Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - World Central Bank_ Dystopian Capitalism or Socialism_3

8/7/2019 Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - World Central Bank_ Dystopian Capitalism or Socialism_3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/exploring-dystopia-view-topic-world-central-bank-dystopian-capitalism 1/12

Board index » Related » Thoughtcrime Corner — P olitical Debate All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]

Moderator: Ingsoc

Register • FAQ • Arcade • Search • Login

View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:17 pm

WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Print view Previous topic | Next topic

WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPI TALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Author Message

Neuromancer

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIA N CAPITA LISM OR SOCIALISM?

Who is asking for a Global Central Bank?

Not a rhetorical question and an answer by George Soros; in fact the G20 and the IMF have stepped up the efforts to drive

the World Economy that road.

Quote:

The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency

The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all

humanity.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Published: 7:18AM BST 03 Apr 2009

A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the

global financial order.

"We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the w orld

economy and increase global liquidity," it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper

currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.

In ef fect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's pow er to create money and begin global"q uantitative easing". In doing so , they are putting a de facto world curr ency into play. It is outside

the control of any sovereign b ody. Conspiracy theorists w ill love it.

It has been a good summi t for the IMF. Its fighting fund for crises is to be tripled overnight to $750bn.

This is real money.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director, said in February that the world was "already in Depression" and

risked a slide into social disorder and military conflict unless political leaders resorted to massive stimulus.

He has not won everything he wanted. The spending plan was fudged. While Gordon Brown talked of $5 trillion in

global stimulus by 2010, this is mostly made up of packages already under way.

But Mr Strauss-Kahn at least has resources fit for his own task. He will need them. The IMF is already bailing out

Pakistan, Iceland, Latvia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Bosnia and Romania. This week Mexico became the

first G20 state to ask for help. It has secured a precautionary credit line of $47bn.

Gordon Brown said it took 15 years for the world to grasp the nettle after Great Crash in 1929. "This time I think

people will agree that it has been different," he said.

President Barack Obama was less dramatic. "I think we did OK," he said. Bretton Woods in 1944 was a simpler

affair. "Just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's an easy negotiation, but that's not the

world we live in."There will be $250bn in trade finance to kick-start shipping after lenders cut back on Letters of Credit after

September's heart attack in the banking system. Global trade volumes fell at annual rate of 41pc from November to

January, according to Holland's CPB institute – the steepest peacetime fall on record.

Euphoria swept emerging markets yesterday as the first reports of the IMF boost circulated. Investors now know

that countries like Mexico can arrange a credit facility able to cope with major shocks – and do so on supportive

terms, rather than the hair-shirt deflation policies of the old IMF. Fear is receding again.

The Russians had hoped their idea to develop SDRs as a full reserve currency to challenge the dollar would make its

way on to the agenda, but at least they got a foot in the door.

There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely evolve into a parking place for the foreign

holdings of central banks, led by the People's Bank of China. Beijing's moves this week to offer $95bn in yuan

currency swaps to developing economies show how fast China aims to break dollar dependence.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the summit had achieved more than he ever thought possible, and praised

Gordon Brown for pursuing the collective interest as host rather than defending "Anglo-Saxon" interests. This has a

double-edged ring, for it suggests that Mr Brown may have traded pockets of the British financial industry to satisfy

ring Dystopia - View topic - WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTO... http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/world-central-bank-dystop

2 4/17/2011Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)

http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/world-central-bank-dystopian-cap...

http://www.novapdf.com/








Franco-German demands. The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global

financial regulator. The devil is in the details.

Hedge funds deemed "systemically important" will come under draconian restraints. How this is enforced will

determine whether Mayfair's hedge-fund industry – 80pc of all European funds are there – will continue to flourish.

It seems that hedge funds have been designated for ritual sacrifice, even though they played no more than a cameo

role in the genesis of this crisis. It was not they who took on extreme debt leverage: it was the banks – up to 30

times in the US and nearer 60 times for some in Europe that used off-books "conduits" to increase their bets. The

market process itself is sorting this out in any case – brutally – forcing banks to wind down their leverage. The

problem right now is that this is happening too fast.

But to the extent that this G20 accord makes it impossible for the "shadow banking" to resurrect itself in the next

inevitable cycle of risk appetite, it may prevent another disaster of this kind.

The key phrase is "new rules aimed at avoiding excessive leverage and forcing banks to put more money asideduring good times." This is more or less what the authorities agreed after the Depression. Complacency chipped

away at the rules as the decades passed. It is the human condition, and we can't change that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-

to-a-global-currency.html

And now for Tim Geithner, Mr Goldman Sachs himself.

