|Tangencies: The International Banking System|
21 comments4 Aug 2006 @ 00:09 by i2i : Ok, I'll break the ice...
I am no expert on the subject, so I hope that this is an occasion here where the diversity of NCN will pay off, and people who are more knowledgeable than I am on the topic will take it up from here.
The way I feel about things, is that there are plenty of evidences that mankind has put a system in place that has gotten out of hand and taken a life of its own.
Is the Economy (the economic system that mankind has put in place) serving mankind or has mankind become a slave to "the Economy"?
I think the problem has become alarmingly visible today when decisions that are clearly disastrous for the environment and the future of the planet are being taken on the ground that they are "good for the Economy"---with the full knowledge of those who are taking them, and also (make no mistake) the silent consent of populations all over the world that know better and are better informed than they are given credit for, but who prefer to remain silent!
The other side of the coin, of course, is that if the "Economy" were to suddenly collapse, the environmental, social, and political repercussions would be of apocalyptical proportions in their consequences. The situation is a little bit that of hostages whose cell is bobby trapped. Staying in the cell, waiting for the bomb to detonate is suicidal. Escaping the trap is a must, but the prisoners know they are going to have to be very, very careful about it, least they detonate the bomb themselves while trying to escape.
Monetary policies are quite complex, which is also one of the reasons that make them easy prey for conspiracy theories.
I haven’t read “The Creature from Jekyll Island”---the title of the book refers to the formation of the Federal Reserve System, which occurred at a secret meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910---but I know that regardless of how one feels about the book and whether one ends-up being convinced or not by the case the author is trying to make, one thing remains clear, THE PROBLEMS OF HUMANITY PREDATE 1910. Part of the situation we live in is the direct result of the fact that even though mankind has prospered tremendously technically in its ability to reshape the world and populate the planet from which practically all other species have been displaced in one way or another (often tragically so,) mankind has not evolved very much emotionally and its mentality pretty much has remained feudal---a feudalism that has morphed to translate into the kind of mechanisms that rule “the Economy” and the invisible (and not so invisible) economic wars which ravage the planet and large segments of the populations of the world.
Once again, this is not one of my areas of expertise, but I know that there is a strong consensus among economists---and clearly, Edward Griffin (the author of “The Creature from Jekyll Island”) is not one of these---that business cycles are best managed by monetary policy.
The theory is that for monetary authorities to do their job responsibly, it is crucial that they be politically independent because countries whose Fed equivalent is subject to political meddling have consistently higher rates of monetary instability and inflation:
"In the 1980s, many economists began to believe that making a nation's central bank independent of the rest of executive government is the best way to ensure an optimal monetary policy, and those central banks which did not have independence began to gain it. This is to avoid overt manipulation of the tools of monetary policies to effect political goals, such as re-electing the current government. Independence typically means that the members of the committee which conducts monetary policy have long, fixed terms. Obviously, this is a somewhat limited independence. Independence has not stunted a thriving crop of conspiracy theories about the true motives of a given action of monetary policy." Trend in Central Banking
Regardless of how one feels about this and regardless of what really goes on, or not, off stage, the problem, to me, remains that the “Economy”---which directly impact the planet and the lives of billion of people all over the world---functions totally outside the knowledge and the understanding of most people on Earth. Furthermore, the rules and the logic (the madness) by which it operates is totally out of control. The problem is not that the Economy is ruled by an elite---there are certainly elites who manipulate its rules and use their knowledge to fix the game to their benefit---but ruling the Economy, they do not! They too (just like its blind servants or its priests) worship on the altar of a dysfunctional system that is threatening to destroy us all.
4 Aug 2006 @ 00:26 by bushman : Hmm
Ill buy that. I still think it "all" balances on a tiny thread of global elietists. Its too easy to just cut off aid to whoever, and in less than 3 weeks, a whole nation could starve out. This is the treat governments face if they don't play the "old money" game. Spend everyone elses money before you spend your own. :}
4 Aug 2006 @ 17:02 by koravya : Briefly
According to what I know,
It’s not that business cycles are best managed by monetary policy,
But rather that business cycles are created by monetary policy.
