Not a pretty picture indeed. Most economists, even optimistic ones, expect this to continue throughout 2010.
The chasm that exists between classes and how we view the world becomes clear when we read about these events in the serious journals of capitalism, the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Business Week etc. Unlike the mass consumption media, it is within the pages of these journals that the capitalist class talk to each other, not to us, and they discuss not so much whether Michael Vick is a bad guy or not, or who is sleeping with who in Hollywood, but how best to govern their system.
The moneylenders who are refusing to lend, are the very same people who received and will receive trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to save them and their system from collapse. It's bizarre enough that someone would give them our money so that they could lend it back to us for a hefty fee so we could buy a car, house or go to college. But the fact they refuse to do even that and instead hoard the money or use it for safer investments such as buying up other, weaker institutions, begs the question: Why give it to them in the first place?
The supporters of this blog have made it clear that we should not, but my point here is to point out how differently classes see and describe the world around them.
What does any worker say about this situation? We are angry at the banks, we are having trouble paying the mortgage, paying the rent, and as the crisis deepens, buying food and basic necessities. Then there is the absurd situation that exists in education. We have a student loan market. Why is there a need for a student loan market other than to fill the pockets of moneylenders?
The Wall Street Journal reporting on this crisis in the money lending industry which reveals a deeper and more serious crisis within the economy at large give a couple of reasons for why the moneylenders won't lend, in other words, why they're on a strike of capital.
The moneylenders whine that the new banking regulation require them to be more "prudent". They are being "good boys" you see. They were bad before throwing cheap money about and they vare willing to elarn from their mistakes and correct the problem by being "prudent" as the government suggests.
What good folks they are.
Another reason they are on a strike of capital they say because, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "..demand from struggling consumers and businesses isn't there."
Both of these explanations shift the blame away from them. And they are being honest here, it is not so much a calculated lie as how they see the world. But the second excuse is enough to make you laugh where it not so tragic. Demand is not there? I am surrounded by people on the verge of losing their homes or have already done so. I am surrounded by students who may well have to quit school because they cannot afford to continue.
A few weeks ago, I received a call from a woman who is living in a motel room with her husband and son because she was thrown of of her home as the lender foreclosed on her mortgage. Her home is not far away with her belongings in it but she would be trespassing were she to enter it and cannot do so without a sheriff or official. And we wonder why people go nuts and blow away their entire families.
You see, when the capitalist says there is "no demand there" what they really mean is that there is no profit to be had there. They throw capital in to the marketplace of society in order for it to return to them in a greater portion than the original. If that is unlikely or too risky, they won't do it. This is what they men by demand. There is demand for things, but no money to buy them. During the great depression the capitalist poured milk down the drain rather than give it away, sell it very cheaply even, because to do so would have depressed prices and profits further. They don't produce milk because people need it to drink but as a profitable investment.
I mean, under their system, if they won't release capital, and as capitalists they are the rightful owners of it in a capitalist economy even though they stole it from workers, how can workers and small business, (and I mean a mom and pop here not a concern with 400 employees) satisfy our needs. It's not that we don't have demands. Demand from our point of view is different from theirs.
Here's another one. Bankers the Wall Street Journal writes, "..say creditworthy customers are hard to come by."
What does this mean "creditworthy"? What it means is that people who have been bled dry by the moneylenders and who are unable to pay them their blood money in the form of interest are unable to keep doing so. The term, bad credit means the same thing. It implies, as it would from their point of view, that the borrower is irresponsible, is not a good person because they have lost the ability to hand over their hard earned money to a money lender, a person or group of persons who don't work, who get rich off of the Labor of others. There is a term for this, we call this type of person)s) pimps.
The crisis is far from over as another real estate catastrophe is brewing in the commercial sector. The capitalists are going to be on strike a while and we need to have the same resolve in breaking their strike as they do when we go on a strike of Labor.
My main point though is to remind ourselves that they think and act they way they do because of their social role in production. They introduce all sorts of superficial divisions in to society in order to divide and rule; racism, sexism, religion etc. But when workers move in to struggle there is a strong tendency to overcome these superficial barriers and seek class unity in confronting the enemy.
It's helpful to remind ourselves as Marx pointed out: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."
No comments:
Post a Comment