Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - World Central Bank - Dystopian Capitalism or Socialism - 3

Exploring Dystopia - View topic - WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTO... http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/world-central-bank-dystopian-cap...
Register • FAQ • Arcade • Search • Login
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:17 pm
Board index » Related » Thoughtcrime Corner — Political Debate All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]
WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Moderator: Ingsoc
Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3
Print view Previous topic | Next topic
WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?
Author Message
Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Who is asking for a Global Central Bank?
Not a rhetorical question and an answer by George Soros; in fact the G20 and the IMF have stepped up the efforts to drive
the World Economy that road.
Quote:
The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency

The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all
humanity.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 7:18AM BST 03 Apr 2009
A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the
global financial order.
"We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world
economy and increase global liquidity," it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper
currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.
In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global
"quantitative easing". In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside
the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.
It has been a good summit for the IMF. Its fighting fund for crises is to be tripled overnight to $750bn.
This is real money.
Neuromancer Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the managing director, said in February that the world was "already in Depression" and
risked a slide into social disorder and military conflict unless political leaders resorted to massive stimulus.
He has not won everything he wanted. The spending plan was fudged. While Gordon Brown talked of $5 trillion in
global stimulus by 2010, this is mostly made up of packages already under way.
But Mr Strauss-Kahn at least has resources fit for his own task. He will need them. The IMF is already bailing out
Pakistan, Iceland, Latvia, Hungary, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, Bosnia and Romania. This week Mexico became the
first G20 state to ask for help. It has secured a precautionary credit line of $47bn.
Gordon Brown said it took 15 years for the world to grasp the nettle after Great Crash in 1929. "This time I think
people will agree that it has been different," he said.
President Barack Obama was less dramatic. "I think we did OK," he said. Bretton Woods in 1944 was a simpler
affair. "Just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, that's an easy negotiation, but that's not the
world we live in."
There will be $250bn in trade finance to kick-start shipping after lenders cut back on Letters of Credit after
September's heart attack in the banking system. Global trade volumes fell at annual rate of 41pc from November to
January, according to Holland's CPB institute – the steepest peacetime fall on record.
Euphoria swept emerging markets yesterday as the first reports of the IMF boost circulated. Investors now know
that countries like Mexico can arrange a credit facility able to cope with major shocks – and do so on supportive
terms, rather than the hair-shirt deflation policies of the old IMF. Fear is receding again.
The Russians had hoped their idea to develop SDRs as a full reserve currency to challenge the dollar would make its
way on to the agenda, but at least they got a foot in the door.
There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely evolve into a parking place for the foreign
holdings of central banks, led by the People's Bank of China. Beijing's moves this week to offer $95bn in yuan
currency swaps to developing economies show how fast China aims to break dollar dependence.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the summit had achieved more than he ever thought possible, and praised
Gordon Brown for pursuing the collective interest as host rather than defending "Anglo-Saxon" interests. This has a
double-edged ring, for it suggests that Mr Brown may have traded pockets of the British financial industry to satisfy
Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
1 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
Franco-German demands. The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global
financial regulator. The devil is in the details.
Hedge funds deemed "systemically important" will come under draconian restraints. How this is enforced will
determine whether Mayfair's hedge-fund industry – 80pc of all European funds are there – will continue to flourish.
It seems that hedge funds have been designated for ritual sacrifice, even though they played no more than a cameo
role in the genesis of this crisis. It was not they who took on extreme debt leverage: it was the banks – up to 30
times in the US and nearer 60 times for some in Europe that used off-books "conduits" to increase their bets. The
market process itself is sorting this out in any case – brutally – forcing banks to wind down their leverage. The
problem right now is that this is happening too fast.
But to the extent that this G20 accord makes it impossible for the "shadow banking" to resurrect itself in the next
inevitable cycle of risk appetite, it may prevent another disaster of this kind.
The key phrase is "new rules aimed at avoiding excessive leverage and forcing banks to put more money aside
during good times." This is more or less what the authorities agreed after the Depression. Complacency chipped
away at the rules as the decades passed. It is the human condition, and we can't change that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-
to-a-global-currency.html
And now for Tim Geithner, Mr Goldman Sachs himself.
Quote:
US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner confessed on Wednesday that he had not read the plans by China's
central bank governor for a "super-sovereign reserve currency" run by the International Monetary
Fund, but nevertheless let slip that Washington was "open" to the idea. Whoops.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 5:15AM GMT 26 Mar 2009
This is how matters quickly escalate in geo-finance. China's suggestion – backed by Russia, Brazil, and India, and
clearly aimed at breaking US dollar hegemony – is making its way onto the agenda of the G20 Summit next week.
'Dollar-dämmerung' no longer looks so far-fetched.
China's paper, by Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, is couched in understated language – more a 'thought experiment' than
a declaration of monetary war. His ideas could be mistaken for the musings of an academic theorist. Nobody should
be fooled by decorum.
It comes days after premier Wen Jiabow demanded US action to safeguard the value of China's holdings of US bonds
- $740bn of US Treasuries and a further $600bn or so of other debt. "We have lent huge amounts of money to the
US. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets," he said.
China's Communist Party seems to fear that the Federal Reserve is orchestrating a beggar-thy-neighbour
devaluation - and a disguised default on America's foreign debt - by resorting to the nuclear option of printing
money to buy US Treasury bonds.
China's proposal is to activate the IMF's power to issue Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The IMF would be groomed
as de facto central bank for the planet. The SDRs would gradually become an "accepted means of payment". Call it
the 'globo'.
It would be an error dismiss this idea as a pipe-dream. Cynics once ridiculed Maastricht plans to launch the euro.
John Major famously said chatter about a European currency had "all the quaintness of a rain-dance and about the
same potency". Yet once officialdom began assembling the machinery for monetary union, EMU acquired a life of its
own.
The pitfalls of a world central bank are obvious. It is hard enough for the European Central Bank to run policy for 16
states in a region with a shared history, and shared EU institutions (Commission, Court of Justice, competition
police, etc). The politics of global monetary management would be poisonous.
The heads of the Fed, the ECB, and the Bank of England, must all testify before parliaments and answer to
democracy. There is no world parliament, no world government. Who would control a super-IMF?
In theory, this world reserve bank would be above politics. China's plan suggests a resource currency along the lines
of the "Bancor" floated by Keynes at Bretton Woods. This was anchored on 30 commodities, giving it a broader base
than the Gold Standard. Such a currency would prevent the "credit-based" debauchery of today's fiat system, says
Mr Zhou.
True, but this would be jumping from frying pan to fire. If the world is running out of oil, metals, freshwater, and
arable land – as many believe – then the price of commodities must rise over time. The 'globo' would become a
deflation machine, like the late 19th Century gold as it asphyxiated endebted US farmers.
The China-Russia plans may never come to much. As President Barack Obama put it, the US is going through a
"rough patch" but still commands the world's biggest economy, under a stable democracy and the rule of law. He
might have added that it will largely avoid the aging crisis already dulling Japan's dynamism, and soon to ensnare
Germany, Italy, above all China.
For all its bluster, Beijing must move with care. After years of export-driven mercantilism China is even more
dependent on US markets than America is dependent on Chinese capital. The risks of currency and trade conflict are
not symmetric. The hegemon must prevail.
But 10 years hence the picture may look different. If the G20 opens the door wide enough next week, a world
currency may yet come into being.
2 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5051075/A-world-currency-moves-nearer-after-Tim-Geithners-slip.html
Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:12 pm

