CosmicBills Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 yes he was and he was the mother!@#$er that enabled the Fed He didn't have a choice. They don't call them the "Illuminati" for nothing!
meazza Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 He didn't have a choice. They don't call them the "Illuminati" for nothing! True but the lizard people made him do it.
Pete Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) He didn't have a choice. They don't call them the "Illuminati" for nothing! Read http://ebookee.org/T...and_432321.html . Scariest book I have ever read- and I am a big fan of Edgar Allan Poe Here are the amazon reviews http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/product-reviews/091298645X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 Edited October 3, 2012 by Pete
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 3, 2012 Author Posted October 3, 2012 Read http://ebookee.org/T...and_432321.html . Scariest book I have ever read- and I am a big fan of Edgar Allan Poe Here are the amazon reviews http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=1 just ordered it. it amazes me that people dont know about this stuff
TPS Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 No, debt is not necessary in a capitalist system. It's necessary in our current system which is anything but market driven. Under capitalism real savings and capital formation drive the engine. As to our foreign policy initiatives geared towards "protecting American interests", those aren't the least bit capitalistic either. Businesses that wish to opperate in other areas of the world should be free to do so, but at their own cost and own peril; not by using our military presence as a defacto subsidy used to generate private profits. As to the reality of finite resources, what's you point? This is an interesting discussion, sorry I didn't see it earlier. However, you make a lot of statements without supporting them. How can you say debt is not necessary in a capitalist system? Anyone who has taken a finance course can tell you that debt IS necessary to finance production and working capital. Read up on something called the cash conversion cycle. But that's a minor issue.The important concepts you raise: what is "real savings"? What is capital formation? Can you define those for me specifically?
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 3, 2012 Author Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) This is an interesting discussion, sorry I didn't see it earlier. However, you make a lot of statements without supporting them. How can you say debt is not necessary in a capitalist system? Anyone who has taken a finance course can tell you that debt IS necessary to finance production and working capital. Read up on something called the cash conversion cycle. But that's a minor issue. The important concepts you raise: what is "real savings"? What is capital formation? Can you define those for me specifically? i think he means real savings, as in real currency, or currency backed by real tangible wealth,land, lumber, gold, silver,etc... but yeah, in order to create wealth, you need to get a loan or give out a loan... so im confused too Edited October 3, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
meazza Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Read http://ebookee.org/T...and_432321.html . Scariest book I have ever read- and I am a big fan of Edgar Allan Poe Here are the amazon reviews http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=1 Pete get off the drugs you !@#$ing stoner.
Jauronimo Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 im voting for obama? lol no.... the sun is not renewable given technical efficiency/sustainability? Strike three. Since you're no closer to figuring out what was obvious to everyone else, my "silly" comment was directed at Tasker who, like many of us before, probably felt like an ass for wasting his time crafting sensible responses to someone who hasn't the slightest grasp of the subject matter.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 This is an interesting discussion, sorry I didn't see it earlier. However, you make a lot of statements without supporting them. How can you say debt is not necessary in a capitalist system? Anyone who has taken a finance course can tell you that debt IS necessary to finance production and working capital. Read up on something called the cash conversion cycle. But that's a minor issue.I was referring to the much more narrow argument that debt is unnecessary for the "creation" of money in a capitalist system. The important concepts you raise: what is "real savings"? What is capital formation? Can you define those for me specifically? Sure. In a capitalist system, real savings are the actual goods of consumer value that can be exchanged for money which acts as a marker. Capital formation is synonym for capital accumulation.
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 3, 2012 Author Posted October 3, 2012 Strike three. Since you're no closer to figuring out what was obvious to everyone else, my "silly" comment was directed at Tasker who, like many of us before, probably felt like an ass for wasting his time crafting sensible responses to someone who hasn't the slightest grasp of the subject matter. well, you do realize you are the only person on earth who rejects renewable energy...lol
Jauronimo Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 well, you do realize you are the only person on earth who rejects renewable energy...lol Strike four.
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 4, 2012 Author Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Strike four. i thought there was only 3. your inner liberal is showing....lol Edited October 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 i thought there was only 3. your inner liberal is showing....lol I think strike three was a foul-tip the catcher dropped.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson Any one else see the irony in...the widely recognized "first liberal"...bemoaning a small group of dominant men... .....while liberals currently support a small group of...well what would you call control over 1/6th of the economy by a board of unelected people, other than "dominant"...in Obamacare. Or, the EPA? Or, the DOE? Or, the IRS? Why is a small group of corporate "men"...worse than a small group of unelected government "men"? I mean...at least the corporate men have shareholders who can call a meeting and dump any of them, board or officers, or all of them, any time they want, especially if any of the 5+(for now) different government agencies that regulate business gets wind of anything that could even remotely effect the stock price, or the media does. Once appointed...how the hell do we extract ourselves from this board? Who is going to be doing the regulating in this thing? Answer: More government employees...whose only "stock" lies in making sure this board continues to expand the program's turf and control...with nothing and nobody having any real way to stop them? With anyone who tries being demagogued? You don't think? We need real solutions to SSI and Medicare...and how have Democrats responded? Would you define that response as "serious", "intellectual"....would you define it as "intellectual activity on par with Woodrow Wilson"? The first liberal has warned us....and now we have "too big to fail" banks in Dodd/Frank. But...that irony is probably too powerful...and too obvious...for the latter-day-liberal to handle. I'll do that one in the next post.
