I agree.
I have thought
the collapse of Rome was the cause
I cannot imagine that the freezing of artificial capital
would cause human evolution to slow down significantly
If the fact is indeed true
then is it the whole or partly the cause?
In referencing them, I’m arguing your economic logic, not your opinion on unborn children’s rights. INOW, borrowing doesn’t necessarily harm future generations, and may even help them, if done right. That is a separate issue from the relative importance that we should place on those future generations. I don’t see the contradiction.
Everything we do, borrow or not, will affect them, so we can’t help but “gamble with lives that are not our own.”
An example that illustrates my more general point: The US went into debt heavily during WWII. As a result, the children of that generation didn’t have to live under a genocidal fascist regime.
Good debt or bad?
Clearly the debt problems we have today aren’t so cut and dry, but the point remains.
Here’s another one:
The only thing that has significantly affected long-term growth of the US economy, over the past 150 years or so, was coming off the gold standard, which raised the average annual growth rate from about 1.5% to 2.5%.
All the various technological advancement, fiscal and monetary policies, from Roosevelt to Reagan, all the recessions, depressions, booms and busts, all the protectionism and globalization, had little or no affect on long-term growth. They all average out. But the bottom line reads: when we were on the gold-standard, we grew at 1.5%, when we got off, we grew at 2.5%.
Money-lending moves capital from those who have to those who need (for a small fee, of course). It’s integral to an efficient economy. Yes, financial markets are volatile, but that’s because we haven’t figured out how to regulate them correctly. Clearly, unregulated derivatives is not the way to go. OTOH, maybe a max 12:1 leveraging is a bit tight, as well. We don’t know for sure, but that’s no reason to stop trying. Progress is often trial-and-error.
I own a small-business. It’s not much and I probably don’t make a whole lot more than I would if I were working for somebody else (after I pay my added 15% “self-employment” tax 
). I’m probably not a very good businessman. But I enjoy the freedoms it allows me, and the additional responsibilities as well, and I like to think I provide a good service.
I got a loan from a bank to buy my initial inventory and equipment. I could not have gotten off the ground without it. Do you think I feel persecuted by the bank? Are they my oppressor? Hell, no. I’m grateful. The best money I ever spent/spend is the interest on that loan.
I’ll tell you what’s immoral about money-lending: Defaults. It’s stealing and defaulters are thieves. They used to send you to jail for it. Now we just lower your credit score (credit agencies are the market governing itself, since the “real” gov’t won’t touch these crooks with a 10-foot pole), but otherwise you go about your life as if nothing ever happened.
It’s a disease in this culture that we blame credit-card companies for people’s debt problems, rather than their own lack of self-discipline. Not that every credit agency is full of saints, because clearly, they’re not. Like everybody, they’re businessmen looking for a profit. But the last time I checked, the final decision was in the hands of the borrower, yet we demonize the creditor.
Your more general point is not something that I necessarily disagree with. My disagreement lies in the here and now with this specific administrations and these potential legislations and economic decisions. It’s not just a matter of gambling with the lives’ of future people, but it is also a matter of personal responsibility and accountability. It’s a matter of sleeping in the bed that you make, why are we going to put future generations at risk for our mistakes and to help us get out of the hole we ourselves have dug?
Because John Keynes said deficit spending is the cure for what ails us? (Of course, he also said government expenditures shouldn’t exceed 25% of GDP and we blew that out of the water decades ago. Don’t know why we should heed the one and not the other.) The other side says deficit spending only postpones the inevitable, and probably makes it worse once inflation hits. I haven’t got a clue.
I have a feeling Obama believes the second but is acting the first, hoping to hold off inflation for the administration that follows him, while exploiting the concept of “stimulus”, and the recession in general, to push through social programs that have nothing to do with economic gain or recovery.
I do agree, though, the root of it all is the long-term failure of the culture to promote personal accountability as the highest ideal. Not everything that came out of the 60s was good, to say the least.
makes a lot of sense
personal accountability, true indivisualism, not hiding behind the idea of a benevolent state, are humans ready for that? Can people be, as a whole, that responsible?