Quality muckraking, Neuromancer. This is an intriquate topic indeed. A few points:
I think we should be careful not to compare apples and organes. The G20 discusses the possibility of creating a
supercurrency, and this is not the same thing as a monocurrency. As supercurrency can be used for advanced
manipulations of the economy, whereas a monocurrency probably can't be. A supercurrency could in fact be the
Nexus ultimate wealth generator for the international capitalist class.
Inner Party Leader
As far as I can tell, Soros is the only one really speaking of creating a global world bank. As a Swedish saying goes:
"When the Devil gets old, he becomes religious." It's really a quite common behaviour among capitalists: When they
get older, they realize what they have spent their lives on, and try to find some meaning in life. Usually, they want to
play philantropists or politicians and seek media attention and praise. Considering how destructive Soros' capitalistic
endeavours have been, it makes sense that he wants to create a global world bank; it would be his monument, proof
that he wasn't just a mongler.
Notice that Soros' criminal behaviour - well, criminal if you're not a capitalist, at least - would be impossible with a
single global currency.
I'm a little confused. As a democratic socialist, I have reservations against introducing one global currency,
considering the questionable results of economic globalisation, or "economic freedom" as some people put it. As a
liberal capitalist, shouldn't you welcome the introduction of one global currency? After all, the result would be even
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm "freer" trade.
Posts: 1865
Location: Airstrip North
_________________
"Life is a succession of here and now, here and now, unceasing concentration in the here and now. People who worry about the
future or the past don't understand that they are worrying about an illusion." -Taisen Deshimaru
WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial
Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:45 pm

