Why is it so HARD to find a JOB?
In light of the news that 24,500 people applied for 325 jobs at the Wal-Mart that opened Friday just outside Chicago, I think it's appropriate to ask 'Why the fuck is it so hard to find a job?'
Are Americans too picky? Are immigrants taking all the jobs? Is it globalization? Is there something wrong with us? Are we not trying hard enough? Red-herrings, every last one of them; signs and symptoms of the same global pathology.
Where there's no money, there's no work. It's as simple as that. Ask Lewis Black; he knows.
Does it mean that the unemployed are inherently unproductive? Or, that all of the economy's needs are already met? Of course not.
Take, for example NYC; unemployment is high, but many infrastructure projects and public services are needed. They can't be launched or provided because the city needs capital and without fail, government budgets fall short, no matter how much they collect in taxes, tolls, fares, fees, and fines. But, WHY?
There is no shortage of labor and no shortage of needs. It's always a shortage of money.
Pardon the vernacular, but you gotta ask yourself, why the fuck isn't there enough money when the US Treasury prints it 24/7?
The answer lies in the nature of money, debt and interest.
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." -- President James A. GarfieldMoney has no intrinsic value. Bushels of it are printed every minute by our government, at nominal cost, only by the authority vested in them by us, through the Constitution.
You can't eat money, you can't ride it to work, it won't keep you warm, and it won't do the dishes. You can't do a damn thing with it; it's worthless unless someone accepts it in exchange for something of REAL VALUE - labor or goods.
Money simply facilitates exchange (remember, in God we trust all others pay cash).
If we didn't use a standard currency, like the dollar, we would have to barter, which for obvious reasons is terribly inefficient. Hence the term currency, from the root word current, or flow.
And the only reason money is accepted in exchange for labor and goods is because the government says so. Those who accept it are receiving a promise that the next person will accept it, too. In other words, money is "valuable" by government decree. Hence, the term fiat currency.
So, if money has no intrinsic value, why the fuck is it taxed with interest from the minute it hops off the press?
Logically, the government should issue this 'promise to pay,' born at the press, interest-free in order to fuel the economy by launching needed non-profit public projects. In this context, money does not "buy" productivity. It simply facilitates it.
The money that circulates in the economy, as a result, now represents each person's contribution to productivity - the credit they earned. They can save it, spend it, lend it, or invest it. It never has to be returned to the government. It can continue to circulate until it is worn.
When new public needs arise the government could re-use money that it earns (as a non-profit corporation) in fares and fees for productive public services. If necessary, it could borrow money that's deposited in its trust as personal savings. Anything borrowed is returned interest-free. When warranted, the government issues new currency to accomodate productive growth. In such a system, taxes would be unnecessary.
Through a national network of non-profit banks, the government could also invest private money in entrepreneurial for-profit businesses that promise to employ others. In these ventures, the government assumes profit and risk on a pro-rata basis.
Or, these banks could loan money interest-free to individuals or businesses that demonstrate need. Anything that is loaned, would be eventually returned, interest-free, to be loaned to someone else in need.
There would be no inflation, because whether money is issued for public or private use it would only be issued and allocated according to productivity.
Because money is interest-free, billions of dollars that would be otherwise siphoned from both public and private economies, through fraud or exploitation, remain available to fuel public and private productivity.
But as it stands, central banks have a monopoly on issuing money; they issue it when they will and to whom they will, and they only allow it to circulate at interest. This is the crux of the problem.
Central bankers take money directly off the press and create credit from thin air. They lend cash and credit at their discretion; and they expect it re-paid (as if they earned it) in the same currency, only in a greater quantity than they or the government ever issue it--which is impossible.
This fraudulent system of lending at interest creates a zero-sum economy where some must lose for others to win. For example, let's say that $1000 is issued by the only bank in a fledgling nation of five. Each person borrows $200 at interest, and must compete with the others to pay off their loan, plus interest.
Once 4 of them raise enough money to get out of debt, there is not enough money left circulating for the fifth to pay his debt, no matter how hard he tries. This zero-sum result is inevitable in a system based on interest because interest is NEVER issued, it's only charged.
Interest is not productive. It's an instrument employed by LAZY, unimaginative investors who want to unload life's risks on to borrowers, workers, and consumers by exploiting their need for money.
Interest only works in a controlled economy where the money supply is constantly "tightened." It's glaringly obvious that no one would pay interest for money they could borrow from the government interest-free - if it was available.
But, it's not. So, interest acts as a giant vacuum siphoning all the money which the government supposedly issued for productive uses and channels it to inefficient, exploitative ones that bleed borrowers, workers, and consumers, alike and pits everyone against eachother.
For instance, under an interest-based system, the person from our example who remains in debt will garner little sympathy if he is healthy, and suffered no natural disaster. But indeed, he is unable to pay his debt, not through his own fault, but because of a flawed monetary system.
If interest were not charged, he might still fall behind others. But, if it's because of a natural disaster (Katrina) or illness, the community would gladly extend credit at no interest until the crisis passes.
Or, if the loss was due to his negligence or inefficiency, he would no longer be trusted with loans. And unless he were incapacitated, he would have to work to pay it back, interest-free. That is both fair and it encourages cooperation and social resposibility.
He would not be targeted, as he is now, by moneylenders who don't care if he never pays anything but interest. That is unfair and facilitates and rewards exploitation.
But, private borrowing at interest is not our only problem. It gets MUCH worse.
A nation that borrows money at interest (by issuing bonds), instead of issuing bills interest-free, suffers the burden of perpetual debts that increase exponentially with time because of interest.
Interest on government bonds has been decimating America's physical economy and the quality and availability of its public services for decades. In 2005, the US government spent over $380 billion to pay interest on treasury bonds, almost six times the money it spent to fund education! We are kept ignorant so that central bankers and moneylenders can continue to defraud us unchallenged.
On top of all this, because moneylenders "own" all the credit they extend in the economy, they are free to call in those loans at any time, plunging the entire nation into economic depression and foreclosing on all its assets.
The bottomline is that with the same legal authority that our government issues bonds at interest, it can issue interest-free bills. Both are promises to pay. The latter is honest and productive, the former is fraudulent and destructive. The choice should be clear.
So, when someone asks you why it's so hard to find a job, tell them that it's not their fault and that the people of this nation and the world are being manipulated and defrauded by those who control the money supply.
Don't lay back and let them screw us. Let your voice be heard.
15 Comments:
great post q. and lest people think america is the victim it's not. china buy american bonds, japan buy chinese bonds, thailand buys japanese bonds, and so on. all nations are in debt. all of them are bankrupt. it's pyramid scam where the only ones making money are those that set up the scam. the banks and their secret shareholders. imagine if we found out who these people are. these high priests of finance. these moneychangers and had them evicted from their temples and burned the latter to cinders. criminalize the true criminals. the world might be safer then.
Thanks, jc for raising that important point. I ran into a link at the economist online that allows you to examine the financial position, including the debt-to-GDP ratios of a number of countries. It gives you an idea of how bad global financiers are bleeding each country.
I pray that one day the exploitation of humanity through fraudulent and speculative financial instruments will once and for all be abolished. But, until enough people learn the TRUTH, the money masters will continue to subjugate us through our own ignorance and terrorize us with our own armies.
hey! great link. muchos gracias, compadre. viva la revolucion!
Nice article. People that receive the money first off the presses and then the people that receive it second have the most spending power with the money.
Great article. So that's why my Dad always talked about the "goddamned money changers!"
Have you ever heard of "the gold standard"? :-)
This video is a good intro to the issues:
http://mises.org:88/Fed
Very good article. This presentation has even more info about the secrecy surrounding the creation of the Federal Reserve on Jeckyll Island.
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/download/creature.ram
Great article, but I have a question. You say that the Government prints the money. Doesn't the Federal Reserve print the money and loan it to the Government at interest, thus creating the National Debt? Some of your readers know that the Fed Reserve is involved, but others might be unaware that the "Fed" is a consortium of private banks. I make this hair-splitting distinction because too often people get into a discusssion about the economy and blame it on the Government instead of say, Alan Greenspan. Unless of course, you meant that "our Government" IS the Federal Reserve, in which case I tip my hat to your subtlety.
Recently, on Daryl Bradford Smith's radio show, he had on a guest - his name was, I think, George Green - and he said that back in the mid-1970s he was tapped by Paul Volcker of the Fed and Ted Kennedy of the Dems to work for Jimmy Carter's campaign. Green says he protested to both that he was a Republican and that Volcker told him that didn't matter because 'we' - meaning the Fed - controlled both parties.
That would seem pretty explicit corroboration of what the above poster has written.
Anon 1: yeah, that's why they call it trickle down economics!
Anon 2: your dad's a smart man
Anon 3: many thanks for the link on mises, I watched it; I'm not a fan of gold because it's largely already monopolized by the money masters; it's replacing one commodity with another that they control.
Anon 4: many thanks for the link! It's mint! no pun intended..;)
Anon 5: thanks for raising this important distinction. I regret that I was not very clear about who I was referring to each time. This is an excerpt from what I wrote about the Fed in an earlier post:
As of August 31st, 2005, the U.S. government has already paid $335 BILLION in interest on U.S. Treasury Bonds. Some of this goes directly to the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the U.S. which is comprised of 12 private banks and a Board, all of which are independent of the government. The rest of the interest goes to other private bondholders, domestic and foreign.
These banks have a complete monopoly of the money supply of the nation and they have private shareholders. The Federal Reserve banks audited annual reports reveal that together these banks own over $772 Billion worth of U.S. Treasury Bonds for which they collect tens of billions of dollars in interest annually from the U.S. Treasury. Thankfully, they are required to deposit all of their surplus money (after operating expenses, etc.) back into the U.S. Treasury. But, you would be truly impressed at how costly it is to run the Federal Reserve System!
