[GJM] Working with Banks and Corporations to Achieve a High Degree of Global Justice?

[Steve Consilvio]

On Feb 22, 2007, at 1:39 PM, discussion- 
request at globaljusticemovement.net wrote:

> Dear Steve Consilvio,
>
>                Thank you for your critique. I will
> try, and explain in listed form how TFE counters your
> basic comments.
>
>
>
>
> 1. Yes, the ideas of TFE appear to be contradictory.
> They only make sense when you see the whole picture.
>
>

Perhaps they are actually contradictory? Doublethink is pretty  
common. I have had to work hard to root it out of my thinking, and  
inevitably it still exists somewhere, but I am pretty sure that your  
"whole picture" is not as unique as you think it is.

>
>
>
> 2. It is unlikely that a high moral stance for
> interest free monetary reform will work as an actual
> campaign because:-
>
>
> i) The present capitalist system is too powerful
> especially in connection with banks.

I do not know of a single incidence in history where reform of  
anything occurred because of the intellectual merits of the new idea.  
Change is preceded by the weight of a self-created crisis. If true,  
your reform is as doomed to failure as my reform at a time of  
complacency. However, at a time of crisis my ideas may actually  
improve things, rather than simply reconstruct the same house of cards.

I think a valid parallel is the Bill of Rights which was created by  
the efforts of wise people of colonial times after the stupid people  
were finally done killing each other and reconsolidating power. My  
"Contract for Mutual Responsibility" does in the economic sphere what  
the Bill of Rights does in the political sphere. Iw rote it a few  
years ago, and my ideas have evolved since then, but the basic  
framework is still valid. A system of competition is doomed to  
failure, what we need is a system of cooperation.
>
>
> ii) It is unlikely that enough public susport could be
> mustered to achieve real change especially in the rich
> countries like Britain, and USA. However, in Latin
> America (eg. Hugo Chavez)there has been a big swing to
> the left. The reason in part is due to the huge amount
> poverty. This gives people a greater incentive to
> achieve change via "revolutionary" means......

Chavez is a moron, like Washington is a moron. His lust for power  
comes first. He creates demons so he can claim to protect people, and  
uses fear as his calling card.

I don't think you actually have a theory of poverty and wealth, only  
a belief that the rich have somehow done something that is "unfair."  
In fact, the system is rigged this way. Somebody has to win and  
somebody has to lose when the economy is structured as a competition.  
The same is true of politics. Elections are actually destroying  
democracy because they are based on competition and not on finding  
solutions to problems. Now we see elections (counting votes) as the  
problem, and this was after making sure everybody could vote, which  
has similarly yielded no practical effect. Why? Because an economic  
problem needs an economic solution. You cannot solve what is  
essentially a mathematical problem with a popularity contest.

>
>
> iii)The pace of financial (ie TFE) change could be
> alot easier, and QUICKER if we work with banks, and
> corporations for a sustainable future. By legally
> "bribing" the latter safe,cleaner, and environmentally
> friendly products, and services could be mass produced
> with mainly renewable resources. Profits could be
> hugely subsidized with new unearned money from the
> Central Banks of the rich world. Likewise the wages of
> Third World workers could also be heavily subsidized
> along with other relevant matters.
>

Of course we need to work with banks, the question is what do we  
expect the banks, borrowers and depositors to do? Everybody needs to  
change their expectations and their behavior, not just the banks. The  
banks are just a middleman, and are essentially a franchise of the  
Federal Reserve. They have a lot less power than you realize.
>
> iv)A moral campaign for monetary reform would take too
> long, and probably require much funding to have any
> affect. Most important of all the world, and humanity
> may NOT have enough time. So, moral issues such as
> fairer distribution, utopian socialism, et al MUST be
> put on the backburner for the time being. What matters
> is NOW, and the present corrupt system, and how best
> to modify it into something better.

