Infrastructure in Your Area?

[Jim Naseum]

It follows that, "The CocaCola company is an intentional part of the cause of disease and obesity." Not the entire cause, but they are in the chain of causality.

I wonder if Hitler's schoolteachers ever felt guilty after seeing what he became.

Did you think his teachers knew he was a sociopath?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

This comes about from a passive acquisition of history. The head of Goldman Sachs is never, EVER, going to appear on FOX News and say, "Here's my latest scam for screwing the American consumers. I'm going to______________"

The prince of Saudi Arabia is never, EVER going to appear on Good Morning America, and describe his plans to destroy the oil business in Houston. And because of this lack of obvious transparency, all people get is a passive understanding provided to them by Good Morning America: "Oil Prices Continue to Slide on Weaker Demand." That's as much information as an American will conceivably digest. Tiny little sound bites that he hears in between football games.

They don't have to get on and say those kinds of things. It is implicit in capitalism and free trade. To be completely precise, it is implicit in competition. Who isn't expected to know this?

Apparently the other lawyer doesn't know it.

I'm not sure you are actually following the long argument. I don't blame you. However, it is about the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny, and so-called "absurd conspiracy theories." The latter being the constant claim being made by DWIlaw ad a discredit to my assertions about how private capital (bankers, nominally) control economies. I've already document all that. So, what you have here is a tiny piece of my argument to the other lawyer.

Everyone is controlling whatever turf they care to, and can, acquire. There are a lot of people in this world.

When did it become about "the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny" and conspiracy theories?

You have already documented what? That private capital bankers nominally control economies? Where did you document that?

You sure do retreat in your descriptions of what your position is over tone.

Two dozen world bankers, to "dark finance" to private capital bankerss with nominal control. That is actually mainstream, as evidenced by yiur Economist article.

I actualky agree with that. Bill has been discussing that for a long time on his blog. The rate of return is greater with private, or semi-private sector projects, than with public sector projects. With risk being equal, private funds will go for rate of return.

[Jim Naseum]

This comes about from a passive acquisition of history. The head of Goldman Sachs is never, EVER, going to appear on FOX News and say, "Here's my latest scam for screwing the American consumers. I'm going to______________"

The prince of Saudi Arabia is never, EVER going to appear on Good Morning America, and describe his plans to destroy the oil business in Houston. And because of this lack of obvious transparency, all people get is a passive understanding provided to them by Good Morning America: "Oil Prices Continue to Slide on Weaker Demand." That's as much information as an American will conceivably digest. Tiny little sound bites that he hears in between football games.

They don't have to get on and say those kinds of things. It is implicit in capitalism and free trade. To be completely precise, it is implicit in competition. Who isn't expected to know this?

Apparently the other lawyer doesn't know it.

I'm not sure you are actually following the long argument. I don't blame you. However, it is about the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny, and so-called "absurd conspiracy theories." The latter being the constant claim being made by DWIlaw ad a discredit to my assertions about how private capital (bankers, nominally) control economies. I've already document all that. So, what you have here is a tiny piece of my argument to the other lawyer.

Everyone is controlling whatever turf they care to, and can, acquire. There are a lot of people in this world.

When did it become about "the difference between intentional actions out of public scrutiny" and conspiracy theories?

Are you paying any attention? You don't even know what you said about this?

I'm laughing too hard to type!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work.

So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me?

WTF?

A bit of hyperbole, but the question is, "If bankers rule the world and want to kill everyone they can for a profit, how did we wind up with the FDA, the Consumer Safety Dept., etc.?

Putting aside your wild restatement of the premise. But I get the humor.

Those agencies arise from legitimate public politics. And to some extent, industry and bankers want these "basic institutions" to prevent the country from becoming Somalia.

But in all cases, "industry" captures these regulators with their own personnel, and steer them in ways that won't harm the industry being regulated. This capture is commonly called "the revolving door" of Washington.

These basic institutions do not stop industry, they more or less give an imprimatur of approval. "What could go wrong....we have the FDA watching!"

The two pieces I cited extensively explain exactly how private capital is expected to run the economies of all developed countries and the government's job is to SUPPORT THEM in that goal.

Essentially, it sounds like you believe these conspirators are benevolent dictators. That's not all so bad. From most religious doctrine, I would gather God is essentially seen as a benevolent dictator as well. But this isn't about a comparison of religions or a debate about any particular religious tenets. It's just an observation that life isn't bad just because somebody controls you or limits you in some ways. There are degrees of the control vs. freedom paradigm applicable to everyone... including the bankers.

Benevolent? No. I'd, say they are misanthropic forces important to understand, and not trustworthy.

I know it's not your thing to dig into history, to pursue that kind of knowledge, but it is mine. I am fascinated by history, and history can not be understood when you don't know how these forces work.

For example, many people will wonder about why our infrastructure is failing...I don't wonder, I know why.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

But here's what happens in the public. If I say those words, the first thing you hear is "Conspiracy theory! Aliens!" When there is absolutely no conspiracy of any kind. Just the normal intentional acts of people who can work outside of public scrutiny.

There is no surprise or outlandishness at all in those basic capitalistic premises. None whatsoever. It's the way you color the facts with word and phrase choices which stirs the pot.

To you.

However, others think every such common premise is some "absurdity" to be subject to accusations of associating with aliens and blah blah blah.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Jo wrote:

"No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash."

Well, at least it got yiu to retreat fromn 2 dozen, and "dark banking" that act alone to having an unspecified number of capital bankers that have a nominal effect on economies.

Now we just need to know how you reached the conclusion that manufactured food is causing a drop in Life expectancy in the US.

[Travis In Austin]

I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work.

So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me?

WTF?

A bit of hyperbole, but the question is, "If bankers rule the world and want to kill everyone they can for a profit, how did we wind up with the FDA, the Consumer Safety Dept., etc.?

Putting aside your wild restatement of the premise. But I get the humor.

Those agencies arise from legitimate public politics. And to some extent, industry and bankers want these "basic institutions" to prevent the country from becoming Somalia.

But in all cases, "industry" captures these regulators with their own personnel, and steer them in ways that won't harm the industry being regulated. This capture is commonly called "the revolving door" of Washington.

These basic institutions do not stop industry, they more or less give an imprimatur of approval. "What could go wrong....we have the FDA watching!"

The two pieces I cited extensively explain exactly how private capital is expected to run the economies of all developed countries and the government's job is to SUPPORT THEM in that goal.

Essentially, it sounds like you believe these conspirators are benevolent dictators. That's not all so bad. From most religious doctrine, I would gather God is essentially seen as a benevolent dictator as well. But this isn't about a comparison of religions or a debate about any particular religious tenets. It's just an observation that life isn't bad just because somebody controls you or limits you in some ways. There are degrees of the control vs. freedom paradigm applicable to everyone... including the bankers.

Benevolent? No. I'd, say they are misanthropic forces important to understand, and not trustworthy.

I know it's not your thing to dig into history, to pursue that kind of knowledge, but it is mine. I am fascinated by history, and history can not be understood when you don't know how these forces work.

For example, many people will wonder about why our infrastructure is failing...I don't wonder, I know why.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Good lord, let me guess, because we haven't maintained it?

[Jim Naseum]

Matthews...HELP!!!

Don't go yet!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

I want to show that all large man-made phenomena arise from intention, not accident(1). GM didn't accidentally make defective key locks that killed people, they did that with intention. Yes, even after knowing the defect was deadly they refused to spend a few dollars to fix it. This works against all arguments that bad consequence are important to business. The only bad consequence that is important to business is if people don't buy the product. Be sure that the shareholders and executives of RJ Reynolds tobacco company enjoyed all those dividends just fine well after it was understood that smoking causes cancer. The makers of SugarSmacks are having no trouble enjoying their profits. So, it's fair to eliminate "negative consequences" as a serious operator in how things work.

So, why did Clarence put together an FDA and a Dept. of Consumer Product Safety? Aren't GM, RJ Reynolds and Kellogg's closer to Clarence than you and me?

WTF?

A bit of hyperbole, but the question is, "If bankers rule the world and want to kill everyone they can for a profit, how did we wind up with the FDA, the Consumer Safety Dept., etc.?

Putting aside your wild restatement of the premise. But I get the humor.

Those agencies arise from legitimate public politics. And to some extent, industry and bankers want these "basic institutions" to prevent the country from becoming Somalia.

But in all cases, "industry" captures these regulators with their own personnel, and steer them in ways that won't harm the industry being regulated. This capture is commonly called "the revolving door" of Washington.

These basic institutions do not stop industry, they more or less give an imprimatur of approval. "What could go wrong....we have the FDA watching!"

The two pieces I cited extensively explain exactly how private capital is expected to run the economies of all developed countries and the government's job is to SUPPORT THEM in that goal.

Essentially, it sounds like you believe these conspirators are benevolent dictators. That's not all so bad. From most religious doctrine, I would gather God is essentially seen as a benevolent dictator as well. But this isn't about a comparison of religions or a debate about any particular religious tenets. It's just an observation that life isn't bad just because somebody controls you or limits you in some ways. There are degrees of the control vs. freedom paradigm applicable to everyone... including the bankers.

Benevolent? No. I'd, say they are misanthropic forces important to understand, and not trustworthy.

I know it's not your thing to dig into history, to pursue that kind of knowledge, but it is mine. I am fascinated by history, and history can not be understood when you don't know how these forces work.

For example, many people will wonder about why our infrastructure is failing...I don't wonder, I know why.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Good lord, let me guess, because we haven't maintained it?

No. Because no credit is available to replace it, or fix it.

Look, you operate on a purely establishment framework and world view. You accept the superficial phenomena you can see, and that other establishment figures you trust will endorse. You just have never dug deep enough to get to what's behind the curtain to where the real levers are. It's obvious by the lines of questioning you take, and the ludicrous conspiracy claims you make about common phenomena.

What you think is far fetched, is just common knowledge to those like myself who have dug below the superficial pablum for keeping the population pacified and satiated, and not curious.

You find it incomprehensible that there even exists a "dark banking" world, let alone that it has trillions of dollars flowing in it. You think causes end with the FDA, CDC, etc, congress, and politics. From your comments, it appears history is not a passion of yours.

I get it. You're an establishment lawyer and involved in law enforcement and all the trappings thereof. I have no such loyalty to the establishment, and prefer to let the reality of history inform my beliefs, not crap coming from the mouths of government officials.

That makes it tedious to communicate. Rather than some substantial disagreement about neoliberal economics, or unrestricted capital flows, you fixate on the meaningless difference between 33T and 35T.

We don't occupy the same plane of understanding about history and current phenomena of globalism, making any discussion doomed to superficial niggling over nothing that is important. 33 or 35? Who cares? 10 bankers or 12? Misses the point.

But, I did leave all the right cookie crumbs in the thread so that anyone can verify that my assertions are logical and well accepted by economists and historians that go deeper than establishment mythology.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Travis In Austin]

I live in the real world, dealing with real bond issues, on real infrastructure replacement, I compete for funds for equipment and systems on behalf of my officers on a city, county and state level in order to try and make them the best equioed equipped and safe as possible. I cannot deal in the theoretical, the model you have conjured up.

I work with local governments on budgets so that I can hooefully negotiate a raise for my clients at the aporopriate time. I testify in favor, or against legislation in the state legislature on certain law enforcement issues.

The players are all different, the path to a postive outcone change, .

You, on the other hand, gather information, not sure from where, which you filter and reach whatever conclusions you reach, such as these:

What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open.

And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface.

1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more.

2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world.

3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture.

Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired.

But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands:

Assumptions:

1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions.

2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all.

3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds.

4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery.

Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board.

How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that.

1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy.

2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions.

3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world.

4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy.

Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers?

If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going.

Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes?

Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes?

Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending?

Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending?

Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves.

Summary

The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure.

This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there."

END QUOTE

All I can tell you is what you have pictured as reality doesn't exist at the local and state level. We of course right bill proposals and submit them through a legislator. They taught us that in High School. Nobody who deals in politics, legislation, or lobbying isn't aware of that, everyone is the publuc policy arena is aware of it. At what point did you make this discovery?

Public policy is well studied, Each one is different, each one evolves differently, dies off differently and is backed differently. Certainly public policy can be implemented in the manner you suggest, however, practical experience tells me that the more complex the issue, the more special interests, and the more complex to achieve a result.

I perfer to have everyobe thinking like you, it would make my job a lot easier and the halls a lot less crowded.

Edited February 2, 2016 by dwilawyer

[Travis In Austin]

Crumbs is one word, I would venture a guess more aren going to see turds.

I think they will see how far you have retreated and find you have lost credibility. As Jeff said, you tend to color things and way overstate them.

They will see you cant even establish that the LE is declining, much less what the cause is.

I think they will see you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and they are unwilling to take a blind leap onto whatever magic carpet ride you are on.

Which is a darned shame, because buried in that rambling firehose approach you have are some real intriguing ideas that deserve being fleshed out.

But have no fear, I will be here to fact check you on everything. Hopefully it wont require you to backtrack to the point that the number of bankers doesn't matter, and whether the Dark Bankers control 33 or 35T.

Precision

Courage

Edited February 2, 2016 by dwilawyer

[Arrow#422]

Infrastructure everywhere is in disarray.  Their are no aliens, nor conspiracies working behind the curtain.  Governments and their underlying attributes were initially established with the thought of a common good for all.  Rules, regulations, and penalties are all results from establishing governmental oversight.  Their very structure of existence is highly susceptible to the vagaries of self interest groups AND modifications over time.  Ideally, all were to participate on an equal moral platform - or be subject to the penalties spelled out.  This is not always the case, and playing within the established rule set WILL benefit some above others not able to either "game the system" or operate in a way as to advance their economic position.  Were the FDA, EPA, etc. and other sects of the government established as enabling groups to private interest?  NO.  They were established to invoke a sense of oversight & security over the private interest groups for the common good.  Are those established rules & regulations being bent or even ignored for the advancement of private interest - Absolutely.  Is this outcome due to alien interference?  NO.  Is this a result of a 12 banker coup conspiracy?  NO.  Pure & simple, this is HUMAN NATURE - to survive by any means within the confines of the situation as best he/she can.  Sprinkle in some greed and the rules fail to exist in some minds.

 

Pssst - my wife and I discussed a trip to the grocery store and "planned" to use some coupons to save $5 on our bill.  Did we conspire?  Yes.  Did the aliens influence us?  NO.  Did the economic ROI guide us on our decision?  Yes.  Did the store suffer from our actions, and the stock holders, and the store manager's yr/yr profit?  Yes by $5.  Did we gain by working within the rules?  Yes.  Would we have done any of this if there were no coupons, no system in place to provide a monetary gain - NO.

 

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit.  Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - <that will seek out financial gains whenever possible>.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Arrow#422

[Jim Naseum]

Is this a result of a 12 banker coup conspiracy?  NO.

 

 

Do you mean "conspiracy to violate some law"?

Or, do you mean, "the actions of 12 bankers."?

 

I said early on that "conspiracy" was a loaded word. You never know what people mean by it. Strictly speaking, a conspiracy is a plan by a group to do something unlawful. It is a crime. 

 

12 bankers can plan something without it being a conspiracy. And this is the particular kind of action that interests me. When bankers meet in say, Davos, and create strategies for say, improving the global economy, this is NOT a conspiracy, and yet it IS an action of a group of bankers that will affect your life. 

 

Questions

Why would anyone doubt that the world's largest bankers act to drive the world's economies? Do you know what the FED does? The CBs in Europe? Do you know about bailouts of governments? Companies? What do you think happens to you when they raise and lower interest rates? (Do you even have a portfolio?)

 

Do people imagine that bankers operate in a vacuum?

 

I'm mystified why so many people reject the operation of bankers as some kind of absurdity that is just impossible? What's going on here?

[Jim Naseum]

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit.  Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - .

Which people and which systems?? 

 

And again, when you say conspiracy above here, do you mean the act of planning an unlawful act?

 

I'm just trying to understand your comments. Good to see them!

