The 2008 Recession Was Caused by Kindness

[this is only temporary]

I’m not really sure what this all has to do with religion. I don’t even go to church. However I wanted to share these two articles I just read. They appeared today and I had to laugh a little after this conversation because, well... They’re back.

It appears people still like credit and banks still promote it. And here I was saying how lenders were all out of a job (well, they were! In 2008.).

Sigh. Here we go again. Although, it might be a good sign for the current economic cycle? Possibly.

1. Big banks woo subprime borrowers again
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47015090/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

“Even I wouldn’t make a loan to me at this point,” Ms. Alejandro said.

And then:

Shauna Ames, 41, an office manager from St. Paul, said she got a credit card offer from Capital One even though the company had won a lawsuit against her for $5,485 in overdue credit card debt last September. Ms. Ames, who had filed for bankruptcy, said she was surprised at the offer. “I still can’t believe it,” she said.

I don’t even know what to say about this. I pulled those quotes directly from the article; I did not make them up just for amusement. They’re for real.

Although, the article admits:

The push for subprime borrowers has not extended to the mortgage market, which remains closed to all but the most creditworthy.

So, instead of mortgages, it appears auto loans are being – bubbly – this time around.

Auto loans are particularly attractive for lenders since they were largely untouched by many of the new regulations.

Car prices are up, too, not surprisingly, because easy credit strengthens demand which raises prices, exactly how it happened in real estate 5-10 years ago.

2. And then there is this one about bonuses at securities companies, which, as Dragon pointed out, contributed to the meltdown in 2007 significantly.

What meltdown? Broker bidding wars are back
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47010104/ns/business-us_business/
I love reading the comments below this one, especially the one who says:

...I'm in the wrong business.

Me too.

P.S. and I disagree that the left is more inclusive than the right, I've met people who self-identify as open minded and liberal who call people all sorts of really awful names routinely when they don't agree with them. They just are inclusive of each other. Just like the right.

 

[Rferraris]

I'm not so sure about that.
I think it has been shown time and again that independents tend to vote for conservative candidates more so than liberal ones.

Well it's sort of my point. I think they would be libertarians, outwardly or republican outwardly rather than reserving there position as independent.

I know 5 people on this world. So who am I to make big claims about what people are or are not. But based on the people I know they do tend to lean toward a conservative model. But they won't, IMO, commit because of the religious overtones. The whole Santorum contraception issue.
Why was this guy talking about things that could be inflammatory, are not being considered by any piece of legislation, other than the health care bill, but talk about the economy. Not things that have been debated, have no chance at taking center stage, aren't what most people, I think, are concerned with right now.

For 25 years I've been fairly successful. For the first time in my life everything I have worked for is in question. Ok those are broad statements. So let me just say this economy is killing me. That's what I want to talk about. I think that's what a lot if people want to talk about. Contraception isn't at the top of the list. If, IMO, had stayed main stream and on topic, he would have taken Mitt. I think he would have taken Wisconsin.

My point is I think the independents will go right more so than left. So I'm agreeing with you. But again that's based on my small world view.

I'm independent and very unsure of who I'm voting for. I wouldn't vote for Santorum only because of the remarks toward women and contraception. His religious overtones. But other than that the guy had feeling. Something you can feel. Mitt in just not sure I'm the guy he wants to help. Obama. Maybe we need to change sheets but I don't know if I can vote Mitt. But I can't vote for a guy that can't keep religion out of the conversation.

 

[Rferraris]

I'm with him ^ there is plenty of fear of secular, (read atheistic) authoritarianism/totalitarianism emerging out of humanistic egalitarian principles held on the left. It is silly to not see it as a potential danger. The US Constitution's guarantees of freedom of religion and the right to free association are important bulwarks against it.

But any law can be swept aside by the giddiness of the Masses.

I want to understand. But not sure I do.
I am not sure if you are afraid the left wants to take away your freedom to practice as you choose? Is this the health care bill? The way I see it and I think, sorry, is people see it as the legislation was always meant to be reworked. I don't think for a second anyone thought they got 2700 pages right on the first try. And it seems the administration has done what it can to make the laws accommodating. I don't think it's a sign of a wave of laws coming to take away religious freedom. But then maybe I'm not understanding you.