Pete Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 The easiest way to control people is create divisions and divert peoples attention. There is little difference between democrat or republican. And it always cracks me up when sheeple comment on non political articles-" it's Obama's fault", "it's Bush's fault". Simpletons. Both parties are corporate sellouts that preach same euphanistic sound bites such as "free trade", "tort reform", and a bunch of other ****. They are one and the same. We need new political parties. And many people smell what I am stepping in. Hence the Tea Party and the Occupy movement.
TPS Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 I was referring to the much more narrow argument that debt is unnecessary for the "creation" of money in a capitalist system. In a capitalist system, real savings are the actual goods of consumer value that can be exchanged for money which acts as a marker. Capital formation is synonym for capital accumulation. Regarding debt, you stated "debt is not necessary in a captitalist system." That's quite a jump from what you state above.As for captial accumulation, I assume you mean real productive capital, and not financial capital? Too many people seem to believe that growth of financial capital is equivalent to growth of real capital. As we just experienced, it's not. Your real savings definition is lacking. real savings=goods? All goods can be exchanged for money, so is real savings equal to the value of consumer goods? This seems rather bizarre to me. A little clarification please.
Pete Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Regarding debt, you stated "debt is not necessary in a captitalist system." That's quite a jump from what you state above. As for captial accumulation, I assume you mean real productive capital, and not financial capital? Too many people seem to believe that growth of financial capital is equivalent to growth of real capital. As we just experienced, it's not. Your real savings definition is lacking. real savings=goods? All goods can be exchanged for money, so is real savings equal to the value of consumer goods? This seems rather bizarre to me. A little clarification please. all money is debt. If every debt was paid off in this country there would be no money. It is an inherent flaw of the Fed
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 4, 2012 Author Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) all money is debt. If every debt was paid off in this country there would be no money. It is an inherent flaw of the Fed no, the other poster is talking about all currency being " real" and could be exchanged for consumer goods. ie, no artificial inflation. e.g. he doesnt want 10,000 bank notes with only 5 bars of gold in the bank as its reserve. ( 10,000 loaned out, but only 1000 in the bank) Edited October 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER
Pete Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 no, the other poster is talking about all currency being " real" and could be exchanged for consumer goods. ie, no artificial inflation. e.g. he doesnt want 10,000 bank notes with only 5 bars of gold in the bank as its reserve. ( more dollars than actual market value of a commodity in the bank)... you are referring to currency being fungible. Barter is a very effective system locally
OCinBuffalo Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 The easiest way to control people is create divisions and divert peoples attention. There is little difference between democrat or republican. And it always cracks me up when sheeple comment on non political articles-" it's Obama's fault", "it's Bush's fault". Simpletons. Both parties are corporate sellouts that preach same euphanistic sound bites such as "free trade", "tort reform", and a bunch of other ****. They are one and the same. We need new political parties. And many people smell what I am stepping in. Hence the Tea Party and the Occupy movement. OWS is nowhere near = to the TEA Party, in any measure. The Tea Party is effective....OWS is defunct. Millions of Tea Party people, but it's nebulous and hard to put an exact # on, which is how they like it. 2k? of OWS people. Need I go on? No. OWS was a Democratic training mission for the "i have a graduate degree in living off government grants and teaching, and someday I aspire to be a 30-year old college student/political consultant/community organizer" people...financed by union/Hollywood $...and partially, not-so-subtly, run out of the Political Office of the WH. The Tea Party is run out of home offices, work computers, laptops in airports, and shared server space for $10 a month. Sure, big $ guys may give it money, but they do not run it. It was NEVER started by, nor is it driven by, the big $ guys. Everybody would quit otherwise. Best way to think of it: Tea Party people were going to show up at the meeting/rally anyway. Getting free pizza and a T-shirt once there...is just...nice. If you only knew how much the Tea Party has been up to....but you won't, not unless you go with them. I can't wait for the "Where did this ground game come from...in this state? WTF? Where did all these Tea Party people come from?" stories. The Tea Party doesn't want you to know, because they don't want Obama/media to know. They don't want their efforts exposed by the media, and potentially countered. All they want are the wins. They don't want the credit. Unlike OWS, this isn't how they make a living...they do that quite well on their own. They have no interest in a political career path, because they already have one. Thus, the TEA party IS and example of the "new party" you are talking about. OWS was a resume builder for future ACORN founders. -------------------------------------------------------- And, as far as your sig goes.....extending that logic means I get to spray paint your car. I do, because: if you drive to work every day on the same route as me...and I have to see your dopey bumper stickers every day, there's no way for me to avoid it. Hey, your logic = no regard for private or public property, if you are forced to see that property every day. Thus, the same goes for any signs in your yard/windows that I have to drive by on my way to the store. How about....a purple penis painted on your car, and a giant yellow vagina in your driveway/garage? No? But that's my artistic vision...and since it's my rock now, your logic says I have every right to rage against your machine...garage...lawn... Hey, it could be worse....I could paint a Rastafarian Mohammed on your car...and then you'd be in real trouble.
Recommended Posts