Is it true that the Fed is privately owned

[Alpaca John]

3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact. 

Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.

The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.

I know what you mean.  I spent time in Singapore and London - the class of people who live at the top there have no country or race.  They have billions in capital and are free to live off their investments close to tax free while their maids pay taxes.

Question is; isn't that how capitalism is meant to work?  People who inherit capital live tax free off investments.  Their investments create jobs for the peons.  The peon's salaries create demand for products which leads to economic growth.  All seems to be working as planned.

Yes. it's exactly what Marx predicted would happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Economy.2C_history_and_society

[1714986978]

1714986978

[1714986978]

1714986978

[1714986978]

1714986978

[1714986978]

1714986978

[1714986978]

1714986978

[Hawker]

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore.

Just like there can never be a millionaires party, there can never be a praetorian party. Some poor will support one party/clan/religion.  Others another. The poor are not a single group and don't approve on one another. Its always been the way and always will be.  

[sublime5447]

The answer is YES. It is supposedly a public/ private entity what ever the hell that is.. but the simple truth is that the whole system revolves around the golden rule.. "he who has the gold makes the rules" the ultra wealth make the rules that line their pockets at everyone else's expense.   

[Hawker]

3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact. 

Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.

The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.

I know what you mean.  I spent time in Singapore and London - the class of people who live at the top there have no country or race.  They have billions in capital and are free to live off their investments close to tax free while their maids pay taxes.

Question is; isn't that how capitalism is meant to work?  People who inherit capital live tax free off investments.  Their investments create jobs for the peons.  The peon's salaries create demand for products which leads to economic growth.  All seems to be working as planned.

Yes. it's exactly what Marx predicted would happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Economy.2C_history_and_society

Marx got a lot right in terms of analysis.  Its the politics he got wrong - he didn't expect the middle class to split and the working class to join in the split endlessly voting in alternative middle class parties.

[myrkul]

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore.

Just like there can never be a millionaires party, there can never be a praetorian party.

Praetorian class. The "men with guns."

[Alpaca John]

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore.

George Orwell actually wrote a great article on this issue, a couple of years before he wrote 1984.

He agreed with you, and said that the emergence of guns (muskets) shifted the power from the view to the many. From the elite to the people.

However, with the emergence of weapons of mass destruction (the atom bomb had just been invented), he predicted that since the power would shift back from the many to the view. Makes sense, he argued, because it would put the weapons back in the hand of the elite.

And look at what happened.

I haven't got the time to find the article for you right now though, sorry.

[myrkul]

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore.

George Orwell actually wrote a great article on this issue, a couple of years before he wrote 1984.

He agreed with you, and said that the emergence of guns (muskets) shifted the power from the view to the many. From the elite to the people.

However, with the emergence of weapons of mass destruction (the atom bomb had just been invented), he predicted that since the power would shift back from the many to the view. Makes sense, he argued, because it would put the weapons back in the hand of the elite.

And look at what happened.

I haven't got the time to find the article for you right now though, sorry.

And that's why the second amendment to the US Constitution doesn't specify muskets.

[Hawker]

Anarchism wouldn't' make any difference.  The rich and powerful will still have the men with guns. 

And the poor, who are by definition more numerous than even the praetorian class, will also have guns. If it comes to a shooting war... well, there's a reason kings don't have a lot of power anymore.

Just like there can never be a millionaires party, there can never be a praetorian party.

Praetorian class. The "men with guns."

But Marx was wrong - they don't operate as a single class.  They bicker and dispute and form political movements and the poor split as well.  The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.  Democracy is a nicer way of doing things even if your particular idea will never be voted for.

[myrkul]

The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.

I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?

[Hawker]

The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.

I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?

No reason to change the subject.

[myrkul]

The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.

I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?

No reason to change the subject.

I'm not. You said that guns are the only way to settle disputes. That's clearly false.

[Hawker]

The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.

I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?

No reason to change the subject.

I'm not. You said that guns are the only way to settle disputes. That's clearly false.

