Who really runs the world?

DriftingByTheStorm

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, why'd they want your money, and pay you for it, if they weren't using it for anything?

It may be fucked up, but that's how it works. And things will come crashing down, as they are all bound to do at some point. The interesting part is what is built on the ruins.

Peace
Dan

When the system was run on HONEST money (ie. GOLD) banks were really just like grain silos.

They would take your gold, and give you a "note" (what we now call "cash" -- ie. "this NOTE is legal tender") ...

... they would also CHARGE YOU A FEE.

Then they got "smart" and decided that they would actually just lend out your gold while you weren't in need of it ... that way they didn't have to charge you, and you were more likely to deposit with them instead of a competitor that WAS charging you ... in fact, this 1-to-1 deal actually wasn't so bad ... it didn't inherently inflate the money supply ... all YOU had was a note to redeem your gold, and someone else had your gold ... at the end of the day, the BANKER was responsible to cover that ... if your note ended up back at the bank, "your" gold was coming back to you some how ... and the amount of gold in the system was made whole ...

however, finally bankers decided that wasn't enough ... just making interest on your gold just wasn't going to cut it ... oh no ... not by a long shot ...

actually, they would take your gold, and give you a note ... and then they would WRITE TEN NOTES WITH INTEREST and give them to other people ... feeling fairly confident that the gold you had given them would be enough ... yeah, only 1 of those 11 people (the ten, plus you) would ever need that gold at once, right?

RIGHT?

Uh ... W-R-O-N-G

:(

OutOfBreath

My point was merely that it is in the nature of modern banking to invest the money they handle. That ain't new nor shocking. I am aware of the gold standard arguments. But I dont necessarily view this in the same frame that you do.

The system of today is based on something as well, just nothing as tangible as gold, more like the credibility and value of the individual countries.

Is that the best system possible? Probably not. Does it in many ways work, albeit in ups and downs? Mostly, yes. And I'm the socialist here. I'm always open for suggestions for improvements, although I tend to be sceptical of "good old days" solutions, as I am sceptical of theories relying on the doings of "evil greedy men" as the reason of all ills.

I am a socialist with anarchistic tendencies, and this system would probably not be first on my list, if I were to choose. However, I also try to be pragmatic about it. Wouldn't a sudden return to gold have severe consequences worldwide for instance? And is it so important to base it on gold, when money can be based on pretty much anything we choose to?

I'm not an economist, so I cant really answer that. Anyone around in this thread?

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm

OutOfBreath wrote:

My point was merely that it is in the nature of modern banking to invest the money they handle. That ain't new nor shocking.

To most people who are ignorant of the true workings of the financial system, the corruption and extreme special interest serving nature of the Federal Reserve cartel IS shocking. And relatively speaking, it IS still new ... not yet 100 years old even.

Also, you are correct, it IS the theory of modern banking, but before 1913 the BANKS were responsible if they over lent so greedily that they caused their own insolvency ... THEY WENT BANKRUPT!
Today, if you are a JP Morgan Chase or a Citibank, THE GOVERNMENT WILL BAIL YOU OUT.

Do you not comprehend that for the government to step in and gaurantee a private corporation with either YOUR TAX DOLLARS DIRECTLY or by allowing the Fed to print more money to cover them indirectly INFLATING YOUR CURRENCY is a GROSS INJUSTICE TO THE ENTIRE PUBLIC?

OutOfBreath wrote:

The system of today is based on something as well, just nothing as tangible as gold, more like the credibility and value of the individual countries.

OMFG.
Yes. That is exactly what the "text books" explain.
The truth of that is that the system is "based on" the shady dealings of a corrupt collusion of bankers who drafted up a federal act in their own self interst.

The fundamental "basis" ... your so called "lender of last resort" is THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ... you like that? Fine.
If you are happy with bailing out greedy bankers every time they lend so wildly that they cant cover their own liabilities, even with the billions upon billions that they reap in each year ... even with a Federal Reserve System that is SUPPOSED to have enough money thrown in to it from other more honorable banks inorder to cover such a disgrace of a bank anyhow but some how never seems to have enough money in it to do its job ... at the end of the day, when the system itself doesn't do what it says it should, if you enjoy footing the bill for them so they can stay in business, great ... but it is in direct violation of the principles of the free market ... and i think it sucks a fat one!

