aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2010
Wow I finally got some time to post in this thread again, and you guys go and cover all these related subjects. Draco, I think you and I are in agreement more or less on the pitfalls and problems with a fiat currency and banking. A few brief responses:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is exactly right. This is also open fraud neighbouring on conspiracy, frankly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The most accurate term I would use to describe the Federal Reserve System is simply, a <b>scam</b>. It's a system designed, much like its predecessors in Europe, to bring control of a sovereign nations financial levers into private hands, in which they're increasingly free to manipulate at will.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd wager the most reliable source of information on these matters would be Fox news.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. Guys like Glenn Beck are faux-libertarians who are good at corraling those disaffected by the current "progressive" policies of the Obama administration to vote for the GOP in the next election. Unless this has changed, feel free to correct me as I haven't been following him as of recent.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->America really has a weird aversion to socialism.
I really don't get why, it works very nicely over here. It's one of the nicest things about living in the UK to be honest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many Americans still take their individualistic constitution pretty seriously. It's going to take some time to get them to accept the government comfort of increased socialism at the expense of their civil liberties and individual freedom.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fiat money is okay unless you're fanatic and believe no central bank learned from Weimar's republic or Zimbabe, then there's no problem. This is why ECB had rather conservative monetary policy during the crisis. Besides, people who believe in individual choice shouldn't think yellow shiny metal is a perfect choice for everyone. :-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It really depends on where you are in the food chain. Towards the top of the corporate, banking, and ruling elite its a wonderful thing. For the rest of us at the bottom and middle of the pyramid that pay for it all through inflation and fading liberties, its not the greatest deal. If average people were actually familiar with the history, mechanisms, and ideologies that favor fiat money and central banking, I doubt they would ever support it. I still believe socialist states are living with a ticking clock, where they live in relative comfort for a while as their freedom is gradually reduced and removed to a point where the state, and government protected corporate monopolies control every aspect of their lives.
<!--quoteo(post=1770392:date=May 9 2010, 01:50 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 9 2010, 01:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770392"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I still believe socialist states are living with a ticking clock, where they live in relative comfort for a while as their freedom is gradually reduced and removed to a point where the state, and government protected corporate monopolies control every aspect of their lives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is different how, except for the owner of those monopolies, to the military industrial complex of the united states?
<!--quoteo(post=1770392:date=May 9 2010, 02:50 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 9 2010, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770392"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Draco, I think you and I are in agreement more or less on the pitfalls and problems with a fiat currency and banking.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quite probably, yes.
<!--quoteo(post=1770392:date=May 9 2010, 02:50 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 9 2010, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770392"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The most accurate term I would use to describe the Federal Reserve System is simply, a <b>scam</b>. It's a system designed, much like its predecessors in Europe, to bring control of a sovereign nations financial levers into private hands, in which they're increasingly free to manipulate at will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a pretty damn good summary. I think it actually qualifies for Pyramid Scheme status, due to the perpetual loan mechanism.
<!--quoteo(post=1770392:date=May 9 2010, 02:50 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 9 2010, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770392"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope. Guys like Glenn Beck are faux-libertarians who are good at corraling those disaffected by the current "progressive" policies of the Obama administration to vote for the GOP in the next election. Unless this has changed, feel free to correct me as I haven't been following him as of recent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This has nothing to do with parties, really. FOX news has been known to be government propaganda agency for quite some time time, so their reports can be expected to be in line with what governments wants people to think, and from there on one can infer what's actually going on. Granted it's a hard feat to wade through the sheer mass of nonsense they spew.
<!--quoteo(post=1770444:date=May 9 2010, 12:47 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 9 2010, 12:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770444"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this is different how, except for the owner of those monopolies, to the military industrial complex of the united states?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe it isn't is what's the point. It doesn't really matter what exactly you call the ruling class, they're still human like the rest of us, same deal.
<!--quoteo(post=1770479:date=May 9 2010, 04:26 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 9 2010, 04:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770479"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This has nothing to do with parties, really. FOX news has been known to be government propaganda agency for quite some time time, so their reports can be expected to be in line with what governments wants people to think, and from there on one can infer what's actually going on. Granted it's a hard feat to wade through the sheer mass of nonsense they spew.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The (democratic) government wants people to think that the democratic party is trying to destroy America? Really?
<!--quoteo(post=1770530:date=May 9 2010, 11:50 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 9 2010, 11:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770530"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The (democratic) government wants people to think that the democratic party is trying to destroy America? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Divide and conquer. The idea of democratic party system is to divide and antagonize the people, while giving them an illusion of control or possibility of thereof.
I get the impression this thread is sort of heading into conspiracy theory territory the way a basejumper with a faulty parachute is sort of heading towards the ground.
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since it's probably just a result of how things happen to be. But it's hard to duspute that democracy is more of a show than anything else when the people you vote into office aren't in control of the moniez. This is just how things are in 'liberal democracies'.
<!--quoteo(post=1770565:date=May 10 2010, 07:38 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ May 10 2010, 07:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770565"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I get the impression this thread is sort of heading into conspiracy theory territory the way a basejumper with a faulty parachute is sort of heading towards the ground.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The day known fact becomes a "conspiracy theory" is the day you know Orwell was right all along.
Speaking of Orwell, I'm reasonably certain he's spinning in his grave right now at the very notion that people themselves have chosen to consider the thought of any malicious action by people in power on par with blasphemy.
<!--quoteo(post=1770586:date=May 10 2010, 11:59 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 10 2010, 11:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since it's probably just a result of how things happen to be. But it's hard to duspute that democracy is more of a show than anything else when the people you vote into office aren't in control of the moniez. This is just how things are in 'liberal democracies'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Pretty much. The trick is that no elected official has to oblige by their promises - or indeed by any methodology at all - so why would they ever? We all know this, too, that's it's a show, we just don't care to think much further on implications of the fact.
Democracy in its ideal is a fallacy - an argument from majority - and literal mob rule. In reality, it's a popularity contest exploited for personal gain by politicians and lobbyists. So, like, pick your poison.
The latter is indeed a very organic process: to have popularity you need lots of advertising space, and to have that you need lots of money, and to have lots of money you have to trade in certain behavior once you're in power. Profit rules at the end of the day, just as it does in any other system.
<!--quoteo(post=1770600:date=May 10 2010, 07:23 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 10 2010, 07:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770600"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty much. The trick is that no elected official has to oblige by their promises - or indeed by any methodology at all - so why would they ever? We all know this, too, that's it's a show, we just don't care to think much further on implications of the fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a problem of people self governing and basing the candidate on popularity instead of actual policies. They don't have to follow through because the voters don't pay attention to their votes to see if they support their promises, they make promises based on hot button issues that will never have any follow through and align themselves with a party that doesn't have a consistent history.
The problem is the inept voter base. Too many people vote on emotion instead of reality, and it has been this way since the country was founded. People are yes/no on all topics and don't want a candidate who can make distinctions (like against taxes in general but willing to support necessary ones...) because it is too hard for them to understand. We need mediators on the debates that call politicians out for not answering questions for debates to have any meaning, limited campaign times and the removal of the two party system for the system to improve. None of these things will ever happen in the US.
Exactly. To put it more simply, people are uninformed.
The best part is that informal logic had recognized this since dawn of time, that's why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum" target="_blank">Argument from Majority</a> is recognized as a fallacy. In this case, however, it also collides with the fact that voters simply have no effect on actions of those elected.
I doubt this system can be fixed in general, nevermind that no one wants it to be, in a classic example of false dichotomy the only alternative we can imagine is direct dictatorship... It can certainly be improved by measures you mentioned, a great deal at that, but I think its state today is really a product of natural tendency and gravitation, a sort of natural selection, not a product of any foreign factors that can simply be done away with.
It just happens to be convenient for people in power for it to be this way, and so it will be.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/business/12regulate.html?src=busln" target="_blank">Senate Backs One-Time Audit of Fed’s Bailout Role</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Article+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Article)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->“At a time when the Federal Reserve has provided the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world, the largest financial institutions in this country, trillion-dollar institutions,†Mr. Sanders said in a floor speech, “the Sanders amendment makes it clear that the Fed can no longer operate in the kind of secrecy that it has operated in forever.†He added, “For the first time the American people will know exactly who received over $2 trillion in zero or virtually zero-interest loans from the Fed, and they will know the exact terms of those financial arrangements.â€
...
“While it is better than no audit at all, it guts the spirit of a truly meaningful audit of the most crucial transactions of the Fed,†[Ron Paul] wrote on his Web site. “In fact, rather than still calling the Sanders Amendment an audit, maybe it should instead be called more of a disclosure at this point. The new language of the Sanders amendment requires a one-time disclosure from the Fed,†Mr. Paul continued. “Basically, their sins of the past would be revealed and Americans would know more about who got bailed out by the Fed and under what terms. This would be good, but it’s not nearly enough.â€
...
