sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Tuesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint: Occupy Wall St's Debt Resistors' Operations Manual; 'You are not a loan'; Too ashamed to revolt?; 'The hapless David Shearer'; Ghost steel warehouses; Dilbert

Tuesday's Top 10 with NZ Mint: Occupy Wall St's Debt Resistors' Operations Manual; 'You are not a loan'; Too ashamed to revolt?; 'The hapless David Shearer'; Ghost steel warehouses; Dilbert

Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 10 am today in association with NZ Mint.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.

See all previous Top 10s here.

My must read is #3 from David Graeber, the author of 5,000 years of Debt, which was referred to in a recent Alan Bollard speech.

1. Debt Resistors' Operations Manual  - Whatever happened to Occupy Wall St?

The momentum seemed to die after the initial protests, but it has been beavering away in certain areas to recapture that surge of interest and support.

Here's a new twist.

The Occupy Wall St movement has issued a 132 Debt Resistors' Operations Manual. Here's the link and I've embedded it down below FYI.

The funniest thing of course is the link is on Scribd, which takes Google Ad Words advertisements. These ads work out the subject matter of what's on the page and put in 'appropriate' ads. In this case the ads are for debt collection services and mortgages.

Here's a sample from the manual:

We gave the banks the power to create money because they promised to use it to help us live healthier and more prosperous lives—not to turn us into frightened peons. They broke that promise. We are under no moral obligation to keep our promises to liars and thieves. In fact, we are morally obligated to find a way to stop this system rather than continuing to perpetuate it.

This collective act of resistance may be the only way of salvaging democracy because the campaign to plunge the world into debt is a calculated attack on the very possibility of democracy. It is an assault on our homes, our families, our communities and on the planet’s fragile ecosystems—all of which are being destroyed by endless production to pay back creditors who have done nothing to earn the wealth they demand we make for them.

To the financial establishment of the world, we have only one thing to say: We owe you nothing. To our friends, our families, our communities, to humanity and to the natural world that makes our lives possible, we owe you everything. Every dollar we take from a fraudulent subprime mortgage speculator, every dollar we withhold from the collection agency is a tiny piece of our own lives and freedom that we can give back to our communities, to those we love and we respect. These are acts of debt resistance, which come in many other forms as well: fighting for free education and healthcare, defending a foreclosed home, demanding higher wages and providing mutual aid.

Occupy Wall Street/Strike Debt: The Debt Resistors' Operations Manual

 

2. Thumbs up - Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism likes it. Here's her review:

This guide is designed not only to give individuals advice for how to be more effective in dealing with lenders but also sets forth some larger-scale ideas. This is a project of a new OWS group, Strike Debt. Fighting for debt renegotiation and restructuring, something that the bank-boosting legacy parties have refused to do, is becoming a new focus for OWS efforts.

Quite a few well qualified people who in Occupy fashion are going unnamed, participated in developing this manual. Having read most of the chapters in full and skimmed the rest, I find that this guide achieves the difficult feat of giving people in various types of debt an overview of their situation, including political issues, and practical suggestions in clear, layperson-friendly language. For instance, the chapter on credit ratings gives step-by-step directions as to how to find and challenge errors in your credit records, and what sort of timetable and process is realistic for getting results. The chapter on dealing with debt collectors is similarly specific and detailed.

3. Can debt spark a revolution - David Graeber, the author of The 5,000 years of Debt book cited by Alan Bollard in a recent speech, wonders in this piece in The Nation if debt can spark a revolution. It's deeply subversive and not a little entertaining.

As a member of the team that came up with the slogan “We Are the 99 Percent,” I can attest that we weren’t thinking of inequality or even simply class but specifically of class power. It’s now clear that the 1 percent are the creditors: those who are able to turn their wealth into political influence and their political influence back into wealth again. The overriding imperative of government policy is to do whatever it takes, using all available tools—fiscal, monetary, political, even military—to keep stock prices from falling. The most powerful empire on earth seems to exist first and foremost to guarantee the stream of wealth flowing into the hands of that tiny proportion of its population who hold financial assets. This allows an ever-increasing amount of wealth to flow back into the system of legalized bribery that American politics has effectively become.

When we were organizing the Wall Street occupation in August of 2011, we really didn’t have any clear idea who, if anyone, would actually show up. But almost immediately we noticed a pattern. The overwhelming majority of Occupiers were, in one way or another, refugees of the American debt system. At first, that meant student debt: the typical complaint was “I worked hard and played by the rules, and now I can’t find a job to pay my student loans—while the financial criminals who trashed the economy got themselves bailed out.”