You need to study the period if you think money was the cause of the dark ages, that would be the collapse of the Roman empire and the rise of the barbarian, basically the scrabble over the bones of Rome and its provinces. We just borrowed money off Jews in the Middle ages who charged interest, that’s why they became so wealthy (merchant of Venice anyone?) Its not like banks didn’t exist and lending was ever present anyway, the Hansaetic league of merchants (Northern Europe wide trade guild) for example borrowed heavily from Jewish merchants to float investment in ships and trade in spices etc. One of the reasons for pogroms on Jews was jealousy over their fortunes, when only you can lend with interest you’re on a gravy train. They invested money in precious goods and became fat off their labours, we got jealous, the church or the governments confiscated all their land and property or in the case of the German crusade simply massacred them. In 16th century England we expelled all Jews from the nation even. Interestingly in Venice money lending for non Jews was reinstated in the 14th century after a period of fiscal instability caused by war. But Jewish bankers were already pre-eminent by then. The renaissance was caused by a resurgence of scholarly interest in the classical era in Italy which then spread to the rest of Europe and was no doubt catalysed by the invention of the printing press and the widespread dissemination of information it caused, not by financial concerns alone or the reinstitution of lending which post dates the renaissance in most countries anyway, although politics and wealth might well have helped to patronise the arts.
Going into massive debt is idiotic, running a banking system on it is even more stupid. Encouraging people into loans they can’t repay is mind numbingly stupid. Its not like people haven’t been pointing out what was going to happen for the last five years anyway. It’s just when the herd gets into a stampede its hard to divert it. You need to look at who let the herd out of the coral in the first place though really.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_of_Venice
It’s not true, and you would be wise not to take at face value things people say on forums. the collapse of an infrastructure and the sweep of warring tribes across Europe to fill the vacuum caused it. Rome and its church was dead and no one took any notice of it anyway except to rob its rich monestaries and churches. the Saxons and then the Vikings invaded England causing unrest and a long paucity in the historical record, Rome was sacked several times and The Goths and Huns swept across Europe unimpeded by Roman legions. Without the organisation of Rome we reverted to the way we were before the Empire invaded and “civilised” us. Capital was never frozen anyway, I don’t know where this idea came from but its not based on anything real about the history of the period. Such inhibitions on lending would only of been instituted in most countries in the middle ages with Usury laws of the 12th century anyway. And as I said the Jews filled the vacuum anyway. Even in modern times the knock on effects could be seen, if you’ve ever read Mein Kampf or anything about it Hitler constantly bemoans the Jewish bankers as ruining Germany with their financial machinations, but then Hitler was paranoid and obsessed with scapegoating them. Even today Jews own many financial establishments across the world, particularly in the US.
Good post
thanks for the detailed clarification.
Too bad he’s wrong.
Of course the fall of Rome sparked the dark ages. The question is why did it last 400-600 years? If it had lasted 50 years we wouldn’t call it the dark ages, we wouldn’t call it anything.
His picture of the influence of the church in the early middle ages (aka Dark Ages) is incorrect. The Invading barbarians may have plundered some of the monasteries, but by-and-large, they saw the Roman religion as noble and desirable, an artifact of the culture which they so envied (which is why they invaded in the first place.) Most Barbarian chiefs eagerly converted to Christianity and encouraged it’s practice.
And while the Jews were lending money during the dark ages, it was an underground economy, similar to the drug trade, and something that Godly people didn’t do. It’s absurd to say that such practices could replace free and legal banking. Furthermore, Christians hated Jews at the time, so any lending that was going on was strictly in dire cases, where a person’s survival was at stake, and the Jews generally charged exorbitant interest rates, as high as 50%, which didn’t do anything to engender good-will. Almost no lending for real economic production took place (the Hansaetic League of Merchants didn’t exist until around the 13th century.)
Knox please stop making stuff up to rewrite history. If any one wants to know the reality just google it, I’m not sure where he’s pulling this out from but its obviously a fabrication. We call it the dark ages because of the fighting the power vacuum caused and the length of time conflict went on thus leaving a paucity in history. That’s it.
My position was of the Viking invasions in the UK in the late dark ages anyway and the sacking of monastries, you clearly have some odd idea that money lending was restricted in the dark ages, like I say usury laws didn’t exist 'til the 12th century and the Renaissance happened under such laws, not that it matters as banking still existed anyway as banks flourished, even after we kicked the Jews out of England, the remaining Lombard (Italian) banks took over money lending. These are indisputable facts. There was no real restriction of finance in the dark ages, it was persued by organisations (Christian and not) who grew rich on a virtual monopoly, legally and not, although mostly legally and under loopholes in laws. My point about the Hansa remains valid as well as the renaissance didn’t happen until the 14th century and hadn’t spread into all of Europe to the 15th, banking remained strong during the period of the usury laws enacted around 1190, which were abolished completely in the 16th century long after the renaissance was in full flow. I suggest if anyone’s interested in genuine history they rely on Google. The renaissance happened partly because of the fall of the Byzantine empire and the access to classical artefacts and books this exposed, and thus the scholarly reawakening of the arts this encouraged as new texts were sold in Florence and other parts of Italy, this culturally leap then spread across Europe despite usury laws still being in full force.