You should have refused. Most likely they would have backed down. Or you would have gotten beat up, but then you would have had a pretty juicy lawsuit. Lying to and threatening prisoners to get them to allow things they can refuse is SOP here in Nazi Germany, oops, I mean the US.
I speak from experience: they cuffed my hands behind my back and put me in a holding cell for about 2 hours. Believe me, unless you are an acrobat, it starts to really hurt after a while. When I started moaning, they came and told me to be quiet. "Sorry, but it hurts." "Give us the blood sample." "No." Eventually they gave up.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. However is it less evil. Absent patent reform, (go ahead, hold your breath, I dare you...), I think it is a good thing to have less evil. Fuck!
i want you to listen to reason: we need to get off oil now, or we will suffer
I know you and I disagree on a lot of political topics, but I'm 100% with you here. I'm a greedy capitalist who's far more interested in my own lifestyle than in a spotted owl, but I want us to get off oil and onto something long-term sustainable, and ASAP. I'd happily encourage Congress to fund a Manhattan Project-style national security-motivated investment to make it happen. Forget about carbon dioxide and all that (even if I do think those things are important) - I just don't want to depend on the good graces of countries who hate us to keep my country running.
Either we invest in alternative energy development now and eat the research costs for the next X years until it comes online, or we wait until gas gets ludicrously expensive and then start research - and then wait X years after that until we can use it. Maybe if we'd taken this stuff seriously in the 70s and 80s, X would almost be up and we'd have viable alternatives available today. Thanks, previous generation.
We are slaves. That is why the "previous generation" fucked us. You don't understand this. You don't have to. All you need to understand is one simple subject: Fractional Reserve Banking. That is the yoke that binds us. All we need do is end the practice of FRB, and we will be free.
Not only that, but when the annular grommet was damaged, BP pushed the consequences of that under the rug. What were the consequences? The pressure testing was invalid. No wonder the cement casings failed. I don't believe in the death penalty, but in this case I'll make an exception. The chairman and CEO of BP should face the wall.
Still, the drilling company is just as much to blame. They should have told BP to stuff it. Put the CEO of that company against the wall too.
No, he would get as much or more punishment than we used to mete out to those who murdered in a fit of passion. The prison economy needs grist. I don't know what to hate more: What my country has become, or the apologists for said nightmare.
No, my point based upon my views: That some religious people are victims of an evil philosophy. That some of those victims promulgate said evil philosophy, and so are themselves evil. That there are the few, the proud, the paragons of evil: the people who are not truly religious but utilize the evil philosophy to subjugate and degrade their fellows.
So, this then was and is my point expanded a bit: The fact that some non-religious people are also evil does not excuse or deflate the evil of the religious philosophy. Also, that fact that not all aspects of the evil philosophy are evil, does, again, not excuse or deflate the evil of the religious philosophy.
So why do I pick on religion???? That's your real question isn't it? Not because of conceit, but precisely because it is seductive, hypocritical, vainglorious, falsely humble, etc., etc. Billions of people are its victims. I am a victim and I am not religious. It is low-hanging fruit in the sense that if one were to end religion, one would do away with a huge host of evil all at one stroke. I daresay that such a stroke would be the greatest achievement of man to date. (Although fractional reserve banking gives religion a good run for its money!) Anyway, if you want to run well in a race, first dump the forty pounds of chain on your shoulders. My conceit is that that religion is that forty pounds of chain. Dump it and we may well have the energy to tackle other, more diffuse and personalized evil. Keep it and we will do neither effectively.
And, no, there is no danger of throwing the drinking water out with Damien. (Mirror of the baby and bath water cliché.) The bits of wisdom embedded in religion will survive just fine without their shitty media.
So, why do you indulge your conceit? I.e. that you are a dispassionate and thoughtful observer?
Oh come on! What causes have made any progress? Yes, we don't officially pick on racial groups as such any more, (and that is a good thing indeed!), but, let's face it, the same tyranny those groups were subjected to back in the day is now becoming, slowly but surely, SOP for all of us.