And there is absolutely no reason
For the Monetary policy makers
To be independent of political influence.
Am I to believe that it is possible for
Monetary policy makers to be politically neutral?
The problem is one of being socially responsible.
Government is supposed to be about social responsibility.
A socially responsible government would have the power and ability
To control the issuance and supply of money
In such a way as to provide for the economic mechanisms of an
Increasingly productive population,
Without runaway inflation,
Give me a socially responsible government apparatus,
And I will give you a prosperous growing economy.
Give me a socially irresponsible Central Bank,
(Which is in essence the creation of our government,
Though some might say that this relationship has become inverted,
That hardly matters.)
And I will give you the same thing.
As things are now,
It is not about prosperity for all,
Which it very well could be.
It is about prosperity for the select.
And propaganda, poverty, and flag-waving
For everybody else.
Take all the flags,
All the flags,
All the flags,
And burn ‘em.
4 Aug 2006 @ 17:16 by jobrown : Thanks koravya,
for bravely joining the crew who dares to question the "validity" of the current International very sick and fraudulent Banking System! The more of us who step forth and truly makes the effort to see what;s wrong with a system based on constant -to not say; ETERNAL DEBT, the better off there is a CHANCE for us to transfrom life to become more in Harmony with Life/Universe -'God'- if you will.
4 Aug 2006 @ 19:27 by Hanae @184.108.40.206 : Economic Wars
They call it "peace," but it isn't peace.
They call it "free-market," but it isn't free-market.
The visible part of the Iceberg—what everybody sees—are the military wars, waged in the name of "freedom", which are really wars of economic control of the resources (natural and human resources) of the globe. But most of those wars are silent wars, they are not militaristic in nature (i.e. they do not involve open armed conflicts), and they remain mostly invisible to the public at large. It goes from the everyday corporate feudal wars (which kill small business and free-market at home and all over the world, and of which we occasionally catch a glimpse when a factory closes or a big scandal occurs, and then promptly forget), to the geopolitical conflicts of global proportion, which are many.
Take oil, for example.
One now well known instance of such a war is National Security Decision Directive number 66 (NSDD-66) during the Reagan Era (The Reagan Doctrine). NSDD-66, drafted by National Security Council aide Roger Robinson, stated that it would be U.S. policy to disrupt the Soviet economy by attacking a "strategic triad" of critical resources—financial credits, high technology, and natural gas—deemed essential to Soviet economic survival. NSDD-66 was tantamount, Robinson later explained, "to a secret declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union."
One of the corner stones of the implementation of NSDD-66 was a drive to hurt the Soviet economy by driving down the price of oil.
The rest is history:
"During the 1970s, high oil prices had increased Soviet energy revenues more than tenfold. Western energy dollars were an important consideration in the ability of the Soviets economy to stay afloat, and so major efforts were undertaken to bring about a significant increase in global oil production in order to drive prices down. The benefit to the US would be twofold: reducing the cost of energy to itself, while simultaneously undercutting the Soviet revenue stream. Every one-dollar drop in the price of oil meant a hard currency loss of between $500 million and $1 billion for the Soviets.
This effort paid off handsomely as the Saudi government cooperated by increasing oil production from two million barrels to nine million. In short order the price of a barrel of oil fell from thirty to twelve dollars, inflicting a ten billion dollar annual "hit" on the Soviet Union. The machine tools, industrial robots, electronics, and computers that the Soviets needed to fulfill their ambitious Eleventh Five-Year Plan fell well beyond reach, and eventually caused the soviet economy to collapse. It simply could not sustain a defense against the economic warfare waged against it from Washington."