 

[Rferraris]

This is only temporary.


And you are kind of corroborating or supporting my position. I have no idea what was passed in Regulation Reform.
It's the least most talked about thing congress has done. Weren't we supposed to stop too big to fail. Stop underwriting practices that put the world on jeopardy. Kinda like what just happened?

Sorry, but I don't believe congress has worked together. Not going to blame either side. They just haven't. And a point I was making earlier is we need to come together.

After everything I've said to finish it with that statement just sounds weak.

 

[Apone]

Nothing per say caused the recession other than the nature of the system itself. There are always recessions and recoveries; they are inherent in the structure of our economy, and we cannot point at any specific motive of human behavior and identify it as the cause. That goes against everything we understand about the nature of the economy and simplifies the issue, repainting it into naive moralistic terms.

However, a few trends did exacerbate the problem, and neither of them had anything to do with kindness. There crises in the financial sector and housing market exacerbated the recession. The two were linked and had much to do with the acquisition of toxic assets by bundling mortgages together (creating mortgage backed securities), making them look good, and selling them off to someone else. This wasn't done out of any sort of kindness- it was done out of greed and irresponsibility- particularly because others would have to deal with the fallout of the mortgage backed securities. So you might want to add deceit into the mix as well- considering the mortgage backed securities were, from what I understand, often given much higher ratings than they deserved.

Heh… I don't really think that the recession was caused by kindness-- that was just my hook when I wanted to come up with a title for this thread.

Wall Street has always been a glorified horse race… it's gambling, pure and simple… and if you give a gambling addict a bag full of poker chips, they won't care if you stole them from a 70 year old woman whom you just left laying in a puddle of blood… they'll do whatever they can to try to make money with them.

And someone in a position of responsibility should have been paying closer attention. Wall Street should have been closely monitored, and there should have been deeper investigations. But people never seem to worry about these kinds of things until they become a problem-- at the time I seem to remember that everyone was worried about Iraq and Afghanistan and the Taliban…

[MENTION=4680]this is only temporary[/MENTION] (sorry I don't know how to do the mention thing) seems to know what he's talking about… assuming that everyone always knows what they're doing is a mistake… people are not as in control as you think-- and that includes being in control of themselves. It's easy to focus on the fortunate ones and blame them for everything… but it's not necessarily any one person's/group's fault.

 

[this is only temporary]

This is only temporary.


And you are kind of corroborating or supporting my position. I have no idea what was passed in Regulation Reform.
It's the least most talked about thing congress has done. Weren't we supposed to stop too big to fail. Stop underwriting practices that put the world on jeopardy. Kinda like what just happened?

Sorry, but I don't believe congress has worked together. Not going to blame either side. They just haven't. And a point I was making earlier is we need to come together.

After everything I've said to finish it with that statement just sounds weak.

I can definitely agree that congress has not worked together. I also agree that we, as individuals, need to come together more. I don't totally understand regulation reform, either, though I'm conversant with small bits of it. (it takes up reams of paper)

I do think it is really important to reject bigotry and approach issues (especially very complicated ones) with an attitude of supposing that there might be more than one facet to understand, and maybe -- just maybe! we don't understand all the facets. You actually learn something with that approach.

Anyone who starts sounding like a preacher saying some group or party or other is evil, bad and out to get us, and we should all hate and fear them, and that group is going to attack poor little innocent us; and what we really need is a New World Order, and they know just what that New World Order should be, and ideally, it had better start with killing someone...well, I'm outta there, I don't even want to listen to that person anymore. Actually, I think that was Charles Manson's whole spheil, come to think of it.

 

[Stu]

I am not sure if you are afraid the left wants to take away your freedom to practice as you choose? .

I favor the current health care law, I am a liberal progressive, but understand that there is the potential on the left for taking away individual rights just as there is on the right.

 

[MindYourHead]

For 25 years I've been fairly successful. For the first time in my life everything I have worked for is in question. Ok those are broad statements. So let me just say this economy is killing me. That's what I want to talk about. I think that's what a lot if people want to talk about. Contraception isn't at the top of the list. If, IMO, had stayed main stream and on topic, he would have taken Mitt. I think he would have taken Wisconsin.