I mean what? Just because we are not yet officially at hellhole status, where do you draw the line? Is it "all good" as long as we are somewhere in the top 20% of nations liberty wise? Top 30%? Better than the worst? What?
So here is where we are: No habeus corpus. No due process. No equal protection. No freedom of speech. Make no mistake, just because you aren't arrested every time you say something critical of the government DOES NOT mean that you have freedom of speech. Sorry, but I really wonder if you even understand what I just said. Do you understand? Do you have any concept of how far down the tube to hell hole land we have gone? At this point the only thing separating us from them is custom. Mere custom. Not the rule of law, sir! And that is a crisis. More than spittle should fly!!!
Dude, your old man fucked you up worse than you realize. You still can't think clearly. What an asshole he was! I'm sorry.
BTW religion is mind control propaganda as evil as evil can be. Just because some non-religious people are evil too, doesn't excuse the 10,000 years of horrifying abuse we have suffered as a result of failing to realize that religion is a sure symptom of insanity and acting accordingly. Hello?
Keep wringing your hands you fucking pussies! There is only one answer to this sort of tyranny - secede!!! Will it ever happen? No, you are all too stupid, and you are much smarter than the average dumbfuck walking the streets. What a fucking nightmare - I was born in 1955, and have watched a once semi-free nation become a total slave concentration camp. Does anyone here have any idea why I should have any hope that things will not just keep getting worse and worse?
Not surprisingly you are misunderstanding how it works. Read the Heinlein novel first. That does a much better job of explaining how it works on a day to day level than Douglas himself.
Once you get a more accurate picture, please let me explain something: I don't believe that at our current level of productivitiy the dividend would be sufficient to live on for all but the most pecunias. Most people would still want to work so as to enjoy a certain standard of living.
More: In my opinion Social Credit would actually do a better job of supporting private enterprise than what we call Capitalism. Read Heinlein, and I will attempt to justify that statement.
Darn, I was sure that I said it several times. Social Credit, an invention of one Clifford Hugh Douglas. It is a system of government that takes special care to exactly specify how its monetary system shall function.
This feature alone makes it far superior to every governmental system yet promulgated, as the failure to precisely specify how the monetary system will function renders *any* system subject to usurpation.
Again, even if you don't agree with Social Credit's exact methodology for implementing a monetary system, its framework alone is the greatest achievement of political creation to date, for the simple fact that the framework has the implementation of the monetary system firmly entrenched in its structure. This alone is a monumental accomplishment.
If you doubt my claim, I beg that you merely consider that history of the United States between 1776 and 1913. Again and again the nation was beset with monetary woes and strife. My claim is that that chaos was the result of the founding fathers' failure to precisely specify how the monetary system should operate in the USA. Mind you I don't hold it against them - I don't think that they would have know what to say even if the thought occurred to them, conversely their failure was very likely strongly connected to their knowledge that they did not know what to say about the subject, so rather than say the wrong thing, they said very little. They did know it is important! Writings clearly captured that sentiment, but lacking a theory that they felt was sound, they largely abdicated the opportunity.
Anyway...
If you would like to read a lightweight introduction to Social Credit read For Us The Living by Robert Heinlein. It's his worst novel, but a great exposition of a completely functional modern utopia. He never mentions Social Credit, but the novel's future USA has a government that is exactly how a Social Credit government would be.
I hope you will, if nothing else, acknowledge that here I have beyond any argument stated what I believe a superior system to be. I have not, I admit, attempted to elucidate that system's functioning. I leave that to far abler hands than mine, and I have pointed you towards them. Yes?
I know. Wow indeed. I may be a loon, I know how the system works. It's not that complicated. It's called fractional reserve banking. You might want to become acquainted with the subject being as how you wear its manacles 24/7. Then read some Douglas. Link's in my sig.
Or take the blue pill. You're comfortable, aren't you? Why question reality? The answers might not be to your liking. Yep, definitely the blue pill.
Hey, even the guy's parents who have 1M in revenue and aren't breaking even are in a enviable position. They have cashflow of 1M. Now all they have to do is to figure out a way to divert some of the stream into their own pockets, without strangling the flow, and, hey! Your'e making money. Then scale up!!