The vote was 96 to 0.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On another note, I'm getting reports of imminent mass devaluation (money creation) by ECB from a few sources.
<!--quoteo(post=1770926:date=May 12 2010, 12:53 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 12 2010, 12:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770926"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah ok. Enough with the hyperboles.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IsCeSkthACM"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IsCeSkthACM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<!--quoteo(post=1770927:date=May 12 2010, 12:57 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 12 2010, 12:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770927"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's like having the daily mail delivered to the doorstep of your favourite online community. Care to cite some of these reports Draco? There's no denying the Eurozone is in dire straits, but your alarmism is getting tiring.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's pathetically ungrateful of you. Your accusations of "alarmism" would be better placed if my predictions have not come true already, or the markets were not in actual peril.
For whoever might actually care, the Fed audit, US market crash and beginning of Eurozone peril are all over the news right now. The Eurozone devaluation you shouldn't hear about for some time - if it's true - likely there won't be an official announcement. There's currently a big meeting in connection with the Eurozone debt crisis, something should come out of that once it's over.
It might help if the word crisis wasn't being used once every two sentences, it isn't really neccesary, you can describe something without reminding everyone that it's terrible and going to ruin the world forever.
I know this sounds like fear-mongering, but the simple fact is: ###### does happen, and quite regularly. Everyone owes it to themselves to stay on the look-out, but also away from paranoia. It's really rather discouraging to be greeted with insult when you're trying to help.
In the news, it seems pretty much everyone is screaming bloody death towards EU at the moment, but this in particular is more "professional journalism" than any reasonable warning signs. ECB and Fed are very tight-lipped on whatever the hell they plan to do on the large scale, I think this is where the real reason for fear of relief would come from.
It's just that there's nothing revolutionary or new with these crisises. The system has a built in predisposition towards them recurring with shorter intervals and less intensity, or greater invervals and higher intensity. This is already known by anyone who's interested at all. Screaming wolf every time is pointless, instead what needs to be done is to explain how this is happening and putting it in a historical context so support for an overhaul can be gathered.
Exactly. This stuff happens on a very regular basis, that's why it's called "The business <i>cycle</i>".
As for activism... Short of full-blown revolution, none of us has any influence over what's going on, really. Monetary policy isn't subject to vote, and even if it was... Well. I just thought it'd be a good idea to leave a note in advance.
As for why it's happening... Well, that's much more simple. If the Fed wants it to happen, it does. If the Fed doesn't want it, it doesn't. Simple.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2010
I'm back! Some replies:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->me: I still believe socialist states are living with a ticking clock, where they live in relative comfort for a while as their freedom is gradually reduced and removed to a point where the state, and government protected corporate monopolies control every aspect of their lives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this is different how, except for the owner of those monopolies, to the military industrial complex of the united states?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's different because a private corporate monopoly doesn't have police power or taxpayer subsidization to back it. It may be large and influential, but it can't legally force people to buy or use its product or service. A number of the most well connected corporations that make up our "military industrial complex", receive no-bid government contracts for their arms. Not only is this anti-competitive, it enables corruption and waste of taxpayer funds. A number of these corporations have failed as businesses, then bailed out and nationalized by the government. One such example is Lockheed Martin, which continues to receive lucrative government contracts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I get the impression this thread is sort of heading into conspiracy theory territory the way a basejumper with a faulty parachute is sort of heading towards the ground.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conspiracy is the engine of history, and this has not changed in our modern time. It seems to be a uniquely American response that even the most well researched and rational conspiracies are ridiculed and dismissed as the work of an uneducated, and delusional fanatic. I think this comes from the belief that our democratic institutions and constitutionally divided government protects us from the people that wish to cause us harm or dissolve our liberties. Or maybe its because life has been so good to us for so long, that we have been lulled into a false sense of security? Maybe some people are simply happy with their life, and don't go looking for things that will challenge that view and make them unhappy? Ignorance is bliss after all. The media doesn't help the case for examining these views impartially, since they often pick the most extreme case by a easily discredited person to represent the whole of other, more reasonable and rational explanations.
I have also never understood why its considered socially proper to label someone a conspiracy theorist, along with all its implied stigma, to someone who is merely challenging a widely held view. This weird belief is fairly exclusive to the political arena, whereas we accept conspiracy as an everyday part of life when it concerns more mundane, everyday issues like robbery, murder, embezzlement, kidnapping etc...
He should be judged on the merit of his claims, the quality of his reasoning, and the measure of his evidence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty much. The trick is that no elected official has to oblige by their promises - or indeed by any methodology at all - so why would they ever? We all know this, too, that's it's a show, we just don't care to think much further on implications of the fact.
Democracy in its ideal is a fallacy - an argument from majority - and literal mob rule. In reality, it's a popularity contest exploited for personal gain by politicians and lobbyists. So, like, pick your poison.
The latter is indeed a very organic process: to have popularity you need lots of advertising space, and to have that you need lots of money, and to have lots of money you have to trade in certain behavior once you're in power. Profit rules at the end of the day, just as it does in any other system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since it's probably just a result of how things happen to be.
But it's hard to duspute that democracy is more of a show than anything else when the people you vote into office aren't in control of the moniez.
This is just how things are in 'liberal democracies'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A democracy is the ideal political system for a despot, and all his associates to rule with. You maintain great influence, power, and wealth and are given in air of legitimacy on the world stage because your citizens voted you in. This illusion is further enhanced by allowing your subjects to choose from political parties that on the surface are opposed, but as far as important matters are considered, are one in the same. The people will vote and decide the trivial matters that concern them, but the important ones like war, civil liberties, money, and national sovereignty are left to the ruling class and the whims of rich and powerful men, regardless of the wishes of the citizens.
Constitutional republics are created to constrain the will of the majority, and the elected ruling class that acts in prosecution of their easily manipulated wishes. Having a fully gold backed money supply aids in this cause, and controls the size and power of government to infringe on the rights of citizens.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Speaking of Orwell, I'm reasonably certain he's spinning in his grave right now at the very notion that people themselves have chosen to consider the thought of any malicious action by people in power on par with blasphemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably, although I've always disagreed with his view that socialism is wonderful. It's interesting (unnerving?) to see shades of 1984 in the world today, specifically in the gradual development of the EU and NAU and shared regional currencies. The IMF and World Bank are going to play a big role in the coming decades to further this trend.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For whoever might actually care, the Fed audit, US market crash and beginning of Eurozone peril are all over the news right now. The Eurozone devaluation you shouldn't hear about for some time - if it's true - likely there won't be an official announcement. There's currently a big meeting in connection with the Eurozone debt crisis, something should come out of that once it's over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The audit the fed bill was recently watered down by the senate only to include a single audit of what actions they took in the bailouts of 2008-2009, and to what banks the money went to. It's scope only involves examining the actions taken using its emergency lending authority. It is part of the financial reform package this is waiting to be passed. Certainly better than nothing. More Eurozone countries might receive a bailout from the Fed, their own central banks, and the IMF, along with austerity measures to reduce the debt load. Expect rioting in the more socialist nations that are displeased their government benefits are being cut back. This is the perpetual debt play at work, so keep a close eye on the actions of the IMF and the Fed in the coming months.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly. This stuff happens on a very regular basis, that's why it's called "The business cycle".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because it happens on a regular basis, does not mean it should be accepted as normal, and therefore beyond concern. The business cycle is a result of the Fed (our central bank) manipulating the credit markets through interest rates and the creation of more fiat money to promote business expansion and investment. I consider it an aberration to the real business cycle that is built around the free market principles of supply and demand.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for why it's happening... Well, that's much more simple. If the Fed wants it to happen, it does. If the Fed doesn't want it, it doesn't. Simple.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Fed has been gradually given much more power over the decades than what it used to have back in 1913. It's invented a lot of new "levers" in that time which help it further manipulate the economy. I think many in Congress are genuinely scared to REALLY challenge Bernanke and the Fed, due to the economic chaos they could create without needing any approval whatsoever from Congress to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to lose that practically unlimited flow of cash they receive that is funding their pet projects. Congress is going to have to grow some balls to seriously challenge the Fed and be ready to suffer the consequences (along with the rest of us) of when they do.
<!--quoteo(post=1771772:date=May 21 2010, 02:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 21 2010, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Conspiracy is the engine of history, and this has not changed in our modern time. It seems to be a uniquely American response that even the most well researched and rational conspiracies are ridiculed and dismissed as the work of an uneducated, and delusional fanatic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I'm merely applying Hanlon's razor.
<!--quoteo(post=1771663:date=May 19 2010, 03:05 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ May 19 2010, 03:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know this sounds like fear-mongering, but the simple fact is: ###### does happen, and quite regularly. Everyone owes it to themselves to stay on the look-out, but also away from paranoia. It's really rather discouraging to be greeted with insult when you're trying to help.
In the news, it seems pretty much everyone is screaming bloody death towards EU at the moment, but this in particular is more "professional journalism" than any reasonable warning signs. ECB and Fed are very tight-lipped on whatever the hell they plan to do on the large scale, I think this is where the real reason for fear of relief would come from.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really an insult as much as it is a stylistic criticism. You can express information without sounding hyperbolic or alarmist, avoid using words which suggest panic or fear, like 'crisis' and what not, and simply state the occurances and all potential repercussions with an indication of their probability. Essentially, write as though you didn't want anybody to read it without falling asleep.
<!--quoteo(post=1771772:date=May 21 2010, 01:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 21 2010, 01:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have also never understood why its considered socially proper to label someone a conspiracy theorist, along with all its implied stigma, to someone who is merely challenging a widely held view. This weird belief is fairly exclusive to the political arena, whereas we accept conspiracy as an everyday part of life when it concerns more mundane, everyday issues like robbery, murder, embezzlement, kidnapping etc...
He should be judged on the merit of his claims, the quality of his reasoning, and the measure of his evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well half a dozen people teaming up to rob somewhere is a bit easier than secretly controlling the entire country, and when you consider how many robbers get caught doing it and the fact that robbery is a fairly well documented phenomenom, it seems improbable that a really huge conspiracy would go entirely unnoticed by anybody except for a few people.
The issue with conspiracy theories is that they usually require hitherto unheard of levels of secrecy in a time and place where people are capable of and obsessed with finding out every single secret they can in the hopes that they can gossip about it. Sleazy stories sell papers and magazines, usually if there is some genuine conspiracy the papers jump all over it and yell about it for months on end. Least they do over here, I imagine the same is true every time a politician does something silly in america.
Consider that in a democracy you are not elected by grace of your cunning or fitness to run a country, but by popularity, nothing changes overnight and causes people to go from 'I won the local election because I yelled at a bunch of people from a box' to 'I won the bigger election so now I am a secret agent who knows all sorts of things and am colluding with evil people to overthrow the liberty of all humanity'.
People are, ultimately, people. They are largely incompetent and small minded, at best they ride a tide of social pressure that has existed prior to their coming, and become its figurehead, and get hailed as the person who made things happen when in reality, all the people who went out and actually did the work and didn't go around making speeches about the wonderfulness of the cause are the ones who made it happen. At worst they try and try and never get anything done because they suck and nobody else cares, which is the case with most people.
Rome didn't conquer the world, all the roman soldiers did that, martin luther king didn't give black people rights, all the people who suppored the civil rights movement did that, churchill didn't win world war 2, all the soldiers who killed a load of germans did that. People as a whole do things, small numbers of people do not do anything other than look pretty.
<!--quoteo(post=1771772:date=May 21 2010, 02:15 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 21 2010, 02:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because it happens on a regular basis, does not mean it should be accepted as normal, and therefore beyond concern. The business cycle is a result of the Fed (our central bank) manipulating the credit markets through interest rates and the creation of more fiat money to promote business expansion and investment. I consider it an aberration to the real business cycle that is built around the free market principles of supply and demand.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So the solution to the problem of the volatility of the capitalistic system is deregulation? :/ THAT'S A VERY STRANGE CONCLUSION IN FACE OF WHAT WE KNOW.
There are many things that can be contributed to simply by accident, neglect, or incompetence in the political realm. There are a number of unknowns in dealing with any event (whether controversial or not) whereas much like in court, the evidence must be piled up high enough on one side to prove its merit beyond a reasonable doubt. Skepticism is a good thing, and its the job of those who hold conspiratorial views to prove that their version of the story is indeed the correct one.
This is why a number of conspiracies fall apart under closer examination of their evidence, and by using simple logic. There is also an issue of epistemic closure, whereas the unknowns of an event are unable to be explained with available evidence, or the conspiratorial person will not accept overwhelming countervailing evidence that disproves his own less substantiated conclusions. The issue becomes even more complex and difficult when the media, public institutions, and federal agencies that people look to for informed debate have been influenced and directed by groups like the CFR, among others.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not really an insult as much as it is a stylistic criticism. You can express information without sounding hyperbolic or alarmist, avoid using words which suggest panic or fear, like 'crisis' and what not, and simply state the occurances and all potential repercussions with an indication of their probability. Essentially, write as though you didn't want anybody to read it without falling asleep.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a common, and completely human reaction from those who are just becoming more informed and educated on the impact of these controversial topics. It is not the preferred route to informing more people about controversial and perplexing events, but sometimes it is necessary to have them become more aware of it. In my opinion, you need to appeal much more to the intellectual, rational side of people than the alarmist, knee-jerk shock jock tactics to scare people into believing what you say. I think guys like Alex Jones are especially guilty of this latter approach, although a number of his underlying conspiracies are fairly accurate. I suppose he does it to attract the widest possible audience as possible.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well half a dozen people teaming up to rob somewhere is a bit easier than secretly controlling the entire country, and when you consider how many robbers get caught doing it and the fact that robbery is a fairly well documented phenomenom, it seems improbable that a really huge conspiracy would go entirely unnoticed by anybody except for a few people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You bring up a good point. Everyday conspiracies are more readily believable simply because they are common and the law immediately punishes those who commit them. Although just because a comparatively small number of people know of an overarching conspiracy, does not automatically make it untrue. The burden of proof is even greater on those that wish to expose it to the light of day.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The issue with conspiracy theories is that they usually require hitherto unheard of levels of secrecy in a time and place where people are capable of and obsessed with finding out every single secret they can in the hopes that they can gossip about it. Sleazy stories sell papers and magazines, usually if there is some genuine conspiracy the papers jump all over it and yell about it for months on end. Least they do over here, I imagine the same is true every time a politician does something silly in america.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a mute point since the mainstream media taking heads are dominated by members of groups like the CFR. They control and steer the debate and can easily discredit conspiracies in the minds of the average, uninformed American who has a passing interest in political and world affairs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Consider that in a democracy you are not elected by grace of your cunning or fitness to run a country, but by popularity, nothing changes overnight and causes people to go from 'I won the local election because I yelled at a bunch of people from a box' to 'I won the bigger election so now I am a secret agent who knows all sorts of things and am colluding with evil people to overthrow the liberty of all humanity'.
People are, ultimately, people. They are largely incompetent and small minded, at best they ride a tide of social pressure that has existed prior to their coming, and become its figurehead, and get hailed as the person who made things happen when in reality, all the people who went out and actually did the work and didn't go around making speeches about the wonderfulness of the cause are the ones who made it happen. At worst they try and try and never get anything done because they suck and nobody else cares, which is the case with most people.
Rome didn't conquer the world, all the roman soldiers did that, martin luther king didn't give black people rights, all the people who suppored the civil rights movement did that, churchill didn't win world war 2, all the soldiers who killed a load of germans did that. People as a whole do things, small numbers of people do not do anything other than look pretty.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The nature of American democracy as you describe is fairly accurate. Although nothing could be more intellectually dishonest than saying that "small numbers of people do not do anything other than look pretty". I'm assuming you're meaning when it involves conspiracy? Because small groups of people and even individuals have influenced and dominated social movements and influenced government action throughout all of history. The real power in America comes from the direction and influence of the CFR, along with the monetary scientists at the Fed and the associated banking system. The elected ruling class in our country is beholden to the CFRs influence on our power centers, and the fiat money supplied by the Fed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the solution to the problem of the volatility of the capitalistic system is deregulation? :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
De-regulation as most Americans know it is a farce. The main culprit behind the volatility of our marketplace comes from the policies of the Fed enabling businesses to gorge on cheap credit and make bad investment decisions that aren't in sync with the laws of supply and demand. In a true capitalistic system and free market, businesses expand and invest in themselves from their own profit savings, and not from borrowing from banks (using risky fractional reserve fiat loans guaranteed through inflation and taxpayer money). The market would cleanse itself of the loss. Once the government gets involved and props up a failed company with taxpayer funds (or inflation generated loans from big banks), the failure becomes a much larger drag on the economy. The more often that happens, the hangover that results will grow larger and larger.
The "de-regulation and re-regulation cycle" is about letting select companies go bankrupt from their mal-investment, and then having banks like JPMorgan, Citigrop, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs getting a Fed\Congressional bailout to cover their loan losses. The company is folded and the banks absorb its assets, or they receive new loans with interest and a bank member is given a controlling spot on their board of directors. The company often continues to operate at a loss from that point onward.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->THAT'S A VERY STRANGE CONCLUSION IN FACE OF WHAT WE KNOW.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1771837:date=May 21 2010, 06:05 PM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 21 2010, 06:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The nature of American democracy as you describe is fairly accurate. Although nothing could be more intellectually dishonest than saying that "small numbers of people do not do anything other than look pretty". I'm assuming you're meaning when it involves conspiracy? Because small groups of people and even individuals have influenced and dominated social movements and influenced government action throughout all of history. The real power in America comes from the direction and influence of the CFR, along with the monetary scientists at the Fed and the associated banking system. The elected ruling class in our country is beholden to the CFRs influence on our power centers, and the fiat money supplied by the Fed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No I mean universally, small numbers of people do small things, big numbers of people do big things.
If you look at big scale social changes they very often don't occur until the time is right. What is hailed as an intellectual triumph in one decade can be decried as blasphemy in another. Some ideas are tried many times throughout history but they don't work until at one point, suddenly it seems that they do. I would suggest that this has very little to do with who leads them, and more to do with the amount of support the idea already has. When civil rights became the big thing in the fifties there were a lot of people who supported it, I don't imagine martin luther king had a magic brainwashing beam which instantly convinced a country full of bigots and oppressors that black people deserved equal rights, I think instead a lot of people in the country already thought that and when the movement gained momentum, they started to speak out about it. But for that to be the case the desire must already be present, it must have spread before the news coverage, before the figurehead, it must have occured through human factors like how people were brought up, ideas they were exposed to, the way things were done in other places perhaps.
Similarly world war 2 did not start because hitler managed to mind control the entire nation with his psychic charisma powers, he was an angry shouty man and nobody likes angry shouty men unless they are shouting things you believe in. At the time germany was in serious trouble because of the treaties that occured at the end of world war 1 which basically crippled the country, people felt like they were being given the serious short end of the stick and when someone came along yelling about how germany should be great and how germany needs to have power, and freedom, and room for its people, and how it should be the one making the rules, they listened. People shout that every day but nobody listens to them, because most of us already have a good amount of those things, of course if you shout it to people who feel they don't, they will support you, but that is because they have the belief already, they already agree with you, you haven't convinced them.
About the only slight deviation is if you have a small number of people who can control the flow of information to a large number of people, and even then it isn't really that powerful, because people form their opinions based on many sources. News programs for example don't control the population because there are many news programs all with differing views, and things like personal experience in particular and simple word of mouth from friends and family contribute vastly to how people view the world, media coverage is probably the most powerful single information source in many people's lives, but I still doubt it has the majority weighting when it comes to making decisions, the sheer weight of numbers that other sources have will see to that. People are very complex creatures so it's unlikely that they will be exposed only to one viewpoint on a situation. Media coverage is a fractured, impersonal, and above all solitary source in a world full of sources, I think it is often given a rather overstated amount of power.
People don't lead social movements, they are carried along by them, the leaders are not the controllers of the ideas, they are the embodiment of them, a great social leader is simply someone who happens to want to do exactly what a lot of other people want to do and who is vocal about it. If ever they deviated from the wishes of the many, they would stop being the poster child for that idea. I'm sure you've seen that often enough in so many places to know that it's true. Occasionally one happens along who doesn't get it wrong, and who lives the idea all their life, and then we build statues of them, or pull their statues down.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1771837:date=May 21 2010, 12:05 PM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 21 2010, 12:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->De-regulation as most Americans know it is a farce. The main culprit behind the volatility of our marketplace comes from the policies of the Fed enabling businesses to gorge on cheap credit and make bad investment decisions that aren't in sync with the laws of supply and demand. In a true capitalistic system and free market, businesses expand and invest in themselves from their own profit savings, and not from borrowing from banks (using risky fractional reserve fiat loans guaranteed through inflation and taxpayer money). The market would cleanse itself of the loss. Once the government gets involved and props up a failed company with taxpayer funds (or inflation generated loans from big banks), the failure becomes a much larger drag on the economy. The more often that happens, the hangover that results will grow larger and larger.
The "de-regulation and re-regulation cycle" is about letting select companies go bankrupt from their mal-investment, and then having banks like JPMorgan, Citigrop, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs getting a Fed\Congressional bailout to cover their loan losses. The company is folded and the banks absorb its assets, or they receive new loans with interest and a bank member is given a controlling spot on their board of directors. The company often continues to operate at a loss from that point onward.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're making the same mistake as people who only eat organic food make, just because it's "natural" does not make it "desirable". All sorts of bad things can happen in a completely deregulated system, bubbles, ponzi schemes, and complicated derivatives don't just go away. Unregulated short selling increases market volatility like crazy. Not to mention all the nasty tricks you can pull against your competitors that do nothing to improve competition.
Believing in the free market to take care of you is no better than believing in the government to take care of you.
I have a laundry list of changes, but none of them involve deregulation. Different regulation, sure, but not deregulation like you're talking about.
<!--quoteo(post=1771772:date=May 20 2010, 07:15 PM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 20 2010, 07:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1771772"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Conspiracy is the engine of history, and this has not changed in our modern time. It seems to be a uniquely American response that even the most well researched and rational conspiracies are ridiculed and dismissed as the work of an uneducated, and delusional fanatic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A person who exposes a well researched and rational conspiracy is a <i>whistle blower</i>. A person who presents a 'researched and rational' conspiracy that requires ignoring reality is a <i>conspiracy theorist</i>.
Yes, there are conspiracies all the time, and they get exposed over time. Sometimes many people know about it and the people who act like it is a conspiracy are simply unaware that it is already public knowledge that X influences or orchestrates Y, like with the no-bid contracts for the military.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited May 2010
Sorry for the delay, I takes me a good chunk of time to properly write these responses, the formatting is off since I did it in notepad:
A lot of good points Chris, and I do not mean to portray the mainsteam media as being an all knowing all controlling force. I do see it as being influential on the daily lives of American's, particularly in times of crisis and the 24/7 news cycle. How many people still believe that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction, or solid links with Bin Laden a long time after it was dis-proven? That of course, just being one example, with more research I'm sure I could come up with many more. The average person who is less informed on world affairs and history often believe what they hear on the news, and lack the critical understanding of certain issues someone more familiar with it might have. After all, who has time to really read up and research on these political and economic issues when our lives are so busy?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->About the only slight deviation is if you have a small number of people who can control the flow of information to a large number of people, and even then it isn't really that powerful, because people form their opinions based on many sources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is exactly what has happened. We rely on the experts to do the hard work for us, and we often rely on their opinion. My main point of concern is when many of these 'experts' are paid corporate lobbyists, members of front groups like the CFR, or those who are employed by the government to propagandize favorable viewpoints of sponsored data. Then you take your test of 'comparing news sources' and you notice all the major news networks and national papers, any many of the organizations our citizens look to for educated opinion, are again dominated by CFR members or have them in controlling positions.
Fortunately, new Internet news sources have begun to challenge this hegemony of influence and flow of information. I do not have as much faith as you in people looking at other sources for their news as often as you think. I imagine most people don't have the time to sort through the news, or read up more on the subject matter before deciding their opinion on an issue. It certainly isn't those who don't have time to debate these matters on internet forums or with others irl who have the stamina and comparable knowledge to discuss the issue at length.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're making the same mistake as people who only eat organic food make, just because it's "natural" does not make it "desirable". ll sorts of bad things can happen in a completely deregulated system, bubbles, ponzi schemes, and complicated derivatives don't just go away. Unregulated short selling increases market volatility like crazy. Not to mention all the nasty tricks you can pull against your competitors that do nothing to improve competition.
Believing in the free market to take care of you is no better than believing in the government to take care of you.
I have a laundry list of changes, but none of them involve deregulation. Different regulation, sure, but not deregulation like you're talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what your list would contain, but my #1 issue is to make it so that corporations and banks don't get bailed out with taxpayer money and inflation when they should rightly fail for their excessive risks and fraudulent banking practices. This just enables reckless risk taking in the market place and many of the practices you reference. I'm also still working through my thoughts on the limits of rightful government intervention in the market, which should be used sparingly. For instance, the issue of powerful corporate monopolies that can rival the government in power.
The largest and most obvious intervention in the markets is the Fed central bank setting interest rates for bank loans that many companies and individuals rely on instead of their own profit re-investment. I have never subscribed to the Keynesian view of economics, as I find it is much more amendable to the causes of socialism and empire than it is of a free, constitutional republic. The 'free' market as is exists currently doesn't represent what a real free market looks like, and any new 'regulations' should keep that in mind. So far I have not seen anything that will fix any of the problems we faced in late 2008 in the new financial overhaul bill, and its unlikely we ever will until the economy implodes.