I know what you mean.
I find it odd that every election season contraception and abortion become big topics with the candidates. They talk about it like it is a core issue.
Yet, in my day to day life no one ever brings it up in conversation. The economy? yes. Getting Obama out of office? yes. Women's reproductive rights? No.

At least in the upper midwest where I live a candidates religious views aren't that important.

 

[this is only temporary]

I know what you mean.
I find it odd that every election season contraception and abortion become big topics with the candidates. They talk about it like it is a core issue.
Yet, in my day to day life no one ever brings it up in conversation. The economy? yes. Getting Obama out of office? yes. Women's reproductive rights? No.

At least in the upper midwest where I live a candidates religious views aren't that important.

Oddly, they're not all that important where I live, either... though people in general tend to be rather on the religious side and rather more socially conservative. But not extreme. It seems to be radio talk-show hosts and political candidates who seem to bring the extremists out of the woodwork, and I honestly don't know where they find them. I can't remember the last time anyone in real life brought up contraception or religion, or expressed highly passionate views about either. Odd, isn't it? Because it seems to be such a huge issue somehow.

P.S. One notable exception would be some of my more feminist friends, who do not like the idea of losing reproductive rights. But the social conservatives I know must be taking full advantage of contraception, otherwise they would have about 20 kids each.

 

[Vict]

They're the easy topics because they're binary. Once you get into specifics and the gray area, people seem to lose interest.

 

[muir]

@Apone I disagree that its ridiculous to suggest that the 1% can act in way to increase their profit by manipulating stocks or causing a recession/depression. Small investors who are smart may be able to make small profits by moving their money around, but its tiny in comparison to the amount the richest 1% make.

Small investors can't substantially influence government policy, bank rates, presidents elections, international agreements or "disagreements". If you look at the facts objectively its not a conspiracy theory to say what you see.

In the UK right now there is an enquiry going on into the actions of a large media organisation. Widespread illegal hacking of phone voicemails, computers, possible corruption of police officers, even the hacking of the former prime ministers phone (he was chancellor at the time).

I'm not making a "values" judgement to say so.

A British lawyer is about to file a case against News Corps in the US so i think it will be big news there soon, if not already

 

[muir]

This is true for people who took out adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) but not all mortgage affordability problems had to do with adjustable rate mortgages. Many affordability problems had more to do with no-money down or other "creative" mortgages that were simply too large, and homes that were way overpriced due to huge demand. And it will probably make you feel good to know that for the most part, the bankers/mortgage brokers who peddled these kinds of loans are, for the most part, currently out of jobs and careers since the bubble burst.

Why would it make me feel good to know that people are out of work?

I've explained my position very clearly, perhaps you haven't read my posts? I don't blame the white collar bank workers, i am talking about a process being driven from the very top. This is a process towards a centralised system of global reach. Each crisis is used as an opportunity to move this process forward another step.

Although i don't feel threatened by much of these peoples agenda for example the various 'progressive' 'liberal' reforms nor am i bothered by the break down of national soveriegnty; what i am concerned about is that all this is done under central control.

I do not agree that a heirarchical system is the best one. I believe in people exercising direct democratic power from the bottom up.

These mortgage brokers you talk about are just the workers of the elite....they are not the elite i'm talking about....they are 'workers' as they work for a living, so i don't want to see them out of a job, i just want to see them doing their job responsibly but they have no control over that; they simply do what they are told to do by head office.

I agree with what you are saying about mortagages: that there were many ways in which lending was done irresponsibly

In this case I am getting my information from experience, actually, the media has nothing to do with it.

Although I agree that more information and more critical thinking about credit would have helped a lot of people during the bubble. I am not sure ignorance needs to be "engineered", people seem to do an awfully good job of it on their own.

Nevertheless ignorance is engineered and the media has a huge effect on shaping peoples perceptions, including perceptions regarding consumerism of which owning a house and trying to create an image is an important part, often called 'keeping up appearances'....well who decides what appearances must be kept up? Largely its the media that decides

 

[muir]

I can definitely agree that congress has not worked together. I also agree that we, as individuals, need to come together more. I don't totally understand regulation reform, either, though I'm conversant with small bits of it. (it takes up reams of paper)

I do think it is really important to reject bigotry and approach issues (especially very complicated ones) with an attitude of supposing that there might be more than one facet to understand, and maybe -- just maybe! we don't understand all the facets. You actually learn something with that approach.

