What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 31 March 2004 - 07:19 AM
<<<The tyrant dies smiling; for he knows that after his death tyranny will merely change hands, and slavery will never end. Bosses differ according to their modes of domination, but they are still bosses, owners of a power exercised as a private right. (Lenin
Posted 31 March 2004 - 08:21 AM
<Who has more freedom and choices than the idle rich? They are the most miserable, I can assure you. So how can freedom and choices provide happiness? They are things that are necessary, I think, in the pursuit if happiness. Without them you are very limited but they alone do not equate to happiness. >
I'd say most people would answer you what their particular idea of happiness is or is not (whether is religious freedom or safe neighborhoods), and the role of the government or community should be to facilitate that. For example, the nonintervention of the government/community can allow people to worship under whatever faith, but intervention can make neighborhoods safe. In both cases happiness is being served.
This society though turns a blind eye towards safety. The poor live in fear and the rich get behind walls and put security guards to watch over them. Who can happy in fear and isolation? Overcoming them is the first step toward happiness.
I'd say the rich would have as much to gain from any meaningful change--if only they changed their predatory behavior.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 09:25 AM
-- John Dewey
"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-- Horace Walpole
"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
Posted 31 March 2004 - 11:02 AM
Havent had time to checkout the article yet.
You were saying: "They cannot just vote to borrow for what ever cause they want and create it out of thin air. Nations can create real wealth instead of debt."
"If a currency is backed/redeemed by gold, the holder ownes the gold".
Ina democracy people can and should vote for what they want,
politically and financially (market). I never and will never advocate they vote to borrow, that is the whole point of my view
is to move out of the debt system of barrowing which you dont address. Putting the debt money system on gold doesnt change the problem of debt which is the major problem, not the
intrinsic value of money which is only a representation/claim after all, like a theatre ticket, its just a right to claim.
Thus your view that the holders of paper money backed by gold means the holder owns the gold is not true, they only hold the right to make a claim and obviously it never happens unless the system is going down as in the thirties.
The current banking system is outside the control of the citizens
and putting it under a gold regime doesnt change that, the regimne is still as the existing one an invisible form of govt over all
economic and social activity and indeed formal govt itself and you claim to be against govt intervention in the economy.
Fiat Money is the national official legal tender, the few percent
of the money supply, which we can say is owned by a democarctic society. Over 90% is bank credit based on the credit
of the borrower. If the banks can create the means (loans) of monetarising the credit without which the economy would cease to function, the nation can do the same debt free in a democractic financial system because there would be no debt. The fraudulent part of the current system is that the bank acts as though it actually lent existing money to the borrower when in fact it is merely a new creation of "money" - figure placed in your accounta gainst which you can draw by cheque/check, which is described as creating out of thin air.
The money created is bassed on the credit of the borrower which
represents future substance security. The money is also a claim on the goods and services in the economy.
To demand the money have intrinsic within itself and not in relation to some other value is imposing a dictatorship on people
which says you cannot have any power to create or a claim on the goods and services unless you use money based on gold
which give huge power to who ever holds or controls the gold,
just the same power as those corporation that hold a banking charter.
You dont address debt at all.
Gold isnt wealth. Goods and sevices are, they are what makes our standard of living and money is merely a means to that end
not to collect gold or money although that can be part of ones
persuit of security.
"Nations can create real wealth and not debt." Currently they create wealth by debt, you advocate the debt be bassed on gold, where is the change apart from making the gold holders more powerful?
I agree with Dewey on this subject: man have never used (their)
powers ((because they give it away to non democractic money systems)) to advance the good life because they have waited upon some power external (( fractional reserve debt finance and gold debt finabce both outside the democratic field)) to themselves and nature (( false 'laws of economics' designed by bankers)) to do the work they are responsible for doing".
Any sovereign people have the right to their own money system
and do/vote for what they like within it- no intervention by any regime! Gold is just a ruse to prevent people from having real power to be free in my book.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 12:54 PM
and do/vote for what they like within it- no intervention by any regime! Gold is just a ruse to prevent people from having real power to be free in my book.******
Polish experiment with capitalism in Poland is very unfortunately experiment and , Prime Minister Leszek Miller is forced to stepped down in May. POLISH PRESIDENT CHOOSES PRIME MINISTER (what is not necessary agreeable) with Polish constitution
Posted 31 March 2004 - 01:21 PM
He might had read your post. and he answered; Function of the functions of the culture is to maintain order. Culture is manipulated by the more powerful to sustain their privilege and mask the conflict of interest between those who have and those who have not have wealth, power and valued resources. For Marx culture represents a a ?superstructure- of economic relation among people in society. Those who own and control the ?means of production in a society acquire wealth and power. This they can use to create ideas vvalues beliefs and norms in the functionalist view. Those with power and wealth can in essence impose on those on those with less power and wealth their definition of what is right and wrong , what should occur, and what is expected in giving situations.>
Agreed, but Marx probably failed to realize how important is to counter attack with culture. He probably didn't realize the paralizing power of modern capitalism, and that the only mobilizing power left could be *throwing a party*.
I'm sure capitalism is well aware of the role of culture though, and rock--appropriately beamed from Radio Free Europe and VOA--made have played a big role in the demise of the Soviet Union. It was too boring. RIP.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 01:27 PM
AIslam Karimov is Uzbekistan's leader since the Soviet era, He was named Communist Party chief in 1989 by then-Soviet President . Karimov was elected Uzbek president in December 1991 as the Soviet Union collapsed. Now 66, his current term extends to 2007. Karimov has pursued a brutal campaign against dissident Muslims and has banned opposition groups.
At first he was praised for controlling ethnic and religious passions in the country, but he later drew criticism for his economic and political policies. The Uzbek economy is still centrally controlled, with a few officials overseeing the most lucrative sectors, as well as trade.
Karimov was the first Central Asian leader to support the U.S.-led anti-terror campaign after the Sept. 11 attacks, providing a key air base to American troops for operations in neighboring Afghanistan http://news.yahoo.co...l=index&cid=732 Karimov runs the country in the style of a Communist boss, allows no dissent and has clamped down on non-state sanctioned Islamic groups.
Fact that Karimow is US dog doesn
Posted 31 March 2004 - 01:54 PM
Gasoline Near 18-Year High in New York on BP Refinery Explosion in Texas. BP said the fire wasn't linked to terrorism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation said last week it had received information that terrorists may attack refineries in Texas. http://quote.bloombe...y8BE&refer=home Ministers from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Qatar and Algeria said OPEC should trim quotas by 1 million barrels a day, or 4.1 percent, beginning April 1.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 06:06 PM
"Currently nations create wealth by debt." Not exactly true. Currently governments steal wealth by debt.
You really must read the article I posted.
There is good credit and bad dredit. Good credit is based on real wealth and savings. Bad credit is created out of thin air by banks using fractional reserve banking, inflation, fiat currencies and low interest rates.
The banks are supposed to be a trust holding deposits for their customers, who own the deposits. Is not the money you deposit in the bank yours? It is supposed to be. If the people own the deposits, as they should, the wealth is theirs. The trouble is the fiat currency does not represent "real" wealth. Gold, throughout the development of civilization, has always held some value so it is "money". As a currency, it is clumsy, and hard to safely store.
The banks offerred to "safely" store your "money" and issued certificates or notes of ownership. These then were considered as good as gold. The banker had to have the highest level of trustworthiness.
>>>The fraudulent part of the current system is that the bank acts as though it actually lent existing money to the borrower when in fact it is merely a new creation of "money" - figure placed in your accounta gainst which you can draw by cheque/check, which is described as creating out of thin air.<<<
The above quote is true in my estimation. The creation of that money is not "real" wealth. It is the source of inflation, which makes your "tokens" less valuable over time.
The debt should be based on real wealth. The effect of that is that the debt cannot skyrocket out of control. It can only grow when production, savings and wealth is increased. That does not mean it "has" to grow or maintain a ratio. There will be times when people will be saving and not borrowing.
When you own your deposit in the bank, Bader, it means the bank doesn't own it, nor does the government. If your deposit is a representation of real wealth, as it currently and always should should be, but is not, then it is the people who own the wealth. Thus, the government and the banks, not owning the wealth, cannot hold power over the people.
Today it is reversed. The banks own the wealth and control the governments which tell the people what they are going to do.
Basically, what the bank thinks is best in order for it to maintain sovereign control. Of course, in a democracy, governments are insidiously telling the people they are doing it for them.
This type of control over the economy makes an economic slump a valuable tool for keeping people in line and having them vote for more government control over the people, which of course means more control by the banks. They just need to print less money, tighten credit - et voila - an economic slump.
If the people owned the wealth this scenario of manipulation would not be possible.
Posted 31 March 2004 - 07:07 PM
Gasoline Near 18-Year High in New York on BP Refinery Explosion in Texas. BP said the fire wasn't linked to terrorism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation said last week it had received information that terrorists may attack refineries in Texas. http://quote.bloombe...y8BE&refer=home Ministers from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Qatar and Algeria said OPEC should trim quotas by 1 million barrels a day, or 4.1 percent, beginning April 1. <<<
Follow the money!!
>>>If Belka's candidacy will be accepted it shows on example of Poland , how is easy to steal people their money system.<<<
Follow the money!!
Marx had a flaw in his philosophy. He confused capitalism with exploitation. Most detractors of the market system make the same error.
Getting back to happiness. Safety and security of person and property are necessary for the pursuit of happiness - agreed. How does enforced sharing, such as taxation or the decree of everyone owns everything and no one owns anything, promote the safety and security of person and property? I do not believe it does.
I agree it is governments role to ensure the safety and security of it's citizens person and property so that they may pursue happiness. But that begs the question, that if safety and security are functions necessary to the pursuit of happiness,
then what is happiness?
So far we have discovered that it is different for every individual and safety and security are necessary to be able to pursue it.
Would you agree?
I guess you could define it as a feeling as opposed to just a thought. I liked the following quote:
>>>"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel." <<<
Does this mean that happiness is not attainable for those who feel? I don't think so.
If happiness is different and particular for each person, then it perhaps has something to do with what they want to achieve.
The goals one sets for oneself are unique to every one. Perhaps achieving goals has to do with happiness? What do you think?
Posted 01 April 2004 - 03:07 AM
I favor the philosophy of "theaching them how to fish," but does the above quote applies to America vs. Canada? Isn't it the opposite?:confused:
Posted 01 April 2004 - 03:30 AM
Maybe it's only a facilitator, but I'm willing to consider any valid examples to the contrary, and acknowledge that the worst elements in it may be the "foxes," just as in communism.
<Getting back to happiness. Safety and security of person and property are necessary for the pursuit of happiness - agreed. How does enforced sharing, such as taxation or the decree of everyone owns everything and no one owns anything, promote the safety and security of person and property? I do not believe it does.>
OK, always try the non taxable, voluntary approach. If it works there's no need for further measures. The point is SAFETY SHOULD BE MAXIMUM PRIORITY of a better system.
<I agree it is governments role to ensure the safety and security of it's citizens person and property so that they may pursue happiness. But that begs the question, that if safety and security are functions necessary to the pursuit of happiness,
then what is happiness?>
Well, I do believe so. Can Iraq possibly be a happy place? Can anyone be happy there? Can anyone be happy while there's a place in the world where there's a jungle?
A good place to start is JUSTICE, and something is major factor in violence nowadays, and whose solution we are likely to agree on: DECRIMINALIZE DRUGS! From Colombia to Afghanistan to the ghetto they are major contributors to the jungle.
<So far we have discovered that it is different for every individual and safety and security are necessary to be able to pursue it.
Would you agree?>
Happiness may follow different roads. But Unhappiness follows similar paths for most human beings. I bet you the families of those killed in Iraq on both sides would agree on it.
<I guess you could define it as a feeling as opposed to just a thought. I liked the following quote:
>>>"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel." <<<
Does this mean that happiness is not attainable for those who feel? I don't think so.>
I liked it too. But I think the solution belongs more to those who think, than those who feel, for these may be blinded and may not see the whole picture. I believe the solutions are more in the hands of the Charlie Chaplins than of the Mother Theresas, I think...
<If happiness is different and particular for each person, then it perhaps has something to do with what they want to achieve.
The goals one sets for oneself are unique to every one. Perhaps achieving goals has to do with happiness? What do you think?>
I think is the opposite. I've been the happiest when I learned to ride a motorcycle. No plans, as there may not be a future. But I survived it for two years and now I'm driving a car. Perhaps the challenge gives you a lot of happiness. For some though there may be satisfaction and discipline in setting goals. Actually I should set some now, like getting back in shape...