[Travis In Austin]

Infrastructure everywhere is in disarray. Their are no aliens, nor conspiracies working behind the curtain. Governments and their underlying attributes were initially established with the thought of a common good for all. Rules, regulations, and penalties are all results from establishing governmental oversight. Their very structure of existence is highly susceptible to the vagaries of self interest groups AND modifications over time. Ideally, all were to participate on an equal moral platform - or be subject to the penalties spelled out. This is not always the case, and playing within the established rule set WILL benefit some above others not able to either "game the system" or operate in a way as to advance their economic position. Were the FDA, EPA, etc. and other sects of the government established as enabling groups to private interest? NO. They were established to invoke a sense of oversight & security over the private interest groups for the common good. Are those established rules & regulations being bent or even ignored for the advancement of private interest - Absolutely. Is this outcome due to alien interference? NO. Is this a result of a 12 banker coup conspiracy? NO. Pure & simple, this is HUMAN NATURE - to survive by any means within the confines of the situation as best he/she can. Sprinkle in some greed and the rules fail to exist in some minds.

Pssst - my wife and I discussed a trip to the grocery store and "planned" to use some coupons to save $5 on our bill. Did we conspire? Yes. Did the aliens influence us? NO. Did the economic ROI guide us on our decision? Yes. Did the store suffer from our actions, and the stock holders, and the store manager's yr/yr profit? Yes by $5. Did we gain by working within the rules? Yes. Would we have done any of this if there were no coupons, no system in place to provide a monetary gain - NO.

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit. Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - <that will seek out financial gains whenever possible>.

A voice of reason from the wilderness.

You are right, it isn't little green men controling the bankers, and it isn't dark banking, and it isn't Coke, and it isn't manufactured food.

Greed fuels a lot on our system. However, at the consumer level, a person who is above poverty level has choices. A choice in stores rather than one within walking distance or on a bus route, a store with better produce, a farmers market on Saturdays with organic produce, whatever.

One thing I believe is that stores follow consumers preferences. The ones that survive and do well track preferences, look at trends, and stay up to date. Those that don't get swallowed.

Very well said.

[Arrow#422]

 

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit.  Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - .

Which people and which systems?? 

 

And again, when you say conspiracy above here, do you mean the act of planning an unlawful act?

 

I'm just trying to understand your comments. Good to see them!

 

A conspiracy doesn't "have" to be an unlawful act, but rather one that is harmful.  

Acts can be harmful, yet lawful.  

Acts can also be unknowingly harmful at the time they are committed as the results of all acts cannot be entirely known in advance.

I prefer the synonyms "ploy, scheme, plan, & ploy" as to show the intent at the time the act is committed.

 con·spir·a·cy

[kənˈspirəsē]

 

NOUN

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:

   "a conspiracy to destroy the government"

   synonyms: plot · scheme · plan · machination · ploy · trick · ruse · 

   [more]

    

   • the action of plotting or conspiring:
     "they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
     synonyms: plotting · collusion · intrigue · connivance · 

     [more]

      

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

Edited February 2, 2016 by Arrow#422

[Jeff Matthews]

Questions Why would anyone doubt that the world's largest bankers act to drive the world's economies? Do you know what the FED does? The CBs in Europe? Do you know about bailouts of governments? Companies? What do you think happens to you when they raise and lower interest rates? (Do you even have a portfolio?)

 

 

Good question.  These bankers loan money and earn interest.  Their plan is to continue loaning money and earning more interest.  Surely, you can see that this is what they plan to do. Without banking, they are done and out.

 

Their plan is to engineer a system which maximizes their interest income.  That means, ipso facto, the borrowers have to have the ability to repay.  The lender does not want to see debtors fail and default.

[Jim Naseum]

Crumbs is one word, I would venture a guess more arengoing to see turds.

I think they will see how far you have retreated and find you have list credibility. As Jeff said, you tend to color things and way overstate them.

They will see you cant even establish that the LE is declining, much less what the cause is.

I think the will see you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and they are unwilling to take a blind leap onto whatever magic carpet ride you are in.

Which is a darned shame, because buried in that rambling firehose approach you have are some real intriguing ideas that deserve being fleshed out.

But have no fear, I will be here to fact check you on everything. Hopefully it wont require you to backtrack to the point that the number of bankers doesn't matter, and whether the Dark Bankers control 33 or 35T.

Precision

Courage

 

Well, I absolutely won't do your homework for you. And this is an important point. You like to sit back and say, "show me X" and then, once shown, you will discount it as insufficient. This is because there is no STANDARD for what constitutes acceptable evidence. And no one knows this game better than lawyers. You are asking me to accept YOU as a judge of the quality of my position. That isn't going to happen. When I put out a position, I judge the response I get, and I can tell very easily what the responder may know about the position. Your initial responses told me you have no working knowledge of international finance, or even banking in general.  Hence, your "alien" BS, and quotes from polemicists and the like. You had no clue what I was even talking about.

 

My role is not to educate you on the sources and details. That job would be endless, frustrating, and lead to nothing. I could give you a dozen references to something, and each time you would simply deny its credibility. Old game. My purpose is to make some assertions that cause others to have enough interest to do their own homework. You surely have no interest in that. I gave you an cogent, short reference, from the IMF as to why infrastructure relies on private capital. You poo-pooed that, as though laughably YOU have more knowledge of the subject than the IMF! 

 

I have many years and a very, very long reading list relative to the subjects I speak on. This is not a court of law, and I am not making a case for the evaluation of a jury. I am trying to stimulate new ways for people to look at problems and try to understand what's going on. If anyone is expecting me to provide all the details, they better not hold their breath. 

 

If you have any interest, you will do your own homework. If you don't you wont. I have no interest in either path you take. My interest is far more general. It is to present the view of the anti-establismentarian, who isn't following the US Government script for interpreting history,or explaining current events. Hopefully to get other people interested enough that they would do their own independent research to whatever level interests them.

 

As to the $33T/$35T let me say this. It's roughly a five minute job for anyone that knows how to use a search engine, to find a VERY credible report describing this hidden money, and the amounts and all the rest. I have purposely NOT provided the link to see how interested you were. When I see something interesting, I go find it. I figure you can too. And if haven't got that much interest, then you are simply trying to exercise me, and I don't do exercise for people. 

 

So, there it is! 

[oldtimer]

Travis.  Not that I subscribe to the inevitability of poor choices due to manipulation of the populace, but your argument is only the flip side of whether consumer preferences lead, or whether the consumer has been led by chemical motivators.  You must realize that a good percentage is not college educated.  College education only gives the student a chance at learning how to think, not all even get that far. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

Maybe this whole discussion can be boiled down to HOW individuals, or even groups, work within or even manipulate these established systems to their financial benefit.  Then, the unforeseen results due to these actions, and the conspiracies behind their implementation are really the result of good old-fashioned human greed - .

Which people and which systems?? 

 

And again, when you say conspiracy above here, do you mean the act of planning an unlawful act?

 

I'm just trying to understand your comments. Good to see them!

 

A conspiracy doesn't "have" to be an unlawful act, but rather one that is harmful.  

Acts can be harmful, yet lawful.  

Acts can also be unknowingly harmful at the time they are committed as the results of all acts cannot be entirely known in advance.

I prefer the synonyms "ploy, scheme, plan, & ploy" as to show the intent at the time the act is committed.

 con·spir·a·cy

[kənˈspirəsē]

 

NOUN

1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful:

   "a conspiracy to destroy the government"

   synonyms: plot · scheme · plan · machination · ploy · trick · ruse · 

   [more]

    

   • the action of plotting or conspiring:
     "they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
     synonyms: plotting · collusion · intrigue · connivance · 

     [more]

      

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press · Translation by Bing Translator

 

 Which meaning were you using when you used the word? That's what I am trying to get at.

[Jeff Matthews]

Travis.  Not that I subscribe to the inevitability of poor choices due to manipulation of the populace, but your argument is only the flip side of whether consumer preferences lead, or whether the consumer has been led by chemical motivators.  You must realize that a good percentage is not college educated.  College education only gives the student a chance at learning how to think, not all even get that far. 

 

This is the underlying conundrum.  I think it is demand-driven.  Of course, how could it not be?