On January 23 2012 00:01 d9mmdi wrote: dont understand the redicule. nothing he writes seems too far fetched to me. That said why is there not a single source given ?D I find it an interesting topic, ive read about the Rothschilds before and i feel urged by the article to do some reseach on my own. Before even doing that i already think that their are literally thousands of scandals of different magnitude throughout history that were covered up or never revealed. Look at all the things that happened during our lifetimes and those are only the things in public...
He starts off the article establishing himself as the authority which is his justification for no info or links. Which I don't at all appreciate because I feel like he's treating us like children that need schooling and hes the man for the job. A lot of people probably picked up on that vibe which in conjunction with the usual knee jerk reaction to all things world domination likely spawned the negativity in this thread.
That feeling of yours comes from your own insecurity that you know very little on this matter and can not contribute to the discussion for or against it. That is why your entire comment has not brought anything productive to the discussion.
Ad hominem straight up. Gumshoe was pointing out the appeal to authority. Can't back the claims so you attack the guy... At least if you're going to do that, write something around it to make it seem like you've got something.
On January 23 2012 01:31 EternaLLegacy wrote: The information in the OP is accurate, but the conclusion is not.
You fail to see that the only way the bankers were ever able to operate at such a grand scale and with such great power is through the violence of the State. Without violence enforced monopolies on banking, violence enforced wars to rack up debts, and violence enforced taxation to pay those back, the large banking cartel could never have existed.
Remove the power from politicians and the banks have to compete on the open market and can't put governments in their pockets.
This gets a bit tough because money buys violent enforcement. If the government has no power and no money. The banks will simply pay for violence and enforcement themselves. Take note of the "British East India Company" maintaining a monopoly on trade. It took the Government( Parliament of the United Kingdom) passing "East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873" to break up the monopoly. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
On January 23 2012 00:01 d9mmdi wrote: dont understand the redicule. nothing he writes seems too far fetched to me. That said why is there not a single source given ?D I find it an interesting topic, ive read about the Rothschilds before and i feel urged by the article to do some reseach on my own. Before even doing that i already think that their are literally thousands of scandals of different magnitude throughout history that were covered up or never revealed. Look at all the things that happened during our lifetimes and those are only the things in public...
He starts off the article establishing himself as the authority which is his justification for no info or links. Which I don't at all appreciate because I feel like he's treating us like children that need schooling and hes the man for the job. A lot of people probably picked up on that vibe which in conjunction with the usual knee jerk reaction to all things world domination likely spawned the negativity in this thread.
That feeling of yours comes from your own insecurity that you know very little on this matter and can not contribute to the discussion for or against it. That is why your entire comment has not brought anything productive to the discussion.
Ad hominem straight up. Gumshoe was pointing out the appeal to authority. Can't back the claims so you attack the guy... At least if you're going to do that, write something around it to make it seem like you've got something.
Not an ad hominem attack. A simple psychological observation.
On January 22 2012 23:34 MCMXVI wrote: I applaud you for taking your time to write this down! Don't listen to people who tries to drag you down (like 4 of the 5 posters above).
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
hehe I was about to post that exact quote sad to see the reactions of some people
On January 23 2012 00:01 d9mmdi wrote: dont understand the redicule. nothing he writes seems too far fetched to me. That said why is there not a single source given ?D I find it an interesting topic, ive read about the Rothschilds before and i feel urged by the article to do some reseach on my own. Before even doing that i already think that their are literally thousands of scandals of different magnitude throughout history that were covered up or never revealed. Look at all the things that happened during our lifetimes and those are only the things in public...
He starts off the article establishing himself as the authority which is his justification for no info or links. Which I don't at all appreciate because I feel like he's treating us like children that need schooling and hes the man for the job. A lot of people probably picked up on that vibe which in conjunction with the usual knee jerk reaction to all things world domination likely spawned the negativity in this thread.
That feeling of yours comes from your own insecurity that you know very little on this matter and can not contribute to the discussion for or against it. That is why your entire comment has not brought anything productive to the discussion.
Ad hominem straight up. Gumshoe was pointing out the appeal to authority. Can't back the claims so you attack the guy... At least if you're going to do that, write something around it to make it seem like you've got something.
