Central bank’s negative interest rates equal Stalinesque collectivisation

Stalin was a shitty economist. Collectivisation, forced de-competivisation of farms, did not bring about economies of scale but rather economies of starvation and death. Negative interest rates by Central Banks globally is having the same effect. Loans are being forced to flood the globe with supply regardless of fact there is no demand.

4 comments on “Central bank’s negative interest rates equal Stalinesque collectivisation
  1. mike says:

    Would bank bailouts of too big to fail banks be the same as collectivisation of farms? forced de-competivisation of banks? Cashless and then negative rates is the same as gold confiscation and then revalue from 26 to $35 in 1930 something? and all because the wealth has become concentrated in the hands of a few? while the counterweight of proxy wealth aka debt has become concentrated in the hands of the masses?

  2. YoLithos says:

    The rich peasants usually got rich by plundering the poorer peasants and kept it by pandering to the old nobles and – later – the simply very wealthy and powerful. Stalin had an issue with that, apparently for personal childhood reasons. When the new masters tried to industrialize Russia they sided with their former masters. And did a lot to actively oppose it by diverting production. And by doing anything else they thought that they could get away with. An industrialized nation would reduce their influence at the center of society, of politics, and of the economy. Up to 6 milion (maybe 10?) got thrown out with the bath water. The old, rich suck-ups did a bit poorly on that one. Newer ones prevailed. The circle turned. Say hello to the new oligarchs. Completely different. But exactly the same,

    Stalin rose from being a political street thug in much the same vein as Saddam Hussein. But with markedly different handlers. He was there and personally fought the big oils cartels that did their worst to dominate the Baku oilfields in the beginning of the 20th Century. Their methods were, in anything, no gentler than his or of most of the others there in those days. They eventually “lost”. They had to share more than they anticipated. That rankled them to no end.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/146504/the_roots_of_stalin_in_the_tea_party_movement/
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/13/tea-party-billionaire-koch-brothers

  3. Flopot says:

    “Collectivisation, forced de-competivisation of farms, did not bring about economies of scale but rather economies of starvation and death.”

    That was the whole point.