Quote:

US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner confess ed on Wednesda y that he had not read the plans by China's

central bank governor for a " super-sovereign reserve currency" run by the I nternational Monetary

Fund, but nevertheless let slip that Washington was "open" to the idea. Whoops.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Published: 5:15AM GMT 26 Mar 2009

This is how matters quickly escalate in geo-finance. China's suggestion – backed by Russia, Brazil, and India, and

clearly aimed at breaking US dollar hegemony – is making its way onto the agenda of the G20 Summit next week.

'Dollar-dämmerung' no longer looks so far-fetched.

China's paper, by Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, is couched in understated language – more a 'thought experiment' than

a declaration of monetary war. His ideas could be mistaken for the musings of an academic theorist. Nobody should

be fooled by decorum.

It comes days after premier Wen Jiabow demanded US action to safeguard the value of China's holdings of US bonds

- $740bn of US Treasuries and a further $600bn or so of other debt. "We have lent huge amounts of money to the

US. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets," he said.

China's Communist Party seems to fear that the Federal Reserve is orchestrating a beggar-thy-neighbourdevaluation - and a disguised default on America's foreign debt - by resorting to the nuclear option of printing

money to buy US Treasury bonds.

China's proposal is to activate the IMF's power to issue Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The IMF would be groomed

as de facto central bank for the planet. The SDRs would gradually become an "accepted means of payment". Call it

the 'globo'.

It would be an error dismiss this idea as a pipe-dream. Cynics once ridiculed Maastricht plans to launch the euro.

John Major famously said chatter about a European currency had "all the quaintness of a rain-dance and about the

same potency". Yet once officialdom began assembling the machinery for monetary union, EMU acquired a life of its

own.

The pitfalls of a world central bank are obvious. It is hard enough for the European Central Bank to run policy for 16

states in a region with a shared history, and shared EU institutions (Commission, Court of Justice, competition

police, etc). The politics of global monetary management would be poisonous.

The heads of the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England, must all testify before parliaments and answer to

democracy. There is no world parliament, no world government. Who would control a super-IMF?

In theory, this world reserve bank would be above politics. China's plan suggests a resource currency along the lines

of the "Bancor" floated by Keynes at Bretton Woods. This was anchored on 30 commodities, giving it a broader base

than the Gold Standard. Such a currency would prevent the "credit-based" debauchery of today's fiat system, says

Mr Zhou.

True, but this would be jumping from frying pan to fire. If the world is running out of oil, metals, freshwater, and

arable land – as many believe – then the price of commodities must rise over time. The 'globo' would become a

deflation machine, like the late 19th Century gold as it asphyxiated endebted US farmers.

The China-Russia plans may never come to much. As President Barack Obama put it, the US is going through a

"rough patch" but still commands the world's biggest economy, under a stable democracy and the rule of law. He

might have added that it will largely avoid the aging crisis already dulling Japan's dynamism, and soon to ensnare

Germany, Italy, above all China.

For all its bluster, Beijing must move with care. After years of export-driven mercantilism China is even more

dependent on US markets than America is dependent on Chinese capital. The risks of currency and trade conflict are

not symmetric. The hegemon must prevail.

But 10 years hence the picture may look different. If the G20 opens the door wide enough next week, a world

currency may yet come into being.














http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5051075/A-world-currency-moves-nearer-after-Tim-Geithners-slip.html

Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:12 pm

NexusInner Party Leader

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm

Posts: 1865

Location: Airstrip North


Quality muckraking, Neuromancer. This is an intriquate topic indeed. A few points:

I think we should be careful not to compare apples and organes. The G20 discusses the possibility of creating a

supercurrency, and this is not the same thing as a monocurrency. As supercurrency can be used for advanced

manipulations of the economy, whereas a monocurrency probably can't be. A supercurrency could in fact be the

ultimate wealth generator for the international capitalist class.

As far as I can tell, Soros is the only one really speaking of creating a global world bank. As a Swedish saying goes:

"When the Devil gets old, he becomes religious." It's really a quite common behaviour among capitalists: When they

get older, they realize what they have spent their lives on, and try to find some meaning in life. Usually, they want to

play philantropists or politicians and seek media attention and praise. Considering how destructive Soros' capitalistic

endeavours have been, it makes sense that he wants to create a global world bank; it would be his monument, proof

that he wasn't just a mongler.

Notice that Soros' criminal behaviour - well, criminal if you're not a capitalist, at least - would be impossible with a

single global currency.

