Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Jolly- Joliver on 05/05/2011 12:56:29
-
If you feel this should be in just chat please do move it, it's social science, so you could put it in new theories.
OK the Mafia, essentially the Mafia, are a group of business men, they seek to do business in ways that those in power say people shouldn't.
There are of course different types of Mafia, with different values, looking at the Italian Mafia, you will notice expressions like "What's right is right" and "take your pinch like a man", these expressions show that the Mafia will except it when they are caught, and go to jail as they know that what they were doing was illegal and they do not want to fight the police as that would cause more problems.
"What's right is right" again show an ethics there are certain things that are right and others that are wrong, they see no problems with doing the business they do, but excepting that those in charge do not agree, they disagree and seek to make money.
So what happens well, eventually maybe the mafia take over, and replace those in power, and what happens is the things they considered to be OK to do become exceptable in society, and maybe some things the past elite let people do become prohibited.
And there you see a cycle, one group replaces another and the society changes slightly each time. Eventually tho, there will come a certain type that really doesn't have any ethics, but seeing the need to keep others down, they will pretend to have them.
What you end up with is an elite that are rather nasty but pretend to be the cream of society, and a Mafia that are the good guys- because they have a moral code.
and then looking at these things you might see five possible outcomes for the mafia, they take over, the are absorbed meaning they start doing business in a way those in charge agree with but stay out of power, they are destroyed by the elite, they destroy themselves, or they actually join with the elite.
Fighting the police is fighting those the police serve, and it is the elite that ultimately decide what is OK and what is not, the Mafia just disagree and trade in those areas.
But you could say an elite are a Mafia that lost their morals. And nothing is right, but being in charge.
Which could explain why Monarchy's generally stay quite civil places, Different Mafias that replace each other, have no fixed ethical standards, where as Monarchs generally try to be a worthy head of an aristocracy- and aristocracy means- the rule of the best.(part of the reason I have trouble seeing Britain as a Monarchy today)
Just to say that while there are different types of mafia, the real Italian Mafia of "The godfather" are not so bad as those in power might claim, and infact actually, are a police force, that looks after the neighbourhood, keeps drugs off the street, and protects the old ladies.
My take on Mafia Philosophy.
-
Moving on from that and looking at Big business and so extending on it, after all lets not forget that the mafia are essentially business men.
And the biggest of business' are corporations. Now should a corporation become too big, they will seek to prohibit, but not moral standards, they will or could seek to prohibit business competition. If a company takes over doing something and they could get bigger and bigger until they seek to do it all, and under that rule, ethics are not so important as stepping on toes.
To say that business as a ruler will not really care for any ethical issue, but will seek to run everything, and suppress those that attempt to trade in similar areas.
Some say "business is war" looking at that notion of trading, many avenues could be considered and even taken by the bigger fish to remove the smaller ones, from industrial espionage, corporate spying, buying of political influence in order to change laws which suppress smaller competitors.
Looking at the current ecconomic situation there is certainly an element of that.
-
Again feel free to move this to just chat or new theories,
What is a Goat? Well it depends there are a few, the animal or the sinner, but here I wish to talk about the Scapegoat, specifically a person who takes the blame for someone else generally willingly knowing that they are doing so.
OK so what is the Goats motivation? Well it's self interest, on the one hand as they could be taking the rap for money, on the other they could be doing it because not to, would mean it could be even worse for them, which of course is cowardice, they do not serve justice they prevent it willingly through fear. Of course some could see them as a Marty doing their boss a favour, yet it's the fear of their boss and other consequences should they refuse that really drives it. You could also see a Goat as a person that just excepts it, does not stand for themselves through fear again, easier to run than stand their ground, as it were.
The reason I write about this, is because Men do not need goats, as a man should really take responsibility for their actions, but in todays world should a person try, they will be gone from the society, an outcast, lose their job, or worse, therefore often men will look to either blame someone else, hide what they did or find a goat, simply because they are not allowed to make a mistake.
This reality, actually prevents boys becoming men, and keeps those upstairs in a position where they cannot ever make a mistake or admit to it, and are never allowed to take responsibility for what they have done, as a result they could end up thinking reponsibilty isnt important, and so never want to be responsible.
My point here is that, just as the Mafia will "Take their pinch like a man" then after prison be excepted back into the group, so too in some ways should higher society be more forgiving with those that do make mistakes, that allows for easier confession, for justice to be served, and for men to except the responsibility for what they have done, looking at nobility as an extreme example, as they often have or seek to have the highest of standards, justice is only served when all are at peace, now peace could mean the loss of title, but it could also mean that that does not have to happen, forgiveness and understanding being an important element.
Just as with Peter, continually falling down following Jesus, Peter shows that mistakes are at times expected to be made, but that doesn't ever mean he'll not be able to learn grow and start again a better person. Infact the falling often assists that process, I see a tragedy where people through fear, are just not allowed to grow.
The goat and society.
Just to say that society needs to have no goats, more men and a lot more understanding.
To quote the bible:-
Proverbs "Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy."
Hosea "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings" [:)]
Peace to you all.
-
As these two topics are on the same theme, they have been merged.
(BTW - Mafia is singular.)
-
As these two topics are on the same theme, they have been merged.
(BTW - Mafia is singular.)
I don't think they are one is about revolutions and shifts in the rulers etc, the other is about being a man and responsibility.
But as you wish, I hope that is not a move to lock them both at the same time, I have faith tho.
As for the mafia thing Mafias is more than one.
-
The "Mafia" is a criminal organisation. "Mafias" is plural i.e. several organisations. A "Mafioso" is a member of such an organisation.
I didn't find the grammar here confusing but it is in other places. Wiybit, you obviously have an interest here but I found it hard to know what point (or points) you are making. Are you saying that mafias are similar to forms of government that may have arisen from, perhaps, the same ignoble roots? You mention Monarchy, but in countries like the UK this is a really a very different form from in past times, being a "constitutional monarchy" and having no effective political power. If you look at various world governments, there are a wide variety of systems - Democracies, Dictatorships, Old fashioned Monarchies (tantamount to hereditory dictatorships) etc. They all have, to a varying degree, corruption, control by an elite and suppression of opposing forces. I like to think there has been some progress over the last few thousand years though!
I think the Mafias are self-developed, loosely hereditary, clans. In the same way as any elitist group, they endeavour to maintain their superiority, position and wealth. The fact that they have a code within which they work is simply a method of control utilised to maintain order within their organisation and to aid their positioning at the top. I don't really see much comparison between their specific methods (violence, bribery and dire threats) with those of (say) David Cameron, though you could draw comparisons to governments if you go back far enough in history. Common Law is supposed to apply to all, and to call the operations of (say) the Italian Mafias "businesses" is to give unwarranted respectability to activity which most people would find abhorrent.
This is not to say there is no corruption within democracies like the UK. There certainly is, but it is not significant when compared to the level to which it is taken in parts of Italy (also a democracy). These traditions go back a long way and are deeply embedded but they do need to be stamped out if we are to progress as nations ruled "for the people and by the people".
I do despair at the repetition of the successes of ruling elites, including the new "political class" in the UK of professional politicians. People need to be independently informed about policies and their consequences but I don't feel this is done at all well by the media. We tend to get the governments we deserve! There isn't really any true democracies and maybe there never can be, but I am glad I am at least able to criticise people without getting dumped in the sea with concrete wellies.
-
The "Mafia" is a criminal organisation. "Mafias" is plural i.e. several organisations. A "Mafioso" is a member of such an organisation.
I didn't find the grammar here confusing but it is in other places. Wiybit, you obviously have an interest here but I found it hard to know what point (or points) you are making. Are you saying that mafias are similar to forms of government that may have arisen from, perhaps, the same ignoble roots?
Well governments arise as administration for the king, that is where they begin, onto that there is then the council of nobles the two together become government it societies earlier stages.
Government admins for the rulers, sometime later nobles use governmental power to take power and expel the king, and you end up with emperors in a republic. Ofocurse this is all high up power play and things must be done to ensure that the people are contented. Oliver Cromwell did just what I suggested he used governmental power to take power from the king and install himself, the people are told they now have a republic, in truth it was a war of feudalism against capitalism, Cromwell represented and lead the business men of that time.
A new capitalist elite ruled, it was about power, nothing to do with giving the people the vote that is a simple lie to gain their support.
The merchant class was getting richer and richer, so the king taxed them, they just put up their prices it didn't work and came to head with the civil war. As I suggested a Mafia is a group of business men that seek to do business in a way that those in power disagree with, in this sense Cromwell lead a mafia against the king, and used a lie about democray to gain their support.
You mention Monarchy, but in countries like the UK this is a really a very different form from in past times, being a "constitutional monarchy" and having no effective political power.
Of course not as soon as they took the kings head, the new elite ruled, they brought Charles son back after Cromwell died but with conditions, and slowly over time the powers of the monarchy have been whittled down.
If you look at various world governments, there are a wide variety of systems - Democracies, Dictatorships, Old fashioned Monarchies (tantamount to hereditory dictatorships) etc. They all have, to a varying degree, corruption, control by an elite and suppression of opposing forces. I like to think there has been some progress over the last few thousand years though!
No, it's got worse, society works under illusions, just as people might think Britain is a democray really other parties decide the agenda today, Corporate have taken power the market.
I think the Mafias are self-developed, loosely hereditary, clans. In the same way as any elitist group, they endeavour to maintain their superiority, position and wealth. The fact that they have a code within which they work is simply a method of control utilised to maintain order within their organisation and to aid their positioning at the top.
No it's more than that it's cultural, I say to be a mafia they have to have a moral code, otherwise they are organised criminals that'll do anything, and all Mafias be they Jewish of Italian, Chinese have a code of ethics, it's not just about keeping order in the group, it is an expression of the things they believe in, the 'just wanna get rich criminals' that do not care about anything, are so different that they really should be defined differently.
I don't really see much comparison between their specific methods (violence, bribery and dire threats) with those of (say) David Cameron, though you could draw comparisons to governments if you go back far enough in history. Common Law is supposed to apply to all, and to call the operations of (say) the Italian Mafias "businesses" is to give unwarranted respectability to activity which most people would find abhorrent.
Again it is about ethics they do not see it that way, meaning should they be in power, many of those things could become a norm, the point I was trying to get at, different standards, relating to culture ect.
This is not to say there is no corruption within democracies like the UK. There certainly is, but it is not significant when compared to the level to which it is taken in parts of Italy (also a democracy). These traditions go back a long way and are deeply embedded but they do need to be stamped out if we are to progress as nations ruled "for the people and by the people".
Well the trouble is that we have never really defined what democracy actually is, that helps those in power ofcourse, but looking at it it means people rule, the rule of the people so I would suggest that as a scale democracy has many forms, from what we have- the people with simply the ability to vote for someone to the people actually running everything themselves more anarkistically.
So democracy goes from the people having little say to the people having all the say, in terms of democracy Britian is rather towards the low end, it's not in the middle that's for sure.
I do despair at the repetition of the successes of ruling elites, including the new "political class" in the UK of professional politicians.
Redirecting back to my earlier point the government admins for the rulers, if you wish to deny the existence of a ruling class go ahead but you would be deceiving yourself. Of course it is in their interest to keep certain realities as quiet as possible.
People need to be independently informed about policies and their consequences but I don't feel this is done at all well by the media.
It never will be until the power that be respect them.
We tend to get the governments we deserve! There isn't really any true democracies and maybe there never can be, but I am glad I am at least able to criticise people without getting dumped in the sea with concrete wellies.
[:)] depends who you critic, those in power have lots of goats don't you know. These are the rights they claim you have, they also claim you live in a democracy, think about it.
This again is a reason why the people should know who is in power, and also have ways and means by which they can check and be assured that the rights started that they have, they do have, so they can be sure they do. Any illusion in a society allows space for criminality.
-
Your idea about how ideas (perhaps more what Prof Dawkins calls "memes") develop based on social interactions and how these are converted into political structures is reasonable and I don't think anyone would argue this as a principle. Pointing at similarities between political institutions is also fair but it is also valid to point out the differences too. In putting forward a controversial view, it is also important to state known facts correctly.
An example would be your assumptions (stated as fact) about Oliver Cromwell's motivations for overthrowing the monarchy. Whilst taxation was an issue, it was that King Charles did not believe he had to listen to Parliamentary advice on such issues. It was nothing to do with Feudalism which, using any common definition, had more or less disappeared as a system nearly 200 years before this. The dispute with Charles was also driven by religious issues because it was felt Charles was drawing too near to Catholicism. This was probably the most potent driving force for Cromwell personally because of his concepts of Puritanism. Whilst Cromwell's revolution did change the balance of power away from the Monarchy, there was never any pretence of universal suffrage at that time. Whilst many would disagree with Cromwell and his methods, he was, I think, one of the more honest politicians of the time. You could argue he was manipulated by shadowy power brokers but this is not born out of any evidence. Certainly, the idea circumstances may lead to change, is, perhaps, a fundamental concept of social science. The trouble is that it is always easy to justify this after the event - like saying the time was right and this was bound to happen - but usually situations are much more complex and the ideas have little predictive value except in exceptional (and fairly obvious) circumstances.
Whilst you are right that Mafia organisations have rules it is perhaps a stretch to call these morals. I think you are taking moral relativism too far in this comparison. On this basis you can say that any code of ethics that naturally develops is equally valid. I don't think this is the case. Mafia codes are rather loose and diverse so it is hard to do a fair comparison. The Sicilian Mafia is based on self-interested clans based on large family relationships and allegiances. It is a concept that is a hangover from past times and does not (and cannot) sit well within a democratic society any more than witchcraft should survive within a technologically aware society. Such Mafias survive because their use of violence and bribery can be effective in some places and it takes time to eliminate them. They work against the law that is largely supported by the people - there are few outside these families and those benefitting from bribery that would say they should continue to exist. And in the world we live in, and that they live in also, I don't think anyone today would try to argue, from a position of belief, the moral righteousness of their actions.
You suggest that there is a "ruling class" in, for example, the UK and that democracy is a charade to maintain this ruling class. I think you need to elaborate on this as it sounds like the concept of a "star chamber" with men in smoke filled rooms (probably smoke-free now) deciding on the fate of the world. Whatever you think of politicians, they generally do not behave like that and have no mechanisms or motivation for doing so (at least in the UK). You could argue that they are manipulated in their beliefs (by the system) to take a line that maintains wealth and power in certain quarters, but it would be a stretch to say that this went beyond a few individuals with power that is limited to their term in office. It is more that politicians have to work within the limits of maintaining a continuity within a society so that change can only occur relatively slowly. That this maintains a status quo is undeniable but the alternative of revolutionary change is unpredictable and can be irreversable. Politicians that promote such views generally do not get voted in (in the UK). Certainly the status quo is also followed by the mainstream media and the education system so the desire to change radically rarely arises, but this is not a conspiracy.
Who are this "ruling class"? There may well still be too many people with inherited wealth but I don't see them as wielding the power. People like Rupert Murdoch have too much power (for self interest) I think, but I sense this is not what you mean. Large organisations have manipulated democratic systems by having significant and effective lobbying (this is especially true in the USA) but it can be argued that this is of benefit to the country (though personally I don't think this is the case). Please elaborate.
-
The "Mafia" is a criminal organisation. "Mafias" is plural i.e. several organisations. A "Mafioso" is a member of such an organisation.
I didn't find the grammar here confusing but it is in other places. Wiybit, you obviously have an interest here but I found it hard to know what point (or points) you are making. Are you saying that mafias are similar to forms of government that may have arisen from, perhaps, the same ignoble roots?
Well governments arise as administration for the king, that is where they begin, onto that there is then the council of nobles the two together become government it societies earlier stages.
Government admins for the rulers, sometime later nobles use governmental power to take power and expel the king, and you end up with emperors in a republic. Ofocurse this is all high up power play and things must be done to ensure that the people are contented. Oliver Cromwell did just what I suggested he used governmental power to take power from the king and install himself, the people are told they now have a republic, in truth it was a war of feudalism against capitalism, Cromwell represented and lead the business men of that time.
A new capitalist elite ruled, it was about power, nothing to do with giving the people the vote that is a simple lie to gain their support.
The merchant class was getting richer and richer, so the king taxed them, they just put up their prices it didn't work and came to head with the civil war. As I suggested a Mafia is a group of business men that seek to do business in a way that those in power disagree with, in this sense Cromwell lead a mafia against the king, and used a lie about democray to gain their support.
You know what I just realised Graham, it is highly possible that the reason why the English went against Catholicism is because that stops any king becoming too powerful doesn't it.
You Cromwell lead a mafia against the king with some feudal lords, after Cromwell's death the feudal lords brought back the king so they could keep their titles, stopping the King becoming Catholic prevented the king becoming too power against the new rulers of the country, the elite in the background, infact it was when the British king went Catholic that they kicked him out and invite William of orange to come over.
A Catholic King would have had a lot more assistence against the powers that be in the country, and could have used that to take over again, all about a new elite using what they can to make slaves of kings.
Interesting history isnt it.
-
You are rewriting history, Wiybit. Calling the English Cromwellian revolutionaries a Mafia is completely wrong, in my opinion. This difference far outweighs any similarities. Henry viii split from the catholic church because he wanted a divorce. He later took more power from the Catholic church (The Reformation) and commenced the "Dissolution" of the many monastries. This was not wholly unpopular even if done for selfish motives. Later the Catholic church was feared for its political power and influences and, in particular, its close association with enemies of England and its sowing of discontent in Scotland and its potential for creating unrest and revolution in England.
-
You are rewriting history, Wiybit.
No I was taking a re-look at it.
Calling the English Cromwellian revolutionaries a Mafia is completely wrong, in my opinion.
Not in mine, they were business men that sort to trade in a manner the king didn't like, rather looose but it does sit with in the general idea I gave of Mafia.
-
Mafia codes are rather loose and diverse so it is hard to do a fair comparison. The Sicilian Mafia is based on self-interested clans based on large family relationships and allegiances. It is a concept that is a hangover from past times and does not (and cannot) sit well within a democratic society any more than witchcraft should survive within a technologically aware society.
Well it interesting you say that, why do you except the corporations in a democratic society? They seek to trade however they want to, with no restrictions on behaviour at all, if people die from pollution from their factories, they deny it, seek to cover it up and pay no compensation at all, and we have plenty of examples from history of that. They seek to trade as they want to, with no over sight or regulation at all! That is not Mafia style? No, as I said the mafia have morals.
-
You can make analogies (democratic societies and Mafias) but that is not being the same.
Do you mean "accept" or "except"? In any case I do not agree that corporation should be exempt from lawful control and, indeed, they are not. It is also not the case that all corporation behave immorally or just in their own self interest if it was detrimental to people. As a company director I can tell you that I would not go along with such a view and that also that directors can be held personally responsible. I do agree that this can be a problem and certainly requires vigilant scrutiny and maintained legislation. It has also been too easy for some company directors to organise a company to maximise their own personal reward; unfortunately the power of shareholders is often too hands-off and too weak (because they are not organised) to change this.
-
You can make analogies (democratic societies and Mafias) but that is not being the same.
Do you mean "accept" or "except"? In any case I do not agree that corporation should be exempt from lawful control and, indeed, they are not.
Oh really? what lawful controls? They are too big too fail? They are a law un-to-themselves. Not one banker has been prosecuted for the colapse of 2008, you know why? Because they got rid of all the regulation and made crime legal, of the laws they did break, they are seeking to rewrite them, so they are not prosecutable.
To quote Max keiser "How much you want to look the other way, 2 million, 10 million, they'll just pay them off as usual" It's a loose quote but it end with him saying "They're all finacial terrorists! and should be in Prison!"
It is also not the case that all corporation behave immorally or just in their own self interest if it was detrimental to people. As a company director I can tell you that I would not go along with such a view and that also that directors can be held personally responsible.
Yet they should be, they are at the helm, if a middle manger off their own back does something, well that's different, but, even so as the person at the helm, it should be made clear to middle managers that acting in such a manner is un exceptable. It always goes to the top eventually.
I do agree that this can be a problem and certainly requires vigilant scrutiny and maintained legislation.
The corporations are seeking the removal of all regulation, they want a free for all. under this false idea that free market means no rules, when the free market can only function with rules.
It has also been too easy for some company directors to organise a company to maximise their own personal reward; unfortunately the power of shareholders is often too hands-off and too weak (because they are not organised) to change this.
That should change also.
-
Most corporations are not "too big to fail". The banking situation was a rare exception which was arrived at through a lack of regulation of an area very much tied in with a country's economy. What do you want to do? Nationalise all businesses and have a controlled economy like the former Soviet Union or like China is gradually dismantling? Where I agree is that it is not viable to have a complete free market economy - it has to be regulated and it can be a problem to set the controls at the right level. Generally it needs a light hand on the tiller, but there dose need to be some steering.
Whilst I would completely join in with complaining about the appalling way some Banks have continued to obscenely reward their senior executives, despite being bailed out by vast amounts of taxpayers' money, it is not difficult to see how mutual competition led to banks taking (what is now obvious) unreasonable risks. 20-20 hindsight is a remarkable gift that most of us have, but very few saw the problems in advance. In fact any bank who did not go down this risky route some years ago would have been left behind and probably been taken over by a bigger, and more aggressive bank. It is also now clear that many people in these organisations only had a loose concept about how derivatives actually work, which is astounding.
The UK made the decision that it was better to prevent the banks failing, the USA (which has a more free market approach) chose to allow matters to take their course, hence the collapse of major banks and a considerable loss to many shareholders and pension funds.
There are lots of things that should change but it is usually not so easy to see exactly in what way - there are usually downsides.
-
Most corporations are not "too big to fail".
Sorry it's to important to fail [:)] well Bear Stern did, but you are missing the point that non should be either too big or too important to fail, the idea should be vulgar and offensive to a free market thinker, or person that believes in it.
The banking situation was a rare exception which was arrived at through a lack of regulation of an area very much tied in with a country's economy. What do you want to do?
The regulations were there before they removed them, Regan started it, then Bush continued it so did Clinton and Bush jr also. and after those regs were removed they still broke the ones that were still present, fractional holding for example, under the fractional reserve system they are meant to keep back part of the money they receive on deposit they don't. But with the sub prime it was worse by far, they gave moragages knowing the people couldn't afford them, they then pretended they were AAA by putting lots of different one together and just getting a rating on the AAA, they then sold them on as AAA, they then bet with people that they would fail- Who will bet on a sub prime morgage not failing? No one,
The people betting thought they were AAA, "Oh you have AAA morgages and want to bet they will fail? I'll take that bet, Hey Harry he thinks these AAA morgages will all fail what a fool"
Please begin to see how much they conned everyone, and then when it all goes to bad, we the people pay them? we bail them out? Are you insane? They all should have failed and better smaller banks taken over, BUT NOOO THEIR TOO IMPORTANT TO FAIL.
Even worse the money the governments gave them went to paying the bets off, Goldman Sachs put all the money they were given straight into profits, then when it is suggested that as the governments have bailed them out the people should have a say about how they are run, the banks say "Oh you can have the money back, we didn't need it really"
Mervin king "It is shocking that the people are not more angry about what has happened"
Nationalise all businesses and have a controlled economy like the former Soviet Union or like China is gradually dismantling?
Is being dismantled you mean.
Where I agree is that it is not viable to have a complete free market economy - it has to be regulated and it can be a problem to set the controls at the right level.
Oh am I to understand you think a free market has no rules, not the case, a free market can only exist with rules against cartels, monopolies, insider trading, fraud you cannot have a free market with out regulations, the systems is a game no rules no game- just a joke.
Generally it needs a light hand on the tiller, but there dose need to be some steering.
That's fear talking. Oligarchy do not want to risk so will use any excuse to keep control. The rules maintain the system or should.
Whilst I would completely join in with complaining about the appalling way some Banks have continued to obscenely reward their senior executives, despite being bailed out by vast amounts of taxpayers' money, it is not difficult to see how mutual competition led to banks taking (what is now obvious) unreasonable risks.
They didn't risk they exploited the ignorant, they risked nothing really all they did was keep on going way past the time they should have stopped, "too much of a good thing" as the saying goes, they didn't risk really, they have made a killing over the last few years, and used much of the bailout money to buy smaller banks.
The panic was more about scaring the politicians into bailing them out.
20-20 hindsight is a remarkable gift that most of us have, but very few saw the problems in advance.
Not true they knew what they were doing would come to a head at some point and played it top their advantage.
In fact any bank who did not go down this risky route some years ago would have been left behind and probably been taken over by a bigger, and more aggressive bank. It is also now clear that many people in these organisations only had a loose concept about how derivatives actually work, which is astounding.
and probably false, they know how to use them to make money, to suddenly calm they did not know what they were doing is a way to get out of jail free- not guilty I didn't know, lying children.
The UK made the decision that it was better to prevent the banks failing, the USA (which has a more free market approach) chose to allow matters to take their course, hence the collapse of major banks and a considerable loss to many shareholders and pension funds.
Not true, only bear Stern was allowed to fail. Others were taken public, meaning all the bad debt the people got burdened with.
There are lots of things that should change but it is usually not so easy to see exactly in what way - there are usually downsides.
Sorry but that free for all criminal joke, has so many problems with it, no one has the guts to stand up to them, any politician tries and again as Max Keiser would say "They threaten to crash the system or cause a false alarm till the politicians are looking the other way and forget"
-
You have lots of complaints but few solutions, Wiybit. You did not really suggest what should have been done regarding the banking crisis apart from saying, as the man said when asked for directions, "well if I was you, I wouldn't start from here".
It's alright to shout about the bankers but the general public were happy to get a good deal when things were going well and would switch banks to get a better one. This is called competition! Any bank that behaved too cautiously when others were raking in the cash was ultimately taken over. It's a problem of the free market. On the other hand, fully controlled economies don't work either. It needs a "degree" of control and judgement, and where and how to apply it is not trivial. And it is always easy to find someone who said "I told you so" afterwards. Even if they are telling the truth there is a statistical likelyhood that someone would have got it right but it doesn't always follow that this fortune will continue. Whatever you may think of Gordon Brown (the concensus is not a lot, I think), he and Mervyn King would have taken measures to prevent the banking crisis had they saw it coming. It is amazing how many people now think it was all obvious.
-
You have lots of complaints but few solutions, Wiybit. You did not really suggest what should have been done regarding the banking crisis apart from saying, as the man said when asked for directions, "well if I was you, I wouldn't start from here".
There are lots of solutions, but the politicians are doing the bidding of the bankers. As I said before the idea of too big to fail or too important to fail is completely unfree market.
It's alright to shout about the bankers but the general public were happy to get a good deal when things were going well and would switch banks to get a better one. This is called competition!
Which is less today, many of the banks used the bailout money to buy up smaller banks, Lloyd's- TSB has become one of the biggest banks ever, monoplies rules should have prevented that, but the politicians just agreed, bullied and scared into it and agreed.
You believe in competition then in no way should they have been bailed out, new banks would have started up, smaller banks would have bought up the assets worth something, the politicians did completely the wrong thing simply to protect their friends, or maybe owners is a better word.
Any bank that behaved too cautiously when others were raking in the cash was ultimately taken over.
The sound banks have been destroyed by the criminal ones, now they are all, intelligent isn't it.
It's a problem of the free market.
No it's a problem of regulators and politicians being lackeys, to business.
On the other hand, fully controlled economies don't work either.
Who is taking about controlled economies- did you miss my point about regulation.
It needs a "degree" of control and judgement, and where and how to apply it is not trivial.
Agree, but allowing self regulation is simply putting the fox incharge of the hen house, government should regulate and enforce those rules in the interest of everyone, to stop monoplies and so protect smaller business, to protect investors from being defrauded, to protect the overall economy from people that will crash it because they just wanna exploit people and make as much money as possible doing so. Enforcing the rules is not big government, it's just enforcing the needed rules so the free market functions- and doesn't go as it has- fascist.
We need once again some trust busters, and all these too big too fail companies broken up.
Which will create jobs and start the process of gaining ground again and recovery, the problems is those at the top do not want to lose what they have and are using their political clout to get protection.
And it is always easy to find someone who said "I told you so" afterwards.
Well when this happens, I'll say I told you so, the euro is going break as banks and investors are playing with different countries bonds and seeking to force them into default, just to make a buck to cover their trillions in losses. The banks have learnt nothing, all they have learnt is just how much influence they have today.
Even if they are telling the truth there is a statistical likelyhood that someone would have got it right but it doesn't always follow that this fortune will continue. Whatever you may think of Gordon Brown (the concensus is not a lot, I think), he and Mervyn King would have taken measures to prevent the banking crisis had they saw it coming.
Please, Gorden brown, gave independence to the bank of England, weakening the democratic power of government over the market, and then took away their role as regulator and gave it to wet behind the ears newbies(whoever it's given to they'll be new at it-it's a new job isn't it), Gordon Brown is full of it. And those decisions by him made the situation worse!
And no the banks involved in all this dodgy business knew it would come to head at some point, be sure they prepared for that.
It is amazing how many people now think it was all obvious.
I remember reading an article in the independent front page around Feb 2007 about how the world economy was about to crash to pieces, over a year and a half later it happened. The banks new what they were doing, we the people did not but some people saw it be sure!
