In German debt and guilt are the same word: Schuld. So, in Germany, debt has a morally negative connotation. Further, the state budget is referred to as “Haushalt”, which is the word for household. Germans equate state finances with those of personal finances, a concept that is reinforced by German political parties across the whole of the political spectrum.Flassbeck Economics
The debtor is always guilty
Heiner Flassbeck
Yes: at last 95% of the human race are incapable of distinguishing between two senses of the same word. The word “austerity” is a classic example. It has two meanings: first, inadequate demand, and second, inadequate public spending. But well over 90% of those using the word (I’d guess about 99%) fail to distinguish between the two senses.
ReplyDeleteThe wonder is that human beings can talk at all.
The wonder is that human beings can talk at all.
ReplyDeleteExactly.
Language was invented so that humans could no longer communicate with each other.
.
ReplyDeletePART 1 of 2
Excellent article.
I say we must change our collective narrative. Our collective attitudes, beliefs, and world views. We must change our consensus reality.
In our current consensus reality, bankers "rightly" create loan money out of thin air, and they use that money to make predatory loans. Their victims (debtors) are always “guilty.” This applies to individuals and to entire nations like Greece.
This consensus reality allows bankers to control the planet for their own gain at everyone else’s expense.
I have read from Meher Baba and others that after death, we end up in the consensus reality that most aligns with our personal beliefs and mental habits. There are myriad consensus realities. Each is sustained by its respective inhabitants’ beliefs and mental habits.
“In German the state budget is referred to as ‘Haushalt,’ which is the word for household. Germans equate state finances with those of personal finances, a concept that is reinforced by German political parties across the whole of the political spectrum.”
The equation is valid for euro-zone nations, but not for monetarily sovereign nations. Again, the Germans have their own consensus reality. Their delusion “justifies” their self-righteous condemnation of their victims, like Greece, for being in debt to the German predators.
In my opinion Germans are the most arrogant people in Europe. They have their holo-hoax™ guilt to “prove” their moral “superiority.”
Since Germany is righteously “in debt” to the Jews, Germany feels that everyone is “in debt” to Germany because of Germany’s “moral superiority.” For Germans, the holo-hoax™ is a moral weapon. Germany has weaponized guilt. Greece is “guilty” because Greece has been sucked dry by the "righteous" German parasite.
“Spiegel-Online, renowned for inventing facts, is even more shambolic. There Ines Zöttl states that Trump is desperately in need of a debt consultant.”
Der Spiegel is neoliberal to the core. All neoliberals lie. No exceptions.
Continued below…
.
ReplyDeletePART 2 of 2
Speaking of neoliberalism, Argentine dictator Carlos Menem (1989-1999) imposed neoliberalism on the Argentine masses in return for IMF loans (which were created out of thin air).
Neoliberalism, plus debt to the IMF, caused Argentina’s Great Depression of 1998 to 2003. By 2001, unemployment rose to 20 percent. By 2002, 53 percent of Argentina was living below the poverty line.
On 2 Jan 2002 Carlos Menem was out, and Eduardo Duhalde was in. Duhalde continued with austerity in obedience to the IMF. Duhalde lasted 16 months until he was replaced by Néstor Kirchner (23 May 2003), who refused to accept the consensus reality. Kirchner defaulted on the IMF’s predatory debt, and thereby saved the Argentine economy.
When Kirchner suddenly died in office, his wife Christina took over as president, and she continued to reject the consensus reality that the IMF is always “good” and its victims are always “bad.”
During Christina de Kirchner’s presidency (2007-2015) Argentina’s poverty rate was reduced by 70 percent, and extreme poverty by 80 percent. Unemployment fell from 17 percent to 6.5 percent.
On 5 May 2012 Christina renationalized YPF, Argentina’s largest energy firm, which the neoliberal dictator Carlos Menem had privatized in 1992. Repsol of Spain had bought it in 1999, and now demanded that Christina pay them $10.4 billion in compensation. Christina eventually paid them $5 billion.
Christina Kirchner could only run for two consecutive terms. After her came the ultra-neoliberal Mauricio Macri, who re-imposed the previous consensus reality.
