International Banking Criminal Organisation

[ralis]

This is to follow up on Mark Foote's comments about the attitude of the wealthy.

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/22/shark-tank-host-kevin-oleary-on-extreme-income-inequality-its-fantastic/

 

 

 

An investor who hosts the reality show “Shark Tank” said

that the world’s 85 richest people hold as much wealth as its 3.5 billion poorest people.

The international relief organization Oxfam issued a new report this week that found the richest 1 percent in the world controlled about $110 trillion in wealth, or 65 times more than the world’s poorest half.

Venture capitalist and television personality Kevin O’Leary said Monday during an episode of the Canadian Broadcast Company’s “The Land and O’Leary Exchange” that this disparity didn’t bother him at all.

 

“It’s fantastic, and this is a great thing because it inspires everybody, gets them motivation to look up to the 1 percent and say, ‘I want to become one of those people, I’m going to fight hard to get up to the top,’” O’Leary said.

“This is fantastic news, and of course I’m going to applaud it,” O’Leary said. “What can be wrong with this?”

His co-host, Amanda Lang, seemed astonished. “Really?” she asked.

“Yes, really,” O’Leary said. “I celebrate capitalism.”

Lang asked if he honestly believed that someone living in Africa and making about $1 a day could realistically aspire to one day be as wealthy as Bill Gates.

“That’s the motivation everybody needs,” O’Leary said.

 

Lang sarcastically suggested that the only thing that keeps that hypothetical African from becoming one of the world’s richest people was motivation.

“I just need to pull up my socks,” she said, speaking as that hypothetical impoverished person. “Oh, wait, I don’t have socks!”

O’Leary responded by saying he was “not against charity.”

While Oxfam’s report conceded that some wealth inequality could serve as a motivator, the organization warned that extreme levels of wealth concentration threatens to shut out hundreds of millions of people from the global economy.

O’Leary, a Canadian businessman, also hosts CBC’s “Dragons’ Den,” in addition to his work for the ABC reality show that matches up entrepreneurs with potential investors.

He likes to say that his primary interest in life is making money and that he’d fire his own mother to keep his cash flow positive.

“I’m hard-core right wing, slightly right of Attila the Hun, and I believe that money solves a lot of problems in life,” O’Leary said.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, well, if the wealthy of the world keep all their money and don't use any of it to build the societies of the world then it is true, they have no problems.

 

Charity is not going to solve the problem. First, education. Second, building the poorer nations to be productive and employ its people in profit making industries, etc.

 

Of course rich people say there is nothing wrong with being rich. And there was nothing wrong with exploiting their employees who allowed them to become rich and they see nothing wrong with the fact they they likely put many, many other businesses into backruptcy in the process of becoming rich.

 

Yes, there are some wealthy people who are giving to charity but I suggest that this is just a half-assed attempt to prove that they are really nice people.

 

The old saying from the Christian religion still stands: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach the man how to catch his own fish and he will eat the rest of his life.

[eye_of_the_storm]

First, education. Second, building the poorer nations to be productive and employ its people in profit making industries

 

Do the poorer nations wish to be educated and made to be productive and profitable?

 

Am I mistaken in believing you support Anarchy?

 

Did they even have the concept of poor... before "western" society was introduced.

 

Are they poor or do we just think they are poor?

 

I would say Wisdom, Courage, Kindness is what makes a person rich...

 

Unfortunately wealth seems to be measured in monopoly money only.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Brian]

Income inequality is not "the problem" but it is a symptom.

Consider this...

The problem with the Olympics is that some nations receive more than their fair share of medals while other nations are cheated. This medal inequality is unfair and is a form of discrimination. Both athlete participation and fan attendance/viewership are suffering as a result. 85% of the total medals in the Winter Games have been awarded to less than 9% of the participating nations and nearly 70% of the participating nations have been unfairly denied any medals.

