There is an Alternative to Capitalism

You know, what's really scary about this pattern is that it shows just how easily you can manipulate the stock market through politics-- if you were one of the 'elites' and you did have the ability to get someone elected president, you could start with a Republican, distract people with wars and tax cuts, let the bubble swell and watch everyone get super happy-- then right before the bubble burst you could sell sell sell, the bubble would burst, you would buy up the now-cheap stock with all of the money you made, the Democrat would come in, raise taxes (because everyone was expecting him to), there would be a recovery, and in the next election people would vote for whoever promised them tax breaks (the Republican). It seems like a pretty easy way to make money!

But then-- why isn't it happening this time?

Yeah, even though it is pretty suspicious, I'm going to go with 'cuz they're dumb'.

Money doesn't dissapear in an economic crisis it just changes hands. So who now owns all the money?

The whole scheme is designed to move wealth into the hands of the cabal who can then influence the economy even more. The end game being to control so much of the land, business, banking, industry, government, media etc that the country is already essentially centrally controlled; from here it is a short step to a centrally controlled government of global scope
 
I think I'll just use this thread to post links to things that are probably going to piss people off:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=543

^This isn't really related to the 'capitalism' debate, but it does show the tax rates for the rich in the US over the past 100 years-- after World War I, Wilson (a democrat) raised it by over 50%-- and there was prosperity until a series of Republican presidents started cutting taxes again, and there was a bubble followed by a massive crash and a depression... and the US had to wait for a Democrat before the taxes would go up AND the economy would improve.

Notice the tax rates during the undeniably prosperous period of 1951-1963 (Kennedy assassinated, taxes go down by 20% for the rich in the following year-- how ya like that one @muir ?).

So the rate declines slightly and then balances until finally the Reagan years see another, massive cut that makes Reagan a hero-- people with even lower (but still comfortably upper middle class) salaries are now paying less tax. Everyone is happy.

Then Bush Sr.'s presidency saw another tax cut for the majority of middle class earners (which seems to have been a bad idea), followed by a very slight rise in taxes on anyone earning over 82k (basically, the upper middle class AND the mega-rich-- bad move, Bush Sr.). It costs him the 1992 election (A Republican robbing the rich while giving to the poor??? We can't have that!).

A new (slight) tax made socially acceptable by the Democrat Clinton (have you noticed that Americans are more likely to accept new taxes from a Democrat?) leads to a recovery from the not-so-huge early 90s recession, and then finally, the Bush tax cuts (which as much as people like to blame him for everything, actually aren't so huge)... and finally, the point we're at today.

Notice that after every single economic bubble/disaster, the tax rate has gone up dramatically on the very rich, there's prosperity, a Republican who is elected on the promise of tax cuts, a bubble, a crash, and then a Democrat who raises taxes again. This has been the pattern for the past century with only one exception---after the 2008 crash.

You can say it's because Obama is a puppet in some shadowy conspiracy and the masterstroke that will permanently effect all human life on earth is about to be revealed (possible), or that it's because the Republicans are blocking all attempts at doing what has always been done and always must be done, because they are dumb.

I'm going to go with the latter simply because if you look at what the Republican party is, you'll realize that there are a lot of idiots who have far more power than they should, and the entire party has metamorphosed into a joke with a dangerous, disturbing punchline... where greed is acceptable because it's coming from the mouths of caricatures who come off as impotent children even though the amount of damage that they are capable of is terrifying.

What is it you're asking me about here?

The cabal killed kennedy and then lowered taxes for the rich?
 
Money doesn't dissapear in an economic crisis it just changes hands. So who now owns all the money?

The whole scheme is designed to move wealth into the hands of the cabal who can then influence the economy even more. The end game being to control so much of the land, business, banking, industry, government, media etc that the country is already essentially centrally controlled; from here it is a short step to a centrally controlled government of global scope

Yes, the money CAN disappear.

The reason it can disappear is because it's not real money. It's basically a price placed on a share that someone bought using another price on a different share. And both shares have a 'price' which might not even reflect their actual worth.

Most of the world's wealth is tied up in the valuation of stocks, bonds, property, etc, not in 'actual' money or things. The rich 'lost' even more money in the crash than most ordinary people (they just lost their jobs, 401ks, etc... because the companies they worked for had all of their wealth tied up in 'virtual' money).

The reason that some are still rich is because they froze their employee's stock and sold before the panic (dodgy, selfish and morally wrong, but legal), dumped it onto the banks (again, morally wrong but legal because of deregulation), or a competitor (legal but morally wrong, even though chances are those people did or tried to do the same thing to others, at least until people figured out what was happening). If they were more honest and didn't try to pass it on to others, they either lost it all or they lost however much money they had tied up in the value of the stock that failed. If they were smart and held onto stock that could potentially bounce back (stable, blue chip stock), they wouldn't have been selling because doing so would have meant an 'actual' instead of a 'virtual' loss. You only really 'lose' money on the market if you sell your stock at a lower price than what you bought it for.

Some wealth was recovered when the markets recovered (the stimulus eventually drove the 'virtual' price of the devalued stock back up to where it was before the crash), after Obama took office. If you had bought the right stock before the stimulus (when most people were panicking and telling everyone they were doomed), you could have made a killing on the stimulus. If you were rich and you bought stock at the lowest point, you would have made more than a less wealthy person-- but only because rich people (with actual savings as opposed to equity/stock and debt) have more money to invest. Anyone could have profited on the stimulus-- the only reason you would make less money than the rich is because you had less to invest in the first place.