Hold it my friend. With all due respect, it is you who is holding misconceptions. I didn't have to read far to find the first one: it is not the Reserve Bank that makes the loans, it is all the "retail" banks for lack of a better term. Money in the United States is put into circulation every time anyone uses a credit card, buys a car or a house, borrows money to operate a business, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The actual loans made by the Fed are a drop in the bucket compared to the loans I am talking about.
Next you beg the question with your statement that something should "absorb the ups and downs". No! The ups and downs are caused by the very system put into place to supposedly absorb them. Are they less catastrophic then they used to be when we had a deadly combination of commodity based currency and fractional reserves (largely unregulated). Yes, indeed they are. (Well so far at least, although the ever growing national debt may well one day result in a crash to end all crashes. No oil, meaning no food, and millions will perish.) But, no matter, I agree that the ups and downs are less catastrophic, however, in my view the system we have was extorted out of us by the very players who took advantage of the poorly engineered system we used to have to press us into a corner. Not knowing any better, we were ready to try anything. Never forget the words of Woodrow Wilson!! Anyway they adroitly replaced the very bad system we had with one that is just as subject to manipulation to produce said ups and downs, but now (then) firmly under their control. They now milk us like cows, somewhat gently, but never the less implacably.
I only mentioned hedges because you did. I was talking about the monetary system, and you said, "The cycle of bubbles and busts have more to do with attempts to hedge funds then the monetary system." I disagree with your statement; I don't think that you understand fractional reserve banking and that is why you don't understand how the system causes "cycles". I tried to explain that, (I failed miserably), and then mentioned hedges only to say that they are of small influence compared to the monetary system itself.
Next you go on at some length about the disadvantages of commodity based currency. I am not surprised to hear that from you or anyone else. Remember those levers I mentioned. One of their most sacred levers is the "make sure that the debate is always framed as fiat money vs. gold." I never advocated commodity based currency. It is the very mechanism whereby we were sold into slavery.
Yes I mentioned pensioners! The market system is not in some kind of vacuum separate from the monetary system. To use an extreme example: if the monetary system goes into some kind of death spiral such as hyperinflation, doesn't the market follow suit? Investment is not supposed to be some kind of glorified casino; it is supposed to be a way to earn an income from the loan of one's capitol, said capitol being put to work to breath life into industrial innovation. Innovation that benefits all with increased functionality and efficiency. Not some sort of zero sum casino game with many losers and a few very large winners, and more importantly with society as a whole gaining nothing. But with "cycles" who can invest intelligently, except those who control the cycles? Certainly not pension plans. They have taken it on the chin again and again. "Conservatives" blame this on the concepts of government forcing collective pension savings, and howl that individuals should be able to invest or not as they choose. That's true, but it still is a cheap way to avoid the truth: "individuals" would fare no better in the cyclical market than bureaucracies.
Next you mention the government manipulation that made this bubble worse than some others. Again true, but misses the point: the government would not manipulate if it was not trying to spare people the pain of a crash. And they would not be doing that if their was no boom threatening to bust in the f
I got a better idea. Take the top ten execs, the board of directors, and, for good measure, the actual guy who signed off on not using the safety device, and lop off their heads. Bet this shit doesn't happen again for a long time.
I think that you can greatly increase cloud cover with only a small amount of water relative to total evaporation. The difference is the mechanism: with evaporation energy enters the liquid water as heat, resulting in a phase change to gas. So, as a result of evaporation, gaseous water enters the atmosphere. With the sprayers, liquid water is mechanically forced into the atmosphere, as liquid, not as gas. Apparently this results in greater cloud cover all out of proportion to the amount of water involved.
Actually, this is because it's a system that works and works with other countries in international trade. It's not some massive conspiracy, the debt for wealth scheme is a simple buffer on inflation moves that stabilizes and standardizes the economies of the areas. Without it, you would have massive inflation or deflation with ever addition or subtraction of wealth in the monetary system. That's not good for the stability of any country.
The cycle of bubbles and busts have more to do with attempts to hedge funds then the monetary system. In other words, it's the market not the monetary system causing those problems you see.