You are being silly now comparing political disputes in an anarchy with selling burgers. 

Anyway, turns out I was wrong.  The Bilderberg are the true owners and they own google as well now.

http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/

[Alpaca John]

The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.

I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?

Take away the state (monopoly on violence) and I would argue that we might indeed see some 'wars' between nowadays peaceful competitors. Kinda like how we have drugswars in Mexico at the moment. Since it (drugs) is not regulated, the competitors are not peacefully competing with each other at all. Intead, they're fighting violently over who gets to sell their stuff.

But I agree, we're drifting way to far from the original topic.

Yes, the FED is privately owned, although in a indirect way, and yes, they're fucking us over big time.

[myrkul]

The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.

I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?

No reason to change the subject.

I'm not. You said that guns are the only way to settle disputes. That's clearly false.

You are being silly now comparing political disputes in an anarchy with selling burgers. 

Governments exist to provide certain services to their citizens. Restaurants exist to provide certain products to their customers. The differences in which services or products should be provided do not need to be decided with guns in either case, and to think so is silly.

[Hawker]

The disadvantage of anarchy is that guns are the only way to settle these disputes.

I suppose that's why McDonalds and Burger King employees are always shooting each other? Or Brinks and ADT?

No reason to change the subject.

I'm not. You said that guns are the only way to settle disputes. That's clearly false.

You are being silly now comparing political disputes in an anarchy with selling burgers. 

Governments exist to provide certain services to their citizens. Restaurants exist to provide certain products to their customers. The differences in which services or products should be provided do not need to be decided with guns in either case, and to think so is silly.

Governments do not exist to provide services to their citizens. They exist because their citizens want a safe environment with clear laws and will use violence to ensure they get that.  It's not a service - you can't decide that you don't want it.

[myrkul]

Governments do not exist to provide services to their citizens. They exist because their citizens want a safe environment with clear laws and will use violence to ensure they get that.  It's not a service - you can't decide that you don't want it.

I respectfully disagree, as did several gentlemen some 230-odd years ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

That "safe environment" is the service which governments ostensibly exist to provide.

I don't know about yours, but mine put it in their "mission statement":

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Adrian-x]

Question is; isn't that how capitalism is meant to work? 

If the "capital" in capitalism is referring to Money (capital) that is created out of thin air then yes this is how it works, and you are being naive, thinking the system is creating wealth.

But if it is the right to pool capital in a free market you are referring to then No, it is not meant to have a central controlling oligopoly.  

The Cantillon Effect is a 17th century principal that explains how wealth is extracted from the last spenders of money (the pour) and transferred to the creators of money (the "oligarchs") and how the benefits trickle up relative to your relation to the top,  this principle alone explains how the system is failing humanity globally.  

The benefits enjoyed today are enjoined as a result of human ingenuity and the little bit of the free market that still exists, despite the system we have in place today.  

[bonker]

3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact. 

Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.

The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.

Myrkul = Illuminati stooge trying to cover the conspiracy up.

We know your game Myrkul!

[Adrian-x]

The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.

Myrkul = Illuminati stooge trying to cover the conspiracy up.

We know your game Myrkul!

It's the other way around; it is the play on word that is causing people to believe it is so farfetched it is a crazy conspiracy.

Like the anti globalisation movement, actually they are a globalisation movement they are people who are globally conscious and want to be globally responsible, they protest to stop the exploitation and poverty causing actions of a few oligarchs, but the media has them confused, they actually portray them as anti globalisation when they are protesting against global exploitation. 
 

[Hawker]

Governments do not exist to provide services to their citizens. They exist because their citizens want a safe environment with clear laws and will use violence to ensure they get that.  It's not a service - you can't decide that you don't want it.

I respectfully disagree, as did several gentlemen some 230-odd years ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

That "safe environment" is the service which governments ostensibly exist to provide.

I don't know about yours, but mine put it in their "mission statement":

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Mine came over with men with pointy sticks on horses, killed anyone who disagreed and the 1% still has the families who took the land in 1066.  They didn't leave a mission statement.