2012 and spending

it is a very interesting moment indeed to write a bit about the dutch.

the ghastly combination of extreme and extremer wrongs that topped the projected statistics is done with for now.
that doesn't mean to say we are done with them. but i suppose it offers some room for change, or perhaps it does not really, in that case it offers room to notice fraud.

whoppingly that same the capitalists cry for spending as they cry for cuts.

now what is basically hiding behind those unobvious attitudes is quite simple. it is something like this:

rich people can only make substantially more money if new schemes of robbery are implemented. just enhancing on the old schemes is not a carreer option. the handouts even are already destined.

so the 1% is saying: we need growth. what does it mean this presumption of 'growth'?
if i am not mistaken it is calculated in corporate fees. growth is: when fewer people get more money easily and the rest has to suffer for it. be it through hunger, underemployment, underpay or environmental damage.

not surprisingly then that the consumers carefull attitude did not support much of such growth.

it is important, actually imperative, we do something with this knowledge, so let me scetch the current economical situation.

living in what is becoming a postcolonialist era, (let alone the anthropocene), the old adagio of growth, get the resources, shape them into products and punish people into needing them has reached it's limits. the whole climate needed to collapse to make this scheme inviable, and so it did.

however the 'old-school' (actually 'old-clique') economists that rule the day ofcourse see no other option but to perpetrate more injustice on the masses and planet. be it in terms of investment schemes, deforestation, inequality they do not come up with anything that might be helpfull. instead it is :more overconsumption that is the creed.

since that only allowed pyramid schemes to be stacked on housing, finances and resources alike people realised a few years ago spending like teh rich wanted you to, eg. taking credits, was not doing any good. just like the exploit of housing and the degradation of human rights amongst other things in that context, had not been helpfull to the great majority that is only paying maximum summs to a minimal lot (of people).

this meant that whilst teh rich took a further inroad to the collective funds, people did not help their own disempowerment by spending to such iniatives. so much so that the past 2,3 years the consumers saved a respectable surplus of investment power, no matter attempts on that opportunity by employers and governments.

by now people in some cases started spending again, yet in these cases they try to rationalise, things that sell well tend to be urgent expenses, computers for work or study eg., a cheaper and more efficient car, better food, and perhaps here and there a more wholesome hollidays.

since none of that is wastefull, the capitalists hate it.  since most of it supports the wealth (if you can call it that) of the upper lower classes what we notice is new attempts on wages, etc. (rent, housing prices, housing stock, health, etc.) meanwhile the rent is brought down to near zero. the least the rich can go for is inflate the money of the poor.

now this leads to a conclusion, having already sanitised a lot of the spending bottom up, people will now have to sanitise their economys 'bottom up'. to that end what the lower and middle classes need, is investment projects that contribute substantially to their sustenance and health. not the kind of projects the capitalists like.

it seems such iniatives are somewhat rare. about the only thorough road to sane investment is by using green banks, and allthough that will facilitate a better ecology and food production it is not immediatly going to render immense profits. so what i suggest is people need to develop ideas for investment that benefit the lower classes specifically. one advantage to that is that what is essential to maintain the poor or poorer, is also essential to maintain any kind of populace. for an example , if we spend on fruits that are not exotic, even if we spend weird great summs, we improve the food situation in the long run.

unfortunately most of us are not in a position to spend so luxuriously on elementary needs, or perhaps it is just better to put the financial resource to a still more usefull end. if the people and the green banks, companys, develop such iniatives it won't be to the capitalists like, because without any 'growth' (that is often best measured in units of pollution) people can still improve a lot on the lifecircumstances and food and ecological security of everyone, and nature.

what that means is we could develop , in the socalled developed(..) world for ages without any 'growth'.

i think indeed we should. to call a weird example of 'economic growth' : if many very old people buzz about a lot in cars, because a social company is not near to be found, that would be a great formula of capitalist growth, extra cars, extra petrol, and extra what not (ambulances and hospitals eg.) , however if we just consider it useless, it is cleaner, cheaper, and apparently also more social.

the point is that the growth of the wealth of the poor equals the diminishing of the wealth of the rich even mechanically. something economical theory never even got at.