Updates from January, 2016 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • rogerglewis 9:06 am on January 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    The irony of reading Plutarch 

    Source: The irony of reading Plutarch

    Advertisements
     
  • rogerglewis 9:02 am on January 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    The irony of reading Plutarch 

    The domain for this great site covering the greek crisis and more has expired I am re blogging so that it remains searchable and readable.

    When the Crisis hit the Fan

    I read a short essay by Plutarch yesterday. It’s 2.000-year-old text against the notion of borrowing. “Against borrowing money” is the essay’s title and it’s part of his book on Morals.

    Of course he wasn’t an economist so you won’t find financial doctrines in it. But the simple fact of reading a Greek ancestor who has written simple ideas on the notion of borrowing/lending makes it, well, ironic if not tragic.

    And then we go back to our news channels and our dear government and we listen things like “we didn’t know” or “there was no alternative”.

    Go on, give it a try, it’s long but not too much.

    Sec. I. Plato in his Laws [881] does not permit neighbours to use one another’s water, unless they have first dug for themselves as far as the clay, and reached ground that is unsuitable for a well. For clay…

    View original post 3,041 more words

     
  • rogerglewis 7:03 am on January 14, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Tragedy and Hope, From whence we came! 

    Tragedy and Hope, From whence we came!

    I am currently reading Tragedy and Hope Carroll Quigleys Opus on Political Economic History since for ever. Its an exhilarating read but very war and peace it took him 25 years to write and it was published in 1966. Basically the stuff that has shaped my own life time as I was born in 1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_and_Hope

    Is it true that rich people can borrow money at very low rates of interest, nearly free? Regular savers must borrow at much higher rates of interest?

    In the simplest of terms this is absolutely true a lower credit risk would have the price of risk ( interest) adjusted lower-

    If one widens out the question one finds at its broader level the very top of the wealth Scale are net receivers of Interest and the bulk of the Population pretty much anywhere you look are net payers of interest.
    A striking thing about accumulation of wealth is the use of Gearing ( debt borrowed against Equity) The question of gearing applies to the amount of skin in the game the borrower has to commit to the lending institution, hardly anyone ever asks how much skin in the game the Lending institution actually has.
    Regular purchasers of debt ( borrowers) traditionally would have both lower gearing and higher Interest rates than their rich counterparts. One way of thinking of it is to say they are further away from the source of the moneys creation this is hugely important in a FIAT money system as the borrowing of money and the terms it is available on is fundamental and a modern form of patronage. ´´Rich People ´´are closer to the source of money creation or it is usually put, people ‘with first use of FIAT money have a first movers advantage´´. It is a fairly accurate truism that all money is debt, broadly 97% of money is created by banks out of thin air , put that into google and you will soon find out it is both true and provokes varying degrees of anger from mild to apoplectic.
    The question as it relates to ´´Rich people ´´is helpfully viewed with Rich people as a grouping or class operating through institutions (including Banks) Money is a package of social relations which are administered through Law, Government, local custom and International relations. The very Rich with access to International Markets submit to the rules and opportunities presented by the full package of monetary opportunities poorer borrowers are much more limited and in a sense their capture in a smaller market sees them paying higher prices if you view it solely in Market terms.
    Poor people and rich people borrow money for different things the cut off point between Rich and Poor is really whether you are a net receiver of Interest or a net payer very crudely if you are not in the 1% you are Poor and getting poorer and the money system by a design (fault)? sure to compound this bias in favour of the rich/very Rich
    Why Is Debt The Source Of Income Inequality And Serfdom? It’s The Interest, Baby  This link is as good a place as any to start your search as to why the answer to your question is yes and why that is so.

     
  • rogerglewis 9:43 am on January 6, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    The Iron Law of Oligarchy. 

    I posted a comment at Truth Dig which I decided to write as a Blog post as well just to bring together some of my Reading on Elites and Oligarchy. Chris Hedges article is here.

     http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/the_illusion_of_freedom_20151227

    ”We must seize this splendid opportunity to get to meet with them, talk with them, win their trust, hopefully win them over.” Hi (Soicilaistworld), Who are they? perhaps a little Friere might help.
    “[T]he more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into
    reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This
    individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world
    unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a
    dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself
    the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the
    oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history,
    to fight at their side.”

    ―Paulo Freire,
    Pedagogy of the Oppressed

    Chris Hedges is usually very good at describing the Class War who are the classes at war is the question. It always has been the Ruling Class against the rest of us and US, We are divided and fight against ourselves. The Ruling Class consolidate their power and control through the Iron Law of Oligarchy. ´´first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an “iron law” within any democratic organization as part of the “tactical and technical necessities” of organization´from Wikipedia. The Oligarchy is the commissariat of the ruling class, the rash of Billionaires in the past 20 years has been the blossoming of the new face of our political reality as the rest of us or the 99%. The functionaries populate the Organs of the power Elite aptly described by C Wright Mills in the Power Elite also from Wikipedia

    The resulting elites, who control the three dominant institutions
    (military, economic and political) can be generally grouped into one of
    six types, according to Mills:

    the “Metropolitan 400” – members of historically notable local
    families in the principal American cities, generally represented on the Social Register

    “Celebrities” – prominent entertainers and media personalities

    the “Chief Executives” – presidents and CEO’s of the most important companies within each industrial sector

    the “Corporate Rich” – major landowners and corporate shareholders

    the “Warlords” – senior military officers, most importantly the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    the “Political Directorate” – “fifty-odd men of the executive
    branch” of the U.S. federal government, including the senior leadership
    in the Executive Office of the President, sometimes variously drawn from elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties but usually professional government bureaucrats”

    The Analysis from the early 20th Century to the early 21st Century changes in Global Scope and also the America Exceptional slant now reflecting US uni polar phenomenon since the early 1990´s and the collapse of the Soviet Union. One can think in terms of a democracy among the International Elite based upon National Franchises. Schumpeter’s competing elites model of democracy serves double duty in demonstrating both the Political Theater of FAUX electoral political democracy and also in the behind closed doors machinations of the powerful list found in magazines like Forbes. ´´( quotes from Roy Madron​, Super Competent Democracies).

