940s, but it's not to late. s jeff pierce wrote: Davin, Sorry for the long delay, as I've had many other projects that needed to be attended too, but I wanted to get back to you on this question about big government. I also want to recommend a book I'm currently reading and reviewing for the publisher called Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets. Highly readable and enjoyable for anybody who enjoys learning about history and current events in a comedic fashion. It does an amazing job of education the reader on topics that the media government makes out to be very confusing. Here is an excerpt from this book that was written 2 years ago, and I can only imagine what the sequel to this book (if there even is one) is going to say about what is going on in government these days. Paul Kennedy writes, It is simply staggering to learn that this single country -- a democratic republic that claims to despise large gov't -- now spends more each year on the military than the next 9 largest national defence budgets combined. I'm absolutely positive that our spending now, after a war with Iraq, Afghanistan, and possible Pakistan or Iran next is probably larger than the next 18 countries. Our country, our republic, our empire is simply out of control and not living in reality with how much money they can devote to expanding the Anglo-Saxon empire that is the United States. Printing more money has been the solution for such a long time and it's simply not the correct one. Our government is too big for it's own good. Obama promised in his campaign speeches that one of the first things he's going to do is bring our troops home. Then he backpedalled once he one and said he'd look at bringing them home in 12 months, then 24 months, and then he doubled the amount of troops in Afghanistan to 30,000. He is doing the exact opposite of what he promised. One other quote from the book I want to close on is the following which details exactly what must occur to bring an empire to it's knees. encouraging higher levels of consumption, higher spending for government, more regulation, huge new doses of debt, nationalism, price controls, inflation, and special treatment for favoured industries, particularly defence. Every single one of those are happening right now except price controls, and there is talk among certain circles that this is coming, along with rationing down the road possibly for gas, food, and water when shortages start. Maybe bigger government is needed in 3rd world countries to guide them and jumpstart the development of societies and the economy, but I have to believe it's different for a country like the U.S. which is already developed and doesn't need to be micromanaged at every single level. Government's role should be limited to building infrastructure, social programs, national defence (when we are being attacked) and creating laws/keeping peace. I simply believe that they are too big and have become a burden and a liability of the citizens of this great nation, and if reform doesn't start soon, I fear this age in history is not going to be well remembered in the coming decades. Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:20:21 -0400 From: davinheck...@gmail.com To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed Jeff, I am interested in keeping these conversations going, as conversations, as my concerns are purely intellectual here. I make no secret of my disenchantment with capitalism, but I don't know that I have a particular answer that I could realistically offer in its place. While I definitely see the appeal of various socialist theories, I have also spent a fair amount of time reading about libertarian and capitalist ideas... and I don't know that I could ever say they are absolutely wrong anymore than I can say that a hammer or a screwdriver is wrong. I
Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed
...it does seem, lately, that every time the market takes a dive, the media then announces a surprise speech of no consequence by a government official...in some attempt to prop it up, no? NRIII Nicholas Ruiz III, Ph.D Editor, Kritikos http://intertheory.org From: jeff pierce zentra...@live.ca To: -empyre- empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 10:26:13 PM Subject: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed Davin, My jaw literally dropped when I read your question about what would be wrong with a one world currency. Now let me preface this by saying that I don't have all the answers, but I think based on some of the events that have transpired over the last 6 months we can come to a few conclusions and go from there. 1. Government policies created this problem through easy credit, poor legislature, and low interest rates. If you let people borrow money at an historically cheap rate for an extended length of time, bad things will happen. I'm sure Greenspan was telling himself that this time it's different and we can leave interest rates low, but believe me it's never different. Every time a trader tells himself those 4 words they're setting themselves up for a fall. Greenspan took the interest rate down from 6% to 1% and kept it there far too long. Easy credit encourages leveraged speculation. This fuelled the housing bubble as everybody thought their house would appreciate at 10%/year, every year. And all of this led to the ensuing subprime debacle and credit crises. 2. The SEC failed to do it's job allowing major corruption with the financial system like Madoff. 3. The Government's reaction to all of this proves time and time again that they have no real idea on how to handle this. They are throwing everything at this hoping something will stick, literally gambling the future of American on a hunch that massive money printing and quantitative easing will solve everything. Why can't they realise that you can't solve a problem with the very same cause of the problem in the first place. So why is a one world currency bad? In theory it's not, but in the practical application and the greed that lives within the financial industry would ruin it. It's puts to much power in the hands of too few. I'm so tired of hearing about centralized this and globalization that as every time I hear it in the media I get the feeling that they're just warming us up to what will eventually be. Governments are too big to begin with, as they are a big part of this problem. They can't handle their affairs on a national level, what makes anybody think they can handle the affairs at a world level. The thought alone makes me shiver. Where would you hide if you didn't like the system that is in place? At least now if you don't like the the United States, you can move (like me--to Canada). The world needs diversity as much in the cultural sense as in the financial sense. Checks and balances if you will. The currency should be the health