Anyone who starts sounding like a preacher saying some group or party or other is evil, bad and out to get us, and we should all hate and fear them, and that group is going to attack poor little innocent us; and what we really need is a New World Order, and they know just what that New World Order should be, and ideally, it had better start with killing someone...well, I'm outta there, I don't even want to listen to that person anymore. Actually, I think that was Charles Manson's whole spheil, come to think of it.

The problem is that the people who are attacking us ARE the people creating each new world order and yes it always includes a lot of killing

I don't want to see anyone killed that's for sure, which is why i think non violent methods are the way for the public to protect themselves against the worst excesses of the super rich whether you think those excesses come from stupidity, kindness, negligence, greed or a wider program of creating a collectivist one world government!

For the public to stand up for themselves effectively however takes for them to stand together.

Unity requires organisation and organisation requires a certain level of understanding of the issues and dynamics. This understanding is what the elites want to avoid so they engineer ignorance through the media and education system.

Even then there is the danger of organisations being coopted or manipulated by big business for its own ends. For example big business has often backed 'left wing' movements when it suited them to. The US backed Pol Pot who's reforms led to the deaths of two million people because they saw him as a bulwark against vietnamese expansion.

Personally i am suspicious of anyone who believes that they should control things whether those people are 'right wing', 'left wing', christian, muslim, jewish etc

I think that power should be exercised from the bottom upwards (along anarchist lines) and that people should push for reforms to move closer to that. Even without achieving what right wingers would dismissively call a 'utopia' to move closer to democracy (by democracy i mean everyone having more power and elites less power), would still i think improve the quality of life of people

Zbigniew Brezinski who was president Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor and is a foreign policy advisor to President Obama as well as being a member of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign relations is widely accepted to be a member of the global elite or as Aldous Huxley would call them 'World Controllers', President Eisenhower would call the 'Military Industrial Complex', Prof, Carrol Quigley might call 'the Milner Group' and others might call 'big business' or 'the money trust' or 'the power elite' etc wrote:

'Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but now they are composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions and their interests are more functional than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and as was true in the Middle Ages, it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.'

What he is describing is a network of global controllers. Now if they rule wisely then everyone might be happy even in the absence of democracy. However what i'm seeing is wars, revolutions, economic instability, environmental catastrophe and the movement of all the public wealth into a few private hands.

I'm not saying this to 'fear monger' i'm just saying it because its true and i'm posting in a news part of a forum, so its worth mentioning. So to discuss something like the housing bubble or the economic crisis without looking at the influence or agenda of these very powerful people (and groups of people) is to not see the whole story.

Are they acting out of 'kindness'? Do they genuinly want a more unified and stable world? If they achieve it then they will be my new heroes, but i am just concerned, and i think legitimately concerned at the fact that it seems to achieve their goal of world government it means cutting the freedoms of the individual and as i've already stated i want to live in a world which allows individual freedom.

This is why i often make a case for anarchist-communism because it is not about society being organised by an elite like state-socialism or state-capitalism and it is not opening the flood gates to human greed like 'anarcho-capitalism'....it is a way of living which allows everyone real say in the running of their lives and communities

From this perspective, the economic crisis becomes merely the latest crisis used by people well versed in Hegelian dialecticism who see disorder as opportunity (new order from the chaos, like a phoenix rising from the ashes) and in Platos vision of an ideal society run by 'philosopher kings'

 

[Apone]

^^The era which we are currently in is the most peaceful and most humane that the human race has ever seen.

I don't know why you think the future involves a lot of killing, but if you take a look at the past you'll realize that there's actually always been a lot of killing, and there have always been people who have power and people who don't… the rich can't be rich if they don't have people to build their houses, assemble/design their cars, etc. Now that religion is waning, people aren't going to stand for as much BS as they used to.

I have to ask-- do you personally actually know any rich people? Because I do, and they're really not such bad people… they're not just mindless killbots or aliens sent to conquer the Earth or demons who only want to control everyone's brains-- they're just people like you and me. Being a jerk or manipulator can only get you so far… you still have to convince other people to do what you say and for the most part that means being a decent employer. And in this kind of everyone-knows-everything world you really can't get away with things like you used to be able to.

