XPost: alt.anarchism, alt.politics.socialism, alt.society.anarchy   
   XPost: soc.rights.human   
   From: nihil@none.com   
      
   On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:56:10 +0000 (UTC), *Anarcissie*   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:25:37 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"   
   >> ...   
   >>>I think it's probably a mistake to confuse the possession and use of   
   >>>money with wealth.  It is true the very rich have a lot of nominal   
   >>>money, but the money they have is largely the product of credit   
   >>>inflation, so it is hard to say what they actually possess.   
   >>>   
   >>>They certainly appear to be incompetent, but we may be looking at things   
   >>>the wrong way.  They are kleptocrats; if they are smart thieves, they've   
   >>>got a stash hidden away somewhere where they can go after things turn   
   >>>really sour in the U.S.   
   >   
   >Joseph K.:   
   >> I'm sure they have built a personal safety net, but it still more useful   
   >> to stress the fact that they lost so much of the funny money (as you   
   >> call it) the big guys in gov't engineered towards them. That way it is   
   >> clear that both groups failed, and that they insist in the application   
   >> of their failed ideology.   
   >>   
   >> Things are going to turn very sour after the next election in 2012.   
   >> There will be really big cuts in gov't spending. At the same time, the   
   >> families in the nine lower deciles will continue contracting. So who   
   >> will push the economy into solid recovery? Corporations are making   
   >> spectacular profits nowadays, but most of it is in the financial sector.   
   >> The USA is facing stagnation Japanese-style (and that may not be a   
   >> completely bad thing, to get used to much lower levels of spending and   
   >> debt).   
   >>   
   >> Another interesting development in the brave new neoliberal world is the   
   >> potential real estate buble explosion in China. More than 60 million   
   >> unsold apartments, a good fraction of them in the market for years now.   
   >> Complete ghost cities with empty apartment complexes and gargantual   
   >> malls without shoppers. What will be the consequences of that for the   
   >> USA given that a large part of USA debt is held by chinese banks and   
   >> corporations?   
   >   
   >It's hard to say because the money has become so highly   
   >fictional. Since the status quo ante has been restored,   
   >more or less, I expect the debacle quo ante to recur.   
      
   It's my impression that the status quo was restored because there was   
   no time to think of something else after it was realized that this   
   somehing else was a different liberal models or a radical turn to   
   uncharted territory.   
      
   Let me explain myself.   
      
   I see three characters in the liberal comedy. The State, the   
   financial/corporative elite, and the workers/families. All three take   
   part in creating wealth tough the State mostly harvest wealth from the   
   other two. In the 'Welfare State' (Europe-Australia-New Zealand)   
   variety of the liberal script the State harvest both workers and the   
   elite so as to make sure that poverty is suppresed in order to have   
   social harmony, social peace, an orderly and quiet though a bit   
   solified hierarchical arrangement. On the other hand in the Neoliberal   
   variety of the liberal script (USA-Latin America-Eastern Europe) the   
   State makes every effort to transfer wealth from the workers/families   
   to the elite according to the dogma: 'Giveth to the rich and they will   
   multiply the riches for the good of all'.   
      
   Now, when faced with the sistemic failure, the USA (i.e. the State   
   hierarchy) realized that to let the big ones fall in their gross   
   ineptitude was equivalent to a transformation of the USA from a   
   Neoliberal utopia to a budding Welfare State utopia. Maybe some wanted   
   that but there was no time to have a discussion about it as big   
   players in the financial/corporative world were going down not in   
   flames but in shame all around. So it was hastily decided to save the   
   big losers, there you have your bail-out. The status quo was restored,   
   for a time.   
      
   Of course there is a better solution, the uncharted territory I was   
   talking about at the start of these platitudes. The   
   anarchist/libertarian solution, not to transfer wealth to the big rich   
   failures and not to harvest heavily to build a Welfare State. All they   
   State-geniuses need to do is to do as little as possible, to shy away,   
   to wither away, to quietly walk backwards from center stage and   
   dissapear in the dark, to take care of their own private business, and   
   let the rest of us decent private individuals live our lives as we see   
   fit, and use the wealth we create, all of it, as we please.   
      
   >The same must have occurred to at least the smarter   
   >kleptos, and I'm wondering where the wealth is being   
   >socked away.  Things look pretty spiffy here in New   
   >York City, but I would think the kleptos would want   
   >something off the mainland.  Well, except for the   
   >Bronx, New York City _is_ a set of islands;  I guess   
   >they can block the bridges if things get really ugly.   
   >But how about Bermuda, the Bahamas, Trinidad, the   
   >Caymans, the Azores....  Anyone seen large shipments   
   >of gold bricks and machine guns going to small islands   
   >with pleasant climates?   
      
   The kleptos you are talking about need more than sunny beaches, good   
   food, young pussy. They need the admiration and envy of others, they   
   crave for status, they need to live in large and tightly connected   
   communities, they need to be at the top of large collectivist   
   arrangements. So the small island solution is really no solution at   
   all. They will die off with the systems they have so heavily   
   parasitized.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)