Actually from my investigations; the role in the Greek Debt's concealment by Goldman Sachs (includes JP Morgan and
more) is far more extensive than I thought nor is it limited to just a single country currency either.
There are multiple country-wide level destabilisations ticking away to make the 'solution' either a Global Single Currency
or the Synthetic Currency (basket of currencies, commodities or carbon credits ) followed by Centralisation (into a
world central bank) a solution "THEY "want us to accept first, so the Public has to be scared first in their methodology.
Then, made to accept those awful conditions (structural adjustment packages) by the IMF.
There seems to be more than mere good intentions behind promoting the idea of large government debt, other than
simply carry on with 'mere' welfare state and fattening bankers' profits business as usual. Of course none of this could be
carried out without a Central Bank to debase the currency.
There following links provide the background to the perspective to the 'scheme' at large by the said Bankers.
Neuromancer Bankers and their tools have declared WAR on the Nation-states.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431404575066973097686194.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?pagewanted=2
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,678205,00.html
Corrupted Keynesianism?
http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/economics-and-demography/just-what-is-the-real-level-of-government-debt-in-europe/
If it is any indication; the accuracy of the following document will be proven when the triggering events lead to the
Dominoes falling one after another.
Is your political or financial leader in this Power Elite Grouping?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the_bilderberg_papers.html
Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:24 am
Nexus Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Inner Party Leader
My apologies for the late reply, Stevemata. I simply forgot.
Stevemata wrote:
3 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
Nexus, the scale of central banks before the Federal Reserve is incomparable.
I'm not so sure about that. Consider how small the American economy was in the beginning.
Stevemata wrote:
Prior to the first world war the United States was very powerful, the power was first demonstrated in the American
Civil War, the first modern war with artillery and field guns, trenches and machine guns, scorched earth and iron
ships. The power was again demonstrated in the Spanish American War where nearly all Spanish colonies were
captured in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The Spanish American War by causalities was a small war, even by
18th century standards but it was fought with modern weapons and the wars scope was world wide. The massive
European armies used to fight the first world war were conscripted prior and during the war, arguing that the United
States was only powerful after the war is arguing that large bodies of conscripts which are easily raised are a nations
power base. The "military industrial complex" was already in existence and supplying Europeans with weapons long
before the war.
I've never claimed that the USA wasn't powerful before World War 1. I do claim that it wasn't more powerful than the UK,
France, and Germany before World War 1, though.
Stevemata wrote:
Central banks are used to consolidate power.
Yes, one way or another. The question is how and for whom.
Stevemata wrote:
Many currencies is awkward to deal with, but the value of money can be accurately gaged based on many exchange
rates. This can't be done now, the central banks around the world use vast holdings of each others fiat currencies to
provide value to their own fiat currencies. Also prior to the FDR's "New Deals" the US Dollar was bound to a Gold
Standard. A central bank which uses a gold standard is a very different than the Federal Reserve.
I've asked this question before: Is a gold standard - or possibly a silver standard - really a feasible alternative in a modern
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm economy? I don't know.
Posts: 1865
Stevemata wrote:
Prior to Income Tax, the Federal Government raised most of its money on import duties and by selling interest
baring treasury bonds to banks and citizens.
Again, I must point out that income tax is an old phenomenon in the USA. I'm curious, do you think the USA should go back
to import duties and treasury bonds?
Stevemata wrote:
My figures were provided by the official government Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Medicare websites.
Websites for the other large programs did not disclose beneficiary statistics. On my local level I can see that a vast
number of people beyond those who qualify for these programs receive money in the form of rent grants, house
payment grants, credit debt reduction grants... and many other stripes of Grants. I for example while I was a
student exceeded the poverty level with a part time income and government money.
Very strange. That a capitalistic country has a large welfare system is logical - especially if it wants to limit political
diversity - but how could it go this far? Your politicians/businessmen must have lost control over the system.
Stevemata wrote:
Another interesting stat I discovered which I was planning to save for another post is, the US Federal Government
considers anyone who makes under $20,000 a year below the poverty line, the Gross per capita personal income in
the United States is $24,000. Excluding Switzerland and the Netherlands, the population of every other country on
earth's population is below the poverty line. When sorting by "Disposable Income" the United States per capita
personal income is 39.6% larger ($6,083) greater than Germany in second place. Maybe this information will
enlighten you as to who the "poor" in America really are, and this also should help to explain why fighting and
4 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
expanding these programs is such a big deal to Americans.
This is an extreme simplification, as it assumes that you get similar services in all countries. I know quite a few people who
have lived in the USA, and they have pointed out how expensive it is to get decent services, both public and private.
According to their experiences, if you want healthcare that equals Swedish standard, you have to pay an insurance
premium of at least $2,000 a month; similarly, if you want childcare that equals Swedish standard, you have to pay at least
$1000 a month. Judging from these figures, living a decent life on $20,000 a year in the USA is difficult.
Stevemata wrote:
Core wealth generators are the business which produce and sell goods to the citizens of the United States and export
goods to other countries. Often the most efficient and most productive per dollar are large business, their large
status being achieved through efficient methodology. Large businesses which sell goods to the Government such as
the military industrial complex are not core wealth generators, these businesses are paid by the government to
convert money into goods that only the military values. It's arguable that these businesses are actually wealth
destroyers --> taking money through taxation from wealth generators and converting that money into military
equipment.
I think we should be careful when we talk about wealth; an unknown percentage of all wealth is artificial and
non-productive. Some figures worth pondering upon...
New York Stock Exchange: Market value: $10.842 trillion. Total share turnover: $12.158 trillion.
NASDAQ: Market value: $2.847 trillion. Total share turnover: $19.343 trillion.
USA: GDP: $14.441 trillion.
I think it's time to realise that we are being played by the powers that be.
_________________
Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:14 pm

