Socialism and Banking

It occurs to me that banks enjoy a special exemption from the detriments of socialism to private enterprise.  The money they create, which acts to siphon wealth from the private sector as a whole, is not taxable.  They are only taxed on the money they make on the money they create.  For example, if a bank creates $10 billion, and loans it at 5% interest, they are only taxed on the interest, despite the fact that the $10 billion is far more important.  This $10 billion, being inflationary, also creates wealth for them, but virtually no one sees this.  Not one man in a million, as I recall Keynes putting it, although of course he had in mind wealth reallocation via government money printing.  The principle is the same.

This is how to explain the apparently paradox of bankers supporting socialism: it is beneficial to them.  They get to loan money to governments, and corporations–having more of their money taken in taxation–are in greater need of the loans that they make.

As I have said often–scratch that, this may be the first time I’ve said it just this way–my motto is “Every citizen a Capitalist”.  Everyone, top to bottom, should be self employed.  They should capitalize their own businesses with money they save.  All this would be possible, if our system were not constantly leaking wealth to the banking elites.

Why would Wall Street–which heavily funded Obama’s campaign–insist on supposed “reform” (which seems largely to consist in a preprepared slush fund for them to pull from when they get in trouble)?  Why reform themselves?  Public Relations.  Since they benefit disproportionately the Socialism of people like Obama, it was no doubt thought prudent to create the illusion that he was socking it to them.  These people do not become billionaires through complacency or stupidity.  I would suspect they continue to prefer Obama over Romney for this reason, although of course they can work out a modus vivendi with him as well–hence the contributions to him.  If  you have a lot of money, no sense being niggardly (Hey, one could make a news story out of someone using that word; if one were stupid and ignorant): spread the wealth.  It comes back.  It always does.

Or look at the IMF: teeming with Socialists.  Why?  Again, socialism should not be understood primarily as a system of helping people.  It needs to be seem as a TOOL for the most cynical to increase their political power, which is best accomplished by increasing the number of things the government directly controls, which necessarily implies greatly increased burdens on the private sector.

China, currently, embodies ALL the critiques that Marx made of 19th century England.  The workers have no rights, they work long hours in unsafe conditions, and a few–very few–are using their control over this de facto slave system to become ENORMOUSLY wealthy.  Those few, necessarily, are in or close to the supposed Communist Party, which is far more abusive than the class of Capitalists EVER has been in any Western nation.

If you learn to see the world as it is, you see how many of the words floating in the air are pure cow manure.  On a deeper level, you see how few people understand how to cultivate useful, lasting, true happiness, and how many pursue power for lack of a perceived alternative.