past few days, a call to the bank run by former footballer Eric Cantona has been written a lot of ink and saliva. We are talking about revolution ... Really?
More alert than me, you've probably seen the famous interview. I shall return when well because I found him a fascinating short side.
I confess: I expected some clarification, some analysis from the ex-football player / actor, not a deep economic analysis, but a semblance of explanation. But no. The conversation looks like a short counter and feels more pastaga and bowls that fronts the sweat of a revolutionary vanguard bent on finding new means of action.
A simple idea, served with a ladle: to blow up banks by withdrawing their money. The liquidity crisis unlikely because we do not see why the central bank refused to refinance the banks, as a political weapon ... I vaguely expected that recovery is the misconception is that bank money is not "real" currency, an idea popularized by the film The debt-money and that any student can first ES contest hands down a hand in the pocket, but not even.
It is rather funny to see the instigators of this movement argue that most people do not know enough about the principles of money creation (which is probably true) and that they want to educate them so they merely to make a strong return to the gold standard. Jacques Rueff was delighted.
The most amazing and most significant, is the end of the video. Because even if his evil plan worked, offered to Eric Cantona? Well ... nothing. If "we will listen to us otherwise." As revolutionary project, it will give me that is a bit short.
Is there something more developed side of the site bankrun2010.com (like a. Com for such a project, the irony is delicious once again)? See this:
In a nutshell: they want "solidarity banks. This is the revolutionary project. I was just reading there is little this article about the legitimacy of solidarity Bankers . Here's a little quote:
This movement, like many others who feel the uncompromising challenge of capitalism, made the mistake of believing that capitalism is amoral or immoral, and that the "moral" would be a revolutionary act (though this theme has been echoed by persons whose status as a revolutionary can at least open to debate). They forget that capitalism has always needed to rely on a foreign corporation to him. She was religious in origin, based on the principles of Protestantism some to justify the unbridled pursuit of profit. Even today, traders are not devoid of morality. We read this excerpt from an interview I did some time ago with precisely one trader:
There are many morals in the just punishment falling on those who have earned on those who abused the public debt ... Here, moreover, the condemnation of public debt is also reflected in our friends bankrun for other reasons of course (because it would not be "real" money) but still. Moreover, by making a critique of money creation by banks, what do they do except promote a behavior of "ant" management "good man" and even "virtuous ascetic Protestant" ?
transformation of capitalism through an amendment to its "spirit" morale is not a bad idea. Would still have to think seriously about this famous spirit and what we will do, not to promote economic principles exceeded. And above all these movements to gain awareness of what they really require, namely a greater involvement of citizens in decision-making economy. Move the field of democracy, as well as in state enterprise, may be more effective than preparing yet another policy that happening, for media whatsoever, is unlikely to bear fruit.
More alert than me, you've probably seen the famous interview. I shall return when well because I found him a fascinating short side.
I confess: I expected some clarification, some analysis from the ex-football player / actor, not a deep economic analysis, but a semblance of explanation. But no. The conversation looks like a short counter and feels more pastaga and bowls that fronts the sweat of a revolutionary vanguard bent on finding new means of action.
A simple idea, served with a ladle: to blow up banks by withdrawing their money. The liquidity crisis unlikely because we do not see why the central bank refused to refinance the banks, as a political weapon ... I vaguely expected that recovery is the misconception is that bank money is not "real" currency, an idea popularized by the film The debt-money and that any student can first ES contest hands down a hand in the pocket, but not even.
It is rather funny to see the instigators of this movement argue that most people do not know enough about the principles of money creation (which is probably true) and that they want to educate them so they merely to make a strong return to the gold standard. Jacques Rueff was delighted.
The most amazing and most significant, is the end of the video. Because even if his evil plan worked, offered to Eric Cantona? Well ... nothing. If "we will listen to us otherwise." As revolutionary project, it will give me that is a bit short.
Is there something more developed side of the site bankrun2010.com (like a. Com for such a project, the irony is delicious once again)? See this:
We, the citizens of the 21st century heirs of generations who were sacrificed so that we are citizens and may live free and dignified, we demand the creation of a CITIZENS BANK, serving citizens, a bank that would put our money safe from speculative fever, immune to financial bubbles all doomed to explode one day, free of operations that transform our loans assets and use our debt to buy other assets.
We want banks that lend only wealth they have. Banks that help small and medium enterprises to relocate jobs, bank lending to zero. Of banks that support projects that benefit citizens rather than "market" where banks make money while having our conscience. Banks that we will not have to be wary. Banks whose success will sound the death knell of the merchants of death, disease and slavery. On the ruins of the old system, we want to build a banking system that will sacrifice more human dignity on the altar of profit.
In a nutshell: they want "solidarity banks. This is the revolutionary project. I was just reading there is little this article about the legitimacy of solidarity Bankers . Here's a little quote:
micro-credit [benefits] of a new age, a "new spirit" of capitalism (Boltanski, Chiapello 1999), this new spirit based on valuing the positive contribution Business for the community in the fight against exclusion and respect for fundamental rights. The loan taken out in a solidarity organization refers to the same practices that a conventional bank loan (risk ratio calculation, development of a security system, scaling of the debt, project evaluation of use of funds). The activities, supported the mostly by financial professionals, are in both cases, the accounting, balance sheet evaluation.
This movement, like many others who feel the uncompromising challenge of capitalism, made the mistake of believing that capitalism is amoral or immoral, and that the "moral" would be a revolutionary act (though this theme has been echoed by persons whose status as a revolutionary can at least open to debate). They forget that capitalism has always needed to rely on a foreign corporation to him. She was religious in origin, based on the principles of Protestantism some to justify the unbridled pursuit of profit. Even today, traders are not devoid of morality. We read this excerpt from an interview I did some time ago with precisely one trader:
For cons, I have no problem doing ... For example, BP, you know, BP is an oil company, she had her problems in Louisiana, etc.. The action was divided by four. Me, I mean, they get what they deserve. Me, I go, I sell BP like a pig, because you know the guys anyway, they'll lose money and I mean, they have earned it. Greece, for example, I'm sorry, but Greece have earned it too. They have spent ... they spent above their means. It's really the story of the grasshopper and the ant. It is the cicada, they danced all summer, they spent, they had a huge budget deficit, and now they will say "oh, there's the big bad traders who want to lend us more money ". Yes, well, should spend less money.
There are many morals in the just punishment falling on those who have earned on those who abused the public debt ... Here, moreover, the condemnation of public debt is also reflected in our friends bankrun for other reasons of course (because it would not be "real" money) but still. Moreover, by making a critique of money creation by banks, what do they do except promote a behavior of "ant" management "good man" and even "virtuous ascetic Protestant" ?
transformation of capitalism through an amendment to its "spirit" morale is not a bad idea. Would still have to think seriously about this famous spirit and what we will do, not to promote economic principles exceeded. And above all these movements to gain awareness of what they really require, namely a greater involvement of citizens in decision-making economy. Move the field of democracy, as well as in state enterprise, may be more effective than preparing yet another policy that happening, for media whatsoever, is unlikely to bear fruit.
0 comments:
Post a Comment