Before i get started i would like to introduce myself. i am a 25 years old male student from sweden who have studied history for 2 years and economic history for another 2 years. But aside from my university studies i have spent countless of sleepless nights reading course litterature for economic studies and other relevant stuff.
I also need to reveal some details about my family and ancestors, because much of my knowledge has been passed down from my parents and grand parents.
My Ancestors on my fathers side used to be one of the richest and most prominent families in the baltic states. They owned a massive amount of real estate in tallin and the royal family had granted them the right to collect toll from every trade ship that reached the harbour of tallinn, of wich they were allowed to keep a certain percentage while the rest went to the royal house. There are still huge squares, city houses and roads in tallinn named after my family and the Estonian 5 Krooni coin (=0.5euro) carries my family sigil (a roe deer)
My Great grandfather, Jaan, became an artist and moved to Paris and lived in artist collective "La Ruche" along prominent artists such as Salvador Dali and Marc Shagal. While he lived in paris, he became a close friend with Lenin. He moved to moscow where he reached a high rank in the communist party, and was named the headmaster of the University of Arts in Moscow. he lived two blocks from Stalin, whom he had political disputes with. Because my grandfather KNEW, what todays historicans know too, that Stalin was a Businessman, a Banker, at Heart. When Stalin took over my Great grandfather was killed and my ancestors were forced to flee, and my grandfather managed to make it to sweden where he became a succesful businessman and double-proffessor owning several swiss wineyards and mansions. But thats enough of my Family History. Now, we are going to move on to a much more prominent, perhaps the most influencal family to ever arise among mankind.
I mentioned in my brief family story that Stalin was a banker at heart. The truth is, before he became head of the USSR, he worked for a certain bank cartel's office in russia. This is well documented in many biographies about stalins life and its not some "shady-conspiracy". He worked for a banking office called N.M Rothschild and Sons. Who are the Rothschilds? well, there is so much to say about them that it could, and have, filled two long books written by the Harvard Professor Nial Ferguson.
To make a very long and shady history short, the rothschild family derives from Mayer Amshell Bauer, a jewish small time gold trader in frankfurt. He was not born a rich man, but he had a grand plan. He knew, from early age, how he would lay the foundation for the most powerful family in the world.
He managed to befriend the Prince, who granted his bank the royal sigil; wich meant that his small bank overnight became the biggest one in the country. But Bauer, who now had changed his name to Rothschild (Red Sheild) because of the big red round door to his town mansion, did not stop there. He had five sons, and he had every detail of their future planned out. He sent each of them to different prominent European countries (Brittain, France, Naples, etc) where they where all instructed to start Banks. But not "Regular", contemporal banks; Rothschild had invented two new business models that turned out to become two of the most succesfull ones in history: federal banking and International bank cartels
Much like the Medicis and Fuggers before them, there had been big bankers before the Roths with a monopoly on issuing loans to governments, but they all went bankrupt eventually. But Mayer had found the Key to success and stability. It was the fact that with all five sons, with prominent banks in different capitals and with strong bonds to each others through a network of information that was unheard of at that time, that gave the rothschild banking dynasty such immense power. The other bank dynasties before them had mostly failed because of bank runs: they became to greedy, issued more loans than they could support and then when people came back to claim their money they stood empty handed and were often hanged.
But The Rothschilds were safe. Because if a bank run occured to the Brittish rothschild branch, his french brother could always supply him with enough coin to survive. This way, the Rothschilds were able to survive and prevail through national recessions.
but perhaps most important of all, their network of information gave them more knowledge of what was going on in europe than any other family or organisation at their time. This meant that they knew where to invest, when to invest, and when to sell, because noone had better knowledge of the european market, diplomatic relations between nations and the value of different resources in different nations than the united five sons of Rothschild. Very quickly they built up an immense fortune that rivaled the monarchs and royalties of europe.
Even though the Rothschilds were very secretive about their business, their reputation spread fast. The Kings and Queens of Europe became immensivley impressed by this family who had raised from rags to extreme wealth over just a generation, so most of the european monarchs actually came to seek the Rothschilds advice on financing. And this was the final door that the family had sought to unlock, because with the drunken, degenerate monarchs in their cunning pockets, they could finally reach the goal their grandfather had set up for them: to achieve a monopoly on banking in europe.
How did they abuse their connections to the monarchs? well, take a guess here. What is the most EXPENSIVE thing a nation can invest in? its WAR. The Rothschilds issued astronomically huge loans and funded each side in the various european wars that took place during the 19th century. AND THIS; LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS HOW OUR HUGE NATIONAL DEBTS CAME INTO EXISTANCE. Many countries are still paying off interest on loans that are several hundred years old, and they keep growing.
The Rothschilds already possessed a very significant fortune before the start of Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815), and the family had gained preeminence in the bullion trade by this time. From London in 1813 to 1815, Nathan Mayer Rothschild was instrumental in almost single-handedly financing the British war effort, and the French war effort, financing the shipment of bullion to the Duke of Wellington's armies across Europe, as well as arranging the payment of British financial subsidies to their Continental allies. In 1815 alone, the Rothschilds provided £9.8 million (in 1815 currency, about £566 million today when using the retail price index, and £6.58 billion when using average earnings in subsidy loans to Britain's continental allies
The basis for the Rothschild's most famously profitable move was made after the news of British victory had been made public. Nathan Rothschild calculated that the future reduction in government borrowing brought about by the peace would create a bounce in British government bonds after a two year stabilisation, which would finalise the post-war re-structuring of the domestic economy. In what has been described as one of the most audacious moves in financial history, Nathan immediately bought up the government bond market, for what at the time seemed an excessively high price, before waiting two years, then selling the bonds on the crest of short bounce in the market in 1817 for a 40% profit. Given the sheer power of leverage the Rothschild family had at its disposal, this profit was an enormous sum.
Shortly after It was estimated by the only financial report to ever investigate the Rothschild fortune that by this time, the total wealth of the Rothschild Family exceeded 6billion pounds (translates to TRILLIONS in todays index) This sum was estimated to make up about 40% of the total money in europe at that time and according to scholars and economics, it was by far the largest private fortune to ever exist in the history of mankind.
Now, enough about the Rothschilds family history; what im trying to get to with this short "essay" is that Capitalism, Liberalism or whatever you wanna call it is not what we have been taught. There is no Free Market, there is only monopoly. There is no relevant political debate, because allow me to quote Nathan Rothschild (1777-1836)
" i care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, …The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply"
Politicans have no power what so ever. We live in a world where cash is king, and money can only be created by loaning money from the privately owned banks. Money IS Debt, and the debt does not belong to a welfare state who cares about their citizens, it owes to a few greedy men on the top of the giant pyramid scheme that we call "Capitalism".
I talked earlier about Stalin and his connections with the Rothschilds. Through Stalin, the Rothschild funded the russian revolution and made extremley profitable oil business with the USSR, while at the same time supplying the German, Japanese and Brittish War machines. After the fall of USSR, the Rothschild kept their grasp over the russian oil market through oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whom after he was sentanced to prison by putin "donated" his fortune and oil shares to Baron Lord Jacob Rothschild (this was made public news that even the daily news reported on)
This is how the international banking class operates (and the rothschilds are far from alone, im using them as a prominent example) For example, the Jewish Rothschild and Lazarus families supplied great loans to Adolf Hitler, money that was used to fund the holocaust. The American Rockefellers and J.P Morgan banks issued great loans to Japan to fund their war against the US, including the pearl harbour incident. THAT is how far the bankers are willing to go to make big money.
The Rothschilds laid the Foundation for this pyramid scheme when they bought up the majority shares in the european banks and created "Federal Banks" with a monopoly on issuing loans to governments. This essentially means that every penny your government spends on Social security, Army, Welfare reforms or whatever, is a due to the privately owned Banks. The only way for a nation, person or company to create money is to borrow from the private banks. And how are we supposed to pay back our national debts if the only way to create considerable amounts of money is to borrow more? its like trying to dig yourself out of a pit. As a wise Author once wrote:
"The Wealth of the international banking class consists of the bankrupcy of Nations"
I am by no means saying that the Rothschild family itself Controls the world (actually, aside from the state of Israel, they have very little political interest) I am merely pointing out their role in laying the foundation for the system that now dominates the Earth. And i guess it must be assumed that they are still the by far wealthiest family in the world, as they recently bought up all the remaining coal and aliminium reserves in the world. Economy insiders speculate that their Fortune is counted in the hundreds of Trillions, but its all tucked away in family trustfunds that are impossible for outsiders to measure (wich is how they keep Forbes and the likes away
It should be noted that the American Politicans and presidents fought, and died, to keep this banking system out of America. Andrew Jackson, one of the bravest presidents of all time, managed to abolish the (rothschild controlled) first bank of America. Here are a few Quotes by him:
"I have always been afraid of banks."
"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes"
"Mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges... which are employed altogether for their benefit."
"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country"
"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! You are a den of vipers and thieves."
Darn it, I didn't think anyone would still believe this nonsence.
Btw, I lolled at wrong quotation of "cash is king", which leads me to believe that you have no clue what you are talking about, how much ("economic") history classes you may have followed
well for those kinds of text sources are always higly appreciated. Your family history is all nice and well, but you are stating lots of "facts" without giving us a possibilty to check their trustworthiness...
The Rothschilds laid the Foundation for this pyramid scheme when they bought up the majority shares in the european banks and created "Federal Banks" with a monopoly on issuing loans to governments. This essentially means that every penny your government spends on Social security, Army, Welfare reforms or whatever, is a due to the privately owned Banks. The only way for a nation, person or company to create money is to borrow from the private banks. And how are we supposed to pay back our national debts if the only way to create considerable amounts of money is to borrow more? its like trying to dig yourself out of a pit. As a wise Author once wrote:
"The Wealth of the international banking class consists of the bankrupcy of Nations"
Governments get money by issuing bonds, not necessarily by borrowing from banks.
Governments pay back debt by insuring GDP growth, and in turn tax receipts, increases at a rate that covers the interest owed on the bonds they issue.
For the US, the interest rate is virtually zero, making the bonds (or debt) they are issuing now, very easy to pay back.
The central bank, while independent of the government, can also print money and target inflation. Inflation erodes the real value of debt, i.e. it lowers the real value of debt over time, making it easier to pay back.
great post but it brings a simple logical question.. why it was so hard for president to simply take a small army and take those bankers and hang them. I mean thats as simple as effective. Seriously i dont understand a more effective and legal way to deal with the money created from thin air.
This has nothing to do with Juwes or Judaism. It is true that there's just a few families who control most of the world's wealth. Most famous are of course Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans. They've founded (and de facto control) US Federal Reserve, WHO, World Bank, IMF and a couple of other institutions like that (I don't remember them all from the top of my head). All of them are also known to use their insider market knowledge to make immense profits on crisises (recession, recent world crisis etc.) and even deliberately causing them.
Hey if you look on Metalopolis inbetween the 12 and 3 oclock base there is a building that has a sign on it that says FED with a freemason symbol over it, it reads "Global Elite Control". See, they are in your video games too!
Im not gunna play the antisemtic card either, thats retarded. I think the OP is silly, but if all you see in it "the jews did it" then you have issues too.
Whats up with all the immediate negativity in this thread? Its irrelevant that the families jewish, the point op is trying to make is that in a capitalist society power lies not in the hands of governments but rather in the hands of companies whose only interest is to make money. Most of us are aware of this issue already but op has provided some interesting background on it. That said while I don't doubt op's credibility I think he should provide a few links or citations(lol hate citations) given how his argument mostly employs the use of others research and words in order to convey his viewpoint. other than that it a well written piece bashing the greatest flaw of capitalism: the absolute monopoly(which is the equivalent of a late game 3 3 toss death ball with temps collos carriers dts and a mother ship.)
On January 22 2012 23:28 Manit0u wrote: This has nothing to do with Juwes or Judaism. It is true that there's just a few families who control most of the world's wealth. Most famous are of course Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans. They've founded (and de facto control) US Federal Reserve, WHO, World Bank and a couple of other institutions like that (I don't remember them all from the top of my head). All of them are also known to use their insider market knowledge to make immense profits on crisises (recession, recent world crisis etc.) and even deliberately causing them.
Last I checked Bernanke does not equal Rothschild, Rockefeller or Morgan.
The Rothschilds laid the Foundation for this pyramid scheme when they bought up the majority shares in the european banks and created "Federal Banks" with a monopoly on issuing loans to governments. This essentially means that every penny your government spends on Social security, Army, Welfare reforms or whatever, is a due to the privately owned Banks. The only way for a nation, person or company to create money is to borrow from the private banks. And how are we supposed to pay back our national debts if the only way to create considerable amounts of money is to borrow more? its like trying to dig yourself out of a pit. As a wise Author once wrote:
"The Wealth of the international banking class consists of the bankrupcy of Nations"
Governments get money by issuing bonds, not necessarily by borrowing from banks.
True, but the banks underwrite the bonds and buy them at auction for resale as principle so there is a grain of truth to the OP. Its a very sweet deal for the banks. Not saying its a conspiracy though.
On January 22 2012 23:28 Manit0u wrote: This has nothing to do with Juwes or Judaism. It is true that there's just a few families who control most of the world's wealth. Most famous are of course Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans. They've founded (and de facto control) US Federal Reserve, WHO, World Bank and a couple of other institutions like that (I don't remember them all from the top of my head). All of them are also known to use their insider market knowledge to make immense profits on crisises (recession, recent world crisis etc.) and even deliberately causing them.
And before that you even had Empires and slavery was worldwide. Now come on please. What's the point exactly ? These families are bad and secret descendants of Egyptian pharaos that actually were aliens that came down here to provide us with future but lost technologies?
On January 22 2012 23:26 ambient_orange wrote: great post but it brings a simple logical question.. why it was so hard for president to simply take a small army and take those bankers and hang them. I mean thats as simple as effective. Seriously i dont understand a more effective and legal way to deal with the money created from thin air.
Ok. I just want to state that I dont belive in this but isnt the whole idea that the president etc are all puppets to the system? Which also would explain why they dont act.
Anyway, I think this could be an interesting discussion if people that actually knew somthing about economics decided to post what they think instead of the "this is not a good thread" posters. The people that just are here to ruin the thread should stay away. Would be nice if admins could hand out some warnings.
On January 22 2012 23:28 Equity213 wrote: Oh boy. Global Banking conspiracy stuff....
Hey if you look on Metalopolis inbetween the 12 and 3 oclock base there is a building that has a sign on it that says FED with a freemason symbol over it, it reads "Global Elite Control". See, they are in your video games too!
Im not gunna play the antisemtic card either, thats retarded. I think the OP is silly, but if all you see in it "the jews did it" then you have issues too.
whats your point about this thread? i fail to understand. That the knowledge is useless and mind made fiction? I thought it was about facts and knowing whats up...
On January 22 2012 23:26 ambient_orange wrote: great post but it brings a simple logical question.. why it was so hard for president to simply take a small army and take those bankers and hang them. I mean thats as simple as effective. Seriously i dont understand a more effective and legal way to deal with the money created from thin air.
Ok. I just want to state that I dont belive in this but isnt the whole idea that the president etc are all puppets to the system? Which also would explain why they dont act.
Anyway, I think this could be an interesting discussion if people that actually knew somthing about economics decided to post what they think instead of the "this is not a good thread" posters. The people that just are here to ruin the thread should stay away. Would be nice if admins could hand out some warnings.
maybe because all this crap plagues every single internet board and that there are more than enough already ?
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."
Since you ridicule the truth that this is false, does that mean you will then violently oppose it and after that it will become self-evident that this thread is false?
On January 22 2012 23:26 ambient_orange wrote: great post but it brings a simple logical question.. why it was so hard for president to simply take a small army and take those bankers and hang them. I mean thats as simple as effective. Seriously i dont understand a more effective and legal way to deal with the money created from thin air.
Ok. I just want to state that I dont belive in this but isnt the whole idea that the president etc are all puppets to the system? Which also would explain why they dont act.
Anyway, I think this could be an interesting discussion if people that actually knew somthing about economics decided to post what they think instead of the "this is not a good thread" posters. The people that just are here to ruin the thread should stay away. Would be nice if admins could hand out some warnings.
maybe because all this crap plagues every single internet board and that there are more than enough already ?
Well he obviously spent more time than most OPs do and I dont think that neither you or me are the ones to decide what can be discussed here and not. If people doesnt show any interest the thread will die and thats fine but if it doesnt it means that its something people want to discuss. Let them.
The Rothschilds laid the Foundation for this pyramid scheme when they bought up the majority shares in the european banks and created "Federal Banks" with a monopoly on issuing loans to governments. This essentially means that every penny your government spends on Social security, Army, Welfare reforms or whatever, is a due to the privately owned Banks. The only way for a nation, person or company to create money is to borrow from the private banks. And how are we supposed to pay back our national debts if the only way to create considerable amounts of money is to borrow more? its like trying to dig yourself out of a pit. As a wise Author once wrote:
"The Wealth of the international banking class consists of the bankrupcy of Nations"
Governments get money by issuing bonds, not necessarily by borrowing from banks.
Governments pay back debt by insuring GDP growth, and in turn tax receipts, increases at a rate that covers the interest owed on the bonds they issue.
For the US, the interest rate is virtually zero, making the bonds (or debt) they are issuing now, very easy to pay back.
The central bank, while independent of the government, can also print money and target inflation. Inflation erodes the real value of debt, i.e. it lowers the real value of debt over time, making it easier to pay back.
But inflation has tons of problems in of itself and massive amounts of debt no matter what are still hard to pay off. Germany just recently payed off the money it owed for ww1, haiti still hasn't payed off france(france charged them a ridicules sum for the cost of recognizing the haitians as a people after their rebellion) even healthy countries like canada and the us have debts going back decades (like the money owed from the cost of the education reform that took place after ww2) debt sucks even if the inflation rates are almost nill, another thing though is that given the vastness of a country like america their loans are going to be massive, so even if the interest rate is only 0.01 percent your still making a pretty big profit in terms of sheer money.
On January 22 2012 23:28 Manit0u wrote: This has nothing to do with Juwes or Judaism. It is true that there's just a few families who control most of the world's wealth. Most famous are of course Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans. They've founded (and de facto control) US Federal Reserve, WHO, World Bank and a couple of other institutions like that (I don't remember them all from the top of my head). All of them are also known to use their insider market knowledge to make immense profits on crisises (recession, recent world crisis etc.) and even deliberately causing them.
Last I checked Bernanke does not equal Rothschild, Rockefeller or Morgan.
It only matters who controls the chairman. Not who the chairman is. Besides, he's just one of 12 people in charge if I'm not mistaken.
On January 22 2012 23:28 Equity213 wrote: Oh boy. Global Banking conspiracy stuff....
Hey if you look on Metalopolis inbetween the 12 and 3 oclock base there is a building that has a sign on it that says FED with a freemason symbol over it, it reads "Global Elite Control". See, they are in your video games too!
Im not gunna play the antisemtic card either, thats retarded. I think the OP is silly, but if all you see in it "the jews did it" then you have issues too.
whats your point about this thread? i fail to understand. That the knowledge is useless and mind made fiction? I thought it was about facts and knowing whats up...
Ok I will rewrite my post for you, I made 3 points: 1- Look at that thing in Metalopolis, I think its funny and interesting. 2- The idea of a global banking conspiracy is retarded 3- I dont agree with the people callign the OP anti-semetic
On January 22 2012 23:28 Manit0u wrote: This has nothing to do with Juwes or Judaism. It is true that there's just a few families who control most of the world's wealth. Most famous are of course Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Morgans. They've founded (and de facto control) US Federal Reserve, WHO, World Bank and a couple of other institutions like that (I don't remember them all from the top of my head). All of them are also known to use their insider market knowledge to make immense profits on crisises (recession, recent world crisis etc.) and even deliberately causing them.
Last I checked Bernanke does not equal Rothschild, Rockefeller or Morgan.
It only matters who controls the chairman. Not who the chairman is.
And who controls the chairman? How do you know this exactly? Are you some kind of insider or is that just speculation? Its ALL speculation which is why this stuff is so unproductive. By the way the president appoints the chairman of the fed.
On January 22 2012 23:28 Equity213 wrote: Oh boy. Global Banking conspiracy stuff....
Hey if you look on Metalopolis inbetween the 12 and 3 oclock base there is a building that has a sign on it that says FED with a freemason symbol over it, it reads "Global Elite Control". See, they are in your video games too!
Im not gunna play the antisemtic card either, thats retarded. I think the OP is silly, but if all you see in it "the jews did it" then you have issues too.
whats your point about this thread? i fail to understand. That the knowledge is useless and mind made fiction? I thought it was about facts and knowing whats up...
2- The idea of a global banking conspiracy is retarded
Why?
@Equity123: When's the last time you've seen a US president without Rockefeller at his side?
The Rothschilds laid the Foundation for this pyramid scheme when they bought up the majority shares in the european banks and created "Federal Banks" with a monopoly on issuing loans to governments. This essentially means that every penny your government spends on Social security, Army, Welfare reforms or whatever, is a due to the privately owned Banks. The only way for a nation, person or company to create money is to borrow from the private banks. And how are we supposed to pay back our national debts if the only way to create considerable amounts of money is to borrow more? its like trying to dig yourself out of a pit. As a wise Author once wrote:
"The Wealth of the international banking class consists of the bankrupcy of Nations"
Governments get money by issuing bonds, not necessarily by borrowing from banks.
Governments pay back debt by insuring GDP growth, and in turn tax receipts, increases at a rate that covers the interest owed on the bonds they issue.
For the US, the interest rate is virtually zero, making the bonds (or debt) they are issuing now, very easy to pay back.
The central bank, while independent of the government, can also print money and target inflation. Inflation erodes the real value of debt, i.e. it lowers the real value of debt over time, making it easier to pay back.
But inflation has tons of problems in of itself and massive amounts of debt no matter what are still hard to pay off. Germany just recently payed off the money it owed for ww1, haiti still hasn't payed off france(france charged them a ridicules sum for the cost of recognizing the haitians as a people after their rebellion) even healthy countries like canada and the us have debts going back decades (like the money owed from the cost of the education reform that took place after ww2) debt sucks even if the inflation rates are almost nill, another thing though is that given the vastness of a country like america their loans are going to be massive, so even if the interest rate is only 0.01 percent your still making a pretty big profit in terms of sheer money.
Debt does not suck.
No debt means your not doing anything useful. It means the government has the capacity to do more (whether it's upgrading infrastructure, investing in research, giving away free cars to everyone, whatever), but does nothing instead.
Too much debt is of course bad, but the US is nowhere near that point.
On January 22 2012 23:28 Equity213 wrote: Oh boy. Global Banking conspiracy stuff....
Hey if you look on Metalopolis inbetween the 12 and 3 oclock base there is a building that has a sign on it that says FED with a freemason symbol over it, it reads "Global Elite Control". See, they are in your video games too!
Im not gunna play the antisemtic card either, thats retarded. I think the OP is silly, but if all you see in it "the jews did it" then you have issues too.
whats your point about this thread? i fail to understand. That the knowledge is useless and mind made fiction? I thought it was about facts and knowing whats up...
Ok I will rewrite my post for you, I made 3 points: 1- Look at that thing in Metalopolis, I think its funny and interesting. 2- The idea of a global banking conspiracy is retarded 3- I dont agree with the people callign the OP anti-semetic
clear enough?
The problem is, its not conspiracy. I always wondered why countries have debts.. just trade debts and almost all countries will be out of debts. Its not conspiracy by any means.Your only solution to solve this "conspiracy" is to mock it :D
While i agree its pretty funny i do say its quite important to stop being ignorant and behave as an adult in not letting goverments act stupidly with stupid laws.
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."
Since you ridicule the truth that this is false, does that mean you will then violently oppose it and after that it will become self-evident that this thread is false?
What are you even trying to say man? whats false about this thread? What false about the fact that the Rothschild family became incredibly wealthy and used their wealth to become even more wealthy at any cost? Whats false about the fact that a nations leader saw debt as a threat to his people and sought to rid them of it as best he could? Is it the ops background that you doubt? Do you think he's a 12 year old kid trying to stir up a common storm on the internet? All He's doing is reaffirming something that were all to a certain extent aware of and adding a bit more colour to it.
Look I know you've seen one too many of these threads and I'm not asking you too agree with him, just ask your self these three questions. Has op conveyed his opinion well? Is their an particular reason we shouldn't be discussing this topic on tl? Is there even the remote possibility that what he's suggesting (a capitalist society can be exploited if you control its wealth and this has in fact happened in the past) is true?
Thoose who say an internattional banking conspiracy is retarded realy dont know whats going on. I cant agree with everything the op writes, i have no clue about the rothshields or rockefellers and their influence. I do know though,by simply looking at facts wich are made public , that the banking industry somehow manages to get huge amounts of monney for free from the governments.
Like the last action, the 1% loan the central european bank gave to the banks in europe to combat the crisis. The banks wrote into this loan for a totall of ~ 600 trillion euro giving weak assets as collateral. The bank then immediatly lends all that monney out again for 3-4% by buying bonds and isueing mortgages. This is just a free 3% gift to the banks, and with a sum of 600 trillion this amounts to 18 trillion a year income the banks basicly get for free. There is NO risk, they are even allowed to use verry weak assests (wich have a value lower then then loan) as collateral.
The deal with greece, 60% haircut on the bonds voluntarely, does that not hurt the banks then? No that does not hurt the banks at all, since the banks get compensated for this (see the 600 trillion loan for 1% amongst other measures), it only hurts the private investors who are forced to go along with the banks and who dont get compensation.
On January 22 2012 23:55 Rassy wrote: Thoose who say an internattional banking conspiracy is retarded realy dont know whats going on. I cant agree with everything the op writes, i have no clue about the rothshields or rockefellers and their influence. I do know though,by simply looking at facts wich are made public , that the banking industry somehow manages to get huge amounts of monney for free from the governments.
Like the last action, the 1% loan the central european bank gave to the banks in europe to combat the crisis. The banks wrote into this loan for a totall of ~ 600 trillion euro giving weak assets as collateral. The bank then immediatly lends all that monney out again for 3-4% by buying bonds and isueing mortgages. This is just a free 3% gift to the banks, and with a sum of 600 trillion this amounts to 18 trillion a year income the banks basicly get for free. There is NO risk, they are even allowed to use verry weak assests (wich have a value lower then then loan) as collateral.
The deal with greece, 60% haircut on the bonds voluntarely, does that not hurt the banks then? No that does not hurt the banks at all, since the banks get compensated for this (see the 600 trillion loan for 1% amongst other measures), it only hurts the private investors who are forced to go along with the banks and who dont get compensation.
The ECB lent to banks to add liquidity to the eurozone and the fight to recession, i.e. to get people loaning money again.
The Rothschilds laid the Foundation for this pyramid scheme when they bought up the majority shares in the european banks and created "Federal Banks" with a monopoly on issuing loans to governments. This essentially means that every penny your government spends on Social security, Army, Welfare reforms or whatever, is a due to the privately owned Banks. The only way for a nation, person or company to create money is to borrow from the private banks. And how are we supposed to pay back our national debts if the only way to create considerable amounts of money is to borrow more? its like trying to dig yourself out of a pit. As a wise Author once wrote:
"The Wealth of the international banking class consists of the bankrupcy of Nations"
Governments get money by issuing bonds, not necessarily by borrowing from banks.
Governments pay back debt by insuring GDP growth, and in turn tax receipts, increases at a rate that covers the interest owed on the bonds they issue.
For the US, the interest rate is virtually zero, making the bonds (or debt) they are issuing now, very easy to pay back.
The central bank, while independent of the government, can also print money and target inflation. Inflation erodes the real value of debt, i.e. it lowers the real value of debt over time, making it easier to pay back.
But inflation has tons of problems in of itself and massive amounts of debt no matter what are still hard to pay off. Germany just recently payed off the money it owed for ww1, haiti still hasn't payed off france(france charged them a ridicules sum for the cost of recognizing the haitians as a people after their rebellion) even healthy countries like canada and the us have debts going back decades (like the money owed from the cost of the education reform that took place after ww2) debt sucks even if the inflation rates are almost nill, another thing though is that given the vastness of a country like america their loans are going to be massive, so even if the interest rate is only 0.01 percent your still making a pretty big profit in terms of sheer money.
Debt does not suck.
No debt means your not doing anything useful. It means the government has the capacity to do more (whether it's upgrading infrastructure, investing in research, giving away free cars to everyone, whatever), but does nothing instead.
Too much debt is of course bad, but the US is nowhere near that point.
Fair enough, I agree that we require some amount of sacrifice to begin new enterprises, as for the us's debt well... Its not exactly a paper weight (15 trillion) and its rising every second. So thats not great, and it doesn't change the notion that although the interest is nothing for the US, it is significant for an individual and it is definitely significant to those who are owed.
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...
On January 22 2012 23:55 Rassy wrote: Thoose who say an internattional banking conspiracy is retarded realy dont know whats going on. I cant agree with everything the op writes, i have no clue about the rothshields or rockefellers and their influence. I do know though,by simply looking at facts wich are made public , that the banking industry somehow manages to get huge amounts of monney for free from the governments.
Like the last action, the 1% loan the central european bank gave to the banks in europe to combat the crisis. The banks wrote into this loan for a totall of ~ 600 trillion euro giving weak assets as collateral. The bank then immediatly lends all that monney out again for 3-4% by buying bonds and isueing mortgages. This is just a free 3% gift to the banks, and with a sum of 600 trillion this amounts to 18 trillion a year income the banks basicly get for free. There is NO risk, they are even allowed to use verry weak assests (wich have a value lower then then loan) as collateral.
The deal with greece, 60% haircut on the bonds voluntarely, does that not hurt the banks then? No that does not hurt the banks at all, since the banks get compensated for this (see the 600 trillion loan for 1% amongst other measures), it only hurts the private investors who are forced to go along with the banks and who dont get compensation.
The ECB lend to banks to add liquidity to the eurozone and the fight to recession, i.e. to get people loaning money again.
Now your getting at what the spirit of the ops was all about, op just wanted to draw attention to the thing were already looking at, the fact of how greed breeds corruption and the overall weaknesses of capitalism. The family he was talking about was just a suitable proxy through which he could elaborate on his point. Still though If you just take the 5 seconds to google the afore mentioned family you'll find that ops not far off the mark in terms of how wealthy they are and how they earned that wealth.
The ECB lend to banks to add liquidity to the eurozone and the fight to recession, i.e. to get people loaning money again.
Yes i do know that, but lets look at this in a verry abstract way. Why is the bank (not the ecb, the commercial bank) needed as an intermediate at all???? Its just an intermediate who charges 3% extra in exchange for virtually no services.
Why cant the ecb act like a bank, lending directly to the public for say 2%? The public is better of, as they pay less intererst, and the bank is better of, as they now make 2% instead of the 1%
All the free profit the banks gets from this goes into bonusses for the top, the shareholders (retirement funds/the public) dont even profit from this! the whole system is so retarded
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...
There's not a single source because all the sources are shady websites or semi competent websites reporting the legendary interesting legend that the Rothschilds have "hundreds of trillions of dollars" which is such a ridiculous claim, it obscures whatever point he's trying to make. Plus, it's not the first time he makes a thread to talk about the "richest people in the world" and many people gobble it all up because he's a competent writer.
Yes there is corruption, but there's no coordinated force to do anything, the Rothschilds certainly have many billions of dollars but not 15 figures, and given that they do banking, they probably handle great sums of money that they don't own, but "controlling the world"? Come on - people buy that because they like to feel like they know something that others don't. Makes them feel special.
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.
Writing a thread like this is kind of a waste on the internet to be honest, but thanks for doing it nevertheless. This topic isn't new among economic historians, but it is a controversial theory indeed since it is very difficult to prove the true wealth of these families for the reason you've mentions. This isn't a topic about Antisemitism, for those of you too stupid to pass a reading comprehension test, it's about a well-known super-wealthy trader families and their influence on Europe's economy in the past., much of which is collaborated in real historical accounts(lending money for Napoleonic war, etc). Them being Jewish is utterly irrelevant.
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...
There's not a single source because all the sources are shady websites or semi competent websites reporting the legendary interesting legend that the Rothschilds have "hundreds of trillions of dollars" which is such a ridiculous claim, it obscures whatever point he's trying to make. Plus, it's not the first time he makes a thread to talk about the "richest people in the world" and many people gobble it all up because he's a competent writer.
Yes there is corruption, but there's no coordinated force to do anything,
Not that wikipedia is a valid source but 5 seconds of searching show the family to be pretty damm rich, also the way they became rich (by getting a good grasp on the way the market was tilting) isn't far off the mark either. There isn't any blatant conspiracy theory rambling either just the suggestion that capitalism can be and has been abused by those with wealth which is a very common and agreed upon notion. Also he's made one thread of a similar vane and you discredit him as a rambling conspiracy theorist? Look at his history for a few seconds hes just your everyday Starcraft lover theres absolutely no basis in using his past history to discard his opinion.
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...
There's not a single source because all the sources are shady websites or semi competent websites reporting the legendary interesting legend that the Rothschilds have "hundreds of trillions of dollars" which is such a ridiculous claim, it obscures whatever point he's trying to make. Plus, it's not the first time he makes a thread to talk about the "richest people in the world" and many people gobble it all up because he's a competent writer.
Yes there is corruption, but there's no coordinated force to do anything,
Not that wikipedia is a valid source but 5 seconds of searching show the family to be pretty damm rich, also the way they became rich (by getting a good grasp on the way the market was tilting) isn't far off the mark either. There isn't any blatant conspiracy theory rambling either just the suggestion that capitalism can be and has been abused by those with wealth which is a very common and agreed upon notion.
Anyone can put anything on wikipedia. You demonstrated that you know that. Some guy once brought up the 15 figures idea and because of that, you can quote it on wikipedia. Yes the family is very rich but think about it, 15 figures... I recall the way it was calculated is absurd as well.
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...
There's not a single source because all the sources are shady websites or semi competent websites reporting the legendary interesting legend that the Rothschilds have "hundreds of trillions of dollars" which is such a ridiculous claim, it obscures whatever point he's trying to make. Plus, it's not the first time he makes a thread to talk about the "richest people in the world" and many people gobble it all up because he's a competent writer.
Yes there is corruption, but there's no coordinated force to do anything,
Not that wikipedia is a valid source but 5 seconds of searching show the family to be pretty damm rich, also the way they became rich (by getting a good grasp on the way the market was tilting) isn't far off the mark either. There isn't any blatant conspiracy theory rambling either just the suggestion that capitalism can be and has been abused by those with wealth which is a very common and agreed upon notion.
Anyone can put anything on wikipedia. You demonstrated that you know that. Some guy once brought up the 15 figures idea and because of that, you can quote it on wikipedia. Yes the family is very rich but think about it, 15 figures... I recall the way it was calculated is absurd as well.
But your getting away from the point, he's just using the whole rich family thing as an example, he's not saying that the banks will swallow our world, just that capitalism is an abusive system, whats wrong with that?
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...
There's not a single source because all the sources are shady websites or semi competent websites reporting the legendary interesting legend that the Rothschilds have "hundreds of trillions of dollars" which is such a ridiculous claim, it obscures whatever point he's trying to make. Plus, it's not the first time he makes a thread to talk about the "richest people in the world" and many people gobble it all up because he's a competent writer.
Yes there is corruption, but there's no coordinated force to do anything,
Not that wikipedia is a valid source but 5 seconds of searching show the family to be pretty damm rich, also the way they became rich (by getting a good grasp on the way the market was tilting) isn't far off the mark either. There isn't any blatant conspiracy theory rambling either just the suggestion that capitalism can be and has been abused by those with wealth which is a very common and agreed upon notion.
Anyone can put anything on wikipedia. You demonstrated that you know that. Some guy once brought up the 15 figures idea and because of that, you can quote it on wikipedia. Yes the family is very rich but think about it, 15 figures... I recall the way it was calculated is absurd as well.
But your getting away from the point, he's just using the whole rich family thing as an example, he's not saying that the banks will swallow our world, just that capitalism is an abusive system, whats wrong with that?
Well here's the thing, the fact that capitalism is an abusive system is quite apparent and things need to be done to "fix it" so that it doesn't explode in every direction. That's true. It can be explained without laying it on thick with all kind of cute stories.
All he did was add some examples, many of which I'd like to see sources for - like the idea that a rich Jewish family lent money to Adolf Hitler and Japan during WW2 (among other seemingly shoddy claims). Now maybe it's true, but I figure it's just one of those unsourced urban legend that came out of some kinds of "hype" surrounding the interesting family.
Pls dont let this tread go into conspiracy and rotshield and what not, its only smoke screen and not needed at all
Just look at the facts and how the system works and you can see there is something wrong Why are the commercial banks allowed to profit in a huge way from our system of monney creation? This is an enormous amount of free monney a year I dont attack the system of monney creation btw! I do think its a good system to motivate the people, what i do attack is the way private banks are allowed to profit from this in a huge way, in exchange for virtually nothing (if it goes wrong they get bailed out annyway) Monney creation and banking should be nationalised
The OP forgot to point out that it takes money to make money. We lived in a system where there are more credits than there are of actual money to paid it off. The only real money are tangible assets.
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...
There's not a single source because all the sources are shady websites or semi competent websites reporting the legendary interesting legend that the Rothschilds have "hundreds of trillions of dollars" which is such a ridiculous claim, it obscures whatever point he's trying to make. Plus, it's not the first time he makes a thread to talk about the "richest people in the world" and many people gobble it all up because he's a competent writer.
Yes there is corruption, but there's no coordinated force to do anything,
Not that wikipedia is a valid source but 5 seconds of searching show the family to be pretty damm rich, also the way they became rich (by getting a good grasp on the way the market was tilting) isn't far off the mark either. There isn't any blatant conspiracy theory rambling either just the suggestion that capitalism can be and has been abused by those with wealth which is a very common and agreed upon notion.
Anyone can put anything on wikipedia. You demonstrated that you know that. Some guy once brought up the 15 figures idea and because of that, you can quote it on wikipedia. Yes the family is very rich but think about it, 15 figures... I recall the way it was calculated is absurd as well.
But your getting away from the point, he's just using the whole rich family thing as an example, he's not saying that the banks will swallow our world, just that capitalism is an abusive system, whats wrong with that?
Well here's the thing, the fact that capitalism is an abusive system is quite apparent and things need to be done to "fix it" so that it doesn't explode in every direction. That's true. It can be explained without laying it on thick with all kind of cute stories.
All he did was add some examples, many of which I'd like to see sources for - like the idea that a rich Jewish family lent money to Adolf Hitler and Japan during WW2 (among other seemingly shoddy claims). Now maybe it's true, but I figure it's just one of those unsourced urban legend that came out of some kind of "hype" surrounding the interesting family.
I agree with you he definitely could've used some sources because it is hard to swallow that there actually was a sort of Moriarty controlling the supply and demand of ww2. Im guessing he probably heard about this family in a lecture and thought it would be a good way to add some colour to the obvious and bland problems within a capitalist system. I cant really bring myself to fault him for that, but I do realize that not posting sources was asking for trouble. Although attacking his character for past threads was not a good way of emphasizing his mistake.
Thanks sc2holar for an interesting post. I'm not entirely sure about all of it, but it was interesting nonetheless.
I am wary of accepting a lot of it without some references etc, though I am sure there is some truth in it. After exams I think I'm going to look into this a bit more.
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.
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.
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?
On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote: 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?
It depends on what your definition of poverty is. If the gap between upper and lower class widens (notice how I didn't say rich and poor) the standard of living can still increase, and lower class wealth can also increase. So I don't think everyone will "run dry". As long as we continue to believe that this fiat currency has value, and that money continues to trickle down.
To answer your last question: I believe the answer is yes. Because resources eventually become scarce and more expensive. But in that situation the population will stop growing and may even begin to recede, but history has shown us that technology is capable of increasing crop yields and making energy more efficient. I just don't believe it will be in a "Doomsday Scenario" as many people believe. I think that can only happen if there is a communistic takeover of resources.
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
How will private banks get money?
Yes the answer is obv., from private lenders.
What do private lenders want? A good interest rate.
Banks that are corrupt and misues the lenders money isn't going to give out high interst rate, hence they will go bankrupt.
On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To your first question: I guess Central banks believe that they them being able to manipulate liquidiy (and thereby interest rates) makes it possible for them to avoid financial crises. Maybe the reason they were getting this allowance back in time was because of corruption. I dont really know, and dont care. What is relevant is whether the status quo is a good system from a financial perspective, and IMO its definitely now.
Artificial low interest rates creates malinvestments and hence financial crises.
To your second question:
Assuming growth in amount of people living at earth. Assuming growth in nominal income of shareholders of big corporations. Assuming constant amount of shareholders. Assuming constant money suply. Assuming that the value of purschasing power is equal.
Yes poor people will do worse. However the last assumptions is one i made up. Its not something you include in your own post. The reason why purchasing power actually increases is that production becomes more efficient, hence prices decreases. So no rich people can get richer and poor people can get richer as well at the same itme. Most often there is a high correlation between both (in a free market), as the rich only gets richer because they produce stuff the poor people need. Hence both are better of.
I've read a book recently that includet the rotschild family and i see taht most of the things said in the book are true if we say that all that you are saying is true.I'm really happy that youve made this post and uve said that your family had some close contacts with the big names in the EU history at that time so i can now make my conclusion on the information i had seen and read by the way name of the book was "Secret Societies and Their Power in The 20th Century" by Jan Van Helsing the book itself is really interesting but dont take everything that you redd as 100% true informaton but also dont say that everything is one big fat lie.
Thank you for your post again and sorry for my bad english and i just want to say how awesome the internet is in the way that it gains a free acsess to different "wells" of information to everyone whos smart enough to look for it.
On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To your first question: I guess Central banks believe that they them being able to manipulate liquidiy (and thereby interest rates) makes it possible for them to avoid financial crises. Maybe the reason they were getting this allowance back in time was because of corruption. I dont really know, and dont care. What is relevant is whether the status quo is a good system from a financial perspective, and IMO its definitely now.
Artificial low interest rates creates malinvestments and hence financial crises.
To your second question:
Assuming growth in amount of people living at earth. Assuming growth in nominal income of shareholders of big corporations. Assuming constant amount of shareholders. Assuming constant money suply. Assuming that the value of purschasing power is equal.
Yes poor people will do worse. However the last assumptions is one i made up. Its not something you include in your own post. The reason why purchasing power actually increases is that production becomes more efficient, hence prices decreases. So no rich people can get richer and poor people can get richer as well at the same itme. Most often there is a high correlation between both (in a free market), as the rich only gets richer because they produce stuff the poor people need. Hence both are better of.
I will be dealing primarily with your last paragraph.
The "growth in purchasing power" argument has been a mainstay in capitalist apologia since the early 20th century, but like most canned arguments is a strawman.
Socialist/Communist critics of capitalism object to income inequality only superficially as an indicator of the inequality of power relations that underlie human societies. The problem of the owner class, for socialists and classical anarchists, is that ownership of property with social consequences (lets say, a factory) carries not just economic but political advantage for the owner in question. In short, wealth cannot be compartmentalized as power in a particular domain, insofar as "power" is an abstract descriptor for phenomenon that give an individual influence over a larger-than-average sphere of social influence, wealth is simply another face of the same thing.
Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower the poor to gain access to decision-making.
A third point that it is constantly necessary to make is that "capitalism" does not equal "industrialization," which the entire "purchasing power" argument rests upon. Truly, thinkers coming out of the mercantile economic tradition were impressed that manufacturing processes could "create" wealth and in this sense industrialization processes were revolutionary for human economic thought, but "capitalism" is a socio-legal construct of assertions about property rights (many of which are laughably antiquated) and has nothing to do with the aforementioned revolution in economic understanding. All the classical socialists and anarchists envisaged a modern, mechanized society with factories and advanced technology - but were certainly hostile to "capitalism." Hijacking the legacy of industrialization to promote and maintain a broken and archaic system of resource distribution is both intellectually dishonest and pathetic.
To those do not understand how the topic is pertinent to capitalism, the topic extremely relevant to capitalism as it outlines two fundamental flaw of capitalism. Capitalism leads to concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and a lack of regards for the welfare of the general society. To those that are doubt the validity of the events outlined in the original post, even if it was not true, the concentration of wealth among few exemplified by the Rothschild family and the heartlessness exhibited by the banks in financing wars not only definitely exists in one form or other in capitalistic societies, it is, actually, quite common and will continue to be so as long as capitalism prevails.
Capitalism is based upon competition between maximizing individuals. In theory, the competition regulates the market and converts those selfish actions into socially beneficial ones. Since the market is ruthless competitive, the individuals must invest and accumulation more capital in order to stay in the game. Thus, each capitalist is driven to the constant accumulation of capital until it becomes inefficient to do so. This implies the growth of firms is an integral part of capitalism. The only thing that would stop firms from growing would be the diseconomies of scale, which is rather rare in the real world. The diseconomies of the scale do not appear beyond the factory level. As long as firm construct new factories to expand, there is no natural limit to their size.
Moreover, not only does competition drives firms to grow, it assists firms in the maintenance of their size. The economies of scale grants large firm an advantage over the smaller businesses. Unable to compete with the large firms, small business are either driven to bankruptcy or purchased by the large firm, further increasing the size of the large firms. With little limit to size and great incentive to expand, it is only natural that firms would grow to greater sizes, leading to concentration of capital (therefore, wealth) among a few. This would also necessarily imply more monopolies. Thus, one should not be shocked by the events outlined in the original post, as even if it was true, the concentration of capital among a few is only natural as long as capitalism exists. Let us suppose the events outlined were false, concentration of capital among a few certainly existed, exists, and will doubtlessly exist in the future with capitalism.
Nor should individuals be surprised by the callousness of the banks. A capitalistic society drives firms and businesses to maximize their profit. To do so require only minimization of cost on part of the businesses, thus businesses disregard the cost of the transaction imposed on parties external to the transaction. In fact, laws are created to prevent corporations from doing anything but representing the interest of the shareholder, to make profit. This often leads to socially destructive behaviours. In the example of banks, by financing the war and profiting through recession, the banks reap a profit without regard of the negative cost on everyone else. Since competition is ruthless, profit maximization is absolutely necessary, thus the disregard for other’s welfare is so as well.
As demonstrated above, capitalism to concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and a lack of regards for the welfare of the general society. Since majority of the individuals believe in equality (of returns or of opportunity) and (albeit not complete) altruism, capitalism is a system which operates contrary to most of its constituents’ belief system. For that reason, it is extremely unstable.
I wish the word "capitalism" was removed from this thread title. What the OP is describing is not capitalism, it is a perversion of capitalism.
Also, his claim that "politicians have no power" is laughable. The greatest transfers of wealth to the rich in modern society are done through corrupt politicians and political bribes.
Finally, this notion that our debt is simply the result of some Rothschild's loans is way off as well. Our massive public debt is the result of spending massive amounts of money that we never gathered in revenue, and promising wealth to entire generations without having a means of securing such wealth.
I have about 10 other points that I'd like to make, from his claim that banks profit from bankrupting nations, or that all money is simply debt... but I think I've already wasted enough time reading this nonsense.
"Many countries are still paying off interest on loans that are several hundred years old, and they keep growing."
It is because it is not worth paying off. I think the US still has debt to France from when they bought Louisiana. If you can invest the money someplace where you will have higher returns than the interest rate you do that.
On January 23 2012 03:13 Uldridge wrote: 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?
To your first question: I guess Central banks believe that they them being able to manipulate liquidiy (and thereby interest rates) makes it possible for them to avoid financial crises. Maybe the reason they were getting this allowance back in time was because of corruption. I dont really know, and dont care. What is relevant is whether the status quo is a good system from a financial perspective, and IMO its definitely now.
Artificial low interest rates creates malinvestments and hence financial crises.
To your second question:
Assuming growth in amount of people living at earth. Assuming growth in nominal income of shareholders of big corporations. Assuming constant amount of shareholders. Assuming constant money suply. Assuming that the value of purschasing power is equal.
Yes poor people will do worse. However the last assumptions is one i made up. Its not something you include in your own post. The reason why purchasing power actually increases is that production becomes more efficient, hence prices decreases. So no rich people can get richer and poor people can get richer as well at the same itme. Most often there is a high correlation between both (in a free market), as the rich only gets richer because they produce stuff the poor people need. Hence both are better of.
I will be dealing primarily with your last paragraph.
The "growth in purchasing power" argument has been a mainstay in capitalist apologia since the early 20th century, but like most canned arguments is a strawman.
Socialist/Communist critics of capitalism object to income inequality only superficially as an indicator of the inequality of power relations that underlie human societies. The problem of the owner class, for socialists and classical anarchists, is that ownership of property with social consequences (lets say, a factory) carries not just economic but political advantage for the owner in question. In short, wealth cannot be compartmentalized as power in a particular domain, insofar as "power" is an abstract descriptor for phenomenon that give an individual influence over a larger-than-average sphere of social influence, wealth is simply another face of the same thing.
Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower the poor to gain access to decision-making.
