Brand And Graeber Discuss Alternatives To The Current State Of Neo-Feudalism

[Setantii]

MIND-BLOWN!

Russell Brand talks to David Graeber who wrote one of the best books I've ever read. They discuss the ponzi-scheme that is the current global economic system and explain how the debt based money system is controlled by the banks. They also talk about the inevitable debt cancellation that will have to come and giving everybody an individual basic income. Wish I could have been involved in this conversation.

https://soundcloud.com/thehuffingtonpostuk/davig-graeber-podcast-week-01

So Brand and Graeber - in your opinion are they just spouting nonsense or offering real alternatives like I believe?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Setantii

[EUBanana]

Having heard Brand talk about his demands for massive redistribution and environmentalism, I am inclined to think he's just Yet Another Hip Communist and complete to$$er.

I've never heard him say a single solitary thing about individual liberty or rights. I've heard him say a lot about what how some nebulous 'community' should be in charge, which he assumes is synonymous with his own personal views. Kinda like Uncle Joe and 'the People', I guess. Meanwhile he preaches from a mansion, like your typical champagne socialist to$$er.

Debt cancellation, christ. Debts don't have to be paid necessarily, there is a fair way to write off debt - it's called bankruptcy.

Why the BBC gives this guy so much air time I have no idea. I never even heard of the guy until he was splashed all over the BBC website for days on end.

[EUBanana]

Meanwhile the banks would've gone bust if not for the government (more socialist to$$ers) bailing them out. Thats the only thing that means that they are still here in their pre-crisis form. Remember this, idiot revolutionaries.

I am reminded of the Comedian out of the Watchmen. The joke is on people like Russell Brand. We're living in the statist right-on paradise right now. We can't be nasty to each other on Twitter anymore on pain of jail and 3/4ers of the entire country is on some form of government handout thanks to tax credits and low interest rates.

Dan Dreiberg: But the country's disintegrating. What's happened to America? What's happened to the American dream?.
The Comedian: [brandishing tear gas grenade launcher] It came true. You're lookin' at it. Now c'mon... let's really put these jokers through some changes.

[Executive Sadman]

Having heard Brand talk about his demands for massive redistribution and environmentalism, I am inclined to think he's just Yet Another Hip Communist and complete to$$er.

I've never heard him say a single solitary thing about individual liberty or rights. I've heard him say a lot about what how some nebulous 'community' should be in charge, which he assumes is synonymous with his own personal views. Kinda like Uncle Joe and 'the People', I guess. Meanwhile he preaches from a mansion, like your typical champagne socialist to$$er.

Debt cancellation, christ. Debts don't have to be paid necessarily, there is a fair way to write off debt - it's called bankruptcy.

Why the BBC gives this guy so much air time I have no idea. I never even heard of the guy until he was splashed all over the BBC website for days on end.

yes, yes, but that can just happen.

Politicians need something like a policy to make themselves feel needed!

Personally Brand scares the shit out of me...or rather his converts do. I fully expect a mass suicide!

[erat_forte]

So do I. Because I would have stepped in and told them the most leveraged people in the world are the rich asset holders. They have permanently been 'saved' by loose monetary policy since the 1970's so their leveraged debts fall in value whilst their assets which are leveraged to the money supply, rise.

You must NOT have a debt cancellation without an ASSET RESET.

It is a lie that cheap money is there to save the poor indebted!

Steve Keen spouts this nonsense too without thinking thru' the consequences properly.

In that case why havent they already organised a debt amnesty, if it would benefit the elites at e expense of the masses?

[EUBanana]

In that case why havent they already organised a debt amnesty, if it would benefit the elites at e expense of the masses?

So what's wrong with bankruptcy exactly?

[gf3]

So do I. Because I would have stepped in and told them the most leveraged people in the world are the rich asset holders. They have permanently been 'saved' by loose monetary policy since the 1970's so their leveraged debts fall in value whilst their assets which are leveraged to the money supply, rise.

You must NOT have a debt cancellation without an ASSET RESET.

It is a lie that cheap money is there to save the poor indebted!

Steve Keen spouts this nonsense too without thinking thru' the consequences properly.

Agree about the asset reset without that people with lots of rent seeking assets would just get rich again. Don't agree with the rich having loads of debt. Because that would mean the poor have all the money.

If the average family has £54,000 in debt who has the money according to you?

[erat_forte]

So what's wrong with bankruptcy exactly?

As mentioned above, if you go bankrupt you lose your assets. That's bad if you are a wealthy elite!

As to who holds the rich person's debt, how about bank balances, pension funds etc. I.e. 'ordinary people'?

Edited October 29, 2014 by erat_forte

[Drone 19830312]

MIND-BLOWN!

Russell Brand talks to David Graeber who wrote one of the best books I've ever read. They discuss the ponzi-scheme that is the current global economic system and explain how the debt based money system is controlled by the banks. They also talk about the inevitable debt cancellation that will have to come and giving everybody an individual basic income. Wish I could have been involved in this conversation.

https://soundcloud.com/thehuffingtonpostuk/davig-graeber-podcast-week-01

So Brand and Graeber - in your opinion are they just spouting nonsense or offering real alternatives like I believe?

At least Brand is talking about alternatives.

I expect he'll be ridiculed, as will any political debate outside of the well defined boundaries.

In a democracy, controlling the set of acceptable ideas is how the powerful stay powerful.

[EUBanana]

At least Brand is talking about alternatives.

I expect he'll be ridiculed, as will any political debate outside of the well defined boundaries.

In a democracy, controlling the set of acceptable ideas is how the powerful stay powerful.

When his ideas are not far removed from Lenin, it is appropriate that he be ridiculed. It always gets up my nose when someone presumes to speak for me with his class warfare rhetoric, but then, thats why the USSR had reeducation camps I guess.

Whenever there's some comedian/actress/luvvie out to save the planet why is it always Lenin ffs. Why not Gladstone? Just once.

And obviously he's not being ridiculed by the BBC, who seem to be doing their damndest to promote this muppet at every opportunity.

Meanwhile he can spend some of his 20 mill on a hostel for the homeless in London or something.

[gf3]

To borrow any sort of size you need to have collateral...assets.

I didn't say they were net debtors. They may well have a surplus of money and assets.

However, it is beyond argument that the biggest debts are held by 'rich' individuals leveraging their assets and companies of course.

I may agree with you that the 1% are debtors but I don't think that the 0.01% are. It makes sense for me to keep my mortgage debt I am earning more money else where. But if I came up on the lottery tomorrow I would just pay if off. Not worth the mind space.

[cybernoid]

So Brand and Graeber - in your opinion are they just spouting nonsense or offering real alternatives like I believe?

Silly nonsense. Cancelling everyones mortgage is great if you were one of the idiots who took one on that you couldn't afford, I expect they'd vote for that. What about those who pay their way? Who don't take on debt obligations they have no intention of meeting? Give the money/power to idiots and you have idiocracy

Keeping the little people in their place is actually useful to society as a whole. What we are losing lately is social mobility for those with the smarts to contribute the most. It is a mistake to conflate that with free money for everyone, cos thats 'fair'. Brand is like an 8 year old. If he had to work for his money instead of winning a showbiz lottery he'd take a different view.

[porca misèria]

Having heard Brand

So have I: he was on "start the week" on Monday. A monstrously spoilt brat, and makes Sarah Palin look intelligent. Stuck out like a sore thumb in the company of people with interesting things to say.

[Setantii]

Silly nonsense. Cancelling everyones mortgage is great if you were one of the idiots who took one on that you couldn't afford, I expect they'd vote for that. What about those who pay their way? Who don't take on debt obligations they have no intention of meeting? Give the money/power to idiots and you have idiocracy

How about instead of writing off mortgages everybody in the country is given say £25,000 which must be used to write off existing debts or if you are fortunate not to have that much debt you get to keep the extra, so anybody with no debt gets £25,000 for free?

TBH if it was up to me I'd nationalise the banking system and only loan out new credit for things that actually produce something like new houses or new machinery. I'd also create the interest money needed to pay back the debts and spend it into the economy.

I'd also throw in a law that bans anybody from owning more than two houses. Obviously this would crash the price of houses and send a lot of people into negative equity. If that is the case I'd allow them to hand back the property if they want with no debts attached or freeze interest payments on the mortgage if they want to continue living in it.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Setantii

[gf3]

How about instead of writing off mortgages everybody in the country is given say £25,000 which must be used to write off existing debts or if you are fortunate not to have that much debt you get to keep the extra, so anybody with no debt gets £25,000 for free?

TBH if it was up to me I'd nationalise the banking system and only loan out new credit for things that actually produce something like new houses or new machinery. I'd also create the interest money needed to pay back the debts and spend it into the economy.

I'd also throw in a law that bans anybody from owning more than two houses. Obviously this would crash the price of houses and send a lot of people into negative equity. If that is the case I'd allow them to hand back the property if they want with no debts attached or freeze interest payments on the mortgage if they want to continue living in it.

I would go for a nationalised boring bank that pays no interest. money 100% guaranteed. But I would also have private banks Non FRB where people can earn interest but can lose money.

I would get rid of cash with everything going through one nationalised bank I would look for fraud billions going through account £10 tax.

[Ah-so]

Russell Brand strikes me as being intellectually incoherent behind his eloquent facade. He seems short of alternatives, but makes a career out of criticising the status quo. He recommends that we don't vote, as though this would bring about some massive change to turn us into a socialist utopia or something.

Time he was kept off of Newsnight or guest editing Today until he comes up with something a bit more intellectually rigorous.

[EUBanana]

How about instead of writing off mortgages everybody in the country is given say £25,000 which must be used to write off existing debts or if you are fortunate not to have that much debt you get to keep the extra, so anybody with no debt gets £25,000 for free?

Well that'd have the merit of stopping me from rioting. I don't think it'd solve the problem though.

Someone is gonna lose a lot of money - this is unavoidable. Personally. I'd rather have it largely be the banks and the fools. This is what would have happened already - except then the government stepped in. Now the entire system is on the hook.

[Guest Jemmy Button]

Well that'd have the merit of stopping me from rioting. I don't think it'd solve the problem though.

Someone is gonna lose a lot of money - this is unavoidable. Personally. I'd rather have it largely be the banks and the fools. This is what would have happened already - except then the government stepped in. Now the entire system is on the hook.

You're talking as if you are completely isolated from the debt madness - You're not. You may have zero debts but you are not immune from the carnage that is the UK/Global economy. You may not wish for any kind of debt jubilee (and you have every right to be, if you have been prudent with your financial decisions) but the weight of debt will surely drag EVERYBODY into the mire. I think a debt jubilee must happen. The alternative is to watch Escape from New York and to view it as a survival guide...

[erat_forte]

You're talking as if you are completely isolated from the debt madness - You're not. You may have zero debts but you are not immune from the carnage that is the UK/Global economy. You may not wish for any kind of debt jubilee (and you have every right to be, if you have been prudent with your financial decisions) but the weight of debt will surely drag EVERYBODY into the mire. I think a debt jubilee must happen. The alternative is to watch Escape from New York and to view it as a survival guide...

So... why is debt jubilee better thzn bankruptcy? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

[EUBanana]

You're talking as if you are completely isolated from the debt madness - You're not. You may have zero debts but you are not immune from the carnage that is the UK/Global economy. You may not wish for any kind of debt jubilee (and you have every right to be, if you have been prudent with your financial decisions) but the weight of debt will surely drag EVERYBODY into the mire. I think a debt jubilee must happen. The alternative is to watch Escape from New York and to view it as a survival guide...

A debt jubilee will just fix the current inequality for the next generation, at the very minimum. It will also mean that lessons will not have been learned and have moral hazard implications, so it will promptly happen again. Especially if there is no fundamental reform of how things are done, beyond a jubilee (which will after all be paid for, in effect, by scrubs like me, the people who will get sweet FA out of it).

Bankruptcy will be effectively the same as a jubilee except the overleveraged will pay the price, not the prudent.

[gf3]

So... why is debt jubilee better thzn bankruptcy? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

I think it depends what your analysis on what happened in 2007/2008.depends If you think the system we have is OK just fell apart because a few people made a few bad loans. or Whether you think the system is flawed and it was bound to happen in the end.

The trouble with bankruptcy is that all the banks would have gone down a well. and we would have become a cash society.

[EUBanana]

The trouble with bankruptcy is that all the banks would have gone down a well. and we would have become a cash society.

The banks assets and infrastructure would remain and obviously there would be a great deal of demand for its use, so I REALLY doubt that.

The absolute worst case scenario would be an emergency nationalisation, where the government simply assumes control of the banking infrastructure, hopefully on a temporary basis.

[gf3]

Bankruptcy will be effectively the same as a jubilee except the overleveraged will pay the price, not the prudent.

No when the banks went there wouldn't be any money. No money to pay the police to kick the mortgaged debt holders out of their house.

[gf3]

The banks assets and infrastructure would remain and obviously there would be a great deal of demand for its use, so I REALLY doubt that.

The absolute worst case scenario would be an emergency nationalisation, where the government simply assumes control of the banking infrastructure, hopefully on a temporary basis.

So the government would have to intervene and pay the staff because no one else knows the passwords ect. This doesn't sound like bankruptcy to me.

[EUBanana]

So the government would have to intervene and pay the staff because no one else knows the passwords ect. This doesn't sound like bankruptcy to me.

NatWest et al would cease to exist. Their stuff would be either be bought at firesale prices or seized by the government as an emergency measure - this is what governments are for after all. A skeleton crew would indeed be employed by the government to keep things ticking over.

Sounds like a bankruptcy to me due to the 'NatWest would cease to exist' part.

In an ideal world it wouldn't be the government doing the buying at firesale prices part, but it might have to be. But as we both agree there would be huge demand to use that banking infrastructure, so I'm not sure it'd be so hard to find a private buyer. It's not like that stuff has no value.