Thursday, June 30, 2016

Elizabeth Warren Hits the Campaign Trail With Hillary Clinton in Ohio—Embarrasses Herself

This is sick, just watch it and you will see, Elizabeth Warren backs the war bitch, Hilary Clinton. Elizabeth Warren had done a one 180 degree turn and trashed everything she has every believed in. Maybe she thinks she will get the vice presidency, but that's unlikely as Wall Street hates her. How could she be so stupid?

The Humanist Report:


This article also looks at how the bankruptcy laws were changed in the US so that it became more difficult for people to claim bankruptcy, therefore turning unlucky people into virtual slaves.

Some people borrow from rich people, or from bankers who invent the money out of thin air, but then it goes wrong for them and they end up with compound interest greatly increasing the value of the loan. Eventually they realize that they will never be able to pay off the loan, only the interest. Then for the rest of their lives they will be paying interest sometimes worth multiple times what the original loan was worth. Which means it is possible that over the course of their  lifetime they may in effect pay off the loan hundreds of times over but with the principle is still left in place. This isn't fair. A rich person can end up with hundreds, and maybe millions, of debt slaves this way.

Maybe the law needs changing that once you have paid twice in interest what the original loan was worth the debt is cancelled. But the ' free market' would just greatly increase the cost of borrowing money as the bankers would push up the price of loans to get their profits back.

Pastor Sheldon Emry in his book, Billions for the Bankers, Debt for the People: the Real Story of the Money-Control over America, says that state banks should issue loans without any interest at all. So if you were to borrow £100,000 for a house, you would only need to pay back £100,000  - although slowly over the over the lifetime of the mortgage. (There will have to be a surcharge to pay for administrative costs, maybe added to the loan).

And so in the  system we presently have there are very rich people who have lots of power because of their wealth, with millions of  powerless poor people who are desperate for a loan. They might need a loan to buy a car so they can get work, or they may need it to buy a house, as everyone needs somewhere nice to live, or they may need to pay for a child's healthcare, or their own healthcare, if they live in the US, that beastly place.  But if the free market can't supply inexpensive loans then citizens have every right to vote in a government that will create publicly owned banks that will.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." —Thomas Jefferson


Only government has the immensely powerful tool of fiat money creation, and this is why libertarians hate fiat money so much. Yet libertarians always talk about freedom, and say that this is central to their belief, but cheap government fiat money truly sets people free.  

44 comments:

Tyler Healey said...

Libertarians are right-wingers. Their economic policy views are horrendous. They're a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Yes, they're good on war and drugs, but they're still right-wing enough to be described as right-wingers.

They believe in freedom from caring about their fellow man.

Richard said...

Kaivey:

How did you get contributor status to this blog? I read this blog to get informed. Your posts are more like a troll in the comments rather than what should be expected from a thoughtful, informed contributor.

Matt Franko said...

I have a hard time believing TJ used the terms inflation and deflation...

Tom Hickey said...

Libertarians believe in freedom from caring about their fellow man.

This might be too broad a statement to capture the reality. While it is true that left libertarians are focused on integrating individual freedom with political equality and social justice, right Libertarians are not all interested in economic liberalism because it results in capitalist capture. Many are supportive of the goals of left libertarians but do not believe that government, even consensus government, can deliver on political equality owing to the tyranny of the majority or social justice as leveling. While I think that their solutions are utopian, I don't think that they are necessarily only interested.

Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard make well argued cases for their views, for example, and I don't think that they can be categorized as advocating capitalist capture, even through many of us believe that it would be inevitable in such a system given the present level of collective consciousness. The objection to this is that freedom is the most powerful shaper of collective consciousness and instituting a social, political and economic system based only on freedom and non-aggressions is the optimal way to arrive at raising collective consciousness.

The real issue is the paradoxes to which liberalism gives rise owing to incompatibilities of social, political and economic liberalism where asymmetries prevail. Moreover, there is also the practical issue of how to get from here to there. There's a lot of analysis on all sides of what wrong with the present arrangements and also visions of where to end up. But there are few analyses of how to do it without a revolution and the outcomes of revolutions are always questionable and cannot be adequately anticipated, let alone foreseen.

Andrew Anderson said...

says that state banks should issue loans without any interest at all. So if you were to borrow £100,000 for a house, you would only need to pay back £100,000 - although slowly over the over the lifetime of the mortgage. Kaivey

Does everyone get the same amount or does so-called creditworthiness apply? But if it doesn't apply then why not just give everyone £100,000 for their first house?

The State has no business lending to the private sector. Let it issue grants instead based on merit (eg. for medical students) or equally to all citizens, eg. for housing and transportation.

Andrew Anderson said...

