5 responses to “1933 and FDR’s great ‘the money lenders’ speech – history repeats – what will we do this time?”

1. 

   jonolan

   May 28, 2011 at 11:30 am

   I think that your attitude is just another example of the pathetic envy and class warfare that Liberal regimes have fostered among the weak-minded and easily led. It’s just another attack upon the productive.

   The issue is not the banks. The issue, which even a Socialist idiot like FDR (may he writhe and rot in Hell for all eternity) felt the need to mention, is you people who refuse to live within your means and rack up ever expanding debts through your failures of intellect, will, and morality.

   Happiness does not lie in the mere possession of money. If you all actually took this lesson to heart, most of society’s problem would fade into bad memories.

   Reply
   1. 

      debramoolenaar

      May 28, 2011 at 1:34 pm

      I am firmly with you on your point that the banks are not the only problem – indeed if people said NO the problem would likely fade away.

      But the problem isn’t that simple – as I suspect you already realise – for your reaction here is a bit OTT for the occasion – which suggests that when you read this, an (unintended) sore spot was hit.

      Bankers, like lawyers, and doctors, and religious leaders have traditionally ‘enjoyed’ elevated positions in society. This lingers still today, although at times one has to wonder why.

      This gives them power over the masses who quite frankly don’t take time to think for themselves. That ‘Joe Blow’ in the street should do is something positive to work toward.

      To rant that Joe Blow fails to do so, doesn’t seem to help.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

      Reply
      1. 

         jonolan

         May 28, 2011 at 2:01 pm

         The problem is that simple. Bankers – and lawyers, doctors, politicians, and the clergy – have power over only those that don’t take time to think for themselves because ALL power is attained by consent of “governed,” be it explicit or tacit consent.

         Keynesian economic models are largely false but the same sort of model, when applied to societal power is true.

      2. 

         debramoolenaar

         May 28, 2011 at 2:09 pm

         wasn’t ‘social contract’ Rousseau’s idea?

         http://debramoolenaar.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/rousseaus-social-contract-why-the-rich-get-richer-while-the-poor-get-poorer/

      3. 

         jonolan

         May 28, 2011 at 2:41 pm

         No; Rousseau was against the Social Contract, though he never really thought it through.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.