"i fear none of those actions would cure the natural bias toward debt and debit.
besides, very few folks are systemically against inflation/dilution, whether under a command economy such as that in usa or free enterprise as in hk.
no, inflation must be, and so must gold, which, btw, is best hedged with platinum at 1:1 ratio ;0)"
I agree with the conclusion; however, I disagree with the idea that there is a "natural bias toward debt and debit." That "bias" is a learned response to a calculated program of money-as-debt that has been in place and guarded against all challenges for so long that most who fail to study history believe it is some "natural" condition. I refer to it as the Dutch-Anglo banking tradition.
This habituation with money-as-debt is analogous to most people's impression of, for instance, Thomas Hobbes, the author of "Leviathan," most often cited for the proposition that life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" and that all should accede to a central authority to provide for the protection of one individual from another. But Hobbes's ideas about the state were not based on humankind's "natural" propensities, but their propensities as beings educated within what then passed for "civil" society. Having been led to believe that life is a certain way, humans "naturally" behave accordingly. Having known no other way and not being aware that there have been other "ways" under other circumstances, what presents itself as "the way things are" is similarly deemed by most people to be "natural." Hobbes himself never made that case.
It seems "natural" to most people that the way out of debt is to go into more debt to solve the problem. One B. Obama is being advised that that is the rational way out of the debt dilemma. The celebratory bonfires are being readied even as I write. It seems only "natural," n'est pas? |