As for lending, if interest rates are deemed too high, the proper way to lower them is equal fiat distributions to all citizens - into individual citizen accounts at the central bank for lending, if desired, to depository institutions or to others.

Kaivey said...

I quite like my posts, Richard, and if economists can spend the whole their careers built on BS, propaganda, and outright lies - read Lars P. Syll — Mainstream economics — a pointless waste of time, that Tom put out - then if I get a bit of it right then I'm doing a whole lot better than them. I like satire, and I like to reverse all the BS the Right comes out with.

There's a lot of heavy stuff on this site and I try to read most of it, but I like my simpler direct posts which I write with passion.

Kaivey said...

I'm completely happy with the government running many sectors of the economy, Andrew. I was brought up in a mixed economy and it was perfectly okay, I thought, and lot better than it is now. Most Brits want the trains nationalised, and if they knew more about public banking they might quite like that too. Ellen Brown and Positive Money do well campaigning for public banks. I think it sounds like a good idea, but I'm still studying MMT.

Kaivey said...

Andrew, in Libya it owning a house was considered a human right, and everyone got one from the state, now that's a lot more cultured than we are in the West. I believe in a mixture of private and public housing. With MMT the quality of public housing could be quite good.

Kaivey said...

The State has no business lending to the private sector. Let it issue grants instead based on merit (eg. for medical students) or equally to all citizens, eg. for housing and transportation. Andrew

That's just your opinion. Andrew, the state has every right to do these things if it has been democratically voted in on a mandate to do so.

Andrew Anderson said...

I'm completely happy with the government running many sectors of the economy, Kaivey

That's not what I'm arguing against. I'm against lending by the State to the private sector based on so-called creditworthiness, the perceived ability to repay that loan. But lending without reference to creditworthiness might as well be outright grants instead.

Kaivey said...

Hi Tom, some libertarians say why should 51% tell the other 49% what to do? Well, that would be a bad democracy, a good democracy takes into account the minorities. But we could also have proportional representation where every vote is not wasted.

Andrew Anderson said...

the state has every right to do these things if it has been democratically voted in on a mandate to do so. Kaivey

So who get the loans and who don't? Don't the poor need a place to live too? Shall they be excluded because they probably can't repay the loan?

Kaivey said...

Hi Andrew, so you would like to see grants instead, rather like a basic income where everyone is entitled to it? Are you happy with the state running the trains and the post office if it is shown that they can do it well. When the profits go to the government it can lower our taxes.

I quite like your posts, by the way. I see you as a small government person who would like to see a much fairer capitalism, even though I'm left I could go along with such a system if it really was fair. I'm ready for compromise. I might have got you wrong, though, but I still like your posts.

Kaivey said...

Hi Tom. Libertarian is like you work hard, get rich, and then buy a load of land. But what if you buy a beautiful coastline and stop people walking on it. One person's freedom was to buy the land and do as he wants with it. Libertarians believe he an even pollute it as much as he wants, and build what be likes on it, even if it destroys it's beauty. But the freedom for millions of people to walk on the coastline has been taken away. One person's freedom against millions.

Andrew Anderson said...

so you would like to see grants instead, rather like a basic income where everyone is entitled to it? Kaivey

Correct. Otherwise I can't see how it isn't welfare for the rich(er) since they are the most(more) so-called credit worthy - unless the loans are made without reference to ability to repay, in which case they might as well be grants.

Are you happy with the state running the trains and the post office if it is shown that they can do it well. When the profits go to the government it can lower our taxes. Kaivey

Fine with me. In fact government is the ONLY proper provider of a risk-free storage and transaction service for its fiat.

Yes, fairness is what I'm after but also as much socialism as is needed. With a fair system that will eventually be very little socialism, imo, but till then ...

I like your posts too. Thanks for the encouragement - as little as I need it, apparently :)

Random said...

AA, I agree with the thrust of your post, but there still needs to be someone to check projects.

IMV the the only reason we should pay bankers to do anything is if they can demonstrate the skill of underwriting capital projects *against a prospective income stream*.

In simple terms this means somebody going into a bank with a proposal that requires a certain amount of money. The bank staff considers whether the prospective income stream proposed to repay that money is adequate to repay the loan and pay the wages and costs of the bank - including a reasonable return to whatever risk capital underpins the bank. No other consideration and importantly only against that stream.

Tom Hickey said...

Libertarians believe he an even pollute it as much as he wants, and build what be likes on it, even if it destroys it's beauty. But the freedom for millions of people to walk on the coastline has been taken away. One person's freedom against millions.

That's what we have now and we don't have a Libertarian system, rather a liberal one. Liberalism is based economically on private property. Most of the coastal property in the US, both ocean front and lake front, is privately owned.

