Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Winning by default

Greetings good citizen,

While I don’t often focus specifically on politics, almost everything I write is ‘politicized’.

This may strike you as strange considering I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Worse, I’d opine that people who accept/self-identify as either ‘label’ have very different opinions of what being either means.

You hear some pretty bizarre stuff, the most common being ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’, which is, astonishingly, most often equated with having ‘libertarian’ leanings.

Perhaps it is that root word ‘liberty’ that makes the socially predatory ‘Libertarian’ philosophy attractive to the, er, ‘ignorant’.

Libertarians are indeed all about the ‘free’, which makes it all the more ironic that freedom is in no way related to 'liberty'.

Strictly defined, ‘liberty’ is ‘freedom from tyranny’, which is defined as being ‘bent to the will of another’.

In this respect what modern ‘Libertarians’ really seek is ‘freedom’ from their social obligations.

But I digress, (with the caveat that Libertarianism can be easily summed up as a philosophy that places no value on the ‘benefits of civil society’.)

They foolishly believe that the ‘individual’ is complete unto his/her self.

Grind mental gears with me as we return to politics as they are currently practiced.

While I have opined that there will not be elections in 2012 due to a government shutdown that is followed by a conservative coup, led by the Religious Right.

However, as with many times in the past, I could be wrong!

Not that this changes anything…we are still scroomed.

Be that as it may, press on we must!

Here we have the world famous Digby to tell us what we already know.

And what is it that we already know?

Considering the field he's facing, Obama will very likely win regardless of any of this so it will be impossible to disprove the theory. But color me skeptical that anyone, Independents included, judge a president running for re-election on something like this when the country is still so stressed by fundamental financial challenges and long term angst about rapid social and cultural change.

Um, the above is a bit confusing, taken somewhat out of context as it is.

What Digby is pointing out is how Mr. Obama, faced with no ‘real’ competition, is likely to win re-election ‘by default’.

Considering the piss poor job he’s done to date; how fucking sad will that be?

Sort of redefines that sign hanging over the gates of hell, ‘abandon all hope, ye who enters here.’

Naturally, nobody was more amazed than me when Reagan and W were re-elected.

Although I have a sneaking suspicion I’m not the only one to find such an outcome ‘incredible’.

Anyway, after ‘dangling’ that (at the moment) strong probability in front of your nearly blind, glazed over eyes for a moment we return to the equally as probable outcome of our civilization being altered beyond all recognition by November 2012.

Where is it, how much of there is it, and what are they going to do when and if the supply of silver bullion drops below 30 million ounces deliverable, which is really a pittance given the size of the market? A silver futures contract on Comex is 5,000 ounces, and so that represents a mere 6,000 contracts. There are a total of 123,000 contracts open today. Last Friday the volume was an eye popping 126,000 contracts! This at times seems less a market, and more a game of musical chairs, or a shell game. And if the allegations are true about the LBMA, and their leverage, then what we have here may be a recipe for a severe market dislocation.

And this is why I expect the silver market to remain highly volatile, with some amazing moves ahead, both up and down. And stretchers perhaps, to carry out some players from the pits, as they get caught offside in high frequency moves, and an increasingly disorderly trade. And this due to the failure to reform the financial system.

Which is to ask, seriously, whether or not you have given any thought to what would happen if the financial system ‘seized solid’?

I have written countless essays on precisely this theme but none of them captures the helplessness YOU would feel at being suddenly bereft of ALL of your so-called ‘assets’.

Fortunately, with nobody being able to pay anybody, the ability to collect would be seriously diminished. Therefore we would revert to a state of ‘possession’ being considered lawful ownership.

Not that there wouldn’t be some battle-royal’s over ‘posession’ of certain choice bits, after having been forcibly taken from their previous claimants.

That ‘free for all’ is perhaps more frightening than the possibility of being evicted from a premises by someone with no greater claim to it than you have!

If the ‘Fuck you, pay me crowd’ returns to power, you WILL find yourself dispossessed of what you formerly ‘owned’. (Not that you ever ‘needed’ to own it in the first place, you only need the ‘use’ of a place while you’re there.)

The fact that you will be charged a ‘token’ amount to cement your claim is of little comfort as it is your children who will be forced to cough up ‘in full’.

But once again we stray from the point being made.

Jesse, besides being a wise individual is also a ‘goldbug’ who follows the markets in precious metals.

I can overlook this shortcoming in exchange for the insight he provides into the insane world of money and ‘money-like’ substances.

First and foremost money is ever and always a ‘concept’. It is an idea, nothing more and nothing less!

As the article illustrates, ‘money’ is being manipulated without regard for the balance it needs to retain ‘value’.

Which is to say money will soon become ‘valueless’ (which is just what it looks like, ‘worthless’ would also fit.)

You will be faced with a ‘double conundrum’, you can’t earn enough to make ends meet along with the price of everyday items soaring out of reach.

While the two phenomenon look like two sides of the same coin it will have two separate causes. On one hand you will have soaring prices and on the other you will not find an employer willing/able to pay you enough to keep up.

While these appear to be the same problem, they will have two separate sources.

Which, naturally, is a moot point.

Together, the two phenomenon will combine to make money ‘worthless’. You will only be able to trade ‘in kind’ (barter) if you can trade at all.

Understand good citizen that in a world without money you will be obliged to do as much for yourself as possible. If fate should have it that you have nothing worth trading for, heaven help you.

My take on Jesse’s article is that a pending ‘crash’ of global financial markets is closer than anyone imagines, making the Mayans look mighty prescient.

Thanks for letting me inside your head,


No comments:

Post a Comment