The fundamental point the critics are not making concerns the hypocrisy of the top thieves. The human personality is most basically regulated by shame. We may also call that feeling guilt or “face.” The top thieves are not going to admit they are hypocrites - because that would be to lose face.
America, as Britain, is not great or important because corporate executives steal but rather this country becomes great when global regions/countries share much of their incoming or oncoming/developing wealth - their newly developing capitalistic wealth - in the sense of distribution to their own populations. For example, observe Braudel's phrase: "growth of the home market." Capitalist entrepreneurialism should be understood as having nurtured social growth. We should tyr to understand what we mean by "social growth." It's important. The wealth that was coming in or coming on, or being worked up, was, as noted just above, fairly widely distributed, which is to say within certain relative boundaries. It worked this way regardless of whatever low, mean intentions society might have had. So, it worked that way. This wealth gave the contesting reformers and rights advocates and so forth the strength to protect others from the small-mindedness and the greed of the very worst of our sad (arguably)/human race. This helps explain why we became great, or big and powerful. It is not because we were nice – or because we were Christian. But it worked that way.
“Hypocrisy” means these guys prefer stealing. They should be exposed. They are folks who have voluntarily made the decision to steal from their fellows – from others in their own “nations” or home base countries, than do the alternative. The alternative is called honesty and it need not be further clarified. What I mean should be obvious; it demands of no clarification. It is obvious from context alone. These actions of theirs are hypocrisy. It is also called “stealing.” They are hypocrites. They are doing this to us all. They are stealing. They are forwarding invisble, made-up money throught the fractional reserve system. It has a palpable feeling of wrongness but yet they do it. They know very well what they are doing. There is no lack of clarity about it. Yet they will never admit this. This story will not close on them unless some outside factor called las enforcement closes it on them. They know it’s wrong and they do it. They are actively involved in hypocrisy.
They had a choice. They and their financial institutions could have forwarded real money out to the bank (loan) customers, as that money became available to them, and then they could have collected their interest. Perhaps even this kind of money supply creation is not wrong; perhaps it is just the honesty about who, what when, what is the source of the money, etc. is all that was needed. All of that suffices as legitimate. Instead, they chose to steal it. They did so by accepting the creation of phony money – “credit” – and taking their profit in that interest that they received on it. This is what they did. This is how they subsist and how they live.
This is what I understand about it. If I am a small banker, (there are many, many honest small bankers) I have to take that money. I take it to loan it out to yet another creditor/debtor. (These two words function as much the same thing). He repays. I take my money, and now the small banker can pay back the loan to the original lender. That original lender is corrupted, and this false creature with no integrity gets its money – the share of the interest paid back on the made-up money. It is dishonest.
Then the debt piles up. That’s why we have all that debt today, but it’s not real money, anywhere. If it is real – where is it?
The final stage of course is when debtors “renege” if you will. Basically they just cannot pay, for whatever reasons they may have, most of them better than the reasons the lender had for lending out fake money. The economy goes into quasi-real failure. Now you fix it. Don’t you?
The bankers were dishonest. They are intelligent people. They knew. If they had not known, but acted as human “dummies,” then there would remain honest persons next to them. An honest, knowing man would be right next to them, at their elbow, so to speak, and would have said, “oh, no. We must stick to the money supply as it is.” The economy has no requirement that fake money has to be poured into it. That’s fake. It is unnecessary. Fakery is unnecessary. You do create a few thousand (or billion) dollars originally and you can work with that. Where is it that you need invented, extra money? If person “A” invents money to lend this is an immediately unfair act. He gets an immediate advantage as long as the economy itself really works - to give it back. And thus, this is not honest.