Conspiracy Theory

[Pliny]

Hi Pliny, I wish I could answer this for you. I wish you could answer it for me. Government assets...mmm. I would think that perhaps the premiums paid to the government on every dollar loaned/printed/recorded by the banks could be considered a viable asset. I wonder if the banks also pay this premium on dollars lent to the government itself? I have to wonder how much of the assets behind the government are hedged on future production if any. On future commercial growth for instance which would create a need for more money being printed/loaned/etc. which in turn pays out more premium. I wonder if a portion of tax collections are considered an asset? Once again a hedgeable number. I am thinking about a few hefty mineral companies that I know about that have filed production start dates in the coming few years here in Canada and I wonder if the banks/government can create loans/bonds today using incomes projected from future collected taxes and interest collected from these projects. These are very large ventures.

As for fiat, my current understanding is that no it would not be asset backed due to fractionalization and low to zero reserves. At least not metal/mineral backed, it seems to be mostly future labour backed, debt backed. A situation easily encouraged due to excessive volumes of currency medium in circulation which comes from banks having a free go at introducing currency medium almost at will. Of course furthering their own and whoever fancy becoming extremely rich off interest and such. I don't think I would use the word force to describe this situation. For the most part I view the current situation to one of opportunity. A criminal situation absolutely but not so much at the fault of fiat money but one that is a result of opportunity for fraud with those who have been in charge. A situation that could be very much a part of the past considering the current direction of market fraud exposures and bank failures. I guess generally speaking, there is a lot of discontent at the reforms and global resolutions that are flowing like a river out of this situation that is traveling across the world but I am not educated enough to pose any kind of argument for or against most of what I read. To me it is all just a learning experience.

Well, you have a good enough understanding to even suggest that future production and resulting tax revenue is the asset that is held to sell government bonds.

The government really has no other assets.

Fundamentally I can see some merit to a dollar not being regulated with gold/mineral but definitely not labour based in exchange, certainly not future labour which equals current/future debt. Ideally, I could see a dollar based on need being effective as long as it was accompanied by proper currency medium in circulation reduction policies like taxes (used properly). I couldn't even begin to surmise if this scenario would work or not, give me a few years...by then though my thoughts could have completely changed, giggle. It's just that in the back of my mind, whenever I consider a gold/silver/whatever resource backed dollar, I can see wars over whatever resource is required. Much like we have it today regarding fossil fuels.

Once I am finished absorbing this book I referenced I am going to read about the Austrian Theory. Perhaps then I can give you a more well rounded conversation about currency. I definitely consider the definition of currency to of the utmost importance.

Whats' the difference between a currency and money?

Actually, a lot of people think the amount of money or currency in circulation is important but really if you change the amount it only changes the purchasing power of the currency. Add too much currency and prices go up. Contract the amount of currency and prices go down. The amount of currency is irrelevant and prices will always adjust to changes in the amount. There may be some benefit to people who receive new money first before prices change but other than that the amount of currency is a null factor. More of it in an economy doesn't make anyone richer and less of it doesn't mean everyone is poorer.

Lately I have been hearing some theory about the "velocity of currency" or the velocity of money. Some financial wiz has formulated this theory and you can google it to find out about it.

I don't think it holds much merit but check it out.

Austrian economics explains why Keynesian economics is faulty. Keynesian economc theory is what most Economists are steeped in these days and it has been said they are more Econometrists than Economists today. It has a lot of mathematical formulae and equations and is attempting to predict and determine economic activity.

As far as gold-backed currencies go they actually act as a deterrent to government declaring wars. The federal reserve was created in 1913. The first world war was in 1914 and America has been in a war every decade, except for the 1920's and 30's, when they finally went off the gold standard for good, ever since. WW II, the Korean War, the Viet Nam war, The Iraq war in the 90's, the War in Bosnia, the Iraq war and the Afghan war. Plus the funding to support governments or bring them down.

In the nineteenth century America had the war of 1812 against Canada and the British. The American civil war, funded by Lincoln's paper currency called the "greenback", and the Spanish-American war at the end of the century. When real commodities have to pay for wars governments are less likely to have approval to go to war from the populace unless it is really necessary. And actually, most of the commodity would be held by the populace anyway so they would feel the full brunt of the cost to go to war - not the unseen taxes of the next generation paying for it.

[maple_leafs182]

"It is well enough that the 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." - Henry Ford

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs". - Thomas Jefferson

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War". - Benjamin Franklin

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." — SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)

Usury is the problem.

Just learn the monetary system and the conspiracy becomes obvious.

[Yesterday]

Usury is the problem.

Just learn the monetary system and the conspiracy becomes obvious.

Did you read anything about the fellow in BC who tried to take banks(can't remember which one/ones)to court over usury? The judge was a real turd! Dragged it on for years to then laugh them out of court. I feel bad for the guy. We should stop using the word conspiracy and just call it for the spade it is, criminal intent.

[Yesterday]

Whats' the difference between a currency and money?

Actually, a lot of people think the amount of money or currency in circulation is important but really if you change the amount it only changes the purchasing power of the currency. Add too much currency and prices go up. Contract the amount of currency and prices go down. The amount of currency is irrelevant and prices will always adjust to changes in the amount. There may be some benefit to people who receive new money first before prices change but other than that the amount of currency is a null factor. More of it in an economy doesn't make anyone richer and less of it doesn't mean everyone is poorer.

The only scenario that I have come across so far that is effected by the reduction of medium in circulation was reference to a time when a simple manipulation of inflation (contraction/expansion) was not enough to stabilize the foreign markets and a complete revaluation to return the value of that particular(English pound in this case) medium to that of gold (gold standard) had to happen. In this situation it is imperative to remove as much of the old circulating medium as possible to prevent massive hoarding of the new valued currency. Hence my interest in this current bank contraction coupled with the 9.6 % reduction in circulating US medium, both of these in conjunction with the alternative media story of such a reset pending for the US dollar. Fed notes versus Treasury notes...

My question is, can that 9.6% reduction be attributed to something other than a reset? Is that number really meaningful?

It doesn't appear that simple contraction/expansion this time was enough to stabilize foreign markets. The bail-outs have not accomplished this either.

Lately I have been hearing some theory about the "velocity of currency" or the velocity of money. Some financial wiz has formulated this theory and you can google it to find out about it.

I don't think it holds much merit but check it out.

Austrian economics explains why Keynesian economics is faulty. Keynesian economc theory is what most Economists are steeped in these days and it has been said they are more Econometrists than Economists today. It has a lot of mathematical formulae and equations and is attempting to predict and determine economic activity.

Yes, it is almost time to step into the current scenarios versus these old ones I've been rattling around in. I just needed a bit of a foundation.

As far as gold-backed currencies go they actually act as a deterrent to government declaring wars. The federal reserve was created in 1913. The first world war was in 1914 and America has been in a war every decade, except for the 1920's and 30's, when they finally went off the gold standard for good, ever since. WW II, the Korean War, the Viet Nam war, The Iraq war in the 90's, the War in Bosnia, the Iraq war and the Afghan war. Plus the funding to support governments or bring them down.

I can understand this in terms of reducing access to excessive volumes of currency but we have to include the fact the desire to have enough currency to accomplish means, whatever they are, was IMO the underlying drive. War is only one part of a whole that includes (at least today) Wall Street and international trade. What drove the creation of the current volumes of corruption and manipulation on Wall Street and within the ranks of international trade? This drive, this oh so human and fanatical drive, is going to show itself one way or another as long as we use a resource based dollar.

Developed nations might be somewhat curtailed by restriction true, but the underdeveloped nations will have perhaps more reason to be aggressive. If we have less, wouldn't they have less? I think the aim has to equalization/decentralization of currency in conjunction with fraud removal and restriction.

I think, at least right now, I am leaning toward perhaps that international trade and foreign ownership of resources has set a stage for a very rough go if we ended up with a removal of fiat currency to be replaced with a gold/silver/mineral backed medium. I cannot see a reset regardless of the fact that this scenario so closely relates to the one in England from history. I agree with you regarding the effect of the level of currency in circulation to a certain degree in regards to personal wealth but it does have the power to effect foreign exchange.

On a side note....over the last year or so I've been working on a little project where I've been adding up all the fines thus far collect by the US government regarding market fraud/manipulation and so on. So far I've covered mostly material from the late 90 through till now and the amount, which does not include all of it from those years yet is in the trillions. There are literally thousands of settlements to date and thousands of more coming. You can find this all on the SEC website. Back in 2002/3 the big 10 banks in the US paid a combined 1.6 billion alone in fraud settlements to the SEC. This list does not include settlements that were paid out to victims, just the fed balance from all of this. I wonder what they are doing with all of this...I see some of it is being set aside for shareholder education and some for market research but we are talking trillions of dollars...where is it?

[Yesterday]

"It is well enough that the 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." - Henry Ford

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs". - Thomas Jefferson

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War". - Benjamin Franklin

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." — SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain)

Usury is the problem.

Just learn the monetary system and the conspiracy becomes obvious.

These are very inspirational/informative quotes. I've read them before and I appreciate your selections. It was reading quotes like these that gave my first understanding of how far back in history this currency war has been going on. I think it could be fittingly called a currency war.

[Pliny]

Usury is the problem.

Just learn the monetary system and the conspiracy becomes obvious.

All great quotes.

Long ago I was advised to "follow the money" if I wanted to know what was happening in the world politically. I decided to do that but I had to get some basics in on economic and monetary terms.

I bought an excellent book on line called "Money: Ye shall have honest weights and measures". by A fellow named James Ewart. It's an excellent book for getting the basics and origin of "money" and banking.

It relates mostly to US money and banking but basics are basics. It suggests a possible conspiracy but leaves it up to the reader to make up his mind. I know that men conspire to concentrate power for themselves but I don't believe their is any evil intent towards others, unless that power is threatened, in those conspiracies. I believe they are trying to run society as best they can and have big egos that make them believe they are endowed with the intelligence to do so. However, they would do best to allow people to run their own lives and evolve society as it should evolve instead of trying to create an ideal society without any evolutionary elasticity. I see central planning and it's progressive encroachment upon an ever-widening sphere of influence as a problem. Reversing that trend has not occurred in history but China today seems to be doing that and of course the collapse of the Soviet Union reversed their total control over their society.

Getting to usury. Of course this is the reason that most European banks were owned by those of Jewish heritage. Christianity forbade the practice of usury, Christ went and turned over the tables of the money lenders, so lending money at all was frowned upon. But one must really look at the definition of usury. It does not mean never lending money whatsoever nor does it mean that a fair price for lending not be charged. It means that one should not exact an unfair price for lending money.

The conspiracy that you speak of, Maple leaf, is one of men attempting to sustain the structure of civilization as it exists. There is no secret underground and things like the Illuminati are unimportant and a waste of time to pursue. The Bilderberg meetings are held in camera and opinions may be expressed that have some influence in public policy but that comes out in public policy. The rest of the discussions in those meetings are irrelevant. One thing that is interesting is "who" actually attends those meetings. Queen Beatrice of the Netherlands, representatives of the British Crown, - it means they aren't exactly just the figureheads they are portrayed to be, they play an active role in discussing governance and their opinions and concerns are probably influential.

The thing that keeps conspiracy theories alive is that it must not be known who really has power because if things take a tumble and people are economically disadvantaged they will strike out at those responsible. Governments are a sort of buffer between the masses and those in power who are really holding civilization's heirarchy in place. Kings and Monarchs of the past were tired of getting their heads chopped off and constitutional governments removed them from direct responsibility. They could always blame the governing party for society's problems.

I think the socialist experiments of the twentieth century taught them a few lessons about attempting to centrally plan an entire economy and society. It doesn't work. Freedom and liberty works best to provide improvement to an economy and a society's standard of living and revenues to government.

Letting go of any control is difficult and there are certain fears associated with doing so but all in all the human race is on a learning curve.

I suggest we not get lost in dead end conspiracy theories.

[Yesterday]

Well, you have a good enough understanding to even suggest that future production and resulting tax revenue is the asset that is held to sell government bonds.

The government really has no other assets.

Thanks.

Letting go of any control is difficult and there are certain fears associated with doing so but all in all the human race is on a learning curve.

Yes, I can see the curve too. I am a Sagittarius, an eternal optimist.

I agree with you about evil intent in that this wasn't the motivation behind the forming of the mentioned groups and their roles. The corruption is absolutely rampant but it is/was opportunistic in nature. Not to say that there has not been malicious intent in the behaviour of a few, for the most part it has been simply greed. A situation that is in transition...it is possible that this massive exposure of fraud and resulting bankruptcies could clear the way for major changes in thought, it's going to go on for a long time.

[Pliny]

Yes, I can see the curve too. I am a Sagittarius, an eternal optimist.

I agree with you about evil intent in that this wasn't the motivation behind the forming of the mentioned groups and their roles. The corruption is absolutely rampant but it is/was opportunistic in nature. Not to say that there has not been malicious intent in the behaviour of a few, for the most part it has been simply greed. A situation that is in transition...it is possible that this massive exposure of fraud and resulting bankruptcies could clear the way for major changes in thought, it's going to go on for a long time.

Well, for someone who claims to be just entering the economic foray you offer an astute understanding already.

Let me caution you on the use of the term greed though. Greed is not the driving force of the majority of people and greed is actually not even a concern of those in power since they could buy anything they wanted anyway. Money, wealth, etc.,is unimportant when power is held. Money is only important when you don't have power. I really take issue with those who rant about capitalist greed. Firstly, any business has to offer a good or service that the public wants. If they don't have that then they can be as greedy as they want but no one will be buying so the motivation is not greed it is to offer what they have determined is a valuable service to the public.

I will say that the capitalist ideal has been sullied by running businesses from the office of the CFO or from the accounting department. All they look at is the bottom line and theyoften recommend policies, based upon generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP), that have nothing to do with serving the public and everything to do with increasing the bottom line.

This is modern day Keynesian economics in action. It is especially noticeable when you come upon a graduate of modern business management - they serve the bottom line as opposed to the customer.

It isn't greed as leftists mistakenly label it, it is modern accounting practices that take precedence over satisfying customer demand. A five cent savings in manufacturing costs that produces an inferior product is not good business sense but looks good on the profit/loss balance sheet.

[Yesterday]

Well, for someone who claims to be just entering the economic foray you offer an astute understanding already

Well, it is not just a claim...I am seriously under-educated. At least conventionally. However, my curiosity is endless and my IQ is quite high. Thankfully my education or lack of it does not usually stand in my way.

I am glad to talk to you because I don't have anyone physically around to talk to about this stuff so I have no idea if I'm getting it right. I am the student...you are the teacher...and as Lisa Simpson says.....GRADE ME !!!!! Giggle.

Now lets put this intelligence to the test and see if I can get the Austrian Theory....

Let me caution you on the use of the term greed though. Greed is not the driving force of the majority of people and greed is actually not even a concern of those in power since they could buy anything they wanted anyway. Money, wealth, etc.,is unimportant when power is held. Money is only important when you don't have power. I really take issue with those who rant about capitalist greed. Firstly, any business has to offer a good or service that the public wants. If they don't have that then they can be as greedy as they want but no one will be buying so the motivation is not greed it is to offer what they have determined is a valuable service to the public.

Please except my apologies. It was a bit of a general statement wasn't it. Over simplifying. I am a bit of a Capitalist at heart. I love business!!! We are not all like that. However though, the bottom line mentality is a greedy one. I am very thankful to have not received that kind of education. Bottom line mentality has more to do with profit than efficiency or quality. I look at that mentality and feel sorry for it. Would you call China's junky export the biggest case of bottom line mentality? Loosely perhaps eh? I am glad at any rate to see the G20 address this issue with them. In this day and age of market manipulation exposure the G20 have an ample sword to wield against this issue with them. How did they manipulate the market? So, they had cheaper products...more of them...still, how did they ever get in a position to ship so much junk around the world? How did this evolve?

Good morning or afternoon Pliny....

[Yesterday]

This is modern day Keynesian economics in action. It is especially noticeable when you come upon a graduate of modern business management - they serve the bottom line as opposed to the customer.

It isn't greed as leftists mistakenly label it, it is modern accounting practices that take precedence over satisfying customer demand. A five cent savings in manufacturing costs that produces an inferior product is not good business sense but looks good on the profit/loss balance sheet.

I don't know about Keynesian economics yet. I realize this puts me at a serious disadvantage for serious discussion. I'm learning as fast as I can. I should understand more in a week or so after I finish absorbing the Austrian one.

I know the political test puts me on the left...but I don't feel particularly lefty at any given time. I have such a hard time relating to either left or right. Some of both sides makes sense and lots of both doesn't.

GAAP does not seem to make good business sense if this is what is driving this foolhardy bottom line mentality. It is business sense that drives my opinion of this train of thought. I will call it this bottom line mentality now instead of greed. I'm a quality girl....none of this nonesense for me.

[Pliny]

Well, it is not just a claim...I am seriously under-educated. At least conventionally. However, my curiosity is endless and my IQ is quite high. Thankfully my education or lack of it does not usually stand in my way.

I am glad to talk to you because I don't have anyone physically around to talk to about this stuff so I have no idea if I'm getting it right. I am the student...you are the teacher...and as Lisa Simpson says.....GRADE ME !!!!! Giggle.

Now lets put this intelligence to the test and see if I can get the Austrian Theory....

Really, we are both students. I have an idea you will soon be ahead of me.

There really isn't many people around to talk to about economics and politics. Most people don't know that a dollar bill is a "bill" in the same sense as an IOU. The reason it is called a bill in the first place is that was a claim on a specific weight of gold or silver. Today it is simply a token that over time loses it's value and people willingly accept in trade.

Please except my apologies. It was a bit of a general statement wasn't it. Over simplifying. I am a bit of a Capitalist at heart. I love business!!! We are not all like that. However though, the bottom line mentality is a greedy one. I am very thankful to have not received that kind of education. Bottom line mentality has more to do with profit than efficiency or quality. I look at that mentality and feel sorry for it. Would you call China's junky export the biggest case of bottom line mentality? Loosely perhaps eh? I am glad at any rate to see the G20 address this issue with them. In this day and age of market manipulation exposure the G20 have an ample sword to wield against this issue with them. How did they manipulate the market? So, they had cheaper products...more of them...still, how did they ever get in a position to ship so much junk around the world? How did this evolve?

Good morning or afternoon Pliny....

The bottom line mentality originates with a concentration and emphasis on accounting and setting company policy based upon the profit/loss sheet. The fundamental purpose of the company being lost to the accounting office. Government of course wants to know exactly how much everyone makes and that is important to them because from that they exact their pound of flesh. Thus accounting, bookkeeping, financial records become very important to a company. They are tools a company can use to determine many things about the efficiency of it's activities but in a small business a person usually can figure that out or knows off hand exactly where he sits and it is not as important as doing the actual business. A large business needs the information as there are many activities and persons doing different things and that's when accounting can mistakenly become the primary activity of the company. GM is an instance where it's finance department became bigger than it's car manufacturing business and it steadily lost business to the competition who were constantly improving their product. It's bound to fail in the auto industry. It also has huge employee liabilities won by union bosses concerned entirely with wages and benefits (the profit/loss sheet - once again, accounting) and not the "production" of the company.

China does export a lot of junk but people who are marginally poor love that junk as it improves their standard of living. They have conveniences they would not be able to afford otherwise. Wal-mart is very successful in providing those conveniences to the marginally poor. Some products that are cheap can serve the purpose of a more expensive product quite well. It's the difference between driving a Chevy Cavalier and a BMW. They both serve the same purpose but if the Chevy Cavalier didn't exist the middle class person might be forced to use less convenient modes of transportation. Having a cheap car is better than having no car and vastly improves his standard of living.

[Yesterday]

Really, we are both students. I have an idea you will soon be ahead of me.

There really isn't many people around to talk to about economics and politics. Most people don't know that a dollar bill is a "bill" in the same sense as an IOU. The reason it is called a bill in the first place is that was a claim on a specific weight of gold or silver. Today it is simply a token that over time loses it's value and people willingly accept in trade.

We are learning together then. This can be a good thing. Judging by the amount of hits this thread is getting you, I and Maple are not the only ones wanting to learn.

China does export a lot of junk but people who are marginally poor love that junk as it improves their standard of living. They have conveniences they would not be able to afford otherwise. Wal-mart is very successful in providing those conveniences to the marginally poor. Some products that are cheap can serve the purpose of a more expensive product quite well. It's the difference between driving a Chevy Cavalier and a BMW. They both serve the same purpose but if the Chevy Cavalier didn't exist the middle class person might be forced to use less convenient modes of transportation. Having a cheap car is better than having no car and vastly improves his standard of living.

I think the issue of China's export would be best served if viewed from the standpoint of the impact on countries within the Asian Union that are struggling to get a share of the market against the magnitude of China's monopoly. Perhaps viewed against a backdrop of the longer term understanding of producing ourselves out of house and home. International trade has to equal itself off in such a way that all countries can partake in trade in sustainable volumes. From this point of view China needs to be addressed. They are not the only ones...

[maple_leafs182]

still, how did they ever get in a position to ship so much junk around the world? How did this evolve?

China kept its currency the Yuan undervalued and this made it less expensive for exports.

I suggest we not get lost in dead end conspiracy theories.

Thanks for the suggestion...

Jesse Ventura signed a deal a few years back with MSNBC to have his own show on the network, a week before the show was suppose to go on air someone from MSNBC called his agent and said "Does Jesse really oppose the war in Iraq?", his Agent said "Yes", the guy from MSNBC said "do you think he will change his mind?", the agent said "probably not", Jesse's show got cancelled before it even started. Phil Donahue was MSNBC top rated show, he opposed the war as well, he got fired. What network would fire the anchor of their top rated show.

General Electric(GE) up until I think last year owned NBC, it now owns 49% of NBC. GE is an arms manufacturer, would they want any stories on NBC that could affect an arms contract, probably not, there is a conflict of interest...

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy it just shows you what corporations will do in order to make a buck. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.

[bush_cheney2004]

...This has nothing to do with a conspiracy it just shows you what corporations will do in order to make a buck. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.

Yes, it's a shame that GE makes so many jet engines, generators, medical imaging devices, and toasters.

[Yesterday]

China kept its currency the Yuan undervalued and this made it less expensive for exports.

Hi, this is what I had heard as well but what does it mean. How does keeping the Yuan undervalued make it less expensive? How does this process work?

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy it just shows you what corporations will do in order to make a buck. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.

There are more than just a few situations like this. A production tax buried in a greenhouse initiative, a nuclear arms program buried in a nuclear energy program. GE being two faced does not surprise me, weapons of destruction hidden behind a toaster add...good grief. I'm curious to watch over the next 20-30 years whether or not situations of this type become less and less. Exposure, public understanding and consumer choice are going to be the un-doing of this.

I honestly want to believe that we are close to the end of The Age of The Great Wars. Perhaps not in my lifetime but for sure no more than 100 years or so down the road. I am pretty sure one can see the potential when having had spent some time going through the growing number of prosecutions and exposures of all types of tainted business practices and in-human/insane political agendas. It is truly mind boggling and inspirational.

[Yesterday]

This is poetic!!!!

http://seekingalpha.com/article/137009-the-federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9-trillion-in-off-balance-sheet-transactions

[Yesterday]

This is a really good read...this article covers a few topics and instead of trying to remove some of it I've left it all in there. Enjoy the show.

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKI&read=948520

And, most importantly, the law eliminates the taxpayer-funded TARP bailout created under President Bush.

Hold credit rating agencies accountable by empowering the Securities and Exchange Commission and improving accountability and accuracy within the credit rating industry through a strong new liability provision that allows investors to take action when a rating agency knowingly or recklessly fails to review key information in developing a rating.

Beginning in the second half of 1928, and more notably throughout 1929, a then little-known statistician by the name of Roger Ward Babson from Wellesley, Massachusetts was boldly predicting the near-term crash of US equity markets.

Perhaps it’s just a fault inherent in all democracies, but people striving to get elected, or to be re-elected, regardless of party affiliation, directly and indirectly “buy” votes by making campaign promises that they will unavoidably pay for with voter tax dollars. And while this may be nothing new, it seems that more promises are now being made than ever before, and that the cost of promises is clearly on the rise. What’s more, the costs of “new” promises keep getting piled onto the costs or “prior” promises.

To reuse the parasite-host analogy, more and more government, which produces no revenues at all and therefore relies on taxes charged against the base that it serves and regulates, closely resembles a 15-pound tick hanging off a 30-pound beagle. Sure, everyone loves the poor beagle and is genuinely concerned about its health; but each one of these campaign promises sucks more blood from the dog and ultimately adds to the weight of the damn tick!

[Yesterday]

This is poetic!!!!

http://seekingalpha.com/article/137009-the-federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9-trillion-in-off-balance-sheet-transactions

On a side note....over the last year or so I've been working on a little project where I've been adding up all the fines thus far collect by the US government regarding market fraud/manipulation and so on. So far I've covered mostly material from the late 90 through till now and the amount, which does not include all of it from those years yet is in the trillions. There are literally thousands of settlements to date and thousands of more coming. You can find this all on the SEC website. Back in 2002/3 the big 10 banks in the US paid a combined 1.6 billion alone in fraud settlements to the SEC. This list does not include settlements that were paid out to victims, just the fed balance from all of this. I wonder what they are doing with all of this...I see some of it is being set aside for shareholder education and some for market research but we are talking trillions of dollars...where is it?

I did not mean to repost this site, I meant to click edit....

Edited July 23, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

I wonder if the banks also pay this premium on dollars lent to the government itself?

I wrote this question in an earlier post and didn't finish my thought with it...given the negative interest rate, adding the premium brings it close to zero or perhaps just above so it seems that the government might not be collecting much if any premium at all and if some is collected is it considered profit/asset/collateral material or is it used strictly to offset interest charges levied against the government from the banks thus effectively removing it off the balance sheet.

[Pliny]

still, how did they ever get in a position to ship so much junk around the world? How did this evolve?

China kept its currency the Yuan undervalued and this made it less expensive for exports.

While this is true it doesn't explain how their position evolved. The Yuan was inexpensive in the beginning, the move to keep it undervalued was to ensure people kept buying.

The question to ask is why they entered the capitalist market in the first place. I believe it was the poverty and stagnation of their society under the communist regime. The answer to the question is then simply that they started to enter the market and the price of labour and material was, relative to the western market, cheap.

Thanks for the suggestion...

Jesse Ventura signed a deal a few years back with MSNBC to have his own show on the network, a week before the show was suppose to go on air someone from MSNBC called his agent and said "Does Jesse really oppose the war in Iraq?", his Agent said "Yes", the guy from MSNBC said "do you think he will change his mind?", the agent said "probably not", Jesse's show got cancelled before it even started. Phil Donahue was MSNBC top rated show, he opposed the war as well, he got fired. What network would fire the anchor of their top rated show.