I don't know what you've been reading exactly, but I think you should really ask yourself if you could ever know for certain that it's all 100% true, or that reading it means you're somehow privy to vital information about the future of the human race. Like it or not, it's impossible to predict the future no matter how certain some people seem to be about it… and actually, it's also pretty much impossible to ever understand the present, or the past as well.

So yeah, whenever I hear people ranting about New World Orders and wicked controllers manipulating our hearts and minds, it all seems really far out… not that I don't think the US government is above that, but I don't think it's ever as extreme or as apocalyptic as some people make it out to be.

 

[this is only temporary]

I cannot respond to everything but will to a few points. Sorry, slow time in my life = wall of text, you don’t have to read it if you don’t want to. I actually am trying to be nice too.

For the public to stand up for themselves effectively however takes for them to stand together.

Yes, it does. And when I see people get belittled based on their nationality, religious beliefs, hobbies, personality types, lifestyle, whether or not they choose to marry, their gender, their wealth levels, regional accents… you name it… right here on this forum, and sometimes even threatened, I fail to see how this is in some way helping anyone stand together. You can’t make people stand together by forcing them to be exactly how you think they should be, and I see too much of that sort of thing.

i've already stated i want to live in a world which allows individual freedom.

Like freedom to get married if they want to and if that is how it suits them to live their lives? How come you tell people they can’t do that if they want to?

Unity requires organisation and organisation requires a certain level of understanding of the issues and dynamics.

Also true. And I don’t believe most online pundits have more than a rudimentary level of understanding of most issues. They’ve watched a documentary and decided they know it all. From the sounds of it, most people around here are not experts on real estate, economics or government, many have not even heard of very open and non-conspirational government agencies such as the FHA, HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, what they do, how they were founded, etc. etc. etc. and are only loosely familiar with the history and culture, to boot, except for the bigoted views some people sometimes chose to believe and promote.

But they talk as if they have 40-year careers behind them, have travelled the world, worked in every industry imaginable, and know everything. This bothers me a LOT. Drives me nuts. Especially since it usually involves blatant mistakes and harsh value judgements.

This understanding is what the elites want to avoid so they engineer ignorance through the media and education system.

There is no way you know this about the education system. So, the education system “engineers” ignorance. Are you intimately familiar with the US education system? There isn’t even ONE education system here, there are many, and there are different schools teaching different things. Religious schools, secular schools, “un” schools, homeschools, good and not-so-good (and absolutely crappy) public schools…you name it. You really mean there is one elite group controlling all of these? They’re doing a lousy job, then, and I doubt that’s even true. When’s the last time you’ve been in a public school or talked to a teacher? Know any homeschoolers or parents pushing for reforms and alternative education opportunities?

I don’t think anyone believes the media is not biased one way or the other. I know the media is biased. But saying the media “engineers ignorance” really just means “Read my propaganda, not theirs.”

All media is biased. I’ve seen people promote websites – okay, actually it was a link you posted -- that featured a paranoid ranting man saying that the Iowa primaries were rigged and the only solution is to start shooting people. Literally. That’s what he said. That is not my idea of quality journalism. I do not consider CNN or MSNBC gospel, either, however. (And obviously Fox is biased) And yes, I’ve heard of News Corps, even on mainstream media.

Are they acting out of 'kindness'?

I think you’re asking if the “power elite” are acting out of kindness.

I have no idea, because I have never met them or asked them, and I don’t even know who they are. I’m not sure where the “Power Elite” actually start. You obviously believe they exist and that their motives are universally bad. But they (whoever they are) are human, no? And presumably if they are so powerful and so elite, then they are intelligent enough to want peace and prosperity, and not environmental and economic catastrophe? For their own good as well as others?

People always have a choice. Whether it is a choice to buy a house or to not go along with their government’s policies – leader’s actions are always enabled by their own people.

I know a few ordinary rich people and CEO types… and many of them lost their butts and their businesses in the economic crisis, so if they were conspiring, they managed to conspire themselves into a lower level of wealth quite nicely. And I know rich capitalistic types who are quite philanthropic and obviously capable of kindness. I do not know about the Power Elite.

