Eurozone crisis: The possible resolutions

[Breedingvariety]

Mainstream? I try not to rely on neoclassical economics too much, but this is like saying that the entire economic theory serves the ruling oligarchy. Which is ludicrous.

You see, the entire economic theory is contained within entire social paradigm. And social paradigm serves oligarchy. So yes, that is the case.

Inflation is embedded into the system and is permanent. Deflation, on the other hand, is not. You can artificially produce both though.

Again, wrong. Inflation or deflation is a decision. Usually the decision is to inflate. Yes it's artificial, but so is money system.

But yes, you could solve all debt-related problems with them if you lived in a world where nobody cared for your actions.

I meant inflation or deflation is the outcome of debt based system. Maybe I worded it wrong. These are not solutions, but choices. That is dilemma.

The elimination of gold standard brought about the rise of the modern debt-based economy and increased the power of your plutocrats many fold.

You see, gold standard itself was faith in paper based. Booms and busts are impossible in metals based paradigm.

But if we accept paper and electronic currency is best for trading, then who should control it. I think government.

I would advocate the most political and economic decentralization as possible.

I get where you are coming from.

My doubt would be in the thought that more organized and larger political bodies assume control over less organized and smaller political bodies. So decentralization may not be the best option in all respects.

[European blood]

[YOUTUBE]7ID8OwpL2Ls[/YOUTUBE]

[Monolith]

You see, the entire economic theory is contained within entire social paradigm. And social paradigm serves oligarchy. So yes, that is the case.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's no one social paradigm and there are many ways in which one can analyse and interpret economic data.

Again, wrong. Inflation or deflation is a decision. Usually the decision is to inflate. Yes it's artificial, but so is money system.

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about inflation as a phenomenon caused by the architecture of the economic system itself.

You see, gold standard itself was faith in paper based. Booms and busts are impossible in metals based paradigm.

They are more unlikely, so to say, but not impossible.

My doubt would be in the thought that more organized and larger political bodies assume control over less organized and smaller political bodies. So decentralization may not be the best option in all respects.

Of course. Too much decentralization can water down economic and political potentials. It's easy to theorize about it, but much harder to actually implement such policy, due to unique economic and sociopolitical landscape of each particular country.

[Agrippa]

Mainstream? I try not to rely on neoclassical economics too much, but this is like saying that the entire economic theory serves the ruling oligarchy. Which is ludicrous.

The vast majority of current economic science is build around the base the Plutocrats established, especially if talking about Liberalist schools and the standards in the USA and GB. That's all about "bought writings", or "unable to think out of the box". Most of the calculations and numbers are bullocks and those which are honest have to agree that the current system is just crap the way it is.

Inflation is embedded into the system and is permanent. Deflation, on the other hand, is not. You can artificially produce both though.

Inflation can be defined in different ways, but crucial is, that the inflation grows in correspondence with the real economic growth in material/real values.

I would prefer a different economic system altogether, without any form of usury whatsoever.

Usury is a problem, but probably not as much, if you consider the system behind it.

The elimination of gold standard brought about the rise of the modern debt-based economy and increased the power of your plutocrats many fold.

The gold standard just crippled people, states and economies, made them dependent from a standard which is as artificial as Fiat money in the end and easy to manipulate as well.

Also, it gave birth to this sick system we have now, because the kings couldn't produce gold and silver by power, so no matter how powerful they were otherwise, even to finance a war in which they fought for their people's and culture's survival, they had to lend money from the "money changers", from the bankers, the usurers, the chafferers, the fraudsters, from the predecessors of the modern Plutocracy!

If there would have been the modern standards present already, this whole dependence from private bankers in the way it evolved wouldn't have happened. In fact, the abandonment of the gold standard and the technical advancements, virtual and Fiat money made them dispensable and parasitical than they were.

We are now in a new age with new possibilities, but the diseases from the past still cripple us and even use this new ways against us, that's the whole problem.

I would advocate the most political and economic decentralization as possible.

That's no solutions as it would result in bad decisions, conflicts, degradation of structures and easy prey for negative elements - again like in the past.

Combine gold standard and decentralization, and you have your crap Feudal society again, with chafferers and usurers having an easy time until we come up in a society as bad as this one or even much worse.

You must analyse the problems and then chose the best solution. The best solution is to eliminate the root of the disease, rather than saying, "go two steps back" - for what? The root is still there and life would be even worse!

That is no solution, but an illusion.

We have to move on and beyond the transitional stage which was in itself probably necessary, but is now just what it always was: Suboptimal at its best.

[Curtis24]

Remind you, what I describe is something they can cause in one they, it is very easy for them to plunge whole nations in chaos, the question is just, how can they do it without being blamed for it and hold responsible by the public!

Human nature - the public all want to join the ranks of the plutocrats, and be better than their fellows(whom they bitterly resent), rather than all rise up together.

[BeerBaron]

The vast majority of current economic science is build around the base the Plutocrats established, especially if talking about Liberalist schools and the standards in the USA and GB. That's all about "bought writings", or "unable to think out of the box". Most of the calculations and numbers are bullocks and those which are honest have to agree that the current system is just crap the way it is.



Inflation can be defined in different ways, but crucial is, that the inflation grows in correspondence with the real economic growth in material/real values.



Usury is a problem, but probably not as much, if you consider the system behind it.



The gold standard just crippled people, states and economies, made them dependent from a standard which is as artificial as Fiat money in the end and easy to manipulate as well.

Also, it gave birth to this sick system we have now, because the kings couldn't produce gold and silver by power, so no matter how powerful they were otherwise, even to finance a war in which they fought for their people's and culture's survival, they had to lend money from the "money changers", from the bankers, the usurers, the chafferers, the fraudsters, from the predecessors of the modern Plutocracy!

If there would have been the modern standards present already, this whole dependence from private bankers in the way it evolved wouldn't have happened. In fact, the abandonment of the gold standard and the technical advancements, virtual and Fiat money made them dispensable and parasitical than they were.

We are now in a new age with new possibilities, but the diseases from the past still cripple us and even use this new ways against us, that's the whole problem.



That's no solutions as it would result in bad decisions, conflicts, degradation of structures and easy prey for negative elements - again like in the past.

Combine gold standard and decentralization, and you have your crap Feudal society again, with chafferers and usurers having an easy time until we come up in a society as bad as this one or even much worse.

You must analyse the problems and then chose the best solution. The best solution is to eliminate the root of the disease, rather than saying, "go two steps back" - for what? The root is still there and life would be even worse!

That is no solution, but an illusion.

We have to move on and beyond the transitional stage which was in itself probably necessary, but is now just what it always was: Suboptimal at its best.

It is within the realm of possibility that private banks can be legislated away, although breaking the iron grip that the plutocracy has would be hard, it is never the less possible.

The US federal reserve has a buy back clause written into it with congress, for 1 billion dollars the fed could be bought and turned into a public institution like the bank of north dakota for example, which operates independently of the fed. Fractional reserve systems can be ran with strict regulations, but they have to be out of private hands first and foremost.

[Monolith]

The vast majority of current economic science is build around the base the Plutocrats established, especially if talking about Liberalist schools and the standards in the USA and GB. That's all about "bought writings", or "unable to think out of the box". Most of the calculations and numbers are bullocks and those which are honest have to agree that the current system is just crap the way it is.

I don't think it's fair to characterize all economic scientists as a bunch of dishonest sell outs or gullible fools at best. Just because some "notable" economists in the world's power centres are seldom not in the conflict of interests doesn't automatically mean that all economists are evil bastards, nor brainwashed fools. You'd be surprised how many of them actually tend to think critically and do not accept anything they read by default. That said, from what I've seen it has become rather trendy to criticize neoliberalism in the academic circles, not just from the viewpoint of certain paradigms inside neoclassical economics, like Keynesianism, but also from the perspective of institutional economics etc.

Inflation can be defined in different ways, but crucial is, that the inflation grows in correspondence with the real economic growth in material/real values.

Yes, because this new value will be acquired by funds that were in turn produced in a system that embeds inflation into money, via loan interest, by default.

The gold standard just crippled people, states and economies, made them dependent from a standard which is as artificial as Fiat money in the end and easy to manipulate as well.

And what do we have now? Not just one fiat money but hundreds of them! And they are infinitely easier to manipulate to the benefit of the financial lobby! Unlike today, there were no gigantic and frequent fluctuations to blur the people's idea about the value of money they possess.

If there would have been the modern standards present already, this whole dependence from private bankers in the way it evolved wouldn't have happened. In fact, the abandonment of the gold standard and the technical advancements, virtual and Fiat money made them dispensable and parasitical than they were.

It's superfluous to discuss about what if this or what if that. The way the things currently are, the deregulation of the financial sector, coupled with the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system and with the criminal repeal of the Glass-Steagall act produced an abominable legal, political and economic framework in the world's largest power hub, and many countries followed suit. So the modern standards are crappy as hell, and even those who don't follow them can usually get away with that if they're powerful enough. Hell, even the early 20th century standards are better than the contemporary ones. At least the people's saving were not being subject to a giant casino, where the prevailing mantra is that financial derivatives equal risk diversification.

That's no solutions as it would result in bad decisions, conflicts, degradation of structures and easy prey for negative elements - again like in the past.

Combine gold standard and decentralization, and you have your crap Feudal society again, with chafferers and usurers having an easy time until we come up in a society as bad as this one or even much worse.

God forbid. Like I sad, excessive decentralisation can water down potentials. That doesn't mean that decentralisation of capital is a bad thing. What we have now is centralised capital, and by proxy, power, and a few gigantic corporations with massive economies of scale competing in the same sector with small enterprises. That's where the laissez faire neoliberal economics goes down the drain. By favouring large corporations and banks over small and medium enterprises, various governments are breaking the key tenet of capitalism - that prices should be controlled through supply & demand and fair competition. For example, the US government, rather criminally, bailed out several huge banks during the last financial crisis, regardless of the fact that the financial sector was the main culprit behind it. To put it bluntly, this means they can do it again, without consequences. Can a small enterprise expect the same treatment? No way.