barometer of a country. I can't even fathom how a one would currency would effect the business cycles between countries with different types of governments. I feel that people throw around the term capitalism too much. The United States does not operate under a capitalistic state at this point in time. It's some hybrid cross of socialism, capitalism, and possibly totalitarianism. At one point between October-December it was so hard to trade and carry any positions over the weekend because we (traders) feared some type of government intervention over the weekend which would cause the markets to move in totally random ways. This is still very much a concern, but it hasn't been as bad as of late. This is not a free market system. Who are the government to decide which companies are bailed out and which ones aren't. Last time I checked the survival of the fittest in the business world was the model of choice. If a company wasn't profitable, then they should fail. End of discussion. Don't use taxpayers money, print unlawful amounts of money, and destroy the currency in the process. The final piece of the problem is the Fed. It doesn't even make sense to me for the government to borrow money from a private institution to conduct business. Our federal taxes go to pay the interest only on the debt to the Fed, making those bankers filthy rich. This house of cards will collapse sooner rather than later as the money printing goes to exponential heights. It's so bad now that the Fed doesn't even report it's money growth anymore. No fiat currency lasts and this one will be no different. But instituting a one world currency will result in more of our privacies being taken away, more surveillance, and more control. It makes more sense for the government to print it's own money, thus relieving itself from hefty interest repayment. My solution is dissolve the Fed, cut
Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed
B, The only thing that is clear is that you enjoy very much expressing your opinions and judging others. If it helps you sleep at night to classify and put people into tiny pegs so you can formulate the many reasons why you dislike them, then that is your right to do. Far be it from me to tell you the best way for you to get through your day. I just think it's sad. I've never labled my political views (luckily I have you to do that for me) as I've never had much interest in politics to begin with, and truth be known I still don't. I never once stated that I wanted to get rid of big gov't, but rather I feel that government should be getting smaller. The bigger it is, the more it costs to run it's day to day operations, salaries, especially when you look at the military budget. And where do you think they get that money? If you don't believe that taxes are going to rise considerably from today's levels you are delusional. Is that what you want? Does it make you feel patriot to pay taxes that go to cover the interest alone on the debt the government owes to the Federal Reserve? At some point this ponzi scheme is going to break, and I think we're beginning to see the stress cracks in the dam now. Tell me Brian, do you support this war on terror? Do you feel safer now that Homeland Security is on the case, protecting us from an invisible enemy, listening to our phone calls, probably reading our emails as well. I know I sure don't as I think it's a waste of money trying to fight an enemy that doesn't even exist. Maybe if we stopped policing the world and started worrying about our people others would leave us alone. You don't win a war with more violence, everybody looses. Just like you don't end a recession with excessive money printing. Again, everybody looses. The government says that they need to recapitalize the banks so they can start loaning again. Do you see anybody lining up to borrow money? I sure don't and I have some decent connections that are confirming this information. Another reason why I don't affiliate myself with any one particular political view is by accepting those beliefs you limit your own ability to see the good or bad in all parties. I see absolutely no difference between Republicans or Democrats, as far as I'm concerned they both are inept. I think it's high time we have more than 2 political parties to choose from. If Obama is a one term president, and Hilary Clinton wins, we'll have had 2 families controlling the last two decades at the White House. In what reality do we live in that this even makes sense? Out of 300+ million people these are the best we can come up with? Wake up and see that our leaders aren't elected, they're selected. Again, you felt the need to label me a social darwinist. If you wouldn't have let your anger get in the way you would have seen that my view is that the government has no right to pick and chose which companies it saves, (Citigroup vs. Lehman), bailout the industries that are directly responsible for millions of dollars in campaign money, and reward corrupt behavior at the expense of the taxpayers. Companies fail all the time, and at some point Citigroup would have been bought when perceived value was seen in the company at no cost to the government or the taxpayers. That's how free markets work. The government has no right to spend money which it doesn't have. It's this kind of mentality that has gotten us where we are today. The gotta have it now syndrome. If the state of the US deficit was in better shape, then we may have a different argument on our hands, but as it stands now we are drowning in debt (public and private) I really see no way out of this situation we find ourselves in. The only reason I can figure your so angry is that you must have lost a lot of money in your retirement account and you're looking for somebody to blame it on. Well, don't blame me, because if you would have been reading my blog, you would have been in cash last August and sat out the entire crisses stress free. Who knows, you may have become one of those evil short sellers that the government is out to get because everybody knows this entire crises is their fault., peace, j Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:47:43 -0500 From: brian.hol...@wanadoo.fr To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au; davinheck...@gmail.com; zentra...@live.ca; jta...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [-empyre-] On Currencies, Capitalism, and the Fed [third try posting this - in other words, unwanted message/filtered list?] joseph tabbi wrote: Re. 'neo-liberal bullshit.' Nothing in the posts by Jeff Pierce supported a neo-liberal stance, that I could see. But clearly you haven't looked, either into the post itself or into the history and definitions of neoliberalism. The first and most obvious thing is that Jeff Pierce wants to get rid of Big Government. This was the rallying cry of the two politicians who