Nexus,
Gold/Silver standards, the value per troy ounce can be exceedingly high and the note values fraction can be incredibly
small, I don't see any problem with standards of any sort, the standard can be cut stone or gravel for all I care as long as
it's quantity is relatively fixed and the notes are worth some weight of resource or some combination of resources.
I don't know where you get your information about American Healthcare but it appears you are referring to how much the
federal government spends providing healthcare(including the 100 billion (18%) stolen throughout the Medicare program
every year?) or more likely you are getting socialist propaganda used to fight healthcare privatization sentiments. I
receive heath care from private hospitals and subscribe to private health insurance, I always receive whatever healthcare I
demand at a small additional cost, $15 a visit + 10% of the procedure and my rate only runs me around $70 a month. Yes,
I'm young and in good health, by my parents and grand parents who are not, only pay about double what I pay.
As for the stock market information, I find it hard to believe that companies are worth their yearly revenue, I wager that
the stocks are undervalued. I would like to point that the New York Stock exchanges are simply the largest single
exchanges in the country, but by no means the only.
Stevemata
You mention how politicians and businessmen possible lost control sometime in the past. I think more likely, no one ever
had control. Systematic Control is an arguably European institution, this country was founded by people who didn't believe
in kings or lords, they didn't believe in control, it can be attested to by mind blowing weakness of the original federal and
state governments at founding in comparison to the present. As far as control in the United States not being an institution,
I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that intelligent control is fleeting when manifested. This country is the size of
Europe with a comparable population but the country is divided into fifty distinct states. Transcendent Control in America
certainly exists, but it's unintelligent, it's a result of policy and law written and rewritten, ignored and conflicting, redundant
and absent, injected by passing elected politicians over the last two and a half centuries spread out over 51 major locations
and over many thousands of lesser location. And one party rule parliamentary style rare and often even less effective
sighting the Democrat party's super majority over the last year, clearly no one or thing is in control, more likely, no matter
party affiliation, everyone is doing their own thing.
Yes income tax isn't new in american, but it's current scale is. The poorest working Americans pay over 25% of their
income in identifiable taxes (federal income, state income, sales) to the government, a full three months of work a year.
The State and Federal governments have further compounded the problem by driving up rent prices and home prices
through rent subsidy and loan underwriting, that more than half my income is used to pay rent while undeveloped land sits
idle because of fees, zoning laws, wildlife sanctuaries, building restrictions and their ilk.
5 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
What about government going back to only selling interest baring treasury bonds and demanding import duties? I would
prefer if they only sold interest baring treasury bonds and reduce what they already sell, social security and the other
welfare programs are already funded by massive quantities in forced sales to the federal reserve, to the tune of trillions a
year.
--------------
Back to the topic, I think Neuromancer's social villains are largely misplaced. Socialism no, tyranny no, dirty bankers and
well meaning politicians yes; and yes, most certainly dystopia. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Humanity
will always accept security and stability at the price of slavery, most people will actively sacrifice freedom step by step on
the march to security and stability. Most depressingly the loudest advocates of freedom are usually the most willing to
surrender their freedoms for as long those coming to power are those whom they support.
Neuromancer is right to call the warning, but Socialism and Good Intentions are certainly related but not necessarily
friends, he mustn't forget that fighting good intentions is always a losing hand in a politically free society.
Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:43 am
Stevemata wrote:
Gold/Silver standards, the value per troy ounce can be exceedingly high and the note values fraction can be
incredibly small, I don't see any problem with standards of any sort, the standard can be cut stone or gravel for all I
care as long as it's quantity is relatively fixed and the notes are worth some weight of resource or some combination
of resources.
It could work. As I see it, there are only two ways to break the current system. The first is to keep fiat money, but make
central banks transparent and democratic. The second is to reintroduce a gold standard. It could be done, because 19% of
all gold is held in reserves by central banks. (Could digital gold currency be an option? That would hypothetically mean that
anyone could introduce a currency.)
There are risks with reintroducing a gold standard, most notably that monetary policy can't be used in times of recession.
I'd say that it might be worth the risks, though. Historically, fiat money has been introduced to fund wars, and later on
other forms of public spending. Without fiat money, the US government would have to cut down on public spending: A)
Probably the best-case scenario: Cutting down on military funds. Without military backing, US capitalism would have to
play by the same rules as everyone else; it wouldn't make US capitalism collapse, but it would certainly weaken it. B)
Nexus Probably the next best-case scenario: Cutting down on social security funds. This would lead to the introduction of new
Inner Party Leader political parties and movements, and end the USA's century-long retardation in politics. C) The worst-case scenario:
Cutting down on both military funds and social security funds. This would basically mean painfully slow decay of the US
system. A swift cut is painful, but the pain will be shorter.
Stevemata wrote:
I don't know where you get your information about American Healthcare but it appears you are referring to how
much the federal government spends providing healthcare(including the 100 billion (18%) stolen throughout the
Medicare program every year?) or more likely you are getting socialist propaganda used to fight healthcare
privatization sentiments. I receive heath care from private hospitals and subscribe to private health insurance, I
always receive whatever healthcare I demand at a small additional cost, $15 a visit + 10% of the procedure and my
rate only runs me around $70 a month. Yes, I'm young and in good health, by my parents and grand parents who
are not, only pay about double what I pay.
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm

Posts: 1865
Well, I only have the information friends and acquaintances who have lived in the USA have shared with me. Obviously,
they aren't socialists, because socialists would never like to live in the USA. No, they are right-wing, pro-USA, anti-welfare.
That's why I find what they have to say about US healthcare quite remarkable.
Be that as it may. Considering the prices in the US, I'd say it's difficult to keep up a decent standard of living with $20,000
a year, or roughly $1,700 a month. What do you have to pay for a decent apartment a month, let alone house mortgage?
How much does home insurance cost? The poor public transportation systems in most parts of the USA requires that you
have a car. What do you have to pay for mortgage, insurance, and gasoline a month? Healthcare insurance? Dental care
insurance? College funds for your children? Add to this everyday expenses such as food. Can you really live well on $1,700
a month?
Stevemata wrote:
As for the stock market information, I find it hard to believe that companies are worth their yearly revenue, I wager
that the stocks are undervalued. I would like to point that the New York Stock exchanges are simply the largest
single exchanges in the country, but by no means the only.
So, what's your point? Huge amounts of money is in circulation in the stock exchange, and we can only speculate how
6 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
much of all wealth is generated there. Generating wealth and generating worth are not the same thing.
Stevemata wrote:
You mention how politicians and businessmen possible lost control sometime in the past. I think more likely, no one
ever had control. Systematic Control is an arguably European institution, this country was founded by people who
didn't believe in kings or lords, they didn't believe in control, it can be attested to by mind blowing weakness of the
original federal and state governments at founding in comparison to the present. As far as control in the United
States not being an institution, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that intelligent control is fleeting when
manifested. This country is the size of Europe with a comparable population but the country is divided into fifty
distinct states. Transcendent Control in America certainly exists, but it's unintelligent, it's a result of policy and law
written and rewritten, ignored and conflicting, redundant and absent, injected by passing elected politicians over the
last two and a half centuries spread out over 51 major locations and over many thousands of lesser location. And
one party rule parliamentary style rare and often even less effective sighting the Democrat party's super majority
over the last year, clearly no one or thing is in control, more likely, no matter party affiliation, everyone is doing
their own thing.
Indeed, your country was funded by people who didn't believe in kings and lords. You do, however, treat your president as
an emperor and like to talk about your country as an empire. You definitely treat your capitalist dynasties with more
respect than we treat our aristocratic dynasties. You're going through the same phase European countries did once upon a
time.
Could the problem be that social security was introduced in a rush? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't US social security
basically introduced during the New Deal? In most European countries, social security systems were built up gradually and
methodically. (Admittedly, there were primitive welfare system already in the Middle Ages and arguably even earlier, but I
don't think they are comparable.)
Stevemata wrote:
Yes income tax isn't new in american, but it's current scale is.
That's a description I'd be more willing to sign.
Stevemata wrote:
The poorest working Americans pay over 25% of their income in identifiable taxes (federal income, state income,
sales) to the government, a full three months of work a year. The State and Federal governments have further
compounded the problem by driving up rent prices and home prices through rent subsidy and loan underwriting,
that more than half my income is used to pay rent while undeveloped land sits idle because of fees, zoning laws,
wildlife sanctuaries, building restrictions and their ilk.
I must say that this discussion is very enlightening. Americans and Europeans, lefists and rightists alike have given me the
impression that American taxes and social spending are very low. A myth, obviously.
Stevemata wrote:
What about government going back to only selling interest baring treasury bonds and demanding import duties? I
would prefer if they only sold interest baring treasury bonds and reduce what they already sell, social security and
the other welfare programs are already funded by massive quantities in forced sales to the federal reserve, to the
tune of trillions a year.
Perhaps it could work. I see one problem with this system, though: The people who would buy most of the treasury bonds
and pay most of the import duties would be corporations. Corporates would demand more political power and politicians
would be more dependent on corporates. It could in fact be counterproductive.
Stevemata wrote:
Back to the topic, I think Neuromancer's social villains are largely misplaced. Socialism no, tyranny no, dirty
bankers and well meaning politicians yes; and yes, most certainly dystopia. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions. Humanity will always accept security and stability at the price of slavery, most people will actively
sacrifice freedom step by step on the march to security and stability. Most depressingly the loudest advocates of
freedom are usually the most willing to surrender their freedoms for as long those coming to power are those whom
they support.
Neuromancer is right to call the warning, but Socialism and Good Intentions are certainly related but not necessarily
friends, he mustn't forget that fighting good intentions is always a losing hand in a politically free society.
7 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head, Stevemata. It's probably not a conspiracy, but rather plain old stupidity.
I must say that I find your and Neuromancer's use of the term socialism a little bit confusing. Do you really know what it is
or do you just think you know what it is? The opening clause of Wikipedia's entry on socialism:
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker ownership
and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.
_________________
Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:14 am

