0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
"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
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?
Because I'm not interested,
Quote from: Wiybit on 14/05/2011 21:40:58Because 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.
No one is allowed to watch this vid till monday morninghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQsMgu9rr1k
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.
It has not disappeared. As it was another political rant, it has been merged with this thread.