Why are americans content to let bankers get rich off their own sweat and livelyhood. WHAT OTHER INDUSTRY WOULD YOU SUPPORT AND DEFEND WITH SUCH VEHMENENCE. Why, simply because people don't "really understand" money, do they unwittingly defend these fuckholes? THEY ARE RAPING YOU BLIND!

DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE WHEN THOMAS JEFFERSON SPELLS IT OUT FOR YOU?

"If the American People ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." --Thomas Jefferson

SOUND A BIT PROPHETIC?
Do you see the writing on the wall, perhaps?

OutOfBreath wrote:

And I'm the socialist here.

Doh.

OutOfBreath wrote:

as I am sceptical of theories relying on the doings of "evil greedy men" as the reason of all ills.

You better wake up Dan.
This isn't some little "theory".

This is REALITY.

Representatives of JP Morgan, at his direction, and as his EXPLICIT GUESTS ON HIS PRIVATE ISLAND, along with representatives of his "nemesis", JD Rockefeller, and their government crony -- the assistant secretary of treasury, and also mastermind Paul Warburg (yes, the original DADDY WARBUCKS, no shit!) a representative of the Rothschild banking clan (hey my grandmother is a rothschild, this isn't conspiracy, it's real, i can tell you, she is RICH) ... and another mega-big banker or two all got togeather in a railroad car owned and accompanied by Senator Aldrich ... who besides being an accomplice and the person who ended up pushing this Federal Reserve bill through congress just before christmas with most senators absent in 1913 ... also just happend to be the FATHER IN LAW of JD ROCKEFELLER ... all got togeather and scheemed up a way to FUCK THE COMMON MAN and the COMMON BANKER ... yes your little local banker got fucked too ... all for the benefit of THE BIG BANKING COCKSUCKER.

ITS NOT SOME STUPID THEORY
ITS HISTORY!

OutOfBreath wrote:

However, I also try to be pragmatic about it. Wouldn't a sudden return to gold have severe consequences worldwide for instance? And is it so important to base it on gold, when money can be based on pretty much anything we choose to?

A return to the gold standard would probably have some pretty severe consequences, yes.

But then again, have you seen the US credit\debt bubble recently?

Here is one for housing prices ... another great form of debt.

You don't think there will be HELL TO PAY either way?

Like i have been big fonting throughout this thread, there are only so many times a bank can roll over a loan before it freaks out and runs to "daddy" ... ie ... the government ... alias YOU AND ME ...

so what do you prefer?
Set things right with honest money and let those who are primarily responsible shoulder the primary brunt of this?

Or do you want to wait until they all fuck themselves in the face and come to RAPE YOU AND ME DIRECTLY instead !?!

Your choice.

OutOfBreath wrote:

I'm not an economist, so I cant really answer that.

Clearly.
But i still love you.
Peace out my sha-zizzle-la

onelongsong

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Another thing people don't think about is, just like with savings accounts, once there is no paper money, all of it will be stored in a computerized account, which means the bank can turn around behind your back and lend out your "cash" without you ever knowing ...

... you think that won't happen, but it will.
The banking industry is the ONLY industry that makes such practices legal, and publicly acceptable.

If you put your stuff in storage, would you think it's cool if the storage facility turned around and lent out your shit while you weren't using it?

Think about it.

i convert my money to gold which MAKES money for the most part. i also don't take out loans. i pay cash for everything. if i don't have the cash; i don't buy it. i look back at school mates who made close to what i made in my early 20's. they still have to work and most are struggling. they had to drive bmw's and drink $5.00 cups of coffee. they had to have big expensive houses and a big boat and things like that. these people easily paid over a million dollars in interest alone. they are slaves to the banks because of the lifestyle they chose. anyone can be successful if they live within their means.

catefrances

onelongsong wrote:

i convert my money to gold which MAKES money for the most part. i also don't take out loans. i pay cash for everything. if i don't have the cash; i don't buy it. i look back at school mates who made close to what i made in my early 20's. they still have to work and most are struggling. they had to drive bmw's and drink $5.00 cups of coffee. they had to have big expensive houses and a big boat and things like that. these people easily paid over a million dollars in interest alone. they are slaves to the banks because of the lifestyle they chose. anyone can be successful if they live within their means.

well i don't convert my money to gold cause quite frankly i don't have sufficient disposable cash to do that. but i do pay cash for everything and ive never taken out a loan in my life. if i don't have the money then it doesn't get bought. the onlty reason i opened a bank account in the first place was cause i was told if i didn't then i wouldn't get paid.i guess i could have pursued that issue but i was a naive 16 year old at the time. i also have no intention of ever having a mortgage.