Funding is not an issue at all, it is behaviors and expectations that  
need to change. The marketplace theory that runs the world is false.  
A government decree isn't going to change what people believe, just  
as I couldn't pass a law telling you what to believe. Before laws can  
change beliefs must change; this is true for any law.

The system actually isn't corrupt. It works perfectly at amplifying  
errors. Just because a system is flawed does not mean it is corrupt.  
Just as you are sincere in your belief (though I think you are  
mistaken,) others are equally sincere in their mistakes. And that is  
without introducing the elements of fear and pride, which  
dramatically alter people's views of reality.

>
>
>
>
> 3) TFE can be seen as a "TRANSITIONAL" system. It is
> not the be-all, and end-all of economics. When in
> place NGOs concerned with advanced, and fairer
> social,economic, and political thinking would be
> better funded as never before. Thus, they would have a
> more powerful influence on public opinion.If they can
> convince the masses, and governments to change from a
> "...predatory-prey system.." then that is all fine,
> and good.

A transitional approach is a good idea, but "bribing" people is what  
is going on now. That is not transitional at all, nor does it require  
any change in thinking or behavior. What differs, I think, is simply  
who pays the bribe, and if the funds are given with expectations  
rather than taken outright. Either way, it reinforces the love of  
money and does nothing to expose the absurdity of money as a commodity.

501c3's and NGO's are destroying the world, not helping it. Their  
privileges and hoards of wealth are created by taxing the poor. If  
you ever needed a perfect example of hypocrisy and doublethink, then  
look no further. The fact that you champion their fiction is a sign  
that you don't "get it."
>
>
>
>
> 4) You are right in saying that money is just an
> "...intellectual agreement..." but it carries great
> legal authority. In the future, I believe it will no
> longer be necessary, and neither will profits. You may
> like to read the ideas of Jacque Fresco concerned with
> a Resource Based Economy.
>
> However, the problem is trying to get from stage A to
> stage B. To try, and introduce advanced
> economic/social thinking (involving fairer wealth
> distribution, and total universal cooperation as
> opposed to cut-throat competition) for a possible
> PRACTICAL REALITY NOW is clearly absurd by most people
> standards. We need something that acts as a "bridge"
> to the future.

You didn't answer my points about using the wealth of the  
"reformers" (unions, etc.) The banks are not holding their own money,  
it is the money of depositors. Depositors can change their  
expectations of banks without bribing them. In fact, you have it  
backwards. The bank has to bribe depositors by paying them interest  
on their deposits. The Stock Market is even worse, since owning  
stocks is the same as making a loan to a corporation, but a  
corporation can never get free of its debt to stockholders.  
Corporations are a victim, too, which is why they try to shift the  
mathematical burden to employees, vendors and customers. (All three  
of which, bizarrely, own stocks in corporations.) It is imperative to  
recognize that we are victims of ourselves.

>
>
>
>
> 5) It must be forever remembered that in the evolving
> TFE paradigm people will have greater chances of
> lifting themselves out of "poverty." This could
> notably come about with an increase in business
> grants, and ofcourse interest free loans.

You forget the nature of the ladder. The rich fall and the poor rise  
perpetually, as long as you perform the actions that the system  
demands. The cost shifting and profit-taking never ends, unless you  
challenge the fundamental assumptions of the system, which you are  
not doing.

Peace,
Steve
www.behappyandfree.com

A quick read of the Contract for Mutual Responsibility is here (It is  
my old front page) :
http://www.behappyandfree.com/index.php? 
option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=40
If made King tomorrow, I would probably alter these ideas slightly,  
but there is nothing there that is particularly alien to any voter.  
They are actually small changes, but the impact would be huge over  
time, just as the Bill of Rights has proven to be.

Again, it is not a system of justice that is needed but a system of  
mercy. Of course, the mirror is a treacherous place, and everybody is  
unwilling to admit they they have believed a lie their whole life.  
Yet, that is exactly what is required. Chains do not hold us; we hold  
onto the chains.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070222/978c47ba/attachment-0001.html