Ah, this is where we disagree profoundly. It is a system that works better than commodity backed currency. However it is obvious to me that it inevitably produces bubbles and busts. Money is put into circulation by banks making loans. That is the only way any money gets put into circulation. That creates a loan with money that is owed consisting of the principal plus the interest. The principal was put into circulation when the loan was made, so that is repayable, but where is the interest to come from? Well, what happens is that a new and larger loan is made. (In 1913 when this began there was non-loan money in circulation, so for a while that could be captured. It is long gone.) Only now even more is owed. Thus the germ of the boom or bubble. This goes on for some time, with ever loosening requirements for the loan takers. Then the weaker portion of the loan takers start to become too large of risks. At that point the cycle of loans is shut down, and the currency supply vanishes. Bust time. It's really that simple at core.
Hedges and such are just variations on the theme. Also, the mechanism that evolves for determining who gets to "lift the needle" (It's a game of musical chairs.) is where major corruption is instantiated. Major corruption, that is, if one disregards the maxi corruption engendered by the system itself. In comparison to the overall system your Goldman Sachses (the needle lifter in the last bubble bust) are small fry.
Who, one might ask, are the victims of this system? Every legitimate business person. An individual who invests his or her life savings into starting a business, only to see the marketplace evaporate like magic. Pensioners. You name it. Basically everyone to varying degrees except the few, very few, who profit from this system. I don't claim to understand exactly how the profit mechanism operates, and I really don't care - for me it is sufficient to observe the boom and bust mechanism, the toll it takes, and judge that it must be stopped.
I don't think of it as a massive conspiracy. It can't be, (for the reason you mentions as well as others), and it doesn't have to be. The world's economy is very large. If several groups who operate behind the scenes in shifting allegiances/contests, were to somehow capture say 2% of the GNP of the largest nations, that would be a lot of pie to go around. None of them would want to rock the boat too violently especially now that nationalistic fervor in the western world is torpid. Why bother? That's a lot of pie! Sure, if you can bury one of the others without making a fuss, pull the trigger. After all they'd do it to you given the chance, but don't rock the boat. The slime such as profiteering off military conflicts is what they use as rewards for their toadys. Let the toadys get their hands dirty. They're expendable anyway, plus it's good to have expendables with dirt on their hands, ready to be bus-under-shoved when need be. Makes great theater. Keeps us entertained.
Here's one thing, one little factoid that I find most remarkable and is I believe mostly undeniable. Almost every western nation, and quite a few others, have the exact same monetary system. A central bank that issues credit based currency and is, despite superficial appearances, a private entity, e.g. the Federal Reserve, with is not a part of the Federal government, (and has only fractional reserves).
The Bank of England was the original, and, although it was nationalized in 1946, it still operates largely as a private entity. The European Central bank is composed of the corpses of 16 central banks of the EU states. The history and ownership of all of them is somewhat shrouded. Suffice it to say that they were all originally privately owned as best as I can determine.
Certainly things have been more settled since these entities all embraced the credit system over the gold system, but that in no way excuses the endless cycle of bubble and bust, that despite economists' professions of incomprehension, are directly attributable to the actions of these banks.
Here's a thought question: suppose one was at the helm of an enterprise whose most profitable operation consisted of making loans to both of the governments of nations at war with each other. (As long as you loan them both, you can't lose. The victor captures assets and so can pay, and you are lenient with him in return for which he will make it his business to use the power gained via the victory to enforce the loser's repayments.) Would it not behoove one to take whatever steps were necessary to make sure that wars were sparked from time to time? Certainly if one were profiting off a conflict whose casualties number in the millions, have a few odds and ends come to an premature cessation, so as to continue the business, should pose no great moral chasm.
Slashdot Mirror
You should have refused. Most likely they would have backed down. Or you would have gotten beat up, but then you would have had a pretty juicy lawsuit. Lying to and threatening prisoners to get them to allow things they can refuse is SOP here in Nazi Germany, oops, I mean the US.
I speak from experience: they cuffed my hands behind my back and put me in a holding cell for about 2 hours. Believe me, unless you are an acrobat, it starts to really hurt after a while. When I started moaning, they came and told me to be quiet. "Sorry, but it hurts." "Give us the blood sample." "No." Eventually they gave up.
Bengie, WTF did your old man do to you? You are in worse shape than ffreeloader.
Dictionary.com says a LOT more than what you claim. Lie much?
The lesser of two evils is still evil. However is it less evil. Absent patent reform, (go ahead, hold your breath, I dare you...), I think it is a good thing to have less evil. Fuck!
i want you to listen to reason: we need to get off oil now, or we will suffer
I know you and I disagree on a lot of political topics, but I'm 100% with you here. I'm a greedy capitalist who's far more interested in my own lifestyle than in a spotted owl, but I want us to get off oil and onto something long-term sustainable, and ASAP. I'd happily encourage Congress to fund a Manhattan Project-style national security-motivated investment to make it happen. Forget about carbon dioxide and all that (even if I do think those things are important) - I just don't want to depend on the good graces of countries who hate us to keep my country running.
Either we invest in alternative energy development now and eat the research costs for the next X years until it comes online, or we wait until gas gets ludicrously expensive and then start research - and then wait X years after that until we can use it. Maybe if we'd taken this stuff seriously in the 70s and 80s, X would almost be up and we'd have viable alternatives available today. Thanks, previous generation.
We are slaves. That is why the "previous generation" fucked us. You don't understand this. You don't have to. All you need to understand is one simple subject: Fractional Reserve Banking. That is the yoke that binds us. All we need do is end the practice of FRB, and we will be free.
Not only that, but when the annular grommet was damaged, BP pushed the consequences of that under the rug. What were the consequences? The pressure testing was invalid. No wonder the cement casings failed. I don't believe in the death penalty, but in this case I'll make an exception. The chairman and CEO of BP should face the wall.
Still, the drilling company is just as much to blame. They should have told BP to stuff it. Put the CEO of that company against the wall too.
No, he would get as much or more punishment than we used to mete out to those who murdered in a fit of passion. The prison economy needs grist. I don't know what to hate more: What my country has become, or the apologists for said nightmare.
No, my point based upon my views: That some religious people are victims of an evil philosophy. That some of those victims promulgate said evil philosophy, and so are themselves evil. That there are the few, the proud, the paragons of evil: the people who are not truly religious but utilize the evil philosophy to subjugate and degrade their fellows.
So, this then was and is my point expanded a bit: The fact that some non-religious people are also evil does not excuse or deflate the evil of the religious philosophy. Also, that fact that not all aspects of the evil philosophy are evil, does, again, not excuse or deflate the evil of the religious philosophy.
So why do I pick on religion???? That's your real question isn't it? Not because of conceit, but precisely because it is seductive, hypocritical, vainglorious, falsely humble, etc., etc. Billions of people are its victims. I am a victim and I am not religious. It is low-hanging fruit in the sense that if one were to end religion, one would do away with a huge host of evil all at one stroke. I daresay that such a stroke would be the greatest achievement of man to date. (Although fractional reserve banking gives religion a good run for its money!) Anyway, if you want to run well in a race, first dump the forty pounds of chain on your shoulders. My conceit is that that religion is that forty pounds of chain. Dump it and we may well have the energy to tackle other, more diffuse and personalized evil. Keep it and we will do neither effectively.
And, no, there is no danger of throwing the drinking water out with Damien. (Mirror of the baby and bath water cliché.) The bits of wisdom embedded in religion will survive just fine without their shitty media.
So, why do you indulge your conceit? I.e. that you are a dispassionate and thoughtful observer?
Oh come on! What causes have made any progress? Yes, we don't officially pick on racial groups as such any more, (and that is a good thing indeed!), but, let's face it, the same tyranny those groups were subjected to back in the day is now becoming, slowly but surely, SOP for all of us.
I mean what? Just because we are not yet officially at hellhole status, where do you draw the line? Is it "all good" as long as we are somewhere in the top 20% of nations liberty wise? Top 30%? Better than the worst? What?
So here is where we are: No habeus corpus. No due process. No equal protection. No freedom of speech. Make no mistake, just because you aren't arrested every time you say something critical of the government DOES NOT mean that you have freedom of speech. Sorry, but I really wonder if you even understand what I just said. Do you understand? Do you have any concept of how far down the tube to hell hole land we have gone? At this point the only thing separating us from them is custom. Mere custom. Not the rule of law, sir! And that is a crisis. More than spittle should fly!!!
Dude, your old man fucked you up worse than you realize. You still can't think clearly. What an asshole he was! I'm sorry.
BTW religion is mind control propaganda as evil as evil can be. Just because some non-religious people are evil too, doesn't excuse the 10,000 years of horrifying abuse we have suffered as a result of failing to realize that religion is a sure symptom of insanity and acting accordingly. Hello?
Keep wringing your hands you fucking pussies! There is only one answer to this sort of tyranny - secede!!! Will it ever happen? No, you are all too stupid, and you are much smarter than the average dumbfuck walking the streets. What a fucking nightmare - I was born in 1955, and have watched a once semi-free nation become a total slave concentration camp. Does anyone here have any idea why I should have any hope that things will not just keep getting worse and worse?
http://www.amazon.com/Us-Living-Comedy-Customs/dp/0743491548/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274123631&sr=8-1
Used from $0.01!
Not surprisingly you are misunderstanding how it works. Read the Heinlein novel first. That does a much better job of explaining how it works on a day to day level than Douglas himself.
Once you get a more accurate picture, please let me explain something: I don't believe that at our current level of productivitiy the dividend would be sufficient to live on for all but the most pecunias. Most people would still want to work so as to enjoy a certain standard of living.
More: In my opinion Social Credit would actually do a better job of supporting private enterprise than what we call Capitalism. Read Heinlein, and I will attempt to justify that statement.
Darn, I was sure that I said it several times. Social Credit, an invention of one Clifford Hugh Douglas. It is a system of government that takes special care to exactly specify how its monetary system shall function.
This feature alone makes it far superior to every governmental system yet promulgated, as the failure to precisely specify how the monetary system will function renders *any* system subject to usurpation.
Again, even if you don't agree with Social Credit's exact methodology for implementing a monetary system, its framework alone is the greatest achievement of political creation to date, for the simple fact that the framework has the implementation of the monetary system firmly entrenched in its structure. This alone is a monumental accomplishment.
If you doubt my claim, I beg that you merely consider that history of the United States between 1776 and 1913. Again and again the nation was beset with monetary woes and strife. My claim is that that chaos was the result of the founding fathers' failure to precisely specify how the monetary system should operate in the USA. Mind you I don't hold it against them - I don't think that they would have know what to say even if the thought occurred to them, conversely their failure was very likely strongly connected to their knowledge that they did not know what to say about the subject, so rather than say the wrong thing, they said very little. They did know it is important! Writings clearly captured that sentiment, but lacking a theory that they felt was sound, they largely abdicated the opportunity.
Anyway...
If you would like to read a lightweight introduction to Social Credit read For Us The Living by Robert Heinlein. It's his worst novel, but a great exposition of a completely functional modern utopia. He never mentions Social Credit, but the novel's future USA has a government that is exactly how a Social Credit government would be.
I hope you will, if nothing else, acknowledge that here I have beyond any argument stated what I believe a superior system to be. I have not, I admit, attempted to elucidate that system's functioning. I leave that to far abler hands than mine, and I have pointed you towards them. Yes?
Oops. I may be a loon, but I know how the system works.
I know. Wow indeed. I may be a loon, I know how the system works. It's not that complicated. It's called fractional reserve banking. You might want to become acquainted with the subject being as how you wear its manacles 24/7. Then read some Douglas. Link's in my sig.
Or take the blue pill. You're comfortable, aren't you? Why question reality? The answers might not be to your liking. Yep, definitely the blue pill.
Ever read any Heinlein?
Yeah, "a re-jetting"
I did that under the shade tree on my lawn. That you're standing on. Get. Off.
Sad part is that I'm more-or-less a Windows fan. My opinion: XP64 is the best OS MS has ever made, or will ever make.