I'm a little confused. As a democratic socialist, I have reservations against introducing one global currency,

considering the questionable results of economic globalisation, or "economic freedom" as some people put it. As a

liberal capitalist, shouldn't you welcome the introduction of one global currency? After all, the result would be even

"freer" trade.

_________________

"Life is a succession of here and now, here and now, unceasing concentration in the here and now. People who worry about the

future or the past don't understand that they are worrying about an illusion." -Taisen Deshimaru

WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial

Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:45 pm

Neuromancer


Actually from my investigations; the role in the Greek Debt's concealment by Goldman Sachs (includes JP Morgan and

more) is far more extensive than I thought nor is it limited to just a single country currency either.

There are multiple country-wide level destabilisations ticking away to make the 'solution' either a Global Single Currenc y

or the Synthetic Currency (basket of currencies, commodities or carbon credits ) followed by Centralisation (into a

world central bank) a solution "THEY "want us to accept first, so the Public has to be scared first in their methodology.

Then, made to accept those awful conditions (structural adjustment packages) by the IMF.

There seems to be more than mere good intentions behind promoting the idea of large government debt, other than

simply carry on with 'mere' welfare state and fattening bankers' profits business as usual. Of course none of this could be

carried out without a Central Bank to debase the currency.

There following links provide the background to the perspective to the 'scheme' at large by the said Bankers.

Bankers and their tools have declared WAR on the Nation-states.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431404575066973097686194.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?pagewanted=2


Corrupted Keynesianism?

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/economics-and-demography/just-what-is-the-real-level-of-government-debt-in-europe/

If it is any indication; the accuracy of the following document will be proven when the triggering events lead to the

Dominoes falling one after another.

Is your political or financial leader in this Power Elite Grouping?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/the_bilderberg_papers.html

Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:24 am



My apologies for the late reply, Stevemata. I simply forgot.

Stevemata wrote:



























Posts: 1865Location: Airstrip North

Nexus, the scale of central banks before the Federal Reserve is incomparable.

I'm not so sure about that. Consider how small the American economy was in the beginning.

Stevemata wrote:

Prior to the first world war the United States was very powerful, the power was first demonstrated in the American

Civil War, the first modern war with artillery and field guns, trenches and machine guns, scorched earth and iron

ships. The power was again demonstrated in the Spanish American War where nearly all Spanish colonies were

captured in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The Spanish American War by causalities was a small war, even by18th century standards but it was fought with modern weapons and the wars scope was world wide. The massive

European armies used to fight the first world war were conscripted prior and during the war, arguing that the United

States was only powerful after the war is arguing that large bodies of conscripts which are easily raised are a nations

power base. The "military industrial complex" was already in existence and supplying Europeans with weapons long

before the war.

I've never claimed that the USA wasn't powerful before World War 1. I do claim that it wasn't more powerful than the UK,

France, and Germany before World War 1, though.

Stevemata wrote:

Central banks are used to consolidate power.

Yes, one way or another. The question is how and for whom.

Stevemata wrote:

Many currencies is awkward to deal with, but the value of money can be accurately gaged based on many exchange

rates. This can't be done now, the central banks around the world use vast holdings of each others fiat currencies to

provide value to their own fiat currencies. Also prior to the FDR's "New Deals" the US Dollar was bound to a Gold

Standard. A central bank which uses a gold standard is a very different than the Federal Reserve.

I've asked this question before: Is a gold standard - or possibly a silver standard - really a feasible alternative in a modern

economy? I don't know.

Stevemata wrote:

Prior to Income Tax, the Federal Government raised most of its money on import duties and by selling interest

baring treasury bonds to banks and citizens.

Again, I must point out that income tax is an old phenomenon in the USA. I'm curious, do you think the USA should go back

to import duties and treasury bonds?

Stevemata wrote:

My figures were provided by the official government Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Medicare websites.

Websites for the other large programs did not disclose beneficiary statistics. On my local level I can see that a vast

number of people beyond those who qualify for these programs receive money in the form of rent grants, house

payment grants, credit debt reduction grants... and many other stripes of Grants. I for example while I was a

student exceeded the poverty level with a part time income and government money.

Very strange. That a capitalistic country has a large welfare system is logical - especially if it wants to limit political

diversity - but how could it go this far? Your politicians/businessmen must have lost control over the system.

