Dear Mr. Postmodernist,
When I was teaching English at the Business college I learned a bit about economic theory. I wanted to share some stuff with you that you certainly already know. But this is how I am seeing things now about “Rome burning”.
Debt does not create crisis. Debt is what enables goods and services to flow. In the thirties money stopped moving and goods and services stopped flowing because people lost faith in that system. Today, governments are using debt as an excuse to take money from essential services and channel it into big business. Whenever there is a lack of faith the reserve banks simply extends the debt, increasing the security of the banks and increasing the banks indebtedness to the reserve banks. Business and government are using the old arguments to enslave the masses and make a small sector of our population incredibly rich.
Rome is not really burning. It already has burnt and it will be made to burn down again and again as often as administrations need fear to support repressive policies. Fear inspires unquestioning faith and faith and fear are maintaining the system which we now have in place, the economists preaching crisis as the preachers would preach hell and damnation.
Despite the fact that you can hold a Euro, or a dollar, in your hand, money is not a material entity. Money is an abstraction meant to assign value to goods and services. The amount of money that can support or topple economies is not something which can be possessed, but it is channeled every day by corporations and individuals. This value system however is a shared illusion maintained by a small group of individuals who are molding and buying and selling the concept itself, people who see the meaning of their own lives bound with this value system of money and power but who have no connection to the general population.
In 2008 there was a major world economic crisis. Previous to the 2008 crisis there had been clear indications of a problem with economic crashes in Asia and South America. Yet people continued to act for short term gain, because the money loss necessary to crumble an economy goes somewhere. Although far more reaching and with more than a few causes, certain parties have been identified in the 2008 crisis.
More specific to some local/national economies, and more meaningful to the general population, the social services argument of “lack of resources” is not reasonable. People pay taxes to fund programs which create jobs and strengthen a segment of the population so that they can work more and pay more taxes. Today, however, the agenda of social services seems to be to maintain that class of unemployed and enslave them in government programs where they can be a short term benefit to business and a long term detriment to a healthy society.
In Finland there is supposed to be a great need for social and health care workers. Therefore, I had applied for a program for training and placing health care workers, and I received a letter that I was a suitable applicant but they had a surplus of other applicants and could not accept me. How can Finland have a great need for people to work in the social and health care system and a surplus of applicants at the same time? It seems Finland is not willing to put the investment in to train enough workers to meet this need. So, paradoxically, Finland ends up with a need and a surplus at the same time.
So, apparently, I am one of the qualified yet unemployable surplus and I am trying to to find a way to write poetry about this stuff.