Title change: Banking and Finance - how they drive the world.

[Guest Steven1963]

EDIT: to anyone just becoming familiar with this thread, I made a change to the title so that some feathers wouldn't be ruffled.  This might cause some confusion when you read this first post below:

 

 

 

Okay, it's a fine line I suppose talking about the prospects of a wider war breaking out without the conversation becoming political. But that is my disclaimer to starting this thread - I am not starting it so that it will take a turn into politics.  I'm simply pointing out that it sounds like the war drums are banging louder and louder.  Click the links in order:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-21/peace-ukraine-preparing-full-scale-war-russia-demands-west-supply-lethal-weapons

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/21/nato-general-russian-expansion-in-ukraine-could-lead-to-all-out-war/

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/putin-says-russias-military-strength-unmatchable-interfax-162632082.html

 

All of this said in the last day or so.  I'm not the slightest bit interested in a war in the Middle East with a non nation/state (ISIS).  But I am much less interested in becoming entangled with Russia.  Much less having wars on both of those fronts.

 

What is a guy supposed to do in a situation like this?

 

Words that are BANNED from this thread: government, Vladimir Putin, Barrack Obama, Congress (or the name of any member thereof), Margaret Thatcher...(okay, she's dead you can use that one), David Cameron, Angela Merkel, NATO (political organization), Petro Poreshenko, ISIS (actually not political, but religion, so no), Francois Hollande.  *Any and all other political figures/organizations/religions not previously mentioned anywhere here that exist in the world whether they might actually be involved in this topic or not. 

 

You CAN substitute those names by using their associated country's names (Russia, U.S., France, etc.) I think, without stepping into a political cow pie. 

 

 

GO!

Edited February 23, 2015 by Steven1963

[mungkiman]

Gee willikers. What does Alex Jones have to say?

[Guest Steven1963]

Who is that?  One of those insignificant sources like MSNBC?

 

EDIT: nevermind, I looked him up.  They aren't even in the same ballpark, he has way more visitors that they do.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Steven1963

[mungkiman]

Nope. Insignificant like Zerohedge or Breitbart.

[mungkiman]

Do you even know why the Zerohedge "report" was submitted by Tyler Durden?

[Guest Steven1963]

Seriously, munchkin.  I don't care why Tyler Durden (who isn't even a real person) submitted an article originally written by the CBC out of Canada.  But clearly you take issue with the source(s).  Fine, not my problem.  Yours. I find my news from ALOT of different sources and I don't usually discriminate especially if I can validate the scope from several other sources.

 

Specifically, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Or do you have anything to add to the topic?  Certainly you can rebut the articles I linked with something from Mother Jones or HuffPo? No?  I sure couldn't.  I notice you didn't call out my Yahoo source?  Are you trying to say that things aren't getting worse over there??? Source please!!???

 

Don't let the door hit you in the backside...nothing worse than an out-of-hand dismissal simply because the source isn't within the political scope of the reader.

 

Plenty of other topics you can crap in. Bye!

Edited February 22, 2015 by Steven1963

[mungkiman]

Firstly, I take exception to what you deem to not be a political topic, and call Bullshit.

[mungkiman]

Seriously, munchkin.  I don't care why Tyler Durden (who isn't even a real person) submitted an article originally written by the CBC out of Canada.  But clearly you take issue with the source(s).  Fine, not my problem.  Yours. I find my news from ALOT of different sources and I don't usually discriminate especially if I can validate the scope from several other sources.

 

Specifically, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Or do you have anything to add to the topic?  No?  Don't let the door hit you in the backside...plenty of other topics you can crap in.Plenty 

 

Plenty of other forums to discuss politics on, and call other people names.

[Guest Steven1963]

Firstly, I take exception to what you deem to not be a political topic, and call Bullshit.

 

I am confident that a MATURE audience can navigate the topic without delving into the political nature of the issue.  For instance, How the rising tensions could affect relatives across borders.  Perhaps trade agreements could be affected?  How about travel between the U.S. and Europe?  Should we be worried about being drawn into war and if so, what about our draft-age children? There are dozens of topics that could fall under this topic without becoming political.  It is your short-sighted view that can only see a single topic.

 

You want the topic of WAR banned because it might have political tones..fine, take your best shot.

[Guest Steven1963]

 

Seriously, munchkin.  I don't care why Tyler Durden (who isn't even a real person) submitted an article originally written by the CBC out of Canada.  But clearly you take issue with the source(s).  Fine, not my problem.  Yours. I find my news from ALOT of different sources and I don't usually discriminate especially if I can validate the scope from several other sources.

 

Specifically, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Or do you have anything to add to the topic?  No?  Don't let the door hit you in the backside...plenty of other topics you can crap in.Plenty 

 

Plenty of other forums to discuss politics on, and call other people names.

 

 

You started this with a completely unprovoked response which I take as an attack on my intellect, without substantive evidence to counter my sources much less give any intelligent response as to why you thought there wasn't an escalation taking place.  In fact, I doubt you can provide any source from anywhere to counter what I've stated here and instead decided that YOU and YOU ALONE were not going to tolerate a subject YOU declared POLITICAL without careful examination or thought.

[Guest Steven1963]

 

 

Seriously, munchkin.  I don't care why Tyler Durden (who isn't even a real person) submitted an article originally written by the CBC out of Canada.  But clearly you take issue with the source(s).  Fine, not my problem.  Yours. I find my news from ALOT of different sources and I don't usually discriminate especially if I can validate the scope from several other sources.

 

Specifically, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? Or do you have anything to add to the topic?  No?  Don't let the door hit you in the backside...plenty of other topics you can crap in.Plenty 

 

Plenty of other forums to discuss politics on, and call other people names.

 

 

 

I mean seriously, WTF is so hard for some of you people to read a topic and say "nope, this ain't for me."  And just click out?  Instead you've got to take the time to make a reply that provides no value other than to lower the IQ of the thread.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Steven1963

[Guest Steven1963]

Thanks for a thoughtful reply.  Much appreciated.  I actually agree with you that this is an economic issue and that it is driven by economics.  Your theory that Europe needs another debt monkey and the Ukraine fits the bill is an interesting one that I don't discount and I haven't done much research in that direction.  I've heard another reason though, also along the lines of economics but less with the banks and more to do with energy.  

 

Russia is the majority supplier of Nat. Gas to Europe and this is no longer sitting well with them as Russia has shown a propensity to cut supplies.  Originally the plan was for the U.S. to help supply Europe with an alternative source from the Middle East.  This apparently required a pipeline through Syria.  Recall the scuffle over Syria and the rebels a few short years ago that the U.S. backed and armed to overthrow Assad (now ISIS!).  This was less about an abusive government that had to go and more about installing a puppet regime that would allow the pipeline. Recall that Russia diffused that situation artfully, as they were privy to the actual goal not to mention Syria is a Russian Ally.  

 

Foiled, the European nations along with the U.S. concocted a plan involving Ukraine - through which a large number of the Russian pipelines run to get to Europe.  Russia is not about to give up those pipelines much less sacrifice Ukraine for various historical purposes.  And here we are, in a tug of war over Ukraine.  Either as another debt slave for the western banking system or to control the pipelines into Europe.  

 

Who blinks?  What if nobody blinks? 

 

What happens to Europe if they go belly up?  Who can they blame?  What happens when Europe goes down economically, aren't we tied to them?  Do we go down?  Who gets the blame?  Historically, the elite ruling class (notice I didn't say politicians?  ) look to deflect the blame by creating a bad guy.  They certainly do not want the public casting a stink eye at them!  So why not Russia?  Make Russia the bad guy for all the problems in the west.  

 

So yeah, while I am not immediately worried about a war between the U.S. and Russia, in the long term I think it could happen.  If Europe falls, and they will, they are gonna need that bad guy before we do. But since we are tied to Europe both economically and through treaties we are bound to defend them (besides, we are gonna need a bad guy ourselves to blame soon after).  And there we go at first supplying arms, reconnaissance and tactical guidance.  But how long before we get pulled in up to our eyeballs?

 

Now I've not completely researched this energy angle to fully believe it or understand it.  For instance, why did we need to take down Syria for the pipeline?  Why not just go through Iraq and then into Turkey up to Europe?  I don't have that answer.  But enough of the pieces fit that the theory warrants consideration.

 

With either theory It's a bad situation that could easily get out of control.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Steven1963

[Jeff Matthews]

That's the thing, Steven. Some people know the game.  They jump in and whine and stir the pot and then, they step back and say, "Me?  What'd I do?  It's all your fault."  Then, they claim it should be destroyed, and the heavy hands of the gods come in and destroy it so that everyone can get along.

 

It's really pretty dumb, but that's the way it goes.  "If you can't play together nice and share the toy, we'll just take the toy from you."  Such might not be the policy but for the "smart" ones who come in and play little games for the purpose of causing a lock.  They think they are clever by ruining your topics.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Jeff Matthews

[Guest Steven1963]

Jeff, it's just so unnecessary. This is a topic that can affect every single human on the face of the planet and to make the determination that it cannot be talked about for fear someone might be offended is simply outrageous, in my opinion. 

 

I'm seeing some pretty damn smart people on these forums; a lot of people clearly have something to contribute beyond speaker wires and tubes and frankly, I'd love to hear what they have to say about other subjects.  I may not always agree with them but I sure as heck respect their opinion and I will be the last person pissing in their cheerios. I have a lot to learn and certainly am not the smartest man in the room (definitely not on these forums) and that is exactly why I enjoy these engagements.  

 

Maybe I was a bit hard on him, and if I was I'm sorry.  But man, right off the bat he assumed where this was going and took a dump right in my face.  He really got under my skin and I should have just walked away from the laptop.  My bad for not doing that.

[Mallette]

Such might not be the policy but for the "smart" ones who come in and play little games for the purpose of causing a lock. They think they are clever by ruining your topics.

 

Yep.  Steven, Jeff and I have seen this many, many times.  As a mod, I see nothing here YET to cause a lock.  None of us run around locking things except when lines are crossed.  Hard to tell you just when that is but after many years it's pretty clear when it happens and the powers, previously Amy and now Chad, always agree. 

 

Discussion of world events without a party shirt on are fine, even spirituality when kept outside any specific viewpoint.  It's just that it's been found best for the good of the Forums to stop things before they get personal.  Religion and politics are two nameable topics that lead there, but it can be cables...or composers. 

 

Ignore the thread crappers and stay on your topic.  The threat of a large war affects everyone apolitically and I, for one, find it worth discussion. 

 

Dave

Edited February 22, 2015 by Mallette

[Guest Steven1963]

Thank you, Dave.  I was hoping a mod would come in and say pretty much what you just said.  As I said, you guys are F'ing smart and I enjoy reading everyone's thoughts and ideas on these topics.  

[Guest Steven1963]

I hope you are right, Mark, when you say it won't get to the point of war with Russia.  I hope someone blinks before that point and that it remains a skirmish at the puppet state level.  But even then, good people are fighting and dying for a false cause. But I suppose it's been that way throughout history.

 

These bankers think they are invincible and who is to say they won't push just a little bit harder and then boom, over the edge we go to war?  They have already taken us too far economically and the price to be paid will be horrific. Right now the system is so rotten that I don't think even if they stared at annihilation they would recognize it. 

 

It's sad.  I used to be a very patriotic man.  But my eyes have been at least half way opened since then and now I am very angry at where we have arrived. I can't condone where we have come to and it seems I can't wake anyone up. I have a hard time convincing anybody outside of my kids and wife what is going on. It's as if everyone around prefers the slumber - even if that slumber is their ruin. 

 

I was hoping that the internet would be the avenue to enlightenment not just on this subject, but on, well, everything.  But even with this powerful tool it is hard to know what to believe.  The disinformation is everywhere and unless you have countless hours for research you may never find the truth.  Fortunately many have and are trying to get through to others.  But even now the elites see the danger and are working to censor it.  

[Guest Steven1963]

Challenge: Spend a year studying global finance, and then turn on some idiotic Cable TV news show, and when you get done laughing your area off you will probably never watch it again. Pure theater for the naive.

So, banning politics on forums can only be considered EDUCATIONAL! As long as "banking" isn't banned.

 

Turned off all cable and satellite services years ago for that very reason.  It's no different than Rome creating the games to distract their masses from what they didn't want them to see.

 

VERY astute observation!  I like how you analyze things.

[Guest Steven1963]

A few years ago I stumbled onto Martin Armstrong.  He's a Princeton economist who is also an accomplished computer programmer.  He's been around since the 70's using mathematical algorithms to make market forecasts.  He has consulted China on their economies; England also. Among others.  His resume is long.

 

He was actually imprisoned back in the 90's because he developed a computer program (Socrates) that could accurately forecast market trends.  The government asked him for the code and he said no, knowing what they would use it for.  They trumped up charges and threw him in prison for about 10 years.  He never did relinquish the code.

 

He's out now, but still making forecasts. Amazingly accurate forecasts. He holds conferences to share his data with whomever wants it, and doesn't discriminate whether you are a nation state or an everyday person wanting to know what the future holds.  As I said, he has had an amazingly accurate record since about the 80's. 

 

He keeps a blog and updates it almost daily.  Huge amounts of information is given away for free. But not everything and much of the in-person stuff is on the East Coast so I can't attend (I certainly would if I could).  When he does hold conferences they are always sold out and often have in attendance high level representatives from other nations, who know what is coming, and use Mr. Armstrong's services to help navigate their country's economies.

 

He has given a firm time-frame of the 'big-bang' (his terminology). Late September/early October of this year will begin the next leg down of the collapse, and supposedly this one will dwarf the collapse of 2007/8.   He is an excellent read even for the grammatical errors in his blog.  Follow him long enough (or even research past blogs) and you begin to see his accuracy.  It's almost scary.

 

If you haven't heard of him before you should at least add him to your list of sources:  http://armstrongeconomics.com/

[oscarsear]

Any comments on removing the dollar as the main global currency?  

 

Less concerned with a US conflict with Russia as I am where Russia may take its own aggression as it is again flexing a more directly assertive militaristic stratagem.  Russia is certainly getting more autocratic placing more decision making power in the hands of a few.  

 

The Middle East is a consequence of western meddling since before WW1 and, of course, the modern Israeli strife(s).  I see no quick or easy solutions and the possibility of the whole mess unravelling into a wider regional conflict.