That's why the bank bailout was painful, but necessary-- because not injecting capital into the markets would have meant stagnation and probably a complete meltdown, while the stimulus managed to kickstart growth in the markets.

So yeah, the tangible 'thing' that this value is connected to isn't the 'true' wealth-- and what's more, if you were part of a cabal that decided to start oppressing people, there would be fewer buyers and less demand and the price of your 'thing' would plummet… effectively wiping out all of your own wealth.

Even though it's Fox News, this article explains how it works:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436435,00.html

Now that we've largely separated church and state there is no 'divine right of kings'/theological mumbo jumbo forcing unnatural hierarchy on society. Rich people don't look at the less wealthy and necessarily think 'they're naturally inferior' (though some do, I'm sure). But even for the rich, happiness isn't measured in money-- to some degree, it's measured in material possessions, but even then there's only so much money that you can spend on material possessions before you don't even know what to do with the rest of it.

Henry Ford figured out a long time ago that you personally can still have a 'wealthy' life if you pay other people the kind of salary that allows them to have a healthy and happy existence… because healthy, happy people who live long and productive lives are better workers, and if you educate these people, then this means more people contributing more to society... and the wealthy reap most of the benefits of those contributions as well. Meanwhile, the workers also reap enough benefits that they're more than capable of leading long, productive, happy and fulfilling lives…

As we speak this is actually spreading to the third world-- the crash has actually been very good for developing economies (at the expense of our own)-- because developing countries have cheap labour. But there are also pressures on the global corporations to provide humane conditions for these workers-- just because the changes aren't happening overnight, it doesn't mean that it's oppression… sooner or later, these places will also reap the benefits of industry-- education, health care, etc… none of these things are possible without people.

Realistically, the only time that oppressing people on a global scale would be advantageous is when there's a scarcity of essential resources with no cheap or easily synthesized alternatives… and if there's a scarcity/breakdown on the horizon, then no one, not even the rich will be immune to that… essentially, you'll end up with Despotism at best and total chaos at worst… but when you really think about it, the rich have as much of an interest in avoiding that as the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Money doesn't dissapear in an economic crisis it just changes hands. So who now owns all the money?

The whole scheme is designed to move wealth into the hands of the cabal who can then influence the economy even more. The end game being to control so much of the land, business, banking, industry, government, media etc that the country is already essentially centrally controlled; from here it is a short step to a centrally controlled government of global scope

Yes, the money CAN disappear.

The reason it can disappear is because it's not real money. It's basically a price placed on a share that someone bought using another price on a different share in a company whose 'price' might not even reflect its actual worth.

I'm pretty sure it is a zero sum game. A lot of people say it isn't but I think they are full of it.
 
What is it you're asking me about here?

The cabal killed kennedy and then lowered taxes for the rich?

I'm not really 'asking' you about anything… I just thought it was interesting that the assassination coincided with the tax break, when the logical course of action probably would have been to keep the tax rate high and avoid the inevitable bubble.

But I don't really understand everything there is to understand about economics, so there could have been some other reason for the tax cut.
 
I'm pretty sure it is a zero sum game. A lot of people say it isn't but I think they are full of it.

Why do you think so, exactly?
 
Before i answer your post i want to make the point that US history is all about a struggle between the people and the bankers and has been since the start of the country. Here is a quote by Benjamin Franklin:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been for the poverty created by the bad influence of the English Bankers on the Parliament, which has caused the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War… the inability of the Colonists to get the power to issue their own money, permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers, was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.”

The 'english bankers' he refers to are the Rothschilds who gained a dominance of European banking before moving into the states through various agents such as J.P.Morgan

Yes, the money CAN disappear.

I didn't say it can't dissapear (remember i'm the one who has been saying that fiat money is coming to an end)

What i said is that in economic crises the money doesn't dissapear it just changes hands; these economic crises have been orchestrated by the banking cabal who have grown richer and more powerful with each crisis, including the current one

The reason it can disappear is because it's not real money. It's basically a price placed on a share that someone bought using another price on a different share. And both shares have a 'price' which might not even reflect their actual worth.

It is created by the federal reserve and other central banks

Most of the world's wealth is tied up in the valuation of stocks, bonds, property, etc, not in 'actual' money or things.

Many transactions go on off the books eg the shadow banking sector

The rich 'lost' even more money in the crash than most ordinary people (they just lost their jobs, 401ks, etc... because the companies they worked for had all of their wealth tied up in 'virtual' money).

That depends on who you mean when you say the 'rich'

The aim is to destroy the middle class. The reasonably wealthy people will lose their wealth as well. It is the cabal that will be left with all the chips...that has always been their plan

The reason that some are still rich is because they froze their employee's stock and sold before the panic (dodgy, selfish and morally wrong, but legal), dumped it onto the banks (again, morally wrong but legal because of deregulation), or a competitor (legal but morally wrong, even though chances are those people did or tried to do the same thing to others, at least until people figured out what was happening).

you're not mentioning the role that insider trading (illegal) has in keeping some people rich

If they were more honest and didn't try to pass it on to others, they either lost it all or they lost however much money they had tied up in the value of the stock that failed. If they were smart and held onto stock that could potentially bounce back (stable, blue chip stock), they wouldn't have been selling because doing so would have meant an 'actual' instead of a 'virtual' loss. You only really 'lose' money on the market if you sell your stock at a lower price than what you bought it for.

