BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Could MODERN WAR be waged without deficit financing ?, An attempt to lift the veil of what drives war from a financial perspective.
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 04:43 AM
Post #1


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



The mid-east conflicts are becoming increasingly disturbing and extemely unpopular. It would appear that this is the case for people of all sides. If we all have a vested interest in peace, should we not investgate where the "achilles heel" may be for the war machine ?

As we all know, modern war (we're not doing a review of wars from long ago here) requires huge amounts of financing. War toys are expensive ! Where does that funding come from ? Have we dared to ask because without the funding, I suspect that modern wars might not be waged very successfully. Just my opinion is all.

Maybe a review of the financing options will help ? What does government have to choose from ? Let's have a closer look.

1) Borrow funds by issuing war bonds.

2) Raise taxes for the immediate needs of the war

3) Go to the banking industry for an increase in the currency supply, also known as deficit financing.

We know that governments choose item number 3) to finance their wars. Perhaps we should look at why they don't choose options 1) and 2) ?

Issuing bonds involves the marketplace and gives the marketplace the option to say "yes" and "no".

Taxes involve the immediate reaction from the electorate.

In each of the first two options, we are empowering people as to whther they wish to support a war effort, the first involving the marketplace, while the second would include the electorate. Is this something that government wants to choose ?

My personal conclusion is that deficit financing is the only option that government chooses to wage war because of the massive amount of financing that is required. Iraq , in its most recent camgaign, has reputedly cost over $300 billion U.S.

DEFICIT FINANCING DOES AN END RUN AROUND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND THE MARKETPLACE.
Am I correct in my assertion ? If so, then deficit financing is a tool for dictatorship, IMHO. Is there really any disagreement over this point ? I'm trying to feel better about this whole mess, but I'm finding it a challenge , so if anyone can set me straight that deficit financing is not a dictatorship tool, please stand up and shout it out because I'm just aching to feel better about the state of government attitudes and intentions ............. but I seem to be working myself out of denial. Maybe that's a good thing ?

I recently attended a supper that was spnsored by a local community currency. The issue was about the support of war and government violence in general. The underlying belief of the speaker was that If people objected to how tax receipts were used, they could protest by not paying tax. Nice intention, but this does nothing to inhibit the practice of deficit financing where the money can be created from thin air. I left disillusioned feeling that the "leftist side of divide and conquer" had a tremendous blind spot.

Encapsulating the whole reason for this thread, do you really think modern war could be waged without the tool of deficit financing ??? Please give your rationale with your answer. It will help me and help others to understand perceptions that permeate the public psyche and help to remove the fragmentation that has historically fallen on the grass roots members of society before the age of information.

Thank-you one and all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 28, 2006, 10:30 AM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



QUOTE(morpheous @ Jul 28, 04:43 AM) *
...Encapsulating the whole reason for this thread, do you really think modern war could be waged without the tool of deficit financing ??? ...
Morph, in addition to your question, do we dare, also, ask: Who are those who profit from promoting deficit financing? Is there any way of knowing?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 11:07 AM
Post #3


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jul 28, 10:30 AM) *

QUOTE(morpheous @ Jul 28, 04:43 AM) *
...Encapsulating the whole reason for this thread, do you really think modern war could be waged without the tool of deficit financing ??? ...
Morph, in addition to your question, do we dare, also, ask: Who are those who profit from promoting deficit financing? Is there any way of knowing?


Gee, Lindsay, I almost feel cornered into using the ole cliche, "follow the money" !

It's pretty simple actually, when looked upon in terms of general industries. The banks create the debt currency for the government and the government patronizes all the military interests. Banks and the industrial-military complex make a bundle.

A slightly deeper look would reveal that this created debt (currency from nothing, meaning no pegged backing with real assets) is debt currency that does two things to the people of the country.

1) It raises the public debt that we are responsible for, legally. The ethics are another issue and can only be appealed in a "higher court". Most people tend to recognize the debt issue.

2) The insidious theft is not the debt servicing that is rather overt, but the inflation of the currency supply that picks your pocket through the effect of price inflation.

They get the dough, we pay the debt (plus interest) and they also dilute the value of existing currency with the added issuance of new currency. We get screwed two ways.

Now that I've answered your question, could you be so kind as to answer the question posed by this thread ? Is modern war possible without deficit financing ?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 28, 2006, 11:59 AM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



I think a truly defensive war would be possible because the people would be willing to sacrifice real value for defense. Adventurous wars like we are currently engaged in will be discouraged because people will directly feel the cost, rather than be buffered from it by the illusion of deficit financing.

