Steve Baker MP’s maiden speech.
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.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Honest money in the House of CommonsJune 9th, 2010 |
 2 comments to Honest money in the House of Commons |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
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. |
|||||
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.