They opened the doors to their back-end themselves. This is us being gentle.

If the Technology Industry Can Build Obsolescence Into Its Business Model, What Makes You Think the Financial Industry, or Even Governments, Cannot Do the Same?

SHS – HUMAN FIRST | The Womb of The Unknown Need

The correction of inflated prices can occur in so many other ways that don’t require hurting the bottom line of ordinary people’s lives.

Unsustainable debt and risk levels can be addressed through restructuring, renegotiation and preventive resource allocation.

If money is needed, why not borrow from those who possess the greatest financial resources, under appropriate terms, instead of creating conditions in which those same individuals can eventually go shopping for everybody else’s assets at discounted prices?

Why must assets be reallocated through collapse when they could be reorganised before the collapse?

Is it that they don’t know how to organise resources, or that the existing organisation is far too profitable for those who benefit from its repeated failures?

Because we have seen this before.

In technology, planned obsolescence is the practice of designing products or their commercial lifecycles around eventual replacement, creating continued demand.

A product that could have lasted longer becomes another opportunity to sell.

Now apply that same lens to the financial system.

What if the repeated crises are not merely failures of the system, but part of the conditions through which its greatest beneficiaries continue accumulating wealth?

Think about it.

The market grows.

The wealthy accumulate.

The market becomes inflated.

The risks increase.

The market crashes.

Ordinary people lose financial stability, employment, property or the ability to hold their investments.

And those with sufficient capital?

They go shopping.

They acquire assets at reduced prices.

They wait.

The market recovers.

Their investments appreciate.

And the cycle begins again.

For the person who can afford the long game, the crisis is not necessarily an interruption of opportunity. It can be part of the opportunity itself.

So why do we assume that those benefiting most from this arrangement have the greatest interest in permanently correcting it?

If technology companies can profit from products becoming obsolete, what makes us so confident that powerful financial actors cannot profit from financial arrangements repeatedly becoming unsustainable?

And why should governments and central banks be exempt from that same investigation?

Who benefits from the system remaining as it is, including during its failures?

Who has the resources to survive those failures?

Who can purchase what others are forced to surrender?

Who gains greater ownership when recovery begins?

And who is being asked to endure the consequences until then?

The information is available.

The historical patterns are available.

The financial mechanisms are available.

And the alternatives deserve far more investigation than they receive.

So, as far as I am concerned, we are looking at two possibilities that must be seriously examined.

Either there are elements of systematic planned obsolescence within our economic architecture, where recurring instability serves interests powerful enough to benefit from maintaining it.

Or we are witnessing extraordinary negligence and a profound lack of organisational capability among those entrusted with managing the systems upon which humanity depends.

One concerns integrity.

The other concerns continuity and foresight.

Neither deserves to escape accountability.

And in either case, what qualifies those responsible to continue holding such consequential authority without independent examination of their decisions, incentives and results?

That includes major financial institutions and authorities, such as the Bank of England in the United Kingdom.

I am not interested in simply being told that market corrections are natural.

Human-made systems are not nature. Their arrangements, incentives, rules and dependencies were created by people.

And what humanity has created, humanity can investigate, correct, reorganise or replace.

The fact that a financial cycle is familiar does not establish that its most destructive consequences are necessary.

Nor does the fact that somebody profits from recovery establish that they deliberately caused the crisis.

But when the same people are repeatedly positioned to benefit from conditions that leave everybody else vulnerable, the question of whether those conditions are being preserved by design deserves investigation.

Because you cannot simply expect those who benefit the most from an arrangement to be the ones most eager to eliminate the conditions producing those benefits.

They don’t necessarily want to fix the cake. They may want the bigger piece.

And until we investigate that possibility with the same seriousness we devote to managing the aftermath, humanity may continue calling preventable consequences unavoidable economic cycles.

That is precisely why I am developing the role of Director of Integrity & Continuity.

To investigate what the system produces, who benefits, who pays, how far the consequences extend, and whether what is presented as necessary is actually a choice serving particular interests.

Because the greatest failure would not be discovering that our systems were poorly organised.

It would be discovering that they were organised exactly as their greatest beneficiaries wanted them, while everyone else was made to believe there was no alternative.

SHS – HUMAN FIRST

The Womb of The Unknown Need

Consciousness | Integrity | Continuity

The Basic Human Needs Economy

…..

Well the correction of inflated prices can occur in so many other ways that doesnt hurt the” bottom line”. To reset unsustainable debt and risk levels, money can be borrwed from the wealthy instead creating a heaven for them to shop at the price of others, reallocating assets should be something they can do in prevention to this if they knew how to organise resources. So it is either planned obsolete, like in tech, or it is oire negligence and poor organisation skill. So in neither cases they’re fit to lead, govern or control the major banks, like bank of endland in uk.