The only solution is for the International Olympic Committee to establish a binding policy with an enforcement mechanism in order to ensure fairness. This policy, which will be international law, will establish new rules for every event to ensure factors like skill, ability, motivation and opportunity are neutralized, and will also establish a court system to ensure every nation is fairly awarded medals in each event on a rotational basis in order to establish medal parity in our lifetime. This means that the following nations will be required to participate in all future Winter Games but will be ineligible to receive medals until every nation has reached a level of parity:

• Norway
• United States
• Austria
• Soviet Union (a determination will be made by the IOC Equity Court as to how former member states will be handled)
• Germany
• Finland
• Canada
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• East Germany (in the event the nation should be reconstituted)
• Italy
• France
• Russia
• Netherlands

Medals shall be presented to those nations for which medals have been traditionally withheld (list of 101 nations omitted due to space constraints in alphabetical order until all nations have at least one and the process will continue in this fashion until all nations have an equal number of medals. Norway will not be allowed a medal until all nations have 303 medals each. The recipients of medals for the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi will be:

• Argentina
• Afghanistan
• Algeria
• Armenia
• Australasia
• Azerbaijan
• Bahamas
• Bahrain
• Barbados
• Bermuda

 

The IOC Equity Court shall award medals in such a fashion as to ensure parity of distribution of colors of medals as well as total counts of medals. The same process will be followed for the Summer Games as well, beginning with the 2016 Games in Rio. Once international parity has been enforced, the unjust practice of distinguishing between Gold, Silver & Bronze will be discontinued and future Olympic Games will award participant medals for each event to each nation without regard for actual participation. Additionally, all methods of scoring, judging or timekeeping are hereby banned. A standardized practice schedule and procedures for fair athlete selection will be distributed once final determinations are complete and the UN armed forces will be used to ensure rules are followed by each nation and that no participant is exceeding established practice regulations. These changes will ensure international parity and are expected to improve both athlete participation and fan enjoyment.

 

 

Seem silly?

Edited January 23, 2014 by Brian

[Mark Foote]

Ebenezer: But it was only that you were an honest man of business! Jacob Marley: BUSINESS? Mankind was my business!

[Marblehead]

Good points and I will address them each.

 

Do the poorer nations wish to be educated and made to be productive and profitable?

It seems that way to me based on how many wars are going on with the desire to add more territory to one's claim of ownership.

 

Am I mistaken in believing your support Anarchy?

I do not support Anarchy. I am an Anarchist. Anarchy does not require one to be unproductive and live in squalor.

 

Did they even have the concept of poor... before "western" society was introduced.

Perhaps not but they did have the concept of war and many of them even had the concept of eating their enemies.

 

Are they poor or do we just think they are poor?

They are poor. By any standard. If you cannot afford or be able to obtain enough food or clean drinking water to maintain a healthy life then one is very poor indeed. There are millions of people living in these conditions.

 

I would say Wisdom, Courage, Kindness is what makes a person rich...

Well, sure, those count too. But if you are hungry you don't care about being wise, courageous or kind.

 

unfortunately wealth seems to be measured in monopoly money only

And unfortunate it is that there are those who feel this way and refuse to lend a helping hand.

 

It would be so easy to create a small manufacturing plant in some small village that sold goods to other close-by villages and those villages did the same. But an initial investment must be made and the people educated well enough to keep the plant operational and profitable. And then the sons and daughters of those working in the plant could get an education and the system built upon.

 

The Middle East is fortunate right now because of oil. One day the oil will dry up. What will happen to the Middle East then if the societies are not built upon through investing the income from the oil?

 

[eye_of_the_storm]

WWROA: Do the poorer nations wish to be educated and made to be productive and profitable?

MH: It seems that way to me based on how many wars are going on with the desire to add more territory to one's claim of ownership.

True, my understanding is that they resent our assistance eventually (however).

+ my understanding of education, productivity, profitability is brainwash, enslave, exploit (regardless of region(as it is today generally)).

Is it ultimately right to interfere?

You quoted earlier "The old saying from the Christian religion still stands: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach the man how to catch his own fish and he will eat the rest of his life."

So you teach the man to fish, what does he actually learn?

What if he taught himself to fish? became inventive rather than mimic... are we taking that discovery away from them?

Does the assistance create a cycle of dependence? of which the other will eventually resent, feeling incapable/ worthless.

I would suggest that is it better for them to pursue their own path of discovery.

I am in agreement with the concept of "Prime Directive" (Star Trek)

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive, Starfleet's General Order number 1, is the most prominent guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets. The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations. It applies particularly to civilizations which are below a certain threshold of development, preventing starship crews from using their superior technology to impose their own values or ideals on them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

In the grand scheme of things I believe such a position to be the wisest and kindest.

// (above) Is what I was trying to say originally, though poorly... with a number of misconceptions.

The above I believe either directly, indirectly answering the remaining responses... hopefully

Edited January 24, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[eye_of_the_storm]

Income inequality is not "the problem" but it is a symptom.

 

Consider this...

 

The problem with the Olympics is that some nations receive more than their fair share of medals while other nations are cheated. This medal inequality is unfair and is a form of discrimination. Both athlete participation and fan attendance/viewership are suffering as a result. 85% of the total medals in the Winter Games have been awarded to less than 9% of the participating nations and nearly 70% of the participating nations have been unfairly denied any medals.

 

The only solution is for the International Olympic Committee to establish a binding policy with an enforcement mechanism in order to ensure fairness. This policy, which will be international law, will establish new rules for every event to ensure factors like skill, ability, motivation and opportunity are neutralized, and will also establish a court system to ensure every nation is fairly awarded medals in each event on a rotational basis in order to establish medal parity in our lifetime. This means that the following nations will be required to participate in all future Winter Games but will be ineligible to receive medals until every nation has reached a level of parity:

• Norway
• United States
• Austria
• Soviet Union (a determination will be made by the IOC Equity Court as to how former member states will be handled)
• Germany
• Finland
• Canada
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• East Germany (in the event the nation should be reconstituted)
• Italy
• France
• Russia
• Netherlands

Medals shall be presented to those nations for which medals have been traditionally withheld (list of 101 nations omitted due to space constraints in alphabetical order until all nations have at least one and the process will continue in this fashion until all nations have an equal number of medals. Norway will not be allowed a medal until all nations have 303 medals each. The recipients of medals for the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi will be:

• Argentina
• Afghanistan
• Algeria
• Armenia
• Australasia
• Azerbaijan
• Bahamas
• Bahrain
• Barbados
• Bermuda

 

The IOC Equity Court shall award medals in such a fashion as to ensure parity of distribution of colors of medals as well as total counts of medals. The same process will be followed for the Summer Games as well, beginning with the 2016 Games in Rio. Once international parity has been enforced, the unjust practice of distinguishing between Gold, Silver & Bronze will be discontinued and future Olympic Games will award participant medals for each event to each nation without regard for actual participation. Additionally, all methods of scoring, judging or timekeeping are hereby banned. A standardized practice schedule and procedures for fair athlete selection will be distributed once final determinations are complete and the UN armed forces will be used to ensure rules are followed by each nation and that no participant is exceeding established practice regulations. These changes will ensure international parity and are expected to improve both athlete participation and fan enjoyment.

 

 

Seem silly?

 

Brilliant, it does appear to be the direction we are moving...

 

 

[Marblehead]

MH: It seems that way to me based on how many wars are going on with the desire to add more territory to one's claim of ownership.

 

True, my understanding is that they resent our assistance eventually.

 

+ my understanding of education, productivity, profitability is brainwash, enslave, exploit (regardless of region(as it is today generally)).

 

Is it ultimately right to interfere?

 

You quoted earlier "The old saying from the Christian religion still stands: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach the man how to catch his own fish and he will eat the rest of his life."

 

So you teach the man to fish, does he actually learn anything?

 

What if he taught himself to fish? became inventive rather than mimic... are we taking that discovery away from them?

 

Does the assistance create a cycle of dependence? of which the other will eventually resent, feeling incapable/ worthless.

 

I would suggest that is it better for them to pursue their own path of discovery.

 

Yeah, you and I have some basic philosophical disagreements. We have been through this before. But fortunately we oftentimes agree so conversations between us are still worth while.

 

Doesn't really matter if a person was taught to fish or he learned on his own. Being taught by someone knowledgeable would be a quicker way to learn and he would therefore be able to feed himself sooner.

 

"Cycle of dependency" is an interesting concept. Detroit was talked about earlier. Perfect example. That is why you teach the man how to fish and then you move on, leaving him to his own life. He either fails or succeeds. If he has the abilities and fails either he didn't try or there are other factors that were not considered.

 

Yes, I would agree with you regarding allowing them to find their own path. But you and I are living in an educated society. These people I am talking about do not have that benefit. That is why I stress education.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Yeah, you and I have some basic philosophical disagreements. We have been through this before. But fortunately we oftentimes agree so conversations between us are still worth while.