OutOfBreath

Drifting, my responses will be brief and to the point.

First of all, whereas you specifically refer to the US, I dont. Banks work like that all over. Sure you americans have the private federal reserve thing going on, but europe dont. So alot of your objections and points there misses the mark. I was talking generally, not specifically the US.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that JP Morgan Rothschild etc are behind all the world's ills because of their greed? That seems to be what you are defending there. That the elite talk together and cooperate, sure. A grand conspiracy to rob us all blind? Not necessarily, although they will certainly be protecting their interests. Again I was talking generally, whereas you assume US.

And I dont see any reason for all the caps and OMFGs in there at all.

Point is that I'm not quite as alarmist on these issues, nor do I buy into any of the grand conspiracy theories. It is a system. It works in it's own way. Far from ideal, granted, but there it is. Neither do I see why any formal change in the system will change the structural underpinnings. (the rich will still be rich and will still manipulate markets and so on securing their position regardless)

But my objection initially was merely that you made a statement about banking that simply isn't true. At least not the last 100 years, which for societies and structures is a very long time indeed. Furthermore, I have been hinting at me not buying into the grand conspiracy theories which at their heart rely on evil greedy men set for world domination for their own greed. I do not object to there being many problems, nor that the elite cares for the elite. I object to the spin you put on it, and quite frankly dont find it necessary in able to explain the world and how it works currently.

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm

OutOfBreath wrote:

Drifting, my responses will be brief and to the point.

First of all, whereas you specifically refer to the US, I dont. Banks work like that all over. Sure you americans have the private federal reserve thing going on, but europe dont. So alot of your objections and points there misses the mark. I was talking generally, not specifically the US.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that JP Morgan Rothschild etc are behind all the world's ills because of their greed? That seems to be what you are defending there. That the elite talk together and cooperate, sure. A grand conspiracy to rob us all blind? Not necessarily, although they will certainly be protecting their interests. Again I was talking generally, whereas you assume US.

And I dont see any reason for all the caps and OMFGs in there at all.

Point is that I'm not quite as alarmist on these issues, nor do I buy into any of the grand conspiracy theories. It is a system. It works in it's own way. Far from ideal, granted, but there it is. Neither do I see why any formal change in the system will change the structural underpinnings. (the rich will still be rich and will still manipulate markets and so on securing their position regardless)

But my objection initially was merely that you made a statement about banking that simply isn't true. At least not the last 100 years, which for societies and structures is a very long time indeed. Furthermore, I have been hinting at me not buying into the grand conspiracy theories which at their heart rely on evil greedy men set for world domination for their own greed. I do not object to there being many problems, nor that the elite cares for the elite. I object to the spin you put on it, and quite frankly dont find it necessary in able to explain the world and how it works currently.

Peace
Dan

If you don't find it necessary to understand that the very fundamentals of the US (and yes, the world, since some of the largest multinational corporotations backed by that system are in fact US corporations) banking system (and by the way, europe has a central bank too) were set up by a group of rich bankers in a very real (and documented as a "conspiracy" by members of the group themselves) eagerness to defraud the american people for their own objectives, then i can't help you.

:(

The fact is, the Federal Reserve system works directly in contrast with the best interests of EVERY american, and it has benn driving the WORLD closer and closer to economic peril by the day,month,year,decade ...

again, it's not a "conspiracy theory" ... it really was a conspiracy ... it actually happened ... but feel free to brush it off as just a "modern economic system that had it's underpinnnings in bank industry cooperation" ... :(

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

If you don't find it necessary to understand that the very fundamentals of the US (and yes, the world, since some of the largest multinational corporotations backed by that system are in fact US corporations) banking system (and by the way, europe has a central bank too) were set up by a group of rich bankers in a very real (and documented as a "conspiracy" by members of the group themselves) eagerness to defraud the american people for their own objectives, then i can't help you.