Libertarianism is a particular approach to liberalism that emphasizes economic liberalism. So does neoliberalism but neoliberalism and Libertarianism are different in many respects.

Kaivey said...

We seem to agree on most things. There's more to discuss later.

Tom Hickey said...

I am not arguing for a position here, just stating that the issues are deep and need to be considered in depth. That means first getting the background by reading the major contributors, and not just those that one agrees with, which is confirmation bias.

Just about everything important in life is multifaceted and involves some tradeoffs. The only perfect systems are ideal, existing only the mind. Utopias for example would have to be populated with angels rather than human beings in their present state of evolution generally.

Liberalism is, of course, not the only social, political and economic theory, but it is the one that predominates in the developed world, especially in the Western world and in the Anglo-American world (in which I include Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The trifecta of social, political and economic liberalism has yet to be harmonized and the paradoxes overcome.

Moreover, why liberalism is superior to other forms of social, political, and economic organization also needs to be justified.

These issues involve many of the enduring questions, such as what does it mean to live a good life as an individual in a good society. The intellectual history of humanity explores these issues and there are many competing POVs. It's a huge assumption to think that one of these is right and held it good faith while all others are wrong and held either through ignorance or in bad faith.

Andrew Anderson said...

but there still needs to be someone to check projects. random

Banks would still exist but as fully private businesses with fully voluntary depositors they would be much more intermediaries between borrowers and savers and much less able to create liabilities safely.

But then wouldn't interest rates go up? Probably and that's where equal fiat distributions to all citizens come in - to lower interest rates without cheating anyone.

Random said...

"Banks would still exist but as fully private businesses with fully voluntary depositors"

OK. But how would this solve the creditworthiness problem? BIG or "equal fiat distributions" help reduce inequality and increase creditworthiness of the poor, but it does so regardless of changes to the banking system.

The problem I can see is a bunch of intermediaries putting their cut on the price of money in your system, similar to the banks now. Better the central bank lends to the entrepreneur nearly directly IMV. To be clear, I *can* see the "equal fiat distributions" possibly doing it but it would depend on how large they are, and your idea is clearly better than the current system.

The next stage of your plan is coming up with appropriate figures. And selling it of course.

Andrew Anderson said...

And selling it of course. Random

Just the proper abolition of deposit insurance in the US might require the distribution of $20,000 per adult citizen or more to provide the new reserves required. That should sell itself if a big name will get behind it.

Matt Franko said...

That's not the way it works you need to identify income and collateral...

Matt Franko said...

"Utopias for example would have to be populated with angels rather than human beings "

Tom those things are better described as 'messengers' (Greek angelion) they don't have intelligence like we do... They are not created in the image of God like we are.... We are above them ,....

The Rombach Report said...

"Libertarians believe he an even pollute it as much as he wants..."

Kaivey - Put the crack pipe down. You don't have a clue about what Libertarians believe. It's common knowledge that private landowners tend to be better stewards of the land they own. The government is the biggest polluter.

Kaivey said...

Hi Tom, there's a lot to criticise in neoliberalism, but it does have a liberal side which many traditional conservatives deeply dislike. The New Liberals really are relaxed about gay marriage, transgender people, more equal status for women. This doesn't compensate for the monstrosity that it is, but if we get through this without a world war, perhaps we have a much brighter future ahead I remain hopeful.

Kaivey said...

It might be just modernity, and not much to do with neoliberalism, but things are much better for physically disabled people too, at least as far as rights are concerned anyway (although they probably get far less benefits under neoliberalism). They have better access to places, free bus passes (in the UK), and much better job prospects. My local Tesco's employers people with Downs Syndrome, you never used to see that before. And mentally ill people have far more events to go to and things to do. Andrew, my local council runs all this and does an excellent of it too. I couldn't imagine any one else doing it better, and they do it on a small budget too.

So liberalism and modernity had brought great benefits, but the next thing to be undone is neoliberalism itself. Then we really move forward to the next stage.

Kaivey said...

Even if many private landowner do look after their land well, and why not, libertarians will still defend the right of any landowner to do as he likes with his land, even if it ruins it. Many large corporations are doing just this.

In my neighbourhood you can't alter your if from the front it doesn't fit in with the area. Developers are not allowed to build property that doesn't have car parking facilities. My neighbour was stopped from turning his house into flats because he couldn't provide the extra car parking spaces. He moaned and moaned about it but parking your car in my street was a nightmare, so I'm glad the council stopped him. Hooray for big councils.

Ignacio said...

I don't like generalizations, but caring about your OWN land and the lan d of OTHERS and NO ONE is a different thing.

