Banks Suck

[Shroomz~>]

The arguments that I'm hearing (or reading should I say) which are FOR or PRO bank bailouts & state owned majority shareholdings in banks are things like 'well what are they supposed to do, let the banks go under & have thousands of people losing their jobs?' - Well, yes actually. The banks created this mess in the first place by lending money which didn't actually exist, so why should people that have been giving the banks interest on money borrowed which never existed in the first place be obliged to bail them out when the banks are all of a sudden supposedly broke & screwed? It's their own mess, so why don't the elite bankers that have made trillions from the crooked business of banking stump up the cash for the supposedly necessary bailouts? Instead of that it's all of a sudden the general public that are supposed to back the risk of lending? Something's not right in this picture.

[alfonso]

alfonso, i would agree with you wholeheartedly, if you wouldn't include RHETORIC from elitists such as marx(a rothschild employee and blood relation. two large checks written by Nathan Rothchild to Marx for the purpose of promoting socialism have been on display in the British Museum, donated to the museum by museum trustee Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild himself) or other "popular" leaders provided to you to assure you of "choice". also, obama isn't going to clarify ANYTHING. he still hasn't clarified the name "Barry Soetoro" or his indonesian citizenship. how can he clarify the language? nope, there will be even more newspeak to come, newspeak that sounds like "sustainable" and "responsibility" that will only mean "eugenics". Socialism is the ideology of choice for capitalists as it includes a central government with dictitorial powers(ostensibly for the ignorant masses' "good").

left/right capitalist/socialist/communism have ALWAYS been words used for no reason other than to deceive the public and avoid true revolution, thus maintaining the same power structure. if you see how these movements and titles have played out in the real world, and who has paid the bill for these movements and ideologies, you'll always find the same families. democracy is the same. there has NEVER been a plan to transfer power from elite hands to the common people, except in the commoners' addled imaginations.

this may or may not be a big bummer, i'm just pointing out that it is so, regardless of point of view.

You might define Karl Marx as you want but have you read and understood what he wrote during his life?
Sorry Gary but sometimes your comments sound like those on some Sunday/Scandal Magazine for Hair Dresser lounges. There is some dense philosophical, economical and sociological analysis with many transformations end evolutions along his whole life with which one is entitle to argue with (like I do) If he has spent some time to understand what's about. It seems that you apply a fixed scheme to everything without feeling the necessity to really know the object of your categorizations.

Everything is the same, ideologies are all the same, systems are all the same and on top of the whole world sits Rothschild......c'mon!

The fact that you mention a "plan to transfer power from elite hands to the common people" shows that you don't have the slightest idea of the meaning of "dialectical materialism" or "class awareness" just to mention those very basic and essential tools of the Marxian analysis, thanks to which any contemporary historian, Marxist or not, would laugh to death at the remote hypothesis of such a "plan", it sounds like something out of a mickey mouse story.

Socialism is originally the collective property of the means of production. That exactly, nothing else. As you can easily argue, in practice, the label "Socialism" has been applied to everything and its opposite, often without the slightest implementation of the core purpose. This is the way I use this word. What the elites do for their propaganda is not my (semantic) business, any opposition to propaganda starts from the revelation of its semantic flaws.

[garyb]

what i said was that Karl Marx's work was FUNDED by the Rothschilds. this is not a matter of debate. the man had to eat, he needed money to get by on while he was writing and thinking.

what i suggested was that there were those who have funded BOTH sides of these so-called "dialectics".
what i further suggested was that Karl Marx, regardless of what he thought, worked for those who have caused the current economic distress, and that he accomplished their goals with his writings, which he was well compensated for.

what i also said was that i agreed with much or most of your post in principle.

please, if you quote me, quote me properly. what i said was "there has NEVER been a plan to transfer power from elite hands to the common people, except in the commoners' addled imaginations.". i stand by this. those in power, have NEVER intended to give up one iota of that which they had gathered. be sure of that. to once more quote Mr. Burns(who is based on D Rockefellor, a man that Harry Shearer, Mr Burns' creator knows intimately), "I'd gladly give it all up, for just a little bit more".