I do believe the free market is a much better place to look for many of things that people currently get from government. It's cheaper, more efficient, and has much less bureaucracy involved to get things done. Even better, I don't have to shell out my tax money (and inflation, the hidden tax) to pay for other's welfare. Not that I wish to leave them in the street, I just think its much better for private charity and individuals to shoulder that responsibility than the government. As government grows, liberty decreases. They are allowed to take our money and purchasing power to fund national welfare, a global military empire, a corrupt banking system, a failed drug war, and many other 'great society' programs,
A few of the changes you'd like to see in fixing our current economic woes would be interesting to debate over if you have some.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A person who exposes a well researched and rational conspiracy is a whistle blower. A person who presents a 'researched and rational' conspiracy that requires ignoring reality is a conspiracy theorist.
Yes, there are conspiracies all the time, and they get exposed over time. Sometimes many people know about it and the people who act like it is a conspiracy are simply unaware that it is already public knowledge that X influences or orchestrates Y, like with the no-bid contracts for the military.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good points, I provided a link earlier in this thread discussion that linked to a very good lecture on this topic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TAh1gy6rc). What I find is when it involves a subject that requires detailed, technical knowledge of the subject matter (like the world banking system)to fully understand what their talking about, many people simply dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory" since they simply cannot, or choose not for whatever reason to delve into the subject further than a cursory glance at it. The reality deviates so far from the accepted myth, it is viewed as unbelievable and therefore, beyond credibility.
I read Obama's 'information czars' Harvard paper on conspiracy theories, and I agree with him on a few points on why some people do not accept something as a fallacy after its been sufficiently debunked as false. However I strongly disagree on any measures to curb this sort of free speech, but I suppose that is a different matter entirely.
Whatever the concept, the underlying problem is the public is being robbed poor. Ever followed the links how everyone and everything is basicly Goldman Sachs etc? Since years there is no diffrence between politicians and these people anymore, which has led to the sorry state of affairs, that there is not even a 1% tax for Wallstreet, when on the other hand the average dude pays tax for almost anything. And that 1% would be so much money, you basicly would have no budget problem in your country anymore. Be it infrastrucutre or social security.
In the end there is only so much lobbyism a democracy can take before it breaks down.
For example in spain (goldman sachs again being the politicians) can loan money from the state almost for free and in the end it is like 500% plus for them at the expanse of the public and im telling you thats only the tip of the iceberg thats happening internationally.
Greece, who do you think sits in IMF?
Italy, Mario Monti (premier minister) ring a bell?
Ding. Dong.
Why do you think non of these statistics of how much money they made during the "crisis" are send oh so prominently on TV?
Because poeple would notice something is very wrong and start questioning.
Comments
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That is exactly right. This is also open fraud neighbouring on conspiracy, frankly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The most accurate term I would use to describe the Federal Reserve System is simply, a <b>scam</b>. It's a system designed, much like its predecessors in Europe, to bring control of a sovereign nations financial levers into private hands, in which they're increasingly free to manipulate at will.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd wager the most reliable source of information on these matters would be Fox news.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. Guys like Glenn Beck are faux-libertarians who are good at corraling those disaffected by the current "progressive" policies of the Obama administration to vote for the GOP in the next election. Unless this has changed, feel free to correct me as I haven't been following him as of recent.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->America really has a weird aversion to socialism.
I really don't get why, it works very nicely over here. It's one of the nicest things about living in the UK to be honest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many Americans still take their individualistic constitution pretty seriously. It's going to take some time to get them to accept the government comfort of increased socialism at the expense of their civil liberties and individual freedom.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fiat money is okay unless you're fanatic and believe no central bank learned from Weimar's republic or Zimbabe, then there's no problem. This is why ECB had rather conservative monetary policy during the crisis. Besides, people who believe in individual choice shouldn't think yellow shiny metal is a perfect choice for everyone. :-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It really depends on where you are in the food chain. Towards the top of the corporate, banking, and ruling elite its a wonderful thing. For the rest of us at the bottom and middle of the pyramid that pay for it all through inflation and fading liberties, its not the greatest deal. If average people were actually familiar with the history, mechanisms, and ideologies that favor fiat money and central banking, I doubt they would ever support it. I still believe socialist states are living with a ticking clock, where they live in relative comfort for a while as their freedom is gradually reduced and removed to a point where the state, and government protected corporate monopolies control every aspect of their lives.
And this is different how, except for the owner of those monopolies, to the military industrial complex of the united states?
Quite probably, yes.
<!--quoteo(post=1770392:date=May 9 2010, 02:50 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 9 2010, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770392"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The most accurate term I would use to describe the Federal Reserve System is simply, a <b>scam</b>. It's a system designed, much like its predecessors in Europe, to bring control of a sovereign nations financial levers into private hands, in which they're increasingly free to manipulate at will.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a pretty damn good summary. I think it actually qualifies for Pyramid Scheme status, due to the perpetual loan mechanism.
<!--quoteo(post=1770392:date=May 9 2010, 02:50 AM:name=aeroripper)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (aeroripper @ May 9 2010, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770392"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nope. Guys like Glenn Beck are faux-libertarians who are good at corraling those disaffected by the current "progressive" policies of the Obama administration to vote for the GOP in the next election. Unless this has changed, feel free to correct me as I haven't been following him as of recent.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has nothing to do with parties, really. FOX news has been known to be government propaganda agency for quite some time time, so their reports can be expected to be in line with what governments wants people to think, and from there on one can infer what's actually going on. Granted it's a hard feat to wade through the sheer mass of nonsense they spew.
<!--quoteo(post=1770444:date=May 9 2010, 12:47 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 9 2010, 12:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770444"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this is different how, except for the owner of those monopolies, to the military industrial complex of the united states?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it isn't is what's the point. It doesn't really matter what exactly you call the ruling class, they're still human like the rest of us, same deal.
The (democratic) government wants people to think that the democratic party is trying to destroy America? Really?
Divide and conquer. The idea of democratic party system is to divide and antagonize the people, while giving them an illusion of control or possibility of thereof.
The day known fact becomes a "conspiracy theory" is the day you know Orwell was right all along.
Speaking of Orwell, I'm reasonably certain he's spinning in his grave right now at the very notion that people themselves have chosen to consider the thought of any malicious action by people in power on par with blasphemy.
<!--quoteo(post=1770586:date=May 10 2010, 11:59 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ May 10 2010, 11:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770586"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since it's probably just a result of how things happen to be. But it's hard to duspute that democracy is more of a show than anything else when the people you vote into office aren't in control of the moniez. This is just how things are in 'liberal democracies'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much. The trick is that no elected official has to oblige by their promises - or indeed by any methodology at all - so why would they ever? We all know this, too, that's it's a show, we just don't care to think much further on implications of the fact.
Democracy in its ideal is a fallacy - an argument from majority - and literal mob rule. In reality, it's a popularity contest exploited for personal gain by politicians and lobbyists. So, like, pick your poison.
The latter is indeed a very organic process: to have popularity you need lots of advertising space, and to have that you need lots of money, and to have lots of money you have to trade in certain behavior once you're in power. Profit rules at the end of the day, just as it does in any other system.
This is a problem of people self governing and basing the candidate on popularity instead of actual policies. They don't have to follow through because the voters don't pay attention to their votes to see if they support their promises, they make promises based on hot button issues that will never have any follow through and align themselves with a party that doesn't have a consistent history.
The problem is the inept voter base. Too many people vote on emotion instead of reality, and it has been this way since the country was founded. People are yes/no on all topics and don't want a candidate who can make distinctions (like against taxes in general but willing to support necessary ones...) because it is too hard for them to understand. We need mediators on the debates that call politicians out for not answering questions for debates to have any meaning, limited campaign times and the removal of the two party system for the system to improve. None of these things will ever happen in the US.
The best part is that informal logic had recognized this since dawn of time, that's why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum" target="_blank">Argument from Majority</a> is recognized as a fallacy. In this case, however, it also collides with the fact that voters simply have no effect on actions of those elected.
I doubt this system can be fixed in general, nevermind that no one wants it to be, in a classic example of false dichotomy the only alternative we can imagine is direct dictatorship... It can certainly be improved by measures you mentioned, a great deal at that, but I think its state today is really a product of natural tendency and gravitation, a sort of natural selection, not a product of any foreign factors that can simply be done away with.
It just happens to be convenient for people in power for it to be this way, and so it will be.