It doesn't matter how 'smart' you are it matters whether or not you are a member of the club

Somewealth was recovered when the markets recovered (the stimulus eventually drove the 'virtual' price of the devalued stock back up to where it was before the crash), after Obama took office. If you had bought the right stock before the stimulus (when most people were panicking and telling everyone they were doomed), you could have made a killing on the stimulus. If you were rich and you bought stock at the lowest point, you would have made more than a less wealthy person-- but only because rich people (with actual savings as opposed to equity/stock and debt) have more money to invest. Anyone could have profited on the stimulus-- the only reason you would make less money than the rich is because you had less to invest in the first place.

Once again the insider traders win (the people in the club)

That's why the bank bailout was painful, but necessary-- because not injecting capital into the markets would have meant stagnation and probably a complete meltdown, while the stimulus managed to kickstart growth in the markets.

LOL you're going to see a complete meltdown....all they are doing is kicking the can down the street a bit longer with all the QE, meanwhile middleclass savings are destroyed

So yeah, the tangible 'thing' that this value is connected to isn't the 'true' wealth

No true wealth is health and happiness

-- and what's more, if you were part of a cabal that decided to start oppressing people, there would be fewer buyers and less demand and the price of your 'thing' would plummet… effectively wiping out all of your own wealth.

No they are using the money they got from the banking bailouts to buy: land, property, utilities, corporations, bridges, roads, private defence contractors, precious metals and any other hard assets they can get their hands on so that they are left owning everything

Struggling governments have been selling off assets to the global investors at knock down prices in 'firesales'

Even though it's Fox News, this article explains how it works:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436435,00.html

Now that we've largely separated church and state there is no 'divine right of kings'/theological mumbo jumbo forcing unnatural hierarchy on society. Rich people don't look at the less wealthy and necessarily think 'they're naturally inferior' (though some do, I'm sure).

They do think they are superior, i've heard it straight from their lips. There are things forcing hierarchy on society. if you're credentials aren't right then you don't get to be a gatekeeper....its that simple

Their secret societies have a grading system. Initiates go through the grading system which vets them to see how appropriate to the order they are (like psychometric testing does for corporations today). The less empathy a candidate has the higher they climb and the more useful they are to the cabal

But even for the rich, happiness isn't measured in money-- to some degree, it's measured in material possessions, but even then there's only so much money that you can spend on material possessions before you don't even know what to do with the rest of it.

That's why they get involved in politics and set up foundations to further their agenda

Henry Ford figured out a long time ago that you personally can still have a 'wealthy' life if you pay other people the kind of salary that allows them to have a healthy and happy existence… because healthy, happy people who live long and productive lives are better workers, and if you educate these people, then this means more people contributing more to society... and the wealthy reap most of the benefits of those contributions as well. Meanwhile, the workers also reap enough benefits that they're more than capable of leading long, productive, happy and fulfilling lives…

Henry Ford wrote a book called 'the international jew' warning people that their banking system was run by jews for their own interests

Here's a quotes by Ford:

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

He had this to say about jewish bankers: "parasites, these sloths and lunatics ... apostles of murder," the "German-Jewish bankers," were liable for society's ills."

He also publsihed the ''Protocols of the elders of zion'' in a paper he bought called the Dearborn Independent

So that was his perception of what the problem was

As we speak this is actually spreading to the third world-- the crash has actually been very good for developing economies (at the expense of our own)-- because developing countries have cheap labour. But there are also pressures on the global corporations to provide humane conditions for these workers-- just because the changes aren't happening overnight, it doesn't mean that it's oppression… sooner or later, these places will also reap the benefits of industry-- education, health care, etc… none of these things are possible without people.

The 'BRIC' countries have been on the rise for a while now and the banking cabal know this. Their hope lies in centralising power over the neoliberal countries in the americas and europe

Here is a talk by an ex head of the world bank talking about the threat from the majority world and about the creation of the new world order:

[video=youtube;WZBh3WvyK6M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZBh3WvyK6M[/video]

Realistically, the only time that oppressing people on a global scale would be advantageous is when there's a scarcity of essential resources with no cheap or easily synthesized alternatives… and if there's a scarcity/breakdown on the horizon, then no one, not even the rich will be immune to that… essentially, you'll end up with Despotism at best and total chaos at worst… but when you really think about it, the rich have as much of an interest in avoiding that as the rest of us.

Their policies have been destructive but their wealth buffers them from many of the ills caused by their polluting and destructive corporations

Their plan is to cut the worlds population by poisoning it and by various other means including war. The cabal published a paper called ''the limits of growth'' talking about the population problem back in 1972 through their think tank ''the club of rome'' (named after David Rockefellers villa near rome where the first meeting was held)

Bill Gates is helping in the depopulation program by pushing toxic vaccinations on the poor of the world. His father was a member of the population control group 'planned parenthood'
 
Last edited:
Once again the insider traders win (the people in the club)

Well, no... anyone who bought stock around that point would 'win'. Even if they had bought stock in December or January and the price dropped, they'd still be ahead today. It's not really so difficult to profit from a crash... you just buy as much as you can and then wait for it to go back up. The only people who suffer in a crash are people who have debts or who have everything tied up in failing stocks... it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when something comes crashing down and the government is planning on injecting money into the economy that it's eventually going to go up again. The markets have always expanded, bubbles have always burst, but things have always recovered and they probably always will.