This I know, and it is not thanks to any media that I know it: the US government has passed laws and currently funds agencies (and banks) which made credit and homeownership easy. That was certainly one of the contributing factors to the economic crisis. I also know some very kind-hearted people who genuinely thought easy mortgages were a fantastic idea.

Nevertheless ignorance is engineered and the media has a huge effect on shaping peoples perceptions, including perceptions regarding consumerism of which owning a house and trying to create an image is an important part, often called 'keeping up appearances'....well who decides what appearances must be kept up? Largely its the media that decides.

Perhaps consumerism is a problem and the media is powerful – I suppose that is unarguable. But, you have to choose to buy a TV, you have to choose to buy an iphone or a computer, you have to choose to buy cable or satellite service, you have to choose which channels and programs to watch, you have to choose to sit down on the sofa you also chose, and watch those programs, and you have to choose which store to shop at, and you have to choose which products to buy. And if you don’t like the results then it is much easier to blame the media than your own self.

There are like a million choices, controlled largely by individuals. When enough people don’t choose something, it goes away. You even get to choose your friends, and to choose which groups’ acceptance you care about – or don’t. You choose to speak out against bullying or not. It bothers me to no end when people try to blame others for their own actions.

People also are incredibly apt to believe what they WANT to hear – the “Miracle Diet Pill” school of thought. That is not engineered, it is human nature. It is unfortunate, however, and leads people to sometimes make unwise choices. If anything is controlling us, it is our own natures, I believe.

 

[muir]

^^The era which we are currently in is the most peaceful and most humane that the human race has ever seen.

I don't know why you think the future involves a lot of killing, but if you take a look at the past you'll realize that there's actually always been a lot of killing, and there have always been people who have power and people who don't… the rich can't be rich if they don't have people to build their houses, assemble/design their cars, etc. Now that religion is waning, people aren't going to stand for as much BS as they used to.

I have to ask-- do you personally actually know any rich people? Because I do, and they're really not such bad people… they're not just mindless killbots or aliens sent to conquer the Earth or demons who only want to control everyone's brains-- they're just people like you and me. Being a jerk or manipulator can only get you so far… you still have to convince other people to do what you say and for the most part that means being a decent employer. And in this kind of everyone-knows-everything world you really can't get away with things like you used to be able to.

I don't know what you've been reading exactly, but I think you should really ask yourself if you could ever know for certain that it's all 100% true, or that reading it means you're somehow privy to vital information about the future of the human race. Like it or not, it's impossible to predict the future no matter how certain some people seem to be about it… and actually, it's also pretty much impossible to ever understand the present, or the past as well.

So yeah, whenever I hear people ranting about New World Orders and wicked controllers manipulating our hearts and minds, it all seems really far out… not that I don't think the US government is above that, but I don't think it's ever as extreme or as apocalyptic as some people make it out to be.

The times we are living in are not peaceful. There are many conflicts around the world and a lot of instability. There is also the constant threat of nuclear war.

Near the end of the second world war the Japanese sought a conditional surrender but the US refused it and instead dropped 2 nuclear bombs on the Japanese. The US then accepted the Japanese surrender under the same conditions that the Japanese had sought in the first place!

This is all in living memory.

During my own life time which is not so long i have seen my country involved in multiple wars which have seen millions killed. Then there is 'war by other means' which is war waged economically or by proxy which has also seen countless people killed.

The UN's stated aim is to bring peace to the world but in Somalia they threw impartiality out of the window and they took sides. They also did nothing to stop the slaughter in Rwanda. So what i'm cautioning against is that perhaps some of these internalionalist organisations are often manipulated by the northern countries to forward their agenda rather than helping the majority world.

Certainly organisations like the 'World Bank' and the IMF are used by the northern countries to control the majority world. What i'm asking and what many people around the world are asking is: is this the best way to go around creating a fair and stable world?

The effect of corporations on many countries in the majority world has been devestating. I strongly recommend you travel to these countries and look into it yourself. They have been put into a state of debt bondage to the northern countries and often at the point of a gun (or tomahawk missile). This is causing a lot of suffering around the world and is totally unnecessary. It's all about control and dominance and the people behind it are the global corporate elite supported by governments.

Concerning what i've been reading: i've read stuff by the right, the left, extremists and moderates as i like to hear all perspectives.

