Dwarf Shortage Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 The slavery thing involves creating consumers of shite who then HAVE to work to get the stuff they don't need but want. Agree with most of this, apart from the only thing actually 'making you a slave' is yourself, yeah alright, you've been socially conditioned to want to work so you can buy all the shit you want, but ultimately you decide how much of an effect you're going to let everything have on you, and you decide if you're going to take your own reading from media and shit, and ignore the prescribed message of 'BUY OUR SHIT'. The other day I was watching some TV with my mate, and an advert for Lucozade came on. Once it'd finished my mate said 'You comin't shop? Really want some Lucozade now!', and I said 'I'll come't shop, but Lucozade's shit.' and he just sort of stopped, and replied 'Yeah it fair is actually.'. Made me laugh how much people are still affected by cheap tricks and clever advertising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 Lol, when I saw that advert, I wanted to go play the guitar whilst riding a bike, not buy lucozade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted August 25, 2011 Report Share Posted August 25, 2011 Agree with most of this, apart from the only thing actually 'making you a slave' is yourself, yeah alright, you've been socially conditioned to want to work so you can buy all the shit you want, but ultimately you decide how much of an effect you're going to let everything have on you, and you decide if you're going to take your own reading from media and shit, and ignore the prescribed message of 'BUY OUR SHIT'. The other day I was watching some TV with my mate, and an advert for Lucozade came on. Once it'd finished my mate said 'You comin't shop? Really want some Lucozade now!', and I said 'I'll come't shop, but Lucozade's shit.' and he just sort of stopped, and replied 'Yeah it fair is actually.'. Made me laugh how much people are still affected by cheap tricks and clever advertising. Matt probably does ignore the 'BUY OUR SHIT' but any sane person still has concern for his fellow brainwashed man and his diminishing environment. Our economy is about as uneconomic as you can get and a lot of this is down to the 'rules' of macroeconomics being created in a time when resources were seen as almost infinite. John Maynard Keynes was an extremely influential person in his time but his ideas are not valid in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Good bye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann2707 Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 In a bit pal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Illuminati, no. "UFOs/Aliens", yes. To an extent. A UFO is, by definition, an "Unidentified Flying Object". Someone could throw a plate from a window and if you didn't know what it was, it'd be a UFO. Something "alien" to me is just life that we're currently unaware of, of which I'm pretty certain there'll be some out there. Whether or not we ever find it/are able to contact it or even recognise it as life, on the other hand, is quite different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) At the beginning he explains very clearly how the banking system works. Haven't got the time to watch through all of it though. edit: Roughly the first 3rd of the video contained a lot of accurate facts, the rest is just a rant of a paranoid man. Edited November 4, 2011 by Greetings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Good bye Bah, what is it with these guys and making really long videos. I don't mind being 'enlightened' or having my mind 'opened' or being 'set free' or whatever else is being promised, but I'd rather do it quickly so that inevitably when I watch it, get to the end and think, 'Ok, well that doesn't change much' I've not poured loads of time down the drain. I could've spent the same time playing the guitar or having a wank! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) edit: Roughly the first 3rd of the video contained a lot of accurate facts, the rest is just a rant of a paranoid man. David Icke has good reason to be paranoid really, the U.S want his blood. So you hear the first part and feel nothing? Bah, what is it with these guys and making really long videos. I don't mind being 'enlightened' or having my mind 'opened' or being 'set free' or whatever else is being promised, but I'd rather do it quickly Charlie Chaplin does this rather well in 3 mins, amazing speech!! Edited November 4, 2011 by casualjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 David Icke has good reason to be paranoid really, the U.S want his blood. So you hear the first part and feel nothing? I've got a degree in economics so I'm well aware of how the banking system works and have been for quite some time now. I think the system is ok. What's not ok is that there are not enough regulations stopping banks from blindly lending money to whoever wants it. Personally I f**king hate banks, all the money I'm not obliged by law to keep in a bank I hold in a tin by my bed. But the truth is that without banks, no investments would be made and money would quite literally be wasted lying around waiting until investors have colleted enough to actually carry out their plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 That's a good speech. If only... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Cool, maybe you could tell me what is wrong with the idea of making banks publicly owned. Meaning the taxpayer pays the bankers wages and there will be no more of this ridiculous 'interest' and 'fractional reserve banking' (without these man made atrocities, the bankers job will be much simpler). This way the government control the banks and not the other way around which is what we are seeing today. No more boom and bust, just your money like it used to be. You can still borrow but it has to be paid back at a set time (like tax) and the borrower would have a strict assessment beforehand. There would be no more incentive to just lend to anybody any more because bankers aren't profiting by treating our money as a commodity. Money is for buying resources to generate profit, we shouldn't be making money out of money!! It would have to happen in every country to work though. This coupled with some decent people in government would surely improve things for most people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Cool, maybe you could tell me what is wrong with the idea of making banks publicly owned. Meaning the taxpayer pays the bankers wages and there will be no more of this ridiculous 'interest' and 'fractional reserve banking' (without these man made atrocities, the bankers job will be much simpler). This way the government control the banks and not the other way around which is what we are seeing today. No more boom and bust, just your money like it used to be. You can still borrow but it has to be paid back at a set time (like tax) and the borrower would have a strict assessment beforehand. There would be no more incentive to just lend to anybody any more because bankers aren't profiting by treating our money as a commodity. Money is for buying resources to generate profit, we shouldn't be making money out of money!! It would have to happen in every country to work though. This coupled with some decent people in government would surely improve things for most people? The main problem I see in publicly owned vs. privately owned is that privately owned enterprises are usually more succesful because the individuals involved have a personal interest in leading the company to new heights. Just look at what communism did to countries which were "blessed" by it. Every corporation deemed important to the state was nationalised and became public, essentially leading to it's collapse. The way countries are now coping with increased growth and debt is privatization which is essentially selling it's assets to the private sector. In most cases, it's highly beneficial for the private sector, as opposed to the public to own commodities of various sorts. To give you an idea of public banking, over here there is a publicly owned bank (perhaps there is one in the UK too?) and until it made its way to the stock exchange 2 years ago, it was absolutely rubbish. Very old fashioned, you couldn't get anything sorted out, lots of paper work etc. The only benefit of being with this bank was that it had a lot of capital reserves and was considered very safe which was why it attracted a lot of customers. Now, although the main shareholder is still the state, the bank has to worry about private investors who will not purchase stock unless they find it a worthwhile investment. Therefore, to address this issue, the range of products has increased drastically making the bank more competitive. That's one of the beneficial effects of selling a public institiution to the private sector. Secondly, the instruments governing how expensive it is for a bank to lend money (and as a result how much money it generates) are already in place. Changing ownership from private to public won't change anything. And thirdly, where should a country get the money from to purchase a bank? JP Morgan is worth around 2 trillion US dollars or something like that. And that's just one of many banks in the US (although admittedly the largest or one of the largest). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 The main problem I see in publicly owned vs. privately owned is that privately owned enterprises are usually more succesful because the individuals involved have a personal interest in leading the company to new heights. Our money shouldn't be run by a company, there should be no profit involved in managing money. It's not exactly a skillfull job. Just look at what communism did to countries which were "blessed" by it. Every corporation deemed important to the state was nationalised and became public, essentially leading to it's collapse. It's not the idea of communism (community) that actually failed their countries, it worked well for a while under the people that started it and felt passionately about it, then the old powers got back in and caused it to fail in order to have it their way again. The way countries are now coping with increased growth and debt is privatization which is essentially selling it's assets to the private sector. Oh yea, it's really working well isn't it. To give you an idea of public banking, over here there is a publicly owned bank (perhaps there is one in the UK too?) and until it made its way to the stock exchange 2 years ago, it was absolutely rubbish. Very old fashioned, you couldn't get anything sorted out, lots of paper work etc. The only benefit of being with this bank was that it had a lot of capital reserves and was considered very safe which was why it attracted a lot of customers. Now, although the main shareholder is still the state, the bank has to worry about private investors who will not purchase stock unless they find it a worthwhile investment. Therefore, to address this issue, the range of products has increased drastically making the bank more competitive. That's one of the beneficial effects of selling a public institiution to the private sector. They shouldn't have to be competitive, they deal with money, not cars or children's toys. I'm sure it could be executed better if public banking was law. Secondly, the instruments governing how expensive it is for a bank to lend money (and as a result how much money it generates) are already in place. Changing ownership from private to public won't change anything. Banks shouldn't need to generate money, they should be part of the money. And thirdly, where should a country get the money from to purchase a bank? JP Morgan is worth around 2 trillion US dollars or something like that. And that's just one of many banks in the US (although admittedly the largest or one of the largest). The government (are supposed to) make the laws, if I was in charge I could just say "JP Morgan what you are doing is immoral and illegal now stop f**king up peoples lives, I'm taking your banks and returning them to the people." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Our money shouldn't be run by a company, there should be no profit involved in managing money. It's not exactly a skillfull job. How is investing not a skillful job? It's not just luck you know. What about the thousands of people banks employ, should they also be working for free because they're not doing a skillful job, dealing with hundreds of thousands of customers the bank has? Also, if people are keeping money in banks then it means they want to. If you don't want your money run by a company, just keep it in cash. Oh yea, it's really working well isn't it. It is, from all the examples I know of 2nd hand (mainly from family friends and individuals within our family) people are turning worthless buildings or land into prosperous ventures. There's a lot of that going on over here. They shouldn't have to be competitive, they deal with money, not cars or children's toys. I'm sure it could be executed better if public banking was law. So long as there's more than one company on the market, chances are you'll compete trying to attact more customers. I recall having an argument with you a while back, were you not the person who said that competition is bad and we should have a monopoly? Banks shouldn't need to generate money, they should be part of the money. That's so ignorant, the whole point of banks is to generate money allowing for investments to be made Chances are that if banks weren't around, you'd be unemployed. The government (are supposed to) make the laws, if I was in charge I could just say "JP Morgan what you are doing is immoral and illegal now stop f**king up peoples lives, I'm taking your banks and returning them to the people." That's textbook communism. I don't recall that ever going well in recent history? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 hehehehehehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 How is investing not a skillful job? It's not just luck you know. It's just one big scam. It's open to so much corruption it's unreal. It pisses me off that the future of a company or our economy in general can be dictated by 'gut feelings', 'fear' an other pathetic emotions experienced by the conmen who are investment bankers. If you don't want your money run by a company, just keep it in cash. It doesn't work like that though does it in our society. If all my savings were under my mattress I'd be petrified of being burgled or my house burning down or whatever with all my money in it. The banks serve a purpose to protect and hold our money but the fact they have made such a shite job of it in recent years, while ensuring that cunts like Fred Goodwin are paid obscene amounts of money for doing the worst job of running a commercial operation in recent history is a complete joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greetings Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 As long as people manage investments we'll have panic reactions to recessions which in due course become a self fulfilling prophecy. When you have everybody thinking "I'd hold on to my assets but others are going to sell theirs putting me in a difficult situation so I should get rid of my assets stat" you're bound to start a chain reaction. And that's mighty stupid but one must remember that in an economy money isn't lost or made, it's merely transferred. I think the problem with different opinions on this matter come from the fact that I'm not from the UK. I don't know what's going on your end, I've just heard that it's not good but didn't take much interest in what's really going on. Things don't look nearly as bad over here which might be why I'm a bit more optimistic when it comes to banking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 As long as people manage investments we'll have panic reactions to recessions which in due course become a self fulfilling prophecy. When you have everybody thinking "I'd hold on to my assets but others are going to sell theirs putting me in a difficult situation so I should get rid of my assets stat" you're bound to start a chain reaction. And that's mighty stupid but one must remember that in an economy money isn't lost or made, it's merely transferred. I think the problem with different opinions on this matter come from the fact that I'm not from the UK. I don't know what's going on your end, I've just heard that it's not good but didn't take much interest in what's really going on. Things don't look nearly as bad over here which might be why I'm a bit more optimistic when it comes to banking. To be honest, it's not that bad here either. I haven't noticed much to be honest, but then I've got a fairly good job, had savings to allow me to get a reasonably sizable mortgage and I don't really have anything to complain about except the crap interest rates for savings. The problem is that bankers (not people who work in banks but the top bods and those making really, really poor decisions) are basically a bunch of thieving bastards who all need to be dragged into the street and shot. The issue with investments are that nobody ever actually buys or sells anything, and as you say the money never actually exists. If you have the balls to do it you can trade in millions without ever having the assets behind you, provided things go your way. I can see the point of floating your company on the stock market to introduce money to allow development but it makes me sick that people can make billions because of massive human tragedy such as the Japanese earthquake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) I think the problem with different opinions on this matter come from the fact that I'm not from the UK. I don't know what's going on your end, I've just heard that it's not good but didn't take much interest in what's really going on. Things don't look nearly as bad over here which might be why I'm a bit more optimistic when it comes to banking. It's just not good enough basically, if it's possible to improve, let's improve Occupy Plymouth tomorrow 12pm at jigsaw garden woo!! Edited November 4, 2011 by casualjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Occupy Plymouth tomorrow woo!! These 'Occupy The Cotswolds' things are completely lost on me. Occupy Wall Street, fair enough- major trading zone, world renowned financial district, I get it. Occupy Bournemouth? Occupy that area with the steps outside St Pauls? I don't get I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) It's to show that people all over the world aren't happy with Wall Street ect.. it's the first movement like this of its kind where people from everywhere, from any background, are participating. It's quite a special thing I think because it really could be a chance to improve peoples lives if enough people, (the 99%) told the corporate f**k ups to sort their act out. Without violence I must add.. Edited November 4, 2011 by casualjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Unfortunately, from my cynical point of view, it won't change anything. The system is too deep rooted and set in its ways to change significantly. And then you have the governments defending and protecting the banks to give them free reign to do what they want from the looks of things. It seems to me like although it was the wbankers who screwed everything up for everyone, they haven't lost out in the slightest and it's business as usual for them. It's everyone else who is suffering from the fallout and struggling. Unfortunately I don't think a few people Occupying anywhere will change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.