All Wars are Bankers' Wars

[Athom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4#t=151

The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.
After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.
But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders.
Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton.

[hilariousandco]

The banking institutions are the biggest evil in the world. Nothing new here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgVZSIPzH1o

[Hawker]

lol

Let me get this straight.  Human societies trade and use currency.  The organisations we create to facilitate this are called banks and the people who run banks are called bankers.  A human society that trades and uses a currency cannot exist without banks any more than a human society that eats potatoes can exist without farms.

So if all wars are bankers' wars, then all wars are also farmers' wars.

The same stupid logic applies to doctors of course.  And teachers.  And....you get the picture.

[Carlton Banks]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

[Hawker]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

You imply that the ones in control are somehow "other" when in fact they are just our neighbours who happen to work in banks.  Every society that has a currency will also have banks and of course those banks will have people called bankers working in them.  The idea that they control politicians is laughable.  The ones I know can't even control their kids.

[bryant.coleman]

Is the problem only with privatized banks? Are government owned banks free from this?

I'd like to know.... because in some nations such as Cuba, all the banks are owned by the government.

[Carlton Banks]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

You imply that the ones in control are somehow "other" when in fact they are just our neighbours who happen to work in banks.  Every society that has a currency will also have banks and of course those banks will have people called bankers working in them.  The idea that they control politicians is laughable.  The ones I know can't even control their kids.

No, Hawker, they are not your neighbours, nor mine. I'll say it again: they are not any type of banker. These people are plutocrats.

You get your worldview from the news and media that plutocrats control. That's why you're struggling with this. Did you never hear the expression "don't believe everything you read in the newpapers"? There is no clause in that statement that says it only applies to tabloids and celebrity gossip.

[hilariousandco]

Is the problem only with privatized banks? Are government owned banks free from this?

I'd like to know.... because in some nations such as Cuba, all the banks are owned by the government.

Government banks may only be "government" banks on paper. I don't know anything about the Cuban banking system so I cant comment on that particular instance.

[Hawker]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

You imply that the ones in control are somehow "other" when in fact they are just our neighbours who happen to work in banks.  Every society that has a currency will also have banks and of course those banks will have people called bankers working in them.  The idea that they control politicians is laughable.  The ones I know can't even control their kids.

No, Hawker, they are not your neighbours, nor mine. I'll say it again: they are not any type of banker. These people are plutocrats.

You get your worldview from the news and media that plutocrats control. That's why you're struggling with this. Did you never hear the expression "don't believe everything you read in the newpapers"? There is no clause in that statement that says it only applies to tabloids and celebrity gossip.

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

[dank]

lol

Let me get this straight.  Human societies trade and use currency.  The organisations we create to facilitate this are called banks and the people who run banks are called bankers.  A human society that trades and uses a currency cannot exist without banks any more than a human society that eats potatoes can exist without farms.

So if all wars are bankers' wars, then all wars are also farmers' wars.

The same stupid logic applies to doctors of course.  And teachers.  And....you get the picture.

Did you forget you're on a bitcoin forum?  Why do we need a central authority over a decentralized system of exchange?

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

No truly free society will be ruled and bound to any monetary system.  Money is what enslaves us, we cannot spend our lives how we truly wish to when we're giving away a greater good of our energy for a paycheck.

I know this may be hard accepting as someone who's accumulated a good amount of wealth, but society can not only function without money, it can function better.  And it is inevitable, a part of evolution to abandon the concept of greed that divides us.  There is nothing you can do to stop earth becoming a family.

[Carlton Banks]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

[uranian]

I don't know of any country that has gone to war when it's been on a gold standard. The only way wars can happen is when countries go on to fiat money, and private corporations called banks profit from the fiat money system; those who profit from war are banks, and as much as I dislike Occam's razor, perhaps it applies here. Central banks and governments (the BIS and the moves towards world government with the likes of the EU) profit by their mutual arrangement, if they are not the same thing already.

And to rant a little, we've had the biggest financial crime in the history of the recorded world with LIeBOR; we've had QE to infinity for years; we have derivatives markets (which are basically about manipulating interest rates, the price of money, too) in the quadrillions, re-assigned arbitrary values at the change of a computer model; we have massive manipulation of at the very least the stock markets, the bond markets and the precious metals markets; we've had a secondary LIeBOR theft that most people won't even of heard of, another ongoing for decades theft by manipulating forex rates...our financial markets are the deepest cesspool of stewed shit I can imagine. Bitcoin stands as the alternative to all of this; when it sees adoption as a daily transaction currency (that's beginning in early 2014 for a few tens of thousands shops in the UK), it will - perhaps along with hyperinflation, or some economic disasterzone - I hope, cast out the den of vipers all over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw9jXppiQEo

[Hunterbunter]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

[uranian]

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

BTC is a new technology that decentralises banks. So while I agree that it's just a token, no different from gold, seashells or fiat money, it's a completely new system of banking, in that everyone is the bank. How money is created is central to how a monetary system works, and BTC is again different from the current corporate system of money creation. Money is perhaps the only thing that every person wants, so control of the creation of money is as a Rothschild noted, the key to controlling the laws. In BTC, anyone can create the money supply, not just a handful of corporate, for profit, corrupt banks.

[Carlton Banks]

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

You're thinking of loan companies, they're different to banks. It just so happens that the majority of banks offer loans too.

The banking business is fundamentally based around securely storing deposits, not lending. People in a cryptocurrency based economy have no need for paying for secure storage for their money.

[Hunterbunter]

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

You're thinking of loan companies, they're different to banks. It just so happens that the majority of banks offer loans too.

The banking business is fundamentally based around securely storing deposits, not lending. People in a cryptocurrency based economy have no need for paying for secure storage for their money.

On that note, most people don't want to be their own banks, hence the existence of banks for hundreds/thousands of years.

[Hunterbunter]

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

BTC is a new technology that decentralises banks. So while I agree that it's just a token, no different from gold, seashells or fiat money, it's a completely new system of banking, in that everyone is the bank. How money is created is central to how a monetary system works, and BTC is again different from the current corporate system of money creation. Money is perhaps the only thing that every person wants, so control of the creation of money is as a Rothschild noted, the key to controlling the laws. In BTC, anyone can create the money supply, not just a handful of corporate, for profit, corrupt banks.

Just because anyone can create it, doesn't mean everyone will want to.

You can set up a bank too if you want. Just raise the capital.

You can produce btc too if you want. Just raise the capital for mining hardware.

[Hawker]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

I have over 1000 Bitcoin, a few rental properties and will buy a few thousand more Bitcoin if price falls.  Either way, I'm fine.  Thanks for your concern.

Its clear you are one of those people who believe they have a unique insight into a hidden reality that mere mortals can't grasp.  Good luck with that.

[Hawker]

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

You're thinking of loan companies, they're different to banks. It just so happens that the majority of banks offer loans too.

The banking business is fundamentally based around securely storing deposits, not lending. People in a cryptocurrency based economy have no need for paying for secure storage for their money.

On that note, most people don't want to be their own banks, hence the existence of banks for hundreds/thousands of years.

Exactly - if you have a trading economy, you will have bankers.

[bbulker]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

A few million? That's a joke, right? The bloodlines that have the control are worth trillions counting all assets.