people vs bankers

[morrismarina]

Klintock has mentioned this topic lately. Money from nothing. (http://indymedia.us/en/2005/06/8112.shtml) Class action in Canada, what will come of it?

[budda]

Yes yes, all money is a farce, there is no such thing as society and we're all figments of a diseased imagination.

Great.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Nothing.

If, as some believe, the world is controlled by a secret cabal of bankers and wealthy industrialists they will have the clout to stop this.

If, on the other hand, they are wrong and that the world isn't controlled by anyone the chances are the banks are operating legally and the complainants have the wrong end of the economic stick and the case will be dismissed.

[morrismarina]

Yes yes, all money is a farce, there is no such thing as society and we're all figments of a diseased imagination.

Great.

:D

He's not that bad. And nobody's proved him wrong.

[budda]

But the article doesnt actually explain what specific law has been broken, and also makes no mention of whether this case has a hope in hell, which it clearly doesnt.

[Senor Miguel]

But the article doesnt actually explain what specific law has been broken, and also makes no mention of whether this case has a hope in hell, which it clearly doesnt.

i think the general basis for the case is that the US constitution specifically forbids the senate/government to grant any private bank the powers to create money, and thus basically control the circulation and the economy.......what everyone seems to forget is that the "Federal Reserve Bank" is in fact a consortium of privately owned banks, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 blatantly violates the US Constitution, Wilson admitted as much after he realised what he had done but it was too late.......this is why Kennedy had it repealed when he was in power, but that didn't last long......

ETA: see my sig, this is not just some whack conspiracy TJ predicted what might happen long before it did....

[Flashman's Ghost]

i think the general basis for the case is that the US constitution specifically forbids the senate/government to grant any private bank the powers to create money, and thus basically control the circulation and the economy.......what everyone seems to forget is that the "Federal Reserve Bank" is in fact a consortium of privately owned banks, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 blatantly violates the US Constitution, Wilson admitted as much after he realised what he had done but it was too late.......this is why Kennedy had it repealed when he was in power, but that didn't last long......

ETA: see my sig, this is not just some whack conspiracy TJ predicted what might happen long before it did....

But this is a case filed on behalf of the people of Canada against Canadian banks and has nothing to do with the US Constitution

[Senor Miguel]

But this is a case filed on behalf of the people of Canada against Canadian banks and has nothing to do with the US Constitution

yeah i noticed that, the american example has been copied worldwide e.g. Bank of England, so the premise for the case is still the same, im pretty sure most democratic countries stipulate money should not be created privately in their respective charter/constitution/whatever........it's pretty obvious why.

[Clandestine]

The article spells out more than clearly enough the fraud involved in lending money which has no basis in "own resources" but which remains purely theoretical in nature (i.e. only on paper). This directly infringes upon the vested interests of depositors and their resources and undermines any notion of solidity to the "assets" you and I take for granted.

I am constantly amazed that so many scoff at the notion that powerful banking elites over generations could be incapable of colluding to establish and entrench a fictional system intended to secure financial winfalls predominantly for those at the top of the hierarchical economic ladder. The mechanisms of interinstitutional collusion and reinforcement are demonstrable across the entirety of the modern Western system such that only a compratmentalised mindset could fail to see its interconnected and self-perpetuating duplicitous scheme of promise and coercion.

Sooner or later, even those who wish to hide from the truth will be forced to see that the system is indeed inherently zero-sum oriented. The coming collapse will, however, make its Great Depression Era predecessor look like a dress rehearsal.

[budda]

Sooner or later, even those who wish to hide from the truth will be forced to see that the system is indeed inherently zero-sum oriented. The coming collapse will, however, make its Great Depression Era predecessor look like a dress rehearsal.

Oh well, given that all anyone says about it seem to be long words and hints at dark forces I'll just have to sit it out and scrabble around in the dirt when it all goes tits up.

[Senor Miguel]

bb if you want answers in this life you can't expect people to hand them to you on a plate, sometimes you have to check stuff out for yourself..........if you really want to know how it works there is a fairly lengthy excerpt from 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' right here (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=3993).........

oh and btw long words and legalese is a favourite trick to put the layman off ever understanding the inner workings of government and corporations, just have a look at the eu constitution......shouldn't stop you looking for answers though.

[budda]

I wasnt asking for answers to life, its just threads like this, and frankly any thread which pertains to MNC ends up with the same people using the same terms and basically saying that the banks own our internal organs.

It doesnt go anywhere though, there is no suggestions, anyone can point the finger and say 'I dont like that' but its much harder to say 'we should do this instead'.

[Clandestine]

Sorry bb, as apollo has said, the info is out there. Much of the legalese btw, like many of the terms employed by politicians ("democracy", "Free" Markets, etc.) are actually doublespeak, often meaning exactly the opposite of that which is suggested on the surface.

Its a matter of wrestling with the information until you are able to see the interconnectedness of it all. Its elaborate for sure, but then it was generations in the making and took many many minds to set in place. Nevertheless, it's a house of cards with its own inherent flaws as are all human constructs.

The question is, will people wake up to that fact and overturn it before that house collapses altogether?

[Senor Miguel]

I wasnt asking for answers to life, its just threads like this, and frankly any thread which pertains to MNC ends up with the same people using the same terms and basically saying that the banks own our internal organs.

It doesnt go anywhere though, there is no suggestions, anyone can point the finger and say 'I dont like that' but its much harder to say 'we should do this instead'.

fair enough, but i would say the problem lies with greedy and corrupt politicians handng over too much power.......surely one step forward would be to reclaim all the banks so they are state-owned, and have much stricter legislation about who can do what regarding banking and commerce........

[Toadborg]

It seems strange that this amazing banking conspiracy designed to benefit the bankers whilst screwin everyone else has coincided with the greatest period of wealth creation and improvements in living standards ever...........

[Clandestine]

At a pace that has only increased based on equally unprecedented levels of projected borrowing offset against only presumed future economic conditions all bound for inevitable collapse Toad. Basing your desire to dismiss it all as fantasy on the here and now or somehow presuming that a mere 60 years of rapidly inflated enrichment is some proof of the inviolability of our Western system is foolish indeed.

The vastly larger percentage of increasing global impoverishment and unsustainable consumption is the zero sum effect under which this numbers game is bound to implode. 60-100 years is nothing in the scope of world history and those pushing the debt envelope the fastest are those who recognise this ship is sinking.

[budda]

But surely even if currency has no real value, that doesnt matter as long as we all want it, which we certainly seem to.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Return to the Gold Standard?

To be fair even if there is a economic depression worse than the Wall Street Crash its probablky not going to be as catastrophic as painted. The only casualties of the WSC were a few bankers who threw themselves of buildings, - no-one starved, Governments continued to be able to feed and protect their populations and economy's readjusted.

There have always been doom-mongers about, from the early Christians convinced the Apocolypse was just round the corner to Malthus and his overcrowding. There's a lot of conjecture and theories in the current crop - but very few cold, hard facts (and even those are usually out of context)

[budda]

Return to the Gold Standard?

But in real terms thats nearly as pointless as cash money. So you can back it up with gold, who wants gold?

[Flashman's Ghost]

But in real terms thats nearly as pointless as cash money. So you can back it up with gold, who wants gold?

I agree, but I was only suggesting gold because (as far as I understand the argument) current money is worthless because it often has no phyical substance (being in the cyberspace of bank accounts).

[Senor Miguel]

But in real terms thats nearly as pointless as cash money. So you can back it up with gold, who wants gold?

if it's backed by gold that prevents the fractional reserve banking practice which is common today.......this is what the canadians are complaining about, money from nothing........

[budda]

if it's backed by gold that prevents the fractional reserve banking practice which is common today.......this is what the canadians are complaining about, money from nothing........

Its what one Canadian is complaining about. Lets not over play it.

[Senor Miguel]

Its what one Canadian is complaining about. Lets not over play it.

if you read the article he is actually filing the suit on behalf of several people, probably because he is the only one who can understand the nature of the beast well enough to tackle it.....

The class action suit, the first and the biggest of its kind in Canada is intended to give the justice system the opportunity to prove to itself and to the People of Canada who is really in control or whether they would continue to allow itself to be used by the banks as a tool in their unlawful and fraudulent banking practices which always ends in the enslavement of the people and confiscation of the people's properties.

Two other class action suits were filed by John Ruiz Dempsey against the banks. The first one was filed by Dempsey on behalf of Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C. versus the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. This matter is set for case management conference hearing on April 26, 2005. The Plaintiff expects a stiff opposition from the defendant's law firm. Madam Justice Garson is the case management judge assigned to the case.

A second class action suit was filed against MBNA CANADA BANK on behalf of Pavel Darmantchev of Kelowna, B.C., Ian Dennis Gravlin of Calgary, Alberta and Dena Alden of Vancouver, B.C.


this is not some isolated problem, it's fraud on a global scale, and thanks to Mr Dempsey similar suits are being drawn up in america.......

A class action was filed on May 27, 2005 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District Court of Ohio by the Plaintiff, Patrick Rudd from Rhode Island. The file number is C205523. The class action in Ohio is based on some class actions launched in Canada:
http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/classaction3.htm
More class actions are being prepared in Philadelphia, Texas and other states.

and about bloody time.

[Blagsta]

I agree, but I was only suggesting gold because (as far as I understand the argument) current money is worthless because it often has no phyical substance (being in the cyberspace of bank accounts).

Its not worthless - I can still buy food with it.

[budda]

Sorry, a dozen Canadians.

[Senor Miguel]

Sorry, a dozen Canadians.

bb my point is this is not exclusively a canadian problem, just because most people (like yourself) put too much faith in these unknown private entities doesn't make it any less real..........what is your point?

[Flashman's Ghost]

Its not worthless - I can still buy food with it.

Its hard to summarise an argument which I personally think is mad, but (and Apollo can correct me if I am wrong) without something solid behind it the bank can creat new money (addsing a few million electronic pounds to their balance sheets) and have a metaphorical licence to print money.

Once we realise this is happening we'll no longer trust money, the economy collapses and we'll all die.

I think :confused:

[Blagsta]

Yes, I see the argument. I just don't think its very relevant to my life.

[Kermit]

Anything is only worth something if people are prepared to "pay" for it. Paper money is worth something because we all agree it is worth something.

I understand the point, but I do dispute that it is money from "thin air". Loans affect electronic balances, and electronic balances count at the ATM, therefore the money is tangible.

[Senor Miguel]

like you say kermit, the paper only holds value because this is how we are used to doing business, so yes it's tangible in that laws state you have to accept cash as legal tender.........but banks create it from thin air/nowhere, they don't have the physical assets to back up what they are lending, so what gives them the right? and then to charge interest on top? for just making up a balance entry on an electronic ledger? it's just taking the piss really........and like nqa said as soon as everyone clocks on what's happening there is no more trust and poof.......i suggest you read that article i posted for a better understanding.......it's all a bit irrelevant as paper cash will soon disappear, it only accounts for 5% of the money in circulation, soon it will all be electronic and that is the way banks like it........

[Kermit]

it's tangible in that laws state you have to accept cash as legal tender

It's tangible because I walk into a shop and can get other tangible things for my money.

but banks create it from thin air/nowhere, they don't have the physical assets to back up what they are lending, so what gives them the right?

You don't seem to grasp how it works, though.

What is a tangible physical asset? Gold is not a tangible asset of value if nobody wants gold just as much as a £5 note is not a tangible asset of value if nobody wants a sheet of green paper.

and then to charge interest on top? for just making up a balance entry on an electronic ledger?

What is wrong with interest? The bank is saying "I will give you £10 if you pay me £15"- if you don't like that deal then don't go overdrawn.

Electronic balances are tangible because electronic balances purchase goods. A loan of money is tangible because I can go to the ATM and withdraw it and buy tangible goods with it. I can buy goods with the balance in my bank account.

I fully understand the arguments about "thin air" economics, I just don't agree with them. Gold and diamonds' values are produced "out of thin air" too, if you think about it for more than five seconds.

