Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Those of us that spend a disproportionate amount of time getting their news and views off the internet (like us) are seeing more and more discussion about the OWS (Occupy Wall Street) movement. Every web site that I go to daily for information and commentary are dealing with it to some extent. On a personal level, I have to lend moral support to those folks that are out demonstrating against the big banks and the Federal Reserve.
However, upon close examination it sure appears to me that all this demonstrating, occupying some small area of a city and chanting will be for naught. The reason I say this is because of the assumptions these demonstrations have to justify their happening, namely; 1. That change in the economic system can be affected by the citizens by the demonstrations, 2. That the demonstrations are taking place in an environment where the government is sensitive and hopefully sympathetic to the demonstrators, and 3. That our government is an independent entity (not controlled by the financial interests). None of those assumptions appear to be true to me.
Charles Smith in Monday’s post put up a link to a Tyler Durden article, which outlines what he thinks should also be done. His article contains much of the same kind of assumptions that the OWS demonstrators have. Common throughout Durden's article and others of the same sentiment is the theme that the money has to be removed from the big banks and the Federal Reserve has to be abolished. There are many more assumptions contained in these ideas, namely removing money from the election process, doing something about the Supreme Court being another toady group for big financial interests, citizen financing of the electoral process, term limitations and so forth. I happen to agree with all of it.
However, upon close examination of these problem-solving ideas, there are some rather palatable big problems that I can see being created.
For instance, removing money from the too big to fail banks, that is, closing your accounts and taking possession of the money, such as it is. For those citizens that have bank accounts of one type or another, that means doing SOMETHING with the cash. Hide it under a mattress or bury a fruit jar full of it or put it into a small regional bank or a credit union? I have seen no commentary on what would happen or what the PTB response would be if that became a mass movement.
So let’s take a look at the probable PTB response. They could create the environment and/or laws where small regional banks and credit unions could not operate and force you to use the to big to fail institutions. They could force a cashless economy for those who insist on having in hand possession of the cash money. If you start investigating this you will find that the push to a cashless society is actually underway. In Louisiana you supposedly cannot buy and sell used goods with cash anymore. Toll roads all over the country are going cashless. The internet is full of examples of this push to a cashless society. When we can avoid it, we do not use the big international banks either. But, I so see that if a lot of momentum in the populace to remove money from the big international financial system caught on, there would be a big response from the financial elites.
Lots of other suggestions abound to fight the big money interests. Going to a mostly barter system for exchanging goods, going to a gold and silver means of exchange, etc. I do hope that you all realize that the IRS does not like barter systems because then flow of capital in whatever form is neither traceable nor taxable. If that caught on, you can bet the screws would be tightened up on that. In fact, in many states right now, barter is considered illegal under some circumstances. In the news has been a bunch of instances where coop farms, (a form of barter) is prosecuted and shut down and food coops are being shut down, again a form of barter and localization.
Going to local currencies and script for trade has been in the past and currently being shut down by law enforcement. Just try and issue a local currency in your community to cut out the big banks for their grabbing a chunk of the dough. If local currencies gained much traction you can bet there would be a massive effort to stop it.
All of this is to enforce the use of plastic as currency and focus control by the financial elites.
Of course, it sure appears to me that the financial elite’s control of money and its usage has been going on forever. The means of control has remained rather constant over time. The government and its control over law enforcement, enactment of advantageous laws and control of the military make sure the uppity citizens that want to keep a bigger share of whatever capital in whatever form is available are thwarted, and ensures the flow to the top people at any given time in the financial world. It also appears to me that enforcement of this has worked by keeping citizens afraid of all sorts of things. Enforced starvation and/or poverty, incarceration and even death being the most potent forms of fear based control.
Again, I encourage people to look at assumptions contained in solutions to the many problems that are engaging societies. They will be the death of many legitimate movements to change how things are done.
In my view, as long as most of societies view government as the means controlling how people interact with each other and controls their well being, it will not improve the situation. There was a certain amount of truth to Reagan’s statement that “government IS the problem”.
I think that the latest essay by Survival Acres (Oct 31) is a synapses of our situation these days. Although he is the king of gloom and doom for sure, it doesn’t take away from his premises and conclusions. His conclusion that humans on this planet are a blight and are doomed to extinction may indeed be a bit extreme, all due to our hubris about ourselves. It also seems fairly obvious that if we don’t change our ways of living that we very well could drive ourselves to extinction, along with almost all other living things on this planet. I do not believe that it is necessarily inevitable though, even if a definite possibility. Whatever the conditions of development in humans to end up where we are today is not necessarily a condition that has to be perpetuated. Humans can change, perhaps a bit of oddity in the animal kingdom on this planet. If humans are incapable of changing how they view themselves and what they do, down the road I do not see how we can survive as a species. Hell, there is even a question of survival in the lives that inhabit this planet today.
I see but one solution. Humans must change.