Head of IMF Proposes New Reserve Currency
"Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the head of the International Monetary Fund, suggested Friday the organization might one day
be called on to provide countries with a global reserve currency that would serve as an alternative to the U.S. dollar."
Stevemata
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9958995
Well, the time for supposing is over, the IMF's intentions are now clearly stated.
Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:48 am

According to the news Obama has done exactly what Soros wanted
done with the US Treasury.
The idea is to collapse the US Dollar with overwhelming debt, then use the crisis for the new global currency, seems things
are 'going to plan'.
Quote:
"George Soros tells CNN: I’m not satisfied with Barack Obama, but he saved country from recession "
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/02/george-soros-tells-cnn-im-not-satisfied-with-barack-
obama-but-he-saved-country-from-recession.html
Neuromancer
Now California is poised for a massive financial earthquake like Greece.
Quote:
" California is a greater risk than Greece, warns JP Morgan chief

Jamie Dimon, chairman of JP Morgan Chase, has warned American investors should be more worried about the risk
of default of the state of California than of Greece's current debt woes."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7326772/California-is-a-greater-risk-than-Greece-warns-
JP-Morgan-chief.html
The question logically arises; what are the plans with this Global Currency and Global Central Bank after the US Dollar is
crushed? A lot of effort has been spent on this to simply allow it to do 'nothing' with it. Even as we speak the level of
interest on debt continues to escalate ever faster out of control. What will it do to countries that are export
markets with their larger and larger debt-servicing?
Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:32 pm
Quote:
I think you hit the nail on the head, Stevemata. It's probably not a conspiracy, but rather plain old stupidity.
Neuromancer
I must say that I find your and Neuromancer's
use of the term socialism a little bit confusing. Do you really know what it is or do you just think you know what it
is?
8 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
The opening clause of Wikipedia's entry on socialism:
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating either public or direct worker
ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.
Allocation of Resources, hence nationalisation is not very popular at this time, despite government bailouts of the
banking system. The government nationalised Private Debt! Net gain for the government, citizens and taxpayer?
I think we can split hairs into many different 'socialisms' into many brands, however for the sake
of simplicity we concentrate on debt-inducing government spending be
that Left-wing (social spending and fund its supporters and cronies) and Right-wing (military spending and fund its
supporters and cronies).
On the Global Bank, this means that either the Global Government will misuse its resources to fund social programs or
military spending at the global central level, the issue is the The Transition to this Scenario, are we witnessing the Birth
Pangs of the World Central Bank?
This Crisis has too much planning voiced by its chief financial architects, the idea is to form a view of what they have in
mind after they have installed their new Global Banking Institution.
Now who could want a controlling stake in the World Central Bank?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301
The New Robin Hood Tax (aka Tobin Tax) could help create a cashflow of funds to swell up the World Central Bank, allow
the UN to have it collected by the IMF or World Bank as national contributions. It requires an international organisation to
administer it - of course.
However this does not address the issue of debt creation and the bankers and their operations on the market that landed
us into the financial trouble in the first place.
Quote:
15 September 2001
The Robin Hood Tax
Concrete proposals for fighting global poverty and promoting sustainable development by harnessing the
proceeds from a currency transactions tax
A tax on currency transactions, otherwise known as a "Tobin Tax" could stabilise financial markets as well raising
money for international development.
Notwithstanding a product of Neo-liberal policies of deregulation of Exchange and Capital Controls.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301
(full plan included)
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/Robin_Hood_Tax.pdf
Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:50 pm
Neuromancer wrote:
Allocation of Resources, hence nationalisation is not very popular at this time, despite government bailouts of the
banking system. The government nationalised Private Debt! Net gain for the government, citizens and taxpayer?
Nexus
Inner Party Leader
I doubt that you'll find a single socialist that thinks that this is reasonable. The kind of senseless speculation that caused
this crisis would not be possible in a socialist society in the first place.
Besides, socialism doesn't require nationalisation, although it's one possible path.
Neuromancer wrote:
I think we can split hairs into many different 'socialisms' into many brands, however for the sake
of simplicity we concentrate on debt-inducing government spending be
that Left-wing (social spending and fund its supporters and cronies) and Right-wing (military spending and fund its
supporters and cronies).
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm

Posts: 1865
Location: Airstrip North Try to see it from my perspective. Why should I have to accept being lumped together with American liberals? I don't share
their blind faith in capitalism and representative democracy; I don't approve of their military spending or foreign policies; I
don't think their capitalistic welfare system is beneficial; I don't like their pro-consumptionist philosophy. Anything I
possibly could have in common with American liberals is of secondary or tertiery importance. I do in fact find it insulting
that you insinuate that I would support them and I consider it to be Newspeak on your behalf as well.
9 of 12 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
Would you appreciate if I routinely called you a world federalist whatever you say to the contrary? I don't think so. Time to
shape up, Neuromancer.
_________________
Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:47 pm
Quote:
I doubt that you'll find a single socialist that thinks that this is reasonable. The kind of senseless speculation that
caused this crisis would not be possible in a socialist society in the first place.
Indeed, if we kill the Financial Capitalists and Speculators or the easy options we remove the influence of the Financiers
from Government Offices to do what they want for a Profit (they are a very powerful global cabal). The issue of excessive
concentration of the banking system is what created the disaster scenario in the GFC. In the US, regulation is used a tool to
give the very industry leaders the ability to control the industry they work in hence US Federal Cabinet is full of Bankers
and Industry ex-CEOs, namely Cheney, Rumsfeld and many more going across both Democrat and Republican Cabinets.
In Australia we had a much reduced debacle thanks to appropriate regulation of derivatives and financial products, we are
not a "socialist" society either.
The issue is speculative activity to cheat the market by selling dud securities to defraud investors and taking derivative
positions to screw them when selling them off in the Market Stampede.
Goldman Sachs men are still at large, Capitalism on the whole suffers from these scum's operations and so do Mixed
Economies.
Quote:
Besides, socialism doesn't require nationalisation, although it's one possible path.
Neuromancer nationalisation when it means taking over Private Debt to prevent Systemic National Collapse of
the Economy, the Creditors pocket the differentials, then the IMF and World Bank enforce the "criteria"...
Quote:
I do in fact find it insulting that you insinuate

that I would support them and I consider it to be Newspeak on your behalf as well.
For the lack of a better word, Democrats in the US are associated with "Progressive" and "Left-leaning"policies, however
the details explain more than mere Political Labels originating in the US.
Perhaps it is high time for a Real Left's Guide to US Leftwing Politics?
Quote:
Would you appreciate if

I routinely called you a world federalist whatever you say to the contrary?
Depends how you personally take it of course.

I don't mind it myself, it still means I don't support their policies, either via the UN, World Bank, IMF or Mainstream Left
Discourse or NGOs.
As with many "Globalist Issues, Rationales and Discourses" we find ourselves with Americans and the UK Establishment
behind it.
The Goal is the same the Context (arguments and issues) to arrive to it change with each Issues Discourse.
Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:19 am
Nexus Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Inner Party Leader
Neuromancer wrote:
Indeed, if we kill the Financial Capitalists and Speculators or the easy options we remove the influence of the
Financiers from Government Offices to do what they want for a Profit (they are a very powerful global cabal). The
issue of excessive concentration of the banking system is what created the disaster scenario in the GFC. In the US,
regulation is used a tool to give the very industry leaders the ability to control the industry they work in hence US
Federal Cabinet is full of Bankers and Industry ex-CEOs, namely Cheney, Rumsfeld and many more going across
10 ofCreate
12 PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 4/17/2011 8:19 PM
both Democrat and Republican Cabinets.
Whoa, hold your horses! Who's talking of killing people? Be careful with your rhetoric, buddy.
I agree with your analysis at large, though. Call me an optimist, but if politics and business were to be truly separated, I
think many of the problems with capitalism were to be solved.
Neuromancer wrote:
In Australia we had a much reduced debacle thanks to appropriate regulation of derivatives and financial products,
we are not a "socialist" society either.
Indeed. Some right-wing radicals - although I wonder exactly how "radical" they are - would nevertheless claim that your
country is socialist because of this.
Neuromancer wrote:
The issue is speculative activity to cheat the market by selling dud securities to defraud investors and taking
derivative positions to screw them when selling them off in the Market Stampede.
It's almost as if what I call abstract tradable commodities in lack of a better term - i.e. shares, derivatives, terms etc. -
were created for the very purpose of screwing people.
Neuromancer wrote:
Goldman Sachs men are still at large, Capitalism on the whole suffers from these scum's operations and so do
Mixed Economies.
Indeed, Goldman Sachs is a destructive force in global economics. It's something rotten with the whole system when they
can get away with this Greek business.
Neuromancer wrote:
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm nationalisation when it means taking over Private Debt to prevent Systemic National Collapse of
Posts: 1865 the Economy, the Creditors pocket the differentials, then the IMF and World Bank enforce the "criteria"...
Well, couldn't such a nationalisation as well be called liberal or conservative? Is it socialist to prevent a collapse?
Neuromancer wrote:
For the lack of a better word, Democrats in the US are associated with "Progressive" and "Left-leaning"policies,
however the details explain more than mere Political Labels originating in the US.
The question is, why should we, a Swede and an Australian, use American political terminology? Why should we use a
terminology that basically isn't used anywhere else in the world?
Neuromancer wrote:
Perhaps it is high time for a Real Left's Guide to US Leftwing Politics?
Which US left-wing politics?
Neuromancer wrote:
Quote:
Would you appreciate if

I routinely called you a world federalist whatever you say to the contrary?
11 ofCreate
Depends how you personally take it of course.

I don't mind it myself, it still means I don't support their policies, either via the UN, World Bank, IMF or Mainstream
Left Discourse or NGOs.
As with many "Globalist Issues, Rationales and Discourses" we find ourselves with Americans and the UK
Establishment behind it.
The Goal is the same the Context (arguments and issues) to arrive to it change with each Issues Discourse.
Well, what if I called you a fascist then? It may seem like a far-fetched analogy, but it isn't really. You are indirectly
comparing me with people who have blood on their hands.
_________________
Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:58 pm
Display posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending Go
ShareThis
Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3
Board index » Related » Thoughtcrime Corner — Political Debate All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for: Go Jump to: Thoughtcrime Corner — Political Debate Go
Donate Now
Hosted by FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
A Member of the Crowdgather Forum Community
About FreeForums | Legal / TOS | Privacy | Terms of Use | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation
12 ofCreate

Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - World Central Bank - Dystopian Capitalism or Socialism - 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - World Central Bank - Dystopian Capitalism or Socialism - 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring Dystopia - View topic - WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTO... http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/world-central-bank-dystopian-cap...

Register • FAQ • Arcade • Search • Login

WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Print view Previous topic | Next topic

WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency

And now for Tim Geithner, Mr Goldman Sachs himself.

Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:12 pm

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial

Tue Feb 16, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:24 am

Nexus Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

My apologies for the late reply, Stevemata. I simply forgot.

Central banks are used to consolidate power.

expanding these programs is such a big deal to Americans.

WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial

Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:14 pm

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:43 am

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm

That's a description I'd be more willing to sign.

WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial

Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:14 am

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:48 am

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

" California is a greater risk than Greece, warns JP Morgan chief

Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

The opening clause of Wikipedia's entry on socialism:

Notwithstanding a product of Neo-liberal policies of deregulation of Exchange and Capital Controls.

Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm

WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial

Wed Mar 03, 2010 10:47 pm

Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

I do in fact find it insulting that you insinuate

Perhaps it is high time for a Real Left's Guide to US Leftwing Politics?

Would you appreciate if

Depends how you personally take it of course.

Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:19 am

Nexus Re: WORLD CENTRAL BANK: DYSTOPIAN CAPITALISM OR SOCIALISM?

both Democrat and Republican Cabinets.

Perhaps it is high time for a Real Left's Guide to US Leftwing Politics?

Which US left-wing politics?

Would you appreciate if

Depends how you personally take it of course.

WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial

Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:58 pm

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum

Search for: Go Jump to: Thoughtcrime Corner — Political Debate Go

Hosted by FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB

A Member of the Crowdgather Forum Community

You might also like