A third point that it is constantly necessary to make is that "capitalism" does not equal "industrialization," which the entire "purchasing power" argument rests upon. Truly, thinkers coming out of the mercantile economic tradition were impressed that manufacturing processes could "create" wealth and in this sense industrialization processes were revolutionary for human economic thought, but "capitalism" is a socio-legal construct of assertions about property rights (many of which are laughably antiquated) and has nothing to do with the aforementioned revolution in economic understanding. All the classical socialists and anarchists envisaged a modern, mechanized society with factories and advanced technology - but were certainly hostile to "capitalism." Hijacking the legacy of industrialization to promote and maintain a broken and archaic system of resource distribution is both intellectually dishonest and pathetic.
"Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower the poor to gain access to decision-making. "
Your talking about something completely else. An increase in wealth = You can buy more stuff (without increasing your leverage). Im not talking about wealth as a relative term or whether it makes him able to take more decisions, and neither I think is the guy who asked the question.
Your 3rd point isn't really relevant as well unless you want to create a compltely different discussion.
I'm not going to comment on the factual accuracy of this, I have no way of checking, but it was well written, and if accurate educational.
What I do wonder though is why people found this antisemetic, I can't see how it is at all, unless in a vague insinuationey way which is so open to interpretation you may as well call yourself an anti semite for jumping straight to it.
Did the OP edit out something I've missed, or are people just sensitive to the point of banal stupidity?
On January 23 2012 04:22 XeliN wrote: I'm not going to comment on the factual accuracy of this, I have no way of checking, but it was well written, and if accurate educational.
"Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower poor to gain access to decision-making. "
Your talking about something completely else. An increase in wealth = You can buy more stuff (without increasing your leverage). Im not talking about wealth as a relative term or whether it makes him able to take more decisions, and neither I think is the guy who asked the question.
Your 3rd point isn't really relevant as well unless you want to create a compltely different discussion.
His third point may not be really relevant. But I think the second point is extremely relevant. I know I didn't talk about wealth = power in that particular sense, but if I think about it.. Influence is where it is, how could someone who has a shitton of money, but nothing to show for it (so to speak) have any say in the capitalist system, other than being a consumer? I think the big problem with the system now is that it's biased. It depends on people who run things, and people have a tendency to be greedy and stack (whatever may the reason be) For me (again I'm just a layman) it feels like the competition to be the biggest monopoly doesn't concern the consumers anymore at the higher levels, it's just about howmuch profit a certain institution makes and to find ways how to increase that profit. This is a wrong basis since consumers are at the basis and in some way or another I think it should come back to this (why not ONE big warehouse chain where everything is offered instead of these 10000 million large to very large chains who compete for the biggest prices). Also, I feel in certain sections of the economy (like food) there is simply no need for competition. You need to provide food to the people, not try to gain a shitton of money through these means.. Couldn't an unbiased regulator (supercomputer(s)) be better? Where itself simply doesn't care about howmuch it makes, but just being interested in a system that flourishes?
"Moreover the power that wealth grants to an individual is inter-subjective, in the sense that the purchasing power of the poor relative to the rich is insignificant so long as a significant gap remains intact. An increase in purchasing power will increase the ability of the "poor" to consume, spurring on the overall system, but in terms of political and social control this phenomenon will not empower poor to gain access to decision-making. "
Your talking about something completely else. An increase in wealth = You can buy more stuff (without increasing your leverage). Im not talking about wealth as a relative term or whether it makes him able to take more decisions, and neither I think is the guy who asked the question.
Your 3rd point isn't really relevant as well unless you want to create a compltely different discussion.
His third point may not be really relevant. But I think the second point is extremely relevant. I know I didn't talk about wealth = power in that particular sense, but if I think about it.. Influence is where it is, how could someone who has a shitton of money, but nothing to show for it (so to speak) have any say in the capitalist system, other than being a consumer? I think the big problem with the system now is that it's biased. It depends on people who run things, and people have a tendency to be greedy and stack (whatever may the reason be) For me (again I'm just a layman) it feels like the competition to be the biggest monopoly doesn't concern the consumers anymore at the higher levels, it's just about howmuch profit a certain institution makes and to find ways how to increase that profit. This is a wrong basis since consumers are at the basis and in some way or another I think it should come back to this (why not ONE big warehouse chain where everything is offered instead of these 10000 million large to very large chains who compete for the biggest prices). Also, I feel in certain sections of the economy (like food) there is simply no need for competition. You need to provide food to the people, not try to gain a shitton of money through these means.. Couldn't an unbiased regulator (supercomputer(s)) be better? Where itself simply doesn't care about howmuch it makes, but just being interested in a system that flourishes?
Well if you define poverty as influence instead of being able to buy food, sleep in a home or whatever stuff that is nessarcary to getting your basic needs fulfilled, then sure a lot of people are poor today. But this is kinda of a political discussion, and typical one can never agree upon thos questions, as it just depends on what you kind of socierty you want. And this topic isn't really that related to op.
On January 22 2012 23:31 Robinsa wrote: Ok. I just want to state that I dont belive in this but isnt the whole idea that the president etc are all puppets to the system? Which also would explain why they dont act.
Anyway, I think this could be an interesting discussion if people that actually knew somthing about economics decided to post what they think instead of the "this is not a good thread" posters. The people that just are here to ruin the thread should stay away. Would be nice if admins could hand out some warnings.
On January 22 2012 23:26 ambient_orange wrote: great post but it brings a simple logical question.. why it was so hard for president to simply take a small army and take those bankers and hang them. I mean thats as simple as effective. Seriously i dont understand a more effective and legal way to deal with the money created from thin air.
great post but it brings a simple logical question.. why was it so hard for president to simply take a small army and kill all the jews? I voted for him and it would be so easy! Why won't he do it?!
Well if you define poverty as influence instead of being able to buy food, sleep in a home or whatever stuff that is nessarcary to getting your basic needs fulfilled, then sure a lot of people are poor today. But this is kinda of a political discussion, and typical one can never agree upon thos questions, as it just depends on what you kind of socierty you want. And this topic isn't really that related to op.
I'm sorry to have derailed the subject by a bit. But one last thing, I wouldn't define wealth (or poverty) as just influence, I don't even necessarily think it's that big of a factor. I would define it as something containing numerous variables, like how able one is to buy something; influence, happiness, relative social status etc can be viewed as wealth. Certain factors will contribute much more then others and certain factors are undeniably related to other factors, but to pin it down on one aspect is not correct. I agree this is a political, socio-economical subject and could (should) be discussed in another thread.
On January 23 2012 04:14 MagisterMan wrote: "Many countries are still paying off interest on loans that are several hundred years old, and they keep growing."
It is because it is not worth paying off. I think the US still has debt to France from when they bought Louisiana. If you can invest the money someplace where you will have higher returns than the interest rate you do that.
Well if it has a higher risk adjusted return. Return in it iself is a useless term. But I agree that the debt amount in it self isn't very usefull. However usually the DEBT/GDP ratio gives a good indication of solvency. Countries not having the capacity to reduce debt is going to face rising interest rates in a somewhat near future.
On January 23 2012 00:05 Rassy wrote: The ECB lend to banks to add liquidity to the eurozone and the fight to recession, i.e. to get people loaning money again.
Yes i do know that, but lets look at this in a verry abstract way. Why is the bank (not the ecb, the commercial bank) needed as an intermediate at all???? Its just an intermediate who charges 3% extra in exchange for virtually no services.
Why cant the ecb act like a bank, lending directly to the public for say 2%? The public is better of, as they pay less intererst, and the bank is better of, as they now make 2% instead of the 1%
All the free profit the banks gets from this goes into bonusses for the top, the shareholders (retirement funds/the public) dont even profit from this! the whole system is so retarded
Because the banks are making credit analys on their customers. Hence they need to be paid to do this. One however could argue that they aren't doing a very good job.... ^^
The OP is blatantly anti-semetic. The focus on the Rothchilds and his Jewishness, and the whole conspiratorial tone of the post is exactly how these sorts of stories work. Anyone who knows anything about the history of anti-semetism can see this from a mile away. I request that this be closed on those grounds.
It should be noted that the American Politicans and presidents fought, and died, to keep this banking system out of America. Andrew Jackson, one of the bravest presidents of all time, managed to abolish the (rothschild controlled) first bank of America. Here are a few Quotes by him:
This made me want to puke. You do know Andrew Jackson is wholly responsible for the hideous massacre of the Native Americans, right? The whole "Trail of Tears" thing was him. History does not look upon him fondly. At all. Quoting him (several times mind you) only makes my contempt and disgust of the OP ever clearer.
1) ppl complain about lack of sources. OP did give at least one source, the book he mentioned. either way, the OP claims to be a scholar and should be treated as such. it seems a lot of ppl here disagree, but the majority of them aren't very eloquent...
2) someone here asked what we can do about it, if we're not happy with the way things are today. my suggestion is: instead of aiming for continued growth, aim for plus-minus-zero.
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
How will private banks get money?
Yes the answer is obv., from private lenders.
What do private lenders want? A good interest rate.
Banks that are corrupt and misues the lenders money isn't going to give out high interst rate, hence they will go bankrupt.
people just don't understand how banks work ... just a brief thing to notice.
When a bank lends someoney money the borrower offers securities for that loan. Securities that are worth as much as the loan. That means that the banks balance sheet (what they have vs what they owe) just grew bigger equally on both sides just by offering that loan. The money for that loan came from nowhere ... thats the process when people claim that banks create money out of thin air. as side note : only then can you understand for example what a disaster it was for the banking system when all the houses that they had as securities in their balance sheets dropped so sharp in value in 07/08.
Only when the person who made that loan wants to withdraw the money from the bank does the bank need to get that money either by lending it from the central bank or some other source. But since most of the money is quickly put back into the banking system again they need just fractions of the money the can lend... with electronic payments they don't even need to do that anymore either. Banks just need a fraction of the money they lend...
thats also the way single banks where able to amass risks that are greater than the whole GDP of their country.
and i am also quite sure that this system is the foundation of the rules of our world. Money rules the world....
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
How will private banks get money?
Yes the answer is obv., from private lenders.
What do private lenders want? A good interest rate.
Banks that are corrupt and misues the lenders money isn't going to give out high interst rate, hence they will go bankrupt.
people just don't understand how banks work ... just a brief thing to notice.
When a bank lends someoney money the borrower offers securities for that loan. Securities that are worth as much as the loan. That means that the banks balance sheet (what they have vs what they owe) just grew bigger equally on both sides just by offering that loan. The money for that loan came from nowhere ... thats the process when people claim that banks create money out of thin air. as side note : only then can you understand for example what a disaster it was for the banking system when all the houses that they had as securities in their balance sheets dropped so sharp in value in 07/08.
Only when the person who made that loan wants to withdraw the money from the bank does the bank need to get that money either by lending it from the central bank or some other source. But since most of the money is quickly put back into the banking system again they need just fractions of the money the can lend... with electronic payments they don't even need to do that anymore either. Banks just need a fraction of the money they lend...
thats also the way single banks where able to amass risks that are greater than the whole GDP of their country.
and i am also quite sure that this system is the foundation of the rules of our world. Money rules the world....
Yeah I agree, but I dont think your comment was directed to me? I was just referring to how it would be if government/central banks got out of the financial market.
But what you just said is somewhat common knowldege. Fractionel reserve banking is taught in macroeconomics classes. It is seen as a way to put liquidity into the market. Central Bank them selves try to speed up the proces by basset some of the assets of the banks.
The main problem with fractionel reserve banking is that creates an excessive amount of credit which forces interest rate down. Low interest rates are not in it self a problem, but its a problem when savings are too low. Interest rate should always be determined by the suply of money (savings) and the demand for money. However if savings are too low, and itnerest rate are also low, alot of loans are going to be made, and a lot of malinvestments will be made by companies. Why? Because there isn't going to be any demand for the products made by these malinvestments. When companies are making these malinvestments they made the decision due to the fact that current growth measured in GDP is high and interest low, which means they think thank the economy is healthy. But its not healthy. Its only healthy if the future consumers have the money to buy these products, but they wont have as savings are too low.
The above is such an easy concept to understand, yet so people think they can magically avoid facing realities by spending their way out of problems, and manipulating interest rates. If history has taught us anything it is that governemnt cant determine any kind of prices better than the free markets.
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
How will private banks get money?
Yes the answer is obv., from private lenders.
What do private lenders want? A good interest rate.
Banks that are corrupt and misues the lenders money isn't going to give out high interst rate, hence they will go bankrupt.
people just don't understand how banks work ... just a brief thing to notice.
When a bank lends someoney money the borrower offers securities for that loan. Securities that are worth as much as the loan. That means that the banks balance sheet (what they have vs what they owe) just grew bigger equally on both sides just by offering that loan. The money for that loan came from nowhere ... thats the process when people claim that banks create money out of thin air. as side note : only then can you understand for example what a disaster it was for the banking system when all the houses that they had as securities in their balance sheets dropped so sharp in value in 07/08.
Only when the person who made that loan wants to withdraw the money from the bank does the bank need to get that money either by lending it from the central bank or some other source. But since most of the money is quickly put back into the banking system again they need just fractions of the money the can lend... with electronic payments they don't even need to do that anymore either. Banks just need a fraction of the money they lend...
thats also the way single banks where able to amass risks that are greater than the whole GDP of their country.
and i am also quite sure that this system is the foundation of the rules of our world. Money rules the world....
Yeah I agree, but I dont think your comment was directed to me? I was just referring to how it would be if government/central banks got out of the financial market.
But what you just said is somewhat common knowldege. Fractionel reserve banking is taught in macroeconomics classes. It is seen as a way to put liquidity into the market. Central Bank them selves try to speed up the proces by basset some of the assets of the banks.
The main problem with fractionel reserve banking is that creates an excessive amount of credit which forces interest rate down. Low interest rates are not in it self a problem, but its a problem when savings are too low. Interest rate should always be determined by the suply of money (savings) and the demand for money. However if savings are too low, and itnerest rate are also low, alot of loans are going to be made, and a lot of malinvestments will be made by companies. Why? Because there isn't going to be any demand for the products made by these malinvestments. When companies are making these malinvestments they made the decision due to the fact that current growth measured in GDP is high and interest low, which means they think thank the economy is healthy. But its not healthy. Its only healthy if the future consumers have the money to buy these products, but they wont have as savings are too low.
The above is such an easy concept to understand, yet so people think they can magically avoid facing realities by spending their way out of problems, and manipulating interest rates. If history has taught us anything it is that governemnt cant determine any kind of prices better than the free markets.
I really don't get the need to speculate on the whole situation, seriously no one has a CLUE about what's going on.
I have an uncle who is a General Manager at Banque Privee Edmont de Rothschild in Geneva and who has been involved in the firm for over two decades. I've had a countless amount of conversations on the subject with him, and I'd like to believe he's well informed.
Well guess what, he isn't, no one is, because the secrecy is unbelievable.
There are over 2000 Rothschilds today, and the only thing he was able to say for sure is that the Rothschilds themselves don't fully know how large the extent of their fortune is.
This whole myth is getting on my nerves, drop it, and please don't say retarded stuff like the Rothschilds helped Hitler in his quest for Europe, that's just taking it way too far.
Scholar or no scholar, go back to textbooks and don't try to assess things that aren't assessable.
Edit: I also want to add that the system we have in western countries today isn't capitalism, it's flawed capitalism, draw your conclusions accordingly.
On January 23 2012 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: The OP is blatantly anti-semetic. The focus on the Rothchilds and his Jewishness, and the whole conspiratorial tone of the post is exactly how these sorts of stories work. Anyone who knows anything about the history of anti-semetism can see this from a mile away. I request that this be closed on those grounds.
It should be noted that the American Politicans and presidents fought, and died, to keep this banking system out of America. Andrew Jackson, one of the bravest presidents of all time, managed to abolish the (rothschild controlled) first bank of America. Here are a few Quotes by him:
This made me want to puke. You do know Andrew Jackson is wholly responsible for the hideous massacre of the Native Americans, right? The whole "Trail of Tears" thing was him. History does not look upon him fondly. At all. Quoting him (several times mind you) only makes my contempt and disgust of the OP ever clearer.
The focus on the rothshilds has nothing with them being jewish ... wtf he barely even mentiones it ...
sometimes the anti conspiracy guys are just as paranoid as who they fight, i guess.
On January 23 2012 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: The OP is blatantly anti-semetic. The focus on the Rothchilds and his Jewishness, and the whole conspiratorial tone of the post is exactly how these sorts of stories work. Anyone who knows anything about the history of anti-semetism can see this from a mile away. I request that this be closed on those grounds.
It should be noted that the American Politicans and presidents fought, and died, to keep this banking system out of America. Andrew Jackson, one of the bravest presidents of all time, managed to abolish the (rothschild controlled) first bank of America. Here are a few Quotes by him:
This made me want to puke. You do know Andrew Jackson is wholly responsible for the hideous massacre of the Native Americans, right? The whole "Trail of Tears" thing was him. History does not look upon him fondly. At all. Quoting him (several times mind you) only makes my contempt and disgust of the OP ever clearer.
The focus on the rothshilds has nothing with them being jewish ... wtf he barely even mentiones it ...
sometimes the anti conspiracy guys are just as paranoid as who they fight, i guess.
This myth was the crux of the entire "jewish bankers run the world" nonesense.
You might not be a nazi if you dress up in an SS uniform but you shouldn't be suprised if people draw the conclusion.
On January 23 2012 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: The OP is blatantly anti-semetic. The focus on the Rothchilds and his Jewishness, and the whole conspiratorial tone of the post is exactly how these sorts of stories work. Anyone who knows anything about the history of anti-semetism can see this from a mile away. I request that this be closed on those grounds.
It should be noted that the American Politicans and presidents fought, and died, to keep this banking system out of America. Andrew Jackson, one of the bravest presidents of all time, managed to abolish the (rothschild controlled) first bank of America. Here are a few Quotes by him:
This made me want to puke. You do know Andrew Jackson is wholly responsible for the hideous massacre of the Native Americans, right? The whole "Trail of Tears" thing was him. History does not look upon him fondly. At all. Quoting him (several times mind you) only makes my contempt and disgust of the OP ever clearer.
The focus on the rothshilds has nothing with them being jewish ... wtf he barely even mentiones it ...
sometimes the anti conspiracy guys are just as paranoid as who they fight, i guess.
Have you read anti-semetic texts? Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing they say. Anti-semetism isn't just "All jews should die and they're greedy." It's typically about conspiracies and false claims of authority and exactly what the OP is talking about.
And actually he does remind you that rothschild is jewish several times if you read it.
So what, there are "good guy greg jews" and there are "scumbag steve jews". Its clear OP thinks the rothchilds are "scumbag steve jews". Dont be such a fucking drama queen.
The OP could have been presented in a much more useful manner. But some of the unnecessary flavor text aside, it is fundamentally correct.
There is a difference between conspiracy theories, and something which is very public, well documented and fairly obvious to anyone that takes an interest in the topic.
On January 23 2012 08:06 derpinator wrote: So what, there are "good guy greg jews" and there are "scumbag steve jews". Its clear OP thinks the rothchilds are "scumbag steve jews". Dont be such a fucking drama queen.
Quite frankly, I'll be whatever I like especially when the poster reveres someone as terrible as Andrew Jackson.
On January 23 2012 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: The OP is blatantly anti-semetic. The focus on the Rothchilds and his Jewishness, and the whole conspiratorial tone of the post is exactly how these sorts of stories work. Anyone who knows anything about the history of anti-semetism can see this from a mile away. I request that this be closed on those grounds.
It should be noted that the American Politicans and presidents fought, and died, to keep this banking system out of America. Andrew Jackson, one of the bravest presidents of all time, managed to abolish the (rothschild controlled) first bank of America. Here are a few Quotes by him:
This made me want to puke. You do know Andrew Jackson is wholly responsible for the hideous massacre of the Native Americans, right? The whole "Trail of Tears" thing was him. History does not look upon him fondly. At all. Quoting him (several times mind you) only makes my contempt and disgust of the OP ever clearer.
The focus on the rothshilds has nothing with them being jewish ... wtf he barely even mentiones it ...
sometimes the anti conspiracy guys are just as paranoid as who they fight, i guess.
Don't you know?
By mentioning the word "jew" and something someone has done wrong you basically become a holocaust supporter.
On January 23 2012 08:09 Talin wrote: The OP could have been presented in a much more useful manner. But some of the unnecessary flavor text aside, it is fundamentally correct.
There is a difference between conspiracy theories, and something which is very public, well documented and fairly obvious to anyone that takes an interest in the topic.
Talking about the Freemasons, which are well-known public organization, is different from talking about how they secretly control the world.
The latter is a conspriacy theory, even if it sits on a partly true foundation.
Do you see why this OP is like the latter and not the former?
On January 23 2012 05:51 DoubleReed wrote: The OP is blatantly anti-semetic. The focus on the Rothchilds and his Jewishness, and the whole conspiratorial tone of the post is exactly how these sorts of stories work. Anyone who knows anything about the history of anti-semetism can see this from a mile away. I request that this be closed on those grounds.
It should be noted that the American Politicans and presidents fought, and died, to keep this banking system out of America. Andrew Jackson, one of the bravest presidents of all time, managed to abolish the (rothschild controlled) first bank of America. Here are a few Quotes by him:
This made me want to puke. You do know Andrew Jackson is wholly responsible for the hideous massacre of the Native Americans, right? The whole "Trail of Tears" thing was him. History does not look upon him fondly. At all. Quoting him (several times mind you) only makes my contempt and disgust of the OP ever clearer.
The focus on the rothshilds has nothing with them being jewish ... wtf he barely even mentiones it ...
sometimes the anti conspiracy guys are just as paranoid as who they fight, i guess.
Don't you know?
By mentioning the word "jew" and something someone has done wrong you basically become a holocaust supporter.
When someone feels the need to point out someone is jewish, it gets rather obvious, rather fast.
"Obama, a black president, wants to give the US socialist healthcare"
He could have made his entire conspiracy rant without ever mentioning the jews, but for some reason he went out of his way to make sure that people knew they were jews.
Add that to the fact that he is buying into the whole myth that jewish bankers run the world, and you can make a decent guess from which angle he is coming.
On January 22 2012 23:30 Dark Templar wrote: Why is this reprehensible anti-semitic, communistic nonsense still up?
User was warned for this post
People like you make me ashamed Im human. GTFO
Guys, calm down. All op is doing is providing us with the facts, nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I find this very interesting
There are no facts in the OP. It's certainly an interesting read and something to think about, but I don't think that his compiled list of quotes and family anecdotes should be considered facts, at all. Parts might be true, parts might be false, it's impossible to tell - AKA not facts.
Personally, I think it sounds kind of like the plot of Sherlock Holmes 2.
On January 23 2012 07:36 Nqsty wrote: Wow another Rothschild thread ?
I really don't get the need to speculate on the whole situation, seriously no one has a CLUE about what's going on.
I have an uncle who is a General Manager at Banque Privee Edmont de Rothschild in Geneva and who has been involved in the firm for over two decades. I've had a countless amount of conversations on the subject with him, and I'd like to believe he's well informed.
Well guess what, he isn't, no one is, because the secrecy is unbelievable.
There are over 2000 Rothschilds today, and the only thing he was able to say for sure is that the Rothschilds themselves don't fully know how large the extent of their fortune is.
This whole myth is getting on my nerves, drop it, and please don't say retarded stuff like the Rothschilds helped Hitler in his quest for Europe, that's just taking it way too far.
Scholar or no scholar, go back to textbooks and don't try to assess things that aren't assessable.
Edit: I also want to add that the system we have in western countries today isn't capitalism, it's flawed capitalism, draw your conclusions accordingly.
This guy's got a point. If the Rothschilds are as powerful as they seem to be and malevolent to boot, then there is no point discussing it. They are too powerful to defy, we might as well be fighting a God. And merely discussing it might not be the best idea either if it ever does get major attention.
On January 23 2012 08:34 perser84 wrote: even if everything the op says is true
there is nothing that we can do about
Born into a world we didnt choose, and a system with the same rules as monopoly, However we can do something about it. we can do whatever we like. fuck there rules and norms, and fuck there laws. you where born free and as long as you respect your fellow humans, the earth and the animals you will be ok. For to long it has been said that we are small and have no power to change our destiny on this planet. But dont listen to the demons trying to conform you into a helpless passanger. Go out and be the change you wanna see in the world, you have one life and one experiance here on this wonderful planet, dont waste it by letting others controll your thoughts and your destiny. Your awakening and your actions is of virtue, our children and our species future depends on it. We CAN and we WILL stop the devilspiders and there controll-web.
May the truth that you seek, shine bright in the path that you follows and please stand tall everyone and stand up for what you feel is right. Dont rationalize to much and dont listen to others, inside your soul you have all the awnsers that you need, let your inner glow take fire and let the fire guide you as we retake the human spirit and move towards a future that is worth living.
people just don't understand how banks work ... just a brief thing to notice.
When a bank lends someoney money the borrower offers securities for that loan. Securities that are worth as much as the loan.
Are you serious? No off course not, the bank lends out tons of loans without anny sufficient collateral at all. Not every loan is a mortgage and even with mortgages people are often allowed to loan more then the collateral (the house) if their income is good enough This income isnt a real asset either, since its future income wich has still yet to be earned.
Will try explain the isue, and i will try to keep things simple. Our society is based on a system of monney creation, Monney is constantly added into circulation by various means This system in itself is a good system imo (though manny people wil disagree) since it forces people and monney to be active instead of passive Also because amount of trade and goods are always on the rise, more monney is needed in the system to prevent deflation (m*v=p*t) But this is not a discussion about the system, this is a discussion about the banks and why they indeed thieves (lol)
You would think that the creation of monney is something a state should regulate and control, and make profit from,since it influences everything and everyone. but this is not the case.
what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
Why are the commercial banks needed to create this monney and reap the huge rewards from it? Why is this not a state operation and why is the profit of this not going into the treasury? A few banks have gotten the privilige to create monney long ago and they still have this privilage, draining the economy for a few% a year
Btw i am not a socialist, i love capitalism, but monney creation and the control of it should belong to national states, not private commercial companys. Look what a mess they made past 10 years, And last year, GS had 16 BILLION in bonus payments lol, imagine it. 16 billion only in bonusses, not even salarys. you can give 16.000 people a 1 million dollar bonus,the bank maybe only has like 30k people working for them so you get an idea of how much monney they are pulling.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
On January 23 2012 09:31 Rassy wrote: what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
This is not how it works. At least not in the US (EU too if I'm not mistaken). And no the central bank is not owned by commercial banks in the USA. It's owned by the government... ALL profits flow to the US Treasury (over $70 billion in 2010/2011). http://crfb.org/chart/federal-reserve-remittances-treasury
Central banks create money by buying bonds with money that did not exist before. The new money then gets deposited at banks by the seller of the bonds. This money then gets lent out, as needed, into the economy. The process is reversed when central banks tighten.
It's not "free" money to the banks either any more than normal deposits are "free" money to the banks. You are correct that banks earn money on the spread between the interest rate they pay on deposits and they make on loans BUT you need to realize that the spread is not always positive - if a bank today lends money at 3.5% for a 30 year mortgage they earn a nice spread but if interest rates rise that spread can disappear or even go negative as the interest rate on the mortgage is fixed while the interest rate on deposits is not. Also, the bank has expenses that go along with the loans (including defaults) that further eat away at profits.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
Finance does add to the real economy.
Macro: Good financial markets like we have in the US lower the cost of capital for all businesses which allows them to expand as they are saddled with lower interest payments and investors demand smaller returns on their investments. It also allows for more efficient allocation of capital so US businesses expand to where it will have the biggest positive impact on the economy.
Ex. Apple invests in design, engineering and retail while leaving the near worthless job of final assembly to Chinese firms (Foxconn).
Micro: Finance also allows for the formation of businesses that would otherwise not exist. In countries with less sophisticated financial systems startup companies are often financed by family money, large existing corporations or just not at all. In the US, Venture Capital firms have allowed for the creation of countless startup firms that simply could not exist otherwise due to the conflicts of interest that arise from simpler forms of financing. This includes large numbers of small companies in biotechnology and other high-tech sciences that are formed by scientists and engineers that are in the top of their field and able to bring valuable new technologies to the economy.
I worked writing software in a number of banks in the UK, particularly over the recent financial crisis and the things that they would regularly get up to were so abusive it was ridiculous. One particular bank was taking large loans (Hundreds of millions of pounds) from the UK government which was supposed to be to stimulate the business sector, keeping small businesses afloat with lines of credit etc. However, what they did with the money instead was buy up UK government bonds instead, which effectively was lending the money back to the government at a decent rate of interest. They decided this was the best investment because it was essentially risk free.
So, they borrowed from us the people at 0%, lent the back at approximately 4%, and all took fat bonuses off the top, while helping no small businesses. The whole exercise was simply privatizing public wealth.
On January 23 2012 10:27 DR.Ham wrote: I worked writing software in a number of banks in the UK, particularly over the recent financial crisis and the things that they would regularly get up to were so abusive it was ridiculous. One particular bank was taking large loans (Hundreds of millions of pounds) from the UK government which was supposed to be to stimulate the business sector, keeping small businesses afloat with lines of credit etc. However, what they did with the money instead was buy up UK government bonds instead, which effectively was lending the money back to the government at a decent rate of interest. They decided this was the best investment because it was essentially risk free.
So, they borrowed from us the people at 0%, lent the back at approximately 4%, and all took fat bonuses off the top, while helping no small businesses. The whole exercise was simply privatizing public wealth.
Was the money lent to the banks by the government or the Bank of England?
If it's from the BOE than no money was take from the people and given to the banks. If this is the case then the government benefited from lower borrowing costs and society pays for it trough higher inflation - which primarily affects the wealthy.
There's really nothing the bank could have done that would have made people happy. If they lent the money to small businesses that went bankrupt (presumably why they didn't make the loans) then people would have complained that they took on excessive risk at the public's expense. By doing the opposite people complain the other way - took too little risk at the public's expense.
I made it to page 2 before finding something so ridiculous I couldn't not respond. My faith in humanity is dwindling.
On January 22 2012 23:55 Rassy wrote: Thoose who say an internattional banking conspiracy is retarded realy dont know whats going on. I cant agree with everything the op writes, i have no clue about the rothshields or rockefellers and their influence. I do know though,by simply looking at facts wich are made public , that the banking industry somehow manages to get huge amounts of monney for free from the governments.
Like the last action, the 1% loan the central european bank gave to the banks in europe to combat the crisis. The banks wrote into this loan for a totall of ~ 600 trillion euro giving weak assets as collateral. The bank then immediatly lends all that monney out again for 3-4% by buying bonds and isueing mortgages. This is just a free 3% gift to the banks, and with a sum of 600 trillion this amounts to 18 trillion a year income the banks basicly get for free. There is NO risk, they are even allowed to use verry weak assests (wich have a value lower then then loan) as collateral.
The deal with greece, 60% haircut on the bonds voluntarely, does that not hurt the banks then? No that does not hurt the banks at all, since the banks get compensated for this (see the 600 trillion loan for 1% amongst other measures), it only hurts the private investors who are forced to go along with the banks and who dont get compensation.
If by "trillion" you mean "billion", then at least the loan commitment was correct ($630Bn to be exact). I'd rather not spend a half our writing an essay that everyone just tl;dr's, so let's just focus on your answer to your own rhetorical question.
(1) Since this is a loan to banks, the value to the bank of getting a loan at 1% isn't $630Bn. Assuming projected rates for Aaa rated corporate bonds between 3.8% and 4.7% (Moody's 2012 projections, the "gift" you're talking about is worth ~$22Bn annually given a 4.5% yield compared to the actual 1% the banks are receiving. These are 36 month facilities. Bank gain: $22Bn per annum, or $66Bn net.
(2) According to BBC in Nov 2011, Greece has about $340Bn of debt outstanding. A 60% haircut is ~$204Bn. The actual haircut is likely to be a real loss of around 65-70%, but we'll give you the 60% for now. Bank loss: $204Bn
I'll let you do the quick arithmetic. Stop making absurd, unsubstantiated claims.
The world of finance is considerably more than the quantity of capital. Like my ex use to say "it's not what you have, it's how you use it". Sure, you can have shit tons of money, but if you don't use it productivly then that shit tons of money will soon be very close to 'no money'. I'm seriously sick of this Rockefeller, Rothschilds and Morgans shit. You conspiricy theorists just can't get enough of them...
On January 23 2012 09:31 Rassy wrote: what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
This is not how it works. At least not in the US (EU too if I'm not mistaken). And no the central bank is not owned by commercial banks in the USA. It's owned by the government... ALL profits flow to the US Treasury (over $70 billion in 2010/2011). http://crfb.org/chart/federal-reserve-remittances-treasury
Central banks create money by buying bonds with money that did not exist before. The new money then gets deposited at banks by the seller of the bonds. This money then gets lent out, as needed, into the economy. The process is reversed when central banks tighten.
It's not "free" money to the banks either any more than normal deposits are "free" money to the banks. You are correct that banks earn money on the spread between the interest rate they pay on deposits and they make on loans BUT you need to realize that the spread is not always positive - if a bank today lends money at 3.5% for a 30 year mortgage they earn a nice spread but if interest rates rise that spread can disappear or even go negative as the interest rate on the mortgage is fixed while the interest rate on deposits is not. Also, the bank has expenses that go along with the loans (including defaults) that further eat away at profits.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
Finance does add to the real economy.
Macro: Good financial markets like we have in the US lower the cost of capital for all businesses which allows them to expand as they are saddled with lower interest payments and investors demand smaller returns on their investments. It also allows for more efficient allocation of capital so US businesses expand to where it will have the biggest positive impact on the economy.
Ex. Apple invests in design, engineering and retail while leaving the near worthless job of final assembly to Chinese firms (Foxconn).
Micro: Finance also allows for the formation of businesses that would otherwise not exist. In countries with less sophisticated financial systems startup companies are often financed by family money, large existing corporations or just not at all. In the US, Venture Capital firms have allowed for the creation of countless startup firms that simply could not exist otherwise due to the conflicts of interest that arise from simpler forms of financing. This includes large numbers of small companies in biotechnology and other high-tech sciences that are formed by scientists and engineers that are in the top of their field and able to bring valuable new technologies to the economy.
On January 23 2012 09:31 Rassy wrote: what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
This is not how it works. At least not in the US (EU too if I'm not mistaken). And no the central bank is not owned by commercial banks in the USA. It's owned by the government... ALL profits flow to the US Treasury (over $70 billion in 2010/2011). http://crfb.org/chart/federal-reserve-remittances-treasury
Central banks create money by buying bonds with money that did not exist before. The new money then gets deposited at banks by the seller of the bonds. This money then gets lent out, as needed, into the economy. The process is reversed when central banks tighten.
It's not "free" money to the banks either any more than normal deposits are "free" money to the banks. You are correct that banks earn money on the spread between the interest rate they pay on deposits and they make on loans BUT you need to realize that the spread is not always positive - if a bank today lends money at 3.5% for a 30 year mortgage they earn a nice spread but if interest rates rise that spread can disappear or even go negative as the interest rate on the mortgage is fixed while the interest rate on deposits is not. Also, the bank has expenses that go along with the loans (including defaults) that further eat away at profits.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
Finance does add to the real economy.
Macro: Good financial markets like we have in the US lower the cost of capital for all businesses which allows them to expand as they are saddled with lower interest payments and investors demand smaller returns on their investments. It also allows for more efficient allocation of capital so US businesses expand to where it will have the biggest positive impact on the economy.
Ex. Apple invests in design, engineering and retail while leaving the near worthless job of final assembly to Chinese firms (Foxconn).
Micro: Finance also allows for the formation of businesses that would otherwise not exist. In countries with less sophisticated financial systems startup companies are often financed by family money, large existing corporations or just not at all. In the US, Venture Capital firms have allowed for the creation of countless startup firms that simply could not exist otherwise due to the conflicts of interest that arise from simpler forms of financing. This includes large numbers of small companies in biotechnology and other high-tech sciences that are formed by scientists and engineers that are in the top of their field and able to bring valuable new technologies to the economy.
This deserves a quote. A job well done, sir! :D
Efficient allocation of capital? Sure, if you invest in the conventional sense. But significant trading firms like DE Shaw and Jane Street will trade much more algorithmically/mathematically with astronomical hedging and unbelievably high amounts of day trading to maximize yearly returns (the roster of stocks such a company invests in changes significantly day by day, with no stock holding over 1% of the firm's money). This sounds a good deal less like efficient allocation than it is making sure the stockmarket is pricing things properly to the fraction of a cent (which of course, is also a value added service, but doesn't have quite the same ring to it).
And sure finance is necessary for the modern economy. But when big finance pulls shit like this, finance in its current incarnation seems to detract a lot of the value that it otherwise would have added to the system.
On January 23 2012 09:31 Rassy wrote: what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
This is not how it works. At least not in the US (EU too if I'm not mistaken). And no the central bank is not owned by commercial banks in the USA. It's owned by the government... ALL profits flow to the US Treasury (over $70 billion in 2010/2011). http://crfb.org/chart/federal-reserve-remittances-treasury
Central banks create money by buying bonds with money that did not exist before. The new money then gets deposited at banks by the seller of the bonds. This money then gets lent out, as needed, into the economy. The process is reversed when central banks tighten.
It's not "free" money to the banks either any more than normal deposits are "free" money to the banks. You are correct that banks earn money on the spread between the interest rate they pay on deposits and they make on loans BUT you need to realize that the spread is not always positive - if a bank today lends money at 3.5% for a 30 year mortgage they earn a nice spread but if interest rates rise that spread can disappear or even go negative as the interest rate on the mortgage is fixed while the interest rate on deposits is not. Also, the bank has expenses that go along with the loans (including defaults) that further eat away at profits.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
Finance does add to the real economy.
Macro: Good financial markets like we have in the US lower the cost of capital for all businesses which allows them to expand as they are saddled with lower interest payments and investors demand smaller returns on their investments. It also allows for more efficient allocation of capital so US businesses expand to where it will have the biggest positive impact on the economy.
Ex. Apple invests in design, engineering and retail while leaving the near worthless job of final assembly to Chinese firms (Foxconn).
Micro: Finance also allows for the formation of businesses that would otherwise not exist. In countries with less sophisticated financial systems startup companies are often financed by family money, large existing corporations or just not at all. In the US, Venture Capital firms have allowed for the creation of countless startup firms that simply could not exist otherwise due to the conflicts of interest that arise from simpler forms of financing. This includes large numbers of small companies in biotechnology and other high-tech sciences that are formed by scientists and engineers that are in the top of their field and able to bring valuable new technologies to the economy.
Your first part is mostly true, though i would like to add that the fact that banks can lend from the FED is free money. Its an option they would not have in a free market. Of course if the FED lend rate became too high and they could borrow cheaper elsewhere, thye would probably do it.
However, low cost of capital has little to with sound financial markets. Cost of capital = the return the capital lenders demand. Their decision is obv. based on risk and risk free interest rate. However interest rate can be low, even when there is no savings behind the interest rates. Also remember that bad expections to the future market index decreases cost of capital.
So while you may agree on the above you probably still think low cost of capital = sound financial markets as companies can get moeny easily. However thats actually the opposite way. When companies can get money easily, there is a risk of malinvestments going to happen. I mean if the company can borrow a shitton of money at no interest rates, and then makes a lot of investments, thinking future consumers are going to buy this, then they could very wlel be making a huge mistake. Because the future consumers didn't lend them the money. FED did. Not future consumers, and they do not have any money to buy future products becasue there weren't any savings.
So actually a sound economy is based on high production and high savings rate. Artifically low interest rate = Unsound eco.
And no, all these guys studying keynesian and monetaist theories in school has not added vlaue, but destroyed a shitton of value when trying to manipulate the free market, and hence created financial crises.
On January 23 2012 09:31 Rassy wrote: what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
This is not how it works. At least not in the US (EU too if I'm not mistaken). And no the central bank is not owned by commercial banks in the USA. It's owned by the government... ALL profits flow to the US Treasury (over $70 billion in 2010/2011). http://crfb.org/chart/federal-reserve-remittances-treasury
Central banks create money by buying bonds with money that did not exist before. The new money then gets deposited at banks by the seller of the bonds. This money then gets lent out, as needed, into the economy. The process is reversed when central banks tighten.
It's not "free" money to the banks either any more than normal deposits are "free" money to the banks. You are correct that banks earn money on the spread between the interest rate they pay on deposits and they make on loans BUT you need to realize that the spread is not always positive - if a bank today lends money at 3.5% for a 30 year mortgage they earn a nice spread but if interest rates rise that spread can disappear or even go negative as the interest rate on the mortgage is fixed while the interest rate on deposits is not. Also, the bank has expenses that go along with the loans (including defaults) that further eat away at profits.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
Finance does add to the real economy.
Macro: Good financial markets like we have in the US lower the cost of capital for all businesses which allows them to expand as they are saddled with lower interest payments and investors demand smaller returns on their investments. It also allows for more efficient allocation of capital so US businesses expand to where it will have the biggest positive impact on the economy.
Ex. Apple invests in design, engineering and retail while leaving the near worthless job of final assembly to Chinese firms (Foxconn).
Micro: Finance also allows for the formation of businesses that would otherwise not exist. In countries with less sophisticated financial systems startup companies are often financed by family money, large existing corporations or just not at all. In the US, Venture Capital firms have allowed for the creation of countless startup firms that simply could not exist otherwise due to the conflicts of interest that arise from simpler forms of financing. This includes large numbers of small companies in biotechnology and other high-tech sciences that are formed by scientists and engineers that are in the top of their field and able to bring valuable new technologies to the economy.
This deserves a quote. A job well done, sir! :D
Efficient allocation of capital? Sure, if you invest in the conventional sense. But significant trading firms like DE Shaw and Jane Street will trade much more algorithmically/mathematically with astronomical hedging and unbelievably high amounts of day trading to maximize yearly returns (the roster of stocks such a company invests in changes significantly day by day, with no stock holding over 1% of the firm's money). This sounds a good deal less like efficient allocation than it is making sure the stockmarket is pricing things properly to the fraction of a cent (which of course, is also a value added service, but doesn't have quite the same ring to it).
And sure finance is necessary for the modern economy. But when big finance pulls shit like this, finance in its current incarnation seems to detract a lot of the value that it otherwise would have added to the system.
Sorry, you're quite wrong. Just reread the introduction of the article posted by you, and ask yourself the question why GS wanted to (partly) get rid of the mortgage portfolio. What GS did is very sensible. I'm too lazy to explain, just figure it out youself.
On January 23 2012 09:31 Rassy wrote: what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
This is not how it works. At least not in the US (EU too if I'm not mistaken). And no the central bank is not owned by commercial banks in the USA. It's owned by the government... ALL profits flow to the US Treasury (over $70 billion in 2010/2011). http://crfb.org/chart/federal-reserve-remittances-treasury
Central banks create money by buying bonds with money that did not exist before. The new money then gets deposited at banks by the seller of the bonds. This money then gets lent out, as needed, into the economy. The process is reversed when central banks tighten.
It's not "free" money to the banks either any more than normal deposits are "free" money to the banks. You are correct that banks earn money on the spread between the interest rate they pay on deposits and they make on loans BUT you need to realize that the spread is not always positive - if a bank today lends money at 3.5% for a 30 year mortgage they earn a nice spread but if interest rates rise that spread can disappear or even go negative as the interest rate on the mortgage is fixed while the interest rate on deposits is not. Also, the bank has expenses that go along with the loans (including defaults) that further eat away at profits.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
Finance does add to the real economy.
Macro: Good financial markets like we have in the US lower the cost of capital for all businesses which allows them to expand as they are saddled with lower interest payments and investors demand smaller returns on their investments. It also allows for more efficient allocation of capital so US businesses expand to where it will have the biggest positive impact on the economy.
Ex. Apple invests in design, engineering and retail while leaving the near worthless job of final assembly to Chinese firms (Foxconn).
Micro: Finance also allows for the formation of businesses that would otherwise not exist. In countries with less sophisticated financial systems startup companies are often financed by family money, large existing corporations or just not at all. In the US, Venture Capital firms have allowed for the creation of countless startup firms that simply could not exist otherwise due to the conflicts of interest that arise from simpler forms of financing. This includes large numbers of small companies in biotechnology and other high-tech sciences that are formed by scientists and engineers that are in the top of their field and able to bring valuable new technologies to the economy.
This deserves a quote. A job well done, sir! :D
Efficient allocation of capital? Sure, if you invest in the conventional sense. But significant trading firms like DE Shaw and Jane Street will trade much more algorithmically/mathematically with astronomical hedging and unbelievably high amounts of day trading to maximize yearly returns (the roster of stocks such a company invests in changes significantly day by day, with no stock holding over 1% of the firm's money). This sounds a good deal less like efficient allocation than it is making sure the stockmarket is pricing things properly to the fraction of a cent (which of course, is also a value added service, but doesn't have quite the same ring to it).
And sure finance is necessary for the modern economy. But when big finance pulls shit like this, finance in its current incarnation seems to detract a lot of the value that it otherwise would have added to the system.
By and large the people buying those products from GS knew that GS thought mortgages were a bad investment and knew that GS was betting against them.
One person's trash is another person's treasure (depends on the price).
If more investors did the same analysis GS did we wouldn't have had as much excess in the housing market and the subsequent recession would have been less severe.
On January 23 2012 09:31 Rassy wrote: what we do now, to simplify it a bit is as follows: The central bank decides that there needs to be 1 trillion dollar extra in the system for whatever reason The central bank then lends 1 trillion dollars to commercial banks for 1% interest, the commercial banks then distribute this 1 trillion dollar into loans and bonds, for 3-4% interest. The central bank (wich is owned by the governments in europe, and by commercial banks in the usa..) profits 1% The commercial banks, who are basicly nothing more then an intermediate get 3% free (if they lend it out against 4%) The differerence is pure profit for the bank and an onvoluntary gift from the public
This is not how it works. At least not in the US (EU too if I'm not mistaken). And no the central bank is not owned by commercial banks in the USA. It's owned by the government... ALL profits flow to the US Treasury (over $70 billion in 2010/2011). http://crfb.org/chart/federal-reserve-remittances-treasury
Central banks create money by buying bonds with money that did not exist before. The new money then gets deposited at banks by the seller of the bonds. This money then gets lent out, as needed, into the economy. The process is reversed when central banks tighten.
It's not "free" money to the banks either any more than normal deposits are "free" money to the banks. You are correct that banks earn money on the spread between the interest rate they pay on deposits and they make on loans BUT you need to realize that the spread is not always positive - if a bank today lends money at 3.5% for a 30 year mortgage they earn a nice spread but if interest rates rise that spread can disappear or even go negative as the interest rate on the mortgage is fixed while the interest rate on deposits is not. Also, the bank has expenses that go along with the loans (including defaults) that further eat away at profits.
This is the reason why all smart kids now go study finance. Years ago, in the "good old times" lol the smart kids went go study engineering . Engineering realy adds value to the economy, all true wealth increases come from technological progress Its pretty easy to see that shuffling monney around does not add annything to the real economy. Capitalism is digging its own grave if they continue like this
sry for long post but this particular isue annoyes me alot.
Finance does add to the real economy.
Macro: Good financial markets like we have in the US lower the cost of capital for all businesses which allows them to expand as they are saddled with lower interest payments and investors demand smaller returns on their investments. It also allows for more efficient allocation of capital so US businesses expand to where it will have the biggest positive impact on the economy.
Ex. Apple invests in design, engineering and retail while leaving the near worthless job of final assembly to Chinese firms (Foxconn).
Micro: Finance also allows for the formation of businesses that would otherwise not exist. In countries with less sophisticated financial systems startup companies are often financed by family money, large existing corporations or just not at all. In the US, Venture Capital firms have allowed for the creation of countless startup firms that simply could not exist otherwise due to the conflicts of interest that arise from simpler forms of financing. This includes large numbers of small companies in biotechnology and other high-tech sciences that are formed by scientists and engineers that are in the top of their field and able to bring valuable new technologies to the economy.
Your first part is mostly true, though i would like to add that the fact that banks can lend from the FED is free money. Its an option they would not have in a free market. Of course if the FED lend rate became too high and they could borrow cheaper elsewhere, thye would probably do it.
However, low cost of capital has little to with sound financial markets. Cost of capital = the return the capital lenders demand. Their decision is obv. based on risk and risk free interest rate. However interest rate can be low, even when there is no savings behind the interest rates. Also remember that bad expections to the future market index decreases cost of capital.
So while you may agree on the above you probably still think low cost of capital = sound financial markets as companies can get moeny easily. However thats actually the opposite way. When companies can get money easily, there is a risk of malinvestments going to happen. I mean if the company can borrow a shitton of money at no interest rates, and then makes a lot of investments, thinking future consumers are going to buy this, then they could very wlel be making a huge mistake. Because the future consumers didn't lend them the money. FED did. Not future consumers, and they do not have any money to buy future products becasue there weren't any savings.
So actually a sound economy is based on high production and high savings rate. Artifically low interest rate = Unsound eco.
And no, all these guys studying keynesian and monetaist theories in school has not added vlaue, but destroyed a shitton of value when trying to manipulate the free market, and hence created financial crises.
Typically Fed policy runs in cycles. Currently the yield curve is positive so, yes, the banks can make money lending. This is done to stimulate the economy towards growth. Later in the cycle the Fed will tighten and the yield curve will invert - at which time it will be very bad to be a bank.
EPT![[image loading]](http://hell.oddwebsite.com/images/smiles/emot-tinfoil.gif)
sad to see the reactions of some people
the qoute is kinda useless