[Senor Miguel]

It's tangible because I walk into a shop and can get other tangible things for my money.

yes and the shopkeeper is obliged to give you tangible things under law, that's what i said.......

You don't seem to grasp how it works, though.

What is a tangible physical asset? Gold is not a tangible asset of value if nobody wants gold just as much as a £5 note is not a tangible asset of value if nobody wants a sheet of green paper.

a tangible physical asset is something that holds a certain value or worth........before the days of currency people bartered with animals or........scarce materials, like gold and silver.........it's well known these are rare and hence hold a certain value because it's finite, when people started trading in gold or agreed on its scarcity i don't know.......but it holds a lot more physical worth than a bit of green paper, which is not very finite as you can print as much as you like........paper currency first started as a receipt, where you would go to your local banker/merchant and get him to store your gold for you, which is what people did to avoid getting robbed or whatever........the merchant would then give you an IOU, that's all that cash is, an IOU.......then people started trading IOUs when you could travel from town to town and trade them in at your local bank........it became more universally accepted, and it has progressed from there........now this is fine in theory, because all that gold is still sitting in a vault somewhere.......the problem today is that paper no longer has any physical asset behind it, so in essence it's worthless.........the only thing holding it together is the law and public trust......if you think gold has no more worth than why has the price been steadily rising and why have all the silver and gold reserves been steadily disappearing from the Federal Reserve? the banking elites and economists would disagree with you.......

What is wrong with interest? The bank is saying "I will give you £10 if you pay me £15"- if you don't like that deal then don't go overdrawn.

there is nothing wrong with interest, if you are lending something that you physically own or possess, because you are at risk .........when the bank is 'giving you £10' as you put it, they probably can only back that up with £1 in actual reserves.......what you need to understand is that every dollar or pound in circulation is debt and has been created by the banks out of nothing, and so is earning the banks billions of pounds every year.......at absolutely no risk to themselves, because they are not lending any tangible assets......

Electronic balances are tangible because electronic balances purchase goods. A loan of money is tangible because I can go to the ATM and withdraw it and buy tangible goods with it. I can buy goods with the balance in my bank account.

I'm not disputing that you can go out and buy stuff with cash, you're missing the point.......

I fully understand the arguments about "thin air" economics, I just don't agree with them. Gold and diamonds' values are produced "out of thin air" too, if you think about it for more than five seconds.

well obviously not, you can't produce gold out of thin air because there is a FINITE amount.......as for diamonds, well they are also losing their value now that they can be made artificially.......

[Kermit]

yes and the shopkeeper is obliged to give you tangible things under law, that's what i said.

He isn't. He can refuse the custom of any person he wishes. If he wants to be paid in salt then he can be.

a tangible physical asset is something that holds a certain value or worth

My £5 note is worth £5. It is physical and has a tangible value and worth.

I appreciate the point that £5 is only a numeric figure held up by public trust. But it is still something with a tangible value.

there is nothing wrong with interest, if you are lending something that you physically own or possess, because you are at risk[/quotes]

Which is what banks do.

If banks were at no risk how did Barings manage to go tits up?

[quote]I'm not disputing that you can go out and buy stuff with cash, you're missing the point.......

I'm not missing the point.

You are saying that banks create this money out of "thin air", therefore it is not real. I am saying that this is a load of rubbish.

I don't agree that banks produce things out of "thin air", although banks are obviously reliant on people paying loans back.

And you miss my point: gold is only of value because people want it. Scarcity is irrelevant, except to illustrate the link between scarcity and desire.

[Mist]

I agree with kermit here.


Besides which, this class action is a load of balloney. If, by some stupid legal technicality, the action were to succeed, I trust that they would require a pay out in some form of compensation, yes? very well, since the claim is that the money is thin air, then let their pay out be a load of thin air, and see how they like them apples.

Fools.

[Senor Miguel]

He isn't. He can refuse the custom of any person he wishes. If he wants to be paid in salt then he can be.

stop being pedantic, what i meant was you cannot be refused goods on the ground that your money is worth nothing, because the LAW says it is, hence the 'i promise to pay the bearer' on your banknotes.......reserving the right not to serve someone in your shop has nothing to do with this........

My £5 note is worth £5. It is physical and has a tangible value and worth.

I appreciate the point that £5 is only a numeric figure held up by public trust. But it is still something with a tangible value.

tangible how exactly? forget it is currency, in reality is a bit of paper, and paper is worth next to nothing, i think it costs something like .000001 p to print a note, that's its physical worth.........

I'm not missing the point.

You are saying that banks create this money out of "thin air", therefore it is not real. I am saying that this is a load of rubbish.

I don't agree that banks produce things out of "thin air", although banks are obviously reliant on people paying loans back.

then do tell, where does it come from?.........

[quote]there is nothing wrong with interest, if you are lending something that you physically own or possess, because you are at risk[/quotes]

Which is what banks do.

If banks were at no risk how did Barings manage to go tits up?

no banks are not at any risk, if you are using barings as proof then you need a history lesson, they went bust because a rogue trader was given too much licence to gamble on the stock market, and concealed this for a long time, until the market crashed and he couldn't hide it.........it had nothing to do with banks lending money to customers, at risk my arse.......


And you miss my point: gold is only of value because people want it. Scarcity is irrelevant, except to illustrate the link between scarcity and desire.

:banghead: and why do they want it, to scratch their arse with? your whole argument falls down right here, because scarcity is absolutely relevant, in fact it is central.......why is gold more valuable than silver? because it's shinier?........no, because there is less of it on this earth.........i can't explain it any clearer than i have, your a clever chap kermit i know you can work it out.......

ETA: it took me a good long while to get my head round this when i stumbled across it...........once you understand how fractional reserve banking works (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=fractional+reserve+banking+&meta=) it will all make sense.

you might also find this (http://www.libertydollar.org/) interesting.........a non-inflationary currency, now there's a novel idea.......

[klintock]

Besides which, this class action is a load of balloney. If, by some stupid legal technicality, the action were to succeed, I trust that they would require a pay out in some form of compensation, yes

Nope, all debts to the banks would be wiped out. No more mortgages, no more loan repayments, no more national debt.

