Forum Thread

Can you divert or dam or otherwise prevent people using water? Analogy

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    A valley has a river running through it that provides irrigation for all the land in the valley. Can a person that owns property at the head of the river divert the water preventing irrigation to the valley? It seems like that would be illegal and it surly is unethical. That condition exists with money in the USA. The people with money are increasingly restricting and preventing the use of money. For all the reasons contributing to the income gap the single most destructive use of that money is virtually not using it at all. Money is tied up stagnating as security in the unregulated derivative/futures market. Profits are made without the nuisance of human labor. That makes for a safer, faster and easier way to generate profits. But what it does is prevent new and expanding businesses. Money has to be spent to have value, real social societal value. Bernie needs to tax derivatives and legislate them back to what their redeeming purpose was. Futures were designed to assure a market for vulnerable goods. Like orange juice that can be effected by uncontrolled events like weather. Futures were never intended to offer protection for mortgages. Clinton allowed the expansion of the definition of futures to the detriment of the country and to precipitate the 2008 disaster. Money has to be afforded the protection of a resource. Not guaranteeing the use of money for the National Interest of the USA will destroy the USA.