Take the Vietnam war for instance. All through the sixties were were shipping 20 billion dollars of value to Vietnam and blowing it up every year. We paid for it in the seventies with the Nixon recession.

Now we are destroying about two billion a week in Iraq.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 12:19 PM
Post #5


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE
I think a truly defensive war would be possible because the people would be willing to sacrifice real value for defense. Adventurous wars like we are currently engaged in will be discouraged because people will directly feel the cost, rather than be buffered from it by the illusion of deficit financing.


Thanks Rick. That's an interesting answer. You've put a democratic spin on it based on "people would be willing" , but willing to do what ............ buy war bonds or cough up instant funding in the way of an immediate war tax ? Are you simpy suggesting that under the "democratic war" that people would be OK with the government running up the deficit with more deficit spending ?

Now for the bigger question based on your post. If your proposed scenario is based on a defensive war (sounds like an establishment argument , BTW) , then how does the aggressor finance their war without deficit spending ?

It comes down to the same issue, either way. No ability to deficit spend = no war. A war needs at least two combatants.

I'm trying to get some answers that are directly related to the question of the thread. The issue is really about war funding. Once the thread gains momentum, I may introduce something that circumvents the ability to debt finance war against the wishes of the people and this has nothing to do with civil unrest , a tax revolt or even an evasion of tax in any form.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 28, 2006, 12:29 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Isn't it really about what the War Party wants (Republicans in this case)? As long as the corporate interests profit from war, they will find a way (propaganda isn't cheap and requires profits) to remain in power and promote their interests.

As to your main question, could American war be possible without deficit spending: no. The pain would be too immediate and cause people to start thinking for a change.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jul 28, 2006, 01:05 PM
Post #7


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



QUOTE(morpheous @ Jul 28, 06:43 AM) *

The mid-east conflicts are becoming increasingly disturbing and extemely unpopular. It would appear that this is the case for people of all sides. If we all have a vested interest in peace, should we not investgate where the "achilles heel" may be for the war machine ?

As we all know, modern war (we're not doing a review of wars from long ago here) requires huge amounts of financing. War toys are expensive ! Where does that funding come from ? Have we dared to ask because without the funding, I suspect that modern wars might not be waged very successfully. Just my opinion is all.

Maybe a review of the financing options will help ? What does government have to choose from ? Let's have a closer look.

1) Borrow funds by issuing war bonds.

2) Raise taxes for the immediate needs of the war

3) Go to the banking industry for an increase in the currency supply, also known as deficit financing.

We know that governments choose item number 3) to finance their wars. Perhaps we should look at why they don't choose options 1) and 2) ?

Issuing bonds involves the marketplace and gives the marketplace the option to say "yes" and "no".

Taxes involve the immediate reaction from the electorate.

In each of the first two options, we are empowering people as to whther they wish to support a war effort, the first involving the marketplace, while the second would include the electorate. Is this something that government wants to choose ?

My personal conclusion is that deficit financing is the only option that government chooses to wage war because of the massive amount of financing that is required. Iraq , in its most recent camgaign, has reputedly cost over $300 billion U.S.

DEFICIT FINANCING DOES AN END RUN AROUND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND THE MARKETPLACE.
Am I correct in my assertion ? If so, then deficit financing is a tool for dictatorship, IMHO. Is there really any disagreement over this point ? I'm trying to feel better about this whole mess, but I'm finding it a challenge , so if anyone can set me straight that deficit financing is not a dictatorship tool, please stand up and shout it out because I'm just aching to feel better about the state of government attitudes and intentions ............. but I seem to be working myself out of denial. Maybe that's a good thing ?

I recently attended a supper that was spnsored by a local community currency. The issue was about the support of war and government violence in general. The underlying belief of the speaker was that If people objected to how tax receipts were used, they could protest by not paying tax. Nice intention, but this does nothing to inhibit the practice of deficit financing where the money can be created from thin air. I left disillusioned feeling that the "leftist side of divide and conquer" had a tremendous blind spot.

Encapsulating the whole reason for this thread, do you really think modern war could be waged without the tool of deficit financing ??? Please give your rationale with your answer. It will help me and help others to understand perceptions that permeate the public psyche and help to remove the fragmentation that has historically fallen on the grass roots members of society before the age of information.

Thank-you one and all.



Every war has always been about one thing and only one thing, money. Hitler was financed with billions and billions of dollars from the international bankers, in short bankers are the absolute power in this world, they decide who goes to war, when they go to war and how much money they make off of each war. To tell the truth the Great Depression was nothing more than the bankers forcing North America into war by refusing to print money until they did.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 01:10 PM
Post #8


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 28, 12:29 PM) *

Isn't it really about what the War Party wants (Republicans in this case)?


No , not based on what I've learned , which some may consider to be rather esoteric but real , nevertheless.

The mongers' interests, when it comes to war, costs big bucks. What they want is simply a desire. Implimenting it takes some big coin. I'm not so interested in illustrating the politics within this thread. I'm interested in highlighting that financing is essentail to the waging of war. Without it , war can't be waged. On the basis that a "democratic society" doesn't want war , how can they avert it ??? They can decline lending existing currency to the cause. They can also revolt should the government want "instant tax revenue" , which would be a joke given the costs. Can you see the average working American sending $100.00 a week to the government so that they can pay people like Haliburton and General Electric, etc, etc. This leaves deficit financing via bank created debt (currency, commonly known as USD's) as the only alternative that I can see. I've posed this scenario to many , many people. Based on an unpopular war, nobody sees a way to finance an unpopular war without the "necessary evil" of bank created deficit financing.

This brings me to a theoretical conclusion. If the ability for government to get created credit from banks was circumvented, government would have no way of financing war .......... none. Zero ! No money , no war. This is simply an intellectual design, however. I'm very much a pragmatic person.

The interesting thing about this theoretical conclusion is that when the public understands how this financing is created, they can actually do something about it , something that is completey market driven and doesn't touch the political model in any way. The public may feel that their war protests should fall on political ears , but the real answer for their wishes actually lies in the economic model, not the political. The political model may hold the keys to intention, shared with others , of course, but it's the economic model, specifically the financial model, that holds the keys to manifestation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jul 28, 2006, 01:15 PM
Post #9


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



http://www.members.shaw.ca/theultimatescam/

Nice site that details how money is created and how it is used to control.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 01:26 PM
Post #10


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE
Every war has always been about one thing and only one thing, money. Hitler was financed with billions and billions of dollars from the international bankers, in short bankers are the absolute power in this world, they decide who goes to war, when they go to war and how much money they make off of each war. To tell the truth the Great Depression was nothing more than the bankers forcing North America into war by refusing to print money until they did.


Yeah, I hear that ! Max, you appear to understand credit creation. At least I'm really hoping you do. You might really help this thread along. Can you do us the small favour of answering the thread's question ? If there was no bank credit for the sake of the government's need to finance war, could they still pull it off without public cooperation on instant taxation ( I know it's absurd) or with the public purchasing of war bonds (this is based on savings/money already created) ?

I guess the simple summation would be to ask the question if you feel that the currency supply would have to be increased ? That's a nice neat little encapsulation.

What did you have in mind ? Share the plunder ? Do you think they could pull off that 18th century idea and give it new life ?

Let's keep this going folks because we can really start to make them look like idiots on the basis that people don't want the war , which I'll venture a guess, is the popular position. I'd have to be insane or from another planet to think otherwise.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jul 28, 2006, 01:35 PM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



I think they could pull it off if they were to topple their debtors, but then we wouldnt have to go to war anyways if we did. The problem is 95% of money is created through the banks and 5% is through the government and the National Banks are of course also under the bankers control. Their are societies that have freed themselves of debt entirely but they were smaller and basically said, their is no way possible to pay off the debt and thus we simply say F**K off to the bankers. So yes you can pull it off without public co-operation on instant taxation by increasing the amount of money that is created by the government, when they need to go to war, make more money. The problem of course is that Bankers are the ones who start the wars, without them we wouldnt need money for the war cause their wouldnt be one.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 01:56 PM
Post #12


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE(maximus242 @ Jul 28, 01:35 PM) *

I think they could pull it off if they were to topple their debtors, but then we wouldnt have to go to war anyways if we did. The problem is 95% of money is created through the banks and 5% is through the government and the National Banks are of course also under the bankers control. Their are societies that have freed themselves of debt entirely but they were smaller and basically said, their is no way possible to pay off the debt and thus we simply say F**K off to the bankers. So yes you can pull it off without public co-operation on instant taxation by increasing the amount of money that is created by the government, when they need to go to war, make more money.


Their debtors creditors are all over the globe. Isn't it easier to inflate the debt away by completely debasing the trade value of the currency by way of inflating the supply ?

OK, you mentioned "instant taxation" and an increased currency supply. These are distinct. Taxation is something that John Q pays based on existing supply. New currency is created by banks as you have already illustrated. Thanks, BTW. Are you suggesting that John Q would comply with coughing up a "pay the war effort as we go" tax, which would be VERY hard, pretty much ludicrous, IMO ....... or ........ are you saying that the government would have to rely on new bank credit / increase in currency supply .......... or both ?

Is it also possible that you are referring to increased currency supply that supports John Q's ability to pay an "instant war tax" ???

Based on all of the above, would you say that regardless of the distribution and the routing of the currency, that an increased supply of currency has to be created ? That's really the essense of this , isn't it ?

Just curious, are you aware of the banks' short position on anything in the market ??? If so, please just answer yes. Please don't mention the type of position. Timing is important and people need to digest in bite size morsels.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jul 28, 2006, 02:04 PM
Post #13


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



heh the answer is YES and I do realize that it is hard for people to understand a lot of this at first, hell it took me four hours before of talking to a "agent" (not sure if you know the legal side of this as well but anyways..) After I learnt this I basically had my mind blown, and so I set out to learn more and more until I finally learnt not only about the legal, banking and propaganda aspects but the electronic ones as well. The banks are of course incredibly difficult to topple, they have been doing this for a very long time and have gotten very good at doing it so any meeger attempts are quickly taken care of. Simply you have missed one thing, you dont need to route the money into the masses and then bring it back to the government, they just simply make the money and then spend it, no need to hand it over to the masses, that just wastes their time. Bank Credit and Currency supply are essentially the same thing, the diffrence is in Bank Credit the government is in debt, in Currency Supply they are not.

The implementation of a federal income tax is a direct result of the passage of The Bank Act of 1913 which unlawfully gave the private banking industry the authority to create money out of nothing, lend it to us and charge us interest for it. Income tax is used to pay the usury to the bankers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 02:12 PM
Post #14


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE(maximus242 @ Jul 28, 02:04 PM) *

heh the answer is YES and I do realize that it is hard for people to understand a lot of this at first, hell it took me four hours before of talking to a "agent" (not sure if you know the legal side of this as well but anyways..) After I learnt this I basically had my mind blown, and so I set out to learn more and more until I finally learnt not only about the legal, banking and propaganda aspects but the electronic ones as well. The banks are of course incredibly difficult to topple, they have been doing this for a very long time and have gotten very good at doing it so any meeger attempts are quickly taken care of. Simply you have missed one thing, you dont need to route the money into the masses and then bring it back to the government, they just simply make the money and then spend it, no need to hand it over to the masses, that just wastes their time.


Stick around, my friend. You're conversing with someone who was born on the 4th of July. ;-) No joke. It's where my "first domino" fell, so I fully appreciate your learning curve.

Want a nice simplification of classical power ? Create chaos , finance it and make people pay. No rationale other than that needs to exist. Crazy but true when it's simply a power quest.

I realize that the credit creation (actually debt) is the only necessity. The routing is nothing but a confusion for the average thread participant/lurker and I was looking for a simplification. Thanks for that too.

Your big "YES" was a yes to knowing about the short position ?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 28, 2006, 02:13 PM
Post #15


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



I'll be back tomorrow. Dinner and guests.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jul 28, 2006, 02:19 PM
Post #16


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



yeah it was an answer about the short position, I was taught by two people, primarily about how this all works. One by a professor, who taught me how quiet things can be very dangerous and my friend, the agent who taught me about the legal and monetary system. Since then I have grown quite fluent in the mass deception, my expertise is really in silent weapons although I know about all the diffrent aspects. Their is some new technology, primarily in neuroscience and nanotechnology that is causing quite a stir..

"Give me control over a nation's currency,
and I care not who makes its laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild
(1743 - 1812)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 28, 2006, 02:25 PM
Post #17


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



It is great to see several posters having what seems to be fun, centered around, economics, what Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) called, "The dismal science".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 29, 2006, 05:16 AM
Post #18


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



[/quote]

QUOTE
"Give me control over a nation's currency,
and I care not who makes its laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild
(1743 - 1812)


Yes ...... the economic model is the example, while the political model is the student. The economic model is the first secular model.

How's this one for you ? The fall of man , theo-logically speaking, represented the forging of the top-down , hierachal economic model.

