Want To Defeat The Banks? Stop Participating In The System!

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-want-defeat-banks-stop-participating-system

In Franz Kafka’s most popular work “The Trial”, his characters relate a short parable which has fascinated and confused curious readers for generations. That parable is entitled “Before The Law”, and its message has been interpreted, reinterpreted, and agonized over by the labyrinthine contrariness of academia, producing numerous conflicting views:

:snip video:

Existentialists, of course, automatically jump to the conclusion that “Before The Law” is a message of the absurd nature of man’s search for reason and structure in a universe of random coincidence. That “the law”, as it were, is a superficial concept that humanity uses to make life more bearable. That we seek to create artificial social constructs in order to keep ourselves afloat in a sea of chaos. This is partly true. The law is, indeed, an abstraction conjured by men. However, the source of the most fundamental laws, being inherent conscience, is far from abstract. In fact, it is one of the few aspects of our existence that is undeniably tangible and universal. It is proof that all is NOT random, and that there is a meaning and a purpose to what we do here and now.

I see “The Trial” and “Before The Law” not as treatise on the futility of man’s search for justice, but as a warning on the foolishness of man’s dependency on systems not rooted in conscience. That is to say, we have a tendency to linger about idly while others make our decisions for us. We expect the system we live in to provide answers, to provide nurturance, to provide fairness, and to provide change where necessary. This expectation is a dangerous one.

Most social and political systems today are designed around collectivist methodologies. Their primary tool is centralization of power, and the removal of choice from the public consciousness. We are made to believe that the establishment is necessary for our survival, and that to abandon it would mean certain destruction. We are taught that the individual is subservient and inconsequential in the face of the state. This is simply not so. Like the traveler in “Before The Law”, we have been defeated by our own expectations of how the law (or justice) works. We sit and wait for permission, when we should be charging through the gates and taking what is rightfully ours.

More at the link --

[MineralMan]

1. OK. Let's hear your practical examples of how one might

do this. Or, more to the point, how a great whopping number of us might do this. For most people, participating in the system is not optional. For some, it's possible, but that is a very small minority, and small minorities aren't going to change that system.

Kafka is well worth reading, and his writings make excellent cautionary tales. I think everyone should study Kafka at some point. However Kafka was not proposing anything. He was documenting something. Your suggestion sounds good, but Kafka didn't answer my question above any more than you did.

The banks simply do not care about the small amounts of money most people pass through them. They know that the real source of the wealth they accumulate comes from the 1%, not the 99%. But, since the 99% has a need for banking services, they're happy to provide them...for a fee. Now, if 99% of people who had small accounts in those big banks pulled that money, there would be a real effect. But, that's patently not going to happen. If a small percentage pulls their accounts, the banks will shrug and wish them a "sad" farewell.

I just paid off every credit card my wife and I hold and closed the accounts. I did not do it to punish the banks, but I did it, in any case. Universally, the representative of those banks said, "Thank you for your business, and be sure to contact us if we can assist you in the future." They don't care. Yes, they'll lose all that interest, but they got their principle back. They're happy about that.

[banned from Kos]

2. It amazes me how the teabaggers at ZeroHedge get so much attention here

Their goal is to destroy "the system" so that a pure free market capitalist system replaces it.

No regs, no FDIC, no consumer protection, etc. They hate Elizabeth Warren, for example.

[MineralMan]

3. You see, it doesn't really matter. If the overall view fits,

any source is just dandy. Never mind what their real intent is. We're seeing more and more right wing sources quoted here, it seems. Odd, that. I suppose as the 2012 election gets closer, there will be even more of this.

[Selatius]

4. I read the link. I disagree about using gold/silver as currency.

Fiat currency is fine, as long as its value isn't routinely debased with the creation of more money beyond the level that would cause inflation. With fractional reserve banking, any banking entity can create money, and inflation is a built-in consequence. Eventually, a loaf of bread will cost $5.00.

Pennsylvania's currency prior to the Revolution was one of the best examples of Colonial Scrip. It was a fiat currency issued and controlled by the state legislature, and only they could create more of it, not the banks. They only issued enough to act as an appropriate means of exchange and to avoid inflation, backed by the full faith and credit of the state of Pennsylvania. The effect was that inflation was at or near zero, and people weren't tempted to take risky bets with cheap credit.

[MineralMan]

5. Ah...you weren't supposed to actually read the whole article.

It's written by someone who does not hold the same values as we do. You were supposed to just read the little excerpts posted here. That site is full of goldbuggery and other reactionary stuff. The people there don't like progressives very much at all, you see.

So, in the future, please restrict your reading to the excerpts posted in the OP. Thank you for your cooperation. :sarcasm:

[banned from Kos]

7. thanks for the chuckle --- I guess Kafka is apropriate after all

Our citizenry is captive to our soundbite (or cut and paste) attention span.

[MineralMan]

9. Some things never change, but then, some do:

[Selatius]

10. Lol. Guilty of being one of them strange "readers" sometimes.

I was curious to see what the person's solution was to getting out of the system, but the cure looks as bad as the illness.

[MineralMan]

12. Yeah, I have that bad habit too. I'm always clicking links

and finding something quite different from what the poster appears to have intended. Often, it's just that the material quoted was written by some random anonymous blogger I don't care about, like one using the name of a character from "Fight Club," but also, sometimes, a source document that espouses right wing views. As Yul Brynner once said in a very famous movie, "'Tis a puzzlement."

Tyler Durden, indeed. If you write about serious things, take responsibility for what you write by using your own name, for pete's sake.

[banned from Kos]

6. the only alternative to fractional reserve is full reserve

Full reserve (the bank must hold your full deposit) chokes growth off.

Look at US growth from the New Deal to 2007. It would not have been possible with full reserve. Economists have debated this topic for years, btw.

[Selatius]

13. I wouldn't argue it chokes off all growth.

Pennsylvania's economy at the time did as well as could be expected under that system, but the trouble came when British Parliament banned all scrips in the Colonies with the Currency Act. They wanted them to reincorporate back into the system British bankers had established where you borrow from the bank at interest. Pennsylvania's economy fell into a depression when the scrips were removed and replaced with a money supply that really wasn't sufficient to cover trade, and the legislature resented having now to pay interest out of country just to get more money here. With the state economy in a depression, their tax revenues were depleted, so the problem was they couldn't address a short money supply without facing large interest payments for borrowing.

[Fumesucker]

8. You had to go all the way back to pre-Revolutionary Pennsylvania to find a non inflationary fiat?

Are there any more recent examples of such?

[Selatius]

15. I haven't found any notable examples applied on as large a scale.

Where the European empires went, so too did the European bankers with their system. It's worldwide now. I was once told the Revolution ended when the Federal Reserve Act passed into law in 1913.

[girl gone mad]

17. Banks don't create money..

they create debt. The dollar credits they lend are balanced by a matching debits. The assets and liabilities cancel each other out and these debts have to be paid back with interest (or written down). This is something we are currently experiencing on a large scale, with widespread debt-deleveraging resulting from excessive private debt creation.

Only our government creates money. It does so by spending. This money is destroyed via taxation, which is the most effective means of combating inflation.

Currency revulsion is one way to bring down the corrupted system, though I'd prefer to see more thought given to using money alternatives to achieve a specific set of goals. Gold and silver may be a reasonable store of wealth, but a gold standard would not provide an adequate basis for a balanced economy with more equitable prosperity. It would be easier to implement alternatives at the local level.

[Shagbark Hickory]

11. The article leaves out the loans and consumer culture that enslaves us.

nt

[MineralMan]

14. Who is Tyler Durden? Why should I listen to him?

The author of this business is an anonymous blogger, who is using the name of the main character in "Fight Club." Now, I sort of understand internet anonymity on discussion forums and other such venues, but why use a pseudonym on what purports to be a serious website? Why not write your stuff under your own name?

I've never understood this, to tell you the truth, and I always discount the writings of anonymous bloggers to some degree, for their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own words.

[girl gone mad]

16. The author is Brandon Smith.

It's right there in the first line.

Not that your criticism is relevant.