Stimulus has failed to produce any ‘green shoots’ simply because it has been directed to where it is of no benefit (except to the already rich) and not at where it desperately needs to go. Throwing good money after bad is not going to change anything unless it is redirected to the bottom and middle earners who are the lifeblood of any consumer society.
Quoting Raul Ilargi Meyer’s recent article: ‘Any stimulus must be directed at the bottom, or it must of necessity fail … it’s very simply that an economy cannot function without its poorer 90% of citizens spending.’
If this is true, which I believe it is, then more monetizing debt can only lead these ailing economies into further ruination and further beggaring of the masses. If this continues then the bulk of the population will become poor enough and angry enough to demand change on their own terms.
This will begin with mass protest and if it is ignored or suppressed then continued attempts to retain the status quo will lead to insurrections and possibly violent revolutions. One can only hope that governments will act soon in the interest of the people for once instead of lining the pockets of corporations and those that own them.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-23/guest-post-why-monetizing-debt-could-end-revolutions
"One can only hope ..."? Hope is the quintessential human delusion.
Sooner or later, every violent "people's revolution" is hijacked by a tyrant. How therefore can revolution solve the very real problems of which Mr. Eastwood speaks?
It can't, and the US "revolution" is a prime example of why it can't. Our "people's revolution" was really a counterrevolution intended to halt the abolition of slavery, and in that regard it did a damn good job. And we eventually evolved into an even greater tyrant than King George III.
Such is the fate of all modern violent revolutions.
Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.
The Who (from Won't Get Fooled Again)
http://youtu.be/SHhrZgojY1Q
No comments:
Post a Comment