Now, proponents of the Fed argue that its modest profits pale in comparison to that which is made on interest charged by other bondholders, domestic and foreign.
But first, everything is relative; what's modest for you could be a fortune for me. And second, that only begs the question: Why should the Fed, or anyone for that matter, profit AT ALL from the circulation of that which is conspicuously described as 'the nation's treasure?!!'
And, what about the bushels of interest commercial banks charge the public for private loans to which the public otherwise has no access?
So basically, Congress completely abdicated its constitutional duty to issue the nation's currency. The Fed Board (which is an independent agency) runs everything. And, yes that includes the Treasury, Congress, and the President.
The Federal Reserve Board pays printing costs for the bills, which of course are called Federal Reserve Notes. I read through the whole audit once, it's a bit complex. I would need to look at it again to discuss it in more detail.
Regardless, the system is unconstitutional and indefensible.
Social Democracy Now: Thanks. Without a doubt, Congress and both parties are bought and paid for, lock, stock, and barrel.
It is even worse then this post says. All money is created as a debt by the banks but they don,t create any money to pay the interest. As a result, the debt cannot ever be paid off as the borrowers owe more money then exists.The debt can only be rolled over until the victims can no longer even pay the interest on the debt. We are there now.
Hey wait a second, I said that.
Reread :) Maybe it's not so clear. But, it's the reason why I've been blogging everyday since the day I found out, four months ago.
It's absolutely astounding because it's such an obvious fraud, which means that many if not all of our government officials are complicit in it.
interest is evil but it is far from being the only problem
even with zero interest money supply will have to be outpacing production - why ? because resourcers owners get the money from the end users and accumulate it. One simply cannot take 100% of it from them and redistribute back to end users. So to keep end users buying one need to issue more and more money even at constant production
There are quite a few things wrong with this (but the conclusion is correct) but they all follow from the assumption that the economy is a zero sum game, which it isn't. The value of an economy is the total value of the goods in it. The increase or decrease of this value is creation of goods minus the destruction (consumption) of goods.
Note that I haven't talked about money yet but this is important since this value is confused with money in the piece.
First let me tackle the point about loans, debt and borrowing.
Borrowing is nothing else then giving up expected future value in the economy for receiving value in the economy now.
For this a premium is to be paid. This premium has to be more then the increase in value that the loaning party expects otherwise the value to be borrowed would be invested for maximum increase of value. This premium is normally called interest.
There is still nothing wrong with the loan, especially not if the borrowed value is invested in something that is expected to create more value then that has to be payed back. In that way both parties to the loan get an increase of their value in the economy. It is also not problematic is some of the loans are used to aquire value for the sole purpose of consuming it. The problem occurs when most loans are of that type (the US has that problem at the moment).
So contrary to the assertion that interest only works in an economy that has to be constantly tightened (an assertion that would be true if the economy was a zero sum game) what interest does is tell people what the price is of value if they want to borrow.
There is also a problem with the idea of free bills.
Money is just a good that people prefer to use as carrier of value. The price of money has the tendency to drop to the cost to make it plus a profit margin of around the interest rate, unless the production is artifically controlled. By starting to make bills this tendency to inflate will only skyrocket to what it already is.
Anon [4:07pm], thanks, I agree, people have a tendency to hoard. but I don't think it would be too bad. Certainly not as bad as it is now.
Also, a man by the name of Silvio Gesell proposed a possible solution for giving people a disincentive from hoarding their money (i.e., an incentive to deposit it for circulation).
I don't think it would be necessary, though. Money could not be made as easily as it is now by so few people. If interest and IP were abolished everyone would have to work for a living, albeit much less than we have to work now.
But, also there are creative ways to give people incentive to save with banks (nonprofit ones). For example, banks can also serve as multi-purpose (also nonprofit) insurance institutions (social security, health, liability, etc.). I am certain that where there's a will, there's a way.
But, ofcourse the banks must be manned by our most honest citizens with software and a papertrail that could verify their honesty..;)
Again, it won't be as hard in an interest-free, 100% reserve world to keep track of money because we won't have to keep track of interest.
Anon [6:35pm], of course the physical economy is not zero-sum (provided you use resources in a sustainable manner). An interest-based monetary system, however, is.
But, its effect on the physical economy is to perpetually, and increasingly disadvantage productivity in businesses and communities that lack working capital. This is true because through interest, people with more money, get even more of it. While people with less, must work harder to access even a little of it.
RE: your time value argument for interest is simply a description of exploitation. Someone needs something now; you have it; so you extort a greater value from them in return. It's antisocial. Plain and simple.
Besides, you completely ignore the fact that interest is never issued, it's only charged. Therefore, in an interest-based economy new money must be continually printed not because there is any increase in productivity, but simply to satisfy all the interest.
I'm not sure that I understand your third point on free bills. Maybe you can elaborate.
Thanks, for the comment.
Post a Comment
<< Home