Posted 01 April 2004 - 04:09 AM
Anyone still doubts that the best weapon can be...culture? And we better be ready to use it if we don't want to grow old waiting for the masses to wake up to the call of reason. WE BETTER ROCK THIS PLACE, because capitalism's Mickey Mouse culture can be entertaining, but it got nothing to offer compared to reggae and other local rythms. Modern Arabic music is the hottest danceable music there's is! And the same goes for food. Our popular food is much better than anything McDonald's can throw at us! Does anyone got a name for a popular Russian food or drink, something spicy?
Posters capture wit, jubilation of the fall of the Soviet Union
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A collection of 45 brightly colored posters from Russia and Eastern Europe, celebrating the end of Soviet power a decade ago, went on display for the first time last week with an exuberant demonstration of the new freedom in wit, sex and politics.
From Russia itself comes an almost life-size calendar photo of a scantily clad pop singer. The letter "c" on the English word "rock" has a little hammer drawn in humorously, making that, too, a hammer-and-sickle.
James G. Hershberg, who teaches history at George Washington, collected more than 200 posters on trips to Eastern Europe.
Many residents of the former communist nations believe it was cultural things, like Western music and magazines, that led to the downfall of the Soviet bloc, Hershberg said.
"To them it was cultural things -- like Western music and magazines. I remember giving an American news magazine to a woman on the Moscow subway. She had tears in her eyes and said it was the greatest experience of her life," he said.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 04:34 AM
The question for them being, "Why so many religious people behave like, well animals?":confused:
FIRST-PERSON: Flat-earth atheism and the Pledge of Allegiance
By Mark Kelly
RICHMOND, Va. (BP)--I must admit to being a little perplexed about atheists who protest injustice.
The United States Supreme Court has heard arguments from California atheist Michael Newdow that school children are religiously coerced when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- infamous these days because it includes the words "under God."
Mr. Newdow's reasoning? "I don't believe God exists."
If that's true, it's hard to understand why Mr. Newdow believes he has any rights to be violated. If Creator God isn't real, then we are all just animals in an accidental universe. What justice do animals know other than the law of the jungle?
The first amendment to the United States Constitution does indeed say Americans have a right to be free in matters of religion. But why do we have any "human rights" at all? How do we know what they are?
Posted 01 April 2004 - 07:15 AM
Canada is a nation of people who are very superficially friendly and no one knows their neighbours. There is a high level of taxation but not as high as Sweden or Denmark for sure and perhaps even less than Germany or France. The United States is taxed the least of any, I believe.
In Canada we do not particularly trust people and are continually cowed by what we see in the media. The media of course is controlled. This constant state of fear perpetrated on us makes us quite passive and we rely on government for a lot of things.
The fear instilled in us makes us wary and thus we are not particularly trusting of strangers and it takes awhile to get to know people well.
We are not particularly compassionate as we tend toward socialism.
Compassion is something the government supplies and is paid for by our taxes. Drug addicts, the homeless, etc, are all problems of the government to Canadians.
Americans have constitutional protection of person and property from the government, something we do not have. At least they did. Looking at the latest decree in New Orleans is pretty scary, as is the Patriot Act. The Americans are more open, will speak their mind, and sometimes can be boorish. They are individually more willing to help others on a more personal basis, are more charitable on an individual basis and will rally around a common cause if they believe it is right. So they are more compassionate, more trusting and co-operative.
Their government is a little belligerent these days, what with the formation of the one world government and orders from the international banker, but I find Americans to be very sociable.
Socialists would feel a bit uncomfortable in America if they were thrown in there. America however, is becoming more and more socialist over time.
WE have turned over responsibility to the government to handle all the bad things in our lives.
Somehow, I don't think that is teaching people how to fish.
So many people now depend on government for their livelihood that it is impossible to downsize it. If someone tried they would be out of office in the next election or sooner. And our public education and healthcare are sacred. It doesn't matter that they are mediocre institutions providing mediocre service, they must be maintained at any cost.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 08:43 AM
It would seem clear to me you accept debt, which I believe is the major problem, in fact the very means by which nations-govt,economy and people are subdued. Its only a matter of time and everything- the planet and everything on the surface and under it will be owned by the International Bankers.
The problems of debt are openly talked about and have been for many years. The free market revolution was launched on it.
After the great depression the bankers invoked Keynesian state
led pump-priming re-growth which brought on, in time as they knew, excessive National Debt to a critical level so they could then have the pretext to extract the national assests much of which private industry could never have built, at cheap prices to their corporate friends. The show-case was New Zealand which was then sold to Canada and Russia, we all know the outcomes, the plunder,
the propoganda and the lies that now are the means of running the world- (it didnt start with pathetic men like Bush and Blair.)
Because we have totally different perspective and language we will just go around in circles.
Eg you say:" today, it is reversed. The banks own the wealth and control govts...."
"If the people own the wealth this senario of manipulation would not be possible."'
From your arguments it appeared that wealth/real wealth was gold/money and the main point you promote is that the money
not being real wealth (gold/based) is the core of the problem and
thus advocate logically that the money system must then return to being gold based (ie 100% reserve) .
So why now say that banks own the wealth? Why return to wealth money if they already have it?
My interpretation of wealth is goods and services (luxurious living
at the top end as wealth is demonstrated).
I could agree banks own the wealth I am talking about because
all goods and services are being produced by debt to the banks.
The credit of the borrower is his, not the banks, including govts national debt, the credit is the
ability to (repay), create goods and services that they will produce for the market (sales) from which interest will be paid and possibly the principle.
So to adress your comment that if the people own the wealth,
the manipulation would not be posssible:
Using your definitions -wealth= gold money, you need to explain how the citizens are going to get the gold when they collectively
cant clear their debt?
In the case of the US seven trillion in debt, firstly they have to get 7 trillion of gold then start again to get their own gold they will then put in the bank. Seems a rather tall task and I suggest they get a head start because when everyone else starts to buy up gold at the same time i will be one rocking party that will end up in headbusting to catch ones quota.
I terms of my definitions as I have stated the credit (used )
monitarised by the banks ( for about 97% of the money supply)
is the citizens/national which is their private property usurped by the Banks by law granted by treason through govt.
The owning of the wealth of goods and services by the people
(not compelled to sell it to repay banks but) to spend/use as their own will be achieved by the people creating their own "Bank" or credit authority and monitarising their credit for themselves
so they dont get manipulated by debt. THis is where the DonQ happiness will come in- the huge choices in a debt-free world.
There shouldnt be any confudion about credit of people. We all have a credit rating against which a limit on bankcard is set etc,
how much the bank will lend you- which is your ability to repay,
by remuneration for producing goods or services ie wages etc.
Even if the Bank had to go back to gold we are stupid to allow our credit ( ability to monitarise our property ) to be usurped by outside interest to our detriment- enslavement.
Naturally if everyone could aquire gold their credit would go up
substantially ( if not purchased by debt money!).
This is where our difference between your support of capitalism
and mine of free enterprise stands out. Your system continues
the capitalistic exploitation of nation and state, though based on gold,
while I oppose bankers corporate exploitation and would reverse the usurping of the nations credit unto its own control and use
and thus freedom. Gold based exploitation will never get people and govts free of the bankers game.
I know you would stoutly defend your real estate property
because of your anti-socialism views which I endorse. You havent
recognised your property includes your credit.
When people redeem control of their credit they will then be able to control the govt and experience democracy. You cant have democracy
unless their is a democratic money system serving the people,
because they cant do anything without money. THis is why the
politicians, the few who are awake, will never allow the people to have the monitary power to control them.
When the Bank of England was formed it was effectively a partnership of international bankers and the leading politicians against the Crown (the then King) first because he was the ultinate power/authority and secondly the people who provide the energy through debt to provide power (financial,
political and military) to transend the national limits= imperialism.
eg British Empire.
Imperialism has been superceded by globalism.
They cant go any higher only more absolute.
I have more to say about gold but the posts, mine anyway, are tending to be too long, because of the complexity of the subject.
Posted 01 April 2004 - 12:38 PM
***People for big debts are not grateful but revengeful. ........
But your conception would be better understand if you told us how would you, as a financial minister deal with money, gold and debt in utopian country
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users