4. And the chance of a revolt? Here's Graeber again:

Most revolutions, revolts and insurrections in world history have revolved, at least to some degree, around debt, from the uprisings that created the Greek democracies to the American Revolution—or pretty much any other anticolonial revolt. We may be standing on the brink of a similar juncture. Yet history shows it’s notoriously difficult to assemble debtors into a coherent movement; indebtedness is isolating by nature, and the very feelings of anxiety and humiliation it sparks have made it a potent ideological tool. But history also reveals that when such movements do form, the results tend to be explosive.

What are the prospects for Occupy if it evolves into an explicit movement of debt resistance? If that happens, the battle will not be won by proposing policy changes. The power of Occupy was always that of delegitimation: an appeal to the profound feeling, shared by so many Americans, that our political class is so corrupted that it’s no longer capable of addressing the problems faced by ordinary citizens, let alone the world. To create a genuinely democratic system could only mean starting over entirely.

The financial system isn’t really any different. The first step is to state the problem clearly: our current economic arrangements can barely even be called “capitalism,” unless it’s some form of Mafia capitalism based on loan-sharking, extortion and fixed casino games. The second is to hammer home just how much the system’s illegitimacy undermines the moral force that debt still holds over so many Americans, thus fostering a gradual withdrawal of consent from the system. Increasing numbers of us are already doing this by refusing to pay our debts, whether out of necessity or by choice.

5. How American debtors are finding their voice - Here's The Nation again with some reporting on how the Occupy movement is morphing into a movement focused on debt.

What’s surprising, then, is that debt hasn’t been made more of a central issue of Occupy organizing until now. Though the Occupy Student Debt Campaign has done some important work (particularly around what it called 1T Day, when student loan debt hit 
$1 trillion), the issue took center stage only after a series of small Occupy Theory assemblies that were held once a week beginning in May in Washington Square Park, attended by some of the same people who were at the Tompkins Square Park gatherings that planned the initial occupation. A few weeks in, the group found its focus; on June 10, during the inaugural NYC Debtors’ Assembly, there was a palpable spark. People testified through a cardboard “debtors’ mic” for more than two hours, many noting that they had never spoken publicly about their burden before. A deeply personal issue—one that is often a source of private shame—was being politicized before everyone’s eyes. The epiphany that suddenly connects the individual to the collective speaks to one of Strike Debt’s best slogans: “You are not a loan.”

6. Could it actually take off? - Mike 'Rortybomb' Konzcal writes at Next New Deal about whether this Debtors' Resistance Movement could take over where Occupy left off.

He wonders whether Americans' have embedded their sense of personal failure so deep that most are too ashamed to speak up.

Over the summer, Jodi Dean argued that debt would be a difficult connective thread to pull off for a political movement. It's too individualized, too prone to viewing people as failed market agents, too moralized, and it can mimic unhelpful reactionary arguments against the welfare state and the government. I know people involved in organizing homeowners, especially underwater and deliquent homeowners, and I can say that these are all very accurate problems. Beyond that, nobody likes their identity as a struggling debtor. People can take pride in their role as workers, as citizens, and as numerous other things organizers can build on, but debt is a real challenge. The failure part runs deep.

7. 'The hapless David Shearer' - Jane Clifton has written an excellent piece at The Listener about the Asset Sales delay. She nails the problem for David Shearer. Yikes.

Leader David Shearer is growing to deserve the doom-laden epithet: hapless. Trying valiantly to reposition Labour as being pro-work in the context of the welfare entitlement debate, he again muffed his lines, to create a now deathless meme most usefully subtitled Diddler on the Roof. He began a speech describing a sickness beneficiary who, according to his neighbour, was hoofing up and down quite ably fixing his roof. Shearer said, one would have thought quite reasonably, that he, too, opposed people claiming benefits illicitly. From the response of the left Twittering classes, you’d have thought he had advocated the return of the Poor House and work camps. How dare he question the honesty and deservingness of the man on the roof? But that wasn’t the worst of it. A nationwide search seemed to be launched by Shearer’s detractors to find the roofer and give him redress, and Shearer eventually cracked under media interrogation to half-admit – it’s often not clear between the ums and ahs what he is and isn’t trying to say – that the anecdote was at least as allegorical as factual. There may or may not have been an actual roofer, and even if there was, Shearer did not ascertain the particulars of his infirmity. Had he made the point that he deplores benefit cheats for the same reason he deplores corporate tax-dodgers, he might have proofed himself against the blizzard of both right- and left-wing scorn.

One thing’s for sure. If the US State Department had trouble deciphering Key’s slap-happy diction – nearly committing us to all “next conflicts” in arms rather than mere civilian do-gooding co-operation “in that context” – they would have no luck at all transcribing a Shearer blurt. What the orderly American mind would make of: “Yeah, yeah … this guy supposedly – I think he said he had a bad back or something or other and the point was, I mean I wasn’t actually …”

8. The Liquidationists - Paul Krugman has accused Mitt Romney of the sins of the Liquidationists of the 1930s, who argued the economy needed a jolly hard recession to 'clean out' the excesses of the boom.

Mr. Romney’s language echoed that of the “liquidationists” of the 1930s, who argued against doing anything to mitigate the Great Depression. Until recently, the verdict on liquidationism seemed clear: it has been rejected and ridiculed not just by liberals and Keynesians but by conservatives too, including none other than Milton Friedman. “Aggressive monetary policy can reduce the depth of a recession,” declared the George W. Bush administration in its 2004 Economic Report of the President. And the author of that report, Harvard’s N. Gregory Mankiw, has actually advocated a much more aggressive Fed policy than the one announced last week.

Now Mr. Mankiw is allegedly a Romney adviser — but the candidate’s position on economic policy is evidently being dictated by extremists who warn that any effort to fight this slump will turn us into Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe I tell you.

9. Ghost Steel warehouses - Reuters reports Chinese banks are finding there was no steel in the warehouse to back the promise of collateral made by many warehouses and steel factories...

China's demand has faltered with the slowing economy, pushing steel prices to a three-year low and making it tough for mills and traders to keep up with payments on the $400 billion of debt they racked up during years of double-digit growth.

As defaults have risen in the world's largest steel consumer, lenders have found that warehouse receipts for metal pledged as collateral do not always lead them to stacks of stored metal. Chinese authorities are investigating a number of cases in which steel documented in receipts was either not there, belonged to another company or had been pledged as collateral to multiple lenders, industry sources said.

Ghost inventories are exacerbating the wider ailments of the sector in China, which produces around 45 percent of the world's steel and has over 200 million metric tons (220.5 million tons) of excess production capacity. Steel is another drag on a financial system struggling with bad loans from the property sector and local governments.

"What we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg," said a trader from a steel firm in Shanghai who declined to be identified as he was not authorized to speak to the media. "The situation will get worse as poor demand, slumping prices and tight credit from banks create a domino effect on the industry."

10. Totally Stephen Colbert on Scientology.

 

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

41 Comments

Number 1: Interest is a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth from those paying to those receiving. I can demonstrate this mathematically. It does not create wealth and in fact detracts from it. It is people making things that create wealth, but those who take interest take a portion of this wealth created by others but contribute nothing to its creation. Interest is unearned income.

 

Quite a funny article though Bernard, from several angles. Good on you for posting that.

 

PS. I note my adblocking systems work equally well for scribd as they do for interest.co :-P 

Up
0

If I lend money from another person for a reason.  They don't have access to it's usefulness for a while. I do have acess to it's usefulness for a while.

If I pay interest, it's because I value the usefulness.  Would love to get it for free, but that's not not often a happening thing so I pay.  I clearly see the value to me.

So it's an exchange of favours.  I don't see interest as unearned income.

 

 

Up
0

KH - one presumes you mean 'borrow from'.

 

You share that assumption with most folk on the planet - but it always had to fall over at some point.

 

The problem comes when the physical planet can't supply the underwrite. The 'holder' of the 'money' (actually, usually a writer of digital debt) expects to buy flat-screen telly's, Beamers anfd houses with the 'interest', as does the borrower. Neither asked the planet, beforehand.

 

If there isn't the physical underwrite (and I argue that if all expectations to buy (currently held cash, investments and borrowings) were attempted to be cashed in, the supply would be short by several orders of magnitude. That's 'ultimate', not 'supply-time-constrained'.

 

So interest has to go, or borrowers on average must expect to lose by the amount of interest charged.

 

Concurrently compounded by a dwindling supply-side, planetarily-speaking.

Up
0

PDK - so..... are you saying that interest must go and the saver penalised all the way to save the borrower a loss?

 

 

Up
0

That's not how it is - check out http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ they explain well. :-)

Up
0

Onehanger - Are you referring to me or PDK?

Up
0

Sorry it was to you - apologies for the glibness.I was just trying to contribute to the conversation by suggesting the simplicty of I borrow money from you is long long gone and replaced by bank generated debt which helps nobody but the banks. I can go away now if you want. :-)

Up
0

Onehanger - think you got the wrong person, that statement was further up by someone else. Sorry I can't remember who.

Good that your contributing though - the more input the better as far as I'm concerned.

Have a nice day :-)))

 

Up
0

 "I don't see interest as unearned income"

I agree with that, and it works just fine - untill it doesn't.

Trouble is, with a debt based money system that's allowed to expand at a higher rate than actual production (try 2 or 3X) you reach a point where the holders of debt overwelm the prductive sectors ability carry the interest and/or the rent. That's where we are now -easy credit has encouraged costs to rise faster than incomes. A good example is university tuition in the US or Kiwi dairy farms or, dare I say, Auckland house prices. The utility value or productive value of assets have become misaligned with the debt they are carrying.

I think that is the central message that the OWS folk are making - the financial sector parasite has become so large (and powerful) that it is not just a drag on the productve sector and wider economy but is now eating it alive.

Up
0

Interest will always overwhelm production no matter what, that is why in history there have always been resets. Last reset was in 1971, prior to that in the 1930's, the lifecycle is around 40 years and we are past the use by date.

Interest overwhelms simply because it is non productive, and hence unearned.

Up
0

Mist - why is it that some folk (you and Hulme being typical) don't associate 'money' with 'stuff'.

 

The problem with you wanting to 'borrow' 3m:  Either Scarfie had 'saved it up', or it is debt. Both are expectations that the planet will underwrite. Neither are related to the ability of the planet to do so.

 

Refer to my monopoly game, and the bricks.

 

There is no way in the world that you will be paying back a loan in 25 years - that requires the current fiscal relativities/system to be chugging along, and there is zero chance of that. It's crapping out now, and for obvious reasons.

 

"You also realise that on 0% "interest"  I can effectively bid unlimited amounts of purchasing power (ie bubble prices infinitely), as long as I can consolidate the loan with a new lender in future, as the true value of money-as-debt is it's service cost".

 

Nup. The value of money is what it can buy. If you borrow it at 0%, wheelbarrow it down the street and it can buy half of what it did an hour ago (Weimar Germany) then it has halved in value at 0%.

Up
0

Have we reached " Peak Bricks " now , too ?

 

....... better get cracking on the Christchurch re-build before they all run out ......

Up
0

Peak Oil leads to Peak Bricks.

 

Up
0

PDK has also mentioned " Peak Atoms " ....... do atoms peak before or after the bricks & oil do ? .....

 

.... if the Chinese are so darned clever , why can't they just manufacture more atoms for us , to get us past the peak ?

Up
0

You made up peak atoms....

regards

Up
0

...... nope , PDK did ...... at least twice , that I recall .......

regards

Up
0

" Because I understand capital, interest and finance and you do not".

 

You understand monopoly, I study how many bricks you can 'buy' with your monopoly money. It doesn't matter what you do with the monopoly money, the total number of bricks if finite, and the rate-of supply of bricks dwindles towards the end.

 

Sure, inflation plays on the brick-purchasing power over time, but not nearly as fast as scarcity and a bidding-war (watch food the next few months, as a knock-on from US corn). Controlling money supply can't create essential commodities. Possibly it controls who bids highest, though.....

 

But that cuts your argument too - your brick-purchasing power will be so much less also, just like Scarfies. Neither course beats buying bricks flat out at the never-to-be-beaten now price.

 

Of course, if bricks represent the only true wealth (resources, in other words) then I'm not sure if your measure is relevant in the end-game. Ultimate scarcity has to have the same effect as rampant inflation (and QE has to speed that along, numerically - which may satisy the idiot 'I'm a millionaire, oh, a loaf of bread costs a million" brigade). At the point, a litre of fuel or a sack of wheat might trade for trillions. Or a bullet.

Up
0

Scarfie - Interest is the profit component. Price of goods/services plus profit = price paid. Albeit not a good profit margin at the moment.