and i am certainly aware of such things as you mentioned. yes, i've read Marx's ridiculous rantings about how through dictatorship, mankind will come to the garden of eden. no, your words are not occult to my eyes and ears. knowledge is not obtained simply by going to universities. the common man though, sees Marx as silly. it's the well meaning middle class intellectuals that Marx is aimed at...give them work to do instead of boat rocking or actually threatening to usurp power(Marxist philosophy can always be directed, as we have seen so many times already).

revolutions always end with the same people in power. when you look and see who really, legally(as in by all the laws), owns property and resources, this can't be(truthfully) argued.

your definition sounds great. who controls that really? saying that the worker/slaves own the plantation, but this slave master here, through his talent, education and good breeding(genetic disposition) will direct the operation for everyone's mutual profit and you guys will do this dirty work because of your talent, education and breeding, isn't that different in reality to the slaves just having to do what the master says. Socialism and in partiucular Marxism are all about the industrial age. we now know that life is not about industry and who gets cash profits.

looking at all this writing, i could easily think that since you and i disagree on this subject so obviously that our thinking is opposed. i don't htink that that's really the case. i see you as a good person who wants to do good, as i hope you see me. ideals are not as important as the reality of now and of our humanity and our right to exist. once more, i only argued with those details of names not the post. i hope that you don't love a dead guy more than the living.

[Mr Arkadin]

Can i just be simplistic for a second as there's something i don't understand. Those with more knowledge please explain:

The UK Government (and maybe other governments around the world) is intending to borrow money to 'shore us up' for a bit. Now given that we're told this is a global recession who the fuck is Brown thinking of borrowing from?

Who?

[garyb]

the same banks that withheld credit to the local banks who withheld credit from the reg'lar folk. the engineers of crisis.

[siriusbliss]

Can i just be simplistic for a second as there's something i don't understand. Those with more knowledge please explain:

The UK Government (and maybe other governments around the world) is intending to borrow money to 'shore us up' for a bit. Now given that we're told this is a global recession who the fuck is Brown thinking of borrowing from?

Who?

You.
Your labor.
Your family.
Your Grandchildren
on and on - the unknowingly enslaved.
Those that control the money, control the shipment of supplies, resources, etc.

There is a rapid amalgamation of the global banking infrastructure into possibly about 3 major banks that are all essentially owned and run by a handful of elitists that will rely on you and I folding under the pressure of keeping our families fed, only to find ourselves being told when and where to do what.

The real question is... are you ready?

G

[garyb]

better explanation....

[nightscope]

who the fuck is Brown thinking of borrowing from?

UK government borrowing is financed by the sale of gilt edged securites to anyone who wants to buy them. The public, pension funds, banks, whoever. Gilts are UK bonds that run for a fixed length of time have fixed interest payable on them. US has similar stuff, Treasury bonds. About 50% of US Treasury bonds are held by the public. The main holders of the other non-public 50% are China, Japan and the main oil producing nations. The Chinese historically like to save a lot so have much cash, the US & UK like spend a lot and have no cash.

Something like that, anyway.

ns

[garyb]

yes, but it's all credit from the big 3 or 4 banks that makes it happen. china has a lot of credit right now, but that's all based on their productivity and natural resources. productivity is based on foreign investment. the whiole thing is smoke and mirrors. Zardoz.

[alfonso]

what i suggested was that there were those who have funded BOTH sides of these so-called "dialectics".

Dialectic materialism means (very basically) that social forces structural conflict is what brings transformation, it has nothing to do with "dialectics" intended as different opinions.

what i further suggested was that Karl Marx, regardless of what he thought, worked for those who have caused the current economic distress, and that he accomplished their goals with his writings, which he was well compensated for.

There is a temporal stretch that I can't agree with. Then, if you read all the stuff he wrote you'll recognize that he goes way beyond what you say. There is a way to read history, economy and social dynamics that you might argue with (as I do), provided you know it, but that had the great function to wipe out all the precedent bullshit based on the idea that a slave was born as such and to give some analytic tools that are still used now, even from the most distant.

please, if you quote me, quote me properly. what i said was "there has NEVER been a plan to transfer power from elite hands to the common people, except in the commoners' addled imaginations.". i stand by this. those in power, have NEVER intended to give up one iota of that which they had gathered. be sure of that. to once more quote Mr. Burns(who is based on D Rockefellor, a man that Harry Shearer, Mr Burns' creator knows intimately), "I'd gladly give it all up, for just a little bit more".

I'm absolutely sure of this. What I wanted to say is that the first one you have to agree with is Marx, whose theories are based exactly on this, that the elites will never give an inch of their power spontaneously. But he also said that the exercise of power, in the attempt to control and tame the natural reaction of the oppressed will exacerbate the conflict, causing its own debacle. Bring the guillotines in the public square and soon you'll be put under them too, as history demonstrates.The difference with today is that basically it all has moved on the "soft" side, but the dynamics are still unaltered. What's happening with the financial crisis is exactly that: you can stretch reality until a certain point where the whole paper castle falls down. You can imagine the foolish illusion of an indefinite growth but the physics say it well: that's a nonsense. You can pay the workers less and less and soon nobody will be able to pay for what you produce.
This is the core of Marx theory, who is a great and goes way beyond his late life involvement with revolutionary movements that have been his weak point....a scientific approach to the processes, which is still undisputed and is beyond the for the time being political adventures.

and i am certainly aware of such things as you mentioned. yes, i've read Marx's ridiculous rantings about how through dictatorship, mankind will come to the garden of eden.......

"Dictatorship" is meant (and written)as "dictatorship of a class", has nothing to do with a single person dictatorship. It's an obsolete language that can be lead to confusion today, but if you read it all you understand what he wanted to say. The error is to stick to the idea of classes of the nineteenth century that will make everything sound absurd, but when you hope for "power to the people" you're not saying anything different. Marx wanted just to point to the fact that "people" had to gain consciousness that everything they would obtain had to be conquered with a common action of power because, as you say, the elites will never give anything. Revolution happens through a class consciousness and a class action.
The simple fact that contemporary power tries to scare people and make them diffident of their neighbor and organize society in little, isolated and selfish mafias called "families" shows how seriously is considered the threat of "class" consciousness. Here the false identities, left vs. right, white vs. black, christian vs. muslim....all this stuff is used (and I think we deeply agree here) to deceive people.

revolutions always end with the same people in power. when you look and see who really, legally(as in by all the laws), owns property and resources, this can't be(truthfully) argued.

This is true but only under certain limits. Structure of property has changed very deeply with the liberal revolutions (french and american) in the western world. There was a time when property was a divine right and only could be inherited. The fact that practically what happens in many is similar cannot make us forget that the simple juridical change in that matter has been fundamental and life is changed a lot for that.

your definition sounds great. who controls that really? saying that the worker/slaves own the plantation, but this slave master here, through his talent, education and good breeding(genetic disposition) will direct the operation for everyone's mutual profit and you guys will do this dirty work because of your talent, education and breeding, isn't that different in reality to the slaves just having to do what the master says. Socialism and in partiucular Marxism are all about the industrial age. we now know that life is not about industry and who gets cash profits.

You should have a trip to see some Italian agricultural cooperative and the way it works to understand that things today are way different. That's not the exclusive model, we have also more traditional realities, but the most advanced, efficient, economically active and quality-wise at the top structures are in "cooperative" form which shares property between all the participants. The poor Marx couldn't even imagine the technological improvements and the structural changes of the latest 2 centuries. This brought new social forms, though, which is exactly what he was saying.

looking at all this writing, i could easily think that since you and i disagree on this subject so obviously that our thinking is opposed. i don't htink that that's really the case. i see you as a good person who wants to do good, as i hope you see me. ideals are not as important as the reality of now and of our humanity and our right to exist. once more, i only argued with those details of names not the post. i hope that you don't love a dead guy more than the living

Oh no....I don't love dead guys!!!! I love humanity and, to be sincere, all the living forms! I only think that sometimes you apply a rigid scheme in the discussion which doesn't make justice of some aspects of reality.