Externalization of costs is the specialization of private activity in general... You know cause you have done it, or you are lying to yourself.

SDB said...

FWIW, I agree with Richard's comment above that Kaivey's contributions to MNE are bringing down the quality of this blog. Whereas someone like Tom Hickey brings deeply knowledgeable and thoughtful commentary to topics, Kaivey's commentary reads as intellectually weak and highly ideological (in a bad way).

I apologize for the harsh words Kaivey. If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't make myself a contributer here either.

Bob said...

Kaivey is no worse than Mike is by being blunt.
Tom, being trained in philosophy, will use 1000 words where 100 words would suffice.

Andrew Anderson said...

Or 20?

Yes, leave Kaivey alone. He's got something to say.

Tom Hickey said...

Tom, being trained in philosophy, will use 1000 words where 100 words would suffice.

A key aspect of philosophical method is drawing distinctions that introduce nuance and bring clarity to confused or conflated issues. There is a saying, When in doubt, draw a distinction. It is also expressed as, When in doubt draw it out.

Part of this is pointing out what arguments ignore. What is not said is often more important than what is said.

For example, it is characteristic of sophistical argument to leave out matters that are germane but impede the the case.

This is typical in politics and political economy. A glaring example of this in politics and political economy is ignoring asymmetry, concealing it, or even denying it. Class is a good example. "Class" is considered Marxist, which is a derogatory term used to impugn. Distribution, and therefore distributive justice, is ignored in neoclassical modeling, which focused on supply (production) and demand (consumption. This assumes that market forces handle distribution most efficiently so no more needs be said about it in that no one can be made better off without making others worse off.

Bob said...

Her income is from wages, his income is from profit. That is one definition of class. You can't ignore it by calling it Marxist, as if the term Marxist were an epithet.

When criticism of capitalism (or any topic) fails to elicit a response, the term "crickets chirping" is used. Followed some time later by QED.

Bob said...

Distribution, and therefore distributive justice, is ignored in neoclassical modeling, which focused on supply (production) and demand (consumption.

What are we distributing? If its commodities, then those who have the money will receive the 'justice'.

SDB said...

Andrew Anderson: "Yes, leave Kaivey alone. He's got something to say."

Leave Kaivey alone? This isn't the playground where everyone is picking on poor little Kaivey. This is readers of MNE expressing a dissatisfaction. No harm no foul, except for maybe Kaivery's feelings. From my perspective Kaivey's posts read like facebook rants, soaked and dripping with conjecture. One of many examples: "Which means it is possible that over the course of their lifetime they may in effect pay off the loan hundreds of times over but with the principle is still left in place." - Kaivey. Riiiiiiight.

Andrew Anderson said...

Anyone can make a mistake. I made plenty when I started out. I'm sure he'll live and learn.

Besides I think he's young and I'm interested in how and what the next generation is thinking since I plan to outlive mine. :)

Kaivey said...

But it is a fact. But I know it is not an easy thing to sort out, a loan is a loan. But many third world have paid in interest many over what the origins loan was worth.

Kaivey said...

I knew I would get some stick film my post, but I think we can get caught up in the complexities and then it fizzles it . I knew that there was lots of things that could get easily criticised, but I wasn't writing to be precisely correct, I was going from gut instinct. I'm often disappointed in the liberal left for being too nice, so that's why I really liked about Mike Norman's youtube videos because he doesn't mince his words and that's what attracted me to this site.

I had written some polemic stuff about libertarians on another site that Mike Norman liked, so that's why he asked me to come on here to write. He also liked that I write my own stuff.

I have but studied economics, I have just read a few books about having for the lay person. I'm reading an MMT book right now.

Kaivey said...

You come across as a young person to me, Andrew. I think your idealistic like me.

SDB said...

Andrwed Anderson : "Anyone can make a mistake."

True. Which is why I said "one of many examples" but probably should have just stayed out of examples. Really my biggest criticism is that Keivey's writing is full of conjecture.. The reason I highlighed "hundreds of times over" is to emphasize the embellishment style of Kaivery's writing. Hundreds of times over isn't an honest mistake, it's an exaggeration for effect. That's how Kaivey writes. As Kaivey just admitted, he writes polemics. "I was going from gut instinct." - Kaivey

I'm open to members of the Left getting a bit more Trump-ish in tone, more aggressive - I think there's a place for the Mike Norman's and the Tom Hickey's - but not at the cost of being loose with the facts.

Andrew Anderson said...

but not at the cost of being loose with the facts. SDB

Agree.

Bob said...

Hundreds Of Suicides In India Linked To Microfinance Organizations
http://www.businessinsider.com/hundreds-of-suicides-in-india-linked-to-microfinance-organizations-2012-2

No need to embellish.