Stevemata wrote:

Another interesting stat I discovered which I was planning to save for another post is, the US Federal Government

considers anyone who makes under $20,000 a year below the poverty line, the Gross per capita personal income in

the United States is $24,000. Excluding Switzerland and the Netherlands, the population of every other country on

earth's population is below the poverty line. When sorting by "Disposable Income" the United States per capita

personal income is 39.6% larger ($6,083) greater than Germany in second place. Maybe this information will

enlighten you as to who the "poor" in America really are, and this also should help to explain why fighting and












expanding these programs is such a big deal to Americans.

This is an extreme simplification, as it assumes that you get similar services in all countries. I know quite a few people who

have lived in the USA, and they have pointed out how expensive it is to get decent services, both public and private.

According to their experiences, if you want healthcare that equals Swedish standard, you have to pay an insurance

premium of at least $2,000 a month; similarly, if you want childcare that equals Swedish standard, you have to pay at least

$1000 a month. Judging from these figures, living a decent life on $20,000 a year in the USA is difficult.

Stevemata wrote:

Core wealth generators are the business which produce and sell goods to the citizens of the United States and export

goods to other countries. Often the most efficient and most productive per dollar are large business, their large

status being achieved through efficient methodology. Large businesses which sell goods to the Government such as

the military industrial complex are not core wealth generators, these businesses are paid by the government to

convert money into goods that only the military values. It's arguable that these businesses are actually wealth

destroyers --> taking money through taxation from wealth generators and converting that money into military

equipment.

I think we should be careful when we talk about wealth; an unknown percentage of all wealth is artificial and

non-productive. Some figures worth pondering upon...

New York Stock Exchange: Market value: $10.842 trillion. Total share turnover: $12.158 trillion.

NASDAQ: Market value: $2.847 trillion. Total share turnover: $19.343 trillion.

USA: GDP: $14.441 trillion.

I think it's time to realise that we are being played by the powers that be.

_________________




Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:14 pm

Stevemata


Nexus,

Gold/Silver standards, the value per troy ounce can be exceedingly high and the note values fraction can be incredibly

small, I don't see any problem with standards of any sort, the standard can be cut stone or gravel for all I care as long asit's quantity is relatively fixed and the notes are worth some weight of resource or some combination of resources.

I don't know where you get your information about American Healthcare but it appears you are referring to how much the

federal government spends providing healthcare(including the 100 billion (18%) stolen throughout the Medicare program

every year?) or more likely you are getting socialist propaganda used to fight healthcare privatization sentiments. I

receive heath care from private hospitals and subscribe to private health insurance, I always receive whatever healthcare I

demand at a small additional cost, $15 a visit + 10% of the procedure and my rate only runs me around $70 a month. Yes,

I'm young and in good health, by my parents and grand parents who are not, only pay about double what I pay.

As for the stock market information, I find it hard to believe that companies are worth their yearly revenue, I wager that

the stocks are undervalued. I would like to point that the New York Stock exchanges are simply the largest single

exchanges in the country, but by no means the only.

You mention how politicians and businessmen possible lost control sometime in the past. I think more likely, no one ever

had control. Systematic Control is an arguably European institution, this country was founded by people who didn't believe

in kings or lords, they didn't believe in control, it can be attested to by mind blowing weakness of the original federal and

state governments at founding in comparison to the present. As far as control in the United States not being an institution,

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that intelligent control is fleeting when manifested. This country is the size of

Europe with a comparable population but the country is divided into fifty distinct states. Transcendent Control in America

certainly exists, but it's unintelligent, it's a result of policy and law written and rewritten, ignored and conflicting, redundant

and absent, injected by passing elected politicians over the last two and a half centuries spread out over 51 major locations

and over many thousands of lesser location. And one party rule parliamentary style rare and often even less effective

sighting the Democrat party's super majority over the last year, clearly no one or thing is in control, more likely, no matter

party affiliation, everyone is doing their own thing.

Yes income tax isn't new in american, but it's current scale is. The poorest working Americans pay over 25% of their

income in identifiable taxes (federal income, state income, sales) to the government, a full three months of work a year.

The State and Federal governments have further compounded the problem by driving up rent prices and home prices

through rent subsidy and loan underwriting, that more than half my income is used to pay rent while undeveloped land sits

idle because of fees, zoning laws, wildlife sanctuaries, building restrictions and their ilk.












What about government going back to only selling interest baring treasury bonds and demanding import duties? I would

prefer if they only sold interest baring treasury bonds and reduce what they already sell, social security and the other

welfare programs are already funded by massive quantities in forced sales to the federal reserve, to the tune of trillions a

year.

--------------

Back to the topic, I think Neuromancer's social villains are largely misplaced. Socialism no, tyranny no, dirty bankers and

well meaning politicians yes; and yes, most certainly dystopia. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Humanity

will always accept security and stability at the price of slavery, most people will actively sacrifice freedom step by step on

the march to security and stability. Most depressingly the loudest advocates of freedom are usually the most willing to

surrender their freedoms for as long those coming to power are those whom they support.

Neuromancer is right to call the warning, but Socialism and Good Intentions are certainly related but not necessarily

friends, he mustn't forget that fighting good intentions is always a losing hand in a politically free society.

Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:43 am


Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pmPosts: 1865



Stevemata wrote:

Gold/Silver standards, the value per troy ounce can be exceedingly high and the note values fraction can be

incredibly small, I don't see any problem with standards of any sort, the standard can be cut stone or gravel for a ll I

care as long as it's quantity is relatively fixed and the notes are worth some weight of resource or some combination

of resources.

It could work. As I see it, there are only two ways to break the current system. The first is to keep fiat money, but make

central banks transparent and democratic. The second is to reintroduce a gold standard. It could be done, because 19% of

all gold is held in reserves by central banks. (Could digital gold currency be an option? That would hypothetically mean that

anyone could introduce a currency.)

There are risks with reintroducing a gold standard, most notably that monetary policy can't be used in times of recession.

I'd say that it might be worth the risks, though. Historically, fiat money has been introduced to fund wars, and later on

other forms of public spending. Without fiat money, the US government would have to cut down on public spending: A)

Probably the best-case scenario: Cutting down on military funds. Without military backing, US capitalism would have to

play by the same rules as everyone else; it wouldn't make US capitalism collapse, but it would certainly weaken it. B)

Probably the next best-case scenario: Cutting down on social security funds. This would lead to the introduction of new

political parties and movements, and end the USA's century-long retardation in politics. C) The worst-case scenario:

Cutting down on both military funds and social security funds. This would basically mean painfully slow decay of the US

system. A swift cut is painful, but the pain will be shorter.

Stevemata wrote:

I don't know where you get your information about American Healthcare but it appears you are referring to how

much the federal government spends providing healthcare(including the 100 billion (18%) stolen throughout the

Medicare program every year?) or more likely you are getting socialist propaganda used to fight healthcare

privatization sentiments. I receive heath care from private hospitals and subscribe to private health insurance, I

always receive whatever healthcare I demand at a small additional cost, $15 a visit + 10% of the procedure and my

rate only runs me around $70 a month. Yes, I'm young and in good health, by my parents and grand parents who

are not, only pay about double what I pay.

Well, I only have the information friends and acquaintances who have lived in the USA have shared with me. Obviously,

they aren't socialists, because socialists would never like to live in the USA. No, they are right-wing, pro-USA, anti-welfare.

That's why I find what they have to say about US healthcare quite remarkable.

Be that as it may. Considering the prices in the US, I'd say it's difficult to keep up a decent standard of living with $20,000

a year, or roughly $1,700 a month. What do you have to pay for a decent apartment a month, let alone house mortgage?How much does home insurance cost? The poor public transportation systems in most parts of the USA requires that you

have a car. What do you have to pay for mortgage, insurance, and gasoline a month? Healthcare insurance? Dental care

insurance? College funds for your children? Add to this everyday expenses such as food. Can you really live well on $1,700

a month?

Stevemata wrote:

As for the stock market information, I find it hard to believe that companies are worth their yearly revenue, I wager

that the stocks are undervalued. I would like to point that the New York Stock exchanges are simply the largest

single exchanges in the country, but by no means the only.

So, what's your point? Huge amounts of money is in circulation in the stock exchange, and we can only speculate how












much of all wealth is generated there. Generating wealth and generating worth are not the same thing.

Stevemata wrote:

You mention how politicians and businessmen possible lost control sometime in the past. I think more likely, no one

ever had control. Systematic Control is an arguably European institution, this country was founded by people who

didn't believe in kings or lords, they didn't believe in control, it can be attested to by mind blowing weakness of the

original federal and state governments at founding in comparison to the present. As far as control in the United

States not being an institution, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that intelligent control is fleeting when

manifested. This country is the size of Europe with a comparable population but the country is divided into fifty

distinct states. Transcendent Control in America certainly exists, but it's unintelligent, it's a result of policy and law

written and rewritten, ignored and conflicting, redundant and absent, injected by passing elected politicians over thelast two and a half centuries spread out over 51 major locations and over many thousands of lesser location. And

one party rule parliamentary style rare and often even less effective sighting the Democrat party's super majority

over the last year, clearly no one or thing is in control, more likely, no matter party affiliation, everyone is doing

their own thing.