But, ultimately, the greater problem, as pointed out in the first comment on this thread, is that the would-be puppet masters who pull the strings do not really "control" the Economy, they know how to play the game, by mostly manipulating the rules, and cheating without getting caught (it's only cheating if you get caught) wherever and whenever they can, BUT they are still playing the same game ("Winner take all" is one of the rules). Some say they are playing the same game because "they" are short-sighted and greedy and because they feel the game is profiting "them" ("them" - fill in the definition according to your own vision of the world, it doesn't really matter) and they want to keep it tightly controlled, it's probably so, BUT at the bottom of it all, the truth of the matter is that "THEY" DO NOT KNOW HOW TO PLAY BY ANY OTHER RULES. "They" (some of them, not all - some have been growing gravely concerned over the direction the world is taking) might think that they are controlling the game but it is the game that is controlling them. And they cannot stop playing the game, because they do not know how to play any other game. And if "they" stop playing the game, without any other game to take its place, the whole system will collapse with disastrous consequences, far worse than anything the world is experiencing now (it would in all likelihood lead to an acceleration of some of the current destructive trends eroding the thread of this planet's web of life.)
Staying with oil, our example earlier, here is another instance of the intricacies of the system: the oil and automobile industry.
Oil is definitely part of the problem (one of the problems) because it has become so intricately meshed in with the economy at so many levels of the Economic Engine that if oil were to be removed overnight from the market, the engine would collapse.
There is a movie that was released, very recently, called: Who Killed the Electric Car. Here is a fascinating case example of some of the fundamental basic problems of the Game and how its rules control us—even those who think they control the rules are basically obeying the unquestioned rules of the game that "they" are playing. Who killed the electric car? Was it murder? Or was it natural selection simply weeding out a weakling unable to compete in our consumer world? Was it corporate collusion and greed, governmental influence, oil company propaganda, consumer indifference, or the limitations of the vehicles themselves?
"Imagine an electric car requiring no gas, no oil changes, no mufflers, and rare break maintenance. It is fast, takes three dollars to fill up on electricity, and you can charge it overnight. Best of all, it produces no emissions. Such a miracle car actually existed..." Whatever one's answer might be to the question of its disappearance, whether it was murder ("them" - the usual suspects) or "natural selection" (The "Economy" - the logic of the market), the bottom line is that Humanity has the technological know-how to build "a better world that works for all," that car might or might not have been the answer to our problems but it was a step in the right direction, had that step been taken, better technologies would have followed and the car would have been improved (this is how we got to the moon - the first step is to "know" that this is where we want to go, and the "right effort" will follow.)
What is troubling is the picture behind that story and what it says about our dysfunctional world. The paradox, here again, is that things that are good for the world, good for humanity, good for the planet are not allowed to happen (I don't care if it's because of "them" or just because of "the logic of the market" - it's all the same thing,) those things are not allowed to happen because...they are "bad for the economy," or because they don't make for "good consumerism." There is a WIDENING DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE WORLD AND WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE "ECONOMY." There is an increasing gap between what needs to be done for the world and our survival (what humanity is capable of doing when it puts its mind to it) and what needs to be done for the survival of the Economy (some of the pathological patterns endemic to the system that are being perpetuated in order to prevent the system from collapsing.)
The biggest challenge facing Humanity today is how to address that discrepancy!
4 Aug 2006 @ 23:48 by bushman : New businesses
Lots of new businesses, just do the same thing as before, restrants for instants, say they first put a Wendys, and dont really get the consumers, so "they" make it a MC Donalds, still nothing. Its like, dude, we got enough restrants and gas stations. New businesses need to be litraly something new, being we can still convert stuff, so lets say they figured it out, and instead, make that restrant space into say a electric motor supplyer, I don't think the high school kid would mind working a electric motor store as compaired with flipping burgurs. The problem is, tryed and true business copy cats, basicly trying to "knock off" a bigger companies product and lowering its quality, for quantity. I guess the best way to keep the economy going would be to let old business die, and promoting something new. The knich? I know I could make big bucks right now supplying electric motors for auto conversions. This is how to go slow enough for the economy to grow in that direction, rather than trying to put so much effort/energy into keeping something we don't want anymore on the market. Maybe the trick is, to get the copy cats, to copy you. Anyway its our millitary that needs the oil, we could easily take the time and effort to save some money and buy a solar pannel or 2, to charge your car and house, this will lower the domestic demand on oil and let the millitary have all the oil they want. And while that is going on, kids will be getting educated in electrical repaire carrers and won't want to work the oil fields, might take a couple decades, but the millitary would have to hunt hard for oil techs, and would in all liklyhood start getting off of oil "themselves". Assuming they are out to make a better world for everyone. Anyway, it really looks like "they" are going to get "thier" robotech to take the place of humans, "they" used us to get where "they" are, and "they" are almost done with us, like the old war toys "they" dumped in the ocean, so "they" will do with us in the end. :}
5 Aug 2006 @ 21:02 by koravya : Pay Up
The United States is in debt.
When the USA buys a plane from McDonnell-Douglas,
does it buy on credit and go into debt to McDonnell-Douglas?
Nope. McDonnell-Douglas gets cash,
and guess where the US government gets that cash?
It borrows from the Federal Reserve, and there is an interest charge.
The US Government is now over seven trillion dollars in debt,
and collecting taxes to pay for it.
Who gets the payments.
Who owns the Federal Reserve?
Chart of who "owns" the Federal Reserve
Effects of the Federal Reserve
Squeezing the Middle Class
8 Aug 2006 @ 03:19 by koravya : The Mulberry Bush
The methodical, institutionalized, consciously-driven impoverishment of the minds, hearts, and souls of which very large percentage of the world’s population, is currently underway. Here are a few excerpts from a 1994 article describing the workings of the IMF and the World Bank. I doubt, just an intuitive doubt, that the essential process is fundamentally different, or driven by some more refined set of humanitarian motives. This is a big machine with every intention to proceed according to whatever means are necessary to insure its hegemony. Who is driving the wars in the Middle East, and throughout the world? Arms suppliers for one, I should think. The interrelated economies of the Drugs, Guns, Gold and Oil quadrant are all a-boil in the cauldron of the inferno. Here we go round the Mulberry Bush.
The World Bank & The IMF
By Walden Bello and Shea Cunningham
Structural adjustment loans from the World Bank and the IMF were given to indebted countries to enable the latter to make their immediate interest payments to the western commercial banks. Having done this, the Bank and the Fund then went on to apply draconian adjustment policies that would assure a steady supply of repayments in the medium and long term. By having Third World economies focus on production for export, foreign exchange would be gained which could be channeled into servicing dollar-denominated foreign debt.
The policy was immensely successful, effecting as it did an astounding net transfer of financial resources from the Third World to the commercial banks that amounted to $178 billion between 1984 and 1990. So massive was the decapitalization of the South that a former executive director of the World Bank exclaimed: "Not since the conquistadors plundered Latin America has the world experienced a flow in the direction we see today."
whatever may be the subjective intentions of the doctrinaire technocrats that are tasked to implement them, structural adjustment programs were never meant to succeed. Instead, they have functioned as key instruments in the North's effort to roll back the gains that had been made by the South from the 1950s to 1980s.
Central to the economic achievements of the South was an activist state or public sector. In some countries, the state sector was the engine of the development process. In others, state support was critical to the success of domestic businesses wishing to compete against foreign capital.
it was a response to the weakness of private industrial interests. "[T]he state," observes one analyst, "became a surrogate for private enterprise that could drive modernization without challenging....entrenched interests--indeed would continue to protect them--and without turning the country completely over to foreign interests."
when Reaganites came to power, they saw as one of their central missions the resubordination of the Third World. State-assisted capitalism was the key target, and here the anti-South agenda coincided with the free market ideological mindset of the new regime. After a brief period of debate, the mechanism chosen for the dismantling of the economic apparatus of the Third World state was the structural adjustment program of the IMF and the World Bank.
the essence of these programs was the "reduction/removal of direct state intervention in the productive and distributive sectors of the economy."
government enterprises were passing into private hands in the name of efficiency; protectionist barriers to Northern imports were being eliminated wholesale; restrictions on foreign investment has been radically reduced; and, through export-first policies, the internal economy was more tightly integrated into the capitalist world market.
in the U.S., adjustment came in the form of Reaganomics--deregulation, radical reductions in tax rates for the rich, gutting of the New Deal safety nets, and the end of the compromise between big capital and big labor mediated by big government. The elimination of state supports for production in rival economies--including Japan and Europe--and state restraints on corporate activity in the home economy: this was the key thrust of a global adjustment program designed to reassert U.S. corporate hegemony globally.
