View previous topic | View next topic

What is the Bilderburg group?

Page 21 of 22
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 20, 21, 22  Next

Neotenic
875853.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:19 am Reply with quote

The point is not that the centralisation of banking would lead to armageddon in and of itself, just that during times of unforeseen and/or exogenous turmoil, the potential for a crisis to become a catastrophe would be much harder to avoid.

Indeed, a goodly part of the reason why government finances are currently in such a state (ho ho) is because spending plans and promises were formulated with the assumption in mind that the benign trading conditions of the late nineties and early-to-mid 2000's would continue in perpetuity.

I have no idea what form the next crisis will take, or when it will happen, but I am most certainly confident that there will be one at some point.

 
Neotenic
875855.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:29 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Also, where does the Bank of China fit in to this discussion? As I understand it, it's partially owned by shareholders but majority owned by the state.


I think that's probably right - and, if so, would reflect the nature of China's economy, which is something of a special case.

China is moving, albiet at a glacial pace, from a planned to an open economy - and, given it's size and the sheer weight of numbers of mouths to feed involved, I think caution is probably well-advised.

The effects of a dramatic and abrupt change from centralised, or socialised, economies to free markets can be seen in various experiments in South American economies in the seventies, mostly under the watchful eye of Milton Friedman, and in Russia at the start of the nineties.

But, long story short, it's not very pretty. So, however impatient anyone may be for change in China, on any number of levels, the pace is probably about right.

 
dr.bob
875856.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:39 am Reply with quote

My point is: China has a bank that's largely nationalised, yet their economy seems to have done rather better than ours in recent years. Doesn't this provide a datum point that nationalised banks (or, at least, mostly nationalised banks) can operate well?

Or is it only a matter of time until political pressures force the bank into doing something stupid that will ruin their economy?

 
dr.bob
875858.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:43 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
The point is not that the centralisation of banking would lead to armageddon in and of itself, just that during times of unforeseen and/or exogenous turmoil, the potential for a crisis to become a catastrophe would be much harder to avoid.


When the banks hit the most recent crisis, they had to turn to the tax payer to help them out. Would this strategy not merely be made easier if the banks were already owned by the state?

 
Neotenic
875859.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:44 am Reply with quote

I dunno, I would be wary of using China as a shining example of how to run an economy.

Especially with the whole thing of non-compliance with any rules and regulations carrying with it a rather higher likelihood of being shot in the face.

 
Neotenic
875860.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:45 am Reply with quote

Quote:
When the banks hit the most recent crisis, they had to turn to the tax payer to help them out. Would this strategy not merely be made easier if the banks were already owned by the state?


No - what it would mean is that the state would have to turn to someone else for help instead. Either the bond markets or the IMF, probably - and at that stage, help would not come cheap.

 
joeontheland
875862.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:48 am Reply with quote

Was Libya a part of this global banking system prior to the invasion?

 
joeontheland
875864.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 11:53 am Reply with quote

What would constitute as evidence in the proof of a secret cabal of banking elite whose goal is a one world government police state?

I personally believe that many on here are closed minded.

To these people, what would you need to see before you would take this case seriously?

Please save the pissy comments, in all seriousness. Because it may not be possible to ever prove this case under the terms which many on here specify.

Also, another question, if you had the money of Gates, the Rothschilds, the Royal family, Morgans etc.

Would you feed Africa?

 
Jenny
875866.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:08 pm Reply with quote

According to this article, Bill Gates' personal fortune runs at $17b, with another $29b in Microsoft stock.

According to this article the population of the continent of Africa is 680,000,000 (not all of whom are poor and starving of course). This works out at about $68 a head. What do you do when that's gone?

Bill Gates has donated $26.8b to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to the Wikipedia article about it, the foundation has to give away 5% of its capital annually, but of course it is managed so as to generate income that is donated to the causes it supports. The article goes into considerable detail about those.

Personally I think that's a better use for the money than giving it all away.

 
'yorz
875872.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:46 pm Reply with quote

Edit - how did I get to post on the entirely wrong thread?! Sorry.


Last edited by 'yorz on Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
PDR
875873.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 12:49 pm Reply with quote

joeontheland wrote:
What would constitute as evidence in the proof of a secret cabal of banking elite whose goal is a one world government police state?


Some evidence of progress towards this goal might be something. This really is tinfoil-hat stuff though Joe.

