ANTINORA CONTRA INTUITION
"As I discuss here, there is nothing good for society about people saving money. If people could save something useful, like the environment, [ed: or energy in a useful/efficient form] then they would be doing a social good. But saving numbers on a computer screen does nothing."My only quibble is that that "nothing" being done might actually be a the creation of a deflationary economic tailspin. One where the folk are desperate for currency and the leverage the (((( bankers )))) have over the people increases every quarter. Although Ari eventually gets around to explaining this (it's the point of his blog in fact) I just thought I should be clear about it. In fact, to be crystal I'll repeat myself: capital is imaginary and we can imagine it any way we like. We used to imagine capital as towering Gothic cathedrals—mutli–generational public works projects that exemplified perfectly the meaning of the word 'employment'. While we are at it, I should mention that the distribution of the surplus is completely up to us too. Personally, I prefer not to sacrifice reality to the god of illusion on an altar of stupidity but you're free to bow down to whichever Dildolech you prefer. That's none of my business.
ALL PRESENT CONSUMPTION – INCLUDING RETIREMENT SPENDING – COMES OUT OF CURRENT PRODUCTION
|Mad MS PAINT Skillz|
It's like some sort of alchemist's magic where the dissolving bond of kinship imparts energy to BOOMER HOLDINGS in T. Rowe Price. Capital—as we currently imagine it—is the enzyme that metabolizes our culture, our religion, our spirits, and our family bonds in the interest of usurious interest slavery, bond repayment, debt service, etc. Gotta feed the BEAST.
As the proportion of savings (i.e. mortgages, liens, retirement plans, money out of circulation, interest–bearing instruments, exponentiating financial wizardry, etc. ) increases relative to wages—and increases in value against the available units of exchange because of this—the piece of the economic pie that belongs to those working hard in the present shrinks. The PROLETARIAT™ end up fighting over less and less every year.
"An economic system must divide up the production of the economy between the people who live in it. Therefore, assuming that the amount produced remains the same, the politician above is arguing that ((((* savers deserve more of it than workers *))))
So, put another way, what the politician above is actually saying is this:
""People who work hard in the future and do the right thing do not deserve to receive a fair proportion of what they produce because they should give most of it to savers who worked hard in the past.""
In policy terms this means that savings are always protected. If banks go bust, savers are protected by the taxpayer and workers must pay. If there is a trade off between inflation and growth, inflation is kept low.
The economy is crying out now for more money and more inflation. But printing money is seen as an attack on savers and therefore is not even considered as an option (I do not count quantitative easing as genuinely printing money as it is just a temporary swap for existing debt).
Savers have been given this primary position in the economy. ***They must get their money no matter whether or not the workers are reasonably able to pay them***. [ed: GANGSTER YO] It can be seen in the Eurozone crisis. It can be seen in the economic stagnation in the UK and other Western economies.
So the incentives are completely misaligned. Instead of having an economy where hard work and productive investment is rewarded, we now have a rentier capitalist economy where low risk and rent–seeking are rewarded. This is not capitalism as it was supposed to work.
THERE'S NINE BODIES GENIUS! WHAT WERE YOU GONNA DO?! LAUGH THE LAST THREE TO DEATH?! RIDDLE ME THIS: IF "HARD WORK" WERE REALLY REWARDED WHY AREN'T WAGES THE LARGEST PIECE OF THE ECONOMIC PIE?! Yes Virginia. It's all a scam and the aforementioned Dildodech.
Now, this is not to say that the unborn owe nothing to their ancestors, but that the claims the generations hold on each other must be balanced. Even an increase in the volume of debts—which represents an increase in the intensity of our obligations to each other—can be acceptable policy as long as the stock of debt remains serviceable. As Micheal Hudson says, "Debts that can't be paid, won't be."
The issue for the economy is the sum of the direction of those economic obligations—i.e. the flow of debt between stocks. Unserviceable future liabilities aren't liable to be serviced.
If flows are imbalanced, then stocks will be imbalanced, and the river of productivity will drain into the ocean of parasitic seigniorage. (That's me. Go ahead and quote that spun gold freely!)DJA
1) Andricopoulos, Ari "The Supremacy of Savings in Our Economic System" - http://www.notesonthenextbust.com/2015/05/the-supremacy-of-savings-in-our.html
2) Andricopoulos, Ari "The Government Must Run Deficits Even in Good Times" - http://www.notesonthenextbust.com/2015/06/the-government-must-run-deficits-even.html
3) Hudson, Michael "Debts That Can't Be Paid, Won't Be" - http://michael-hudson.com/2012/04/debts-that-cant-be-paid-wont-be/
4) Andricopoulos, Ari "Simple but Helpful Model of the Economy. Part 1: Stocks" - http://www.notesonthenextbust.com/2015/04/model-of-economy-using-stocks-and-flows.html
5) Andricopoulos, Ari "Simple but Helpful Model of the Economy. Part 2: Flows" - http://www.notesonthenextbust.com/2015/04/a-simple-but-helpful-model-of-economy.html