Indeed, your country was funded by people who didn't believe in kings and lords. You do, however, treat your president as

an emperor and like to talk about your country as an empire. You definitely treat your capitalist dynasties with more

respect than we treat our aristocratic dynasties. You're going through the same phase European countries did once upon a

time.

Could the problem be that social security was introduced in a rush? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't US social security

basically introduced during the New Deal? In most European countries, social security systems were built up gradually and

methodically. (Admittedly, there were primitive welfare system already in the Middle Ages and arguably even earlier, but I

don't think they are comparable.)

Stevemata wrote:

Yes income tax isn't new in american, but it's current scale is.

That's a description I'd be more willing to sign.

Stevemata wrote:

The poorest working Americans pay over 25% of their income in identifiable taxes (federal income, state income,

sales) to the government, a full three months of work a year. The State and Federal governments have further

compounded the problem by driving up rent prices and home prices through rent subsidy and loan underwriting,

that more than half my income is used to pay rent while undeveloped land sits idle because of fees, zoning laws,

wildlife sanctuaries, building restrictions and their ilk.

I must say that this discussion is very enlightening. Americans and Europeans, lefists and rightists alike have given me the

impression that American taxes and social spending are very low. A myth, obviously.

Stevemata wrote:

What about government going back to only selling interest baring treasury bonds and demanding import duties? I

would prefer if they only sold interest baring treasury bonds and reduce what they already sell, social security and

the other welfare programs are already funded by massive quantities in forced sales to the federal reserve, to the

tune of trillions a year.

Perhaps it could work. I see one problem with this system, though: The people who would buy most of the treasury bonds

and pay most of the import duties would be corporations. Corporates would demand more political power and politicianswould be more dependent on corporates. It could in fact be counterproductive.

Stevemata wrote:

Back to the topic, I think Neuromancer's social villains are largely misplaced. Socialism no, tyranny no, dirty

bankers and well meaning politicians yes; and yes, most certainly dystopia. The road to hell is paved with good

intentions. Humanity will always accept security and stability at the price of slavery, most people will actively

sacrifice freedom step by step on the march to security and stability. Most depressingly the loudest advocates of

freedom are usually the most willing to surrender their freedoms for as long those coming to power are those whom

they support.

Neuromancer is right to call the warning, but Socialism and Good Intentions are certainly related but not necessarily

friends, he mustn't forget that fighting good intentions is always a losing hand in a politically free society.












I think you hit the nail on the head, Stevemata. It's probably not a conspiracy, but rather plain old stupidity.

I must say that I find your and Neuromancer's use of the term socialism a little bit confusing. Do you really know what it is

or do you just think you know what it is? The opening clause of Wikipedia's entry on socialism:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker ownership

and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

_________________




Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:14 am

Stevemata


Head of IMF P roposes New Reserve Currency

"Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, suggested Friday the organization might one day

be called on to provide countries with a global reserve currency that would serve as an alternative to the U.S. dollar."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9958995

Well, the time for supposing is over, the IMF's intentions are now clearly stated.

Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:48 am

Neuromancer


According to the news Obama has done exactly what Soros wanted

done with the US Treasury.

The idea is to collapse the US Dollar with overwhelming debt, then use the crisis for the new global currency, seems things

are 'going to plan'.

Quote:

"George Soros tells CNN: I’m not satisfied with Barack Obama, but he saved country from recession "

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/george-soros-tells-cnn-im-not-satisfied-with-barack-

obama-but-he-saved-country-from-recession.html

Now California is poised for a massive financial earthquake like Greece.

Quote:

" California is a greater risk than Greece, warns JP Morgan chief

Jamie Dimon, chairman of JP Morgan Chase, has warned American investors should be more worried about the risk

of default of the state of California than of Greece's current debt woes."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7326772/California-is-a-greater-risk-than-Greece-warns-

JP-Morgan-chief.html

The question logically arises; what are the plans with this Global Currency and Global Central Bank after the US Dollar is

crushed? A lot of effort has been spent on this to simply allow it to do 'nothing' with it. Even as we sp eak the level of interest on debt continues to escalate ever faster out of control. What w ill it do to countries that are export

markets with their larger and larger debt-servicing?

Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:32 pm

Neuromancer


Quote:

I think you hit the nail on the head, Stevemata. It's probably not a conspiracy, but rather plain old stupidity.

I must say that I find your and Neuromancer's

use of the term socialism a little bit confusing. Do you really know what it is or do you just think you know what it

is?


















The opening clause of Wikipedia's entry on socialism:

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic orga nization advocating either public or direct worker

ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Allocation of Resources, hence nationalisation is not very popular at this time, despite government bailouts of the

banking system. The government nationalised Private Debt! Net gain for the government, citizens and taxpayer?

I think we can split hairs into many different 'socialisms' into many brands, however for the sake

of simplicity we concentrate on debt-inducing government spending be

that Left-wing (social spending and fund its supporters and cronies) and Right-wing (military spending and fund its

supporters and cronies).

On the Global Bank, this means that either the Global Government will misuse its resources to fund social programs or

military spending at the global central level, the issue is the The Transition to this Scenario, are we witnessing the Birth

Pangs of the World Central Bank?

This Crisis has too much planning voiced by its chief financial architects, the idea is to form a view of what they have in

mind after they have installed their new Global Banking Institution.

Now who could want a controlling stake in the World Central Bank?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301

The New Robin Hood Tax (aka Tobin Tax) could help create a cashflow of funds to swell up the World Central Bank, allow

the UN to have it collected by the IMF or World Bank as national contributions. It requires an international organisation to

administer it - of course.

However this does not address the issue of debt creation and the bankers and their operations on the market that landedus into the financial trouble in the first place.

Quote:

15 September 2001

The Robin Hood Tax

Concrete proposals for fighting global poverty and promoting sustainable development by harnessing the

proceeds from a currency transactions tax

A tax on currency transactions, otherwise known as a "Tobin Tax" could stabilise financial markets as well raising

money for international development.

Notwithstanding a product of Neo-liberal policies of deregulation of Exchange and Capital Controls.


(full plan included)

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Robin_Hood_Tax.pdf

Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:50 pm


Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pmPosts: 1865



Neuromancer wrote:

Allocation of Resources, hence nationalisation is not very popular at this time, despite government bailouts of the

banking system. The government nationalised Private Debt! Net gain for the government, citizens and taxpayer?

I doubt that you'll find a single socialist that thinks that this is reasonable. The kind of senseless speculation that caused

this crisis would not be possible in a socialist society in the first place.

Besides, socialism doesn't require nationalisation, although it's one possible path.

Neuromancer wrote:

I think we can split hairs into many different 'socialisms' into many brands, however for the sake

of simplicity we concentrate on debt-inducing government spending be

that Left-wing (social spending and fund its supporters and cronies) and Right-wing (military spending and fund its

supporters and cronies).

Try to see it from my perspective. Why should I have to accept being lumped together with American liberals? I don't share

their blind faith in capitalism and representative democracy; I don't approve of their military spending or foreign policies; I

don't think their capitalistic welfare system is beneficial; I don't like their pro-consumptionist philosophy. Anything I

possibly could have in common with American liberals is of secondary or tertiery importance. I do in fact find it insulting

that you insinuate that I would support them and I consider it to be Newspeak on your behalf as well.


















Would you appreciate if I routinely called you a world federalist whatever you say to the contrary? I don't think so. Time to

shape up, Neuromancer.

_________________




Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:47 pm

Neuromancer


Quote:

I doubt that you'll find a single socialist that thinks that this is reasonable. The kind of senseless speculation that

caused this crisis wo uld not be possible in a socialist society in the first place.

Indeed, if we kill the Financial Capitalists and Speculators or the easy options we remove the influence of the Financiers

from Government Offices to do what they want for a Profit (they are a very powerful global cabal). The issue of excessive

concentration of the banking system is what created the disaster scenario in the GFC. In the US, regulation is used a tool to

give the very industry leaders the ability to control the industry they work in hence US Federal Cabinet is full of Bankers

and Industry ex-CEOs, namely Cheney, Rumsfeld and many more going across both Democrat and Republican Cabinets.

In Australia we had a much reduced debacle thanks to appropriate regulation of derivatives and financial products, we are

not a "socialist" society either.

The issue is speculative activity to cheat the market by selling dud securities to defraud investors and taking derivative

positions to screw them when selling them off in the Market Stampede.

Goldman Sachs men are still at large, Capitalism on the whole suffers from these scum's operations and so do Mixed

Economies.

Quote:

Besides, socialism doesn't require nationalisation, although it's one possible path.

nationalisation when it means taking over Private Debt to prevent Systemic National Collapse of

the Economy, the Creditors pocket the differentials, then the IMF and World Bank enforce the "criteria"...

Quote:

I do in fact find it insulting that you insinuate

that I would support them and I consider it to be Newspeak on your behalf as well.

For the lack of a better word, Democrats in the US are associated with "Progressive" and "Left-leaning"policies, however

the details explain more than mere Political Labels originating in the US.

Perhaps it is high time for a Real Left's Guide to US Leftwing P olitics?

Quote:

Would you appreciate if

I routinely called you a world federalist whatever you say to the contrary?

Depends how you personally take it of course.

I don't mind it myself, it still means I don't support their policies, either via the UN, World Bank, IMF or Mainstream Left

Discourse or NGOs.

As with many "Globalist Issues, Rationales and Discourses" we find ourselves with Americans and the UK Establishment

behind it.

The Goal is the same the Context (arguments and issues) to arrive to it change with each Issues Discourse.

Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:19 am



Neuromancer wrote:

Indeed, if we kill the Financial Capitalists and Speculators or the easy options we remove the influence of the

Financiers from Government Offices to do what they want for a Profit (they are a very powerful global cabal). The

issue of excessive concentration of the banking system is what created the disaster scenario in the GFC. In the US,

regulation is used a tool to give the very industry leaders the ability to control the industry they work in hence US

Federal Cabinet is full of Bankers and Industry ex-CEOs, namely Cheney, Rumsfeld and many more going across













Posts: 1865Location: Airstrip North

both Democrat and Republican Cabinets.

Whoa, hold your horses! Who's talking of killing people? Be careful with your rhetoric, buddy.

I agree with your analysis at large, though. Call me an optimist, but if politics and business were to be truly separated, I

think many of the problems with capitalism were to be solved.

Neuromancer wrote:

In Australia we had a much reduced debacle thanks to appropriate regulation of derivatives and financial products,we are not a "socialist" society either.

Indeed. Some right-wing radicals - although I wonder exactly how "radical" they are - would nevertheless claim that your

country is socialist because of this.

Neuromancer wrote:

The issue is speculative activity to cheat the market by selling dud securities to defraud investors and taking

derivative positions to screw them when selling them off in the Market Stampede.

It's almost as if what I call abstract tradable commodities in lack of a better term - i.e. shares, derivatives, terms etc. -

were created for the very purpose of screwing people.

Neuromancer wrote:

Goldman Sachs men are still at large, Capitalism on the whole suffers from these scum's operations and so do

Mixed Economies.

Indeed, Goldman Sachs is a destructive force in global economics. It's something rotten with the whole system when they

can get away with this Greek business.

Neuromancer wrote:

nationalisation when it means taking over Private Debt to prevent Systemic National Collapse of

the Economy, the Creditors pocket the differentials, then the IMF and World Bank enforce the "criteria"...

Well, couldn't such a nationalisation as well be called liberal or conservative? Is it socialist to prevent a collapse?

Neuromancer wrote:

For the lack of a better word, Democrats in the US are associated with "Progressive" and "Left-leaning"policies,

however the details explain more than mere Political Labels originating in the US.

The question is, why should we, a Swede and an Australian, use American political terminology? Why should we use a

terminology that basically isn't used anywhere else in the world?

Neuromancer wrote:

Perhaps it is high time for a Real Left's Guide to US Leftwing Politics?

Which US left-wing politics?

Neuromancer wrote:

Quote:

Would you appreciate if

I routinely called you a world f ederalist whatever you say to the contrary?












Board index » Related » Thoughtcrime Corner — P olitical Debate All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]

Depends how you personally take it of course.

I don't mind it myself, it still means I don't support their policies, either via the UN, World Bank, IMF or Mainstream

Left Discourse or NGOs.

As with many "Globalist Issues, Rationales and Discourses" we find ourselves with Americans and the UK

Establishment behind it.

The Goal is the same the Context (arguments and issues) to arrive to it change with each Issues Discourse.

Well, what if I called you a fascist then? It may seem like a far-fetched analogy, but it isn't really. You are indirectly

comparing me with people who have blood on their hands.

_________________




Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:58 pm

Display posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending Go

ShareThis

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Who is onl ine

Users brows ing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new t opics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forum

You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for: Go Jump to: Thoughtcrime Corner — Political Debate Go

Donate Now

Hosted by FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB

A Member of the Crowdgather Forum Community

About FreeForums | Legal / TOS | Privacy | Terms of Use | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org

Report Violation




Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - World Central Bank_ Dystopian Capitalism or Socialism_3

Documents

Transcript of Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - World Central Bank_ Dystopian Capitalism or Socialism_3