"Here, eat this" Economic ? Hard to argue, isn't it ?

All other secular models followed suit, based on how supply chains formed. Bear in mind that they didn't have computers, so everything was pretty much linear until recent times. There was also no other practical way to form supply chains and redistribute wealth based on the creative routing of currency..

If you have a supply driven money system, then you will have a supply driven economy. This is a statement of power, not transactions.

Not to get sucked onto the karmic wheel of polarization, I strongly suggest considering the following if it has not yet occured to you. When a set of scales is out of balance, you should not blame one side or the other (supply & demand power equation). Simply recognize that the evil rests in the imbalance of the relationships themselves. The irony is that the supply side of the equation is well integrated and has been for a long time. It is the demand side that has to integrate and "get it together". Consumers unite and network !

Everything can change now. We are here to fulfill the law of balance. Corporate (classical) capiitalism is accellerating toward consumer capitalism. Consumer capitalism should not be confused with consumerism, which is a supply driven concept. The great news is that capitalism is incomplete, much more so than it is flawed.

Sound money and decentralized distribution are like two hands that come together in peace.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 29, 2006, 05:20 AM
Post #19


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE(Lindsay @ Jul 28, 02:25 PM) *

It is great to see several posters having what seems to be fun, centered around, economics, what Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) called, "The dismal science".


Lindsay, he may have called it the dismal science because his P.C. was busted. ;-")
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Lindsay
post Jul 29, 2006, 12:15 PM
Post #20


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: Feb 07, 2006
From: Markham (Thornhill), part of the greater Toronto area, the GTA, just north of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 4838



Morph, you quote
QUOTE
"Give me control over a nation's currency,
and I care not who makes its laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild
(1743 - 1812)
Avner Mandelman, president and chief investment officer of Giraffe Capital Corp, also quotes Rothschild in a recent column in the Globe and Mail.

In this column he tells us that in August 2001--three weeks before 911--he tried to explain that good stock values often appear in times of war. The piece was titled: VALUATIONS IN TIMES OF BOMBARDMENT
If you want to read the whole piece, here it is:
http://www.giraffecapital.com/pdf/2001/val...bombardment.pdf
The gist of the article is: Over the years, in certain areas of the Middle East, because of bombardment, property values went down. Now and then, shewd investors picked up real bargains. The smart ones waited until peace was restored, and then sold them at a real profit.

That was in 2001, and prior. What of now?

In his current article, Mandelman reports that Warren Buffet very recently made a $4-billion acquisition, in Israel, of all places. What should this tell us? Obviously, Buffet thinks that one of the most bombarded regions in the world is a good place to invest.

FOLLOW THE SOUND OF THE GUNS AND THE SMELL OF MONEY WILL FOLLOW
Such information is perfect fodder for those who argue that wars are the creations of corporate leaders, who, in cahoots with their military buddies, use them to create favourable investment opportunities.

In the light of the information, given in the 2001 article and the current action of Buffett, Mandelman quotes other famous words of Lord Rothschild, "...one should buy when war's cannons boom, and sell when victory's trumpet sound." To this perhaps we can add: Follow the sound of the guns and the smell of money will follow.

Obviously, one doesn't have to be prescient to realize that wars come and go, but markets always remain. And smart investors know the smell of money.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
maximus242
post Jul 29, 2006, 01:16 PM
Post #21


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Member No.: 4768



You dont blame either side for anything morpheus, the economic system was never designed to work, thats the point. Their is a perfect system that has already been created and was proven in several communities, the fact of the matter is they dont want it to be perfect. This economic system has been around for a very long time, no you didnt need computers to distribute wealth, it was always distributed through the hiecharcy and made it easy to distrubute by simply working down the pyramid. The economic system is designed to keep the government and its people in constant debt so they constantly are paying intrest on the debt, thus the bankers continously get richer since they loan out the money that is used to pay them back.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 29, 2006, 02:55 PM
Post #22


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



QUOTE(maximus242 @ Jul 29, 01:16 PM) *

You dont blame either side for anything morpheus, the economic system was never designed to work, thats the point. Their is a perfect system that has already been created and was proven in several communities, the fact of the matter is they dont want it to be perfect. This economic system has been around for a very long time, no you didnt need computers to distribute wealth, it was always distributed through the hiecharcy and made it easy to distrubute by simply working down the pyramid. The economic system is designed to keep the government and its people in constant debt so they constantly are paying intrest on the debt, thus the bankers continously get richer since they loan out the money that is used to pay them back.


Max .....

We may be saying the same thing but expressing it differently. Let's explore this a little with a little patience and a little humility, shall we ? There is a great deal to be accomplished for every person who understands some esoteric issues that are very real. Much has to do with the banks' short position. If the short position is meaningless to people because they don't have enough background and history on the situation, then they won't act accordingly for their own good and for the good of society , as per market law.

QUOTE
You dont blame either side for anything morpheus, the economic system was never designed to work, thats the point.


By this statement, I would agree on this basis. The system was never designed to work because the system has always been out of balance. Let me be clear by the term "out of balance" because this is not a book balancing or transactional concept so much as it is a power concept. The supply side of the equation, what some may refer to as the elite, has had a "dominant role" based on their excess power in comparison with demand (consumers). There is a reason for this that is inescapable regardless of intention. This is important because it is often assumed that the supply side is just plain abusive in its intention. That can be a factor. What is inescapable , however, is the fact that we virtually had no practical choice in the creation of the hierarchal paradigm and the causal effect of the hierarchal economic model. We had to eat and survive. Based on this instinct, production , distribution and consumption were developed (finance came later) in such a way that supply chians pyramided , which you appear to understand. Let's look at the structure rather than the applications within the structure. Let's look at the macro, shall we ?

You cannot pour new wine into old wineskins.

That hierarchal structure, first off, is an unbalanced structure. It may be balanced to the "Newtonian observer", but it is not capable of standing on its point is what I want to bring to bear. The apex is symbolic of a consolidation of power. Call it the "greed factor" for the sake of symantics. The closer you are to supply, which is now dominated by corporations, then the closer you are to the apex of power. There is power in the supply chains , also and they are the "transitional components" between consumption and production. Consumers have historically been fragmented at the bottom of the supply chains. That fragmentation, where they have no direct relationship with each other is very disempowering. It is the most subtle form of divide and conquer that you may ever come across. Exampe of this : I have no relationship with you in Walmart's database. Our relationships are tied directly to WalMart

This is what I refer to as "corporate capitalism" , which most people simply call capitalism. The distinction is that supply (corporations) is dominant and part of that dominance is based on organization and integration, especially where corporate to corporate supply chains are concerned. This model of capitalism is incomplete ! That's the good news !

If the corporations are integrated into the vertical supply chains, why can't people be integrated ? Why do they have to be fragmented at the bottom of the chains ? Why can't their roles with the integrated corporations also be integrated , possibly in roles that go beyond simple consumption in the overall model that includes supply and demand. The role could include marketing and/or distribution/and/or financial service in support of production. They could be considered for these roles and as such, empowered.

Are you starting to see the structural shift ? If that is the case, take the market driven model and based on the ever increasing power of demand, imagine the morphing from two dimensional relationships in the database to 3, 4 and beyond, all market driven and with each evolutionary change taking place in step while weaning out the greed factor (apex), thus moving toward what I would simply call a "rounder world". This is basically a simplification.

This is actually happening and professionally speaking, this is how I make a great deal of my income. Taking a step further, I earn based on foreign consumption of foreign produced product. The consumption and production could be anywhere.

None of these newer developing issues were possible without computerization. How long have computers been around ?

Getting back to the specific subject of this thread, finances have supply/distribution chains too. They have typically included mediums such as VISA , MC, AMEX ........... but now we have the emergance of independent payment systems that cater much more to grass roots needs, not only pertianing to the use of the system, but for the sake of integrated opportunities and they are starting to integrate the customers in such a way that there is a redistribution of wealth and power back to the customer/morphed productive member.

You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete - Buckminster Fuller,

Everything is integrating toward balance. We still have a great deal to do.

Sound money and decentralized distribution systems are like two hands slowly coming together in peace.

Consumers must contine to network and unite. The demand side of the equation is actually incomplete, thus the whole model of capitalism is incomplete.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Jul 29, 2006, 02:59 PM
Post #23


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



Based on the little detour that I just did in my exchange with Max, please stay tuned to the thread. I will eventually be introdcing a market concept (no vested interest) that will be helpful in shifting power back to people at the grass roots level. An enourmous movement can easily result because it is very simple.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
morpheous
post Aug 01, 2006, 06:55 AM
Post #24


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Member No.: 5412



If you would like to circumvent the power of banks and their ability to fund chaos and destruction, please review the new thread just posted :
Toppling the banks through gold bullion aquisition.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th November 2017 - 03:05 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles