Conspiracy Theory

[Yesterday]

Waiting for the follow up on this post. You've asked some interesting question.

In the meantime here is a outline of the function of the IMF and how it compares to the World Bank.

World Bank vs IMF

Apparently the IMF acts like the world's central bank. It states that some national sovereignty has been sacrificed in it's establishment. The World Bank is sort of a development investment entity making loans to countries for development.

You showed me yours....I'll show you mine

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20050928_lachman0905imf.pdf

Member countries acquire a claim on the IMF in exchange for the reserve assets which they provide. This claim, referred to in the IMF as a country’s “reserve tranche position”, is by definition equal to the member country’s quota minus the IMF’s holdings of that country’s currency. The IMF pays interest on member countries’ reserve position at slightly below the SDR interest rate other than on that part of the reserve tranche paid in gold. The SDR interest rate in turn is determined weekly as a weighted average of the three-month government interest rates in the United States, Europe, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2009/02/why-dont-we-hear-a-lot-more-about-sdrs.html

A generalized SDR allocation--in return for a commitment to spend a share of these resources in pursuit of a globally coordinated fiscal stimulus--would give countries the cover needed to do what is good for them and for the rest of the world without suffering a reputational penalty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4686015.stm

At the G8 press conference, UK Chancellor Gordon Brown suggested that the IMF had found additional resources by revaluing its gold reserves.

There is a bit more on my other computer I'll post tonight about the possible IMF role in the US debt repayment which will finish the story and make the point and then I'll get to the Breton Woods stuff. It is interesting.

[Yesterday]

In an earlier post I had mentioned what the deal with the US push against the RMB in China...this article points to the debt being in US dollars and how this depreciation is helping the US in terms of repayment.

China is now a major creditor. But its foreign assets though are denominated in dollars, euros and yen – not RMB. That means that if the dollar depreciates against the RMB, it is China’s problem, not the United States’ problem. The amount of dollars the US has to pay China doesn’t change. But the amount of RMB that China gets for each dollar will fall

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/03/

[Yesterday]

Look at these pages....they do a good job of defining the split between the G7-8 and the G20, this should help to set the stage for who wants what when I put up the Breton links.

With the onset of the current financial crisis, the G-7 leaders decided to convene the G-20 leaders for a meeting, or summit, to discuss and coordinate policy responses to the crisis. To date, the G-20 leaders have held three summits to coordinate policy responses to the crisis: November 2008 in Washington, DC; April 2009 in London; and September 2009 in Pittsburgh. At the Pittsburgh summit, the G-20 leaders announced that the G-20 would henceforth be the premier forum for international economic coordination, supplanting the G-7s role as such. The G-20 leaders have made commitments on a variety of issue areas. Implementation of some of these commitments by the United States would require legislation. Issues that are likely to influence future policy debates and/or the legislative agenda include: financial regulatory reform, a new international framework to monitor and coordinate economic policies, voting reform at the IMF and World Bank, increased funding of multilateral development banks (MDBs), elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, concluding a new international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions, concluding the WTO Doha multilateral trade negotiations, and meeting previous

commitments on foreign aid.

The shift from the G-7 to the G-20 as the premier forum for international economic coordination may raise issues for international economic coordination in the future. Some suggest the shift will foster cooperation, by increasing the legitimacy of the decisions reached and including countries that are big players in the global economy. Others argue that the shift will hinder efforts at cooperation, because such a large, heterogeneous group of countries will have trouble reaching agreements on key issues. Some say the G-20 meetings should be even larger and more comprehensive, to include poor and small nations(remember the inclusion of these guys at the round table of the G8 this year, I wonder who thinks they should be involved?) in their deliberations. Others say that the existing G-20 is already sufficiently diverse and increasing the size would make it too cumbersome and less effective.

The G-20 leaders convened for two additional summits, in London in April 2009 and in

Pittsburgh in September 2009, to continue discussions on policy responses to the crisis. In each of the three G-20 summits, the G-20 leaders made several policy commitments, and the depth and scope of these commitments have increased over time. In Washington, DC, the commitments were focused on short- and medium-term responses to the crisis, including regulatory reform, expansionary macroeconomic policies, and commitments to free trade. In London, the G-20 leaders reached more substantial agreements on crisis management, including increasing the resources of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and multilateral development banks (MDBs) by $1.1 trillion. At the Pittsburgh summit, the G-20 pledged commitments on a diverse set of

issue areas, including changes in the relative voting power of member countries at the IMF and World Bank, creating a new framework to correct global imbalances, taking new steps to address food security issues, and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40977.pdf

Edited August 17, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20384.html

A likely outcome is that the U.S. may be left to do the heavy lifting to get U.S. and global economic growth going again. Given the domestic headwinds of a credit bust that has not been allowed to run its course, this has already been a rather expensive undertaking. In a nutshell, policies that fight market forces are not very effective. To boost the economy, trillion dollar deficits are employed; rather than merely cutting interest rates, trillions of dollars are printed by the Fed. All the money has to go somewhere – gold, commodities, projects abroad may be the main beneficiaries; if enough money is spent and printed, a few U.S. jobs may also be created along the way, but it is a very, very expensive undertaking.

This may lead to yet another phase in this crisis: protectionism. U.S. policy makers are already all over China for ‘unfairly’ keeping its currency weak; now the euro is also weak. Politicians may well call to ‘level the playing field’ by imposing tariffs on imports. What politicians don’t realize is that trade barriers may hurt the U.S. dollar and U.S. businesses most: in our analysis, countries with a substantial current account deficit (unlike China or the eurozone), have currencies that are very vulnerable when trade barriers are imposed. Also note that protectionism hurts businesses and economies that have learned to adapt to a trade based world.

So far I must admit that the means are certainly there to facilitate the action of a massive debt repayment from the US to save its credit with help from the IMF on a few fronts including the price of gold. Would the same rule apply to the Euro as China in terms of the US dollar appreciation against it versus depreciation against it suggesting that the very recent small rise in the Euro might be a sign of a payment agreement of some type? Could the Euro have risen a bit to facilitate a repayment of their own to somebody with the US dollar in which case a small rise would require less Euro to buy US dollars for the repayment? Really it could go either way...US debt or Euro debt repayment. Or it could be completely unrelated to debt repayment but highly doubt it.

[Yesterday]

This is something I'm going to investigate a little further soon....

http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-16018

In late November the new number two at the IMF, Ann Krueger, proposed that the IMF should support temporary debt standstills for indebted countries. Krueger described a new mechanism which would fill a "gaping hole" in the international financial system.

IMF backing for a suspension of debt payments would protect a country against private creditors taking legal action to recover debts in full, giving the government breathing space to work out debts in a more orderly fashion. The IMF has also indicated that it would support the temporary use of exchange controls during the standstill period, limiting the amount of cash creditors could take out of the country. In return the government would be expected to negotiate a restructuring agreement with its creditors and implement sound economic policies.

I kind of think that what we are seeing on the global landscape is this. Apply it to the US today and it kind of fits...a few more countries seem to have been to the same designer...great minds think a like?

http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-16026

IMF sanction of a suspension of debt payments would offer a country protection against private creditors taking legal action to recover debts in full, giving the government breathing space to work out debts in a more orderly fashion. The IMF has also indicated that it would support the temporary use of exchange controls during the standstill period, limiting the amount of cash creditors could take out of the country. In return the government would be expected to negotiate a restructuring agreement with its creditors and implement sound economic policies.

Both the US and the UK governments have expressed support for the idea. UK Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced in a speech prior to the rescheduled Annual Bank and IMF meeitngs in Ottowa in November 2001 that, "...we also need to resolve the legal obstacles that stand in the way of effective debt reschduling - including the steps that would create an effective international bankruptcy procedure. And we should be prepared - where other reasonable options have been exhausted - to support a country that must impose temporary capital controls, or a standstill on its debts, as part of an orderly process of crisis resolution."

Edited August 17, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

A bit more....

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22134.pdf

Since the fiscal 1982 foreign operations appropriations bill was adopted in 1981, no

money has been appropriated to pay for callable capital. Instead, the appropriations

committees include language in the foreign operations appropriations bill each year

authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to subscribe to a specified number of callable

shares worth a specified amount of money for each IFI. The new arrangement was

adopted, in part, because most analysts believe a call on callable capital is very unlikely.

For some reason I want to wonder if they still think this unlikely?

International Monetary Fund. Before 1980, the United States generally treated

any increase in its IMF quota as an exchange-of-assets. That is to say, the U.S. Treasury

Department considered that — once an increase in the U.S. quota had been authorized —

it could swap assets with the IMF (a draw on the U.S. quota in exchange for a new U.S.

credit in the Fund) without additional action by Congress.

The appropriations committees were not satisfied in the late 1970s with the

exchange-of-asset method for funding U.S. participation in the IMF. They maintained

that appropriations were necessary to meet the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations

made by Law.” (Article I, Section 9.)

A compromise was agreed to in 1980 which sought to satisfy these concerns. Under

the current arrangement, Congress must pass an appropriation as well as an authorization

before the United States may subscribe to any new quota resources in the IMF. However,

the appropriation consists solely of budget authority. No outlay authority is provided.

Consequently, the appropriation committees have control (comparable to that exercised

by the authorizing committees) over the size of the contingent liabilities the United States

assumes through additional quota subscriptions.

This makes me wonder if the monster budgets could be construed as appropriations...long term contracts to extend current credit payments to the US. Credit payments being interest owed by the IMF.....

[bloodyminded]

I think George Carlin said it well, "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. The owners of this country went to the same universities and fraternities, there on the same boards of directors, they belong to the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting because they know what is good for them...and they are getting it".

That's just it. If I say, for instance, that Viacom wishes to enlarge its market share and increase its profits, that's not a "conspiracy theory." It's a simple institutional assessment, and is uncontroversial.

Or if I say "powerful countries generally wish to increase their sphere of influence and power," that too is not some wild-eyed conspiracy. (In fact, everyone would agree with it as a general truism; they only throw tantrums when you start to apply the truism to real-world, existing countries and their situations.)

[Yesterday]

No conspiracy....just a big drag is all....

I think I found some numbers for this possible bail-out from the IMF. Along the lines of the trillion credit extension of the IMF to the trillion in callable payments that were not honoured by the US over the last however many years. You must admit that the numbers matching is kind of interesting. I have a few more to post that also include the shift from goverments buying US bonds to the private level of aquasition that is currently allowing to show an inflow on their balance sheets and why they have made provisions to hide currency velocity... I wonder how much of that private money comes from the G8.

Maybe, just maybe, conspiracy guys have the extent of the US bankruptcy not so far over exagerated for once....time will tell.

Somebody said once that it would be a good thing to follow the money. I think that was sound advice!

[maple_leafs182]

That's just it. If I say, for instance, that Viacom wishes to enlarge its market share and increase its profits, that's not a "conspiracy theory." It's a simple institutional assessment, and is uncontroversial.

Or if I say "powerful countries generally wish to increase their sphere of influence and power," that too is not some wild-eyed conspiracy. (In fact, everyone would agree with it as a general truism; they only throw tantrums when you start to apply the truism to real-world, existing countries and their situations.)

Lets say a group of very wealthy bankers meet in 1910 on Jekyll Island to draft the Federal Reserve act. This act would give the bankers a direct monopoly over the money supply in America, something America has fought against numerous times. Would you consider that a conspiracy. There is a reason they called it the Federal Reserve even though it is not federal nor does it have reserves, they needed to fool the public.

Lets say these international bankers are now trying to centralize power over central banks by creating the Bank of International Settlement, is that a conspiracy or just a cooperation...

Is there a reason why monetary policies are some of the best kept secrets in the world.

Why is it crazy to suggest that a few very wealthy people may be working together to expand their wealth and power.

Threw out history this has gone on, I don't understand why people think this is not even a possibility today.

[Yesterday]

Lets say a group of very wealthy bankers meet in 1910 on Jekyll Island to draft the Federal Reserve act. This act would give the bankers a direct monopoly over the money supply in America, something America has fought against numerous times. Would you consider that a conspiracy. There is a reason they called it the Federal Reserve even though it is not federal nor does it have reserves, they needed to fool the public.

Lets say these international bankers are now trying to centralize power over central banks by creating the Bank of International Settlement, is that a conspiracy or just a cooperation...

Is there a reason why monetary policies are some of the best kept secrets in the world.

Why is it crazy to suggest that a few very wealthy people may be working together to expand their wealth and power.

Threw out history this has gone on, I don't understand why people think this is not even a possibility today.

Hi Maple, I am not suggesting they are not doing this....everything I posted just shows that it is not a conspiracy, maybe in the beginning but now everyone knows. Slowly but surely it is all becoming public knowledge. Just don't vote McCain if he runs!!!! I think more than anything, people, enough people, just didn't realize before now how important it is to pay attention. Have some faith, (not religious) that even though a few people were clever enough to get away with some of this stupid stuff, the world is in a revolution and won't rest until it's safe to do so. This is just getting started, this global public knowledge...we, the average citizens of most if not all countries are not happy. This movement has a grounding in reality where as most monetary/political policies don't.

Look, in 2002 there was a massive global settlement with more than 10 of the biggest banks and brokerage houses in the US. This spilled over into more than a dozen countries since then. One thing to note is that even though that settlement happened for 1.6 billion dollars plus, since then, those same banks have been charged again and again. So far more than a trillion in fines for such entities. This is the infamous Bush cabal funding machine according to alternative media that we are seeing disassembled(not gone but rewritten and restricted, we used and still want to use these entities). Good for us, good for the men and women who have worked so hard to do this. People have died to bring this public!!!! As for the settlement being non-prosecution agreements...welcome to the whistleblower clauses and confessionary leniency. This is fine for now, we can get them good on their next transgression, and someone will be watching for it. Rome was not built in a day and Hitler's regime was not destroyed in a day.

This is far from over but we are not going anywhere and now know without a doubt that we need to be vigilant and never take our eyes of our parliament or the world for that matter. No more complacency eh? Read the policies...learn what they are doing....learn what they did...never stop.

Their ability to hide things is getting less and less!!!!!!! I love it!!!!

[Pliny]

Lets say a group of very wealthy bankers meet in 1910 on Jekyll Island to draft the Federal Reserve act. This act would give the bankers a direct monopoly over the money supply in America, something America has fought against numerous times. Would you consider that a conspiracy. There is a reason they called it the Federal Reserve even though it is not federal nor does it have reserves, they needed to fool the public.

Lets say these international bankers are now trying to centralize power over central banks by creating the Bank of International Settlement, is that a conspiracy or just a cooperation...

Is there a reason why monetary policies are some of the best kept secrets in the world.

Why is it crazy to suggest that a few very wealthy people may be working together to expand their wealth and power.

Threw out history this has gone on, I don't understand why people think this is not even a possibility today.

For the most part, power is already consolidated. If you want to call it a conspiracy then it is about putting out fires and maintaining the hierarchy. It is plain the UN is the instrument planned for that.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Pliny

[Yesterday]

This is a compilation of everything I have read in the last week. It is a lot, I feel like it would take a blog tocover everything I want to talk about...there are so many of them already.

So far as I can figure...it is the SDR that could be the new international currency as rumoured but what interests me right now is the fact that member standings are not going to be readjusted till next year. If it is the SDR it won't happen till then IMO. As for it being linked...China is to silver right? What is India's position regarding a linked currency? This is what I am studying next. The way I see it, if we are going to ever end up with metal/bi-metal linked currency it will start with the SDR being represented by linked currencies...more on this later. In the mean time...read!!!!!!!!!

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/03/

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40977.pdf

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jlbroz/Broz_IMFquotas_ver2.pdf

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22134.pdf

http://www.leap2020.eu/LEAP-Europe2020-Alert-Global-systemic-rupture-March-20-26-2006-Iran-USA-Release-of-global-world-crisis_a263.html

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/03/23/financial-de-globalization-illustrated/

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~jlbroz/pdf_folder/wip/Broz_Congress_IMF_Financing.pdf

http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_14252

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40977.pdf

http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/scholar/kirton199901/crisis4.htm

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Weighing_the_costs_of_corruption_or_compliance:_10th_Global_Fraud_Survey/$FILE/EY_10th_Global_Fraud_Survey.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_mutual_fund_scandal#Settlements_and_trials

http://www.bank-banque-canada.ca/en/financial/oversight_act.html?style1=print

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/administrative-law-regulatory-compliance/12853031-1.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/Veon/joan30.htm

http://www.nomurafoundation.or.jp/data/20050928_Leslie_Boni.pdf

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2341.shtml

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/07/fighting_deflat.html

http://www.economic-data.com/value_of_money.htm

http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/633

http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/041310a.pdf

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2009/07/10/us-dollars-dominance-under-fire-at-g8-summit/

http://www.gfoa.org/downloads/float_vcap.pdf

http://moneymorning.com/2010/03/24/jpmorgan-tax-refund/

http://realityzone-realityzone.blogspot.com/2010/06/g-spots-and-planet-global-bonapartism.html

http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/evaluations/csed/g8africa_050624.pdf

http://www.fpif.org/reports/g8_and_global_governance

http://www.esteri.it/MAE/EN/Politica_Estera/G8/

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2009/03/

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40977.pdf

[Yesterday]

OK, so China has been unlinked for a long time and just artificially low. In fact the only countries I found linked to any metal was Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Not IMF basket contenders so on we go.

Doing a quick perusal last night for any hints of any type of new national/international currency aside from the Amero and all I could find was SDR references that added up to anything being staged to function as a currency but alas, with the IMF linked currencies are a no-no. At least at first glance, but with their new loan policies this clause has been averted for those who wish to be linked and loaned too. However, this does not reflect in membership criteria as of yet. We'll see what they do in Feb. of next year.

The exception could be E-Gold.

As for Brown's comment on the price of gold and the possible IMF manipulation to back up its debts...mmm. Makes me wonder how many countries owed massive callable payments to them beyond the US. Manipulation of this type could be making it easier for each of those countries to pay up. There are a myriad of reasons why the price of gold has escalated. I've collected some articles and find for the most part that the excuses listed as the reasoning behind the rise in price might for the most part actually be the reactions. Action + reaction = reality of price IMO. Stats seem to show that banks are buying deliverable gold and most regular consumer buyers are left buying stocks of gold not even out of the ground yet. MMMmmm. Whats up with this? I realize that banks have to back up there meager reserves with gold reserves but this does not explain the whole picture...

I want to consider E-Gold http://www.financial-spread-betting.com/E-gold.html and other forms of this type of program offering the ability to work in gold standard by buying gold from them with fiat money, essentially converting fiat money to gold and offering a substantial market of companies who have also participated who prefer to operate under the gold standard. To me, this is the birth of returning to gold standard. I have to wonder how prevalent this type of organization is going to be in the coming years. Does this have the potential to be an international settlement agency? Interesting.

So what is this/was this weak push by China, France, Russia and a few others to have an international currency backed in gold...it seems as if this has died on the table without even being seriously considered. I wonder if soon, if not already, there are bank platforms of the E-Gold type in the making...this deserves some scrutiny.

On a side note though, I did notice that more than just a few countries and I believe the Euro too are exchanging some of their paper notes for coinage. This however does not seem to be a metal backed strategy but one geared towards fending off fraud. I notice in the US they are sticking to just different paper with heightened security features.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Yesterday

[maple_leafs182]

For the most part, power is already consolidated. If you want to call it a conspiracy then it is about putting out fires and maintaining the hierarchy. It is plain the UN is the instrument planned for that.

I do want to call it a conspiracy. When I say conspiracy what comes to mind, what is your definition of a conspiracy.

[Yesterday]

E-Gold, incorporated through Nevis Incorporation in Nevis. Nevis being part of Amerincorporation, iIncorporation, Ameritrade...CIM/CMKM.

No TIEAS, total secrecy. I'd of been happier to find E-Gold in the BVI or somewhere else where TIEAS are common and welcome.

[Yesterday]

I do want to call it a conspiracy. When I say conspiracy what comes to mind, what is your definition of a conspiracy.

For me, it is not that the definition of the word conspiracy discounts the use of it in this situation. It is that to use this word instead of terms like unsavoury business strategies takes away from the legitimacy of the claim. These types of situations are not new, they are the norm and have been so forever. Strategies are almost always kept close to the chest. That is what makes it fun to figure out. This is also what makes it important to do your research before getting involved with any business. The conspiracy involved with this(anything covered here so far) is actually strategy and would likely be paid more attention to if not slurred by such a word as conspiracy. Conspiracy is linked to nut jobs and such. Not necessarily justifiably but this is the way it is.

Strategies almost always get figured out...another fact of life.

[Pliny]

I do want to call it a conspiracy. When I say conspiracy what comes to mind, what is your definition of a conspiracy.

Conspiracy implies "secrecy". There is no secret plan to takeover the world. There is a plan to govern the world. The plan is in intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the WHO, etc. These are not secret.

The illuminati, the Freemasons, the Jews, the bankers have no organizational input into global governance. Individuals within intergovernmental organizations may be Freemasons or Jews or bankers but that is where it ends. They are not conspiring to take over the world.

I will say those individuals with great influence in the direction and policy of our governance are not widely known nor is there concern about who they are unless some debacle or criminal or fraudulent activities emerge. Then we want to know who is responsible. Sometimes the people who are responsible escape scrutiny or somehow slip away. Usually, it never gets to the top of the heirarchy who leave governance to management and only suggest the general direction of our governance in the broadest of terms, leaving the detail to those in government, and ultimately, responsibility for any success or failure.

So a conspiracy would be the secret planning to gain control over an area or usurp authority over the established authority.

[maple_leafs182]

Conspiracy implies "secrecy". There is no secret plan to takeover the world. There is a plan to govern the world. The plan is in intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the WHO, etc. These are not secret.

Establishing a world government is the same thing as taking over the world. I think those organizations you mentioned, their influence on global policies will increase over time.

The illuminati, the Freemasons, the Jews, the bankers have no organizational input into global governance. Individuals within intergovernmental organizations may be Freemasons or Jews or bankers but that is where it ends. They are not conspiring to take over the world.

I don't think the Illuminati still exist but these banks and big corporations have a lot of influence on the policies we follow. The policies usually leave them richer and the rest poorer.

I will say those individuals with great influence in the direction and policy of our governance are not widely known nor is there concern about who they are unless some debacle or criminal or fraudulent activities emerge. Then we want to know who is responsible. Sometimes the people who are responsible escape scrutiny or somehow slip away. Usually, it never gets to the top of the heirarchy who leave governance to management and only suggest the general direction of our governance in the broadest of terms, leaving the detail to those in government, and ultimately, responsibility for any success or failure.

I agree.

Look at the States, you need to have the backing of the big corporations if you want to be elected as president. No guy running a gas station on some highway stands a chance of getting elected. The corporations choose who will be president. John McCane and Barrack Obama combined had campaigns costs that exceeded one billion dollars.

So corporations elect who will be president and the people are left with a tainted democracy.

So a conspiracy would be the secret planning to gain control over an area or usurp authority over the established authority.

With your definition I would call it a conspiracy, we all are being usurped on a daily basis. Would it be better if I said we live in a constant state of plutonomy.

[Pliny]

Establishing a world government is the same thing as taking over the world. I think those organizations you mentioned, their influence on global policies will increase over time.

That is the intent, I believe.

I don't think the Illuminati still exist but these banks and big corporations have a lot of influence on the policies we follow. The policies usually leave them richer and the rest poorer.

They lobby and exercise some influence over politicians more so than the average person whose input is generally limited to his vote.

Look at the States, you need to have the backing of the big corporations if you want to be elected as president. No guy running a gas station on some highway stands a chance of getting elected. The corporations choose who will be president. John McCane and Barrack Obama combined had campaigns costs that exceeded one billion dollars.

So corporations elect who will be president and the people are left with a tainted democracy.

Well... there has to be a way to qualify people for the position. I don't think a guy "running a gas station on some highway" would make a good President. Chances would be slim.

Anyone could become the President if they had the qualifications. A Black community organizer could even become President.

With your definition I would call it a conspiracy, we all are being usurped on a daily basis. Would it be better if I said we live in a constant state of plutonomy.

A plutonomy? Perhaps, close to the truth.

At very high levels of power the thought of how policy or plans affect the average individual is not really given too much consideration. As long as those plans or policies can be made to appear to be for the collective good or the common good or the general public or the global welfare of the planet it can be justified. Individuals hurt by such policy are not given too much consideration.

I'll tell you a story that I am not proud of but it is a good illustration of how we do not consider what the cost to others is for our benefits and privileges.

In my early twenties a friend and I decided to go to Las Vegas for a weekend. Unfortunately, we went on the Presidents Day long weekend in February.

We arrived about 11 PM on Friday and the place was buzzing. Every hotel was booked solid. We had just driven from Edmonton and were exhausted. It's about an eighteen hour drive.

We stopped at the first decent looking place that had a vacancy sign and there were cars pulling into the parking lot all looking to get that vacant room.

I went into the lobby just as a black man was going out the door. I asked at the desk if they still had a room left. The man replied that the black guy had just asked for the last one but I could have it if I wanted. Now, I recognized this as blatantly racist. I went out to our car and explained the situation to my friend who sneered and drove off. We wound up getting a few hours sleep in a seedy motel on the highway.

Now, I'm not a racist but what I was not proud of was that, even though we drove off I considered taking that room and taking advantage of the "privilege" being offered. It was a "benefit" and I didn't consider that that benefit was illegitimate. I just thought it was nice to have an "advantage".

I have never told that story before but it is a great illustration of how a person with a benefit often does not realize the cost to those without the benefit or how it is paid for. Those at the top don't think of the inconvenience of anyone who is treated unfairly and many of us don't realize our benefits do cost others and are steeped in bias and prejudice. The middle class individual who pays his taxes, barely getting by, sees benefits going to help less fortunate people in society. Does the community organizer or the recipient of this social aid consider the middle class person just getting by and his contribution for that "benefit"? The benefit is looked at contemptuously as coming from the rich. It is a contempt with a prejudice and a bias no different than racism itself.

Looking at it from a position of power the power is taken for granted and the "advantage" is not seen as a disadvantage to others, it is seen as a deserved or earned benefit or privilege. The powerlessness of the individual to overcome obstacles that inadvertently disadvantage him in plans and policies designed to benefit the general welfare or the common good are not given consideration - only the "benefit" is obvious. The cost to anyone or the inconvenience of others is given short shrift.

Bastiat's "broken window" essay on observing that which is not seen points to the fallacies that can be concluded when we only look at what "is" and do not consider what could have been or that which goes "unseen". The essay describes how a broken window is really a benefit to the community. It keeps the glazier employed among other benefits. It isn't unless one considers what could have been accomplished without the broken window that it can be seen as a detriment to the community and not a benefit.

Conspiracy theories develop out of the void of not understanding and are an attempt to explain what one does not understand in the world of global power-mongering. There is a lot of information and we can't know all that is going on politically on a global level. Of course, as Lord Acton aptly noted, where there is power there is corruption. Those who are corrupt must operate in as much secrecy as possible which limits the sphere in which he can operate. One could only operate on a wide sphere if secrecy were not a problem. Perhaps we could get people to generally agree that granting benefit to some over others is an entirely acceptable behavior for those looking after the collective good and those looking after the collective good must have the power to be able to take from some and give to others declaring it the steep and thorny way to heaven while they, like some restless libertine, walk the primrose path of dalliance.

A little Shakespeare is never inappropriate.

Have another glorious day!

[Yesterday]

maple_leafs182, on 24 August 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:

Establishing a world government is the same thing as taking over the world. I think those organizations you mentioned, their influence on global policies will increase over time.

That is the intent, I believe.

We definitely all agree that the intent to concentrate wealth and power is evident. It is going to take vigilance in the next few generations to make sure this financial fraud exposure movement never rests until things are right. To me these global alliances would be harmless, instead fruitful, if all financial gain was removed from them. To me the devil is international trade. This is what gives these groups the ability to function so inappropriately. I am for more domestically consumptive societies. Sure, trade externally where need warrants it. A need based on necessity not profit. This is the totally immoral fully supporting platform for wealth and power concentration. If the redundancies alone where removed from international trade, if all that traded into a country over the border was a product unable to be produced nationally, we could possibly have a situation small enough to deal with that in all fairness the ability to market share properly could actually be attained. If there was no such thing as foreign investment in production or resources, if a country was left to develop itself within its borders, it's currency secure within it's borders, productivity secure within its borders....international trade would have to be a vastly different reality to support this.

I can honestly see a need for global communication between all countries to reach a stage in life where we can acceptance and respect for all borders. Profitability on an international scale is preventing this.

A plutonomy? Perhaps, close to the truth.

This is a very acurate term and includes why I find our dependancy on finacial help (debt,welfare,healthcare) to get by so disconcerting. Talk about empowerment.

At very high levels of power the thought of how policy or plans affect the average individual is not really given too much consideration. As long as those plans or policies can be made to appear to be for the collective good or the common good or the general public or the global welfare of the planet it can be justified. Individuals hurt by such policy are not given too much consideration.

There is a little consideration shown in the evident understanding that just enough breeds productivity and easy debt breeds complacency. That takes some thought to keep the balance in their favour. A balance of a society that feels free.

I'll tell you a story that I am not proud of but it is a good illustration of how we do not consider what the cost to others is for our benefits and privileges.

In my early twenties a friend and I decided to go to Las Vegas for a weekend. Unfortunately, we went on the Presidents Day long weekend in February.

We arrived about 11 PM on Friday and the place was buzzing. Every hotel was booked solid. We had just driven from Edmonton and were exhausted. It's about an eighteen hour drive.

We stopped at the first decent looking place that had a vacancy sign and there were cars pulling into the parking lot all looking to get that vacant room.

I went into the lobby just as a black man was going out the door. I asked at the desk if they still had a room left. The man replied that the black guy had just asked for the last one but I could have it if I wanted. Now, I recognized this as blatantly racist. I went out to our car and explained the situation to my friend who sneered and drove off. We wound up getting a few hours sleep in a seedy motel on the highway.

Now, I'm not a racist but what I was not proud of was that, even though we drove off I considered taking that room and taking advantage of the "privilege" being offered. It was a "benefit" and I didn't consider that that benefit was illegitimate. I just thought it was nice to have an "advantage".

I have never told that story before but it is a great illustration of how a person with a benefit often does not realize the cost to those without the benefit or how it is paid for. Those at the top don't think of the inconvenience of anyone who is treated unfairly and many of us don't realize our benefits do cost others and are steeped in bias and prejudice. The middle class individual who pays his taxes, barely getting by, sees benefits going to help less fortunate people in society. Does the community organizer or the recipient of this social aid consider the middle class person just getting by and his contribution for that "benefit"? The benefit is looked at contemptuously as coming from the rich. It is a contempt with a prejudice and a bias no different than racism itself.

Everyone, given the oportunity wants to experience an advantage. Everyone has taken it at some point, in some way. No one is exempt. It is through the trying on of such an advantage, to experience the bad taste that gets left in your mouth for acting so, for thinking so. This is why we do it, so we learn its wrong.

I would guess the reason you did not at first attribute the reason for the advantage as one being due to colour regardless of the attendants purpose would be becuase you are not racist. Your first reaction was one of pleasure, it would be your realization of the other's intent that made you have to consider the colour of a man's skin as the reason.

Looking at it from a position of power the power is taken for granted and the "advantage" is not seen as a disadvantage to others, it is seen as a deserved or earned benefit or privilege. The powerlessness of the individual to overcome obstacles that inadvertently disadvantage him in plans and policies designed to benefit the general welfare or the common good are not given consideration - only the "benefit" is obvious. The cost to anyone or the inconvenience of others is given short shrift.

This is slowly changing though, in the last 20 years or so the civilian information highway has given room for massive global realizations and actions.

Bastiat's "broken window" essay on observing that which is not seen points to the fallacies that can be concluded when we only look at what "is" and do not consider what could have been or that which goes "unseen". The essay describes how a broken window is really a benefit to the community. It keeps the glazier employed among other benefits. It isn't unless one considers what could have been accomplished without the broken window that it can be seen as a detriment to the community and not a benefit.