Whereas the neoliberal dictator Carlos Menem had taken a $260 million loan from the IMF, Macri has taken an IMF loan 220 times larger at $57.1 billion. As a result, Argentina’s economy is once again in free-fall, and poverty is once again skyrocketing.
Argentines want Christina back. Therefore the Macri government has hit Christina with countless (and bogus) criminal charges to destroy her.
+++++++++++++++++++
”William White, former chief economist of the Bank for International Settlements, has become a popular debt alarmist and is constantly quoted because the Germans believe they have finally found someone who is not German and yet has the ‘right insight’.”
There it is again, the sanctimonious German arrogance. Germany is at the top of the euro-scam pyramid of evil. Therefore Germany is “saintly,” while its victims are “guilty” and “morally inferior.” (Victims meaning nations that are in debt to Germany.)
Government privileges for private credit creation DRIVE those who may "borrow" into debt (while simultaneously cheating savers) since the quite plausible alternative is to be outbid by those who do "borrow".
ReplyDeleteSo it's not the debtors who are guilty but those who support government privileges for banks, credit unions, etc.
"Government privileges" meaning the ability to create money out of thin air? I asked you this before, but I don't recall reading your answer.
ReplyDeleteIf the answer is yes, then I do not blame banks alone. I blame everyone who supports and defends the current consensus reality, as I described above.
"Government privileges" meaning the ability to create money out of thin air? Konrad
ReplyDeleteWithout or without government privileges, "Bank loans create bank deposits" and bank deposits are liabilities for fiat.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, that physical fiat, coins and bills, have been abolished? Then what good is it that the bank owes you fiat 1-for-1 with your deposit if you can't use fiat AT ALL?
That's why the banks are a cartel - only they in the private sector may use fiat in safe, practical form at the Central Bank. So, as far as the banks are concerned, their debts/liabilities toward the non-bank private sector hardly matter at all -
only debts among themselves matter and as long as other banks are creating deposits/debts/liabilities too, they may also join in the new deposit creation at about the same rate since what the banks owe each other shall then be roughly in balance.
I'm still not clear.
ReplyDeleteTrue money only exists in bank accounts. (Coins and bills are tokens that can be used like money, but technically they are not money.) Are you saying that private banks should not be keepers of the accounts? If so, I agree.
True money only exists in bank accounts. Konrad
ReplyDeleteNope. Bank deposits are only liabilities (IOU's) for fiat. Otoh, deposits at the Central Bank (aka "reserves" in the case of banks) are true fiat but only the banks in the private sector may have those, not the non-bank private sector.
(Coins and bills are tokens that can be used like money, but technically they are not money.) ibid
Coins and bills are true fiat but in physical, not account form.
Are you saying that private banks should not be keepers of the accounts? Konrad
ReplyDeleteNo, but citizens, at least, should have a true option of having debit/checking accounts at the Central Bank itself instead of or in addition to accounts at banks so that bank deposits are 100% voluntary.
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteRe the above Konrad & Anderson debate, far as I'm concerned this was all sorted out long ago by Irving Fisher, whose ideas were supported by Milton Friedman, who in turn is supported by modern advocates of full reserve banking like Positive Money and the German "Vollgeld" movement.
ReplyDeleteUnder the bank system advocated by Fisher, Friedman, etc depositors have two types of account available to them: first, totally safe accounts where their money is lodged at the central bank. In effect, that gives everyone access to state created fiat, which is what Andrew wants. Second, if depositors want their money to be loaned on by a bank, those depositors carry the inevitable risk involved: i.e. the risk is not carried by any sort of taxpayer backed deposit insurance system, like the FDIC. I.e. those “depositors” are effectively shareholders in the bank, whether they are actually called shareholders or not.
And Fisher, Friedman etc are right: why should there be taxpayer backed insurance available for those who deposit money at banks with a view to having their money loaned on, but not at mutual funds, stock brokers, private pension funds and other investment intermediaries? There is no good reason for that artificial privilege for banks.
Plus disposing of that privilege makes banks bomb proof: i.e. if a bank makes silly loans, all that happens is the value of the above shares fall. The bank does not go bust.
Ralph, are you saying that the only banks that should be permitted are merchant banks i.e. banks that receive funds from investors; the banks cannot create deposits
ReplyDelete