Placeholder for definitions

@Coincube - Wikipedia? Webster's dictionary?
Please tell me you got these from Google. (If so I get to ROFL)

Would you happily accept a $1,000,000 IOU from a guy who is $5Tn
"in the hole"  than a $1 IOU from me (I am debt-free)?

We are discussing banking, and I'm going with narrow definitions:

JP Morgan : "Gold is money and nothing else"

Bitcoin, Gold, a Central Bank Note, and an IOU from minor transgression.
Of these only Bitcoin and Gold have no counterparty risk, and are money.
The others are valued entirely on the creditworthiness of the issuer,
and are credit. Where Notes are issued by government or a Central Bank,
they create both a credit and a debt.
Similarly when you spend with a credit card, you expand the supply of credit,
and when you spend with a debit card, the supply of credit decreases. No new
bitcoins or gold (real money) are created or destroyed in these transactions.

This point is relevant because at one time real money was the "Reserve" in
fractional reserve banking. History provides a list of bitter experience
where prudent lending limits were exceeded.
   
Fractional Reserve Banking implies a hard limit on the supply of credit.
An important consideration is that as the limit is approached, there is a
reasonable expectation that rates of interest on loans will rise. This
should provide some measure of stability to an otherwise unstable system.
In my humble opinion, fractional reserve banking ceased when Nixon took
the dollar off the gold standard in 1971, and I harbour some doubts that
it was ever effective post 1913. Clinton and Brown buried it in the 2000's
via "light touch regulation" and "risk-based regulation".

Haldane, "Why Banks Failed the Stress Test" speech [p12], 2009, summing up
the beyond-laissez-faire ethos perfectly:
"No. There was a much simpler explanation according to one of those present. There
was absolutely no incentive for individuals or teams to run severe stress tests and
show these to management. First, because if there were such a severe shock, they
would likely lose their bonus and possibly their jobs. Second, because in that
event the authorities would step-in anyway to save a bank and others suffering
a similar plight."
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2009/speech374.pdf

These perverse incentives render further discussions moot until we can
agree on some basic definitions. Asking me to believe in fractional reserve
banking where the "reserve" is conjured up after the fact out of thin air, is
asking an awful lot. Once we understand each other we can talk.

I will put up a new thread to handle further discussion on this topic.

@TPTBNW thanks for the heads-up on whatsapp. Somehow the MSM was able to keep that
request for a backdoor well away from the front page.

Sequel to post on Economic Totalitarianism ... re Bank-space.
I'm posting this in Economic Devastation - it seems more relevant here

You keep using that word (fractional reserve banking) I do not think it means what you think it means
(similarly for "money")

As I posted earlier :
http://www.firstrebuttal.com/the-feds-fatal-flaw-a-predictable-end/
"The monetary system enacted in 1913 (and all fiat monetary systems), issuing currency backed by interest bearing indenture, was fatally flawed due to a requirement for its very survival to create an ever-increasing stock of money ..."

The flaw is not so much with the monetary system itself, but in particular, it is the way it is used.
Interest on capital is either a time preference, made good with profit, or interest is a
reward for risk. For example, in banking:

As the Bank of England kindly pointed out, banks lend first and worry about
balancing the books later. In other words, they create endogenous credit.

I'm going to throw out some numbers here, feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.
I'm also going to ignore derivative products, and keep things simple.

Bank A is levered 30:1 has 15% ROI, Equity = 3%
Bank B is levered 25:1 has 12.5% ROI, Equity = 4%
Bank C is levered 20:1 has 10% ROI, Equity = 5%
Bank D is levered 10:1 has 5% ROI, Equity = 10%

If bank liabilities are 400, total equity is 22. 

Each banks assets are 30% bank loans, 30% mortgage loans, 30% commercial lending, the remainder are
deposits or other government backed paper. What can go wrong?

Mortgage fraud is endemic, causing 10% losses, and this pushes up commercial losses to 10%,
unlikely (even 3% is enough), but I'm keeping things simple.

Initially, as things progress, only Bank A is insolvent.

If Bank A goes into bankruptcy, Banks B and C become insolvent. Bank D has problems
with liquidity. The financial system locks up because nobody trusts anybody anymore.
If these banks are in Unicornland, Banks A, B, and C throw up their hands and declare
themselvs bankrupt, the government seizes them and puts them through receivership, and
in the process the "Money" supply shrinks by ten precent, balancing risk and reward.
Bank D now has a monopoly, but is levered 30:1, is split into four banks, and the game continues.

Where capital gains interest at risk, losses limit the increases in credit.

Anyone want to set out what would happen in the real world? Anyone?

"The only way to win is to bankrupt the totalitarianism."

No. Ripley proposes an elegant solution:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q
Unfortunately, collateral damage would void the result.
If you think I am joking, you have yet to fully comprehend the problem.

That which I have been assessing for a couple of years is beginning to inform debate:
http://www.firstrebuttal.com/the-feds-fatal-flaw-a-predictable-end/
"The monetary system enacted in 1913 (and all fiat monetary systems),
issuing currency backed by interest bearing indenture, was fatally flawed due to a
requirement for its very survival to create an ever-increasing stock of money,
without also providing the means for perfect investment,
resulting in a system where debt ultimately consumes all profits and labour
over time. A system only a banker could love. Because such a system is predicated on
devaluation (by its requirement for perpetual growth in money stock) and because that
sealed its fate, the system's end was perfectly predictable upon its inception."[1]
http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilontheory/post/2015/03/16/troy-will-burn-the-big-deal-about-big-data
"Today a handful of hedge funds use Big Data to identify investor behavioral patterns
so that certain investors can be crushed. Today Big Data is primarily an instrument of
social information gathering, with a powerful but punctuated impact on those individuals on
the receiving end of a drone strike or a targeted trade. Tomorrow a handful of governments
will influence aggregate political behaviors by triggering small communications that
Big Data tells them will be voluntarily magnified by individual citizens, snowballing into
outsized, long-lasting, and untraceable "popular" actions. Tomorrow a handful of hedge funds
will influence aggregate market behaviors by triggering small trades that Big Data tells
them will be voluntarily magnified by individual traders, snowballing into outsized, l
ong-lasting, and untraceable "market" actions. Tomorrow Big Data will be primarily an
instrument of social control, with a powerful and ubiquitous impact on all citizens and all
investors."

I *think* I finally figured out *what* to do. That still leaves many things
to be solved including the *when* and *how*.

I will mention that I see early 2013 differently from MA. The key event was the cleavage
of MIC-space from Bank-space and People-space, evidenced by the NSA's (correct) belief
that it could lie to Congress without penalty. Mr Snowden's response moved him personally,
and thus People-space, into TPTB-space. TPTB-space moves between all three other spaces.

Thus the event that plays out later this year may be MIC-space crushing Bank-space.
If that happens the result could be the first war in history where the Bankers do
not emerge as victors. To be fair though, if Bank-space implodes, MIC-space will get sucked in.

Timing the response is difficult. Too soon and the cure is worse than the disease.
I will need some programming and math work done if I decide to do this. But if I
don't do this someone else will. Time for the US economy has almost run out.

[1]@OROBTC - if you haven't read this already, it is worth a read.
http://www.levyinstitute.org/files/download.php?file=wp309.pdf&pubid=157

"Gold goes into hiding only if the private sector has enough power to avoid the government and continue commerce else where. "
"No hyperinflation, just deflation."

I fink u freeky. I really cannot get inside your head on this, and I
doubt I have the right to even try to get you to see things differently.
For the record, I'll clarify a few loose ends.

a)i. I recall a legend, maybe King Croesus or King Midas. He had got himself
into financial trouble. He solved the problem by asking his creditors to
bring with them the value of his debts in gold coin. When the creditors arrived
the gold was taken from them and the values of the coins over-stamped. What was
"1" became "2". What happened afterwards was not mentioned. I will explain
the relevance of this below.

b)i. Imperial Rome had a problem with debasement of its silver coinage.
b)ii. Beginning from around 225AD onwards, (and earlier, but a separate problem)
normal commerce began to be replaced by barter, and taxation was somewhat
replaced by appropriation. After an attempt at reform in 275AD matters began
to really fall apart from 300AD onwards.
b)iii. Around this time, by edict and by practice, a gold bar was worth more
than the equivalent weight in gold coins, causing the government to demand that
dues be part paid in gold.(see Prodromodidis - Nr85 p19) At that point Rome
was rejecting the legitimacy of its own "silver" currency in part, arguably a
default on its debts.
I am seeking here to distinguish between actions of the State on the one hand
to control inflation, and on the other to manage its financial obligations.
"A measure of Egyptian wheat, for example, which sold for seven to eight
drachmaes in the second century now sold for 120,000 drachmaes." Bartlett,
(incorrectly) referencing the end of the third century.
(see https://mises.org/library/price-fixing-ancient-rome for better work
on dates, their economics are at best questionable)
b)iv. Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49BC, entered Rome, and seized the Roman
Treasury held in the Temple of Saturn. (Anyone else noticed that banks try to
emulate our folk-memory of Temples?) Temples seemed to be relatively safe from
pillage by successive Emperors, hence by the time Diocletian became Emperor,
gold had gravitated there. Hence there was a financial incentive for a new
Emperor to convert to Christianity. A conversion that would give Constantine
free rein (excuse the pun) to plunder pagan resources, something to consider
when thinking about the events 312-335AD, and the founding of the Byzantine
empire.

c)i. A notable omission from your text was mention of the 1933 executive order
criminalising "the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership,
association or corporation" within the continental United States. This appears
to be a modern version of a)i above. It may be more complicated than it
already appears. Allegedly in 1932 $1,233,844,000.00  of foreign gold left the
USA, and in 1937 $1,139,672,000.00 returned. (World Almanac).
Complications aside, this was a transfer of power from the citizen to the State,
or more precisely, from the citizens to the banks. I have not read up on this
criminalisation of ownership to make any further comment, but it would seem to
fall into the class of gold in hiding.

As I said above, I am not trying to change or influence thinking, I find I
cannot see the world through TPTBNW's eyes sometimes, and I find that intriguing.

Also, this is not advice on gold as an investment. DYOR.

And a couple of separate matters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_law_01.shtml
"Thirdly, a frequently used test of the existence of the state is that it
should have a monopoly of legitimate violence. In the middle ages - as in
all societies - law was only one method of resolving disputes."
See also Brehon Law - the definition of "legitimate" can be surprisingly
flexible. It seems more a method of classification than a definition.

@TPTBNW - congratulations on your milestone.

@OROBTC - I have been thinking about your question, and concluded that an
uncertainty principle operates here. If I tell you anything useful, you
will be unable to use it. I know that is not much use ;-)
Welcome to the Minor uncertainty principle.

I can draw your attention to some things that are already known.

Plato - "When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or
treaty and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring
up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader."

A tyrant is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution,
or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty ... usurper of sovereign
power who makes his subjects the victims of his passions and unjust
desires, which he substitutes for laws.

Some argue that a gold standard reduces the desire for war, suggesting
that modern wars create so much debt that war and gold money are
incompatible. Clearly any Tyrant or MIC would wish to maintain an
ongoing series of emergencies in order to maximise their grip on power
and continue the flow of wealth under their control.

"War is a Racket" - Smedley D. Butler.

War - of whatever type - replaces laws with debt, pretty much by
definition. What happens next depends on where the economy is on the
Laffer curve. War, and its debt may cause an increase in economic activity.
It will also result in an increase in taxation. The government, whether
authoritarian or not, then faces hard choices if the economy begins to
contract: it may be unable to attract funding; the flow of material to the
conflict (or MIC pockets) may cease; promises made and social contracts
may be broken if funds are unavailable.

If no-one protests the war, acceptance of the immediate and deferred
cost is implied, even though the cost may fall on those least able
to bear it. The Tyrant has an incentive to demonise the needy and
exalt the warrior when spending money the government does not have,
because in that way loyalty can be rewarded and power exercised.

If no external enemy can be found, a state of economic totalitarianism
then exists, with war declared on the taxpayer and on the weakest, and
bringing the seizure of goods and of wealth on mere suspicion. This
comes about because of the predatory nature of an irreplaceable
authoritarian regime. A good test for the condition of any government
therefore is the replacement rate in elections, free or otherwise.

Accompanying this, gold goes into hiding, or is used for international
trade, to pay mercenaries, or to pay tribute. The currency is debased to
pay the interest on debt, and perhaps the MIC. Economic activity
contracts while inflation soars. Eventually, all faith in the currency
collapses, and with it the government's credit and credibility.

Thse things take years to decades to complete.

@TPTBNW "Your thoughts are based in fantasy" yet you reference a "MadMax"
future and then accuse me of fantasy? Riiggggghhtt

"I beseech you from the bowels of Christ, think it possible you are mistaken" - Cromwell

Before I back further into reality, here is a sequel to "your" future:

When your local militia finds out you have neither credit, gold or crypto,
an auction of your possessions is arranged. Your Army Council arranges loans
to favoured officers and thus the bids on your possessions.
You now have credit, less the cost of your "donation", and few possessions.
You also have the disadavntage that the Council knows the extent of
your credit, and of your possessions. Your donations will be adjusted in light
of this knowledge.
You can, of course, opt out of the "protection" and "community care" provided
by that community, and trust to the kindness of strangers. Your choice.

All I'm doing here is pointing out how the "money system" works. This
is no different from "insurance" or "retirement" - pay me today and get
a burger on Tuesday scam. I did not put too much flesh on the bones hence
it seems contrived, and will give a couple of examples from history for
reference.

DVD : "IP Man - Disc 1"
This story is from China, just before and immediately following the
Japanese occupation. Note the lending into the local economy that
begins the story, and the later interplay of interest groups under occupation,
then compare there with your story so far.
BTW, this is a good martial arts film.

Book : "Marco Polo - From Venice to Xanadu"
This story contrasts Venice and its metallic currencies against the paper
based empire of China under the Mongols. Note how the control of paper
based credit issuance is used to dominate and supplant an existing economic
system. While politics and ecomomics are not the main topic of the book,
it answers many questions around how one culture can dominate another.
It may also contain the first reference to a Central Banker - he seems
quite a nasty character. It may also provide the first historical example
of the weaponisation of a currency.

By these examples I suggest that Totalitarian States and Central Banking
overreach are features of the endgame in the lifecycle of Nation States.
Others have taken a somewhat different position - for example:
"But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to
retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they
had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to
borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures
on a large scale." - Greenspan.

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

On a related matter, I would draw your attention to something disclosed
by Yanis Varoufakis - that the EuroFinMin group was not interested in
discussing workable solutions for the Greek economy. On that note I will
leave you to ponder - Why? And Ask:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-02/varoufakis-1967-there-were-tanks-and-2015-there-were-banks

At what points do these attempts to "retain political power" segue into
oppression or occupation? Are Bernanke's "tanks in the street" the same
threats the Eurozone made to Greece?

Despite our differences, TPTBNW, I'd agree you are on the right track.
Alternatives to a government mandated monopoly on credit issuance must be
found together with an end to the overt manipulation of markets.
(See my first post in 2013) I'd suggest that the real problem is one of getting
peope weaned off the credit they think of as money.

"What you apparently did not enter into your analysis is that in F.U.B.A.R. mad max collapse, if you attempt to spend gold, you become a target for marauding gangs and also in any government haven a target for expropriation by the government."

let me read your palm ... you are fortunate to have made it into a totally collapsed world ...

I see you opening your door. The local "community worker" is there, and he asks for "your  donation"
to this weeks worthy cause - the junior section of the militia is upgrading to fully automatic weapons -
and he expects a brown envelope.

In 1000 words or less, write out how you will explain to him that you only have barley, wheat and
dried goods, and persuade him to either take those or to get the militia to restore your electricity
so you can transfer some cryptocurrency to them. Welcome to the new world. 

;-)

@generalisethis - Things are going to go from bad to worse, as in Greece. The cause is excessive
fiat debt, caused by Central Bank policies. Bitcoin is the best remedy available, but once
economies ditch monopoly currency creation, allow zombie banks to fail (they are really only
Unions for the rich) then investment can get directed to sectors likely to grow or at least
collapse less quickly. At that point, as Hayek pointed out, there is no justification for Central
Banks, and as a consequence, centralised controls become inefficient and fail.   

There seems to be some doubt about the possible role of gold within
a total societal collapse. At a fundamental level, food, ie calories,
in a defined format are money. But this form of money is not very useful.
It does not assist communication of needs and wants across a network
to any great degree. In a near-total collapse therefore something similar
to the old trimetallic currency would quickly become a form of liquidity,
and though it could be cigarettes, or whiskey, of tinned sardines,
a mixture of gold and bitcoin could work together given enough
infrastructure is retained.

Which brings me to the subject of Liquidity: MA only partially understands
its importance judging from his posts. Put simply, once Liquidity goes,
we _will_  have to fall back to gold and bitcoin. Further, it will be very
difficult to re-create the liquidity once the confidence that supports it is
destroyed. (I hesitiate to judge - it is more of an assessment.)

I have been thinking about Hayek these last few days: I seem to recall
it was his advice that kept the UK out of the EuroZone. You have to wonder
why, despite all the warnings, did they go ahead with that? Perhaps
the present march to Fourth Reich is no accident.

Hayek had much to say in his "The Denationalisation of Money" that is
relevant today: not only for QE, but also for alternative currencies.
His argument [p93-106] is that Central Banks are, shall I say, barbaric
relics, whose existence is necessary because of government mandated
monopoly of issuing currency. Once alternative currencies are in place
and are allowed to compete on a level playing field, Central Banks
are an unnecessary encumbrance.

Much of the dysfunction within the money markets, the financial and the
political arenas can be traced back to Central Bank interventions - as
can be seen quite clearly in the control of Greece.   

"The time has come the Walus said, to talk of many things: of shoes -
and ships - and sealing wax, of cabbages -and Kings" - Through the Looking Glass.

In case you missed it, there is growing disillusionment with Central Banking.
The mainstream predictions are beyond a joke, and they seem to have replaced
shamen, witchdoctors, snake oil salesmen and fortune tellers as purveyors
of selective truth based on dubious concepts that at least one Nobel Prize winner,
Hayek, suggested was best avoided. What does that leave?

If the sole purpose of Central Banking is to make the Rich richer, and the
Poor poorer - Trickle Up economics, in other words, - surely straightforward theft
would be more efficient. In either case Central Banking is an illusion we cannot afford.

Despite my narrative thus far, I am not yet advocating an immediate end to Central
Banking. To do so would invite adjectives such as "Fantasy" as levelled at recent
proposals within Greece. I am content to see the financial sector collapse under its own
absurdities over the next decade or two, with the unavoidable pain and suffering that
the absense of banking will bring.

I would draw your attention to the efforts of various governments in cyberwarfare:
to stuxnet; to FinFisher. Put simply, if Central Banking collapses, government s will
have no alternative but to go after bitcoin. They are already targeting bitcoin as
a means of mapping social networks, that also gives them the ability to seize control
of bitcoin accounts (see reported capabilities of FinFisher.)  

"And all the little Oysters stood. And waited in a row. . . . . "

Guess what happened to the Oysters?

Just a couple of personal thoughts:

Socialism? - That's like worrying about a nosebleed while morbidly obese.

Keep an eye on events in Spain. They had put legislation in place to control
and to tax links on web pages. When Google refused to play ball, and cut
off services in Spanish, the legislation got stalled, and may get dropped.
They will probably try again maybe in a different format, if history repeats.

"But how to do it right? That's the big question."

I'm thinking that when the time is right, the how will not matter.

@generalisethis - parasite is accurate. The mathematics of the financial system is
very similar to the parasite-host, and that of the predator-prey systems. There
are some important additional factors: whether the parasite adds any survival
advantage to the system; and whether the system we have converges to a bad
equilibrium.

The present financial system resembles "Monopoly" too closely. Society relies
too much on the ability and sophistication of the political system as arbiters of
coercion. When the political system is pwned by the monetary system the parasite
becomes the host. We rely on the kindness of sociopaths, of the kakistocracy,
as promoted by this system, for our survival.

So, do not rush to judge Greece, or Germany. Had the Greek parliament decided
that chaos was better than the prospects of a "bailout" we might have gained
some insights and answers while watching from what we hope is a safe distance.
As for the eternal question Qui Bono? see also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xu5sTyAXyAo#t=526

It is interesting that Ireland will pay billions for decades in a modern form of
Danegeld and only a select few insiders aware of the flow. Expect the flow to increase
until it can no longer be hid. 

Also from http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/07/yanis-varoufakis-full-transcript-our-battle-save-greece

“So what we have is a non-existent group that has the greatest power to determine the lives of Europeans. It’s not answerable to anyone, given it doesn’t exist in law; no minutes are kept; and it’s confidential. So no citizen ever knows what is said within. … These are decisions of almost life and death, and no member has to answer to anybody.”

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling with peoples lives is going on in this establishment.
Where are my winnings?

If you believe that this group has more functionality than a chocolate teapot, I have some islands you may want to buy.

And do not become too fixated on MA he is dealing with reality in his own way.

@TPTBNW - I finally figured you out - you are an optimist!

Some background information re China:
Prof Steve Keen expects a crash in China within the next two years:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKy6_yy3C3U
“This is the talk I gave at the FT/Alphaville conference in London, covering why we crashed in 2008"

I would have thought that Martin Armstrong, after what he has been
through, would have a better insight into our future. He seems to believe
that if socialism is eliminated all will be well. It looks to me that he
may need to take another look at the output from his models.

I'm watching these ripples working their way back towards where the stone
will hit the water circa 2020 at the very latest. I *think* the ripples are there
because TPTB are moving back to high ground and they don't have much time
to get things done.

I haven't worked out what this means for bitcoin, but I'll get there. 

The TTIP vote. They knew it would not get through, despite the details being
kept secret.

Then, after a few weeks, the vote goes through with a huge majority. What?

What happened to get several hundred of the EU lawmakers to change their minds?
And how did those pushing the TTIP know they could get the votes? In a couple of weeks?

The more I think about this the more suspicious I become - make that paranoid.

The best thing about M$Access is the front-end. There are other
SQL based applications, postgresQL, mySQL that will run on both
Linux and on Windows, though I speak only from Linux experience.

The WINE application may allow some of the M$Access code to
run on Linux, but I have not checked the current situation. It
is unfortunate that making the transition requires far more skill
than setting up an maintining the systems afterwards.

HTH. Apologies for the OT.

Theoretically mixmaster should provide good enough anonymity if
used with pgp. Most Linux based mailers eg Mutt, include hooks to
process both pgp and transmit via mixmaster.

For Mixmaster to be effctive, messages (encrypted) are passed though
several mailhosts and eventually delivered (encrypted) anonymously
to the recipient.

Regrettably, any encrypted message or any posts to remailers are
going to be like walking around with a ladder on your shoulder in
a thunderstorm.

If things are really that bad, emigration might be the best option.

If you understood what money is you would not ask that question.
Do You ask what is gold backed by?

The banker JP Morgan famously answered that gold is money and nothing else.
Today bitcoin is added to the list of things that are money

Do not allow yourself to be defrauded by present day bankers. They wish to
present the credits and debits they find in their T-accounts as money.
They talk about "the money supply" when they mean "the debt supply"
Some ninety-seven percent of the "money" in circulation is no more than
an obligation on someone to extinguish a debt to someone else. The
remaining three percent is money - gold, silver, bitcoin. Everything else is no
more relevant than the position of beads on an abacus.

Unfortunately, perception matters. To understand this look at this image: 

http://dragon.uml.edu/psych/woman.html

Think of money as the young woman, and debt as the old woman.
They look the same but you cannot see money and debt at the same time.
When you hold money, you hold a scarce resource. When you hold debt
you are enslaved.

Regulatory Certainty .... like the TTIP?

Of course there have to be Treaties between countries, and of course there
have to be negotiations to get the Treaties, and it follows that there needs to
be a means of settling disputes. When you find that the Treaty places
global entities above national interests, justice is not served. And, IMHO
war may become the favoured method of settling disputes.

Greece now has a chance to not only get out of the EuroZone, but also out
of the EU. There would be a certain irony if the TTIP forced the UK out of the
EU given the totalitarian drift of the current government.

More here:
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/07/08/whatever-it-takes-to-pass-the-secretive-us-eu-trade-pact/
"Last year, the Commission, seized by a rare and inexplicable fit of public accountability, launched a public consultation on the issue. However, when 97% of the 150,000 respondents expressed intense opposition to the inclusion of ISDS, the Commission reverted to type, making clear that it would not drop the controversial provisions from the negotiations."

RUN ...... AWAY ......

"After months of wrangling and horse trading, the European Parliament finally passed a resolution on the secretly negotiated EU-US trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The reason it had taken so long was that the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, decided at the last minute and in time-honored fashion to postpone the original vote, scheduled for June 10, when it became apparent that a majority of MEPs might actually reject the bill (read: Democracy on Hold: President of European Parliament Suspends Vote on Secretive U.S.-EU Trade Pact as Tide Turns Against It)."

Some of the recent main stream media reporting on Greece is verging on the hysterical.
It did, however, clarify a few things that I had forgotten.

Some years ago, the area where I and my family lived was "liberated" - by rebels.
"Terrorists" by another name. I worked for the government, and conditions varied from
daily checks under my car to occasionally sleeping fully clothed with a weapon and fire
extinguisher by the bed.

In these situations, however, weapons are of very limited use. Eventually there is
a confrontation. The thing I came to realise is that the rebels have their own integrity.
Ultimately, it is a struggle for legitimacy, and you eventually may have to put your
life on the line for your faith - not necessarily for your religion, but certainly for what
you hold most dear. It is the ultimate in taking responsibility for your actions. Some of
my colleagues were less fortunate than I, and paid the price for their beliefs.

Today I listen to some Greeks worrying about what comes next, and it seems what
they want is for someone else to take responsibility for their decisions. To those
I say you deserve nothing for you have no faith in your leaders.

In other threads, I could explain that the world will end in three months, or three years,
or thirty years, and they would ask - Should I buy or Sell? They want someone else to
take responsibility for their actions. They have no faith in their beliefs.

What does that say about gonvernments and their currency - "the full faith and credit" ?

When faith fades, government will not survive long.