<!--QuoteBegin-Article+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Article)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->“At a time when the Federal Reserve has provided the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world, the largest financial institutions in this country, trillion-dollar institutions,†Mr. Sanders said in a floor speech, “the Sanders amendment makes it clear that the Fed can no longer operate in the kind of secrecy that it has operated in forever.†He added, “For the first time the American people will know exactly who received over $2 trillion in zero or virtually zero-interest loans from the Fed, and they will know the exact terms of those financial arrangements.â€
...
“While it is better than no audit at all, it guts the spirit of a truly meaningful audit of the most crucial transactions of the Fed,†[Ron Paul] wrote on his Web site. “In fact, rather than still calling the Sanders Amendment an audit, maybe it should instead be called more of a disclosure at this point. The new language of the Sanders amendment requires a one-time disclosure from the Fed,†Mr. Paul continued. “Basically, their sins of the past would be revealed and Americans would know more about who got bailed out by the Fed and under what terms. This would be good, but it’s not nearly enough.â€
...
The vote was 96 to 0.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On another note, I'm getting reports of imminent mass devaluation (money creation) by ECB from a few sources.
Also the US market just crashed.
Care to cite some of these reports Draco? There's no denying the Eurozone is in dire straits, but your alarmism is getting tiring.
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IsCeSkthACM"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IsCeSkthACM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
<!--quoteo(post=1770927:date=May 12 2010, 12:57 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ May 12 2010, 12:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1770927"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's like having the daily mail delivered to the doorstep of your favourite online community. Care to cite some of these reports Draco? There's no denying the Eurozone is in dire straits, but your alarmism is getting tiring.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's pathetically ungrateful of you. Your accusations of "alarmism" would be better placed if my predictions have not come true already, or the markets were not in actual peril.
For whoever might actually care, the Fed audit, US market crash and beginning of Eurozone peril are all over the news right now. The Eurozone devaluation you shouldn't hear about for some time - if it's true - likely there won't be an official announcement. There's currently a big meeting in connection with the Eurozone debt crisis, something should come out of that once it's over.
EDIT: I stand corrected.
<a href="http://www.dailymarkets.com/forex/2010/05/10/why-europe-actually-wants-a-lower-euro/" target="_blank">http://www.dailymarkets.com/forex/2010/05/...s-a-lower-euro/</a>
<a href="http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2010/05/10/memo-to-ecb-print-money" target="_blank">http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2010/05/10/m...ecb-print-money</a>
<a href="http://brechtforum.org/euro-devaluation-and-us-deficit" target="_blank">http://brechtforum.org/euro-devaluation-and-us-deficit</a>
In the news, it seems pretty much everyone is screaming bloody death towards EU at the moment, but this in particular is more "professional journalism" than any reasonable warning signs. ECB and Fed are very tight-lipped on whatever the hell they plan to do on the large scale, I think this is where the real reason for fear of relief would come from.
As for activism... Short of full-blown revolution, none of us has any influence over what's going on, really. Monetary policy isn't subject to vote, and even if it was... Well. I just thought it'd be a good idea to leave a note in advance.
As for why it's happening... Well, that's much more simple. If the Fed wants it to happen, it does. If the Fed doesn't want it, it doesn't. Simple.
EDIT: Entertainment.
<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-13-2010/hoarders" target="_blank">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-13-2010/hoarders</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->me:
I still believe socialist states are living with a ticking clock, where they live in relative comfort for a while as their freedom is gradually reduced and removed to a point where the state, and government protected corporate monopolies control every aspect of their lives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And this is different how, except for the owner of those monopolies, to the military industrial complex of the united states?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's different because a private corporate monopoly doesn't have police power or taxpayer subsidization to back it. It may be large and influential, but it can't legally force people to buy or use its product or service. A number of the most well connected corporations that make up our "military industrial complex", receive no-bid government contracts for their arms. Not only is this anti-competitive, it enables corruption and waste of taxpayer funds. A number of these corporations have failed as businesses, then bailed out and nationalized by the government. One such example is Lockheed Martin, which continues to receive lucrative government contracts.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I get the impression this thread is sort of heading into conspiracy theory territory the way a basejumper with a faulty parachute is sort of heading towards the ground.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Conspiracy is the engine of history, and this has not changed in our modern time. It seems to be a uniquely American response that even the most well researched and rational conspiracies are ridiculed and dismissed as the work of an uneducated, and delusional fanatic. I think this comes from the belief that our democratic institutions and constitutionally divided government protects us from the people that wish to cause us harm or dissolve our liberties. Or maybe its because life has been so good to us for so long, that we have been lulled into a false sense of security? Maybe some people are simply happy with their life, and don't go looking for things that will challenge that view and make them unhappy? Ignorance is bliss after all. The media doesn't help the case for examining these views impartially, since they often pick the most extreme case by a easily discredited person to represent the whole of other, more reasonable and rational explanations.
I have also never understood why its considered socially proper to label someone a conspiracy theorist, along with all its implied stigma, to someone who is merely challenging a widely held view. This weird belief is fairly exclusive to the political arena, whereas we accept conspiracy as an everyday part of life when it concerns more mundane, everyday issues like robbery, murder, embezzlement, kidnapping etc...
He should be judged on the merit of his claims, the quality of his reasoning, and the measure of his evidence.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Pretty much. The trick is that no elected official has to oblige by their promises - or indeed by any methodology at all - so why would they ever? We all know this, too, that's it's a show, we just don't care to think much further on implications of the fact.
Democracy in its ideal is a fallacy - an argument from majority - and literal mob rule. In reality, it's a popularity contest exploited for personal gain by politicians and lobbyists. So, like, pick your poison.
The latter is indeed a very organic process: to have popularity you need lots of advertising space, and to have that you need lots of money, and to have lots of money you have to trade in certain behavior once you're in power. Profit rules at the end of the day, just as it does in any other system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wouldn't call it a conspiracy since it's probably just a result of how things happen to be.
But it's hard to duspute that democracy is more of a show than anything else when the people you vote into office aren't in control of the moniez.
This is just how things are in 'liberal democracies'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A democracy is the ideal political system for a despot, and all his associates to rule with. You maintain great influence, power, and wealth and are given in air of legitimacy on the world stage because your citizens voted you in. This illusion is further enhanced by allowing your subjects to choose from political parties that on the surface are opposed, but as far as important matters are considered, are one in the same. The people will vote and decide the trivial matters that concern them, but the important ones like war, civil liberties, money, and national sovereignty are left to the ruling class and the whims of rich and powerful men, regardless of the wishes of the citizens.
Constitutional republics are created to constrain the will of the majority, and the elected ruling class that acts in prosecution of their easily manipulated wishes. Having a fully gold backed money supply aids in this cause, and controls the size and power of government to infringe on the rights of citizens.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Speaking of Orwell, I'm reasonably certain he's spinning in his grave right now at the very notion that people themselves have chosen to consider the thought of any malicious action by people in power on par with blasphemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably, although I've always disagreed with his view that socialism is wonderful. It's interesting (unnerving?) to see shades of 1984 in the world today, specifically in the gradual development of the EU and NAU and shared regional currencies. The IMF and World Bank are going to play a big role in the coming decades to further this trend.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For whoever might actually care, the Fed audit, US market crash and beginning of Eurozone peril are all over the news right now. The Eurozone devaluation you shouldn't hear about for some time - if it's true - likely there won't be an official announcement. There's currently a big meeting in connection with the Eurozone debt crisis, something should come out of that once it's over.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The audit the fed bill was recently watered down by the senate only to include a single audit of what actions they took in the bailouts of 2008-2009, and to what banks the money went to. It's scope only involves examining the actions taken using its emergency lending authority. It is part of the financial reform package this is waiting to be passed. Certainly better than nothing. More Eurozone countries might receive a bailout from the Fed, their own central banks, and the IMF, along with austerity measures to reduce the debt load. Expect rioting in the more socialist nations that are displeased their government benefits are being cut back. This is the perpetual debt play at work, so keep a close eye on the actions of the IMF and the Fed in the coming months.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly. This stuff happens on a very regular basis, that's why it's called "The business cycle".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because it happens on a regular basis, does not mean it should be accepted as normal, and therefore beyond concern. The business cycle is a result of the Fed (our central bank) manipulating the credit markets through interest rates and the creation of more fiat money to promote business expansion and investment. I consider it an aberration to the real business cycle that is built around the free market principles of supply and demand.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for why it's happening... Well, that's much more simple. If the Fed wants it to happen, it does. If the Fed doesn't want it, it doesn't. Simple.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Fed has been gradually given much more power over the decades than what it used to have back in 1913. It's invented a lot of new "levers" in that time which help it further manipulate the economy. I think many in Congress are genuinely scared to REALLY challenge Bernanke and the Fed, due to the economic chaos they could create without needing any approval whatsoever from Congress to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to lose that practically unlimited flow of cash they receive that is funding their pet projects. Congress is going to have to grow some balls to seriously challenge the Fed and be ready to suffer the consequences (along with the rest of us) of when they do.
