Please, I beg you, correct me if I'm wrong. (Will, I'm looking at you here, pal!) I'm not an economist, have never worked in a finance, and can hardly balance a checkbook. Still, there's less to the concept of money than banks would like you to think; that's how they intimidate you into submission.
Between the beginning of organized community-based civilization and the adoption of monetary currency, people traded to acquire what they needed. The fisherman traded his fish for grain, the farmer traded his grain for wood, et cetera. This worked well until someone had all the grain they needed, and the farmer had nothing else to trade with. So along comes the banker.
The banker whips up some money; for example, $1000 for everyone. He affirms that he owns the money, but he'll gladly borrow it out to the community for a small fee, which he'll collect at the end of the year. The bank even offers a generously low interest rate of 5%. Not bad, huh?
Yet, once the year is over, everyone discovers something: even though they all end the year with exactly as much as they began, nobody has enough to pay the borrowing fee. So the banker makes them an offer. Pay attention, because this next part is the swindle.
Everyone in the community borrowed $1000, and now because of interest, they all owe $1050. The bank then takes back all the money that exists, leaving everyone with no actual way to pay their debt. The bank records that everyone owes $50, then lends out another $1000 to everyone for the upcoming year, still with 5% interest.
So even in a best-case scenario that assumes everyone in the community ends the year with as much as they began, debt is still perpetual. In a worst-case scenario, of course, a few people are able to pay their debt back, most are in perpetual debt, and a few are bankrupt and left to starve.
Today, banks operate on the same principle, but without the inconvenience of tangible, physical money. Currency is nearly completely theoretical. It exists electronically, being created out of thin air. It's fiction. This is why if everyone withdrew all their savings at the same time, there would not be enough money for everyone. It is a debt-based system.
Unfortunately, money is the dominant system of our civilization. And while I do support a money-free society, it is simply not possible in the near future. Realistically, even a complete collapse of the current financial system wouldn't be enough to implement something different. It is still quite impossible to buy food and shelter with good intentions, so whether or not money is a good thing, it is a wretched necessity of the present. And yet, it doesn't even exist.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Electoral Process
(This is a message to anybody who doesn't vote, an excerpt from conversations I've had, once quite recently.)
It's true; democracy doesn't work. I've voted for a losing party in absolutely every election since I turned 18. In each instance, my vote truly did not matter, and so it was effectively the same as if I hadn't voted at all. So yes, the system is flawed.
However, to change the system, the choice isn't between voting and not voting. That's a false dichotomy. The real choice is between voting and revolution. Either the system is changed from within or it is changed by force, so unless you're willing to pick up a weapon and literally fight for change, your only choice is to vote.
Most people that don't participate in elections use the "my vote doesn't matter" argument simply to justify their apathy, their laziness. They are actually unwilling to take steps towards any type of change, let alone the simpler of the two. There's an old saying, a well-worn Hollywood cliché, "we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." Well, in our society, the easy way is voting and the hard way is revolution. The irony is, to actually change anything, the easy way is actually very hard. And it takes a long time.
So yes, it's true, my vote never made a difference. But somebody else's did. And I can live with this because I'm aware that I'm not willing to pick up a gun and fight. Not alone.
The system is flawed, but it's not enough just to talk about its failure. You have to understand its weaknesses; and the biggest weakness of all is to do absolutely nothing.
It's true; democracy doesn't work. I've voted for a losing party in absolutely every election since I turned 18. In each instance, my vote truly did not matter, and so it was effectively the same as if I hadn't voted at all. So yes, the system is flawed.
However, to change the system, the choice isn't between voting and not voting. That's a false dichotomy. The real choice is between voting and revolution. Either the system is changed from within or it is changed by force, so unless you're willing to pick up a weapon and literally fight for change, your only choice is to vote.
Most people that don't participate in elections use the "my vote doesn't matter" argument simply to justify their apathy, their laziness. They are actually unwilling to take steps towards any type of change, let alone the simpler of the two. There's an old saying, a well-worn Hollywood cliché, "we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." Well, in our society, the easy way is voting and the hard way is revolution. The irony is, to actually change anything, the easy way is actually very hard. And it takes a long time.
So yes, it's true, my vote never made a difference. But somebody else's did. And I can live with this because I'm aware that I'm not willing to pick up a gun and fight. Not alone.
The system is flawed, but it's not enough just to talk about its failure. You have to understand its weaknesses; and the biggest weakness of all is to do absolutely nothing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