 

Doesn't really matter if a person was taught to fish or he learned on his own. Being taught by someone knowledgeable would be a quicker way to learn and he would therefore be able to feed himself sooner.

 

"Cycle of dependency" is an interesting concept. Detroit was talked about earlier. Perfect example. That is why you teach the man how to fish and then you move on, leaving him to his own life. He either fails or succeeds. If he has the abilities and fails either he didn't try or there are other factors that were not considered.

 

Yes, I would agree with you regarding allowing them to find their own path. But you and I are living in an educated society. These people I am talking about do not have that benefit. That is why I stress education.

 

I don't disagree that education is important (in the classical sense)... for our society. I think other societies need to define what education is for themselves.

 

For your position to work motivation/ desire to work/ desire to learn/ desire to create/ desire to co-operate... would need to be expressed by the majority.

 

Do all peoples share in your altruism?

 

You teach a man to fish, does that mean he is going to fish? maybe

 

Does that mean he is now going to teach other people to fish? maybe

 

I once believed as you do, though now think it unrealistic and unwanted.

 

 

Sudan: International aid worker raped in Darfur

 

PARIS/KHARTOUM, Jan 24 (Reuters) - An international aid worker was raped in Darfur, a French aid agency said on Wednesday of the first such reported assault in Sudan's west and the latest in a wave of attacks against the world's largest humanitarian operation.

 

Action Contre La Faim, which fights malnutrition in the vast region, said one employee was raped, others were sexually assaulted and there was a mock execution during an attack on their compound in December in rebel-controlled Gereida town.

 

"There were sexual assaults including one rape," an ACF spokeswoman said in Paris.

 

"They ... looted everything, stole vehicles, communication equipment, beat employees, local and international staff," she added.

 

Armed men simultaneously attacked all aid agencies working in Gereida in December. Some 71 humanitarian workers were evacuated and tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and all vehicles were stolen.

 

Gereida town houses the largest number of refugees in Darfur, with 130,000 encamped in miserable conditions having fled attacks on their villages in the desert region. http://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/sudan-international-aid-worker-raped-darfur

 

I think the best we can aim for is in achieving self sufficiency in our own countries and allow other nations self determination.

 

Say another example, I was watching a documentary on shamanic warfare in the Amazon rain-forest... 2 tribes practicing head hunting/ cannibalism etc

 

Do you believe we should send the US military in? teach them to be more civilized?

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[thelerner]

 

I once believed as you do, though now think it unrealistic and unwanted. I think the best we can aim for is in achieving self sufficiency in our own countries and allow other nations self determination.

 

Say another example, I was watching a documentary on shamanic warfare in the Amazon rain-forest... 2 tribes practicing head hunting/ cannibalism etc

 

Do you believe we should send the US military in? teach them to be more civilized?

I don't think its about education or turning other countries into little America's, ie embracing our values or economic models. I'm a human being, they're a human being. They shouldn't starve, or live in miserable oppressive situations. We can't be everywhere, but we have the resources to do good in some places.

 

Often that includes intelligently protecting those on the front lines giving aid because because desperate people may do desperate things. Often desperation is temporary, some food, some help, some hope and things can turn around. World War II was a victory but the greater victory was supplying food and aid to destroyed nations, helping create just governments in Germany and Japan.

 

We can be a huge force for good. Not everywhere but some places. Starvation and extreme poverty suck. Should we send a military to the Amazon for those 2 warring tribes. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Yet a girl who baby sat for my kids has been in the peace corp for 26 months. She's doing good work. Helping people. My niece went down to Mexico to help Mayans for a few weeks, she learned, they learned. My 15 year old daughter spent last winter vacation rebuilding homes in Louisiana and this break chopping foreign weeds in the Everglades.

 

They're not so concerned about teaching or civilization. But there's need, work to be done and they're rolling up there sleeves and working. Nothing cerebral of philosophical about it. Need, going there, doing it. Not militarily, not as Americans, but as people to people. With intelligence about the local conditions, as well as coordination, acceptance and buy in from the native populace, we can help others, safely.

Edited January 24, 2014 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

 

I don't disagree that education is important (in the classical sense)... for our society. I think other societies need to define what education is for themselves.

 

For your position to work motivation/ desire to work/ desire to learn/ desire to create/ desire to co-operate... would need to be expressed by the majority.

 

Do all peoples share in your altruism?

Admittedly no. However, every little bit helps. If more people would join in the results would be greater.

 

I want to mention something Thelerner mentioned above, re, the Peace Corp. This may not be perfect but it is still an excellent way to help others. Maybe more people could join and help serve others.

 

You teach a man to fish, does that mean he is going to fish? maybe

 

Does that mean he is now going to teach other people to fish? maybe

 

I once believed as you do, though now think it unrealistic and unwanted.

Please don't give up on the human animal. Sure, it can be very cruel sometimes. But othertimes it can be very loving and caring. The world canges faster than our mindset does. It takes time to catch up.

 

I think the best we can aim for is in achieving self sufficiency in our own countries and allow other nations self determination.

I agree but sometimes people need a push or a helping hand to help them out of the hole they are in.

 

Say another example, I was watching a documentary on shamanic warfare in the Amazon rain-forest... 2 tribes practicing head hunting/ cannibalism etc

 

Do you believe we should send the US military in? teach them to be more civilized?

 

No, the US military should not be sent in.

 

And I think that sometimes we must just remain removed and let the combating peoples work out their own problems. To do nothing is also Tao.

[Brian]

Some of the best people I know are human beings.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Some of the best people I know are human beings.

 

Some of the best beings I know are animals

Edited January 24, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[joeblast]

The real problem is not with the Fed. Reserve but with income inequality! You can thank Ronald Reagan for starting this BS!

A baffling statement. Sure "income inequality" existed before the fed, but you seem to always miss that the creation of the federal reserve set the stage for the acceleration of income inequality by giving a protected class of people virtually piles of free money on an ongoing basis, and the government gets a blank check to distort economic statistics and do a million things so far beyond the scope of its power its not even funny - to the point that now it points at distortions of its own creation and tell us its going to need to tax us more in order to "fix" it. (with a no bid contract, of course...)

 

To further my earlier post on tax cuts for the very wealthy. This started back when Reagan was in office by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics. The theory goes that if the wealthy/corporations have changes in marginal tax rates i.e, lower taxes in this case, tax revenue will increase, demand will increase for goods/services, which translates into a healthier economy, known as trickle down/supply side economics. The problem with that scenario, is that corporate owners took the money from tax breaks and invested in the markets, not in their companies. Thereby, inflating commodity prices i.e, bubble markets. Inflated commodity prices are not equated with wealth. Why? Wealth is created by what is made in terms of goods and services, not by inflated markets on Wall Street where only the few benefit.

aka "making a good game even better" - so long as you're on the rigged side that's on the take. branch aint root, homey.

 

The Fed was recently audited. Get your facts straight!

 

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/the-fed-audit

a halfass internal audit by the foxes watching the henhouse? that counts as a real audit?

 

I am not defending them so stop twisting what I write. Income inequality, Reaganomics etc. are the root of the problem at present. See my previous posts. Allowing banks to act like casinos with everyone's money is absolutely wrong!

 

Separate the investment sections of the banks from commercial banking.

but you are defending them, even though denying it. pointing to branch and calling it root...I do believe you that its not your intention to defend them, but by denying the root cause of the issue, i.e. manipulation of the currency, and its effect on making everyone poor except for those few who are stupid rich or those entities that have debts owed to them....killing anyone who is prudent or saves in the process...

 

the banks would not be able to play casino were it not for the existence of the central banks. who are made of...banks. I mean, cmon dude...reaganomics is the root cause? that's a laughable statement on this whole mess and all that tells us is you get edumucated by some questionable sources.

Edited January 24, 2014 by joeblast

[Mark Foote]

IMO Ralis is citing facts that pertain, I would say. I do think the approach they took in Iceland was the best, but perhaps they could only do that in the context of larger economies supporting their banks. What happens if the central banks disappear? does anybody really believe in free market capitalism unfettered after the latest recession, the result of the deregulation of the 90's?

 

Do I understand this correctly, the Federal Reserve has been buying up the mortgage derivatives that wall street and the banks packaged and resold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? The ones that nobody could put a value on, that increasingly appeared to be worthless 'cause nobody wanted to buy them? Good solution, as long as the U.S. dollar seems to be impervious to inflation and we re-regulate to prevent having to do it again. Something along the lines of separating investment banking from commercial banking, as before the banks persuaded Conress and the President to undo the precautions put in place after the depression.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Mark Foote

[ralis]

 

 

but you are defending them, even though denying it. pointing to branch and calling it root...I do believe you that its not your intention to defend them, but by denying the root cause of the issue, i.e. manipulation of the currency, and its effect on making everyone poor except for those few who are stupid rich or those entities that have debts owed to them....killing anyone who is prudent or saves in the process...

