2010-12-17

Stupid FIRE parasit

Why Government is More Afraid of Debt than Depression






To the deficit commission, a depression is the solution to the problem, not a problem. That’s what they’re trying to bring about, because you need a depression if you’re going to lower wages by 20 percent.
...
So essentially you can think of it as between a parasite and the host economy. A smart parasite in nature actually is in a symbiosis with the host and tries to steer to new food. It wants the host to find new food, doesn’t want it to get bigger; the parasite wants itself to get bigger. But to do that, it has to take over the host’s brain and make the brain think that the parasite, in this case the host, is the industrial economy, the real economy, production and consumption.

The parasite is basically the financial sector. That’s the deficit commission. That’s the largest financier of the Obama administration.
...

Well, if you study biology, you know that there are more species of parasites than there are of hosts–of course it’s not sustainable. But to a parasite, you don’t have to be sustainable, because you’re a parasite. That’s your mindset. And you want to take what you can, and at a certain point you devour the host and skip to new hosts.
...
having industrial capitalism a century ago, we have a finance capitalism that actually is stifling industrial capitalism here. So what Alan Greenspan and others call the postindustrial economy is really neo-feudalism. It’s a financialized economy where all of the surplus goes to the banks. And if you’re a banker and somebody comes in and wants to take out a loan, you say, how much do you make? How much do you spend on food? You realize that most people, most workers in America have to spend 20 percent of their income just on basic goods and services–food, clothing, transportation to get to work. Everything over that, they think that’s all available to be paid to the banks.
...
Alan Greenspan explained this very clearly a decade ago. He said there’s something wonderful about debt: it’s cured the labor problem. The workers are now one paycheck away from homelessness. If they go on strike or if they’re fired because they complain about working conditions, all of a sudden their interest rate goes up on their credit card, all of a sudden they miss their mortgage payment, they’re losing their home.
...
In America, despite the amazing rise in productivity we’ve had in the last 30 years, real wages have actually gone down. All of the increase in productivity has been taken by the finance, insurance, and real estate sector, called the FIRE sector, almost all of it by the financial sector.
...
So the idea is basically to reverse the progressive era’s whole economic philosophy, and this involves impoverishing the economy in the process. But you have a mindset very much like you had in England for centuries that somehow thinks, if you can only hurt labor, you’ll be helping capital. That’s why England lost its industrial position. It’s the wrong mindset. It doesn’t work. But that’s how they feel, because that’s their mentality.

2 comments:

Jan Wiklund sa...

Enligt Carlota Pérez, liksom enligt Giovanni Arrighi, är det här sånt som inträffar periodiskt. De har bara lite olika perioder - Pérez tenderar att tänka i kondratievcykler medan Arrighi tänker i hegemonicykler. Kanske båda driver fram samma effekt.

Hur som helst, enligt båda krävs det en hård politisk ansträngning för att komma ur spekulationsfasen och komma in i en produktionsfas. Pérez pekade på New Deal/skandinavisk socialdemokrati, Arrighi pekar på världskrig. Det vore ju trevligare om Pérez har rätt.

Men poängen är den politiska ansträngningen. Sådana måste komma nerifrån. Det är poänglöst att vänta på att regeringar ska göra något, de är väsentligen kompromissaktörer. Sådana gör ingenting innan det finns något att kompromissa mellan.

Teckentydaren sa...

Arrighi skrev något om de långa seklerna, typ det långa 1900-talet där vi såg övergången från den brittiska hegemonin till den amerikanska. Han nämnde att alla hegemonier har sin sk skyddsfaktor dvs att hegemonin har adekvat militär styrka för att skydda sina intressen. Det ligger nog en hel del i det och det är just här som det är svårt att se hur någon ny ska komma in på banan. Förr var inte skillnaden i skyddsfaktor av den digniteten som den är i dag i jämförelse närmast marginell.

Skicka en kommentar

Tillåtna HTML taggar: <b>, <i>, <a>