you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Says the guys owning the press.

Local economies prosper in these conditions, and the Banksters don't get their loan payments.

Countries with low GDP often have decent living standards, but they don't have economies that depends upon financial transactions.
Credit economies existed before money economies. The barter theory is a myth.

Poverty rates don't apply in the same way in these economies, because they are "poor" based on income in $$$'s. Lack of $$$ does not equate to starvation, etc.

Most places are better off without the Banksters noticing them.

[–]h5e4ah45erth 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Local economies prosper

Depends what you mean "prosper". In terms of labor to production, it's just not true, societies with higher ratios of debt (or another way to put it, more capital per risk) generally grow faster, and the result of that growth is more production per unit of labor. Because what debt represents it the willingness for those with wealth to lend it to risky projects. If you have no debt, what you really have is a wealth-hoarded society. Maybe it can exist at small scales, when wealth is scarce in the first place, but in the long term, hoarded wealth is wealth not invested.

Hence the inevitable transition of anarchist to "tankie": if we can't trust the rich with wealth, we need a council of councils to Democratize it. And the opposition will be executed.

[–]AnarchySpeach 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if we can't trust the rich with wealth, we need a council of councils to Democratize it. And the opposition will be executed.

A dragon in a mountain is left alone until it's discovered.