I think that you would be surprised reading the writings of the young Marx (before his involvement with political movements, which made his writings more pertinent to his age and less interesting for us), discovering how much of what you think and how much of our sense of freedom and justice finds roots there. Just think that during the Stalin era those writings were forbidden in the USSR.....

[Zer]

Take a tractor and a slurry trumbril and move in your favorite bank. Take care you got a cam with you and upload the video to youtube.

[pollux]

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

[Zer]

not really. There's no one who can imagine reality, because everybody has it`s own reality which makes the thing quite subjective. But if you think, that nowadays your value is honored correctly, congratulations.

[garyb]

Dialectic materialism means (very basically) that social forces structural conflict is what brings transformation, it has nothing to do with "dialectics" intended as different opinions.

There is a temporal stretch that I can't agree with. Then, if you read all the stuff he wrote you'll recognize that he goes way beyond what you say. There is a way to read history, economy and social dynamics that you might argue with (as I do), provided you know it, but that had the great function to wipe out all the precedent bullshit based on the idea that a slave was born as such and to give some analytic tools that are still used now, even from the most distant.


I'm absolutely sure of this. What I wanted to say is that the first one you have to agree with is Marx, whose theories are based exactly on this, that the elites will never give an inch of their power spontaneously. But he also said that the exercise of power, in the attempt to control and tame the natural reaction of the oppressed will exacerbate the conflict, causing its own debacle. Bring the guillotines in the public square and soon you'll be put under them too, as history demonstrates.The difference with today is that basically it all has moved on the "soft" side, but the dynamics are still unaltered. What's happening with the financial crisis is exactly that: you can stretch reality until a certain point where the whole paper castle falls down. You can imagine the foolish illusion of an indefinite growth but the physics say it well: that's a nonsense. You can pay the workers less and less and soon nobody will be able to pay for what you produce.
This is the core of Marx theory, who is a great and goes way beyond his late life involvement with revolutionary movements that have been his weak point....a scientific approach to the processes, which is still undisputed and is beyond the for the time being political adventures.


"Dictatorship" is meant (and written)as "dictatorship of a class", has nothing to do with a single person dictatorship. It's an obsolete language that can be lead to confusion today, but if you read it all you understand what he wanted to say. The error is to stick to the idea of classes of the nineteenth century that will make everything sound absurd, but when you hope for "power to the people" you're not saying anything different. Marx wanted just to point to the fact that "people" had to gain consciousness that everything they would obtain had to be conquered with a common action of power because, as you say, the elites will never give anything. Revolution happens through a class consciousness and a class action.
The simple fact that contemporary power tries to scare people and make them diffident of their neighbor and organize society in little, isolated and selfish mafias called "families" shows how seriously is considered the threat of "class" consciousness. Here the false identities, left vs. right, white vs. black, christian vs. muslim....all this stuff is used (and I think we deeply agree here) to deceive people.

This is true but only under certain limits. Structure of property has changed very deeply with the liberal revolutions (french and american) in the western world. There was a time when property was a divine right and only could be inherited. The fact that practically what happens in many is similar cannot make us forget that the simple juridical change in that matter has been fundamental and life is changed a lot for that.

You should have a trip to see some Italian agricultural cooperative and the way it works to understand that things today are way different. That's not the exclusive model, we have also more traditional realities, but the most advanced, efficient, economically active and quality-wise at the top structures are in "cooperative" form which shares property between all the participants. The poor Marx couldn't even imagine the technological improvements and the structural changes of the latest 2 centuries. This brought new social forms, though, which is exactly what he was saying.