Not an ad hominem attack. A simple psychological observation.
Oh. You have the Oedipus complex then, and I can tell from one of your forum posts.
On January 22 2012 23:34 MCMXVI wrote: I applaud you for taking your time to write this down! Don't listen to people who tries to drag you down (like 4 of the 5 posters above).
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
hehe I was about to post that exact quote kinda sad how most of the population is so brainwashed
Solid call. However, it seems ironic to most of us. Looks like all religions are true according to that quote . Just waiting on the the third stage for everything that's true and untrue?
I live in Venezuela, the system of government of this country could be defined as a mix between a stalinist system-welfare state and a social democracy. This year there are presidential elections and the candidates are discussing the different types of governments, the problem is politics and economics are not a science, when they are discussed what is discussed are theories rather than using the scientific method of observation, when observation is used contrary theories start to look much more alike. You make a good point about capitalism because there is no such thing as a free market, there is competition of course but on the grand scheme of things the free market is only an idea. I forgot the name of the guy but I'll do an effort to find you the video of his lecture, in the early 70's an economy proffesor from the US I believe, pointed out that in the late XIX when the free market still somewhat existed companies were forced to compete with each others, banks did through america, but because small banks were gaining clients to the detriment of the bankers of new york, the federal bank of new york was created, a place were all the prominent bankers could reunite, the first thing they did was make into a law that currency should be controled by the Federal Reserve forcing small banks to go through their bureocracy system, controlling the competition, etc, (in the video is better explained, plus I broke an arm writting with only one hand is painfully slow...).
The point is, in a lot of nations there are organizations called something like "the federation of iron production", "national federation of agriculture", etc, the whole point of those is the big producers organize themselves to share the markets and set pricess to AVOID competition, they also make rules about what defines "fair competition", ie, these rules work like this: If one of the associates-federates sells at a lower price than what it was set he could get punished in the forms of fines, etc. This very mechanism constraints the free market to a point it is not free anymore. Of course the free market exists for things like forcing people work for less, because too many people study similar careers in universities, etc.
Also Milton Friedman points out that monopolies exist only when the government supports them, which is absolutely true. Just look at what happened in america when the big bail outs to big banks happened. A bureau was set to determine WHICH banks needed the bail out money and WHICH banks could be in danger of collapse. It was reported in the BBC that a lot of small banks that had good customers and were not in danger were offered a lot of money (bail out money) to sell their assets to big banks, sometimes the double of what they were worth. There was a risk that if these banks did not accept the offer they could be in danger of being declared too small, thus implying they were in danger if the crisis continued and their good customers stopped paying, forcing them "to merger", ie, to sell their assets to the big banks with supposed liquidity (if they had, what was the bail out for?). It seems pretty contradictory.
My point is, in my country, the government does a lot of expropiation to medium/big business, the government takes over, and some of the industries start to work better (like my internet provider) or absolutely collapse. The hardcore communists explain that a stalinist system is a change of masters, because the workers are in capitalism exploited by owners, but in stalinism are exploited by the state. Observation really confirms this is true becuause the government does as much effort in busting unions than the former owners, etc. Same with the concepts of expropiation and mergers, in this supposed venezuelan socialism like USRR, when a expropiation happends the owners gets an offer to sell their assets or face being forced to sell, just like with corporation mergers, exactly the same thing.
It is all a system of dominance. Politics are a joke because money is what wins elections, contributors own the politicians because nobody can get elected without huge sums of money and media support, political debates are meaningless because when contributors want something to happend politicians deliver, just like with the american bail outs, almost all politicians both republicans and democrats agreed that they were needed, easily agreed on the "correct" amount too. Stalinists, though, are different, they finance themselves ilegally with government funds, so they don't own anything to anybody except to more powerful bureocrats above them that provide the funds. They end up very wealthy too, just like in the URSS were former men of parliament ended becomming millionares after the USRR collapsed.
On January 22 2012 23:34 MCMXVI wrote: I applaud you for taking your time to write this down! Don't listen to people who tries to drag you down (like 4 of the 5 posters above).
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
hehe I was about to post that exact quote kinda sad how most of the population is so brainwashed
All truths may pass through those three stages. But false statements can also undergo those stages as well. That quote does nothing to help us differentiate what's true and what's false.
Holy hell this thread went to hell. It's almost a flame war in response to a post.
Great OP, and very well written. I'd love links to further information and such. Thanks for the post. If I wasn't so busy with school at the moment I'd research what you talked about
And about conspiracies: a conspiracy is a plan by a group of people that's kept secret. It's a dumb word, "plan" or "play" are better words. There's nothing special, good, or evil about them- they're just plans and the planners and predictors are lucky when things work out. Hell, I'm involved in several conspiracies right now... (ie, group plans that I'm keeping secret for now)
This is just a really badly written version of the history of the Rothschild familys rise to power (you forgot the decline). Where is the connection to capitalism? Sure there is alot to be said about the relation between the state and the people who own things, but making this out to a world wide 400-year conspiracy is just stupid in my opinion.
4 years of history at the Uni and still you write like this? Jees, some people just can't learn.
On January 23 2012 02:21 mappiechampion wrote: This is just a really badly written version of the history of the Rothschild familys rise to power (you forgot the decline). Where is the connection to capitalism? Sure there is alot to be said about the relation between the state and the people who own things, but making this out to a world wide 400-year conspiracy is just stupid in my opinion.
4 years of history at the Uni and still you write like this? Jees, some people just can't learn.
Is this discussion?, just insulting somebody because he didn't wrote it better?, he just wants to discuss a subjet, cut the guy some slack I'm sure if he planned to publish it, it would be much better written.
On January 23 2012 01:31 EternaLLegacy wrote: The information in the OP is accurate, but the conclusion is not.
You fail to see that the only way the bankers were ever able to operate at such a grand scale and with such great power is through the violence of the State. Without violence enforced monopolies on banking, violence enforced wars to rack up debts, and violence enforced taxation to pay those back, the large banking cartel could never have existed.
Remove the power from politicians and the banks have to compete on the open market and can't put governments in their pockets.
This gets a bit tough because money buys violent enforcement. If the government has no power and no money. The banks will simply pay for violence and enforcement themselves. Take note of the "British East India Company" maintaining a monopoly on trade. It took the Government( Parliament of the United Kingdom) passing "East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act 1873" to break up the monopoly. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
Private individuals cannot use violence. Does Coke hold a gun to your head and make you fork over your money? Do you get beaten up if you don't buy stuff from Walmart?
Violence is the monopoly of the State.
Also, it's very very very expensive to pay for violent enforcement. This is why wars are impossible without taxation and national debts. Violence is not economical for a private company in the long run.
I thought it was a good write-up but I don't see what it has to do with Capitalism. Certainly we haven't seen a true free market system in the West since The Federal Reserve Act killed capitalism.
Best Monetary History Documentary imho - The Money Masters
On January 23 2012 02:26 NorthernRiver wrote: Sources would be a good addition.....
I agree, both for the OP and the people saying "this thread is shit/untrue". Nobody tells where they are getting their facts from.
There aren't many sources saying that something is untrue if there are no sources supporting it. You wouldn't find papers on how unicorns don't exist - the burden of proof is on them and they don't have anything, so there's not much that can be done.
On January 23 2012 02:30 scaban84 wrote: I thought it was a good write-up but I don't see what it has to do with Capitalism. Certainly we haven't seen a true free market system in the West since The Federal Reserve Act killed capitalism.
I understand that loans etc have to be given out to pay for stuff which can't be afforded. I just don't understand why certain institutions are given the right to print money, support the institutions that need it, creating a bigger difference between who's rich and poor or how you want to call it and still go from the motto: unlimited growth. I guess I need to come to the realization that it's not about individuals any longer, but that corporations have to be seen as the players here. But how can a faceless, ultimately non existing, thing steer where people have to go and what people have to do? It seems like a vicious monster to me, that keeps being stuffed by money untill everyone is dry. Also, because I'm no economist, yet I doubt many economists can answer this question: how can this current system keep working if population keeps growing, where big corporations keep a major cut of all the money floating around, which is (I think, if I'm wrong, explanation instead of bashing please) proportional to all the money in circulation (cut increases as amount of money increases) Won't global poverty rise? Won't people have a harder time to cope with certain payments in, let's say 10-20 years?
EPT
sad to see the reactions of some people