 

I don't appreciate being called a liar. I stated perfectly well in my previous posts my case in point. If you wish to discuss this issue, fine. However, just writing a number of complaints as your narrative contains, without citing any studies, economic theories such as Milton Friedman's so called supply side theories, gutting Glass-Steagall and so forth, fails to prove any point on your part. I have noted a few salient facts in regard to the recent economic problems, that were the main cause of the 2008 depression beginning before 2008. I repeat, the big banks must be returned to the Glass-Steagall Act, thereby no bank will be permitted to gamble with your money.

 

In laissez faire capitalism which Neoliberal Libertarians and Tea Party persons espouse, controls on banking,and Wall Street regulations will vanish. Speculation on commodities i.e, metals, foodstuffs, fuel and so forth will have no limit. What I am not interested in hearing is the incessant propaganda that the market forces will be in equilibrium at some point in time. Neoliberals fail to think critically as to the long range problems caused by deregulation.

 

Neoliberal policies on Wall Street are responsible for unregulated growth i.e, bubble markets.

 

If you fail to understand any of the above points, I would suggest reading something other than 'Zero Hedge'. When I was studying at the University, Noble Prize winner Milton Friedman was all the rage in the economics dept. and business school. His policies were what influenced Reagan Economics. The Chicago School of Economics perpetrated a fraud on this country!

Edited January 25, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

Given that the Neoliberals posting here are in favor of eliminating the Federal Reserve, then what is the reasonable solution for creating a money supply so that banks can have money to loan to businesses and individuals? No one arguing this point proposes a solution, only incessant complaining!

[Marblehead]

Because we like to bitch about things we can't control.

 

Any chance of going back to the gold standard?

 

I think Fort Knox has sold all its gold.

[joeblast]

I don't appreciate being called a liar. I stated perfectly well in my previous posts my case in point. If you wish to discuss this issue, fine. However, just writing a number of complaints as your narrative contains, without citing any studies, economic theories such as Milton Friedman's so called supply side theories, gutting Glass-Steagall and so forth, fails to prove any point on your part. I have noted a few salient facts in regard to the recent economic problems, that were the main cause of the 2008 depression beginning before 2008. I repeat, the big banks must be returned to the Glass-Steagall Act, thereby no bank will be permitted to gamble with your money.

 

In laissez faire capitalism which Neoliberal Libertarians and Tea Party persons espouse, controls on banking,and Wall Street regulations will vanish. Speculation on commodities i.e, metals, foodstuffs, fuel and so forth will have no limit. What I am not interested in hearing is the incessant propaganda that the market forces will be in equilibrium at some point in time. Neoliberals fail to think critically as to the long range problems caused by deregulation.

 

Neoliberal policies on Wall Street are responsible for unregulated growth i.e, bubble markets.

 

If you fail to understand any of the above points, I would suggest reading something other than 'Zero Hedge'. When I was studying at the University, Noble Prize winner Milton Friedman was all the rage in the economics dept. and business school. His policies were what influenced Reagan Economics. The Chicago School of Economics perpetrated a fraud on this country!

If you're going to shut your eyes and ears to history before 1980 or so, then there really is no point in addressing you on this. That which you focus on is already omitting several relevant pieces of reality post 1980 anyway. Your "history" is too selective to bother with, ralis. Your teachers took great pains crafting a certain point of view and seemingly greater pains ignoring others. You've been well steeped and just about every time I an amused enough to reply, I get reminded why it is pointless interacting with you on anything off topic for this entire forum.

[Brian]

If you're going to shut your eyes and ears to history before 1980 or so, then there really is no point in addressing you on this. That which you focus on is already omitting several relevant pieces of reality post 1980 anyway. Your "history" is too selective to bother with, ralis. Your teachers took great pains crafting a certain point of view and seemingly greater pains ignoring others. You've been well steeped and just about every time I an amused enough to reply, I get reminded why it is pointless interacting with you on anything off topic for this entire forum.

I share your attitude here, joeblast.

