The ROOT of the PROBLEM
the ROOT of the PROBLEM Rising debts and increasing bankruptcies are the result of Congress suspending the free-coinage of metals INTO MONEY and switching us to bank credits as our medium of exchange.
These acts converted America from a Wealth monetary system, where people created money for society’s benefit through the fruits of their labor, to a monetary system where now, ALL NEW MONEY IS CREATED AND LOANED INTO CIRCULATION AS INTEREST-BEARING DEBTS.
Since this system ONLY CREATES THE PRINCIPAL and NEVER THE INTEREST, THE DEBT IS ALWAYS GREATER THAN THE MONEY SUPPLY. This fraudulently created and unpayable debt forces Americans to borrow constantly so the system can function. Eventually, the process becomes unworkable as society, mortgaged to the hilt can no longer afford to borrow.
This debt creates extreme stress for us as we struggle to meet impossible money obligations. The RESULTS are: a constant rise in the cost-of-living, downsizing, mergers, layoffs, consolidation, family breakdown, increased drug and alcohol use, an increase in crime and a general moral breakdown
Naah…. the root of the problem is GREED, people wanting new toys NOW, whether they can afford them or not.
I thought it was the GREED of bankers, politicians and corporations for POWER, WEALTH, and STATUS.
Make that "insatiable greed"…apparently enormous power, wealth and "status" is not enough!
I think that greed is the effect of the system Mr Soderberg describes, so many of our problems point back to this flawed system.
Gregory you are obviously very knowledgeable on this subject, what do you think is happening now and in the short term future and what is the solution to this?
You are all right, Greed is the huge problem but the only way to have greed is have a monitary system based not on sound priciples but having one basis on rapid growth. Than the rapid growth system needs greed to keep it growing to keep it alive. Than to keep the greed alive more rapid growth of the monitary system is needed, which gives leads to needing more greed.
They need each other until it explodes. Which came 1st? Well, which came 1st the chicken or the egg?
It’s clear our current monetary system depends on greed and growth, ie.e. always a bigger future, to sustain itself. Are we greedy because of our current system requires it or do we promote our current system because we are naturally greedy??? It seems to be a loop that feeds back on itself. And when we have tweaks within that system, such as cutting interest rates excessively low or getting off the gold standard, the growth of greed is facilitated further. I suspect humans are generally inheritly to some extent driven to prosper and grow, always looking forward to an improved future. Perhaps if we could get away from this debt based monetary system we could still decide whether to be greedy but we wouldn’t have to depend on being greedy. Wow that’s enough philosphy for this morning!
Gregory K. Soderberg – well said, you have squarely struck the beast.
Everone is getting closer:
The ROOT of the PROBLEM is GROWTH. The crash course outlines this perfectly: there aren’t enough resources on a finite planet for both GROWTH AND PROSPERITY.
Most of the people on the planet could live in considerable luxury if there were only a few million of us. But if we decide we want growth, too, then we have to reduce either our prosperity or our finite supply of resources.
Obviously we want a certain number of people on the planet to do work and provide innovations, so to some extent more is better. But at some point (some ecologists suggest around 500 million, perhaps) the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and the planet is essentially, overcrowded. With too many people it becomes impossible for everyone to get a decent education. This means, because intelligence is distrubuted more or less randomly across society, that many innovations will be lost by families that cannot afford to send their children to be educated, and even if they provide labour, this will simply accelerate the use of resources, meaning fewer to go around, meaning less prosperity per person. With too many people, not everyone can own gold (as there is not all that much out there, ever mined) nor can everyone have a car, nor can everyone use lots of electricity, and so on. So it becomes a fierce, often ruthless (as any set of established rules will likely become ignored as the resources become more scarce) competition for for whatever you ("you" could be a state, a group, or an individual) can get.
Fewer people will not allow us to have quite as many trinkets (such as plastic life size busts of Elvis) as it will mean slightly less specialization, but it will also mean more resources per person, so everyone’s basic needs can easily be met, with leftovers for a few luxuries (and hopefully well made, so that they might last many generations, rather than being cheap, plastic, and disposable so that they are in the garbage within a year). More people means fewer luxuries for everyone (with a possible exception of the most ruthless competers, who at this time appear to be the US government and major corporations [it doesn’t matter if you set up rules written by Ludwig Von Mises or Karl Marx; they will be ignored]), and if growth continues, not only fewer luxuries, but even basic needs for most will not be met.
So we really are at a tipping point. The elephant in the room is the ever growing human population, and very few are willing to even have a discussion on the topic.
"In the search for the "guilty men" responsible for the near-collapse
of the global economy, one obvious group of scapegoats has escaped
blame: the economists.
By "economists" I do not mean the talking heads (myself included)
employed by the media and financial institutions to "explain",
usually after the event, why share prices or currencies have gone up
or down. Nor do I mean the forecasters whose computers churn out
scientific-looking numbers about what will happen to growth or
inflation, but whose figures are revised so drastically whenever
something "unexpected" happens – as it always does – that their
forecasts are really nothing more than backward-looking descriptions
of recent events.
What I mean by "economists" are the academic theorists who win Nobel
prizes, or dream of winning them.
To see why these seemingly obscure academics deserve to be hauled out
of their ivory towers and put in the dock of public opinion, consider
why the bankers, politicians, accountants and regulators behaved in
the egregious ways that they have. It may be true that all bankers
are greedy, all politicians venal, all regulators blind and all
accountants stupid. But such personal failings do not explain their
behaviour in the past few years. After all, bankers do not like
losing money and politicians do not like losing power. All
these "guilty men" behaved as they did because they thought it made
And why did these greedy bankers and stupid politicians hold beliefs
that, in hindsight, seem so ludicrous and self-destructive? Why, for
example, did they think it reasonable for a bank with just $1 billion
of capital to borrow an extra $99 billion and then buy $100 billion
of speculative investments?
The answer was beautifully expressed two generations ago by John
Maynard Keynes: "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite
exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of
some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the
air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a
few years back."…