monitoring the abyss

Human beings have a somewhat astonishing capacity for long term self-delusion.

Most of "law" is devoted to determining who "legally" controls which assets. Most of the system is, of course, entirely absurd and designed to serve specific, rather greedy, interests. These "legal principles" are extrapolated from essentials we all mostly agree on -- it's wrong (and quite inconvenient) for others to take our personal possessions. But, the extrapolation turns the concept on its head and we end up not even owning our personal possessions because someone richer than us has a lien on them or some other claim of right to them.

...

Now, when we study "history," we -- most of us, anyway -- can acknowledge the immorality of systems such as feudalism and monarchy. Though it's fair to say a significant number of people still exist who would be happy to utter absurdities such as, "I will give my life for my king!" And it's worth noting that children are fed vast quantities of fairy tales that glorify monarchy -- kings, queens, dukes, duchesses and especially princes and princesses.

Feudalism is nothing other than slavery of the majority of humanity, designed to support a small minority in great luxury. But, it's also fair to say that for the most part, those born to the "aristocracy" of feudalism did not ruthlessly and knowingly determine to be part of an evil, oppressive system. They simply were born into a system that both master and servant "accepted" as the valid and "legal" way of property (and person) ownership.

Feudalism is a wealth (or resource) allocation system.

So is banking. And, most bankers did not knowingly and ruthlessly determine to be part of an evil, oppressive system. But, banking is a wealth (and resource) allocation system. Moreover, it is one that involves a failure of imagination.

Why? Throughout history there have been attempts to make banking (or rather, lending at interest) illegal. To acknowledge it as immoral. Early Christianity outlawed it; historical Israel had the "year of the jubilee" which forgave outstanding loans.

On the other hand, the monetary system is a self-evolved defective system that increases human productivity -- from which we all (at least nominally) benefit. Of course, you can argue whether facilitating the birth of 1 billion or more starving, suffering human beings is a "benefit."

But let's move on. Once a monetary system develops, then it becomes obvious that accumulated capital strangles the system. It's necessary to keep the currency circulating. Option one is to manage the money supply -- silently adding more currency to make up for the currency that has parked somewhere.

Another option is to get those who have accumulated currency to share it. That would be to "lend" it. But, how to encourage them to do so? How to make sure that once "lent' it comes back? All of this simply highlights the defective nature of using a currency system to motivate human beings to work together. But, in any event, the natural iteration is to have the borrower "pay" to use the money

And, unfortunately, absent well thought out monetary policy and lending controls, the lending-at-interest formula inevitably leads to unhealthy imbalances. At the same, time, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that "well thought out monetary policy and lending controls" can work over the long term. Equally as inevitably, the policy and controls will be eroded.

Ultimately, the lending system makes slaves of all those without access to power and wealth, in order to support a small minority in great luxury. It is a system we were all born into that both master and servant accept as the valid and "legal" way of property (and person) ownership.

Naturally, there are lots of platitudes (or let's say, "fairy tales") about "capitalism" and "free enterprise" to make this system seem "just" and "proper" -- in contrast to, say, monarchy and feudalism. While "capitalism" and "free enterprise" do exist in the marketplace in small scale for lots of the struggling majority, these concepts have nothing to do with the policies that maintain the wealth and power of the small minority supported by the system. The system that maintains the wealth and power of the captains of corporate feudalism is entirely a creature of our government(s).

While generally this reality tends to be comfortingly hidden from view, with the financial meltdown it has become plain and obvious to anyone who wishes to view politics with any sense of objectivity whatsoever. Literally TRILLIONS of capital have been moved from the paying public to the otherwise no longer wealthy minority. Their entire system, after all, completely melted down.

The pretense is that these entities are "too huge to fail." Which is the same as saying the public should have saved the Czarist feudal regime or that it should have bailed out the French monarchy when it overextended itself in the late 18th century because these entities were somehow "necessary" to the public's well being.

Quite the opposite was true -- as is the case today. The short term patch up of Wall Street is antagonistic to the well-being of the public and decidedly not in its "best interests". Long term, neither is it in the best interests of the titans of Wall Street, as the world governments have only created a gi-normous "bailout bubble," the implosion of which may only be remediable by use of force.

It's also important to observe that maintaining corporate feudalism as a power system is not "non-violent." No country in all of history has expended as much money and resources on global wars or killed as many people as Wall Street's USA. Of course, as I started out saying, human beings have a vast capacity for long term self-delusion. The vast, vast majority of the public is incapable of thinking about (much less understanding) these issues.

So, you won't be reading any of this to your kids from fairy-tale books real soon...