    ‘Democracy is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political
    decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a
    competitive struggle for the people’s vote’.” Joseph Schumpeter, Quoted
    from Roy Madron , Super Competent Democracies who in turn Cites.
    “Participation, and Democratic Theory” by Carole Pateman. Dr. Pateman
    says that, Schumpeter and his followers: … set the current
    Anglo-American political system as our democratic ideal (with) a
    ‘democratic theory’ that in many respects bears a strange resemblance to
    the anti-democratic arguments of the last (i.e. 19th) century. No
    longer is democratic theory centered on the participation of ‘the
    people’; in the contemporary theory of democracy it is the participation
    of the minority elite that is crucial and the non-participation of the
    apathetic, ordinary man lacking in the feelings of political efficacy,
    that is regarded as the main bulwark against
    instability.

    ´´ http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2015/03/on-may-2015-re-election.

    Heres the Forbes List of the most powerful people in the world 2009 edition http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/worlds-most-powerful-leadership-power-09-people_land.html.

    Where is the throne of ELITE POWER? I would argue it is where it has always been in the Counting houses, in the Banks and exchequers. Some study of Steve Keens work on advanced financialised Capitalism bears close examination and his work on endogenous money creation, David Graebers Debt the first 5000 years serves as a useful historical context against which Keens work can be considered, search Marx´s roaming cavaliers of Capital to get some of Keens cutting analysis of Financialised Capitalism and its cannibalistic nature described by Marx so aptly. http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

    Talk about cen­tral­i­sa­tion! The credit sys­tem, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers sur­round­ing them, con­sti­tutes enor­mous cen­tral­i­sa­tion, and gives this class of par­a­sites the fab­u­lous power, not only to peri­od­i­cally despoil indus­trial cap­i­tal­ists, but also to inter­fere in actual pro­duc­tion in a most dan­ger­ous man­ner— and this gang knows noth­ing about pro­duc­tion and has noth­ing to do with it.” –
    See more at: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/#sthash.d4gs1dAX.dpuf
    Marx, Cap­i­tal Vol­ume III, Chap­ter 33, The medium of cir­cu­la­tion in the credit sys­tem, pp. 544–45 [Progress Press] – See more at:

    I have been working for the past month exclusively on Oligarchy and this talk by Webster Tarpley has a very good analysis of where we have come from and where things seem to be headed.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKLVFV8sGSs,

    Tarpley has a lot of good things to say one has to get past the inevitable point at which he will challenge and dismiss something one holds very dear, he upsets everyone I think but his analysis is always an interesting starting point. Of all my own enquiries recently the most revelatory insight I stumbled across was the concept of Hybridity introduced in this paper on the nature of Islamaphobia in Sweden. http://inhouse.lau.edu.lb/bima/papers/Jonas_Otterbeck.pdf
    ´´ According to the historian Åsa Karlsson, who cites among others Peter Burke, the upper classes of an emerging (Western) Europe came to distance themselves more and more from both the other classes of their own societies and from other cultures. At the same time there was an urge for knowledge about the others that they had distanced themselves from.(16) This change of attitude towards other ethnic groups, classes, and religions has also been discussed by other Swedish scholars.(17)
    16. Å. Karlsson 1998:84ff.
    17.Larsson cited in Å Karlsson 1998:84; Ambjörnsson 1994:33ff.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybridity
     

    In Many ways Chris Hedges frustration and pessimism set out in thius article asks a question of which path leads to liberation? This Blog by Toby Russel posits the ruling Elite, Hybridised Oligarchy call it what you will as a Danistocracy borrowed from Popp and Albrecht, http://thdrussell.blogspot.se/2011/12/from-here-to-there.html The medias role as the fourth Estate is brought center stage in this analysis with the Political Theater relegated to a role subservient to or co-mingled with the Main Stream media. This Speech , a rare one from Popp sets out much of what we need to do which could be summed up as Ignore the Bastards and do what you know will do some good. Do not pay attention to the Narcissists it only encourages them.
    The speech of Andreas Popp from Wissensmanufaktur/ Plan B on Easter Monday Demonstration 2014 in Berlin with about 6.000 demonstrators is now available in English.

    Businessman and author Andreas Popp, together with his friends at Wissensmanufaktur Institute, has developed an alternative “Plan B” for our western economy and society since they realized that the current system does not serve the people, but cannot be “healed” from within.

    As of april 2014, German mainstream media continue to ignore the peaceful weekly monday demonstrations in now over 34 German cities – defaming them ludicrously as “new right-wing movement”, whatever this should mean – as well as the efforts and offerings of Wissensmanufaktur and many other activists.
    For more ideas on career suicide notes please see my Blog. http://letthemconfectsweeterlies/.blogspot.se

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel