Consumerism: Shopping ’til the final Dropping? [courtesy Google Images]
Consumerism: Shopping ’til the final Dropping?
[courtesy Google Images]
In every society, everyone who breathes is a “consumer”—but only some people are “producers”.  (For example, we all need to eat, but only some of us actually grow any food.)  Children are born “consumers” but most later mature to become producers.  If we live long enough to become elderly, we lose our ability to produce and, once again, become “consumers”.  All of us are “consumers” who need food, clothes and shelter every day–but only some of us are “producers” able to “produce” more food, clothes and shelter than we personally consume. More, a majority of American “consumers” borrow currency from banks by means of loans or credit cards that allows them to consume-now-pay-later.  These are “consumer-borrowers”.Only a minority of Americans:

  1) produce more wealth than they consume;

 2) store their excess production in the form of monetary savings; and

 3) sometimes make their savings available to be borrowed by others.  These are “producer-lenders

If only because of non-productive children, sick, unemployed, welfare recipients and elderly, there are always more consumer-borrowers than producer-lenders.

Consumer-borrowers tend to be dependents.  Producer-lenders tend to be self-sufficient “independents”.

•  Politicians normally cater to the political majority who consume-borrow and therefore favor inflation (which is “good” for borrowers).

However, politicians also know that they dare not kill the “geese” (producer-lenders) that’re laying the “golden eggs” (generating and saving capital) that can be loaned to the consumer-borrowers.  In the end, the consumer-borrowers are dependent on the producer-lenders just as children must be dependent on their parents.

However, while politicians openly provide bread, circuses and inflation for the cheering masses of consumer-borrowers, they must also secretly provide a source of funds, tax-breaks, etc. to the producer-lenders to keep them from losing all their capital to inflation, and going broke.  Once the producers go broke or are otherwise rendered non-productive, the economy will collapse for lack of more funds to sooth the savage consumers (borrowers) and the consumers will tend to starve or even die.

Politicians must therefore openly favor the majority of consumer-borrowers and secretly favor the minority of producer-lenders.  We see this dichotomy in congressmen and senators who openly favor the majority of Americans who are consumer-borrowers but secretly take bribes (“political campaign contributions”) from the wealthy producer-lenders.

But where’s the “line” between favoritism for borrowers and favoritism for lenders?  How do politicians know how to properly balance the interests of borrowers against those of lenders?

And what happens if a particular cadre of politicians vote to grant too much favor to one side or the other?  Is there a level of imbalance between consumer-borrowers and producer-lenders that, once exceeded, can tip the whole economy into collapse and thereby ruin both creditors and borrowers?

•  Inflation encourages and allows consumer-borrowers to rob producer-lenders. Inflation subsidizes borrowers and is sometimes even viewed by borrowers as a right or “entitlement”.

Deflation encourages people to save rather than borrow or even lend.  Money saved is usually money not spent.  By discouraging people from borrowing and spending, deflation slows the economy, decreases profits, increases unemployment, makes the fiat currency even more deflated (more valuable) and the existing loans less payable.

But the fact remains that both inflation and deflation are a kind of lies and a means to rob people.  Given that both inflation and deflation encourage some sort of robbery, both inflation and deflation are immoral.

•  Could it be that at least some of the public eventually senses this immorality and therefore refuses to play the fiat currency “game”? Does part of the public understand that, by means of inflation, they’re being led, manipulated, and taught to do “tricks” (borrow and spend fictional currency) much like dogs are taught to do tricks by giving them “doggy treats”?

Is that possible?  Yes.

Is it likely?  No.  I doubt that we’ll ever see a generation that complains about receiving too many “doggy treats”.

Is government currently less able to cause the consumer-borrowers to perform “tricks” (borrow currency to buy a house) with inflation (the “doggy treat” of repaying their loans with “cheaper dollars”) because consumer-borrowers don’t want to live like dogs being “tricked” into stimulating the economy by robbing their creditors?

Again the answer is No.  The question presumes a level of honor and integrity in most people that’s a wonderful ideal and a fairly rare reality.

Could it be that the producer-lenders are sick of being robbed, and are quitting the fiat currency game by refusing to lend to consumers who expect to pay their debts with cheaper dollars?

Written by: ALFRED ADASK – continue ADASK’S LAW


Leave a Reply