Too Little Debt & Too Much Blood Money Kill

Dying Of Too Little Debt, and Too Much Institutionalized Crime:

Nobody Understands Debt” says Paul Krugman, and he demonstrates it in an excellent editorial. I am happy that he is finally getting black on white, what I wrote long ago. He does not put it as spectacularly as I have: at worst, debt becomes tax.

From Krugman’s description Dr. Merkel comes out as a complete fool (so it is not reassuring that she goes around the world that the Ukrainian Republic should not be sold lethal defense weapons: is she Putin’s agent?). Krugman concludes: “…if the euro does fail, here’s what should be written on its tombstone: “Died of a bad analogy.

The world economy can die of other things too, such as massive corruption under the increasing weight of global plutocracy.

The presence of more than 30,000 known tax evaders in just one subsidiary of the British bank HSBC in Switzerland alone, between 2005 and 2007, has been revealed today. The total amount of tax evasion is 180 billion euros (200 billion dollars; lower numbers were initially announce, in good disinformation style). The accounts tied to politicians, royalty, designers, sports figures, corrupt businessmen, dictators, arms industry officials, drug traffickers, and high-end criminals.

The bank actively helped customers conceal the accounts from authorities. The bank also provided customers with cash under the form of bundles of old bank notes, in various currencies so they couldn’t be traced. Organized crime, also known as banking, is in charge of creating money… as debt. (97% of money is created by banks as credit, worldwide.)

The data was “illegally” downloaded by bank employee Herve’ Falciani, who later fled to France. Falciani told CBS’s 60 Minutes Sunday night that colleagues at the bank helped him with the data.

“Friends — let’s say partners — gave me these data,” Falciani says. “I’m not the only person in banking system that wants to raise alarm.”

60 Minutes made a biased report, insisting on Falciani wearing disguises, etc. Falciani was in jail in Spain (because of an Interpol warrant for his arrest launched by Switzerland, at the British bank’s prodding) for 5 months. During that time, Spanish authorities, fearing for his life, let him appear only under a heavy disguise (“60 Minutes” did not mention that the authorities disguised him; instead, “60 Minutes” insisted that Falciani wearing a disguise reflected the general mental derangement “60 Minutes” was anxious to impart to its viewership that Falciani was suffering from! Of such little details good propaganda is made of). Falciani has now police protection in France (and I would suggest that France sends warrant of arrest against various Swiss “authorities” instead; actually what about Putin’s 40 billions residing in Switzerland…).

Many heads of states were involved in HSBC Switzerland, including the King of Morocco, who had 8 million dollars on one account alone at HSBC Suisse. Ironically enough, Moroccan law forbids foreign bank accounts. The King of Jordan had 41 million in one account.

Also several dozen major Arab plutocrats owned accounts obviously set-up to feed Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Terrorism can be so expensive nowadays… Plenty of accounts of HSBC could be traced to blood money.

The brother in law of the Tunisian dictator Ben Ali. Family members of the Syrian blood bathing dictator, Assad. A major woman politician from Burundi. Money from major drug traffickers, being laundered.

HSBC says that it did not know. That’s a lie: the bank called all the owners of the accounts exposed to politics “PEP” (“Politically Exposed People”).

Why don’t banksters go to prison? Say, for decades. Why, instead of asking the Greek people to pay for bankers, we don’t systematically recover all the properties of all the officers, and shareholders of all the banks which lent to Greek plutocrats? One should also expropriate said plutocrats. Let’s do it, and see what’s left… If anything.

Here is Krugman again: “Many economists, including Janet Yellen, view global economic troubles since 2008 largely as a story about “deleveraging” — a simultaneous attempt by debtors almost everywhere to reduce their liabilities. Why is deleveraging a problem? Because my spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if everyone slashes spending at the same time, incomes go down around the world.

Or as Ms. Yellen put it in 2009, “Precautions that may be smart for individuals and firms — and indeed essential to return the economy to a normal state — nevertheless magnify the distress of the economy as a whole.”

The worst thing that can happen with national debt is that it does not get reimbursed. Then debt will act as a tax on those who had money to lend it. Not a tragedy. The failure of the Euro would be a tragedy, though.

So is sub-performing economic activity. It’s not a question of not buying enough cars, TV, pants and houses. It’s also a question of the educational system going down (so kudos to Obama for proposing to make college free… Although that just part of the problem).

What does debt do?

It augments the quantity of money on the economy while allowing greater economic activity. So, when demand is faltering, it makes demand higher than it otherwise would have been.

With all the infrastructure decaying, or proven insufficient, such as the educational system, one can only observe that more activity is needed.

A related problem is that the velocity of money has collapsed… Another indication of the insufficient economic activity.

Krugman again: “This was a prescription for slow-motion disaster. European debtors did, in fact, need to tighten their belts — but the austerity they were actually forced to impose was incredibly savage. Meanwhile, Germany and other core economies — which needed to spend more, to offset belt-tightening in the periphery — also tried to spend less. The result was to create an environment in which reducing debt ratios was impossible: Real growth slowed to a crawl, inflation fell to almost nothing and outright deflation has taken hold in the worst-hit nations.

Suffering voters put up with this policy disaster for a remarkably long time, believing in the promises of the elite that they would soon see their sacrifices rewarded. But as the pain went on and on, with no visible progress, radicalization was inevitable.”

Radicalization? It looks more like Enlightenment to me. Or then, one should go at the root of radical, which is root. Voters are starting to get to the root of the problem: they were manipulated by a class of greedsters who hold power…. And lied to get there.

Insufficient economic activity creates a plebs that does nothing but getting enough subsidies to get by, while a plutocracy rules above it. This is what happened to the Roman empire. Starting around 160 CE, taxes, especially on very rich estates became insufficient to support even the military.

Taxing the hyper rich then (as was done earlier under emperor Trajan) would have allowed to re-institute welfare for children, and make the military as strong as it was under Trajan (that, in turn brought peace and prosperity).

Are we not learning history?

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Too Little Debt & Too Much Blood Money Kill”

  1. gmax Says:

    I left a comment, but it did not appear. You do not want to do like Scientia Salon and New York Times! 😉

    The New York Times, speaking of the devil, is running a whole series on plutocrats (in your sense, a much excellent and general sense) who are treated as tax free kings in NEW YORK. No doubt they are plotting their takeover of the world, through endless parties with Wall Street bandits and Hampton princelings


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Your comment got lost on the Internet, somewhere. I do not censor commenters (just discourage those I do not approve of, with cruel retorts).
      Yes the Times is seriously waking up to New York plutocracy.

      On the other hand, Scientia Salon censors: here is what I got today:


      thanks for submitting a comment to Scientia Salon. However, I think it contains language that does not meet our guidelines for commenters, as detailed here:

      If you wish to rephrase your contribution accordingly, I will be happy to let it through. Your original text is pasted below for your convenience, please let me know if you need more specific feedback.


      Brian Key wrote a paper “Fish To Not Feel Pain and Its Implications For Understanding Phenomenal Consciousness”

      The axiomatics is philosophically circular… As Brian readily admits: ”…I acknowledge the tautology in the manuscript’s title, since the word “pain” is already defined as “to feel a noxious stimuli [sic]”.

      It’s not just the title that is fishy, but the logic.

      ‘“Feeling” is associated to a “quale” or “phenomenal consciousness”.’

      As Brian admits fishes react to noxious stimuli, he is just saying, to start with, that fishes, “do not feel anything”. That is also his conclusion.

      However, when under various states of sleep, consciousness, or anesthesia, we feel more or less. One of the basic arts of many a sport person, and all combatants is to shut down pain that gets in the way.

      A human being in full emergency mode can shut down completely atrocious pain, or extreme anguish. Spartans, drenched in blood, which could not be seen, because they were dressed in red, mastered fully a pain that ought not to be felt, while, and because, they were fighting to death. I have experienced this myself. However, that did not turn me into a fish.

      Extreme pain can shut down consciousness. Although consciousness is shut down, pain indicators are still fully on.

      Conclusion: pain and consciousness interact, yes, but they are independent brain functions.

      To claim “fishes do not have the homologue of a cerebral cortex” flies in the evidence of smart, adaptative behavior on the part of fishes, including transpecific conversations and collaborations.

      Reciprocally high level, intelligent behavior provides with evidence of consciousness.
      When a grouper go fetch a moray eel to hunt, and persuade it to collaborate, it looks as if the grouper has a theory of the other fish’s mind.

      It’s not a question of anthropomorphism. It’s a question of looking at facts. Pretending fishes do not experience fear requires semantical massage of the highest order. The fact is, taming clever fishes does not feel any different from taming vertebrates.

      Oh yes, because some species of fishes are smart, and others are not.

      Saying animals are machines is daft. Why? First, it’s a costly hypothesis. It requires to assume vertebrates brains got completely different, at the level of consciousness, from those of their ancestors, 200 million years prior. That violates the spirit of the theory of evolution. And where are those mysterious structures? Just to call them “quale”, does not exhibit them.

      Second, the animal-machine is a Biblical hypothesis: assume animals are machines, because the Bible said they had no souls. Are we still in the Middle Ages?

      It’s much wiser, philosophically, to suppose animals are primitive versions of ourselves, in all ways, including that of the most basic feelings.

      At this point of the science of consciousness, we are still poking around the philosophy of consciousness. To just say fishes feel nothing is contrary to evidence. To say they feel nothing because they cannot possibly be conscious in any sense, is to aggravate one’s case


      Massimo Pigliucci


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: