Topic: Dissecting the Parasitocracy, Version 2 (Read 375 times)

I really doubt that the world of cryptocurrencies is outside of their influence, think about it, can you buy cryptocurrencies with fiat? Can the governments print as much fiat as they want? We know that the answer to both of those questions is yes, so without a doubt they can take control of this market if they want, but even if they do so and then they try to do the same to bitcoin like what they did to gold by getting most of it, storing it, forbid people to transact with gold directly and then back their currencies with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to give the illusion their currencies are backed by something only to eventually go back on their word and make their currencies once again fiat, another genius like satoshi could appear and create an even better cryptocurrency to resist their efforts.

Obviously, in the short term, many things are in flux and it can be difficult to see the big, long term picture.

But long-term history provides some clarity.  The global financial elite allied with England and not France, and Britain won the top-dog contest during the 18th century.  For a successor to Britain, it allied with the US and not Germany, and the US won in the first half of the 20th century.  This is just being repeated vis a vis India and China.

The 'top-dog' system works well (at least so far) because when you combine financial know-how with a big, rising country with a (still) cheap cost structure, it is a formidable power, especially when that country becomes economically mature enough.  This combined power is enough to dominate key events of the world, as the Dutch, British, and American empires have shown.  There's no reason to expect such a well-oiled machine to be changed any time soon.

The rival and independent forces within each country tend to be corralled by the power of money to serve the same master (the System.)  E.g. US Democrats and Republicans have been yelling at each other for decades, but no politician of either party will come close to changing the basic system detailed by this discussion.  Even the average American voter doesn't really want to know how the US basically collects a tax from the rest of the world for breathing the air, and punishes rebels with war and death.  Because?  They all benefit from the US financial bubble that must be supported by its empire.

I totally understand the feeling, 'changing this is going to be difficult.'

But, that is precisely the wrong conclusion here.  We, each of us, has the power to make some difference, small or large, at everyturn, everyday.  This comes from our system being fundamentally different from the traditional top-down system.  Our system is based on some level of including classical liberalism and other genuinely good forces in the winning alliance.  What we have to do is to stand up for these forces, day in and day out, on matters small and large.

Because the winning alliance also includes many powerful players who are only interested in enhancing their power, if we expose truths and thwart the agendas of these powers at every turn, the way the system works, it will have no choice but to adapt to a slightly different balance of power, and make the world a slightly better place.

It is one step at a time, for a long time to come.  But each step brings about its own little bit of benefit.
It is not all or nothing.

The current condition is not just a state agenda and no longer competition between the United States and China, instead it is crossing interests of many parties ranging from individuals, countries, to non-state actors. State actors (Chinese and American). Non-state actor (global elite, globalist, local elite, and the shadow). Individual actors (Trump & Putin).

India is only used as a proxy by many parties. But India's attitude towards America by forming a military alliance with Australia, Japan, and the United States is a risky step even though it is currently benefiting India because it is protecting India from Pakistan and China. India should have kept active free politics, bringing America to the South China Sea was a learning error from the American presence in the Middle East. In addition, India's focus should be on domestic issues rather than pursuing the title as a regional world power.

Globalists who are non-state actors and assume that the less important state holds control in a country through regulatory control through oligarchy, controlling the media, controlling officials. While the tools used are technology and money to exploit a country's natural wealth, information technology control, hardware, optical fiber internet backbone, data management, global supply chain control, and finally control of financial transactions, payment systems, financial systems, and banking system.

Amazing article. Its a good read. Over the period I believe that those who were prince, kings, and their decedents now a days had come up with such systems to keep up the money flow in their pockets while giving an illusion of "DEMOCRATIC" system in reality. Of course this is greatest illusion from these rich people (inherited richness) who created a centralised system and took all the important decisions in their hands.

Have you ever heard of government who gives out free hand to the public issuance ?  What I mean is, when it's about money, and lets take an example of economic crisis, they will raise the "costs of things" mostly those required on the daily basis!! This keep up the money flow in the governments pockets with the help of taxes, both on state and central level.

I think this is really big picture which you have compared above. One can not even have an idea how and what they are upto when they circulate the money throughout the nation. How are they sustained with such big infrastructure, military cost, charities, etc. simply by imposing the rules they created in public interest.

That's always how it is, those who are at the top are the ones with a better advantage than the ones who are regarded as the floor members. When you become one of the elites you're regarded as an important person and those who are poor are regarded as nothing. Changing this is going to be difficult. The government already has the power in their hands and it might be really difficult to make any impact on stopping them.

Sometimes I don't even trust banks, it's not that I have had any problem with them, I just don't really trust them. But, I can't keep my money at home and neither can I keep all my money in a cryptocurrency wallet because they are volatile. Just stuck in the middle.

Thanks!  I don't have a problem with a global tax on wealth in theory (although practice would be another matter.)  What I do have an issue with is (as I obliquely alluded to) that he doesn't seem to see the major problem in front of his eyes.  The cornerstone of his thesis is that rates of return on capital are too high during periods of low growth.  But this is precisely when central banks are pumping money to the already rich.  Ask even any mainstream financial commentator and they'll acknowledge that the US stock market today is supported just by the Fed.  Not seeing the elephant in the room, he then proposed taxation as a fix.  He is certainly more than intelligent and competent.  So, it smacks of intentional negligence.  And then I went into his bio a little, and found his engagements with the 'practical' side of economic politics...

You will have to excuse me for thinking, this is just another of those.

Was it Napoleon who said, history is a pack of lies agreed upon?

It's true, what you say has held across all human civilization, that a small elite rules over the majority, and that the system is exploitative.

But there's a fundamental difference between the modern Western imperial system and the Roman, Chinese, Persian empires, or what have you.  Human civilization has always been based mostly on co-operation.  Sure, the emperor wanted his power, but by and large he wanted fairness and harmony to persist across his realm.  It was the smart way to benefit himself.

By contrast, the Western system is fundamentally based on conflict.  The power of the (minority) winners comes from being the 'balance of power,' that is, by stoking conflict among different groups, always helping out the weaker side, so real competition exists.  At the crucial moment, the winners put their small but decisive weight behind the side they want to win.

For example, in the race to be the next global top dog between China and India, the US is always working to take China down and raise India up.  The global elites don't have the power to dominate the world on their own, but with the help with a future prosperous India, they will.

A system based on conflict and competition is a recipe for profound human unhappiness.

I think that your original post is excellent, in particular the summary above. It is absolutely the case that the system is set up to benefit the already-rich. It's the old 'privatisation of profit and socialisation of risk' situation that was thrown into such stark focus in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, too. I suppose I am coming at it from the perspective of inequality within societies rather than between societies.

I do however disagree with this. It is important to question everything, even a book as data-driven as this one, but 'Buyer beware' is a little harsh. Piketty's most notable recommendation - whether workable or not - is for a global progressive taxation on wealth. I'm not convinced that this recommendation is aligned with the interests of the elites. But I will leave it there as I don't want to derail what is an excellent discussion around your original post.

Thomas Piketty has produced a rare and notable work: a well-written and fundamental reassessment of 'capitalism' based on extensive historical data.

However, he doesn't mention the elephant in the room.  His thesis is that the driver of inequality has been the rate of return on capital being persistently higher than the economic growth rate, during extended periods of low growth.  He implicitly (and explicitly) attributes the high rates of return to free-market supply and demand of capital.

But if there's only one mission of the world system, it would be to prop up financial asset values artificially.  That is the thesis of this thread.  The gold standard, the dollar standard, globalization, bailouts and other major features of the system over the last 250 years have operated to support the values of the top currencies and major assets denominated in them.  And it was during periods of low growth that the support by central banks and governments was most 'needed' and most obviously driving inequality.

Perhaps, it's not an accident that his agenda of increasing the redistributive power of the state is aligned with powerful political forces.  Buyer beware.

Reminds me of Hitler's Nazi quotes or propaganda which is "make a big lie, simplify, repeat continuously, eventually they will believe". Those who can do this are 3% of the top masters of the pyramid who create systems and can reset the system, destruct the system, and rebuild the system as they wish and for their survival and interests.

New Zealand is often cited as a good location for waiting out the apocalypse. The fact that it is (or was) Covid-19-free probably gives it added cachet.

One problem however might be that come the end of the world, the country might rapidly fill up with billionaires such as Peter Thiel. This is a couple of years old, but you may find it an interesting read:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand

I think the keywords of this thread are illusion, reality, and gamble, and one sentence in particular caught my eye : "The system is an 'open conspiracy.'  Instead of secrecy, it relies on a combination of state power and ignorance by the public."

Without referring to something special, in layman's terms they first present us with an illusion, then convince us that it is reality, and then force us to roll the dice. It is a concept in which the current world order works, and it fits perfectly with those at the top of the pyramid. People actually behave like sheep, following the leader of the herd even if he goes towards the abyss.

---

- Gold is a good choice, especially if everything goes to hell and becomes the only thing with which something can be bought - but here we are already talking about the apocalyptic scenario.

- BTC is risky but certainly desirable asset and has the potential to become a very strong player in the financial markets, the next 10 years will show where it will actually position itself.

- Cash is far better than money in bank account, especially if banks close indefinitely and ATMs go offline.

- Fortunately or not, firearms laws are almost extreme in the EU - in order for me to have any firearms I have to pass a rigorous security check that includes questioning all my neighbors about what kind of person I am. It always remains an illegal option.

- Food&water is easy for me since I have access to fresh clean water and some land on which I grow some fruit and vegetables enough for my needs.

- When it comes to relocation, it’s something I’m seriously thinking about - but it’s hard to say which location is safe in the world today, maybe Switzerland because of its neutrality?

Since the beginning of human civilization,a minority of people had all the power,wealth and property,while the vast majority of the people had to work in order to survive.Slave owner society,feudalism,capitalism-it doesn't matter.
The majority of the people need to be fed with lies and illusions,like all the things that you wrote about-banks are safe,government bonds are safe,paper money have real value,etc.This is how the elite rules the people.
We are aware about all those lies,but we have to play the financial game and try to survive.The rules of the game are set by the financial elite.The cryptocurrency world is still outside of that game.I hope that the global financial elite will never take control over the cryptocurrency world.

Additionally, it might be worth considering the distinction between wealth and income.


He has since clarified some of the discussion around this point, particularly to emphasise that whilst r>g is not in itself a problem, there is nevertheless a positive correlation between the extent of the r>g gap and the extent of inequalities within a society. An excessive rate of return on capital works to increase any inequalities that may arise as a result of 'shocks' within the system.

A tax on wealth rather than income may be an answer.

Agreed with a lot of this.  I'm still studying the nature of minority power, but it looks like a big part of its architecture is the 'sale of addictions,' much like drug dealing.  This sale is repeated at many levels, so that, ultimately, a small group may control key events in the entire world.

Instead of pure coercion, most of what you want done is voluntarily and even enthusiastically carried out by those you have power over, because they want what you give them, after you have addicted them to it.

Thus, I suppose, leaders of the Deep State are addicted to their behind-the-scenes power (plus impunity for their past actions!) so they work with the top financial elites to keep the world system alive.  Most well-to-do Americans and Europeans probably care most about maintaining their lifestyles and the system/bubble that enables it and don't really want to know who really killed half a million Syrians just recently.  America as a country is addicted to the value of its dollar and cheap oil and goods.  Plus, many middle Americans are pretty prideful of their country.  The most productive countries in the world have been addicted to their exports to America, and their leaders are happy to keep their own financial systems in perpetual turmoil to help make the dollar look good.  It goes on down the line.

Added 'benefits' of addiction as opposed to coercion (which is probably not possible anyway) are that voluntary slavery looks more like a free market both economically and politically, and that there's some level of real competition, so the system looks like a meritocracy (which, in a limited sense, it is.)

From the three examples that you took above (The Bank Account, Government Bonds, Money). That the role of banks is very large so that tricks to bridge the myths and reality can work. The government and the majority of people throughout the world still deify banks, even the government protects banks that are considered the economic arteries of the country and the world. The government issued a bailout policy to address bank liquidity problems. The oligarchs and plutocrats are a group of super-rich people who control the economy, who use the role of government to rake in wealth.

Human nature that is greedy and never satisfied is an important point in understanding the complexity of today's economy. So that a simple economy is made to be complex and complex. Everyone agrees with the figure of don't judge the book from its cover, even though it is difficult to apply and adopt because the cover of this economic system is religious, at least we can take the rules of practice as an alternative in overcoming economic inequality caused by greedy nature human.

In Islamic economic teachings, the practice of banks with an interest system is strictly prohibited and is a grave sin. In addition, the practice of money as a commodity traded on the market and the futures market is also banned because it is full of uncertainty and if money is absorbed by the unreal sector, the real sector will be sacrificed. Money is only greasing the transaction, so money really drives the economy.

...

I believe we have passed the point of no return re our economy.  There will be an epic crash or reset (IMO).  No one is coming to save us, no one is coming to help us.  It's up to each one of us to protect our own butts.

Of course, no one can predict the future either (and so I could be completely wrong).  I rely on my close observation of as many conditions as I can, and I assign rough probabilities to each extreme outcome.  I still arrive at what I have always felt is correct in dangerous times:

Diversification

-- own physical gold, maybe other precious metals too
-- BTC
-- CA$H at home or safely close by
-- guns & ammo
-- knowledge of how to get/grow water & food (hard)
-- move to safer areas (also very hard for most)

We have only done 4 of the above, but in many situations "you don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun your neighbor".

"Three gets you five" we're going to see many people moving out of NYC and Chicago before long.........

Some called it rent seeking behaviour, I think JP Morgan are prime suspect, it’s ceo is demon.

People desire equal representation from politicians, regulators, law makers and the establishment. There is a severe discrepansy in how that representation is distributed, however. Ruling elites spend considerable time and money currying favor with demographics who have power and influence. While everyone else typically couldn't care less.

It leads to the self interests of the wealthy and powerful being represented across the board. While the people have zero representation. To negate this harsh reality, we typically see social movements funded by upper ruling classes label themselves as "representing" the people. Even though we should all know the people seldom if ever have any real representation.

One of the key architectural problems present in society and civilization is defining methods to distribute wealth and influence equally. When some demographics work 24/7 towards achieving those goals. Contrasted with others believing complete apathy and indifference towards these topics as lifestyles are more suitable alternatives.

This essay generated quite a lively discussion when I wrote it a few years ago.  Here is an updated version, with many minor or moderate changes in content and wording, based on my latest understanding.

*****

Instead of honest democracy or free-market meritocracy, we truly live under rule by parasites.  (This term is not meant to be derogatory but to be apt.  I suppose many, if not most of us, would opt to be one of the parasites, if given the choice.)

Trying to describe how the financial and political elites receive unearned wealth and power can get complicated very quickly.  To find a simple but rigorous theory to cover most major features of the beast requires looking at it the right way.

By and large, how it works is that:

• The elites use state power to prop up the values of money, debt, and other financial assets artificially, to benefit those who issue them, i.e. themselves.  When some over-valued asset eventually must crash, the entire economy suffers the loss of jobs, business and savings.
  

Example: The Bank Account

Public illusion. A commercial-bank 'deposit' is as good as money.  You will get all your money back, any time you want.

Reality. 'Deposits' are really loans to the bank which lends them to borrowers, some of whom may never pay them back.  Another danger is that savers may ask for their money at any time, while loans by the bank tend to have longer-term maturities.

How to bridge myth and reality. An truly free-market system would drive banks to communicate expectations openly.  A simple example could be having 'depositors' expect to lose money if the bank makes bad loans.  The problem with such an honest system, of course, is that top politicians and bankers wouldn't benefit much, since people would likely put much less money in banks.

The confidence trick.  The government props up the illusion, while it can.  Classic tools over the centuries include allowing banks to collude by rescuing each other in a crisis, bailing banks out with public money, and providing deposit insurance.  If this gives bankers the incentives to take too much risk, bankers redeem themselves by being a lender to the government.  Since both sets of elites benefit, what problem is there?  (In recent decades investment banks and money market funds have formed a shadow banking system which plays an equivalent role.  While the last US commercial-bank bust happened in the 1980s' savings-and-loan crisis, the last shadow-bank variety occurred in 2007-8.)

Analysis. While credit is indeed crucial to economic growth, to use government power to prop up the values of loans to banks, and then to rely on bureaucrats and their rules to limit risk-taking by bankers is a distortion of the credit market.  It is the driver of much human misery.  Central planning, somehow, always benefits the few at the expense of the many, even if it claims to do just the opposite.


Example: Government Bonds

Public illusion. The 'full faith and credit' of the government stands behind the IOU it issues to you.  Your IOU is as good as money.

Reality. Since much public debt is almost as trusted as money, incurring this debt is almost as good as printing money.  Politicians thus have an incentive to maximize the issuance of debt to receive free political capital, even if this destabilizes their own system in the long run.  Public debt all over the world goes only up.  Even though powerful governments can keep their debt bubbles going for a century or more, those incentives mean that their IOUs will eventually lose value, one way or another.

How to bridge myth and reality. Even aside from the moral problems of 'money' creation and putting burden on people who can't yet vote, public debt should at least be allowed to sink or swim in the capital markets.  If a government incurs too much debt, savers would be incentivized to punish it by demanding a higher yield, and politicians would in turn be incentivized to cut back borrowing.

The confidence trick. When savers get too wary of public debt, the central bank steps in to buy it with freshly printed money, thus propping up the value of these IOUs.  This is done in the name of 'monetary policy,' either by buying public debt directly as 'open market' operations, or, more frequently, by supplying banks with cheap new money so they will buy it.  Most of the time, savers can't fight city hall, and will thus tend to buy and hold IOUs, further limiting the downside risk of their values.  This entire system thus amounts to a bubble.

Analysis. It doesn't matter how powerful a government is -- Public debt always crashes eventually.  The dominant global empires of Spain, the Netherlands, and  Britain were destroyed by this crash in their days.  (In the case of Britain the relevant 'public debt' took the form of paper pound sterling that was officially an IOU for a fixed amount of gold.)  No one believes US debt is really payable with anything close to the purchasing power savers and foreign central banks used to buy it, although by the time its value can no longer be propped up, most politicians and voters who have benefited from issuing it will have been gone.


Example: Money

Public illusion. Central banks issue and destroy currency to manage economic output for the benefit of the public.  At least in the West, proper management has resulted in low and constant inflation that has justified the public's evident trust in currency's value.

Reality. The real job description of the central bank is to safeguard the state-bank alliance.  It holds power over the most central asset, money, in order to discourage both politicians and bankers from issuing assets too fast and thus endangering the system.  The goal is well-paced harvesting of the fruits of real work.  Over the decades, prices only move in one direction: up.

How to bridge myth and reality. Unfortunately, there is no way to remove the incentives to abuse the issuance of money while the state or a banking cartel has any role in the issuance.

The confidence trick. The problem of holding up the public's trust in currency was solved in a simple fashion by the classical gold and silver standards in their day, while the authorities had enough precious metals to back their paper.  Today, the central bank needs to keep the return on 'safe' assets (e.g. short-term Treasuries, insured deposits) above the return on non-state-issued assets, i.e. gold, silver and Bitcoin.  (Recent books like 'Gold Wars' and 'The Gold Cartel' have come up with good evidence of central-bank suppression of precious metal prices by trading derivatives.)  In this it seems to succeed most of the time, but fail spectacularly at other times.  It also needs to keep the return on 'safe' assets below the return on risky assets like stocks, over the long term.  The goal of both operations is to use state power to force savers to take risks and help prop up the bubble economy.  (Ever wonder why financial crisis always seems to come back?)  When you hear of 'tightening' or 'loosening' the money supply, this control is what's really going on.  So, it's not that the public trusts currency; most feel they have no choice.

Analysis. It's not, as most mainstream ecnomists claim, that state-controlled money is required for modern economic growth.  The Italian Renaissance and Scottish 'free-banking' era were counter-examples.  It's really the other way round.  The real productivity of the modern world gives value to the financial assets issued by the elites, and thus help sustain their financial inflation, at least until the perverse incentives destabilizes the system anyway.  In the Middle Ages, money was physical gold and silver -- when there was no wealth to extract, the state couldn't create its financial inflation.


Final Thoughts

A key feature of this system is that it doesn't matter if you understand it.  You still must gamble, or risk your savings being eaten away by inflation.  The gamble by the public as a whole is certain to end in loss, since the elites will always destabilize asset values to the point of collapse.  The lose-lose proposition works the same way as literal highway robbery -- you can certainly hold on to your money; you just can't keep your life at the same time.

That said, there are times when the elites are likely to be forced to devalue their money, and with it all other conventional assets, against gold, silver and Bitcoin, in order to hold on to power.  This makes it statistically profitable to hold non-state-issued assets at those times.  (An analogy would be standing at the front of the line to redeem deposits for cash during a bank run, or to redeem pound sterling for gold at the Bank of England just before Britain was forced off the gold standard.)  Necessarily, only a minority will profit from this bet, but its existence is a healthy incentive that pushes the elites to minimize financial inflation.

This devaluation is conceptually the same as 'banana republics' having to devalue their currency against the dollar because they've printed too much.  The typical way to do this is to strongly deny any prospect of devaluation until the very moment, devalue as fast as possible (and devalue enough to keep their system stable for a while,) and deny any further devaluations in future.  So, it's perhaps no accident that the price movements of gold, silver and Bitcoin have been long and gradual declines most of the time, punctuated by sharp rises over short periods, and rising overall over the long term.

The system is an 'open conspiracy.'  Instead of secrecy, it relies on a combination of state power and ignorance by the public.  The only sustainable path to achieving a healthy and just system is for the public to wake up.  But the devaluation of its issued money against non-state monies shows that, in a subtle but profoundly real sense, the system is a paper tiger.  Since the power of the modern imperial system depends necessarily on various alliances of self-interest as well as the perception of its support for classically liberal ideals, if enough people, and people in the right places, refuse to be intimidated, or expose its nature, the system must make concessions, and make the world perhaps a little better.

This possibility of piecewise progress exists in all corners of the system, at most times.  Here, then, is where our hope must be for the future.  It will be a long battle indeed, and we must be prepared for the entire duration.