General Electric(GE) up until I think last year owned NBC, it now owns 49% of NBC. GE is an arms manufacturer, would they want any stories on NBC that could affect an arms contract, probably not, there is a conflict of interest...

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy it just shows you what corporations will do in order to make a buck. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex.

Interesting, I would question the facts on that because guys like Chris Mathews and others on MSNBC are anti-war zealots, and all throughout that time GE's stock plummeted. GE was concentrating on green energy products and was planning on reaping in the profits with the push and emphasis of the Obama administration on green energy and it's reviling of the oil industry.

MSNBC has always catered to the far left who are undeniably anti-war.

Jeff Imelt, CEO of GE, and the Obama White House were pretty cozy.

Corporations do have to keep an eye on government plans- huge government contracts are a lucrative market. All of the lobbying and all of the alliances that are formed in Washington would surprise a lot of people, I'm sure. Tracing out how policy or plans are formulated and legislation enacted in any government would produce a lot of surprises.

It was Bismarck, I believe that said, "There are two things the public should never see. One is how sausages are made and the other is how law is made."

[Pliny]

I think the issue of China's export would be best served if viewed from the standpoint of the impact on countries within the Asian Union that are struggling to get a share of the market against the magnitude of China's monopoly. Perhaps viewed against a backdrop of the longer term understanding of producing ourselves out of house and home. International trade has to equal itself off in such a way that all countries can partake in trade in sustainable volumes. From this point of view China needs to be addressed. They are not the only ones...

I think we should rejoice in China's embracement of trade and it's entry into the international market.

What would the other countries be doing if China didn't enter into the market? China will have to trade with other countries in the Asian Union for resources and it must constantly look for markets for it's products. Would you prefer those countries not trade with China? If so you are asking for war.

I forget who said it but, "where trade is restricted war is the result."

We see wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and tensions with Iran. Can you see trade being restricted?

Fundamentalist Islam will not import western culture and western culture will not allow theocratic sharia law to dominate government or nuclear technology to be exported to Iran. The two cannot mix. It's rather ironic that policies of trade sanctions are adopted in an attempt to change a countries position. Attempting to increase trade would be in the long run a far superior policy. I don't advise giving Iran nuclear capability. They would have to get rid of their prejudices first and their hatred of the infidel.

See any trade restrictions with Israel and the Palestinians?

India is also a hot area of development. Should they too slow down?

[Yesterday]

It was Bismarck, I believe that said, "There are two things the public should never see. One is how sausages are made and the other is how law is made."

If I were an Oscar Meyer wiener, then everyone would be in love with me....

[Yesterday]

I think we should rejoice in China's embracement of trade and it's entry into the international market.

What would the other countries be doing if China didn't enter into the market? China will have to trade with other countries in the Asian Union for resources and it must constantly look for markets for it's products. Would you prefer those countries not trade with China? If so you are asking for war.

I forget who said it but, "where trade is restricted war is the result."

We see wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and tensions with Iran. Can you see trade being restricted?

Fundamentalist Islam will not import western culture and western culture will not allow theocratic sharia law to dominate government or nuclear technology to be exported to Iran. The two cannot mix. It's rather ironic that policies of trade sanctions are adopted in an attempt to change a countries position. Attempting to increase trade would be in the long run a far superior policy. I don't advise giving Iran nuclear capability. They would have to get rid of their prejudices first and their hatred of the infidel.

See any trade restrictions with Israel and the Palestinians?

India is also a hot area of development. Should they too slow down?

Hi, my understanding of China's position has nothing to do with trade sanctions or restrictions but it does have to do with equalization. As far as I know, their own position is one of wanting to strengthen its domestic position against its export. Of course they are going to trade, and of course it is a good thing they entered the global trade market. No, I don't want extreme reactions from other countries. Don't be so dramatic. Do you think we should all just keep on producing in unlimited, unrestricted volumes? Me, want war? Seriously?

Absolutely, there are countries that need to increase trade, hence the need to reallocate market resources away from redundancies/excesses so there is room for everyone. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that trade offers more opportunity than almost anything else for possibilities of ending war, domestic strength is right beside it on the list. Back to the strength of a domestic position against export, well that just makes sense wouldn't you say? They just needed a bit of a push, more or less. This is not a negative but a positive.

As for countries in the middle east, I have not considered their trade requirements individually so can't really comment on whether or not they require a larger market share but instinctively I think so. I have considered a bit about Iran's public acknowledgement of its substantial resource base and I am trying not to let myself get to positive regarding the potential in this for peace and domestic strength. I hope it becomes the diversion away from nuclear intentions. The use of trade sanctions to me seem to have potential in some situations. I am interested in their effectiveness and I'll look into what they are attempting with Iran.

I've read a bit about Sharia law here on the forum. Like anyone who doesn't practice it by choice, I am horrified. There is no room for this on the global perspective. If only trade sanctions were effective enough to deter this kind of mentality, the world would be a better place. I am glad to see this become a hot topic. This could be the begining of the end. Global education of such practices is imperitive to change.

There is imo very few benefits to international trade. One of them is that it creates a situation where everyone wants to play in the sand box. This in turn creates a situation where trade can be a tool to ensure decent behaviour. Do we use it effectively? I can't answer that but I imagine at least sometimes. I am not too nieve to realize the fact that this ability regarding trade sanctions can be a cause for war but there are many different situations and not all of them so drastic. The global landscape is changing. The desire to develope and progress has overshadowed war on the largest part of this planet. The mentalities and motivations for foreign resource development and domestic strength is changing, those outdated monoploy bottom line strategies are becoming part of the past. Colonization is also becoming a part of the past. Trade and stability will slow down immigration/emmigration globally. The middle east will catch up and clean itself up, I have no doubt just no understanding of how long or how worse it will get in the meantime. Just as we are cleaning ourselves up, meaning the market fraud clean-up across the developed nations. The curves always hurt.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Yesterday

[Pliny]

Do you think we should all just keep on producing in unlimited, unrestricted volumes?

Unlimited, unrestricted of what - existing resources? Of course we need to find other resources if we continue our population expansion. WE need to find alternative energies, etc. Our population growth is slowing down. We need to bring some cultures to higher living standards so they do not have to depend upon the safety of numbers for survival.

Me, want war? Seriously?

Many people do not want war not too many know how to avoid it and I don't believe it can be avoided entirely. A productive country or society will be subject to the envy of less productive societies.

And someone has said that the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it.

Absolutely, there are countries that need to increase trade, hence the need to reallocate market resources away from redundancies/excesses so there is room for everyone. Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that trade offers more opportunity than almost anything else for possibilities of ending war, domestic strength is right beside it on the list. Back to the strength of a domestic position against export, well that just makes sense wouldn't you say? They just needed a bit of a push, more or less. This is not a negative but a positive.

I see. I agree with you.

As for countries in the middle east, I have not considered their trade requirements individually so can't really comment on whether or not they require a larger market share but instinctively I think so. I have considered a bit about Iran's public acknowledgement of its substantial resource base and I am trying not to let myself get to positive regarding the potential in this for peace and domestic strength. I hope it becomes the diversion away from nuclear intentions. The use of trade sanctions to me seem to have potential in some situations. I am interested in their effectiveness and I'll look into what they are attempting with Iran.

While you are checking look into the Food for Oil program and the sanctions imposed upon Iraq. Quite a UN scandal.

I've read a bit about Sharia law here on the forum. Like anyone who doesn't practice it by choice, I am horrified. There is no room for this on the global perspective. If only trade sanctions were effective enough to deter this kind of mentality, the world would be a better place. I am glad to see this become a hot topic. This could be the begining of the end. Global education of such practices is imperitive to change.

There is imo very few benefits to international trade. One of them is that it creates a situation where everyone wants to play in the sand box. This in turn creates a situation where trade can be a tool to ensure decent behaviour. Do we use it effectively?

I can't answer that but I imagine at least sometimes. I am not too nieve to realize the fact that this ability regarding trade sanctions can be a cause for war but there are many different situations and not all of them so drastic. The global landscape is changing. The desire to develope and progress has overshadowed war on the largest part of this planet. The mentalities and motivations for foreign resource development and domestic strength is changing, those outdated monoploy bottom line strategies are becoming part of the past. Colonization is also becoming a part of the past. Trade and stability will slow down immigration/emmigration globally. The middle east will catch up and clean itself up, I have no doubt just no understanding of how long or how worse it will get in the meantime. Just as we are cleaning ourselves up, meaning the market fraud clean-up across the developed nations. The curves always hurt.

Trade sanctions are already after the fact. And are a tool of war without declaring such.

[maple_leafs182]

Someone please tell me again why we live the way we do.

We fight wars in foreign countries for monetary purposes and we wonder why people hate us.

We force people to live in poverty or on the streets and wonder why there is so much crime.

We give gangs monopolies over drugs and wonder why there is so much street violence.

Different economic or trade policies won't solve our problems.