 

I disagree that interest is a redistrubtion of wealth. The activity that needed the money wouldn't have eventuated if loan funds had been unobtainable in the fist place. Tax is a redistribution of wealth and detracts from creating more real wealth as it not able to be employed in productive enterprise.

Up
0

You are treating money in and of itself, replace it with a commodity in your thinking.

Try running some numbers through (M.V)+i=P.Q and you will see what I mean. It doesn't matter what money theory you suscribe to really, add interest in and see what happens, even the real bills doctrine falls over.

Up
0

Not an E -

 

No.

 

I'm saying that interest - and profit, of course, get your head around that one... - has to go.

 

Firstly, think of the finite planet as a brick wall. Alongside the wall, some folk are playing monopoly. Every time they go past go, they collect 200. Eventually, though, they want to spend their collective 'wealth' on those bricks. You can increase the money in circulation on the board - and in the wee red houses - as much as you like. The number of available bricks does not change.

 

OK. keep that though. Note all the John Key-type traders (more than one here today, I think) expect to buy bricks with their 'winnings'. If they do, it's at the expense of someone who must lose out. That wasn't the case while the number of players small, and the number of bricks removed, small. It is now,

 

Given that the increasing number of players are actually removing bricks from the wall, the wall is getting increasingly smaller. :) Each brick has to become 'worth' increasingly more, on just a scarcity basis, but if all those traders - and monopoly money it is - have upped the numerical expectation doing the bidding.

 

Maybe the collectors of the 200's get to win the bidding, and others lose out, but an increasing number of bricks there are not. The first move is to stop issuing those 200's. It won't change the number of bricks, but it's the first valid move in bringing money into  line with the physical underwrite. Actually, we should be removing 'money' each go-passing, to fit the brick supply. Negative interest rates, in other words.

 

Nothing to do with penalising savers (but they may well be disappointed in their apparently reduced purchasing power). On average, borrowers must lose from here on - due to the dwindling pile of bricks.

Up
0

OMG , we have reached " Peak Bricks " .......... shag !

 

...... it says so here , too ........ shit-a-brick , mate .

Up
0

Have you run the numbers through my equation yet? Probably not or you wouldn't be continuing to argue with maths using magical imputs. The compounding effect you talk about is upon the destruction of purchasing power, the loss accumulated by those charging the interest. Just like I said at the outset, a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth. 

 

Just a hint on working your theories, try making them work in a closed environment first. If you get them working under that scenario then you can expand it to include further inputs. Just remember that the evil of interest has been known since the start of civilisation, that is why some have forbidden it.

Up
0

Sorry incorrect. Interest doesn't add to velocity.

Up
0

Nope, I only read the start to see that it is you that doesn't get it.

 

If you borrow $100 from me at 10% interest annually, the interest isn't due until the end of the year. You can't spend $110 because you don't have it, it doesn't add to the velocity. 

 

The equation is correct, interest doesn't(can't) add to velocity.

Up
0

There you go again, changing the terms of the scenario to make it fit your theories.

 

It doesn't work, because what ever period you use to calculate the interest payments is the term for the equation. The interest isn't due, and is thus not introduced into circulation, until the end of whatever period you choose. Simple. In the normal course of business interest is calculated on an annual basis, so the simplest method is to make the payment annual as in my example above. The equation can be make more complex in all sorts of way, but the beauty of it is the simplicity. Compare to the work I have linked to you before by Lowell Manning at Sustento, much more complex but the same outcome in the end.

 

The value of the equation is not so much in proving economics works, I agree it doesn't. The value is the ability you then have to make predictions bases on the math. For instance interest rates MUST trend down as the interest payments take a larger percentage of M. And coming back to the original theme, the transfer of wealth caused by interest.

 

 

Up
0

Don't you mean the payment is calculated daily? The interest is expressed as per annum in the first instance. I think you are confusing yourself here with talk of contracts, I talk about when the newly created money is brought into circulation, which is no until the interest is payable. There is no need for it before that.

 

You are fixated with money, take it away and make the loan and interest in grain. I loan you 100 bushels this year on terms of 10% interest. You are going to pay me from next years crop, you can't pay before then and the grain doesn't exist.

Up
0

My turn to go dude seriously. Lol. 

You say this in relation to interest: "Without added value in the transaction, there is no reason to trade, without trade/transaction then that isn't a step in the Velocity of Money."

This is the source of your belief in all this, and the obstacle in this discussion. If I grow apples and you grow wheat, then if we trade a portion so we both have apples and wheat then we have conducted a trade that is valuable to us both, all without interest. We now have a more balanced diet going foward and will be healther for it. A mutually beneficial trade does not require interest. (Interesting thing that just occured to me here, in a direct trade like this is the velocity 1 or 2? Not really relevant to discussion though). 

 

I notice you slide an extra input in again: "I could just borrow the 10% grain". Someone at some point has the grow that grain and that happens in the next growing season.

 

Up
0

You just haven't worked it out yet. I know you are a smart guy, but I have had other smart people review my work and they worked it out. You are getting closer now though.

Up
0

I think you give those running us into the GFC more credit than is due. I think psychology is more the explanation there :-) Some of those I refer to are on these forums btw, others not. One includes a mechanical engineer, so I would assume his maths ability is sound. I prefer engineers to economists :-P Understanding the time factor is the key, which is why you are zeroing in to the business end.

Up
0

"When I purchase, the suppliers (primary producer, manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer) all have investments, which is either paid for by debt, or by storing their own equity (loaned to themselves, at opportunity cost of interest)."

 

I concluded that independantly when contemplating an argument made by Gunnar Tommason, who claimed that the current crises happened due to a fundamental flaw in how the monetary system works. He argues that periodic financial crisises occur, because there is inadequate spending power available in the economy due to the fact that once a firm borrows a sum to pay for the costs of production, there isn't sufficient money created to pay back the production cost, plus interest and profit.

 

I concluded that its a flawed argument, because it simplifies the production-consumption a bilateral relationship between the producer and consumer rather than a complex, dynamic relationship which includes the entire supply chain. At every stage a node in the supply chain borrows enough capital to pay for the profit and interest component of the loan which eventually feeds into aggregate spending power.

 

Laying the blame for all our social ills at the feet at the monetary system is not a new phenomon. In fact, arguments in that frame, have a long lineage.  

 

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/fmoseley/conference/nelson1.pdf

 

Though I have many objections to the core of Marx's epistemeology, I share his suspicion at veiled attempts aimed at exonerating the very social/power relations that are at the very heart of the problems that beset the Capitalist economic system. Problems that are only partially mitigated by efforts by reformist Social Democrats. 

"An employer breaks even if the cost of his production inputs is 100 krónur and he sells his output to those who sold him inputs for 100 krónur. Sales proceeds in excess of the production cost must be financed with money creation, new money must be created in the economy. Interest paid by the production sector does not reward any contribution of money to wealth creation. It must derive from money newly created in the banking system, which means that it must be loan-financed. Someone must become indebted to the banking system for it to be possible to sell for 110 krónur goods whose production cost only 100 krónur."

 

http://mises.org/daily/3391

 

Interest payments do have some value in the economy, because it provides some reward for deffering present consumption in favour of someone who wishes to invest to produce goods now or for those who wish to consume now by drawing down a lien on future consumption.

 

For simplicity's sake an time preference  is ostensibly accounted for within the discount function, which is used to calculate interest rates. Its an elegant and simple formula, but fails to account for many influential factors, which unfortunately can't be quantified. Power relations, which determine shares of the economic product, which dictates a person's time preference. Someone who is wealthy will have a longer time preference than someone who is poor and needs to spend the majority of their income now. Age, which determines incomes and level of financial assets. Social position access to and terms of credit etc. These are factors which ensure Interest redistributes income from the poor to the wealthy and are the cause of the problems that assail economies, not interest itself. Money is just a reflection of underlying social realities, rather than a fundamental structural fault or flaw.

 

I think the conceptualization of debt as a lien on future income, which must be paid back with interest, validates Charles Bosanquet's argument in the Bullion debates that bank debt doesn't cause inflation, because it must be paid back. 

 

Bosanquet countered that the Bank of England issued paper money only on loan, and that since loans must ultimately be repaid, the newly-issued paper money would not cause inflation. Newly-mined gold, in contrast, did not have to be repaid, and therefore would cause inflation. On these grounds Bosanquet denied the analogy between gold and paper money. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bosanquet

 

 

Up
0

mist42nz

 

I think your flawed notion of a bilateral trade, is the core element in your argument, responsible for the inability of you and Scarfie to agree. Debt and credit isn't a bilateral trade or agreement, because the vast majority of people use banks and other financial institutions as intermediaries. This process by its nature pools Capital and it become a social activity and is therby shaped by extrinsic forces.

 

I actually concur with Henry Dunning McCleods conceptualization of Capital as almost wholly emphemeral and his assertion of the error of classical economics which conflates money with commodities. 

 

 

"Macleod (1855: liv) insisted that money was ‘the symbolical store of unexpended labor’ in contrast to commodities, ‘the produce of expended labor’. He (1856: xliv) was adamant that buying to consume depended on ‘past skill, judgement, and industry’ whereas buying to sell or to invest implied credit or ‘future skill, judgement, and industry’. Macleod (1856: lii) accused Ricardo of mistaking credit for capital and capital for commodities: ‘so long as a man believes that Capital or money represents commodities, he can have no true idea of monetary science’."     https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/fmoseley/conference/nelson1.pdf

Believing that one cannot seperate money from commodities is tantamount to earlier theological arguments over transubstantiation, the belief that during Eurachrist, the body of Christ literally transforms into bread and wine, though its material appearance doesn't change. 

 

Arguments on that line reached an apex, with those of the American father of Neoclassical economics, John Bates Clarke. 

 

Clark's theory is that land and capital are the same, because "pure capital" is abstract value, and value moves from capital to capital, and also from capital to land, by "transmigration" and "transmutation." When capital "transmigrates" to land it "vests itself" in land, which is a "receptacle for value." Thus land "is made to contain" the capital of those who buy it (Clark, 1890). 

 

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/coe/cofe02.htm

 

 

Up
0

Ooops

Up
0

14 September 2012

Twitter hands over messages at heart of Occupy case

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19597437

Legal pressure has forced Twitter to hand over messages sent by an Occupy Wall Street protester.

17 September 2012

Occupy Wall Street anniversary: More than 100 arrested

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19630700

A protest beginning on 17 September 2011 sparked a wave of demonstrations against money's influence in politics across the US
 

Up
0

Fortescue Minerals ( ASX : FMG ) has been granted $US 4.5 billion in loans from Credit Swish & JP Moregain , 5 years funding .....

 

....whew ! .... that was a close run thing .......

 

41 million shares have changed hands this morning , and the stock is up 51 cents to $A 3.50 today .......

Up
0

More grist for the Occupy movement mill. Poor old Mitt Romney putting his foot in it again.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10834849

And for those who believe in a meritocracy, US Speaker of the House John Boehner. Hillarious. Our politicians stil have a way to go before reaching these depths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYmnD3fhfk&feature=player_embedded

This is how Matt Taibbi described Boehner:

" the quintessential example of the kind of glad-handing, double-talking, K Street toady who has dominated the politics of both parties for decades. In sports, we talk about athletes who are the “total package,” and that term comes close to describing Boehner’s talent for perpetuating our corrupt and debt-addled status quo: He’s a five-tool insider who can lie, cheat, steal, play golf, change his mind on command and do anything else his lobbyist buddies and campaign contributors require of him to get the job done.”

Ouch!

 

 

 

Up
0

David Graeber using the word revolution had better prepare himself for a visit from the FBI or Homeland Security. With the crack down on dissent in the US at the moment, mentioning the R word would be equated to subversion and terrorism

Up
0

Re #9, clearly we'll have to revisit the Oracle of Omaha's quip about 'when the tide goes out..

 

- your bank finds you're Not wearing those steel speedos you pledged as collateral...

- PDK finds out how much Energium was saved by not wearing those steel overcoats and buys another pelton wheel to keep the World in Balance

- Carlos 'The Horse' Dellalio finds out that steel overshoes made with Chinese energium and Oz coal plus iron ore, don't work nearly as well as concrete ones - in fact, they appear to be empty...

 

This could be worth extending, folks.

Up
0

Very much so - the real problem with the shadow banking system and the need for BoE and Fed largesse. Read an expanded view at zerohedge - re: rehypothecation.

Up
0

Did anyone notice the Kiwi$ go over 80cents to the Aus$ on the bank purchaase charts this afternoon?

Up
0

I thought last nights Top ten was boring, but today's version is worse. Get some variety in there again.

Up
0

Yup , pictures of Royals with their nips out , or cartoons slagging the Prophet Mohammed should get the joint rocking .....

 

 

....... jazz it up a little , Bernie !

Up
0