-
It is amazing how many people now think it was all obvious.
It was obvious to this geezer that something was horribly awry when the value of our fancy house in California doubled in less two years! I told Mrs G to start packing.
As the Ancient Italians had it, CARPE DIEM
-
It seems that we agree that there should be regulation. I think where we differ is that you think it should have been obvious that there was going to be a banking crisis so that measures should have been taken to prevent it, where I think that this was not so easy to foresee (except for wily Scotsmen like Geezer). I agree that giving independence to the Bank of England to make decisions was not a good idea, but then I don't think that any government has any real capability to make any better decisions. It was a surprising decision for a Labour government to make.
There was a big change in the nature of banking (at least in the UK) from the 1970s. Banking was a very conservative (small c) business where no risks were taken. It was also quite non-centralised with branch managers in charge of their own budgets for lending to local businesses. This changed considerably with a number of mergers and a high degree of centralisation. Many building societies converted to banks and their shareholders (mostly ordinary investors) profited, though not as much as the directors. This was the go-get-rich Thatcher era. The banks all moved in the same way in this regard. It was not a good thing in my opinion, but once this sort of dynamic is in place, there is no room for non-conformists.
It is also true that there is a majority of people on the boards of the banks, and many other companies, whose prime concern is making money for themselves. Shareholders have very little power and customers even less. There is some incentive to keep the gravy train rolling, however. Whilst these companies were doing well and seemingly successful there was no need to change. On the inside there developed a culture of risk taking and this was felt by the individuals concerned to be necessary for the bank, and therefore themselves, to maximise profits. It became the norm for money from savings accounts to be used to invest in areas which were high risk. This would not have happened 30 years earlier. Whilst there was an expanding economy, this worked fine. But like the crash in 1926 and the East India Company, few saw it coming. Not the Bank of England nor the Federal Reserve. Any who had concerns would be swept aside because getting off the train too early could leave them left behind and uncompetitive.
A failure of a bank is not just damaging to its management and shareholders, but also to its many savers. It also can have damaging consequences to future trust in institutions where such trust is necessary. The consequences of letting banks fail is far reaching. To what extent this was something that Bank directors relied on, I don't know, but it is not an assumption I would make. It galls everyone that these same people are raking in huge bonuses still but there is no mechanism to control this in the banks that received no bail out (like Barclays for example). There have been limited measures in the other banks and these are, arguably, insufficient because there is fear that key staff will leave. Changing the culture could take a long time and I doubt that there is a willingness to take the risk of damaging the net wealth creating capability of the City of London. There is a classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem here: controlling the banks only works properly on an international scale.
-
It seems that we agree that there should be regulation. I think where we differ is that you think it should have been obvious that there was going to be a banking crisis so that measures should have been taken to prevent it, where I think that this was not so easy to foresee (except for wily Scotsmen like Geezer). I agree that giving independence to the Bank of England to make decisions was not a good idea, but then I don't think that any government has any real capability to make any better decisions.
Not the case as people outside the system, they should be able to think in unbiased ways, and look at what is beneficial to the whole market, with all included, the big fish that are calling the shots, are just acting in their own interest- they always will, self regulation does not work.
It was a surprising decision for a Labour government to make.
They were not a labour government, not new labour it's blue labour, Look at brown he reduced taxes on the richest, gave more of the peoples power to the market, and increased taxes on the poorest scraped the 10p tax rate and changed them all 20. Not Labour at all, they do what business says, business rules today, the market rules.
There was a big change in the nature of banking (at least in the UK) from the 1970s.
Thather and Regan, they eliminated alot of the old rules and gave a free hand to business, as well as many pf the democratic powers that government had, they didn't even consult the people, they just gave them away, under this false idea of restricting power.
Banking was a very conservative (small c) business where no risks were taken. It was also quite non-centralised with branch managers in charge of their own budgets for lending to local businesses.
A time when the banker actually sort to take care of their clients, today they seek to steal from them, sell them things they cannot afford, charge them for things they should not, like withdrawing money from a cash machine, they are going to start charging people for the reserve holding they are meant to keep under the regs, understand that as good practice they should hold back an amount of money but rather than do that they are intending to charge people, "you want us to protect your money better(this is their job in the first place) then we are going to charge you, even tho really it's in the banks interest to keep that money, they are just finding any excuse they can to charge people, to make more money and rip you all off.
This changed considerably with a number of mergers and a high degree of centralisation.
Which would all have been illegal before, as it's antitrust, anti-free market, anti-compertician.
Many building societies converted to banks and their shareholders (mostly ordinary investors) profited, though not as much as the directors. This was the go-get-rich Thatcher era. The banks all moved in the same way in this regard. It was not a good thing in my opinion, but once this sort of dynamic is in place, there is no room for non-conformists.
You are either a insider trader crook or you get gone, not exceptable.
It is also true that there is a majority of people on the boards of the banks, and many other companies, whose prime concern is making money for themselves.
You'll find many of the directors sit on the bourds of other companies also, www.theyrule.net check it out.
Shareholders have very little power and customers even less. There is some incentive to keep the gravy train rolling, however. Whilst these companies were doing well and seemingly successful there was no need to change. On the inside there developed a culture of risk taking and this was felt by the individuals concerned to be necessary for the bank, and therefore themselves, to maximise profits.
It's more than just risk taking, giving someone a morgage you know they cannot pay, then selling it on to someone else, then betting on it failing, while all the while pretending it is a AAA, is seeking to deceive, to cheat people, to con them, far more than just risk taking, completely criminal, You're the fool, right, if you buy the junk.
It became the norm for money from savings accounts to be used to invest in areas which were high risk. This would not have happened 30 years earlier. Whilst there was an expanding economy, this worked fine.
This is a good point, 30 years ago it would not have happened, those running the banks today are used to their huge profits, and will not except going back, ergo a bigger crash is going to come. We either break these banks up and get better ones started, or the system is going to smash in the extreme. All the people that work in these banks know how to steal and lie and cheat, that's the job they have been doing for the last 15 years or longer, the culture hasn't really changed. You're all mugs, ripe for the picking.
But like the crash in 1926 and the East India Company, few saw it coming. Not the Bank of England nor the Federal Reserve. Any who had concerns would be swept aside because getting off the train too early could leave them left behind and uncompetitive.
It's interesting you reference this crash, not many know of it, it happened 2-3 years before 1929, and the government did the right things and after a year everthing was back to as it was before more or less, then with the crash of 29 they did everything differently, and the rest is history.
A failure of a bank is not just damaging to its management and shareholders, but also to its many savers. It also can have damaging consequences to future trust in institutions where such trust is necessary.
The banks do not have that attitude, the culture is completely perverted.
The consequences of letting banks fail is far reaching.
No does not have to be, it is more so today thanks to the reality that they are operating in many different countries, but that should be prohibited and their size limited, so they are not too big to fail, precisely because of that they should not be allowed to become that big, its' not too late, they will say that, but no, we can change it, their interest is themselves at the expense of the free market system, if it is not addressed another nightmare will be coming, and possibly a worse one than happened in 2008.
To what extent this was something that Bank directors relied on, I don't know, but it is not an assumption I would make. It galls everyone that these same people are raking in huge bonuses still but there is no mechanism to control this in the banks that received no bail out (like Barclays for example). There have been limited measures in the other banks and these are, arguably, insufficient because there is fear that key staff will leave. Changing the culture could take a long time and I doubt that there is a willingness to take the risk of damaging the net wealth creating capability of the City of London. There is a classic "prisoner's dilemma" problem here: controlling the banks only works properly on an international scale.
NEVER! They can stick the idea of ruling the planet and that is what they want, to control every country get every government doing their bidding. Too big too fail needs to end!
you put in place some joke of an international system, theyll ignore the rules as always, and get even more powerful. the national democratic governments of each country should set should set the standards expected within their bourders, no too big to fail bunkem, Business men are not fit to rule!
The Banks should have little say in the regs also, they always seek to twist them.
As BC said we live in a plutocracy, capital-ism, the banks make the capital they own it actaully, we do not use money as money has an intrinsic value, we use currency, credits valued by tax-debt, in value set off in the future when your tax pays the bonds off. We the people give the currency it's value, but the private banks print the stuff, they own it and can cancel it, true the bank of England was taken public, but Brown gave it independence. Even worse the
banks are seeking electronic money, "space credits".
I feel all money should be printed by, a nationally own bank, and backed by something, that can be gold or silver, or anything. If you back a currency by enought things it becomes very hard to inflate it, one pound will get you at a bank enchnge a pound of rice, an amount of gold or silver, an amount of leather.
The reason why with all the printing they are doing, that the currency is not inflating much is because it has no real value, it's value is relatively all in the mind, they can print print print, the value wont change really, it's all off in the future when the tax bill comes.
If you are wondering where the inflation is actually comming from it's from that money not really lossing it's value, fighting over the limited resourses, people are putting all that printed money into Gold and gold sky rockets, if they keep it in the bank they'll be no inflation at all.
So when you see prices rise, know it is becasue some rich person after being even money from the quantative easing(and it those with the greatest political banking connections that get it- the oligarchy) is buying up resoruses leaving less available so the price goes up, the inflations you are seeing are all contrived, if you have enought of the money the banks print- you can cause any comodity to increase in price. This system is a joke!
I thought I would come back and bold that paragraph
-
So understand when you see mass inflation, know it's because the oligarchy has decided to pour all their money into all the comodities they can.
-
So understand when you see mass inflation, know it's because the oligarchy has decided to pour all their money into all the comodities they can.
The oligarchy will never forgive me for this little nugget, but I think they should be more concerned about God forgiving them.
The whole system is a joke people always has been.
I think america should keep the dollar and pay their debts! But should you see Gold explode in price, know the dollar is about to die. What you recokon? 10,000 dollars an ounce? maybe more?
Are they pot commited? are they crying?
Oh and for anyone looking to invest in gold or silver make sure you get a caste settle agreement, otherwise they can pay you in dollars and not silver or gold, the banks are over selling to deflate the price. You if you dont get a caste settle agreement then they'll be no silver or gold actually backing the certificates.
What I mean for people that do not understand, is that to keep gold and silver low the banks are selling gold and silver they do not have, they are buying lots themselves then over over selling it, JP Morgan for example has sold about a 100 times the amount they actually have. This keeps the price down.
So if you do not have a caste settle agreement they'll pay you in dollars.
-
Shall we have a song to celebrate?
Jesse J, Price tag.
-
Interesting about JPMorgan acquiring gold against loans to its owners. They claim it is a "service" in storing gold (people see it as a hedge against a falling dollar) but critics say they may be reselling it in exchange for gold price derivatives. This is where I lose touch with reality. I can see that they may have some maths worked out so that they can't lose but I can also see that not everyone can win. Actually, I don't know that anyone outside really knows what they are doing. The rumours all come from a limited range of sources. I think the concern is that if the dollar crashes and JPM have not actually got the gold, then JPM crashes and the people lose their gold too. It has certainly been the case that national banks like JPM (you can think that JPM is linked with the federal reserve) or the Bank of England don't actually keep gold to cover the money in circulation anymore. The promise that they "will pay the bearer ..." on your used tenner has long ceased to be a reality.
I would be grateful of a clear explanation of what anyone thinks is going on (allbeit a theory) and also for an explanation from JPM's perspective.
By the way, can you get higher order derivatives? Like betting on the rate of change of price of a derivative, or even betting on the rate of change of the rate of change?
-
Interesting about JPMorgan acquiring gold against loans to its owners. They claim it is a "service" in storing gold (people see it as a hedge against a falling dollar) but critics say they may be reselling it in exchange for gold price derivatives. This is where I lose touch with reality. I can see that they may have some maths worked out so that they can't lose but I can also see that not everyone can win. Actually, I don't know that anyone outside really knows what they are doing.
I think lots of people get what the banks are doing but keep it quiet as it's in the interest to do so. I say lots, but lots of those upstairs.
What do you think? Here you go, they are working to crash the dollar, we all know that, but are trying to keep it up and crash it when it is in their best interest to do so, this is part of the reason why the banks are overselling gold and silver, it keeps their price down, Now when the dollar breaks, it will become a worthless currency, and all this Gold and silver they have sold without caste sell agreements will be paid in dollars, and at that time after the crash the dollar will be worthless, so the bankers are buying gold, selling certificates they know will become worthless, they get the gold and the people get shafted, but keeping the price down they allow more time to unload their trillions in losses and they are unloading them to the people, as we the people are expected to pay many of these bad loans off today, through the tax and austerity measures, government is reducing spending, so it can pay off these loans and bad debts that the banks have given them.
So they are preparing for a huge crash, to bust the dollar, take a new currency, get as much gold as possible, and inflate the rest of their debts away. More or less, and it will happen as they dictate, The oligarchy of course.
You need to see just how much debt they generated, it's in the trillions of trillions, they give some to as many countrues as they can, others they are trying to unwind, others they seek to play with bonds and using the money made pay them off, and after all that, they will inflate away the rest as they burn the dollar.
In the words of Max Keiser and I agree with him "We need to do what ever we can to end this banker occupation" As in being occupied by.
The rumours all come from a limited range of sources. I think the concern is that if the dollar crashes and JPM have not actually got the gold, then JPM crashes and the people lose their gold too. It has certainly been the case that national banks like JPM (you can think that JPM is linked with the federal reserve) or the Bank of England don't actually keep gold to cover the money in circulation anymore. The promise that they "will pay the bearer ..." on your used tenner has long ceased to be a reality.
I would be grateful of a clear explanation of what anyone thinks is going on (allbeit a theory) and also for an explanation from JPM's perspective.
It's not Gold but silver, JPM is mainly trading in or was, thanks to buy silver crash JPM campaign, they have moved more into gold, but as a slight explanation, JPM is a member of the silver users association they are in bed together for what ever reason, the SUA use silver in their products, so they want a low silver price, JPM is helping them get one. all the over selling is keeping the price low, but it's not just JPM other members of the SUA are doing the same.
If a market is rational it's broken, as someone is deciding and dictating, so it's no longer free, it's controlled. But who doesn't know that anyway, only fools and horses.
To use a quote from JFK the film "First we had Castro with us then we tried to wack him, it's all mutual interest" It's called a cartel, and all the banks are in it together.
By the way, can you get higher order derivatives? Like betting on the rate of change of price of a derivative, or even betting on the rate of change of the rate of change?
Do not encourage them, are you insane?!
-
The rumours all come from a limited range of sources. I think the concern is that if the dollar crashes and JPM have not actually got the gold, then JPM crashes and the people lose their gold too. It has certainly been the case that national banks like JPM (you can think that JPM is linked with the federal reserve) or the Bank of England don't actually keep gold to cover the money in circulation anymore. The promise that they "will pay the bearer ..." on your used tenner has long ceased to be a reality.
I would be grateful of a clear explanation of what anyone thinks is going on (allbeit a theory) and also for an explanation from JPM's perspective.
It's not Gold but silver, JPM is mainly trading in or was, thanks to buy silver crash JPM campaign, they have moved more into gold, but as a slight explanation, JPM is a member of the silver users association they are in bed together for what ever reason, the SUA use silver in their products, so they want a low silver price, JPM is helping them get one. all the over selling is keeping the price low, but it's not just JPM other members of the SUA are doing the same.
If a market is rational it's broken, as someone is deciding and dictating, so it's no longer free, it's controlled. But who doesn't know that anyway, only fools and horses.
To use a quote from JFK the film "First we had Castro with us then we tried to wack him, it's all mutual interest" It's called a cartel, and all the banks are in it together.
Just so we are clear, banks used to compete for customers, and over service quality etc Today they work together, and rather than competeing seek to just rip as many people off as they can, mutual interest, they also work together to set the rules they want and together bully all the governments they can. A Cartel.
Doesnt help either that many of these bankers are all Templars, cultists. Following the grand historic tradition of the templars, it was their extorion and banking racketeering that lead to them becomming so wealthy and the church turning on them way back on friday the 13th all those years ago. They fled to Scotland and then a few years later invented the Free Masons as a respectable frount.
Was also them that forced John to sign a certain piece of paper I think you'll find, Ofcourse I express an opinion. Very interesting Cult history actually.
I personally think Cult members should not be allowed into government, you can't stop them entering business, but they all serve their interests and conspire.
Church of John some call them. John the Baptist, God is gracious, they don't really except Jesus. That's the thing about cults they end up believing all kinds of rediculas stuff, they I believe see John the baptist as superior to Jesus as the Baptist, baptised Christ. Again this is going back to the time of the templars, when they as knights worked for the church but gained their own faith, over time be sure it's just got more radical.
-
By the way, can you get higher order derivatives? Like betting on the rate of change of price of a derivative, or even betting on the rate of change of the rate of change?
Interesting idea Graham. You'd have to move PDQ to cash in your gain before the higher order derivative went negative [;D]
-
The trouble is most of the web comments is based on Max Keiser. I have not heard JPM's side of the story. While I can believe that there are such machinations, even to the extent of crashing the dollar, and even, maybe, that the Federal Reserve is in on it, but tying this in to the Knights Templar is really a bridge too far. Geezer must be involved too. A Scot, living in the US and who sold his house in California just at the right time... spooky.
Free Masonry is a hangover and certainly a mutual backscratching organisation (in my opinion). I know a couple of Freemasons and I knew someone (a scotsman and not a mason and sadly deceased) who held a very senior position in a Scottish Bank (now part of Barclays). None of these people are or were up to anything untoward. Very decent guys in fact. I used to wind up one of the masons because he was a lord high stag (or some such thing) and he didn't agree with me that the masons were just a mutual backscratching society.
There are a whole load of pressure groups, lobbyists, religious fanatics, political groups etc., some of which are well organised and can and do influence the way the world is run. I struggle to see it in this case, unless you can provide some good evidence of course.
You maybe right that JPM is betting on the dollar being overvalued and that their actions, being so large and influential, may help to amplify the effects so as to exaggerate any adjustment into being a sudden fall. But you could argue that what they are doing is common sense from their perspective and nothing more devious than that. Afterall, people could just hang on to their Gold and Silver if they want to; in fact if it thought likely that the dollar will collapse, they should do.
-
They were trading (and probably are once again) what were, in effect, third order derivatives. In the words of Graham (Chapman not D) "Too Silly!"
-
The trouble is most of the web comments is based on Max Keiser. I have not heard JPM's side of the story. While I can believe that there are such machinations, even to the extent of crashing the dollar, and even, maybe, that the Federal Reserve is in on it, but tying this in to the Knights Templar is really a bridge too far.
Not at all, a lot of bankers are members of cults, The templar revelation is an ok Book on the subject, Cults exist and are very powerful some of them, have lots of members, in lots of places.
Just because you do not know what they are doing, does not mean they are not doing anything. Look at the election before last in America it was Bush verse Kerry both are members of skull and bones, who ever you voted in a skull and bones man was gonna be president.
Geezer must be involved too. A Scot, living in the US and who sold his house in California just at the right time... spooky.
Free Masonry is a hangover and certainly a mutual backscratching organisation (in my opinion).
I know a couple of Freemasons and I knew someone (a scotsman and not a mason and sadly deceased) who held a very senior position in a Scottish Bank (now part of Barclays). None of these people are or were up to anything untoward. Very decent guys in fact. I used to wind up one of the masons because he was a lord high stag (or some such thing) and he didn't agree with me that the masons were just a mutual backscratching society.
Many will say it's an old boys club, works as a pyramid, those at the bottom have no clue. It's the thing about the shaddows all kinds of things go on.
There are a whole load of pressure groups, lobbyists, religious fanatics, political groups etc., some of which are well organised and can and do influence the way the world is run. I struggle to see it in this case, unless you can provide some good evidence of course.
you can ref my past comment about skull and bones, some say Obama is a Mason.
You maybe right that JPM is betting on the dollar being overvalued and that their actions, being so large and influential, may help to amplify the effects so as to exaggerate any adjustment into being a sudden fall. But you could argue that what they are doing is common sense from their perspective and nothing more devious than that. Afterall, people could just hang on to their Gold and Silver if they want to;
If they take psyical delivery and then find somewhere to keep it. Most that buy silver from JPM buy a silver certificate, a piece of paper that says you own this amount of silver(like orginal paper money) there are other ways they sell and buy it also, but the silver isnt there, when it comes to collecting if you do not have a caste settle agreement they'll give you dollars.
You can keep your JPM pieace of paper, but that'll be worthless after a dollar demise.
in fact if it thought likely that the dollar will collapse, they should do.
Not thought likly they are planning it, China wants the dollar gone so does russia as the world reserve currency, and they want a new currency basket unit of exchange to replace it, thing is while these countries plan it's demise thinking they are cleaver America is also planning it, others are really behind this movement. America will probably take the Amero, Just as europe has the Euro, and the new world reserve currency will be the S.D.R as they are planning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Drawing_Rights
"In late March 2009 Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China proposed using the SDR as a worldwide reserve currency in place of the dollar as a way to cope with problems associated with the US dollar and the Euro being used as world reserve currencies"
Dont you think it's funny that China suggests the SDR? The IMF controls it, and the IMF is a big lacky to American corporate interests, just as the WTO is.
Who wins here really, all the countries are being heavily over burdened with debts and many are being forced to default. No peoples are winning that's for sure.
-
Geezer must be involved too. A Scot, living in the US and who sold his house in California just at the right time... spooky.
Strangely enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Rite
I had never even heard of this lot till I moved to the US. Personally, I take a pretty dim view of any organization that requires you to subject yourself to an initiation ceremony without revealing the details in advance.
Signed: Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret
-
Geezer must be involved too. A Scot, living in the US and who sold his house in California just at the right time... spooky.
Strangely enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Rite
I had never even heard of this lot till I moved to the US. Personally, I take a pretty dim view of any organization that requires you to subject yourself to an initiation ceremony without revealing the details in advance.
Signed: Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret
[:)]
Agree, orginally sons of masons joined up as standard but I think that caused problems as some said after a few years "I never agreed to this stuff" So today apparently you have to ask to join, and they are not meant to invite people, although someone I met told me they knew someone that was invited to join, just lie and lie don't they. and actually I know someone that told me he was invited.
But it's worse than that, you dont know what you are joining first, and then it takes years to go up the ladder and with each step you learn something new.
Albert Pike "Lucifer "the light bearer", a strange name to give to an angel of darkness..." He goes on but basically ends up saying that the light is with that idiot. I point out that as he fell he lost his job- to bare the light, so no light in that idiot be sure.
If you do not know Albert pike he is a perlific Masonic writer, they twist everything.
Check the film
Woe to those that call darkness light and light darkness.
I'll say this as well, one Mason I spoke with told me that Jesus never even existed, says a lot. Also met a few that were Satanists- repenting satanists, well one was.
-
Well, you can say what you like about Pike, but at least he knew how to make a good video.
-
Well, you can say what you like about Pike, but at least he knew how to make a good video.
Weirder than some of my dreams, last nights was quiet fun, I was getting beaten by a bunch backward cowards, and yes I did tell them that, some of us have a back bone. [:)]
To quote saint paul "I was beaten by an angel of satan, to stop me becomming to proud"
I never get to kiss on the other side tho. [:-'(]
even if it felt like one [:D]
Geezer what you done you got me joking about,
"Can't trust em, they lie to the fish"
Like I always say- the weak only feel strong when they are beating people, and cleaver when they are decieving, ofcourse by weak I mean unsound, empty, them that lack and so seek compensation- solice in their sadism. I still pity them even as they hurt me.
-
You maybe right that JPM is betting on the dollar being overvalued and that their actions, being so large and influential, may help to amplify the effects so as to exaggerate any adjustment into being a sudden fall. But you could argue that what they are doing is common sense from their perspective and nothing more devious than that.
And I have to re-adress that comment, as the banks are working as a cartel they are planning what is to come. We do not even know how much bad debt there is the banks will not tell us. and if we have learnt anything from the recent banking crisis it's that the banks are professionally devious.
-
Do you all want to see something beautiful?
Here watch this
Max Keiser: breif report:- for today
-
Shall we have a song to celebrate?
Jesse J, Price tag.
Bought you a few years [:)].
To quote lady Gaga "I like game" meeaow
-
Do you all want to see something beautiful?
Here watch this
Max Keiser: breif report:- for today
Now why has gold and other comodities fallen? Because they have sold, and deflated the price. now have they just sold even more junk? To say have they sold comodites long? and given out even more fake gold certificates? Or is it that the market has realised that the stuff isnt there, The whole system a joke really? so what they have isnt worth what they felt it was, Who can you trust?
Or are the oligarchy trying to hide? As people begin to spot the inflation causers? More likly as it sounds like an unloading doesn't it, not a manfatured sell, but a selling of what exists. To say they haven't made more certificates the majority of players are just selling- but the rubbish obviously they are not going to sell the good stuff are they.
No regs no trust. It's not illegal for them to sell junk as gold is it, nothing to prevent it, cant prosicute either it's exceptable behaviour, as no regs say they cant. So they rip you all off. even if the regs do say they cant, no one is going to prosicute them, thats their world a free hand to exploit, for the masters upstairs.
-
So we are having a re-assesment, what is it really worth?
And what does the oligarchy want really? Answer, confidence.
To be continued [:)]
-
The big question for the cleptocratic oligarch of today is "what do I need to do, so you remain a mug?"
"What you want regulation for? That's big government, the tax man, that naughty tax man, he'll take all your money"
Meaoow
-
When Gold starts to rise, the mugs have bought the lies. Ouuu
There's a new mug a minute.
-
Just think about this where has all that money that was in comodities gone? it hasnt gone into other comodities as all have fallen, some will have been wiped out, but I think you'll find the majority is sitting in the bank waiting to come out again.
-
What is the difference between a slug and a snail? anyone?
-
I predict Gold saying more or less stagnant for a while, as people figure out their situation, then a drop, as people dump the crap, but the snail could buy it, as they sell ofcourse, keeping the price flat.
Then?
Hey the oligarchy has spent soo long selling people crap I think it's time they bought some. [:)]
-
Thom Hartmann on bankers. Today-
-
They'll be a slight rally towards the end of the day and Gold will sit slightly down, well they don't wanna buy all the crap do they. [:P]
They say when you make a prediction about the market, the market changes. we'll see [:)]
-
I expected more from Britian, I just checked the closing, Gold was down 0.71 [:P]
I was talking about America, which I think is still trading, and currently sitting at - 0.89. Gold is down nearly one percent.
-
It's falling again, when the comps kick in, it'll flat line, then rise slowly. and I think as I said close slightly down after the little rally
-
It's at - 0.95 and we have?
Just under fifteen mins left on the trading floor, I think anyway they are five hours behind right and close at 4 est time.
-
-0.87
-
-0.94 it's dropping
-
Come on computer buy that slack, buy that slack, - 0.70 end lets go for it.
currently at? - 0.98
-
-0.93
-
-0.92
-
-0.89
-
moving to the acutal commex no. we are -0.50 and have a bit more time to go. -0.88
-
-0.56
-
-0.52 wavering about.
-
You know what I cannot be bothered feel like a stock broker staring a numbers going up and down.
I'll come and look at the end of play. -0.85 and - 0.49
-
But to put it simply, the free markets a joke, the oligarchy fixes it.
-
adictive -0.78 I cant not watch it. [:)]
-
Market closed
-0.79 and the other commex figure is at - 0.42
http://www.goldprice.org/spot-gold.html
-
Shall we have a song?
-
I'll repost it actually a point I have made elsewhere, but also here a few days back.
The reason why with all the printing they are doing, that the currency is not inflating much is because it has no real value, it's value is relatively all in the mind, they can print print print, the value wont change really, it's all off in the future when the tax bill comes.
If you are wondering where the inflation is actually comming from it's from that money not really lossing it's value, fighting over the limited resourses, people are putting all that printed money into Gold and gold sky rockets, if they keep it in the bank they'll be no inflation at all.
So when you see prices rise, know it is becasue some rich person after being given money from the quantative easing(and it's those with the greatest political banking connections that get it- the oligarchy) is buying up resoruses leaving less available- so the price goes up, the inflations you are seeing are all contrived, if you have enought of the money the banks print- you can cause any comodity to increase in price. This system is a joke!
-
Understand they print the money and buy bonds, and the bonds give the currency it's value. It's an agreement to pay in 10 years, in 5 months in 30 years, depends on the bond.
So all of that printed money is backed by bonds, and we the people pay tax and the government then using that tax pays that bond off when it comes due, your tax gives the currency it's value, The dollar is printed as a debt, using the bonds and we the people pay it through tax.
Which is why they can print print print, and the dollars value does not change, it will change in the future when that bond tax bill comes. So the value of the dollar is set in the future.
Not today, and so it's value is relative to that, when the bonds start to all come home, that's crunch time.
The question is with all the printing when is that tax bill going to be impossible to pay? This is not including all the other deficit problems they have.
and also not forgetting that any bank can lend long and invent money, if they have deposits in the central bank. For each Dollar they place in the central bank they can lend 9 to 15 times that out. From the money the people have deposited in their banks they can lend fractions at 15 - 1 ratio if you put 15 dollars in a bank, they can lend 14 out and should keep 1 on reserve.
That money is not backed by the bonds or I should say has no bond backing it.
An explanation:- If your currency is backed by gold, and you have one ounce of gold, and say 1000 units of money- each unit is worth 1oooth of an ounce. If you then printed another 1000 units, you would have 2000 units backed by one ounce, giving each unit a value of 0.5 1000th of an ounce, or half a 1000th of an ounce, per unit.
With this please see that while they are printing printing printing, that money has bonds that go with it, but the loans the banks give out do not, they are 15 - 1 or 9 -1, one dollar has a bond backing it, the 15 or 9 they lend have nothing.
So you can see that the printed bonded money has some kind of value(set of in the future and related to tax) but the lent invented money has none or is fractionally related to the money that has bonds. Number of notes or digital money in an account- to bonds? There is more money out there then the bonds.
So that should reduce the value of the dollar, as it's more money to less bonds, but again the value is in the mind to a degree, and the system complex enough to get people mistaken about how it really functions.
That's why some moan about the printing devaluing the dollar, when in reality it will only devalue it in the future, not the present. And it does not cause inflation per say as it's how the money is used, if it stays in the bank, no inflation on commodities, it goes into housing no inflation in commodities, only when it is used in the commodities area will it inflate the commodities price.
And that's pretty much this crazy system, not even looking at all the debts they have generated and pushed on to governments to pay.
Austerity is about paying those debts off, the governments are cutting on spending to have more money to pay the stuff the banks have burdened them with, that's why tax is also increasing, they are cutting spending and increasing tax- so they can pay off this junk, and so the banks do not have to, Trillions in debts they have generated.
-
So just so you realise it all the qualitative easing money, the people have to pay in tax in the future.
All the governments spending the people have to pay, as tax in the future esp as they borrow any short fall.
All the bad loans the banks have given governments the people have to pay- and are with higher taxes and austerity already
Government spending(including banking corporate welfare), government borrowing(often from banks), money printing(by central banks), bad loans from the crisis(oh also from the bankers) The people are to tax-pay it all. Needless to say the banks have indebted you to the point of oblivion.
Shall we consider interests charges?
To quote Black adder "The pharse sounds like Clucking Bell"
-
And why? what are these bankers planning? This is all going to come to a head and they know it, every country is going to go bust, they will all have to default at some point, and then what happens? What do the countries have to give the banks they are indebted to, when they default?
Land? Cities? special Rights of priviledge? onwership of things? What will these oligarchs demand?
-
Extracts from Wikipedia:
Sir Fred Goodwin: Born in Paisley, Renfrewshire, Goodwin is the son of a Scottish electrician[5] and was the first of his family to go to university,[6] attending Paisley Grammar School before studying law at Glasgow University.
Andy Hornby: He was born in Scarborough, North Yorkshire,[3] but brought up in Bristol, where his father was headteacher of Clifton College Preparatory School.
He has a degree in English Literature from Oxford University and an MBA from Harvard Business School where he graduated top of his class of 800 students.[4]
Sir Thomas Fulton Wilson McKillop, born 19 March 1943, is a chemist, pharmaceutical company CEO and former chairman of RBS Group.
Sir Tom McKillop: Was born in Dreghorn, a small village near the town of Irvine in Ayrshire, Scotland and educated at Irvine Royal Academy and then Glasgow University, where he took a BSc Hons and PhD in Chemistry. He joined ICI's Corporate Research Laboratory at Runcorn in 1969 after post-doctoral research work in Paris. He moved to ICI Pharmaceuticals Division in 1975 and, having held a number of positions in Research, in 1989 he was appointed Technical Director of ICI Pharmaceuticals with international responsibility for research, development and production.
Adam J. Applegarth: (born August 1962 in Sunderland, England)[1] was the Chief Executive Officer of the Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne based Northern Rock bank, one of the first victims of the so-called subprime mortgage crisis. The bank was subsequently nationalised[2]
The son of a music and drama teacher, he attended Sedbergh School and Durham University, where he read Mathematics and Economics.[1] He joined Northern Rock in October 1983 as a graduate trainee, becoming General Manager in 1993, joining the Board of Directors in 1996 and being appointed Chief Executive in 2001 at the age of 39 and remained in this position till he left the bank in December 2007.[1]
I could go on here but I stopped at the first five. I suggest you take a look, Wiybit. I don't see any evidence of secret societies here, but I suppose you would argue I wouldn't. In fact the blokes come from varied backgrounds and mostly justified their positions through good academic qualification and a successful career. They are all now quite wealthy but then so are quite a few other people.
-
I could go on here but I stopped at the first five. I suggest you take a look, Wiybit. I don't see any evidence of secret societies here, but I suppose you would argue I wouldn't. In fact the blokes come from varied backgrounds and mostly justified their positions through good academic qualification and a successful career. They are all now quite wealthy but then so are quite a few other people.
I Really do not see you point, anyone can pull names out of a hat, there are probably lots of things about the people you mention that are not listed in a wiki review, their favorite colour or the person they are having an affair with or were(not to say I know some of them are, just making a point).
What you have done is a meaningless nothing.
-
Opperations of the central bank, the basics:-
Please note that, the banks do not actually keep the reserves they are meant to, therefore there is no need for interbank loans for short falls, they do not care about short falls, they don't bother with reserves, even tho the regs demand they should. So inter banks loans generally are for paying off bets and getting more money to play the system.
Zero hedge on comodities speculation they blame quantaive easing
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/blame-fed-commodity-speculation
"CME corn futures trade at a rate that is 10Xs global consumption of 861 million tones."
Finally we come to the critical question of what's causing this? I maintain that the increased trading and the resulting volatility in key global commodities is the Federal Reserve. Zero interest rates (and QE) have eliminated the cost of owning commodities to near zero. Not only is their no financial penalty (interest expense) to finance a physical position there is a financial incentive to participate in the commodity market
Money Printing as all that money, is going into what ever those that are given it want to put it into.
-
Some of you might say a banking cartel is not enought to be able to dictate prices of stocks. but it isnt just monoplies and cartels working together, the computer systems will trade as they are told to.
Even better there are the cults out there, but also, this:-
Say I was a very rich person a multi-billionaire, and I gave a tiny bit of money to someone through someone else, so no one knew the money came from me, I then also give this person some trading advice or insider trading advice, and he using the money I gave him makes a lot more. Now this person has made a fortune and off his own back as far as the market is concerned.
Now I help him set up a company, maybe a another bank, Now I have two banks, and one owned by the person I put there, they owe it all to me, and should they forget that I'll remind them, infact I could do that a few times and have lots of pretend oligarchs doing my bidding actually.
The system.
-
So put it simply, if I using the vaste amount of money and resourses I have as an oligarch, take a strong position in enought comodities, using ofcourse the many different groups and companies I have at my disposal, computers included, I can get lots of different players to sell at the same time causing the market to go down and also get them to buy causing a comodity to go up. Effectivly dictate the lot- more or less, all I need is just a strong enought position.
There are oligarchs and oligarchs, and mutal interests.
-
So what will happen on monday? The oligarchy will as always, put the prices where they want them. In line with the over all agenda.
No crash happens unless they decide it does. One thing an elite cannot stomach is the unpredictable. Why? Because they are cowards.
-
Wiybit,
I think it's important for you to realize that just because you are paranoid, it does not mean they aren't out to get you.
BTW, if you are so sure about all this stuff, how come you have not been able to apply your vast knowledge to manipulate the system and make a boatload of money yourself?
-
So fear not for "the market that's fake anyway" to quote Bill Hicks.
And the slug can be a bit more of a snail for a time.
Just to look at gold, we know they have over sold it to keep the price down.
As an analogy there is one bar of gold that exists but they have sold ten bars, therefore 9 are fantasy- therefore the actual price of that one bar is? A lot higher. But how can you be sure you are buying into the one bar and not into a fake one? That is the dilemma. So I think until people have trust, the price will fall even though we know gold should be way over the price it is- but what will happen with all the fake stuff?
The banks do not want this to be fixed, they want to sell even more crap and rip you all off even more.
-
Wiybit,
I think it's important for you to realize that just because you are paranoid, it does not mean they aren't out to get you.
When did I say that? on here? But they might be after monday [:)]
BTW, if you are so sure about all this stuff, how come you have not been able to apply your vast knowledge to manipulate the system and make a boatload of money yourself?
Because I'm not interested, I will ofcourse help the people to not get soo ripped off, by the greedy idiots that have been(ripping them off), Time they gave a little back I think.(yes yes I cant call the button trading masters of the universes idiots)
-
No one is allowed to watch this vid till monday morning
-
Because I'm not interested,
I don't think so. I think you are very interested, otherwise you would not spend so much time on this.
-
Because I'm not interested,
I don't think so. I think you are very interested, otherwise you would not spend so much time on this.
I am interested in the truth of the system, the realities of it, how those in power exploit, how the people are being ripped of by the banks, how this system is being desinged to colapse. But I'm not interested in playing the market to make money. Maybe one day I would play it, but even then-
Luke 16.13 "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
I still like game... [:)] I mean check the localll.
-
No one is allowed to watch this vid till monday morning
I just love the names: Animal kingdom, Nero, master of hounds, shackelford..... Pants on fire, decisive moment.... Mucho macho man....
-
Wiybit, did you see the BBC programme by Robert Peston "Britain's Banks: Too Big to Save?" This was a very good interpretation of the problems with the banks and how it occurred. It was shown a couple of months ago and it is not available on Iplayer anymore, but if you can find it elsewhere it is definitely worth watching.
Generally, I think I can see your train of thought from the philosophy of mafias through to that of bankers, which seemed, initially, far fetched. Where I agree with the concept (I'm sure you will tell me if I'm wrong) is that societies will throw up stable sub-groups with their own codes of behaviour, whose behaviour will be for their member's mutual benefit. That this behaviour can be to the detriment of other groups within the society, or in some way judged immoral from our perspective, is not vital to whether such a regime will survive unless other competing sub-groups emerge that can provide an alternative stable system and also have the power to change the status quo. In physics, it is a similar problem to annealing a crystal where you need to shake up the lattice in order to find a configuration with fewer defects. This does not mean that all moral codes are equivalent though, which I thought you were implying. I like to think, that as with a crystal there is a trend towards the perfectly regular lattice, that there is an overall tendancy towards the betterment of everybody even if this means things getting worse for a time.
-
OK so about a year and a half ago I thought this game up, or designed it, and haven't really thought about it much since.
So basically it's Chess, with two new pieaces, orginally I called it 'Princes chess' as I added two princes, then I thought about having two Princesses, and finally have decided to have one princess and one prince.
The board is therefore 10 x 10 squares, the prince sits next to the queen, and the princess next to the king.
And I added an extra row of pawns behind, the main pieces, giving 30 pieces total for each colour 20 pawns, two castles, two knights, two bishops, one prince, one queen, one princess and one king. And so called in royal Chess as it has a family, rather than just a king an queen with no kids.
As for the rear row of pawns they can jump on first move and move three spaces to the fount, or they can sit back and protect the rear, other wise all the rules remain the same.
So I think the Princess should move as a queen but be limited, so move just half the amount as she is still growing up, so the princess moves like a queen but only five squares.
I am having trouble with the prince tho, because Princes' can be dappy, they can also be brilliant, and the pieace need to reflect that, I was thinking like a horse but on the diagonals, but I think that might be too much.
So any suggestions for how the Prince should move?
As always I give my ideas to mankind, therefore the IP is mine you thieving toe rags. [:)] It's a game and belongs to everyone as far as I am concerned.
-
MONEY [::)]
I have invented a few games acutally, and I'm currently thinking about a new one, hence why I have put the chess one up, the others are a bit more techonological and stuff, so there not so easy to explain in a post.
-
And I did think about having both two princes and two princesses, but that's a 12 by 12 board, or a 12 by 10. and It's too big really.
By going 10 by 10 you end up with a same game play situation more or less in line with original chess, and four spaces to hold in the middle, between the two rows of black and white pawns.
Oh and I also thought about the prince moving like a knight on the diagonals, but then being able to sit anywhere on a kings foot print. To say that the prince could move to that square, 3 diagonals along and one to the side, that becomes the central square and the prince can therefore sit anywhere around that- but takes like a king.
Could also making it a mix of a bishop and a king, The prince hops diagonally two squares and the third becomes the central square of the king footprint.
See my point there are lots of ways to get the pieace to move, and actually I think part of the reason I posted this is because maybe over time the players will figure it out.
-
If you cannot think of a good way for the prince to move, you could suggest a movement for the princess.
If not What is your prefered Chess colour? Can you guess mine?
-
Wiybit, did you see the BBC programme by Robert Peston "Britain's Banks: Too Big to Save?" This was a very good interpretation of the problems with the banks and how it occurred. It was shown a couple of months ago and it is not available on Iplayer anymore, but if you can find it elsewhere it is definitely worth watching.
Thanks I'll check it out, hey plenty of people have been going on and on about how the banks should never have been bailed out, generally by people that actually believe in non fascist free market economics, sadly the fascists are in charge- it's their way or the high way and they are dictating, the IMF is not an independent organisation and it's advice to countries is in line with the banks agenda.
Which also makes complete sense as the IMF will be in charge of a new global currency basket unit- that is being proposed- they are a totally biased party in this, it's in their interest to ruin the dollar and crush other currencies and then get control of the new world reserve currency.
Generally, I think I can see your train of thought from the philosophy of mafias through to that of bankers, which seemed, initially, far fetched.
Fraud is there business today, they even call many of their products "CRAP" and "sh1t". They are professionally devious, they seek to rip off everyone- your a mug to buy it in their opinion, so it's your fault for being stupid- Mervin king has already criticised this attitude, not that the banking culture is going to change, its too much part of that world today.
Where I agree with the concept (I'm sure you will tell me if I'm wrong) is that societies will throw up stable sub-groups with their own codes of behaviour, whose behaviour will be for their member's mutual benefit. That this behaviour can be to the detriment of other groups within the society, or in some way judged immoral from our perspective, is not vital to whether such a regime will survive unless other competing sub-groups emerge that can provide an alternative stable system and also have the power to change the status quo.
But the banks have media support, from their other corporate friends, the politicians in their pocket, only the people and market players that believe in the free market system can really oppose them, the other smaller banks they have bought up, hedge funds could buy them and break them and sell them, but they are all under investigation by the FBI in America at the moment- I wonder why? Do you know why the FBI was set up? To stop bank robbers. [:)] Capitalism, the rule of the capitalist.
In physics, it is a similar problem to annealing a crystal where you need to shake up the lattice in order to find a configuration with fewer defects. This does not mean that all moral codes are equivalent though, which I thought you were implying.
Of course I wasn't, I believe in God, But one group to another you can simply see differences to how they behave based upon their morals- both are bad in their way, societies change accordingly.
I like to think, that as with a crystal there is a trend towards the perfectly regular lattice, that there is an overall tendancy towards the betterment of everybody even if this means things getting worse for a time.
No because those in power refuse to allow that. Kinda like, that they do not want too much technology in crime fighting, as they'll get caught, so only when they have a means of manipulating it, will it be allowed, then they can avoid persecution while being able to frame others- all about power and nothing to do with betterment.
The powers that be do not frame people? History tells a horrible story, just look at the guildford four, what about all the others you do not know about. I tell you now when the powers that be have it in for you, you have to move heaven and earth to not get screwed- even then they'll screw you.
Looking at the guildford four, they knew they were innocent, and forth tooth and nail to keep them locked up- these people care nothing for justice, if the people are shown innocent, they get a slap on the wrist but no promotion or maybe the sack- please see the sickness. They must be seen to do no wrong, when it's often all they do.
Anyone been prosecuted for what happened with the guildford four? or any of the other we could mention? No, why? because it's a standard practice and they all look out for each other.
You can't prosecute the bosses, they are entitled to be criminal, they like James Bond, have a "licence to kill".
P.S any of them reading this will be having a? Tanterum, it's not the implication, it's the idea they might go to prison some day- I mean that's an insult to them, entitlement now, entitlement- this post dares to suggest, that they are not entitled to be criminal.
-
Remember:-
No one is allowed to watch this vid till monday morning
What kinda of people give those names anyway? 'Mucho macho mans' owner was a woman I think, not sure about "brilliant speed", "disco never died they just changed the name" Dale Winton.
-
Ouu he's so dead it's unbelievable [:P] Sticks out toung.
When the banks refuse to give you actual gold, know your paper certificate is only worth fiat currency.
-
And please do note the problem of IP, anywhere you go in the world today, all types of people play Chess, and you can buy all kinds of chess bourds made by all kinds of people, if you put IP on that then one savage can stand up and say "only people I allow can make a chess bourd, for I own Chess the game"
Just see how rediculas it is, how stupid, how ignorant, and for what? Power and money, sad! Very sad! Ruin the lives of millions, so they can own the game! Patheic pure and simple.
Which is why as I say as the creator of 'Royal chess' "I give it to the world", and anyone who wants to make it, sell it, and play it- can. The scale? Which is better for mankind? The coporate wanna own everything tyrant? or the person that thinks about others?
-
How much you wanna bet that some corporate isnt already looking at this game and trying to take the IP on it? It was a year and a half ago in switerland I thought it up, and I did mildly discuss it with a few people, not the whole thing but the general idea of it, maybe that filtered through already and some coporate tried to take it.
What else might they try to get IP for? Cricket? you can only play with a corporate licence? They'll have police arresting and fineing children for playing cricket in the park with no licence?
Put nothing past these people, they are obsessed with getting cash how ever they can.
-
Corporate rule:- "Your under arrest for singing happy birthday without a licence"
All works under this lie that if everything is owned by someone, then they'll be no problems, as someone will have responsibility over it, and it's rubbish.
Just as the chess suggestion, IP over chess potencially could lead to only one manufacture being allowed to make the game, people only being allowed to play with a licence- just so the owner of the IP can get every penny possible. This promote civilisation? No it promotes tyranny, and persecution- for nothing more than living your life, and in the case of chess trying to have fun.
If this system does not end, it's only going to get more tyranical.
And it's worse as those with ownership can do what they want with it, the owner of a Chess IP could ban the game- "they'd never do that too much money in it"- maybe but they could, what if they are a multi-billionaire and do not want any more money? Buy the IP and bury it, buy a stream and polute it, do what you want as an owner. A joke this idea of ownership, but it's promoted so that corporate intesrests can buy buy buy, whatever is there. Also tried to get the IP on DNA, and they are seeking that.
-
Watch this:- Thom Hartmann of denmocracyville usa
Then what? Because they won't stop, after that they'll be something else to own and then something else and then some thing else
-
Sorry everyone I have had to come to a cafe as my connection shut down, I cant for some reason access my post on Royal chess
-
Geezer Why has the thread you moved dis-appeared? Royal Chess thread? I dont mind you moving it.
-
It has not disappeared. As it was another political rant, it has been merged with this thread.
-
It has not disappeared. As it was another political rant, it has been merged with this thread.
No the main thread was about an idea for a chess game?
Do you mean to say if I give a "political rant" in your oppinion on a thread about shopping or a thread about psyics you'll merge it here too?
Doesnt make sense.
I have faith as always, but still, leaving it seperate makes more sense, to me, than mergeing it with a thread about the mafia and their philosophy. even thou me and graham have moved onto banks and cults at times
-
And geezer you have merged it all jumbled up.
-
I totally agree about the inequities of society; I can also agree that there are self interested groups maintaining their own positions. Where I do not agree is that there is a grand conspiracy that ties these things together, except in some general concept of maintaining the status quo. I think you argue quite well the case for such systems developing without the need for such conspiracies, yet then seem to then promote this idea.