I liked that video though-- some interesting musical choices were involved... the Godfather theme for the world summit meeting was awesome.

But yes, the wealth is definitely moving to the developing world and for the most part it's the corporations who are taking it there-- are you're saying that it's a bad thing that the developing countries are getting richer? Or are you against the protectionist policies that are attempting to stop the wealth from moving out of the rich countries and into the poor ones?

Population growth happens in poorer countries because children are potential income earners. When families stop needing extra incomes, they have fewer children.. that's why families in the west used to have an average of 8 children and now have an average of 2. I'm not sure why the video says 'what's driving this change?', as if it's a mystery. Are we supposed to be afraid of the developing world getting richer?
 
Last edited:
Just think about it... for every buyer there is a seller.

To be honest, I probably don't know enough about it to actually discuss it in depth but I would say that in the short term it might be closer to a zero sum game but in the long term I think that wealth is created.
 
Well, no... anyone who bought stock around that point would 'win'.

The winners were the global investors who got the money from the banks in the bailouts; they used this to buy up assets

Even if they had bought stock in December or January and the price dropped, they'd still be ahead today. It's not really so difficult to profit from a crash... you just buy as much as you can and then wait for it to go back up. The only people who suffer in a crash are people who have debts or who have everything tied up in failing stocks... it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when something comes crashing down and the government is planning on injecting money into the economy that it's eventually going to go up again. The markets have always expanded, bubbles have always burst, but things have always recovered and they probably always will.

I posted some clips in the 'melt down' thread, one by economist Michael Hudson and the other was an interview between Max keiser and Peter Schiff. One clip talks about how the dollar hegemony as the global reserve currency is being challenged and that its day as the reserve currency is coming to an end. The other clip talks about the argument by the fed that they are combating deflationary forces and talks about how regardless of whether it is inflation or deflation the dollar is finished as a fiat currency

The point of this is that there are going to be massive shifts which are not part of the usual 'business cycle'

I liked that video though-- some interesting musical choices were involved... the Godfather theme for the world summit meeting was awesome.

But yes, the wealth is definitely moving to the developing world and for the most part it's the corporations who are taking it there-- are you're saying that it's a bad thing that the developing countries are getting richer?

No i'm not saying its a bad thing that the developing countries are getting richer, i'm merely pointing out some of the techtonic shifts occuring at the moment because you seem to be playing events down; i am pointing out that these are monumental shifts and the clip shows a member of the cabal essentially admiting as much

Or are you against the protectionist policies that are attempting to stop the wealth from moving out of the rich countries and into the poor ones?

I'm against the hoarding of wealth by the cabal

Population growth happens in poorer countries because children are potential income earners. When families stop needing extra incomes, they have fewer children.. that's why families in the west used to have an average of 8 children and now have an average of 2. I'm not sure why the video says 'what's driving this change?', as if it's a mystery. Are we supposed to be afraid of the developing world getting richer?

The video is showing the point of view of one of the cabal; he is expressing what appears to be considerable concern

This is significant as it gives insight into their perception of the world and their place in it; they are afraid

They are also engaged in trying to cut the global popualtion through toxic vaccines
 
The winners were the global investors who got the money from the banks in the bailouts; they used this to buy up assets

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/

^^Here you can actually see how much has been committed as well as how much has been spent in the different sectors. If you look at where the majority of the money has gone so far, it has mostly been towards buying out the bad loans (which were going to cause a complete collapse of the economy because nobody could pay them). Another large amount went into infrastructure programs and social benefits. Mostly, the money was given to the areas most in need-- strategically administered to restart growth. Most of what was bought up was bad debt, mortgages, etc… most of the money actually benefitted the middle and lower class. Just because life isn't spontaneously bountiful or even as good as it was during the bubble doesn't mean it isn't better than it could have been. And yes, you cannot restore an economy without making money for wealthy investors-- if wealthy investors stop making money, then money stops flowing, and everyone is screwed… your bank is screwed, your job is screwed, your house is screwed, your savings-- everything is going to be worthless if rich people stop trading. There's nothing you can do about that short of a revolution… and we've already talked enough about that.

There's also this:

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/

ALL of the big banks have paid back their loans, as well as paying dividends to the government-- the bailout is mostly a success and the government has actually made money on them. Is it really so implausible to suggest that perhaps the reason that big business likes Obama is because saving the economy is actually good for business??? Sure, the smaller banks have been struggling, but the smaller banks were probably never going to survive a cataclysm like this anyways. This is from a political fact-checking website… you'll probably want to discredit them as puppets and say that they've got nothing on lizard-man alien big Jewry Freemason Illuminati cabal schizophrenic number 75362, who uses mafia movie soundtracks in his youtube videos about politics-- but I feel pretty confident that they're not full of shit.

I posted some clips in the 'melt down' thread, one by economist Michael Hudson and the other was an interview between Max keiser and Peter Schiff. One clip talks about how the dollar hegemony as the global reserve currency is being challenged and that its day as the reserve currency is coming to an end. The other clip talks about the argument by the fed that they are combating deflationary forces and talks about how regardless of whether it is inflation or deflation the dollar is finished as a fiat currency

It is very easy for confidence to go down and another crash to happen-- and inflation is definitely a problem. The interest rates have to go back up eventually, but the problem is that debt in general hasn't gone down. But there is absolutely no non-paranoid reason to suspect that there is definitely going to be a cataclysm, especially since investor confidence is currently very high and the fiscal cliff deal passed. If all goes well there will be a full recovery within a few years… possibly even next year. Things have been slowly crawling back up to normal for the past year or so. The only reason that people continue to scream disaster is because it's the surest way to get people like you to pay attention to them.