:(

The fact is, the Federal Reserve system works directly in contrast with the best interests of EVERY american, and it has benn driving the WORLD closer and closer to economic peril by the day,month,year,decade ...

again, it's not a "conspiracy theory" ... it really was a conspiracy ... it actually happened ... but feel free to brush it off as just a "modern economic system that had it's underpinnnings in bank industry cooperation" ... :(

I'm not brushing it off, I'm not just as doomsday and conspiracy theorist about it. People with money have power, that's the problem. A capitalist world where money talks and decides is a problem. No gold standard will help that. The problem is more fundamental and complex than the federal reserve or what have you. Thus I just add it to the "not exactly ideal" list, which just about includes everything about us humans and our society/societies.

Consider me aware of the problem, and let's leave it at that.

Peace
Dan

Jeanie

I struggled out of my bed this morning as there was a tap tap tapping on my door. I didn't answer it on account of I peeked out the window and saw a tall, very American looking gentleman with a book under his arm, and could hear two little old ladies discussing me on my porch.

After threatening the dog with death if he barked I snuck back to bed and back to sleep and forgot all about them.

When I got up this afternoon what do I spy on the floor slipped under my door? A small pamphlet. :rolleyes:

I mention it at all because I find it ironic that we were only just having that discussion on the Mormon thread about the little old ladies from the Jehovah's peddling at my door.

The reason I mention it here is that the pamphlet is entitled, "Who really rules the world?"

So now I'd like to know two things.

1) Is the original poster a Jehovah's Witness with an agenda?

2) Does anybody think it's likely that the little old ladies from the Jehovah's Witnesses here in Australia are members of the pit?

Heineken Helen

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Another thing people don't think about is, just like with savings accounts, once there is no paper money, all of it will be stored in a computerized account, which means the bank can turn around behind your back and lend out your "cash" without you ever knowing ...

... you think that won't happen, but it will.
The banking industry is the ONLY industry that makes such practices legal, and publicly acceptable.

If you put your stuff in storage, would you think it's cool if the storage facility turned around and lent out your shit while you weren't using it?

Think about it.

Oh I have no faith in them at all... but that really is not my concern. I want to live in a world where what I do, what I buy, how much I save, where every penny I earn goes... is my concern and mine alone. I've never quite understood why it's come to the stage where you can't even get a JOB without a bank account? what business is it of your employer where you keep your money?

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

I struggled out of my bed this morning as there was a tap tap tapping on my door. I didn't answer it on account of I peeked out the window and saw a tall, very American looking gentleman with a book under his arm, and could hear two little old ladies discussing me on my porch.

After threatening the dog with death if he barked I snuck back to bed and back to sleep and forgot all about them.

When I got up this afternoon what do I spy on the floor slipped under my door? A small pamphlet. :rolleyes:

I mention it at all because I find it ironic that we were only just having that discussion on the Mormon thread about the little old ladies from the Jehovah's peddling at my door.

The reason I mention it here is that the pamphlet is entitled, "Who really rules the world?"

So now I'd like to know two things.

1) Is the original poster a Jehovah's Witness with an agenda?

2) Does anybody think it's likely that the little old ladies from the Jehovah's Witnesses here in Australia are members of the pit?

:eek: see I told ya... they know everything :eek:

Drowned Out

David Rockefeller wrote:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

Wow. First I've seen of that quote. With some of the snazzy new laws the US has enacted over the last half-decade, shouldn't that be grounds for an extended water-boarding vacation in some Eastern European hellhole?



I, for one, don’t think it is beyond comprehension that the inner circle of a group like Bildeberg would have a goal as grandiose as one-world economy and government. Rockefeller admits it above. Now, they might not even view it as an evil scheme….my guess would be that they believe globalization is the natural evolution of capitalism, and hey….in their eyes, capitalism is a pretty damn good thing, I'm sure. Combine that with a little arrogance ("the common man is too ignorant to understand this" or " the common man does not need to know every detail about the economies inner workings" ), and I can see the recipe for the elite to not care at all about accountability. This is the same reason that I don't think it's beyond comprehension that 9/11 could have been an inside job.
People always seem to think that, simply because of the number of people it would take to pull off, it is impossible. Even if it would take hundreds of people to pull off, the individuals invovled don’t need to know more than their own role. Very few people would need to know the entire scheme. It might appear vaguely suspicious to someone involved, but without proof to implicate wrongdoing by the person giving you your orders, what would you do with those suspicions, if you were even inclined to do anything? (which a lot of people wouldn't be.)

Having a powerful, select few in government, business, security, and the media willing to play along, would go a long way toward being able to control anything, simply thru chain of command.….and as stated in the lead article, any potentially explosive issue can be controlled by playing both sides of the issue and filtering it thru the media.