Actually I'm merely applying Hanlon's razor.
In the news, it seems pretty much everyone is screaming bloody death towards EU at the moment, but this in particular is more "professional journalism" than any reasonable warning signs. ECB and Fed are very tight-lipped on whatever the hell they plan to do on the large scale, I think this is where the real reason for fear of relief would come from.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really an insult as much as it is a stylistic criticism. You can express information without sounding hyperbolic or alarmist, avoid using words which suggest panic or fear, like 'crisis' and what not, and simply state the occurances and all potential repercussions with an indication of their probability. Essentially, write as though you didn't want anybody to read it without falling asleep.
He should be judged on the merit of his claims, the quality of his reasoning, and the measure of his evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well half a dozen people teaming up to rob somewhere is a bit easier than secretly controlling the entire country, and when you consider how many robbers get caught doing it and the fact that robbery is a fairly well documented phenomenom, it seems improbable that a really huge conspiracy would go entirely unnoticed by anybody except for a few people.
The issue with conspiracy theories is that they usually require hitherto unheard of levels of secrecy in a time and place where people are capable of and obsessed with finding out every single secret they can in the hopes that they can gossip about it. Sleazy stories sell papers and magazines, usually if there is some genuine conspiracy the papers jump all over it and yell about it for months on end. Least they do over here, I imagine the same is true every time a politician does something silly in america.
Consider that in a democracy you are not elected by grace of your cunning or fitness to run a country, but by popularity, nothing changes overnight and causes people to go from 'I won the local election because I yelled at a bunch of people from a box' to 'I won the bigger election so now I am a secret agent who knows all sorts of things and am colluding with evil people to overthrow the liberty of all humanity'.
People are, ultimately, people. They are largely incompetent and small minded, at best they ride a tide of social pressure that has existed prior to their coming, and become its figurehead, and get hailed as the person who made things happen when in reality, all the people who went out and actually did the work and didn't go around making speeches about the wonderfulness of the cause are the ones who made it happen. At worst they try and try and never get anything done because they suck and nobody else cares, which is the case with most people.
Rome didn't conquer the world, all the roman soldiers did that, martin luther king didn't give black people rights, all the people who suppored the civil rights movement did that, churchill didn't win world war 2, all the soldiers who killed a load of germans did that. People as a whole do things, small numbers of people do not do anything other than look pretty.
So the solution to the problem of the volatility of the capitalistic system is deregulation? :/ THAT'S A VERY STRANGE CONCLUSION IN FACE OF WHAT WE KNOW.
There are many things that can be contributed to simply by accident, neglect, or incompetence in the political realm. There are a number of unknowns in dealing with any event (whether controversial or not) whereas much like in court, the evidence must be piled up high enough on one side to prove its merit beyond a reasonable doubt. Skepticism is a good thing, and its the job of those who hold conspiratorial views to prove that their version of the story is indeed the correct one.
This is why a number of conspiracies fall apart under closer examination of their evidence, and by using simple logic. There is also an issue of epistemic closure, whereas the unknowns of an event are unable to be explained with available evidence, or the conspiratorial person will not accept overwhelming countervailing evidence that disproves his own less substantiated conclusions. The issue becomes even more complex and difficult when the media, public institutions, and federal agencies that people look to for informed debate have been influenced and directed by groups like the CFR, among others.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not really an insult as much as it is a stylistic criticism. You can express information without sounding hyperbolic or alarmist, avoid using words which suggest panic or fear, like 'crisis' and what not, and simply state the occurances and all potential repercussions with an indication of their probability. Essentially, write as though you didn't want anybody to read it without falling asleep.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a common, and completely human reaction from those who are just becoming more informed and educated on the impact of these controversial topics. It is not the preferred route to informing more people about controversial and perplexing events, but sometimes it is necessary to have them become more aware of it. In my opinion, you need to appeal much more to the intellectual, rational side of people than the alarmist, knee-jerk shock jock tactics to scare people into believing what you say. I think guys like Alex Jones are especially guilty of this latter approach, although a number of his underlying conspiracies are fairly accurate. I suppose he does it to attract the widest possible audience as possible.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well half a dozen people teaming up to rob somewhere is a bit easier than secretly controlling the entire country, and when you consider how many robbers get caught doing it and the fact that robbery is a fairly well documented phenomenom, it seems improbable that a really huge conspiracy would go entirely unnoticed by anybody except for a few people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You bring up a good point. Everyday conspiracies are more readily believable simply because they are common and the law immediately punishes those who commit them. Although just because a comparatively small number of people know of an overarching conspiracy, does not automatically make it untrue. The burden of proof is even greater on those that wish to expose it to the light of day.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The issue with conspiracy theories is that they usually require hitherto unheard of levels of secrecy in a time and place where people are capable of and obsessed with finding out every single secret they can in the hopes that they can gossip about it. Sleazy stories sell papers and magazines, usually if there is some genuine conspiracy the papers jump all over it and yell about it for months on end. Least they do over here, I imagine the same is true every time a politician does something silly in america.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a mute point since the mainstream media taking heads are dominated by members of groups like the CFR. They control and steer the debate and can easily discredit conspiracies in the minds of the average, uninformed American who has a passing interest in political and world affairs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Consider that in a democracy you are not elected by grace of your cunning or fitness to run a country, but by popularity, nothing changes overnight and causes people to go from 'I won the local election because I yelled at a bunch of people from a box' to 'I won the bigger election so now I am a secret agent who knows all sorts of things and am colluding with evil people to overthrow the liberty of all humanity'.
People are, ultimately, people. They are largely incompetent and small minded, at best they ride a tide of social pressure that has existed prior to their coming, and become its figurehead, and get hailed as the person who made things happen when in reality, all the people who went out and actually did the work and didn't go around making speeches about the wonderfulness of the cause are the ones who made it happen. At worst they try and try and never get anything done because they suck and nobody else cares, which is the case with most people.
Rome didn't conquer the world, all the roman soldiers did that, martin luther king didn't give black people rights, all the people who suppored the civil rights movement did that, churchill didn't win world war 2, all the soldiers who killed a load of germans did that. People as a whole do things, small numbers of people do not do anything other than look pretty.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The nature of American democracy as you describe is fairly accurate. Although nothing could be more intellectually dishonest than saying that "small numbers of people do not do anything other than look pretty". I'm assuming you're meaning when it involves conspiracy? Because small groups of people and even individuals have influenced and dominated social movements and influenced government action throughout all of history. The real power in America comes from the direction and influence of the CFR, along with the monetary scientists at the Fed and the associated banking system. The elected ruling class in our country is beholden to the CFRs influence on our power centers, and the fiat money supplied by the Fed.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So the solution to the problem of the volatility of the capitalistic system is deregulation? :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
De-regulation as most Americans know it is a farce. The main culprit behind the volatility of our marketplace comes from the policies of the Fed enabling businesses to gorge on cheap credit and make bad investment decisions that aren't in sync with the laws of supply and demand. In a true capitalistic system and free market, businesses expand and invest in themselves from their own profit savings, and not from borrowing from banks (using risky fractional reserve fiat loans guaranteed through inflation and taxpayer money). The market would cleanse itself of the loss. Once the government gets involved and props up a failed company with taxpayer funds (or inflation generated loans from big banks), the failure becomes a much larger drag on the economy. The more often that happens, the hangover that results will grow larger and larger.
The "de-regulation and re-regulation cycle" is about letting select companies go bankrupt from their mal-investment, and then having banks like JPMorgan, Citigrop, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs getting a Fed\Congressional bailout to cover their loan losses. The company is folded and the banks absorb its assets, or they receive new loans with interest and a bank member is given a controlling spot on their board of directors. The company often continues to operate at a loss from that point onward.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->THAT'S A VERY STRANGE CONCLUSION IN FACE OF WHAT WE KNOW.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do we know? Feel free to elaborate :)
No I mean universally, small numbers of people do small things, big numbers of people do big things.
If you look at big scale social changes they very often don't occur until the time is right. What is hailed as an intellectual triumph in one decade can be decried as blasphemy in another. Some ideas are tried many times throughout history but they don't work until at one point, suddenly it seems that they do. I would suggest that this has very little to do with who leads them, and more to do with the amount of support the idea already has. When civil rights became the big thing in the fifties there were a lot of people who supported it, I don't imagine martin luther king had a magic brainwashing beam which instantly convinced a country full of bigots and oppressors that black people deserved equal rights, I think instead a lot of people in the country already thought that and when the movement gained momentum, they started to speak out about it. But for that to be the case the desire must already be present, it must have spread before the news coverage, before the figurehead, it must have occured through human factors like how people were brought up, ideas they were exposed to, the way things were done in other places perhaps.
Similarly world war 2 did not start because hitler managed to mind control the entire nation with his psychic charisma powers, he was an angry shouty man and nobody likes angry shouty men unless they are shouting things you believe in. At the time germany was in serious trouble because of the treaties that occured at the end of world war 1 which basically crippled the country, people felt like they were being given the serious short end of the stick and when someone came along yelling about how germany should be great and how germany needs to have power, and freedom, and room for its people, and how it should be the one making the rules, they listened. People shout that every day but nobody listens to them, because most of us already have a good amount of those things, of course if you shout it to people who feel they don't, they will support you, but that is because they have the belief already, they already agree with you, you haven't convinced them.
About the only slight deviation is if you have a small number of people who can control the flow of information to a large number of people, and even then it isn't really that powerful, because people form their opinions based on many sources. News programs for example don't control the population because there are many news programs all with differing views, and things like personal experience in particular and simple word of mouth from friends and family contribute vastly to how people view the world, media coverage is probably the most powerful single information source in many people's lives, but I still doubt it has the majority weighting when it comes to making decisions, the sheer weight of numbers that other sources have will see to that. People are very complex creatures so it's unlikely that they will be exposed only to one viewpoint on a situation. Media coverage is a fractured, impersonal, and above all solitary source in a world full of sources, I think it is often given a rather overstated amount of power.
People don't lead social movements, they are carried along by them, the leaders are not the controllers of the ideas, they are the embodiment of them, a great social leader is simply someone who happens to want to do exactly what a lot of other people want to do and who is vocal about it. If ever they deviated from the wishes of the many, they would stop being the poster child for that idea. I'm sure you've seen that often enough in so many places to know that it's true. Occasionally one happens along who doesn't get it wrong, and who lives the idea all their life, and then we build statues of them, or pull their statues down.
Sometimes both.
The "de-regulation and re-regulation cycle" is about letting select companies go bankrupt from their mal-investment, and then having banks like JPMorgan, Citigrop, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs getting a Fed\Congressional bailout to cover their loan losses. The company is folded and the banks absorb its assets, or they receive new loans with interest and a bank member is given a controlling spot on their board of directors. The company often continues to operate at a loss from that point onward.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're making the same mistake as people who only eat organic food make, just because it's "natural" does not make it "desirable". All sorts of bad things can happen in a completely deregulated system, bubbles, ponzi schemes, and complicated derivatives don't just go away. Unregulated short selling increases market volatility like crazy. Not to mention all the nasty tricks you can pull against your competitors that do nothing to improve competition.
Believing in the free market to take care of you is no better than believing in the government to take care of you.
I have a laundry list of changes, but none of them involve deregulation. Different regulation, sure, but not deregulation like you're talking about.
A person who exposes a well researched and rational conspiracy is a <i>whistle blower</i>. A person who presents a 'researched and rational' conspiracy that requires ignoring reality is a <i>conspiracy theorist</i>.
Yes, there are conspiracies all the time, and they get exposed over time. Sometimes many people know about it and the people who act like it is a conspiracy are simply unaware that it is already public knowledge that X influences or orchestrates Y, like with the no-bid contracts for the military.
A lot of good points Chris, and I do not mean to portray the mainsteam media as being an all knowing all controlling force. I do see it as being influential on the daily lives of American's, particularly in times of crisis and the 24/7 news cycle. How many people still believe that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction, or solid links with Bin Laden a long time after it was dis-proven? That of course, just being one example, with more research I'm sure I could come up with many more. The average person who is less informed on world affairs and history often believe what they hear on the news, and lack the critical understanding of certain issues someone more familiar with it might have. After all, who has time to really read up and research on these political and economic issues when our lives are so busy?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->About the only slight deviation is if you have a small number of people who can control the flow of information to a large number of people, and even then it isn't really that powerful, because people form their opinions based on many sources.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is exactly what has happened. We rely on the experts to do the hard work for us, and we often rely on their opinion. My main point of concern is when many of these 'experts' are paid corporate lobbyists, members of front groups like the CFR, or those who are employed by the government to propagandize favorable viewpoints of sponsored data. Then you take your test of 'comparing news sources' and you notice all the major news networks and national papers, any many of the organizations our citizens look to for educated opinion, are again dominated by CFR members or have them in controlling positions.
Fortunately, new Internet news sources have begun to challenge this hegemony of influence and flow of information. I do not have as much faith as you in people looking at other sources for their news as often as you think. I imagine most people don't have the time to sort through the news, or read up more on the subject matter before deciding their opinion on an issue. It certainly isn't those who don't have time to debate these matters on internet forums or with others irl who have the stamina and comparable knowledge to discuss the issue at length.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You're making the same mistake as people who only eat organic food make, just because it's "natural" does not make it "desirable". ll sorts of bad things can happen in a completely deregulated system, bubbles, ponzi schemes, and complicated derivatives don't just go away. Unregulated short selling increases market volatility like crazy. Not to mention all the nasty tricks you can pull against your competitors that do nothing to improve competition.
Believing in the free market to take care of you is no better than believing in the government to take care of you.
I have a laundry list of changes, but none of them involve deregulation. Different regulation, sure, but not deregulation like you're talking about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what your list would contain, but my #1 issue is to make it so that corporations and banks don't get bailed out with taxpayer money
and inflation when they should rightly fail for their excessive risks and fraudulent banking practices. This just enables reckless risk taking in the market place and
many of the practices you reference. I'm also still working through my thoughts on the limits of rightful government intervention in the market, which should be used sparingly. For instance, the issue of powerful corporate monopolies that can rival the government in power.
The largest and most obvious intervention in the markets is the Fed central bank setting interest rates for bank loans that many companies and individuals rely on instead of their own profit re-investment. I have never subscribed to the Keynesian view of economics, as I find it is much more amendable to the
causes of socialism and empire than it is of a free, constitutional republic. The 'free' market as is exists currently doesn't represent what a real free market looks like, and any new 'regulations' should keep that in mind. So far I have not seen anything that will fix any of the problems we faced in late 2008 in the new financial overhaul bill, and its unlikely we ever will until the economy implodes.
I do believe the free market is a much better place to look for many of things that people currently get from government. It's cheaper, more efficient, and has much less bureaucracy involved to get things done. Even better, I don't have to shell out my tax money (and inflation, the hidden tax) to pay for other's welfare. Not that I wish to leave them in the street, I just think its much better for private charity and individuals to shoulder that responsibility than the government. As government grows, liberty decreases. They are allowed to take our money and purchasing power to fund national welfare, a global military empire, a corrupt banking system, a failed drug war, and many other 'great society' programs,
A few of the changes you'd like to see in fixing our current economic woes would be interesting to
debate over if you have some.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A person who exposes a well researched and rational conspiracy is a whistle blower. A person who presents a 'researched and rational' conspiracy that requires ignoring reality is a conspiracy theorist.
Yes, there are conspiracies all the time, and they get exposed over time. Sometimes many people know about it and the people who act like it is a conspiracy are simply unaware that it is already public knowledge that X influences or orchestrates Y, like with the no-bid contracts for the military.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good points, I provided a link earlier in this thread discussion that linked to a very good lecture on this topic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TAh1gy6rc). What I find is when it involves a subject that requires detailed, technical knowledge of the subject matter (like the world banking system)to fully understand what their talking about, many people simply dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory" since they simply cannot, or choose not for whatever reason to delve into the subject further than a cursory glance at it. The reality deviates so far from the accepted myth, it is viewed as unbelievable and therefore, beyond credibility.
I read Obama's 'information czars' Harvard paper on conspiracy theories, and I agree with him on a few points on why some people
do not accept something as a fallacy after its been sufficiently debunked as false. However I strongly
disagree on any measures to curb this sort of free speech, but I suppose that is a different matter entirely.
It's a good read for those who're interested:
<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585" target="_blank">http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585</a>
In the end there is only so much lobbyism a democracy can take before it breaks down.
For example in spain (goldman sachs again being the politicians) can loan money from the state almost for free and in the end it is like 500% plus for them at the expanse of the public and im telling you thats only the tip of the iceberg thats happening internationally.
Greece, who do you think sits in IMF?
Italy, Mario Monti (premier minister) ring a bell?
Ding. Dong.
Why do you think non of these statistics of how much money they made during the "crisis" are send oh so prominently on TV?
Because poeple would notice something is very wrong and start questioning.