The point of this is that there are going to be massive shifts which are not part of the usual 'business cycle'

Because we're in a recession.

No i'm not saying its a bad thing that the developing countries are getting richer, i'm merely pointing out some of the techtonic shifts occuring at the moment because you seem to be playing events down; i am pointing out that these are monumental shifts and the clip shows a member of the cabal essentially admiting as much

You can't just say there's a monumental shift and then that's evidence of a cabal plot!!!! You have to look at the shift and ask yourself if it's suspicious/artificial, or if it's natural… and in this case it's perfectly, utterly, completely natural.

This isn't something that is being forced on the world in any way and is a natural product of the money flow away from expensive, unionized labor and towards cheaper, exploitative labor… markets need to expand in order for the investors to make a profit, so of course they're going to be looking for alternative markets. The developing world has nowhere to go but up… and it's just so much cheaper and easier to do business abroad that investors and entrepreneurs and corporations are expanding into the developing world because they've realized that it's actually sound business, and that you can make as much from 100 poor people as you can from 1 rich person, if you have the right product.

If you think there's something sinister about the leaders of the western world trying to protect their own workforces and their own economies, or that it's unnatural for someone to be afraid of what it probably going to mean the deterioration of their future generations' living standards (not because of the cabal, please don't say it's because of the cabal… I've already said why it's going to happen) due to cheap overseas labor, a lack of manufacturing, customer service, etc… , then exactly what is natural? Is it natural for them to just say-- oh well, we had a good run… let's let Africa have their turn!

Countries… actually, people in general, tend to look after themselves first… you're not going to give a stranger $1000 to feed his kids if you can't feed your own. It really is that simple, and I don't know how you keep missing this point.


I'm against the hoarding of wealth by the cabal

The video is showing the point of view of one of the cabal; he is expressing what appears to be considerable concern

This is significant as it gives insight into their perception of the world and their place in it; they are afraid

They are also engaged in trying to cut the global popualtion through toxic vaccines

I don't think he's a member of the cabal, and if he is, then he still has legitimate reason to be concerned. We ALL have legitimate reason to be concerned… and that means you. If the wealth moves into the third world, then that means we're not going to be enjoying the same living standards that we grew up with, or that our parents enjoyed. Maybe you welcome this??? And before you say that you only want what's fair, ask yourself if you honestly think that the average person in the world is actually willing to give up their current standard of living so that someone that they will never know on the other side of the world can enjoy a better one. This isn't just charity we're talking about, this is your health, your happiness, your employment opportunities, everything… your entire life changed, and not in a good way. For most people, you might as well just be taking things away from them and throwing them in the garbage.

This person is having a completely normal reaction to a situation that concerns everyone he knows, as well as our entire way of life and that of generations to come… just because he's afraid and happens to be influential does not mean that his reaction is unnatural-- in fact, I'm currently having the same reaction as he is!

And there is absolutely no advantage to hoarding wealth. None. When you hoard wealth, you hurt everyone including yourself. And anyways, I thought you said they were trying to gain more wealth? How can they be gaining wealth if they're hoarding money? Money needs to be in motion in order to make more money-- if you're hoarding it, everything stops for you, and if you're rich enough, then a good chunk of the economy stops as well.

Sort of like if I were to stop posting, then this entire discussion would dwindle down to nothing… which it probably should, because I really do have to question whether or not I'm actually profiting from it (though I am reading up on things I otherwise wouldn't be, so that's some degree of profit I suppose)…
 
Last edited:
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/

^^Here you can actually see how much has been committed as well as how much has been spent in the different sectors. If you look at where the majority of the money has gone so far, it has mostly been towards buying out the bad loans (which were going to cause a complete collapse of the economy because nobody could pay them). Another large amount went into infrastructure programs and social benefits. Mostly, the money was given to the areas most in need-- strategically administered to restart growth. Most of what was bought up was bad debt, mortgages, etc… most of the money actually benefitted the middle and lower class. Just because life isn't spontaneously bountiful or even as good as it was during the bubble doesn't mean it isn't better than it could have been. And yes, you cannot restore an economy without making money for wealthy investors-- if wealthy investors stop making money, then money stops flowing, and everyone is screwed… your bank is screwed, your job is screwed, your house is screwed, your savings-- everything is going to be worthless if rich people stop trading. There's nothing you can do about that short of a revolution… and we've already talked enough about that.