Windows 7 Ultimate Fail Retail...
Fixed...
You are a tool. Enjoy your utility, Citizen.
Hey, even the guy's parents who have 1M in revenue and aren't breaking even are in a enviable position. They have cashflow of 1M. Now all they have to do is to figure out a way to divert some of the stream into their own pockets, without strangling the flow, and, hey! Your'e making money. Then scale up!!
Hold it my friend. With all due respect, it is you who is holding misconceptions. I didn't have to read far to find the first one: it is not the Reserve Bank that makes the loans, it is all the "retail" banks for lack of a better term. Money in the United States is put into circulation every time anyone uses a credit card, buys a car or a house, borrows money to operate a business, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The actual loans made by the Fed are a drop in the bucket compared to the loans I am talking about.
Next you beg the question with your statement that something should "absorb the ups and downs". No! The ups and downs are caused by the very system put into place to supposedly absorb them. Are they less catastrophic then they used to be when we had a deadly combination of commodity based currency and fractional reserves (largely unregulated). Yes, indeed they are. (Well so far at least, although the ever growing national debt may well one day result in a crash to end all crashes. No oil, meaning no food, and millions will perish.) But, no matter, I agree that the ups and downs are less catastrophic, however, in my view the system we have was extorted out of us by the very players who took advantage of the poorly engineered system we used to have to press us into a corner. Not knowing any better, we were ready to try anything. Never forget the words of Woodrow Wilson!! Anyway they adroitly replaced the very bad system we had with one that is just as subject to manipulation to produce said ups and downs, but now (then) firmly under their control. They now milk us like cows, somewhat gently, but never the less implacably.
I only mentioned hedges because you did. I was talking about the monetary system, and you said, "The cycle of bubbles and busts have more to do with attempts to hedge funds then the monetary system." I disagree with your statement; I don't think that you understand fractional reserve banking and that is why you don't understand how the system causes "cycles". I tried to explain that, (I failed miserably), and then mentioned hedges only to say that they are of small influence compared to the monetary system itself.
Next you go on at some length about the disadvantages of commodity based currency. I am not surprised to hear that from you or anyone else. Remember those levers I mentioned. One of their most sacred levers is the "make sure that the debate is always framed as fiat money vs. gold." I never advocated commodity based currency. It is the very mechanism whereby we were sold into slavery.
Yes I mentioned pensioners! The market system is not in some kind of vacuum separate from the monetary system. To use an extreme example: if the monetary system goes into some kind of death spiral such as hyperinflation, doesn't the market follow suit? Investment is not supposed to be some kind of glorified casino; it is supposed to be a way to earn an income from the loan of one's capitol, said capitol being put to work to breath life into industrial innovation. Innovation that benefits all with increased functionality and efficiency. Not some sort of zero sum casino game with many losers and a few very large winners, and more importantly with society as a whole gaining nothing. But with "cycles" who can invest intelligently, except those who control the cycles? Certainly not pension plans. They have taken it on the chin again and again. "Conservatives" blame this on the concepts of government forcing collective pension savings, and howl that individuals should be able to invest or not as they choose. That's true, but it still is a cheap way to avoid the truth: "individuals" would fare no better in the cyclical market than bureaucracies.
Next you mention the government manipulation that made this bubble worse than some others. Again true, but misses the point: the government would not manipulate if it was not trying to spare people the pain of a crash. And they would not be doing that if their was no boom threatening to bust in the f
I got a better idea. Take the top ten execs, the board of directors, and, for good measure, the actual guy who signed off on not using the safety device, and lop off their heads. Bet this shit doesn't happen again for a long time.
I think that you can greatly increase cloud cover with only a small amount of water relative to total evaporation. The difference is the mechanism: with evaporation energy enters the liquid water as heat, resulting in a phase change to gas. So, as a result of evaporation, gaseous water enters the atmosphere. With the sprayers, liquid water is mechanically forced into the atmosphere, as liquid, not as gas. Apparently this results in greater cloud cover all out of proportion to the amount of water involved.
Actually, this is because it's a system that works and works with other countries in international trade. It's not some massive conspiracy, the debt for wealth scheme is a simple buffer on inflation moves that stabilizes and standardizes the economies of the areas. Without it, you would have massive inflation or deflation with ever addition or subtraction of wealth in the monetary system. That's not good for the stability of any country.
The cycle of bubbles and busts have more to do with attempts to hedge funds then the monetary system. In other words, it's the market not the monetary system causing those problems you see.
Ah, this is where we disagree profoundly. It is a system that works better than commodity backed currency. However it is obvious to me that it inevitably produces bubbles and busts. Money is put into circulation by banks making loans. That is the only way any money gets put into circulation. That creates a loan with money that is owed consisting of the principal plus the interest. The principal was put into circulation when the loan was made, so that is repayable, but where is the interest to come from? Well, what happens is that a new and larger loan is made. (In 1913 when this began there was non-loan money in circulation, so for a while that could be captured. It is long gone.) Only now even more is owed. Thus the germ of the boom or bubble. This goes on for some time, with ever loosening requirements for the loan takers. Then the weaker portion of the loan takers start to become too large of risks. At that point the cycle of loans is shut down, and the currency supply vanishes. Bust time. It's really that simple at core.
Hedges and such are just variations on the theme. Also, the mechanism that evolves for determining who gets to "lift the needle" (It's a game of musical chairs.) is where major corruption is instantiated. Major corruption, that is, if one disregards the maxi corruption engendered by the system itself. In comparison to the overall system your Goldman Sachses (the needle lifter in the last bubble bust) are small fry.
Who, one might ask, are the victims of this system? Every legitimate business person. An individual who invests his or her life savings into starting a business, only to see the marketplace evaporate like magic. Pensioners. You name it. Basically everyone to varying degrees except the few, very few, who profit from this system. I don't claim to understand exactly how the profit mechanism operates, and I really don't care - for me it is sufficient to observe the boom and bust mechanism, the toll it takes, and judge that it must be stopped.
I don't think of it as a massive conspiracy. It can't be, (for the reason you mentions as well as others), and it doesn't have to be. The world's economy is very large. If several groups who operate behind the scenes in shifting allegiances/contests, were to somehow capture say 2% of the GNP of the largest nations, that would be a lot of pie to go around. None of them would want to rock the boat too violently especially now that nationalistic fervor in the western world is torpid. Why bother? That's a lot of pie! Sure, if you can bury one of the others without making a fuss, pull the trigger. After all they'd do it to you given the chance, but don't rock the boat. The slime such as profiteering off military conflicts is what they use as rewards for their toadys. Let the toadys get their hands dirty. They're expendable anyway, plus it's good to have expendables with dirt on their hands, ready to be bus-under-shoved when need be. Makes great theater. Keeps us entertained.
Here's one thing, one little factoid that I find most remarkable and is I believe mostly undeniable. Almost every western nation, and quite a few others, have the exact same monetary system. A central bank that issues credit based currency and is, despite superficial appearances, a private entity, e.g. the Federal Reserve, with is not a part of the Federal government, (and has only fractional reserves).
The Bank of England was the original, and, although it was nationalized in 1946, it still operates largely as a private entity. The European Central bank is composed of the corpses of 16 central banks of the EU states. The history and ownership of all of them is somewhat shrouded. Suffice it to say that they were all originally privately owned as best as I can determine.
Certainly things have been more settled since these entities all embraced the credit system over the gold system, but that in no way excuses the endless cycle of bubble and bust, that despite economists' professions of incomprehension, are directly attributable to the actions of these banks.
Here's a thought question: suppose one was at the helm of an enterprise whose most profitable operation consisted of making loans to both of the governments of nations at war with each other. (As long as you loan them both, you can't lose. The victor captures assets and so can pay, and you are lenient with him in return for which he will make it his business to use the power gained via the victory to enforce the loser's repayments.) Would it not behoove one to take whatever steps were necessary to make sure that wars were sparked from time to time? Certainly if one were profiting off a conflict whose casualties number in the millions, have a few odds and ends come to an premature cessation, so as to continue the business, should pose no great moral chasm.