November 4, 2010

Levels of “Austerity” and Fraud

Filed under: Globalization, Land Reform, Neo-feudalism — Tags: — Russ @ 7:06 am


Where it comes to Foreclosuregate most of us agree that words like fraud and crime should appear the most often in any word cloud derived from an honest, intelligent discussion. Of course the likes of the NYT don’t see it that way.
But that’s equally true of deficit terrorism and globalization. Yet where it comes to international debt and subsequent “austerity” assaults, commenters are most likely to regard governments and banksters as acting in good faith and to take their fraudulent depictions of what’s happening and what they’re trying to do at face value.
Thus we get the basic assumptions: that all countries must constantly borrow in order to function; that deficits automatically matter; that a country’s credit rating and borrowing spread are the most important metrics of the “success” of its policy; that it must undergo “austerity” for the sake of the foregoing; that governments do this for the good of “the country”; that austerity is meant to accomplish what they claim it will accomplish.
But these are all false. The corresponding truths are that the healthiest economies and communities are regional and local; that trade among them functions most effectively where organized by these communities, never by elites; that it’s only elites who organize more expansive networks of trade, and they do so only for their own enrichment and empowerment, never because economies “need” such trade; that the trade in debt is an even more pointless and extractionary elitist endeavor; that therefore all globalization and financialization policy has no goal at all other than elite empowerment and enrichment; from there, it’s logical that the goal becomes nothing but the the empowerment and enrichment of the banks themselves; that the only purpose of “austerity” is for the bailed-out banks to find new avenues of robbery as they liquidate the countries completely; that “austerity” is not a temporary measue and is not intended to be, but is a one-off terminal robbery, intended to leave us as indentured, impoverished slaves; so that every step of the process has been crime, and every word and action in furtherance of it has been fraud.
If the people were willing to take back their freedom and human dignity, they’d take back the land and control of production at every level, from the houses and yards on their streets to their international profile. At every level it’s only parasitic and criminal elites telling them, “We own you, and you’re allowed to exist only according to the credit rating we bestow upon you.”
At each level, from individual mortgage debts to international debt, it’s only elite fraud which has swindled real people into this odious debt. And at each level, from the fraudulent foreclosure to the fraudulent gutting of social spending and privatization of public assets based on the fraudulent call for “austerity”, it’s now those same criminals who are seeking our final liquidation.


  1. I you were involved in setting up an independent country, how would you set it up to ensure that what you describe in your above comment could not take place again?

    Comment by jm51 — November 4, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

    • To start with, there wouldn’t exist this absurd notion of “property” in land. Land, and the means of production in general, can be morally and rationally dispensed only on the basis of useful, productive possession.

      And from there we’d disallow all rents. Again, the basic principle is that we can have a stewardship possession right over the means of our useful, constructive production, but never over something we don’t productively use.

      All production would be based on cooperation, or solo production if that’s what an individual chose, but in all cases there would be no coercive hierarchy.

      The same would be true of democratic council politics. All power would repose at the community level, with only recallable delegates federated upward to consult together on broader issues.

      A cooperative society would therefore never provide the basis for rentier gangsterism to arise in the first place.

      That’s just a brief sketch.

      Comment by Russ — November 5, 2010 @ 6:28 am

      • Russ:
        Thanks for the response. I am in the process of compiling a new social contract (framework)for an independent California. I realize you provided a very brief outline but our basic concepts are in agreement. My goal is to offer a viable (well defined)alternative to the current criminal enterprises passing off as federal and state governments. The only way to bring about meaningful change is take control of the agenda; reacting to the actions of others never-ever succeeds, it is no more than kibitzing. Are you willing to provide additional input?

        Comment by jm51 — November 5, 2010 @ 10:31 am

      • That sounds like an interesting project. Here’s two earlier pieces I wrote on the theme of a “new constitutional convention”.



        They’re still vague about specifics; it’s more the basic imperative, that we need to be thinking in terms of a radical change from the existing system. A new constitutional convention is just one possible path.

        So sure, I’m always interested in talking about this stuff. I’ll be writing many more posts on it, as I’m just about finished describing the basics of the problem. (I just need to wrap up a few specifics.)

        I’m going to be dealing more in terms of where we want to go, and what we need to do.

        Comment by Russ — November 5, 2010 @ 11:16 am

  2. Time for Change

    “Meet the new revolutionaries of the Do-It-Yourself cultures in Barcelona, Tallin and Jakarta. They are modern day heroes. They do not wait for political parties or institutions to change their world; they simply do it themselves, by creating new local currencies, by working in social networks or by simply robbing the banks and redistributing their money.

    The world economy is in crisis and public trust in financial institutions has hit rock bottom. As commercial banks were bailed out with billions of taxpayers money and continued to practice their old vices, many people lost faith in bank managers and politicians. They got angry at the speculative financial system that brings extreme wealth to a few and instability and unemployment to many.

    Could this dissatisfaction lead to social change? Can we imagine viable alternatives? Backlight goes on a worldwide search, with sociologist Manuel Castells and philosopher Peter Sloterdijk.”

    For some extra inspiration, you might want to watch this documentary. Enjoy.


    Comment by rene — November 5, 2010 @ 2:13 pm

    • Thanks, rene. I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, but the summary sounds like it’s people who know what we need to do and are starting to do it.

      Comment by Russ — November 5, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: