Russian site has ripped Cytopia.org tracks

On 2007-07-20 13:33, the daleks wrote:
man you guys have WAY too much free time!!!

On 2007-07-19 06:19, Spindrift wrote:
And you trusted what you read in the sidebar of google video on that?

First of all look at the URL:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk
Does it say .gov.uk?

Does government institutions in the UK have Executive Directors?
This is what they say on their webpage:
"The Bank of England was founded in 1694 to act as the Government's banker and debt-manager"
It was a private institution acting as the governments banker when it was funded and it still is.

Quote:

Personally I lost interest when the guy was using the bible to bolster his point. Never a good sign.

That's your loss if your have such issues so you shut of as soon as the bible is mentioned.

It was from the UK the idea of a privately owned central bank came.

I guess it depends on what you mean with owned.
They have some directors form different countries and try to give the impression that they are some kind of democratic idealistic organisation.

But the money comes from bankers and they rake the profit from the interest they charge.

If the loans cannot be paid on the other hand we taxpayers have to foot the bill.

That's what they claim their purpose is.

But look what happened in the states after they let private bankers take control over the money supply.

Bankers make maximum amount of money from fluctuations in the economy, not from it being stable.

Now we have bankers in control over the amount of money available

and if you like to trust them when they say they are looking to keep a stable low inflation economy then ok...I don't and I would be interested in knowing what basis you have for claiming that they are actually stopping inflation.

I'm not saying that there can be no financial institutions or no loans.
But if you agree that the system is not that great, then you have to look at what the problems is.

One thing is for sure IMO, our economy is far to heavily based on loans and interest.

It's not like all economic activity would size unless everyone lead all the time.

The money could just as well be created out of thin air from the government, but it's in the hands of bankers and we have to pay their interest.

Watch the video and dispute any facts or bible quotes in there...that's at least a start but for sure there is more to it.

43.5% of GDP is national debt in the UK so I wouldn't say that it's mostly a US problem.

And what politicians do with the money is influenced by the system.

Since Germany got a lot of cash from the bankers for weapons, when should the UK do?
Just let them roll over them with their superior military force?
They where forced to lend as well, and that is a problem with the system not stupid politicians.

Just because you cannot think of another way than the current prevailing one doesn't mean that nothing would exists if it wasn't like it is now.

The money that is paid by governments and companies as interest doesn't have to end up in some bankers pockets.

It could be handled by the government or non-profit organisations who dispense loans to start-ups or housing.

And if we didn't have to get extorted all the time by the bankers we would be wealthier, which means we or for example our parents could have better chances of funding ourselves.

I don't about the Nederlandsche bank and it hardly too influential in world economics, but I don't know where you got the idea from that BoE would be government owned.

And I'm not saying loans has to be all bad, but having the whole world owing a few individuals and having to constantly pay them interest is.

And even if we maybe would not all straight away be able to start any business we like or buy houses if we didn't have the extra burden that the current monetary system gives us, we would need to lend less because we would be better off.

"it's the best system available now"???
What systems are you comparing....or how can you be so sure there is no better system?

Oh...so all our progress in the last 1000 years is ascribed to the monetary system that has been in effect for the last couple of hundred years?

I hope you realise that there is more factors to our development than the monetary system we are using and that it's hard to say where we would be today if that system had looked different.

I wasn't making generalisation but rather pointing to a specific example that makes the system we have show very real issues.

A system that is easily abused is a problem.

You can't just dream that there will be no people that will not care about profit above all and find ways to abuse the system.

I'm not so sure that the fact that we have a system that created the enormous profit opportunities from wars did help creating the conflicts as well.

No, the problem is not the bridge, but the toll booth.

Removing maybe not, but reforming them could for sure be one way of addressing the problem.

If they are a small handful can be discussed, but I think most of us realise today that it's not the elected leaders that is in control over the world today.

On 2007-07-20 13:47, klippel wrote:
start with facing you inner demons and we might get somewhere... sometimes..

On 2007-07-20 16:14, Spindrift wrote:
I really cannot see that you have any message with your posts undertow.
To me it seems like you can sum this whole page of ramblings with "Things are not bad, but there is problems....I don't know what they are, and don't have any suggestions what to do about them".

I have been pointing out some of the problems, but you seem to not be capable of getting the concepts behind them.

For example you say:
"Why not? If they provide the money, they should get the interest. That is their service. It's like saying that the money for producing milk doesn't have to end up in some farmer's pocket... "
Thing is that they don't have the money, but that fact seem to escape you.
You think it's fair that they charge for the service of lending you money which they don't even have?

I also been pointing out some simple things that could be done to fix the system.
Like having the government in control over the issuing of money, not the bankers.

You seem to believe that the bankers interest is the same as ours....but you don't seem to grasp that what is a flourishing economy for us is not what is flourishing for them.

If there is too much money in economy people need to lend less, hence they rake in less interest.

By artificially creating depressions, like they have even by their own admission been doing, they can size property bought by borrowed money.

Then when they release more money again the property goes up in value and they can sell it expensively to someone taking a loan from them and paying interest on it.

Your main defence for that the system is not so bad is that we are well off today.

But when I tell you that you cannot claim we are better of than we would have been with another system you agree, and hence one would think that you must realise that that point is moot?

We had industrialization and we have computers and robots making the amount of work we need to put in to sustain our living conditions greatly reduced.
But still most people on the planet can just afford to have a decent life while working full-time, and many not even that.

By saing "What extra burden? You mean the cost of borrowing money? It is up to the borrower to do their own calculations. If they can't that is their own fault. Not the banker's." you prove that you fail to comprehend that the burden we are under is not about your private loans.

Everyone have to pay a lot more than that to the international banker thanks to the scam that is fractional reserve banking due to the debts of their nation and companies they deal with.

If the bankers can lend you money that doesn't exist, why couldn't you or the government do the same?

Why can't elected representatives decide how much currency should be available, instead of profiteers that admittedly create artificial depressions to increase their profit?

This is not a situation that happened because economic necessity or something that politicians and public wanted, it was a long struggle for power that was won by the international bankers in the end.

The solution to those problems is not that difficult.

Take the control of the money from the bankers and back to the public's elected representatives.

On 2007-07-20 12:20, shamantrixx wrote:

Quote:

On 2007-07-20 11:31, Inner Demon wrote: LOL. I've never heard the quote, whichever it is it certainly isn't what you've written because it doesn't even make any sense to read.

It is from a quite famous movie and it makes sense but obviously only to people with more than half of brain cells functioning.

On 2007-07-20 11:31, Inner Demon wrote:
Do you choose not to understand what people are saying or does it just come naturally?

Quote:

Oh... I practice a lot. I actually don't like people who use language without understanding it. Like with objectivity... that just pulls you into illusion and make you believe things you've never seen. As seen on TV and shit like that. So it's good to be aware of such misleading notions of "modern" language.

On 2007-07-20 11:31, Inner Demon wrote:
Speaka said 'what a throroughly subjective statement'. Of course all statements are subjective, how could they not be? That is not what he meant. He was referring to the fact that your statements are particularly laden with value judgement.

Quote:

And who's value system is more objective? What makes his values more objective than mine since we don't talk about yellow sun on a blue sky but rather about abstract human concepts? How can we define objectivity in this case? You're full of shit! Do you even think about what you write or you've actually hoped that it will do the trick?

On 2007-07-20 11:31, Inner Demon wrote:
Since you twist everything people say into something they didn't say or mean, debating gets kinda hard.

Quote:

Yeah mate... when you write one thing but meaning to say something other than what you've wrote and still both lack sense or concept...

Maybe you should go for something less complex and leave the debates to those who do it with ease

And for the position of God... I am God. You are also just like everybody else is.

And I don't believe that the bankers have ultimate control. So I do not need to present a solution to a problem that I don't really believe exist.

Who? When? What? Such vague statements do not do this discussion any good.

Which IMO really is the bottom line!

I think it is total bullshit to believe that all bankers flourish in maximum chaos and collapsing economies. Sorry but I find that view extremely naive and very far from the truth.

Rubbish. I don't believe that bankers have anywhere near as much control as you think they have and I don't think that allowing elected representatives to control the money directly is a good solution at all.

What seems required is a public body removed and divorced from political pressure, staffed by Treasury officials, invested by Parliament with the duty of creating, free of interest, as much money for necessary government purposes as the country at any given time should, in their considered judgment, need to ensure the maximum possible employment of its productive resources.

The exercise of the right inherent in every sovereign state of creating and issuing a sufficiency of money to make financially possible what is physically possible and morally desirable, would enable as much real wealth to be brought into existence as, with its immense inventive and scientific potential, it is capable of making.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.

Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile... Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws... Usury once in control will wreck any nation.

Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power away from them and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in... But, if you want to be the slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.

One thing is for sure IMO, our economy is far to heavily based on loans and interest.
It's not like all economic activity would size unless everyone lead all the time.

whether that fortune is in one family or in ten thousand families, it makes no real difference for macro economics as long as that money is reinvested in the economy.