Yes paying off bad loans ie the money went to the global investors

Look the super rich didn't get where they are by fair play that's the first thing to understand

Society is split into two groups: those who work for a living (the working class) and those that live off their investments (the capitalist class)

The capitalist class have used deception to circumvent democracy for example the creation of the federal reserve act in secret in jekyll island before getting it passed in an abandoned congress (they'd left for recess)

These guys got rich by funding both sides in wars and by orchestrating financial crashes so that they could then justify their argument for central banks (which were supposed to make things more stable but didn't)

We're talking about people who fund political parties, who fund politicians, who assassinate political opponents, who profit from war, who use their ill gotten gains (see all the banking scandals for example LIBOR rigging, MF Global, packaging toxic assets as triple A, laundering drug money, the London Whale etc) to lobby politicians and intimidate people to get their way

Because they behave like this they have created a system that funnels all the wealth away from the workers and to themselves hence the chant of 'we are the 99%' by the occupy movement

This system sees them get all the wealth which in turn has given them greater influence (they can behave however they like because they are ''too big to fail'') so that they have gained control over the levers of power. They control the political system and hold stage managed elections periodically where the public can vote for a couple of parties that are both bought lock stock and barrel by the capitalist class

There is only one party in the US: the business party and that is controlled by the capitalist class not the working class. The politicians thmselves are little more than middle management figures

You're 'bailout tracker' won't show off the book transactions and it won't tell you who the global creditors who got the bank bailout money are: the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the warburgs, the schiffs etc

Here is economist Prof Michael Hudson explaining that the debts should have been written down to the ability to pay but instead of that the corrupt politicians (whose political careers are paid for by the capitalist class) used public money to bailout the criminal banks. The bailouts should not have happened and just serve to show who the real constituency of the politicians are which is the capitalist class not the real economy of production and consumption which serves the workers:

[video=youtube;wvOlDlYlOIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvOlDlYlOIU[/video]

There's also this:

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...-obama-says-banks-paid-back-all-federal-bail/

ALL of the big banks have paid back their loans, as well as paying dividends to the government-- the bailout is mostly a success and the government has actually made money on them. Is it really so implausible to suggest that perhaps the reason that big business likes Obama is because saving the economy is actually good for business??? Sure, the smaller banks have been struggling, but the smaller banks were probably never going to survive a cataclysm like this anyways. This is from a political fact-checking website… you'll probably want to discredit them as puppets and say that they've got nothing on lizard-man alien big Jewry Freemason Illuminati cabal schizophrenic number 75362, who uses mafia movie soundtracks in his youtube videos about politics-- but I feel pretty confident that they're not full of shit.

No the banks haven't paid back all the bailouts (see my next post for more info)

You're not realising how the system works. The big banks are owned by the same people who own the federal reserve!!!!

Of course the little banks will be screwed whilst the big banks get richer because they are the same entity as the Obama government and the federal reserve bank. Wake up man, you are living in a fantasy land that the media has created for you

Here's a good documentary called 'money masters' that will shed some more light for you on the history of the US. It was made in 1996 and accurately predicted the global economic crash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw

It is very easy for confidence to go down and another crash to happen-- and inflation is definitely a problem. The interest rates have to go back up eventually, but the problem is that debt in general hasn't gone down. But there is absolutely no non-paranoid reason to suspect that there is definitely going to be a cataclysm, especially since investor confidence is currently very high and the fiscal cliff deal passed. If all goes well there will be a full recovery within a few years… possibly even next year. Things have been slowly crawling back up to normal for the past year or so. The only reason that people continue to scream disaster is because it's the surest way to get people like you to pay attention to them.

You have completely ignored the clips i've sent of experts saying the opposite! If you won't listen to people that clearly know far more than you about these issues then why would you listen to a stranger on a forum...in which case this is a waste of time

There is every reason to realsie that the dollars day as the world reserve currency is coming to an end. There is not going to be a 'recovery' in the next few years. You don't need to take my word for this you just have to keep your eyes on your economy and the argument will be decided out of our discussion

Because we're in a recession.
No you're in a depression

You can't just say there's a monumental shift and then that's evidence of a cabal plot!!!! You have to look at the shift and ask yourself if it's suspicious/artificial, or if it's natural… and in this case it's perfectly, utterly, completely natural.

If by natural you mean caused by the actions of a small group of powerful people then yes its 'natural'

Go back in history....you will find the Rothschild banking dynasty forming and spreading across Europe with Meyer Amschel Rothschilds 4 sons who set up banking houses across Europe. These bankers intermarried with their fellow german bankers such as the warburgs and Schiffs. They grew extremely rich funding both sides in wars and intriguing through a variety of secret societies such as adam weishaupts 'illuminati' and the hermetic order of the golden dawn as well as infiltrating freemasonry.

They benefitted form slavery, colonialism and war and they funded people like Cecil Rhodes to set up the De Beers diamond company. Rhodes then helped instigate the Boer war in which concentration camps were invented

Rhodes became one of the richest men on the planet and he used his wealth to set up the Round Table group as a secret society network. From this group which researcher Prof.Caroll Quigley called the 'Milner Group' sprang the Council on Foreign Relations and its UK equivalent Chatham House which dominate the foreign policy of the UK and US (whose foreign policy has revolved around a state of perpetual war because the bankers profiteer from that)

This is what Rhodes said in his will:

''To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.''

These guys own the big banks and the central banks like the bank of england and the federal resevre and they control the economy

They set up central banks and as Benjamin Franklin said (in the quote i posted above) it was their influence through the bank of england that the american revolutionarys where trying to throw off but the bankers managed over a couple of hundred years to take control again

I know its a nice comfortable reality to believe that there isn't a cabal of international bankers but there is one

This isn't something that is being forced on the world in any way and is a natural product of the money flow away from expensive, unionized labor and towards cheaper, exploitative labor… markets need to expand in order for the investors to make a profit, so of course they're going to be looking for alternative markets.

No the cabal has sought to control the global economy through: gunboat diplomacy (these days it is tomahawk diplomacy), through changing the rules when they want for example deregulation and depegging from gold, treaties such as GATT and through global institutions of control such as the IMF and world bank, through global networks of secret societies and through covert means such as assassinations and intimidations (for exmaple overthrowing democratically elected governments) and by creating the Bretton Woods agreement which made the dollar the reserve currency allowing them huge advantages over other countries, leading inevitably to resentment.

These guys have been fighting a dirty war that has kept democracy down at home and abroad, has left to massive economic imbalance at home and abroad and massive poverty around the world, not to mention huge instability around the world (they also cast the nuclear shadow over the world)

The developing world has nowhere to go but up… and it's just so much cheaper and easier to do business abroad that investors and entrepreneurs and corporations are expanding into the developing world because they've realized that it's actually sound business, and that you can make as much from 100 poor people as you can from 1 rich person, if you have the right product.

No they've done it to exploit cheap non unionised labour that they can treat as slave labour with terrible safety records not to mention all the polluting they can do abroad without being fined....they're a menace to humanity and to the environment and their sick way of life needs to end

If you think there's something sinister about the leaders of the western world trying to protect their own workforces and their own economies, or that it's unnatural for someone to be afraid of what it probably going to mean the deterioration of their future generations' living standards (not because of the cabal, please don't say it's because of the cabal… I've already said why it's going to happen) due to cheap overseas labor, a lack of manufacturing, customer service, etc… , then exactly what is natural? Is it natural for them to just say-- oh well, we had a good run… let's let Africa have their turn!

Why do you think there is cheap labour abroad? The capitalist class raped the world through imperialism ripping the economic heart out of many countries; this has left them as easy prey for the cabal

Countries… actually, people in general, tend to look after themselves first… you're not going to give a stranger $1000 to feed his kids if you can't feed your own. It really is that simple, and I don't know how you keep missing this point.

No people look after their families and friends. the cabal look after themselves first and what we the people need to decide is whether or not we are happy to let them continue playing their personal game of monopoly that is wreaking havoc across the world

I don't think he's a member of the cabal, and if he is, then he still has legitimate reason to be concerned. We ALL have legitimate reason to be concerned… and that means you. If the wealth moves into the third world, then that means we're not going to be enjoying the same living standards that we grew up with, or that our parents enjoyed. Maybe you welcome this??? And before you say that you only want what's fair, ask yourself if you honestly think that the average person in the world is actually willing to give up their current standard of living so that someone that they will never know on the other side of the world can enjoy a better one. This isn't just charity we're talking about, this is your health, your happiness, your employment opportunities, everything… your entire life changed, and not in a good way. For most people, you might as well just be taking things away from them and throwing them in the garbage.

I don't think people in the west are that healthy and happy

I think a more even and peaceful world would be better for everyone.

If our economy fails because the cabal have bred generations of workers who lack a competitive edge in the global market then thats the cabals failure in their aggresive social engineering.

Personally i think we should change to anarchist communism and greater cooperation

This person is having a completely normal reaction to a situation that concerns everyone he knows, as well as our entire way of life and that of generations to come… just because he's afraid and happens to be influential does not mean that his reaction is unnatural-- in fact, I'm currently having the same reaction as he is!

He's reaping what he and his murdering, theiving buddies have sown; if they had pursued a fairer policy towards the people of the world they would not have created the mayhem they have

And there is absolutely no advantage to hoarding wealth. None. When you hoard wealth, you hurt everyone including yourself. And anyways, I thought you said they were trying to gain more wealth? How can they be gaining wealth if they're hoarding money? Money needs to be in motion in order to make more money-- if you're hoarding it, everything stops for you, and if you're rich enough, then a good chunk of the economy stops as well.

These guys control the supply of money

They are stopping the flow of money. They are using their wealth to buy up hard assets so that they will own every tangible thing of value

Sort of like if I were to stop posting, then this entire discussion would dwindle down to nothing… which it probably should, because I really do have to question whether or not I'm actually profiting from it (though I am reading up on things I otherwise wouldn't be, so that's some degree of profit I suppose)…

It doesn't seem like you have been looking at any of the evidence i've been presenting
 
Last edited:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/no-big-banks-have-not-paid-back-government-bailouts-and-subsidies

No, The Big Banks Have Not "Paid Back" Government Bailouts and Subsidies


Submitted by George Washington on 12/06/2010 00:56 -0400




Washington’s Blog
The big banks claim that they have paid back all of the bailout money
they received, and that the taxpayers have actually made money on the
bailouts.
However, as Barry Ritholtz notes:


Pro Publica has been maintaining a list of bailout recipients, updating the amount lent versus what was repaid.

So
far, 938 Recipients have had $607,822,512,238 dollars committed to
them, with $553,918,968,267 disbursed. Of that $554b disbursed, less
than half — $220,782,546,084 — has been returned.

Whenever you
hear pronunciations of how much money the TARP is making, check back
and look at this list. It shows the TARP is deeply underwater.
Moreover, as I pointed out in May, the big banks have received enormous windfall profits from guaranteed spreads on interest rates:


Bloomberg notes:


“The trading profits of the Street is just another way of measuring the subsidy the Fed is giving to the banks, said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Torrance, California-basedInstitutional Risk Analytics. “It’s a transfer from savers to banks.”

The
trading results, which helped the banks report higher quarterly
profit than analysts estimated even as unemployment stagnated at a
27-year high, came with a big assist from the Federal Reserve. The U.S.
central bank helped lenders by holding short-term borrowing costs
near zero, giving them a chance to profit by carrying even 10-year
government notes that yielded an average of 3.70 percent last quarter.

The
gap between short-term interest rates, such as what banks may pay to
borrow in interbank markets or on savings accounts, and longer-term
rates, known as the yield curve, has been at record levels. The
difference between yields on 2- and 10-year Treasuries yesterday
touched 2.71 percentage points, near the all-time high of 2.94
percentage points set Feb. 18.
Harry Blodget explains:


The
latest quarterly reports from the big Wall Street banks revealed a
startling fact: None of the big four banks had a single day in the
quarter in which they lost money trading.

For the 63 straight
trading days in Q1, in other words, Goldman Sachs (GS), JP Morgan
(JPM), Bank of America (BAC), and Citigroup (C) made money trading for
their own accounts.

Trading, of course, is supposed to be a
risky business: You win some, you lose some. That's how traders
justify their gargantuan bonuses--their jobs are so risky that they
deserve to be paid millions for protecting their firms' precious
capital. (Of course, the only thing that happens if traders fail to
protect that capital is that taxpayers bail out the bank and the
traders are paid huge "retention" bonuses to prevent them from leaving
to trade somewhere else, but that's a different story).

But these days, trading isn't risky at all. In fact, it's safer than walking down the street.

Why?

Because
the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero
interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that
money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+
on the spread. What's more, the banks are leveraging this trade,
borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to
increase the size of their bets. Which means the banks can turn
relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by borrowing from
the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.​
 
I can't seem to post the rest of the rest of the text from this article but you can find it on the web address above:
 
The Israeli lobby controls the US:

[video=youtube;5eBQxtIpjm0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBQxtIpjm0&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

Bare in mind the banking family the Rothschilds, as heads of the zionist federation built Israel by making an agreement with the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour called the 'Balfour Declaration' for the handover of palestine after WW1 in return for bringing the US into the war on Britains side

The Rothschilds built the knesset high court building in Israel and they through their agents control the federal reserve and the bank of England
 
Last edited:
Confessions of an economic hitman:

[video=youtube;nq-ZmatOlvs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nq-ZmatOlvs#![/video]
 
Another article, this one describing Capitalism as a "cult". I find it hard to actually disagree with anything they bring up though.
 
http://www.saveoursavers.co.uk/

Save our savers are a group arguing against the inflationary process that is 'quantitative easing' which is effectively a printing of money. It leads to low interest rates which destroy peoples savings by increasing the cost of living but it benefits the super rich speculators

A recent interview with Max Keiser (at 15:00 mins) discusses how the process has helped the top 20% but has been damaging to the bottom 80% of the population:
https://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-402-keiser-max/

Here is the mission statement of save our savers:

Save Our Savers believes that the social and economic importance of saving must be at the core of Government policy. We must dispel the myth that saving is a drag on the economy and campaign for savers to be supported and rewarded for saving, not penalised for saving as they so often are.
Save Our Savers campaigns against:


  • Devaluation of savings through inflation
  • Artificially low interest rates
  • Unfair legislation and taxation
  • Exploitative financial practices
We need a massive shift in Government attitude and policy. There are five practical steps the Government should take to provide a fairer deal for savers.
⇓ Reform the taxation of savings income
⇓ More protection against inflation
⇓ Establish the proposed flat-rate State Pension
⇓ Full and clear disclosure of all fees
⇓ All banks and building societies must clearly "State the Rate"

Savings are essential for a thriving economy

Savings are vital to our society in good times and bad. They fuel the engine of future economic growth and provide a safety net for families.
Yet all British Governments in living memory have favoured borrowers ahead of savers. Despite the clear economic and social benefits of a thriving savings culture – and despite often claiming to want to encourage savers – successive governments have in reality obstructed, neglected and, at times, directly attacked the interests of responsible savers.
There is a clear bias against savers in this Government’s economic policies, in the tax system, the benefits system and in the way our financial institutions operate.
Savers are ordinary people who have made financial sacrifices to prepare for the future. Government should support such behaviour, not penalise it.

The vast majority of savers are not rich but save by deliberately living within their budget. They cut down on luxuries. They will manage without. They are striving for security and self-reliance focusing on the long term rather than the short.
You may be saving to meet household bills, unexpected emergencies, the cost of Christmas, a holiday, a car, a university education, a house or for your old age. whatever the reason you are demonstrating what government and politicians only ever pay lip service to, a commitment and responsibility to the future.
It is the readiness to forego what they could have now in order to strive for a better future that puts savers at odds with an establishment whose survival is dependent on facilitating short-term gains for itself and its supporters.

The finance industry, the guardian of our savings, has much to answer for. There is widespread resistance to full disclosure of all fees and charges and their impact on investments. Banks and building societies have become predatory in their treatment of savers, so that maintaining your savings in a simple deposit account with a reasonable rate of interest is no longer straightforward.
If we are to rebuild a thriving, balanced economy then saving must be respected, encouraged and supported. Save Our Savers is committed to supporting savers and promoting the ethics of saving. We will highlight issues that affect saving and campaign for the changes needed to bring government policy and decision making more closely in line with the needs of savers.
 
Last edited:
http://uniteresist.org/

Unite the resistance are a group who bring trade unions together to make them stronger
 
Back
Top