9 Aug 2006 @ 12:07 by rayon : The Island idea
put forward by Ming a way back is looking good at this point, very good. Actually I am attending a seminar on alternative goverment soon. They appear to advocate Small Local Governments which can be accountable to the guy in the local street. This for me is easier to visualize and take part in than striking up meaningful conversation with Alan Grimespan and friends.
I mean the guys from West Africa just get in a boat and row to the Canaries. When and If they arrive the sunbathing tourists give them towels and money and food to help them along. We, though, are not the accepted hue of skin tone. The boats are quite large, barques without sails or mast, take many people.
Poussin is my favourite artist, par excellence. Worth a very great deal of money!!!!
8 Nov 2006 @ 01:39 by i2i : The Economic Golem
Aha! Yes, I remember the Island post: Island for Sale.
I do relate with nraye on this one, "Small Local Governments which can be accountable to the guy in the local street" is easier to visualize and take part in than "striking up a meaningful conversation with Alan Grimespan and friends."
Well, this is precisely what the problem is all about, isn't it? The problem of something that has become so big and disproportionate that it escapes the comprehension of the average person (the post from Ming about Simplicity and Embracing constraints comes to mind.)
It makes the notion of "informed consent" questionable, because how can we have a system (Nationally and globally) where people are led blindly and unknowingly into economic ventures, they understand nothing about, and still claim that the system is run with the informed consent of the People.
As Koravya points it out, in some of his comments above, such a lack of comprehension of (and also lack of interest in) such complexities, contribute to the creation of a system which functioning remains largely incomprehensible and therefore opaque to most people (even though such a system has a direct effect on everyone’s life and the world we live in.) This opacity makes the working of the Economy (with a capital E) and the role of such institutions as the IMF and the World Bank, the business of a privileged few who govern the system along rules that are mediated according to elite imperatives and which benefit those who control them - i.e. those with financial leverage.
Hanae’s point is also a good one, the Economy has taken a life of its own, like a Golem who has escaped the control of those it was supposed to serve (the uninformed masses, just as its “would-be” masters - those who manipulate or exploit the system for their own purpose):
The traditional Golem Lore contains a story of a Golem that grew bigger and bigger until it escaped the control of its creator, and upon being eventually killed, the Golem fell over its creator and crushed him.
The theme contained in this story is somewhat reminiscent of the broomstick in The Sorcerer's Apprentice. It remains a standard feature of golems in popular culture.
I look at it as a fitting metaphor for the Economy. Beyond the power-play of powerful interests who are rigging the system, there is also another story. That of a system that has become so big and so intricate that we dare not “kill” it, lest it falls on our heads and crushes us and yet that system is out of control and is destroying the planet.
In modern Hebrew the word golem literally means “cocoon”, but can also mean "fool", "silly", or even "stupid".
15 Nov 2006 @ 14:39 by koravya : Time for a Flick
The sooner the more folks gets to know something about all of this,
the better off for the general population and the state of the Earth,
I thinks so anyway. JA
An Analysis and Review of Aaron Russo's Film, America: Freedom to Fascism
We'll talk some details. But, in the last analysis, Aaron Russo's 2006 film, "America: Freedom to Fascism" is a force of nature. It rips through the secret society corruption culture's history, from 1913 on.(more)
America: Freedom to Fascism is a compelling and troubling account of how the wealth of our nation was silently passed from its citizens to a handful of powerful bankers in 1913. That's the year the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment were introduced, giving a privately held corporation the means to control our finances while ensuring its interest payments through the strong arms of the newly-formed Internal Revenue Service. Ever since then, Russo suggests, Americans have been gradually conditioned to accept fewer freedoms and a lower standard of living... all the while considering debt and servitude as distinctly American values.(more)
Yo Ho Ho, and a bottle of Rum.
16 Nov 2006 @ 21:02 by koravya : Followup
How the Federal Reserve Runs the US
July 11, 2006
by Stephen Lendman
This is the first of a five-part series.
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
Years ago I read William Greider's excellent book published in 1987 on how the US Federal Reserve System works. It was detailed and explicit and makes wonderful and informative reading, except for the solution he suggests to a huge problem. His was far too timid. This article proposes a much different one. Greider called his book Secrets of the Temple with a sub-title: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. A better sub-title might have been how the Fed (and other key central bankers) runs the world. This article attempts to summarize what it does, how it does it, for whose benefit and at whose expense. For those who don't know, prepare for some stunning information and commentary.
21 Nov 2006 @ 23:20 by Hanae @220.127.116.11 : Time for a Flick
Aaron Russo also produced Trading Places, which was an excellent movie for the times---and probably still is (I'll have to see it again.)
America: Freedom to Fascism belongs to the kind of movies that is good for the participatory democracy debate because it challenges those preconceived notions that people tend to accept unthinkingly with regards to the functioning of some of our local or global institutions that we take for granted.
While I find the movie interesting in that regard, this particular "advomentary" (advocacy documentary), regrettably (to me) focuses almost exclusively on a legalistic question (i.e. "what is the law that requires American workers to pay income tax on their wages and salaries"), which, while, probably of interest, legally, if you don't want to pay taxes, fails to address the bigger question in terms of system-thinking---basically it does a lot telling us what it perceives is wrong with the box, but does very little in terms of "out of the box" thinking.
While it is relatively easy to see what's wrong with the boat (and that movie does a good job showing some of those wrongs or some of the director's fears about the future), my interests goes more towards what can be done about it.
1. Some people say the boat can be fixed (they either work inside the system, as politicians and legislators---I don't think that all are corrupt--- or from outside the system---through political activism, green peace, etc.)
2. Some say the boat can't be fixed and that we should all jump in the water (don't vote, don't pay taxes) and see what happens. "Things couldn't get any worse, anyway."
3. Some are busily hacking the current boat, morphing it into something that they hope will progressively transform the boat into something else that will ultimately take the boat out of the hands of its would-be controllers.
4. Some are working on other boats, they plan to launch away form the main boat.
5. Some are saying that boats are obsolete anyway and are working on a plane.
6. Some say that we are already flying...
Of all 6 attitudes, number 2 is the less attractive to me, because it seems the most shortsighted and the less imaginative.
Furthermore, the question of whether taxes are "legal" or not seems like a false debate.
It dodges the true question: "Is paying taxes something we want to do?"----Not because we are compelled by law to do so, but for the reason that, first and foremost, our taxes are allegedly intended to serve the common good (publics works, roads, fire department, social engineering, education, heath care, protection of individual freedom and property, etc.)
A portion of the taxes we pay do---they go to public services---the allocation of some other portions of our taxes, on the other hand, is severely criticized (as it should.) Why We Fight (another interesting flick) reminds us of Eisenhower’s 1961 speech warning America to guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the "military-industrial complex" and corporate warmongers. There are highly ethical questions too (some argue that taxes should not be paid based on the use to which the taxes are put---for instance, isn't paying taxes for nuclear weapons development a violation of the Nuremberg Principles?)
The question is both one of governance and self-governance (The Lord of the Flies and The Beach are two relevant flicks on that topic.)
The idea behind the concept of taxes or government is that they are supposed to be there "by the people and for the people."
One can say that the system is broken or that it never was viable in the first place. The question then, is what can be done about it?
One can say that nothing can be done about it, and that we should stop paying taxes. The next question, then, is where do we go from there?
Who will take over the administration and/or protection of the environment and the common good? Who will take care of public services? Should anyone? Is it relevant? Are we really sure we want to leave this into the hands of private interests, without any check and balance? Isn't keeping the control of the common good out of the hands of such interests, which have been trying to take control, in part, through a take-over of governments intended to be "by and for the people," precisely the very thing we are trying to avoid? ((The Corporation, here, is another flick of some relevance.) Will the system be more fair? Any less corrupt? Any less unbalanced? Safer for the planet?
Koravya, above, cracked some joke about "bottle of rums" and "pirates", which he meant good-humoredly, and was using in jest, but the pirate question is not without relevance. Piracy at sea continues into the present days and is strongly present in areas such as south and southeast Asia, parts of South America, the Indian Ocean and the south of the Red Sea. Acts of piracy include seizure of property, murder, robbery, and kidnapping. This raises another question. Whether it be at sea or on land, how do we protect people and property against the above? Shipping companies sometimes hire private security guards. Would that be the way of doing things? Should we do away with our governmental institutions and move to a vigilante systems instead? Administer our own justice? Some corporations already have their private police, some even have their private armies too.
Ideally, we could live in a world some day in which no watcher is needed (because we have all reached a higher level of consciousness), or a world where society has reached such a level of sophistication that we are all connected in a whole that is bigger than the sum of the parts and everything functions synergistically without any need for governance of any kind (Anarchist Utopia), in the meantime the question is---has always been---that of the Watcher, and more importantly of who will Watch the Watcher?
This issue is reflected in the Globalization issue and the growing concern over the power of large corporations, as exercised in trade agreements and elsewhere, which has been noted to undermine the environment, labor rights, and, most importantly, people sovereignty.
I do not think that not voting and not paying taxes and turning the planet into a modern "wild wild west" really is the solution to the problem.
That said, and echoing Koravya's feeling in the matter, I still recommend Aaron Russo's movie because of the questions it helps raise, and because, like other flicks like it, it might hopefully help bring serious issues and concerns, that ought to be part of the civics debate, into focus.
On a related topic, Kevin Bales's book: Disposable People. New Slavery in the Global Economy is probably, I think, a must read on the issue.
And of course, Flemming Funch, too, has written abundantly on the topic of corporations and centralized banking. Here is a piece he wrote on september 22, 2002.
21 Jun 2007 @ 00:38 by anandavala : Economic Social Engineering
A fabulous discussion going on here - I just wanted to toss in another idea that can bring all of this together and connect it up with all the other major issues in the world.
This planet is a single integrated system and something is happening in this system - all of these issues are symptoms but to really understand them we need to consider them all in the wider context.
Here are some ideas regarding a "Systems Analysis of Economic Social Engineering", which comments on the wider systemic phenomenon with special emphasis on the role of economics: News from Anandavala: Systems Analysis of Economic Social Engineering
If anyone has any comments I'd love to hear them... Ciao
8 Aug 2007 @ 18:46 by JETBLACK SCENE OF CRIME OF THE CENTURY @18.104.22.168 : ZIONIST MONEYCHANGER DECEPTION 911
WANT TO SEE WHO REAL ENEMY OF 911 IS
DO GOOGLE SEARCH ZIONIST CRIMES
USS LIBERTY AND
CRIME OF THE CENTURY 911.
THESE ROTTEN MONEYCHANGERS HAVE STRUCK AGAIN....
SEE THE MONEYMASTERS AT 1888THEPLOT BEST AMER HIST LESSON EVER....
8 Aug 2007 @ 21:09 by b : Totally Ignored
is the fact that there is more then one world banking system and more then one type of world economy extant in 2007. For one, the 56 Muslim countries have their own havala banking systems in all Earth countries and have nothing to do with capitalism except communication of banking and banking procedures.
2nd is while capitalism has been extant was/is a model for global commerce, contratrade was invented and put into place through the United Nations during the nineteen eighties. In the contra trade economice model, sometimes goods and products are exchanged for acts or favors by another nation. Contra trade is done usually between nations. It was developed in the late USSR with approval and cooperation of the CCP of PRC.
Then there is GATT, the Global Alliance of Tarrifs and Trade which most nations signed on to in the ninties but since its documents were eighteen feet high no representive of our congress ever read. Designed mostly by economists in the PRC and full of international law that the members of UN signed off on. Using the GATT model China has prospered while Europe and especially US have diminished in capital and reserves. As of this writing China(PRC) has over a trillion dollars in China central bank of US money. It also went from an impoverished nation with little infrstructure twenty years ago to a space going country with a navy that includes aircraft carriers and nuclear subs and has nuclear bombs. Not bad for a country close to the stone age in the 2nd world war.
But, all you conspiracy theorists will surely blame it on the Jews and maybe some stateless Arabs in disputed territories. It surely had nothing to do with Kofe Annen and Bill and Hillary Clinton transferig capital, techologies,energy. Or George Bush, the most hated man at NCN. Too bad you can't get money for hate.
9 Aug 2007 @ 04:31 by vaxen : Yeah...Bush:
Uncle Sam, Your Banker Will See You Now
Paul Craig Roberts
Early this morning China let the idiots in Washington, and on Wall Street, know that it has them by the short hairs. Two senior spokesmen for the Chinese government observed that China's considerable holdings of US dollars and Treasury bonds "contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency."
By Chris Hedges
The war in Iraq is about to get worse -- much worse. The Democrats' decision to let the war run its course, while they frantically wash their hands of responsibility, means that it will sputter and stagger forward until the mission collapses. This will be sudden. The security of the Green Zone, our imperial city, will be increasingly breached. Command and control will disintegrate. And we will back out of Iraq humiliated and defeated.
The Pentagon's latest Big Lie
By Mike Whitney
The War Dept.'s latest fraud appeared in this week's newspapers under the ominous-sounding headline: "US Kills Mastermind of Iraq Shrine" The article is similar to hundreds of other stories we've seen in the passed few years boasting of the murder of an "alleged" terrorist kingpin whose evil deeds have prevented democracy from flourishing in Iraq. Oh, please.
13 Sep 2007 @ 11:35 by rayon : In reply to Hanae
and Koravya - and the question "what to do?" should there be a system of private vigilantes - well this makes M....a look like good guys, but of course we have heard elsewhere that they are even implicated too. Can't provide firm evidence like most of the comments above, but sure it is common knowledge.
The solution of my Offering - Go to church and pray - carry warmth in the heart at all times, which is like another dimension of existence with own natural law, above the heads of corporatists, governmentists, and bankists.
If the weather changes and the supply of red meat disappears, the unnatural passion caused by such diet will also evaporate. Today we still stand in wonder at the building of the Pyramids, I believe people will come to stand in wonder at our own Banking, Consumerist, Willing Slavery Pyramids of our own time, shaking heads in wonder, and declaring it all a Mighty Myth. And they will try to write some history books about it for people to know. These will become a chief source of New Comedy.
Getting into the next dimension of existence while still healthy on earth is definitely the best bet to my thinking? The door is open. :}
29 Apr 2016 @ 08:13 by Bandar Togel @22.214.171.124 : brilliant! I would like to share this ar
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online Terpercaya
Agen Togel Online
16 Oct 2016 @ 20:53 by yakuza4d @126.96.36.199 : togel online hongkong
After read a couple of the articles on your website these few days, and I truly like your style of blogging. I tag it to my favorites internet site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my web site also and let me know what you think.
28 Nov 2016 @ 17:29 by 633cash @188.8.131.52 : agen bola
This is great and really informative.. I'll keep following your web and your article, thanks for sharing :)
Other entries in Stubs
9 Jul 2006 @ 05:22: STUB 2 - 6 Jul 2006 @ 19:08 by b : Complications of Simplicity
9 Jul 2006 @ 05:01: STUB 1 - 6 Jul 2006 @ 18:59 by [name removed] : XXX