Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
Tried to finish a longer piece involving that link, but failed. There’s the link anyway. Now rushing out to a meeting organised by the very organisation that published that blog posting. Such is life.
2 comments to Honest money in the House of Commons
The basic problem is indeed not “greedy bankers” or “a cultue of bonuses” or “the idea of the corporation”.
The basic problem is what Mr Baker said it was – credit (loans) that are not from real savings.
One could be the most un “greedy” person in the world (living on bread and water) and one could operate via a bank that was a charitable trust or owned by an indivdual, or was an arm of the state – and it would make no difference.
As long as one was giving loans that were not from real savings (even loans for a noble sounding purpose) one would be VIOLATING REASON.
Of course one can choose to violate reason – for example one can act as if 1 + 1 = 7.
However, 1+1 does not = 7. and so their are consequences, bad consequences, for acting as if it did.
Just as their are consequences, bad consequences, for giving out more money in loans than one has in real savings.
One is acting as if one has savings that one does not have – one is engaged in a vast illusion (which is what a credit money bubble actually is) and eventually reality strikes back.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
Brian, as I mentioned to you at the event last night, I am going to write up some thoughts on this issue at various places. Stay tuned.
A very good section of the speech.
The basic problem is indeed not “greedy bankers” or “a cultue of bonuses” or “the idea of the corporation”.
The basic problem is what Mr Baker said it was – credit (loans) that are not from real savings.
One could be the most un “greedy” person in the world (living on bread and water) and one could operate via a bank that was a charitable trust or owned by an indivdual, or was an arm of the state – and it would make no difference.
As long as one was giving loans that were not from real savings (even loans for a noble sounding purpose) one would be VIOLATING REASON.
Of course one can choose to violate reason – for example one can act as if 1 + 1 = 7.
However, 1+1 does not = 7. and so their are consequences, bad consequences, for acting as if it did.
Just as their are consequences, bad consequences, for giving out more money in loans than one has in real savings.
One is acting as if one has savings that one does not have – one is engaged in a vast illusion (which is what a credit money bubble actually is) and eventually reality strikes back.