Archive for money

Reverse Monetarism

Posted in The R-Evolution of Political Philosophy with tags , , , , , , , , on November 13th, 2008 by mrdirt

I looked in the mirror only to discover that I was the reflection.

Both Capitalism (Free Market) and Communism (Closed Market) are systems by which the elite enslaves the population through enforced consumption.

Consumption is driven by propaganda and “legal” lies such as advertising, marketing, popular art and other methods of culture and lifestyle imperialism, and is funded by the creation of debt. The debt is administered as a pyramid scheme passed on from the top to the bottom. Standing at the bottom of the pyramid, one tends to regard the “scheme” as a good and helpful idea, since he cannot see the top. A small individual debt can be acquired (for the purpose of consumption) in return for a promise that your future labour will repay the debt with interest.

Looking at the top of the pyramid one can re-evaluate the implications of this system. A government that is in debt of trillions dollars has borrowed this money with the promise that it will repay it in the future with interest. This implies that not only does it impose on its citizens the responsibility and burden to pay off the debt with future labour, but also that their labour must increase in order to accommodate the interest.

The idea of interest is in all probability the most important key to the correct functioning of economic transaction. Interest represents the value of money (which is nothing else than legal tender, i.e. a promise) that increases in time. The increase in the value of money is the result of the increase of the value of the/a commodity. The increase in the value of the/a commodity is (or should be) the result of increased value of   productivity (labour) that is reflected as an increase in its price. The increase in price has to be accommodated through the circulation of more bank notes which are borrowed from the banks with interest. Therefor, any labour that results in the increase of the value and wealth of society/humanity also increases the debt of humanity to those who have the “divine” right to print bank notes. Plus the interest.

So, the more you work, the more debt you create, and the more you need to work to repay it, etc, etc. But how does one solve the problem of debt-interest? Maybe the answer is : by taking away the right of anyone to “create” money. If the amount of money in circulation is kept at a constant, it will lose its intrinsic value since it will be impossible to “find” the extra money by which you would repay the interest. That “extra” money doesn’t exist, and never will. In this case, if you borrow 1000 dollars, you will pay back in the future 1000 dollars.

But why would anyone lent you money if they are not gonna get interest? And without people lending money how can progress be achieved? Well, profit from lending can come in 2 forms. It can come in the form of a commodity (you lend me money to buy seeds, and I repay you the money plus I give you some of the produce). The second way comes in the form of an increase in the value of those 1000 dollars. Let me explain. One hundred years ago you could buy a loaf of bread for a penny. Today a loaf of bread at the supermarket costs 1 pound. That is an increase in value of x100, even though the real value of bread has decreased by x100 (due to the advancement in technology which allows us to make bread with much less labour). If any, the price should fall, not rise. This discrepancy in the price and value of bread is the increase in the amount of bank notes circulating (also referred to as inflation).

But, if the amount of bank notes is constant, and I lend money for someone to create an oven that bakes bread twice as fast, which results in half the labour needed to produce a bread, the decrease in the real value of bread should be reflected as a decrease in its price. So with the same money (the money that I lend) I can buy more bread than before. Under this system, lending money is more of an act that benefits the general public rather than the owner of money. In the previous example the general public will benefit from the drop in the price. Another way this “profit” could manifest would be as less hours for the workers (rather than a wage drop or firing some of them) thus increasing their quality of life.

So what is the point? Well, if money is constant, you can’t charge interest for money. And interest is the “price” we pay to get hold of bank notes from the banks. Even though money is nothing but representation of value, in the current system it has a value of its own. You don’t save money, you sell it to the bank at 3% profit. The bank doesn’t lend you money, it sells it to you at 5% profit. So no matter what you do the bank will always profit from the fact that society cannot operate without money.

Money makes the world go round

Posted in The R-Evolution of Political Philosophy with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 23rd, 2008 by mrdirt

A horse and a hyena are seating under a tree playing chess.

The light coming from the old street lamp makes the sand appear like an autumn leaf.

Bishop to E6.

“Keep moving to the back of the train”. 

 

 

So, I heard this thing a lot. But the first time I heard someone say it as if it was the meaning of life, I think I cried for a week. “Money makes the world go round”. That’s right, money makes the world go round. No sir, its not the sun’s gravity  that makes the world go round. It’s not the sun’s light that keeps us safe from the darkness, nor its warmth that shelters us from cold. It’s not the sun’s energy that makes the plants grow so we can eat and breathe.

“Our ancestors were a bunch of uneducated imbeciles! Worshipping the sun as a life-giver… Whoever thought of such a preposterous idea? No, its the money that makes the world go round!”

Sarcasm aside, I like my ipod just like any other guy and I’m not saying we should burn all the money and go back to a barter economy. After all there’s not really any difference. So what am I really saying? Well, it goes a little bit like this.

Three thousand years ago, or maybe it was four, people begun to master the art of farming. Growing crops and domesticating animals meant people could provide the necessities for their families and have a little bit left over. And thus begun the first barter societies where commodities were exchanged. This was of course necessary at the time, or at least extremely advantageous, as trade of commodities increased the living standards greatly. Fast forward to today.

It’s self-evident that we now live in a society of consumerism, the Society of the Spectacle, as Guy Debord put it. A world where the commodity has replaced the sun as the object of our worship. This commodity fetishism has infiltrated our social subconscious to such a degree that the meaning of life has changed from “living” to “having”.  And this is true no matter what “alternative” system is used to organise our society. Whether its Capitalism or Communism, our lives revolve unnaturally around the commodity God and its image. None of the “alternative” systems have been successful in promoting a healthy state of existence, nor have they ever attempted to. The only thing that has been attempted was the redistribution of wealth, production and power.   

So our society is based on wealth, the more the better. No one has actually ever considered that there could exist a society that is not based on economics. A society where money is not what we all aspire to would be a society where poverty could easily be eradicated. The rise of consumerism has led to a deluge of problems, ranging from the biggest (poverty, famine) to the smallest (stress and obesity). 

Keep worshipping the God that kills you.