a missed trick
spain has wrestled with the same financial sector demons as has the us, but their response has differed in one significant aspect: the spanish government didn't "bail out" their bad banks--they confiscated them. (which is to say, took ownership stakes with the money they gave them, instead of just pissing it away). people might be tempted to ask what a government could possibly do with a failed bank, but i would point out that, as an alternative, we have NOTHING to show for all the cash we squandered on ours, and even then they're STILL cheating us. (and, to add insult to the irony, the banks are naturally worse off for having cut the corners).
banks are, second only to insurance companies, de facto rackets incorporated to extort and cheat, (even, it can be argued, steal), and should not be trusted further than their marble buildings can be thrown. islam, for all its bad press, at least gets this part right. (in islam, echoing jesus' tossing the moneylenders' tables in the temple, and much the same as our own usury laws, only set at a much more reasonable threshold, i.e. zero, it's illegal to charge interest). which is not to say that concentration of capital and mitigation of risk aren't important elements to our system--just to point out that close scrutiny is the least of our communal obligations to economic justice and our own societal solvency. for banks to be "good", like the wolves we domesticated millennia ago, they must be carefully trained, and very often kept on a short leash.
yeah, dubya started it, but barry has done nothing to improve on the folly, and right now our incoming joint chief of staff (shouldn't that be chief of joint staff?) is enduring a certain amount of national security scrutiny over the importance of government solvency to our national defense. dempsey may like to believe we need to prioritize security independent of means, but history is chock full of stories of even absolutely powerful monarchs who were undone by the unrest unreasonable tax burden places on those otherwise sworn to fealty. if we'd like to remain secure in our beds, we ought not to ignore the implications.
banks are, second only to insurance companies, de facto rackets incorporated to extort and cheat, (even, it can be argued, steal), and should not be trusted further than their marble buildings can be thrown. islam, for all its bad press, at least gets this part right. (in islam, echoing jesus' tossing the moneylenders' tables in the temple, and much the same as our own usury laws, only set at a much more reasonable threshold, i.e. zero, it's illegal to charge interest). which is not to say that concentration of capital and mitigation of risk aren't important elements to our system--just to point out that close scrutiny is the least of our communal obligations to economic justice and our own societal solvency. for banks to be "good", like the wolves we domesticated millennia ago, they must be carefully trained, and very often kept on a short leash.
yeah, dubya started it, but barry has done nothing to improve on the folly, and right now our incoming joint chief of staff (shouldn't that be chief of joint staff?) is enduring a certain amount of national security scrutiny over the importance of government solvency to our national defense. dempsey may like to believe we need to prioritize security independent of means, but history is chock full of stories of even absolutely powerful monarchs who were undone by the unrest unreasonable tax burden places on those otherwise sworn to fealty. if we'd like to remain secure in our beds, we ought not to ignore the implications.


1 Comments:
Ah, there is already a Director of the Joint Staff, a three twinkie. General Dempsey is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when they meet in the "Gold Room" or "Tank". And their representative to the President.
I think that GEN Dempsey did say that there is no one thing that dominates. In the coin of the day, DIME describes the Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic factors.
Back to no interest, in Europe's past, centuries ago, when Christians eschewed loaning at interest, and thus banking, the Sovereign had two options to finance a war. One was to raise taxes. Never popular. The other was to borrow from Jewish bankers. The advantage of that was, if the Sovereign was dumb enough to think that this was the war to end all wars, he could stick it to the Jewish bankers and run them out of the country, without paying back what was owed. But, economic expansion requires money and the Italian Renaissance gave us banks, and perhaps another excuse to mess with the Jews. Shameful.
In Islam there is profit sharing.
We have the Andy Jackson tradition. Didn't he refuse to renew the Bank of the US?
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home