Quote:

Also, another question, if you had the money of Gates, the Rothschilds, the Royal family, Morgans etc.

Would you feed Africa?


No, but I might look to use quite a lot of it to help create sustainable habitats for the africans. My (simplistic) analysis of the situation in many 3rd-world countries is that the geographic location is incapable of supporting the population that is tryiong to live there, so they must either move or find a way of improving the land's ability to support them. I would be happy to spend my surplus billions on either approach (or both) but not on food to prop-up an unsustainable lifestyle.

PDR

 
Neotenic
875876.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:10 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
What would constitute as evidence in the proof of a secret cabal of banking elite whose goal is a one world government police state?

I personally believe that many on here are closed minded.


Sorry, little buddy, but a dogged and persistent belief in this cabal wanting a police state, in the absence of any hard evidence other than the fact that there are some fantastically wealthy people in the world, and despite all manner of evidence to the contrary, strikes me as being a fairly strong example of closed-mindedness.

If nothing else, a one-world government police state would be a shit environment for multi-billionaires.

For proof of this, we only need look at actual examples of police states, like North Korea, Myanmar or Iran, or the Russia and East Germany of the post-war years. None of which are or were exactly swarming with billionaires, are they?

If anything, you will find them were there is anything but a police state - the US (naturally), but also places like Singapore and various little spots in the Caribbean.

You mention Libya, in a desperate attempt to tie that in to the cabal thing too, I can only assume - but the simple fact of the matter is that intervention there was to stop Gaddafi killing his own people - and a great deal of the intervention was led by the French, who have never been particularly swayed by the movers and shakers of high finance.

Quote:
Also, another question, if you had the money of Gates, the Rothschilds, the Royal family, Morgans etc.

Would you feed Africa?


Yeah, as Jenny points out, those are some really bad examples.

Bill Gates' foundation is so well organised that it persuaded Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on the planet, to bequeath almost all of his vast accumulated fortune, to it as well.

I'm not afraid to say that Warren Buffett is one of my heroes, I have studied him, and his investment strategies at length and in detail. There simply isn't room in any of it for there to be any cabal, be he a part of it or not. This is why I don't believe one exists. If it did, they'd have either co-opted him, or taken him out. And, if he ever had been approached, I don't think he would have been afraid to talk about it. Simple.

Indeed, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Rockefellers (and we may also add George Soros to the pile too) all have a long and well-documented history of philanthropy.

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, closed down Apple's charitable operations when he took back control of the company, and never opened them up again. But for some reason, giving us the iPod and the Mac are enough to give him a pass from the kind of scrutiny of his motives that Gates seems to get routinely put through. Odd that. You do get mealy-mouthed articles like this one, but they do rather over look that the way Gates and Buffet earned their billions did all this as well as the ongoing good done by the Foundation.

The Royals are a slightly different case - on an asset-basis, they are indeed fantastically rich, but that doesn't make them cash rich. The Queen can't - or certainly won't - flog Balmoral to unlock that capital, and the vast majority of the revenues from the Royal Estates flow straight into the Treasury. But we've been over all of that a dozen times or more here in the past.

 
suze
875880.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:56 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Steve Jobs, on the other hand, closed down Apple's charitable operations when he took back control of the company, and never opened them up again.


This has always struck me as an odd fact. It may be that he supported all manner of causes but didn't like talking about it, or it may be that for whatever reason he wasn't keen on charitable causes - we shall probably never know. What with him having been a Buddhist, the latter seems improbable - but it's equally unusual for American zillionaires not to like talking about the money they give away.

Apart from (by American standards) fairly modest contributions to the Democratic Party, he never gave his money away in public after 1987.

Mind you, it's a matter of public record that the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center in San Francisco received an anonymous donation of $150 million in 2007. Hard as some journalists tried to find out, the identity of the donor has never become known - but it just happens to be the facility where Mr Jobs was treated for cancer of the pancreas.

 
joeontheland
875881.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:58 pm Reply with quote

Ok, I'm not guna continue if we can't talk without sly remarks and personal attempts at put down.

 
Neotenic
875882.  Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:02 pm Reply with quote

Quid pro quo, dude, quid pro quo.

If you don't want 'sly' remarks, don't call us closed minded. Quite straightforward.

 

Page 21 of 22
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group