The big lies are more likely to be believed…




My question is this:
Is there anything the average guy can do as a hedge against this economic collapse? (I edited a 'supposed' out of that sentence…I believe it will happen). Being debt free sounds like a good start….at least the banks couldn't confiscate your belongings…but most people can't become landowners without debt. So you either end up being a landowner in debt….or a renter with disposable cash. If you have cash and the dollar collapses, and inflation skyrockets, aren't you just as f'd? Won't rent skyrocket too? How can we save ourselves from being looted if it does come to full depression? Blue chip stocks? Gold? Or is the middle class hooped no matter what?

MahoganySouls

Who really runs the world? Why moms of course!

Drowned Out

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1645559520071016
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini


Some interesting business news involving some names familiar to this thread.

I don't know if I completely understand this…but the investment community is up in arms about it.....to me it sounds like this conglomerate of banks is getting together to cover themselves and each other by buying junk paper that no one else will buy….in other words, they are creating an artificial market to delay the inevitable crash of SIV's….but they set it up under the supervision of the SEC and the Treasury…and government involvment seems to be regarded as a sign that things are really bad.

This seems to have helped them in a few ways...
Finding a legal way to keep these bad investments off of their balance sheets...
A way to pool any SIV's that have any value left to them...
Delaying a run on these investments, which could have a serious impact on both the stock market and the banks' reputations…however, the delay could just make things worse….which in my eyes, makes consolidation of major banks, and taxpayer bailout more of a reality (esp with the treasury and SEC involved already).


I'm kinda talkin out my ass here tho….this is all confusing as hell….they are leveraging bad debt like four times over….ponzi anyone?

Forum discussion:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=11406

DriftingByTheStorm

Drowned Out wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1645559520071016
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini


Some interesting business news involving some names familiar to this thread.

I don't know if I completely understand this…but the investment community is up in arms about it.....to me it sounds like this conglomerate of banks is getting together to cover themselves and each other by buying junk paper that no one else will buy….in other words, they are creating an artificial market to delay the inevitable crash of SIV's….but they set it up under the supervision of the SEC and the Treasury…and government involvment seems to be regarded as a sign that things are really bad.

This seems to have helped them in a few ways...
Finding a legal way to keep these bad investments off of their balance sheets...
A way to pool any SIV's that have any value left to them...
Delaying a run on these investments, which could have a serious impact on both the stock market and the banks' reputations…however, the delay could just make things worse….which in my eyes, makes consolidation of major banks, and taxpayer bailout more of a reality (esp with the treasury and SEC involved already).


I'm kinda talkin out my ass here tho….this is all confusing as hell….they are leveraging bad debt like four times over….ponzi anyone?

Forum discussion:
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=11406

OH SHIT!
You are right.
WE ARE FUCKED.

I will make this real quick and non-technical.

a. This sounds a LOT like what went on during the "Savings and Loan Scandal" in the mid-to-late 80's. Namely, the government got to work creating all kinds of schemes to allow the large bankers\S&Ls to avoid inevitable (otherwise) doom.

The government literally approved of all sorts of shady accounting practices to allow these institutions to keep the truth off their financial statements ... and at the end of the day, the Fed (backed by uncle sam, ie. YOU) bailed out those instutitions to the tune of about ONE POINT FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS.

b. If you think this is all just innocent, and "how the system is supposed to work" well, you'd be partly right ... it IS how it is supposed to work, but NOT for you or me ...

CHECK THIS: The primary bank at risk here, the most on the edge, is CITIBANK.

HERE IS A BIT OF INFO FOR YOU: the top eight stockholders of the New York Federal Reserve [the largest of all the regional reserves] were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179).


1983 was the last time the world ever heard who was an owner of the Fed. After that, all disclosure stopped. Safe to say, CITIBANK was one of the PRIMARY owners\investors in the Fed.

If you've read any of my other posts, you would know that i've been espousing that the main purpose of the Federal Reserve is to be the arm which allows the largest banks to act with the most risk (ie. the most potential profit) but incur NONE of that risk by having a system that bails THEM out (but not smaller banks) EVERYTIME.

Citibank has done this before, i could dig out my book and give you specifics.

THIS IS BULLSHIT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.

THE MARKETS ARE RIGGED.

"FREE" MY ASS.

:(