I understand the point, but I do dispute that it is money from "thin air". Loans affect electronic balances, and electronic balances count at the ATM, therefore the money is tangible.

What is wrong with interest? The bank is saying "I will give you £10 if you pay me £15"- if you don't like that deal then don't go overdrawn.

It looks fine from a personal point of view, but look at the whole of us a s a group and a simple question comes up.

How do we pay back more than there was in the first place?

At in interest rate of 0.00000000000001% after one year there would be an unpayable debt from someone somewhere in the economy. This person would then have to mortgage something or sell their labour to someone else in order to try to pay it back. If they succeed then someone else will lose out, if they fail, than they will lose out. As a group, we can never win, never pay it all back.

So, in exchange for a bit of printing and some sums, the banks get lots of peoples real world stuff without doing any work whatsoever (unless you count keeping a straight face work) and everyone beavering away to provide them with more and more stuff.

Oh yeah, and paper currency is that which should not be refused in sevice of a debt -

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:K47pVK7CaPAJ:www.scottish.parliamen t.uk/business/research/briefings-03/sb03-51.pdf+should+not+be+refused+legal+tender&hl=en

“The concept of legal tender is often misunderstood. Contrary to popular opinion, legal tender is not a means of payment that must be accepted by the parties to a transaction, but rather a legally defined means of payment that should not be refused by a creditor in satisfaction of a debt. This makes legal tender a rather narrow legal concept that has little to do with the way in which most payments are made. In practice, people are often willing to accept payment by cheque, standing order, debit or credit card – in fact by any instrument that they are confident will deliver value.”(Bank of England, March 2003)

Leading to much confusion and hilarity at the bank if you refuse their debt notes. ;) If anyone would like to get in touch with the bank of England they will be more than happy to tell you that your money entitles you to nothing whatsoever, right before they put the phone down on you.

So make your own -

http://www.lawdepot.co.uk/contracts/promnote/index.php?pid=google-promis_uk-main_c&a=t

[Blagsta]

and that is relevant to my life...how exactly?

[Flashman's Ghost]

Nope, all debts to the banks would be wiped out. No more mortgages, no more loan repayments, no more national debt.

Which may sound fantastic in the short term - goodbye barclaycard debts, goodbye mortgage.

However when I want to go for a bigger house who do I borrow money off?

And to be honest I'd rather keep most of my money electronically in a bank, than phyisically in box under my bed.

[klintock]

and that is relevant to my life...how exactly?

I print another million quid. The currency you now hold is worth less than when I added it to circulation. It's called inflation and robs you in your sleep. The government needs to pay the interest on it's debt. This is called taxation and robs you while you work and spend. Given that it's the mechanism by which capitalism operates I am amazed at your response.

However when I want to go for a bigger house who do I borrow money off?

The bank, same as you always did. They charge you a flat fee and have to actually have the assets with which to back up their loan to you. Once they run out of asets with which to back up their lending, they have to stop. pretty simple really.

Also, do you think you would need to borrow anything like as much as you do now? It takes 6 months, more or less to build most houses. Why does it take 25 years equivalent labour to buy one? Oh yeah, you are paying back many times more than you borrowed because of the fraud that banking currently is.

And to be honest I'd rather keep most of my money electronically in a bank, than phyisically in box under my bed.

That's fine, and is what banking was originally. You keep your valuables in a secure place, the owners of that place charge you for doing so. They would no longer be allowed to lend your stuff to 9 other people on the off chance you don't want it back.

that's where the notes came from. the banker would write a sworn statement that you had x valuables in his vault, which you could give to another person to trade with.

The problem was that the bankers started (and still do) printing out more promises than they had (and have) resources to cover. Not only that, but what they were "lending" in this way wasn't even theirs to begin with! and then they charge interest. :confused:

How about you lend me your house, I take out loans for the houses value with 9 different credit companies for the full value of the house, and leave you with the problem of paying them back.

I'd call that theft, they call it banking.

[wheresmyplacebo]

It's tangible because I walk into a shop and can get other tangible things for my money.

You don't seem to grasp how it works, though.

What is a tangible physical asset? Gold is not a tangible asset of value if nobody wants gold just as much as a £5 note is not a tangible asset of value if nobody wants a sheet of green paper.


What is wrong with interest? The bank is saying "I will give you £10 if you pay me £15"- if you don't like that deal then don't go overdrawn.



yes with a gold standard theres a relayively fixed amount of gold, and thus money shows exactly how much of thhe overall national wealth you own

nothing wrong with interest, but requiring money that doesnt yet necesserily exist ie interest forces more 'money' to go into the system thus making banks money through inflation, interest or taking physical things


why ill never become a investment banker, its not a real job imho

[Toadborg]

At a pace that has only increased based on equally unprecedented levels of projected borrowing offset against only presumed future economic conditions all bound for is some proof of the inviolability of our Western system is foolish indeed.

The vastly larger percentage of increasing global impoverishment and unsustainable consumption is the zero sum effect under which this numbers game is bound to implode. 60-100 years is nothing in the scope of world history and those pushing the debt envelope the fastest are those who recognise this ship is sinking.

Inevitable? That is something you can't prove.............

Increasing global impoverishment? Wrong.............

[Clandestine]

LOL. Sorry Toad, but saying "Wrong" doesn't make it any less a fact. You subscribing to the Bush mentality of "just by saying so I can make it go away"?

The gap of rich and poor is widening and indeed the once hallowed "middle" class is shrinking at an accelerated pace. The only people making out are but an ever decreasing global elite.

Time to face the truth dear boy, ideological self-deception wont protect you from reality.

[Blagsta]

I print another million quid. The currency you now hold is worth less than when I added it to circulation. It's called inflation and robs you in your sleep. The government needs to pay the interest on it's debt. This is called taxation and robs you while you work and spend. Given that it's the mechanism by which capitalism operates I am amazed at your response.


Yes, I understand that. However, it isn't that relevant to people's everyday lives. What is relevant is how people can improve their pay and conditions on an everyday basis, how people can attempt to improve their environment etc. Abstract bollocks is meaningless to most people.

