The Euro is a 24k Cross of Neoliberalism.
Like all neoliberalism, it enables financial kleptocracy, and ultimately the end of democracy.
It should all be abolished, and we should return immediately to Social Democracy.
Sadly, neoliberalism will not be easy to dislodge.
It pays just the right people, like Presidents who can retire and make gazillions from their connections.
And more generally, moneys own the press, the airwaves, ultimately the outcome, which is uses to make still more money.
Cashing out should be expensive, and income more than 10 times the median and wealth accumulated from it should be taxed away, not built into a permanent enslaver of everyone else through endless means.
For every irresponsible--or just unlucky--borrower, there is an irresponsible lender, and we should hold the latter more responsible. Default early and often is what rich people do, though they have better ways of doing that through negative externalities (aka cost shifting), limited liability and other means. So I suggest default early and often to poor creditors too…Chapter 7 Bankruptcy if possible…there is no loss in moral virtue for a creditor unable to pay* in my view--that possibility was the Banker's responsibility. Only consider the benefit of continuing credit, something I think is good and fine and best maintained if possible in societies that have it. The greatest virtue is in having no claims to anything whatever. Perhaps balancing debts with assets is one way to achieve that. I'm glad to own a home outright, it fits my lifestyle, but I see no more virtue either in doing so or having done so. I have some revolving credit card debt, now mostly at zero interest until next year. I wonder if it wouldn't be more moral to have what bankers even seem to want…more long term financing. I wonder if there wouldn't be greater virtue in being more extended and having paid for the work of others in developing my future establishment even more, and die with liabilities equalling assets.
Anyway I had some luck, after all, and worked many years. But my only virtue from owning a home may be found in how I maintain or develop it and to what ends I use it. Not the mere fact of ownership.
(*I would take their word for it…I don't think people should suffer much beyond the expectations at the time of taking the loan. The lender is responsible for making sure the loan contributors to the borrowers life in such a way that enables them to pay back and still be able to benefit. Being a gatekeeper for society, a lender takes on these responsibilities. To do otherwise is to be a predatory lender, intending to profit from the misfortune of others. Much of this is already in many laws which tended to be overlooked leading to the collapse of 2008.)
All are entitled to healthcare and higher education, regardless of ability to pay. No overall benefit to society accrues from making people pay for those things…so they shouldn't!
When a need is not being met by private industry, or cannot be well met, it should be met by The People, just as Lincoln said.
Every financial asset is a claim on the future labor of others…that is what it actually represents. Therefore there is no benefit to society from having "rich" people who have accumulated many of such claims. The same real wealth in the physical world exists independent of any claims on it. The only benefit from capital accrues from organization, organization which would be better achieved through democratic means.
Like all neoliberalism, it enables financial kleptocracy, and ultimately the end of democracy.
It should all be abolished, and we should return immediately to Social Democracy.
Sadly, neoliberalism will not be easy to dislodge.
It pays just the right people, like Presidents who can retire and make gazillions from their connections.
And more generally, moneys own the press, the airwaves, ultimately the outcome, which is uses to make still more money.
Cashing out should be expensive, and income more than 10 times the median and wealth accumulated from it should be taxed away, not built into a permanent enslaver of everyone else through endless means.
For every irresponsible--or just unlucky--borrower, there is an irresponsible lender, and we should hold the latter more responsible. Default early and often is what rich people do, though they have better ways of doing that through negative externalities (aka cost shifting), limited liability and other means. So I suggest default early and often to poor creditors too…Chapter 7 Bankruptcy if possible…there is no loss in moral virtue for a creditor unable to pay* in my view--that possibility was the Banker's responsibility. Only consider the benefit of continuing credit, something I think is good and fine and best maintained if possible in societies that have it. The greatest virtue is in having no claims to anything whatever. Perhaps balancing debts with assets is one way to achieve that. I'm glad to own a home outright, it fits my lifestyle, but I see no more virtue either in doing so or having done so. I have some revolving credit card debt, now mostly at zero interest until next year. I wonder if it wouldn't be more moral to have what bankers even seem to want…more long term financing. I wonder if there wouldn't be greater virtue in being more extended and having paid for the work of others in developing my future establishment even more, and die with liabilities equalling assets.
Anyway I had some luck, after all, and worked many years. But my only virtue from owning a home may be found in how I maintain or develop it and to what ends I use it. Not the mere fact of ownership.
(*I would take their word for it…I don't think people should suffer much beyond the expectations at the time of taking the loan. The lender is responsible for making sure the loan contributors to the borrowers life in such a way that enables them to pay back and still be able to benefit. Being a gatekeeper for society, a lender takes on these responsibilities. To do otherwise is to be a predatory lender, intending to profit from the misfortune of others. Much of this is already in many laws which tended to be overlooked leading to the collapse of 2008.)
All are entitled to healthcare and higher education, regardless of ability to pay. No overall benefit to society accrues from making people pay for those things…so they shouldn't!
When a need is not being met by private industry, or cannot be well met, it should be met by The People, just as Lincoln said.
Every financial asset is a claim on the future labor of others…that is what it actually represents. Therefore there is no benefit to society from having "rich" people who have accumulated many of such claims. The same real wealth in the physical world exists independent of any claims on it. The only benefit from capital accrues from organization, organization which would be better achieved through democratic means.
No comments:
Post a Comment