I think this sounds interesting, I'll take a look. I have a problem when it comes to considering labour and the results of it and the need of it. It just fills me with dread to say that I have to agree with the section of the Michael Journal's that deals with labour and production. It is probably the only part I agree with. The concept of the ability for the glazier to profit versus the need for the glazier to profit. Gets me thinking of global surpluss stats and waste. So frustrating!!!!

Conspiracy theories develop out of the void of not understanding and are an attempt to explain what one does not understand in the world of global power-mongering. There is a lot of information and we can't know all that is going on politically on a global level. Of course, as Lord Acton aptly noted, where there is power there is corruption. Those who are corrupt must operate in as much secrecy as possible which limits the sphere in which he can operate. One could only operate on a wide sphere if secrecy were not a problem. Perhaps we could get people to generally agree that granting benefit to some over others is an entirely acceptable behavior for those looking after the collective good and those looking after the collective good must have the power to be able to take from some and give to others declaring it the steep and thorny way to heaven while they, like some restless libertine, walk the primrose path of dalliance.

A little Shakespeare is never inappropriate.

A little soulful Chopin is never inapropriate.

Have another glorious day!

You too.

[maple_leafs182]

Our national debt is 539 Billion dollars.

We are paying over 100 million dollars a day in interest. Lots of that interest is going to private banks.

Why doesn't the government loan money directly from the Bank of Canada at 0% interest.

[Yesterday]

Our national debt is 539 Billion dollars.

We are paying over 100 million dollars a day in interest. Lots of that interest is going to private banks.

Why doesn't the government loan money directly from the Bank of Canada at 0% interest.

Are you from the US? The Canadian debt is roughly costing us 170 million a day. I have wondered this too, it will be some kind of a kickback for the government with this but I haven't figured it out yet. In total Canada's debt sits around 2 trillion if I remember correctly. Certainly not the number's used on graphs that I have read that discuss deficits and surpluses through out the 90s through the 2000s. I believe they used the 539 billion number or ones close to that.

I wonder how important that debt figure is as a determinant in deciding how much money can/could/will be printed for circulation. This could create a situation where the government wouldn't want to remove the debt. In a world where debt is the currency and paper is the representative...where the debt banks carry gives them their leverage for loaning...

Edited August 27, 2010 by Yesterday

[maple_leafs182]

Are you from the US? The Canadian debt is roughly costing us 170 million a day. I have wondered this too, it will be some kind of a kickback for the government with this but I haven't figured it out yet. In total Canada's debt sits around 2 trillion if I remember correctly. Certainly not the number's used on graphs that I have read that discuss deficits and surpluses through out the 90s through the 2000s. I believe they used the 539 billion number or ones close to that.

I wonder how important that debt figure is as a determinant in deciding how much money can/could/will be printed for circulation. This could create a situation where the government wouldn't want to remove the debt. In a world where debt is the currency and paper is the representative...where the debt banks carry gives them their leverage for loaning...

http://www.debtclock.ca/

A live ticker of the national debt.

Not too sure how much we owe in liabilities.

But really, what was the logic people used to justify privatizing our national debt.

The government is being robbed hundreds of millions of dollars everyday. I know some citizens own Canadian bonds and they may benefit. I don't think the government losing that money is a fair trade off.

I like this quote from Andrew Jackson

Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin!

He killed the Second Bank of the United States but he didn't realize that fractional reserve banking was the real problem.

[Yesterday]

http://www.debtclock.ca/

A live ticker of the national debt.

Not too sure how much we owe in liabilities.

But really, what was the logic people used to justify privatizing our national debt.

The government is being robbed hundreds of millions of dollars everyday. I know some citizens own Canadian bonds and they may benefit. I don't think the government losing that money is a fair trade off.

Somewhere I've got the info about how much is really owed, I think the ticker deals with the yearly deficit more than the overall federal debt but I need to clarify this. I do know in total our debt is at least 2 trillion as compared to the US 5-6 trillion in comparable debt.

I like this quote from Andrew Jackson

He killed the Second Bank of the United States but he didn't realize that fractional reserve banking was the real problem.

This is a good quote from Andrew Jackson. Reading through all the literature I have it does almost seem as if the governments at times, at least in the beginning, seemed to understand the threat banks held. Personally, I think we are dealing the biggest bunch of gambling addicted people ever created. Addiction breeds no logic. Bankers and government people alike, the world is their casino and our earned money is their poker chips.

[maple_leafs182]

This is a good quote from Andrew Jackson. Reading through all the literature I have it does almost seem as if the governments at times, at least in the beginning, seemed to understand the threat banks held. Personally, I think we are dealing the biggest bunch of gambling addicted people ever created. Addiction breeds no logic. Bankers and government people alike, the world is their casino and our earned money is their poker chips.

And nobody seems to notice, no one even blinks.