[The Matadore]

So is Marxist theory, but you keep babbling on about it.

[Blagsta]

So is Marxist theory, but you keep babbling on about it.

Except it isn't though is it? Class analysis is a way of looking at capitalism, how it works and explaining the conflicts inherent within it. Try telling workers locked in an industrial dispute with their bosses that class struggle is an abstract conflict.

[klintock]

Yes, I understand that. However, it isn't that relevant to people's everyday lives.

Yes, because paying the mortgage every month is an alien concept to all but a few people. :rolleyes:

What is relevant is how people can improve their pay and conditions on an everyday basis,

By, for example stop being ripped off left right and centre by the banks?

How do you get fair working conditions when the system you are using must produce the same conditions over and over again. If you destroy the factory but leave the thinking behind it yadda yadda.

how people can attempt to improve their environment etc.

Attempt? How about actually fucking doing it for a change?

Abstract bollocks is meaningless to most people.

WHA???!!! Your statist abstract bollox seems to play well with most people, in fact you have consistently said "Most people can use abstract thought" and so on. this isn't abstract, it's what actually occurs in the world, what are you, delusional?

[Blagsta]

Sorry, what statist bollocks?

[The Matadore]

Class analysis is a way of looking at capitalism, how it works and explaining the conflicts inherent within it. Try telling workers locked in an industrial dispute with their bosses that class struggle is an abstract conflict.

Try asking your average joe worker to explain the labour theory of value to you.

Besides, Socialism is seperate to the Trade Union movement, hence the failure of Socialist organisations in the late 19th / early 20th centuries.

[Blagsta]

Try asking your average joe worker to explain the labour theory of value to you.

Yer average Joe worker is well aware that they don't get renumerated properly for their labour.

Besides, Socialism is seperate to the Trade Union movement, hence the failure of Socialist organisations in the late 19th / early 20th centuries.

Errrr, yeah mate. :rolleyes:

[The Matadore]

Yer average Joe worker is well aware that they don't get renumerated properly for their labour.

No he isnt. Joe Sixpack is more itnerested in when his next trip to the pub is and frankly, I'm not suprised. You socialists are such bores.

[Blagsta]

No he isnt. Joe Sixpack is more itnerested in when his next trip to the pub is and frankly, I'm not suprised. You socialists are such bores.

You'd be surprised. Maybe you should talk to some people and not be such a dismissive arrogant snob. You really aren't in any position to be.

[Ibex]

No he isnt. Joe Sixpack is more itnerested in when his next trip to the pub is and frankly, I'm not suprised. You socialists are such bores.

If everyone is so happy with how much they egt paid, why do so many people grumble about it?

[The Matadore]

Dont you think it is arrogant to expect everyone to have the same class warfare priorities as you? Isnt it snobbish to expect everyone to be fully clued up about Marxism, especially in this day and age when it is essentially dead and buried?

[Blagsta]

Dont you think it is arrogant to expect everyone to have the same class warfare priorities as you? Isnt it snobbish to expect everyone to be fully clued up about Marxism, especially in this day and age when it is essentially dead and buried?

You're a plank.

(a) I'm not advocating "class warfare". I have a class analysis. Two different things.
(b) No, I don't expect everyone to have a developed class analysis. However, most people are well aware that our system screws them on a daily basis.
(c) No, I don't expect everyone to be fully clued on Marxism. Nowhere have I suggested such a thing.
(d) How is it dead and buried?

[Toadborg]

LOL. Sorry Toad, but saying "Wrong" doesn't make it any less a fact. You subscribing to the Bush mentality of "just by saying so I can make it go away"?

The gap of rich and poor is widening and indeed the once hallowed "middle" class is shrinking at an accelerated pace. The only people making out are but an ever decreasing global elite.

Time to face the truth dear boy, ideological self-deception wont protect you from reality.

:) your posts always make me smile......

You are wrong, poverty has had a downward trend for some time. I could find data etc but I don't expect you would beleive me or would cliam it to be 'illusory'
or some such conspiracy theory so I won't bother......

The gap of rich and poor might be widening but this is not hte same as impoverishment increasing is it?

Ideological self-deception? Will you use every excuse to use some fancy turn of phrase when it is completely meaningless and out of context, do you think you sound clever? Some might do, others do not.........

[klintock]

Sorry, what statist bollocks?

Please, ignore it. you usually do.

how about answering some of the other points, Blagsta?

Fear is something to be afraid of for sure.

[Clandestine]

You could find the data, of course you could find "claimed" data. I could post World Bank and IMF data myself and presumably you would then feel vindicated. What you would have failed to even question is the model used to arrive at that supposed data and thus your claimed "trend".

At that point I would present to you a number of counter articles which address that very matter and show how IMF/World Bank (the very institutions which have a vested stake in creating false perceptions of global trends precisely to fuel additional forced "structural adjustments" upon developing nations for the furtherance of corporate hegemonic interest and essentially further enrichment for the elite few at the cost of the great many) apply a flawed criteria of measurement and thereby arrive at a false conclusion.

Your argument is clearly not as well researched as you smugly presume it to be.

One excerpt upon which you can chew before perhaps daring to question your patently false presumtpions on the matter...

The definition and measurement of poverty is a highly political issue. Countries tend to hide the existence of large pockets of poverty as it makes them look underdeveloped and shows up public policy failures. Currently, different countries use different methodologies and are hard to compare - often they are based on the per capita expenditure necessary to attain 2000-2500 calories per day, plus a small allowance for non-food consumption. However, these measures do not adequately reflect other expenses necessary to cover basic needs - clothing, drinking water, housing, access to basic education and health, among others. This is the reason that United Nations institutions started using the one and two-dollar-a-day poverty lines; but these also have obvious flaws. If measurements based on a real minimum consumption basket were used, the number of people living in poverty would soar.

Many argue that poverty is not only income poverty. Poverty also has non-economic dimensions, like discrimination, exploitation, or fear. Other aspects should be considered, such as lack of control of resources, vulnerability to shocks, helplessness to violence and corruption, lack of voice in decision-making, powerlessness and social exclusion. As we expand the definition of poverty, the numbers of people affected by it increase.

Poverty should be distinguished from inequality. Inequality shows the distribution of income, consumption and other welfare indicators in society; as an aggregate, the richest 20% of the world has 89% of world income while the poorest 20% has only 1.2%. The comparison between what the rich and the poor possess raises serious questions on the adequacy of current development models (development for whom?) and generates feelings of injustice and political claims. This is why national estimates of inequality are even less reliable than those on poverty; income disparities are not at the core of national statistical data. The numbers given on inequality often seem unreliable (for instance, Egypt and Indonesia are "officially" more equal societies than Australia or France). United Nations institutions are working towards better monitoring of poverty and distribution data and by now there is conclusive evidence that inequality has been growing in the late decades of the 20th century.

http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/ipd/j_poverty.html

[seeker]

fair enough, but i would say the problem lies with greedy and corrupt politicians handng over too much power.......surely one step forward would be to reclaim all the banks so they are state-owned, and have much stricter legislation about who can do what regarding banking and commerce........

Depends,once again,on your definitions of "private" and "state-owned".You say the problem is that the Federal Reseve is "private" and not "state-owned",but the reality is that the fed is backed by the guns of "the state".It IS a private club,essentially making you an offer you can`t refuse.Try starting your own "private" bank,but don`t forget a big "please could I" to the men with guns or you would soon have their guns pointed at your head.

I`ll suggest that the answer is "unlimited" banks issuing whatever "currency" they like,but NOT backed up by a gun to your head i.e. you can say "no" to their currency if you are of the opinion that the said bank are shysters .A voluntary service :thumb:

To be fair even if there is a economic depression worse than the Wall Street Crash its probablky not going to be as catastrophic as painted. The only casualties of the WSC were a few bankers who threw themselves of buildings, - no-one starved, Governments continued to be able to feed and protect their populations and economy's readjusted.

Their ?????? Is that implied ownership :nervous: . And just how did "governments" feed anyone ? Or "protect" for that matter ? Your "faith" in "government" could be described as "fundamentalist" (ask Blagsta ;) )


Anything is only worth something if people are prepared to "pay" for it. Paper money is worth something because we all agree it is worth something.

You mean value IS subjective ? Now there`s a thought,I keep getting told it`s based solely on "labour"

Yer average Joe worker is well aware that they don't get renumerated properly for their labour.

So "average Joe worker" does think the coerced issuance of currency is relevant to their life :p :p


seeker

[Blagsta]

Please, ignore it. you usually do.

how about answering some of the other points, Blagsta?

Fear is something to be afraid of for sure.

As usual, your position means fuck all to most people. As I keep saying - start from the material reality of people's lives and go from there...otherwise whats the point? How many people have you convinced? How many lives have you changed? What activism can people do in their work place with your stance?

[Blagsta]

You mean value IS subjective ? Now there`s a thought,I keep getting told it`s based solely on "labour"


I think you're confusing price and value.

So "average Joe worker" does think the coerced issuance of currency is relevant to their life :p :p

What can people do about it? How can they use it to better their conditions at work and in their communities?

[Toadborg]

You could find the data, of course you could find "claimed" data. I could post World Bank and IMF data myself and presumably you would then feel vindicated. What you would have failed to even question is the model used to arrive at that supposed data and thus your claimed "trend".

At that point I would present to you a number of counter articles which address that very matter and show how IMF/World Bank (the very institutions which have a vested stake in creating false perceptions of global trends precisely to fuel additional forced "structural adjustments" upon developing nations for the furtherance of corporate hegemonic interest and essentially further enrichment for the elite few at the cost of the great many) apply a flawed criteria of measurement and thereby arrive at a false conclusion.

Your argument is clearly not as well researched as you smugly presume it to be.

One excerpt upon which you can chew before perhaps daring to question your patently false presumtpions on the matter...



http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/ipd/j_poverty.html

Yes there are issues with the data of which I am well aware. The fact that there are flaws does not make the conclusions that poverty has shown a downward trend completely invalid however.

The point about cross country comparison is completely invalid as we are talking about changes over time for a start.

And even if you say the data is flawed, how then do you cliam to show the trend of 'increasing impoverishment' then?

[Clandestine]

Evading the information provided to address your presumptions once again it appears.

The conclusions of the World Bank and IMF are flawed and based purely on their agenda of promoting the fraud of neo-liberalism as the panacaea for developing nations and thereby roping them into "structural adjustment" policies that perpetually exploit their national wealth. The conclusions that impoverishment is indeed rising are not flawed and empirically verifiable when factoring in the many prevailing conditions otherwise ignored by the corporate hegemonists.

[klintock]

As usual, your position means fuck all to most people

Nice mind reading, how the fuck would you know?

As I keep saying - start from the material reality of people's lives and go from there...otherwise whats the point

Fuck's sake, I only deal with the material world. The material reality of most people's lives is that they can do what they want but think they can't. The place to start then, is to look at why and how they have been fooled into thinking that they have no, or at best under a political system, 2 very similar options.

otherwise whats the point?

If you don't alter the thinking behind actions you produce the same results over and over again. If it's possible for one man to be boss, you are gonna keep getting the same type of people wanting to get the job.

How many people have you convinced?

Not many, that's for sure. Most people get it fairly quickly and then reject it cos they don't like it or have some sort of interest in keeping the myths. There's also a personal attachment to being "English" say that i can understand but is totally fucking mad.

What activism can people do in their work place with your stance?

You think you have the same experience at work if you know that the company is a fiction? How much shit is done in the name of "the company"? Knowing that's it's all bollocks let's you make your own up if you want, or just not take it that seriously. Quite why you need "activism" I have no idea, just do what the fuck you want and stop worrying about it.

The fact that there are flaws does not make the conclusions that poverty has shown a downward trend completely invalid however.

Is this down to people working with the banks or against the banks?

[Blagsta]

Nice mind reading, how the fuck would you know?

Years of political activism and discussions.

Fuck's sake, I only deal with the material world. The material reality of most people's lives is that they can do what they want but think they can't. The place to start then, is to look at why and how they have been fooled into thinking that they have no, or at best under a political system, 2 very similar options.

You're fucking deluded. You don't deal with material stuff at all, you deal in airy fairy philosophical bullshit, while deluding yourself that you're only dealing with "reality". The reality of most people's lives is that they can't do what they want because of their economic position under capitalism - so that's the place to start - people's everyday experiences in their workplaces and communities.

If you don't alter the thinking behind actions you produce the same results over and over again. If it's possible for one man to be boss, you are gonna keep getting the same type of people wanting to get the job.

And you're altering people's thinking...how exactly?

Not many, that's for sure. Most people get it fairly quickly and then reject it cos they don't like it or have some sort of interest in keeping the myths. There's also a personal attachment to being "English" say that i can understand but is totally fucking mad.


Exactly - not many people. Does that tell you something?

You think you have the same experience at work if you know that the company is a fiction? How much shit is done in the name of "the company"? Knowing that's it's all bollocks let's you make your own up if you want, or just not take it that seriously. Quite why you need "activism" I have no idea, just do what the fuck you want and stop worrying about it.

More irrelevant bollocks. People don't give a fuck one way or the other whether their company "exists" in a philosophical sense or not. What most people want is better conditions, more control over their lives and their time. That is accomplished by solidarity, collective action, realising what people have in common - not with some airy fairy half understood bullshit copied out of some NLP book for fucks sake.

[Toadborg]

. The conclusions that impoverishment is indeed rising are not flawed and empirically verifiable when factoring in the many prevailing conditions otherwise ignored by the corporate hegemonists.

Go on then, verify it..........

[klintock]

Years of political activism and discussions.

Doomed to failure before you start.

You're fucking deluded. You don't deal with material stuff at all, you deal in airy fairy philosophical bullshit,

Right. Why so emotional mate?

The reality of most people's lives is that they can't do what they want because of their economic position under capitalism

Which is in their heads mate, nowhere else.

so that's the place to start - people's everyday experiences in their workplaces and communities.

No, it really isn't. What happens and what people think happens are usually completely different.

More irrelevant bollocks. People don't give a fuck one way or the other whether their company "exists" in a philosophical sense or not.

It's not a philosohical position. Companies ARE fictional. So why waste energy and effort trying to service what isn't there in the first place.

What most people want is better conditions, more control over their lives and their time

AND

That is accomplished by solidarity, collective action, realising what people have in common

I have no idea how you get more freedom for an individual by joining groups. Things work best when everyone does different things. How are you supposed to get more stuff by giving away your freedom to some half assed idea of a group, a group which will have leaders and naturally put you right back where you started.

not with some airy fairy half understood bullshit copied out of some NLP book for fucks sake.

:rolleyes:

[Blagsta]

Doomed to failure before you start.


Eh? :confused: Political action is doomed to failure? Tell that to the suffragetes.

Right. Why so emotional mate?

Eh? :confused:


Which is in their heads mate, nowhere else.

So the fact that some people are living on the streets while other people own 10 homes is in their heads? I wonder whats in your head sometimes. :eek:

No, it really isn't. What happens and what people think happens are usually completely different.

Eh? :confused:

It's not a philosohical position. Companies ARE fictional. So why waste energy and effort trying to service what isn't there in the first place.

OK, so if a company is fictional, then my workplace must be fictional, as must my desk, my computer and my wages. :confused:

AND



I have no idea how you get more freedom for an individual by joining groups. Things work best when everyone does different things. How are you supposed to get more stuff by giving away your freedom to some half assed idea of a group, a group which will have leaders and naturally put you right back where you started.



:rolleyes:

Eh? "Things work best when everyone does different things."? How do you work that out? If everyone in my workplace was doing different things, nothing would ever get done. You're cracked in the head.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an apology from you for posting my email address on www.isitfair.co.uk

[klintock]

Eh? Political action is doomed to failure? Tell that to the suffragetes.

Tell em what? That despite all the efforts of many good people theres still a collection of individuals forcing their view of the world on others? They would agree. By using the political process you continue it. It's the process itself that is the problem, not the men and women who use it, by and large.

So the fact that some people are living on the streets while other people own 10 homes is in their heads? I wonder whats in your head sometimes.

Where else is it? How do you know that you own something?

OK, so if a company is fictional, then my workplace must be fictional, as must my desk, my computer and my wages

See, you always get this backwards. First someone thought up all the different things they wanted to happen, then they convinced others to make them physically apparent. You are taking the existence of your desk as proof of a company. The desk is there because people believe there is a company, not the other way around. It goes individual belief - convince - action - stuff to point to.

Eh? "Things work best when everyone does different things."? How do you work that out? If everyone in my workplace was doing different things, nothing would ever get done. You're cracked in the head.

So we should all do the same job? How does that work?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for an apology from you for posting my email address on www.isitfair.co.uk

I am sorry if that annoyed you.

[Blagsta]

Tell em what? That despite all the efforts of many good people theres still a collection of individuals forcing their view of the world on others? They would agree. By using the political process you continue it. It's the process itself that is the problem, not the men and women who use it, by and large.

Which process? You'll have to be more specific.

Where else is it? How do you know that you own something?

You're fucked in the head mate. Go tell the next beggar you see that "its all in his head". I'd predict they'll either (a) punch you or (b) think you're worse off than they are.

See, you always get this backwards. First someone thought up all the different things they wanted to happen, then they convinced others to make them physically apparent. You are taking the existence of your desk as proof of a company. The desk is there because people believe there is a company, not the other way around. It goes individual belief - convince - action - stuff to point to.

More irrelevant 6th form philosophising.

So we should all do the same job? How does that work?

Eh? What the fuck are you wittering about now? :confused:


I am sorry if that annoyed you.

Of course it annoyed me you cheeky little cunt.

[klintock]

Which process? You'll have to be more specific.

The process where you convince people that fictions exist and so gain control of them, make them predictable and so on.

You're fucked in the head mate. Go tell the next beggar you see that "its all in his head". I'd predict they'll either (a) punch you or (b) think you're worse off than they are.

>sigh< More irrelevant fuckwitted missing the point.

More irrelevant 6th form philosophising.

That was much easier than thinking wasn't it.

Eh? What the fuck are you wittering about now?

I have no idea what you were talking about either.

Of course it annoyed me you cheeky little cunt.

How would I know that? I would have found it funny. But then we are all different.

Btw, the blagsta/klintock abuse ratio is firmly in the plus column on your side, I feel no offence though. Would you just knock it off though, it's tedious and wastes my time reading it and yours writing it.

[Hidrick]

Years of political activism and discussions.
Too many years perhaps??

You're fucking deluded. You don't deal with material stuff at all, you deal in airy fairy philosophical bullshit, while deluding yourself that you're only dealing with "reality". The reality of most people's lives is that they can't do what they want because of their economic position under capitalism - so that's the place to start - people's everyday experiences in their workplaces and communities.
The reality of most people's lives is that they are pig-ignorant lazy and lacking in any ambition thus casting themselves as frevent worshippers at the altar of Chav-ism.


More irrelevant bollocks. People don't give a fuck one way or the other whether their company "exists" in a philosophical sense or not. What most people want is better conditions, more control over their lives and their time. That is accomplished by solidarity, collective action, realising what people have in common - not with some airy fairy half understood bullshit copied out of some NLP book for fucks sake.
"Solidarity, collective action" - lets man the barricades comrades, the revolution is nigh.

[Blagsta]

The process where you convince people that fictions exist and so gain control of them, make them predictable and so on.

Sorry, you're not making any sense. Again.

>sigh< More irrelevant fuckwitted missing the point.

You don't appear to have a point, beyond schoolboy philosophising.

That was much easier than thinking wasn't it.

Write something intelligible and I'll think about it.

I have no idea what you were talking about either.

Yes, that's quite clear,

How would I know that? I would have found it funny. But then we are all different.

So you'd find it funny for a complete stranger to plaster your email address all over the net without your knowledge? Don't give up the day job.

Btw, the blagsta/klintock abuse ratio is firmly in the plus column on your side, I feel no offence though. Would you just knock it off though, it's tedious and wastes my time reading it and yours writing it.

I'm just responding in kind.

[Blagsta]

The reality of most people's lives is that they are pig-ignorant lazy and lacking in any ambition thus casting themselves as frevent worshippers at the altar of Chav-ism.

That may be your life, but don't mistake your projections for reality.

[klintock]

Sorry, you're not making any sense. Again.

Seems perfectly fine to me, and you are unintelligible to me.

You don't appear to have a point, beyond schoolboy philosophising.

This means what, exactly? Appart from the usual fuckwit patronising that is. :confused:

Write something intelligible and I'll think about it.

:rolleyes:

So you'd find it funny for a complete stranger to plaster your email address all over the net without your knowledge? Don't give up the day job.

>cough< pot, kettle etc.I apologised for the fact that you had a problem with it, what more do you want me to do?

I'm just responding in kind.

Oh. Ok. Can't remember calling you any names myself, but still. I have pointed out that some of the stuff you write is stupid, but that's not the same as calling you anything.

That may be your life, but don't mistake your projections for reality.

Well that's all from me on this, cos you are obviously a troll from the other end of the spectrum as RK. Same style, different content.

[Blagsta]

Just a couple of things before you go back on ignore...

>cough< pot, kettle etc.I apologised for the fact that you

...you're the one that started this childish little row by plastering my email address all over another forum. You're also the one who appears to be trolling with your endless bullshit about how you're a hypnotist (yeah, right) and how you and only you knows the answer to everything, cos you read an NLP book once. Grow up.

[seeker]

I think you're confusing price and value.

Perhaps I am :chin: Could you explain to me the difference in order to clear up any possible confusion ?


seeker

[morrismarina]

http://www.prosperityuk.com/

good thread.

[The First Lady]

okay, I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned this, but - that's how all banks lend money.
this is A-level economics - if you put £100 in the bank, the bank might lend out £90 (from the £100 you originally desposited) to someone else. Thus 'total' money in the economy = £190, although there's actually only £100 in reality. That's why you can't take out all your money from the bank without giving advance notice - otherwise the banks would collapse. There are safety requirements, like the banks have to have a certain reserve ratio (eg. in the example that I have given, the bank didn't lend all the £100, it kept back £10, thus the reserve ratio is 0.1) this can be changed through policy - the government can higher (in times of inflation) / lower the required reserve ratio. Also, many government operate a deposit insurance scheme, where they promise to pay back any money that a depositer may loose should the banks collapse.

but that's basically how it works, in simplfied form. and all banks do it. it's not that the money doesn't exist. it does exist. and therefore, this is not money creation. money creation is printing money, like the Fed or the Bank of England does.

[klintock]

Ahh. Fair enough, i see we might nave jumped a few steps somewhere.

Who's money do you think the banks are lending out?

Is it explicitly stated to those people that that's what is happening?

Where the hell does the money come from to pay the interest?

but that's basically how it works, in simplfied form. and all banks do it. it's not that the money doesn't exist. it does exist.

Yes, the initial money does exist, but, and this is the important bit.....it's not the banks money.

While what you say is true, it goes much further than the £190 you quote.

the reserve ratio is 0.1

Yes, and once the loan money is put back into a bank (as it is almost certain to be) then it's done all over again and again. I loan £5000, and pay it to you for a car. You put that money in the bank, and the bank lends it out again to someone (or £4500 of it) and it happens again. And again.

On top of all this, the banks want interest on money that never existed in the first place!

So, a good question is - Why don't we have superinflation?

1) Taxation

2) the banks write off debts between themselves to keep it stable. (imagine a string of people that instead of getting mortgages just moved around in a circle)

Which means that they have total control over the economy, and therefore the government and of course, everything else.


This of course leaves aside entirely the value of fiat currency - i.e. it's only worth the paper it's printed on.

In 1850, the average house would have cost you 100 gold bars. These days it will cost you ....100 gold bars. the difference in "financial" terms is massive, but that's a measure of devaluation alone.