 

You didn't call him "a liar" but he feigns offense while calling people who voice an opinion differing from his "unevolved" and incapable of critical thought.

 

Mark Foote, the idea of the bundled sub-prime mortgages was a product of Barney Frank's live-in boyfriend, a VP for new initiatives at Fannie Mae while while Frank was head of the Senate Finance Committee. The bulk of the sub-prime mortgages, in turn, were the result of a class-action lawsuit (in which attorney Obama participated) which ordered banks to approve NINJA loans (No Income, No Job or Assets) which Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were instructed to purchase without question (so the banks wouldn't be stuck with them all, else they would have screamed bloody murder). The Wall Street banks were willing participants in a government-run manipulation scheme which blew up in everyone's face. Almost the same scheme is underway again now but is largely being ignored (again). Since the 1820s, the US government has attempted 12 real-estate manipulations which have caused significant economic crises. There have been other crash-causing manipulations (like the dot-com bubble) as well.

 

Artificial market distortions cause artificial bubble-bust cycles. Centralized efforts to conceal them and to "fix" them cause them to go out of control and to be worse than they would naturally be. Pointing this out is not a call for utter lawlessness & chaos...

[ralis]

If you're going to shut your eyes and ears to history before 1980 or so, then there really is no point in addressing you on this. That which you focus on is already omitting several relevant pieces of reality post 1980 anyway. Your "history" is too selective to bother with, ralis. Your teachers took great pains crafting a certain point of view and seemingly greater pains ignoring others. You've been well steeped and just about every time I an amused enough to reply, I get reminded why it is pointless interacting with you on anything off topic for this entire forum.

 

As far as your knowledge of history goes, you have none. That is obvious.

[ralis]

I share your attitude here, joeblast. You didn't call him "a liar" but he feigns offense while calling people who voice an opinion differing from his "unevolved" and incapable of critical thought. Mark Foote, the idea of the bundled sub-prime mortgages was a product of Barney Frank's live-in boyfriend, a VP for new initiatives at Fannie Mae while while Frank was head of the Senate Finance Committee. The bulk of the sub-prime mortgages, in turn, were the result of a class-action lawsuit (in which attorney Obama participated) which ordered banks to approve NINJA loans (No Income, No Job or Assets) which Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were instructed to purchase without question (so the banks wouldn't be stuck with them all, else they would have screamed bloody murder). The Wall Street banks were willing participants in a government-run manipulation scheme which blew up in everyone's face. Almost the same scheme is underway again now but is largely being ignored (again). Since the 1820s, the US government has attempted 12 real-estate manipulations which have caused significant economic crises. There have been other crash-causing manipulations (like the dot-com bubble) as well. Artificial market distortions cause artificial bubble-bust cycles. Centralized efforts to conceal them and to "fix" them cause them to go out of control and to be worse than they would naturally be. Pointing this out is not a call for utter lawlessness & chaos...

 

I would appreciate references as to the person/persons who caused the sub-prime debacle, market manipulations and so forth as mentioned in your post. FYI, he did insinuate that I am a liar.

[Enishi]

The main issue at hand is private financial-corporate monopoly rule by the likes of Goldman Sachs and others. The Federal Reserve is one big lever in the overall process, but it's actually the big banks themselves that perform the initial creation of debt 'out of thin air'. The Federal Reserve certainly serves the private financial elite, but the Fed itself is still very much a creature of Congress, who are in turn funded by private and corporate sponsers. It's an intricate web, and while it does help attract notice and build solidarity, the 'End the Fed!' approach really isn't adequate. At this point I think that ending Citizens United may be essential before any meaningful reform can be made with the government, the Fed or the banking cartel.

Once the financial monopoly is ended inequality would certainly decrease, but I don't think it would go away entirely, and nor should it, there's simply too much variation in terms of IQ, MBTI psychology types and personal initiative. A more 'balanced' world might be one where top executives or professionals make an average of 10 times that of the lowest paid worker, instead of hundreds more.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Enishi

[Brian]

Actually, he did just the opposite -- he made a point of saying that while your words contradict your stated position he believes this is not intentional. More specifically, he is implying that you mistake branch for root. I have voiced this opinion on numerous occasions, too.

 

I don't bother to maintain a file of references to quote in Internet forums but I did intentionally provide sufficient information so that anyone with the intellectual curiosity to do so could find the details in short order with a search engine.