I haven't said rich people in general are bad. I've met plenty of rich people: new rich, old rich and royalty. What is sometimes conditioned into these people and i know this from experience is a sense of superiority and that is what i mentioned before when i talked about Plato. For example many members of the British elite where given a 'classical education' which included Platos vision of an ideal society ruled by an elite. The top 2 classes of this elite Plato said, should not know their own children and that they should be raised and schooled in special state run schools to be the leaders of tomorrow! Interestingly enough these British elites were often sent to boarding school from a young age and often wouldn't see a great deal of their parents! The British took all this very seriously i assure you. The entire architectural lexicon of that time was neo-classical with a little neo-gothic thrown in. The British believed they were the heirs to Greek democracy and that they should rule over their vast empire because of their superiorority. It wasn't just Hitler that was into Eugenics....many of the British and American elites were believers in it as well.

This kind of deep class divisions have caused a lot of social problems in Britain. Inequality is certainly cited by some as the biggest cause of most problems and Prof. Richard Wilkinson and Prof.Kate Pickett have provided what they argue is strong statistical evidence of this in their book 'The Spirit Level'

I personally believe that large inequalities are a bad thing as well. I don't argue that innovativness should be stifled or that hard work shouldn't be rewarded i'm simply arguing that there is a strength in pulling together rather than against each other.

You've said that we live in a 'now-everything world' and that in such a world people can't get away with much but i think that is only true to a point. There is now a corporate web of people who work together in a mutual interest (see for example all the corporations who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations). This corporate web represents a sort of monopoly. There is often insider trading, collusion and price fixing. Corporations are not being held very accountable anymore.

Examples of this are the bank charges fraud and the mobile phone companies sharp practices which have all angered consumers to the point that groups like 'moneysavingexpert.com' have grown up to help protect consumers from corporate exploitation.

Ask yourself: when you last needed a corporation to solve a problem of their making, how easy was it to get through to the person you needed to get through to? In The UK we are usually given the run around on the phone as most corporations know that consumers can't leave easily because changes to legislation have seen anti-trust laws go and consumers tied into contracts that before wouldn't have been allowed. Also because all the corporations are acting equally as badly they know that most consumers will not change and will just accept the situation through a disheartened apathy.

To your final point about people 'ranting about the New World Order', it is the politicians who rant about it! I'll post some videos for you in my next post.

These things I'm talking about are happening. It is not drive by your moderately rich person as they too will be the pawns of the super rich and will be disspossessed by them in time. I'm talking about the really big players, for example in the world of finance the following banking families: Rockeffeler, Soros, Rothschild, Morgan, Lazard, Erlanger, Warburg, Schroder, Speyers, Baring, Mirabaud, Mallet, Goldsmith etc.

What seems to be happening is that these families, who are all intermarried, are acting as a hidden hand behind world events. Whenever there is a crisis and regular people lose their businesses or their homes it is always these people who increase their fortunes.

Should people be bothered about this? Well i think many people are.

Bankers don't produce anything, they just extract interest. So how can the real economy of production and consumption grow when the government siphons all the money (eg with 'bailouts') to the bankers? It won't grow....it will recede (depression)

You've said no one can fortell the future, but many people did fortell this financial disaster. Also why don't you wait to see if i'm right when i've been saying for all my time on this forum that a global elite is moving all the money into their hands and that this will lead to greater instability and clamp downs on people freedoms....i feel with each passing month that i'm more and more vindicated in those claims.

You've used the word 'apocalyptic' but my biggest concern is that to fit all of us into a society made up of workers, administrators and philosopher kings will require a huge amount of manipulation and control of the workers and inevitably violent restraint when resistance is encountered.

Far better, imo, to live in a more equal society where everyone has a say in matters.

 

[muir]

Some people ranting about the New World Order

President Bill Clinton on the New World Order: [video=youtube;1etgsNU46s4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1etgsNU46s4[/video]

 

[muir]

President Bush on the New World Order: [video=youtube;UbRp7xlhgbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=UbRp7xlhgbo&NR=1[/video]

 

[muir]

Prime Minister Tony Blair on the New World Order: [video=youtube;Jv17gVF9kMA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv17gVF9kMA[/video]

 

[muir]

President Obama on a New World Order: [video=youtube;0CV8Xt2VWvc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CV8Xt2VWvc&feature=related[/video]