Oh no....I don't love dead guys!!!! I love humanity and, to be sincere, all the living forms! I only think that sometimes you apply a rigid scheme in the discussion which doesn't make justice of some aspects of reality.

I think that you would be surprised reading the writings of the young Marx (before his involvement with political movements, which made his writings more pertinent to his age and less interesting for us), discovering how much of what you think and how much of our sense of freedom and justice finds roots there. Just think that during the Stalin era those writings were forbidden in the USSR.....

oposing forces exactly explains the word dialectic, as ideas describe social forces. social forces are the direct result of ideas, not basic reality, just ideas about it. i agree that consciousness, which is the thing the commoners will never get if some have their way, indeed the actual plan is for implantation of devices, environmental toxins and breeding to make such a thing impossible. if university learning is required for the people's freedom, they are doomed. who owns universities? who owns the land and controls the trusts? who sets the curriculum?

the "familiy" is not the mafia. the mafia is a counterfeit of the family. the family is where ALL the good qualities of the human being begin. the families that run the world are not evil for their love of family. they are evil for their love of power and eugenics.

Rothschild owned and controlled banks, which are stil controlled by the same thing as during Marx's time, clearly funded Marx, a Rothschild weed and manipulated the current crisis. this is how i make the temporal stretch.

dictatorship is dictatorship. any system which DICTATES one's thoughts, beliefs and actions is odious, no matter who it claims to be.

Structure of property has NOT changed very deeply with the liberal revolutions. who OWNS the gold, oil and diamond trades? whose banks control all trade thereof? who even owns the English Pairlement building and grounds and who owns the land and building of the Hague? who really owns the important land, if not directly thsn through the banking system?

i've seen cooperatives before. these are great until they reach a certain critical mass. i like cooperatives as an economic desicion of "tribal" protectionism in such a world as we know.

i know that KM said some great things. if he hadn't, his bad ideas wouldn't find soil in the mostly good and well meaning people who follow him. our sense of freedom and justice came from NONE of his writings. indeed, it was the other way around. that's the main difference in our opinions when you said "I only think that sometimes you apply a rigid scheme in the discussion which doesn't make justice of some aspects of reality.", that can be true rhetoricly, but i see things from a different perspective that occasionally makes me think the same of you. no problem, an arguement is only a way of examining the truth.

it is part of the religion of those who have power, that the truth must be revealed so that the blame can be laid at the feet of the masses. we can discuss that more some other time.....

[Zer]

So the agreed though changable value is quite real, since without it you do not pay your bills. And these bills have also a value that is accepted by your unreal environment.

Not everything is unreal and relative.
Especially when it comes to housing, food and job.

I doubt that. Sooner or later erverbody dies. And you won`t take your fancy slk with you.
What about those people who are happy without a job? Who live by their own hands? And why are people working without getting paid, just because they like what they are doing? Serve at the Tafel or any other real social institution? Why do you think it`s necessary to slave them to a system you'd like most? Nature speaks totally different.

[Shroomz~>]

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Jefferson also wrote:

"I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country".

Jefferson must have been turning in his grave ever since...

[garyb]

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Jefferson also wrote:

"I hope we shall...crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country".

Jefferson must have been turning in his grave ever since...

the dead cannot hear. i don't speak of Jefferson, but those who are supposedly living and who need to heed such obvious warnings....

[siriusbliss]

Obama's Gamble - The Ultimate And Final Bet By Obama’s Financial Handlers
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... leId=11376

[Shroomz~>]

Obama's Gamble - The Ultimate And Final Bet By Obama’s Financial Handlers
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... leId=11376

Worth checking out the article writers' website as well - futurefastforward.com

[Shroomz~>]

A guy called 'Old Groucho' on Robert Peston's BBC blog posted a link to a website & it turns out to be a great website concerning economic affairs (especially US related, but very meaningful for the UK & others as well)... Take the crash course. http://www.chrismartenson.com/

Mark