No Bailing Out the Wealthy

[Inscrutable]

@ Efflux

No, sorry it is not treasonous to hand power over to another country.  That is simply too black and white a definition.  In truth, any sort of international trade carries with it the transferrance of some degree of power as it leads to some degree of dependency (in most cases the level of dependency is so weak as to be dismissed out of hand, though there are some notable exeptions - oil, enyone?!?).

While amusing, I fear that this discussion is veering away from the original topic, and is becoming dangerously polarised.  I myself have had to bite my virtual tongue rather than reply to some of the more extremeist views expressed here, and I think it's now only a matter of time before this gets a out of hand.

Still fun to see people here arguaing so vehemently for what they believe in though - and absolutely worthwhile.  There's a quote hovering at the edge of my conciousness that applies particularly to this discussion.  Something about not agreeing with what you say, but being willing to lay down my life in defence of your right to say it...

Inscrutable

[PG]

Efflux, try to look at it with a slightly less patriotic view. Our law isn't written in that way and the they have various degrees, it's not praised or crucified like some American bills. I do however very much agree with you that the criticism between Blair and Brown isn't anywhere as well distributed as it should be but then Brown doesn't have Alistair Cambell, well he did for the conference speech but that's about it. To be honest I haven't seen anyone who can lead this country and the fact that the SNP are willing to break up the United Kingdom is completely moronic. That's why it's a bad idea to get the conservatives back in power, the tories are notoirious for testing politically dangerous taxes in Scotland. Remember the uproar from Poll tax? It's also important to remember that only 28% of Scots said they wanted to break away, that's a big number but not a majority.

Anyhow this is getting into a political philosophy debate. Awesome as that is, it's a bit far from the bailout bill debate.

[efflux]

OK.

To move back more to the initial topic.

The bankers want bailing out. It's clearly wrong even if you disagree about whether it could work or not. The income tax from all US citizens only covers the Federal Reserve interest. The Federal Reserve is private and controlled by the bankers. In essence income tax now ends up going to bankers. What if that income tax was used to build power stations or say put into solar energy, geothermal energy, wind warms, tide etc etc. Maybe Nuclear is not even necessary. Our technology is now so advanced we could generate fee power for everyone on the planet. How would that improve "economy" because economy is not just about money. Why does this not happen? Even nuclear ha been around for so long yet we still fill our cars with petrol. The reason is that the capability we now have through technology to create abundance for everyone is an absolute enemy of our monetary system which relies on scarcity. At one time it worked to a certain degree at least for some nations but now it's a total failure. The globalists (monopolists) are running scared because they want to control technology. We have an abundance of information now with the net and an abundance of free open source software. This is anathema to the globalists (bankers).

[efflux]

Money allows you to buy stuff. If this thing you need or desire is in abundance or easy to get hold of then it has little or no money value. Technology is the way we create this abundance. This is growing all the time. The history of mankind is the history of technology. It is at a stage now where it is possible to supply lots of things in abundance. In this scenario things would start losing monetary value. Scarcity allows banks to control everything by overvaluing it with money. They juggle the economy to constantly create artificial values so they can pocket the difference. This kind of thing has gone on for ages but now it is gigantic in scale hence the current (but deliberate) meltdown. They want to move to a position of owning everything and hence controlling it even if it's potentially in abundance. They want to own politicians and people. They want to move to restricting and controlling everything globally without using money but by absolute totalitarianism. To do this they have to completely destroy the USA while at the same time using it for their ends which is what they've been doing for decades. This is why they are now the enemy of all people. They want anyone who opposes them to be the "terrorist".

All the dots join together perfectly to support this idea which many might think is conspiracy theory. Whether it's conspiracy or not, it is happening. I don't believe people get together to conspire all this but their goals are the same or at least the outcome of the system they support is all the same.

[PG]

You should take a closer look at the relationship between the price of oil and inflation. Removing fossil fuels from the equation would cause inflation to go like crazy. The price of oil would plummet (although it would eventually skyrocket again once it's completely obsolete), and it's hard to predict how inflation would react. Normally if the price of oil goes up, inflation goes up. If the price of oil goes down it eases inflation. Not across the board mind but it does still have a significant impact on the highest capital areas of the market such as banks and mining companies.
You think governments are resistent to finding cleaner energy sources because they hate our planet? It's because our finance system is so tightly interwoven with the energy industry that a violent move could cripple the entire world. These sorts of changes have to be gradual. Plus it's kinda nieve to think that corperations haven't been thinking of ways to monopolize new energy sources. Eon already control the majority of wind farm power in the UK and Npower controls most of the nuclear power and make a damn good living off of it. Indeed the worst of are actually those running coal and oil power stations because the price of fuel is too high, but it's too expensive to replace the furnaces with reactors or solar panels.
And seriously, you're putting far too much thought into this, yes many companies try to create gaps in the supply of their products to increase prices, hell why do you think diamonds cost so much? Africa's p***ing the stuff but entire countries are encouraged to go to war to hide these resources to keep the prices up, that's well known. However bankers and other entrepreneurs have nothing to gain and everything to lose from crashing the economy into a brick wall. They rely on a sustainability of the economy, not a quick cash in. If the economy keeps going the way it's going then the dollar will have to be devalued, the bankers will lose massive amounts of money. Why in the hell would they plan that? Seriously, try to learn a bit more about the economy before creating these wild covin fantasies. I've been studying economics and politics for a long time.

[rcallicotte]

It is all about control. 

[Will]

I'm telling you fresh water is the new gold in the commodity market. The demand will be here soon.

[PG]

Indeed water is going to be a much needed commodity and with the right application we could change the market to be more reliant on water than oil. However I do find it quite astounding that no one seems to have figured out that we're actually surrounded by water. We've had desalination on ships for hundreds of years to make sea water safe to drink and we've had massive technological advances since then. Corperations currently have very little to gain from conserving water other than water bottling companies but they can hardly be said to have any clout.
Put some money into research of desalination, build massive desalination plants around Africa. Bingo, millions of gallons of drinking water and countless jobs and a sustainable market. The only thing left to do is find the right place to pump water from, the wrong place could disturb ocean currents or algae/sea life populations.

[efflux]

Yes, we should use our technology to say supply water to places like Africa. That helps them and us and would create jobs, wealth and freedoms for people but like calico says, our present direction is all about control. We have nut cases and psychopathic power mongers running the planet. Clever people who are nevertheless incapable of creating anything useful except some idea of some future modeled and controlled by them.

Yes, these things can't happen fast but the should already be happening. Because of this stifling of progress through fake wars, economic manipulation etc, civilization is going backwards not forwards.

[Will]

I like to think of desalination as similar to has the development of ultra-capacitors is being slowed by battery company's. It is like calico said its all about control, in this case its about control of the market. Not sure if you've seen total recall but imagine if water became like the air on mars (this won't make sense if you haven't seen the movie).

[PG]

Yeah one man controlling the button that can turn off access to the resource.
@efflux: I think you've got something there about reverse progress in civilisation, but have you noticed a pattern in civilisations in the past? The faster they rise, the faster they fall. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians. They all rose to power in their own way and fell from power in a way that mimicked it almost exactly.

[rcallicotte]

One thing we've learned from history is that we don't learn from history.

[PG]

  true. But I'm watching china intently. If their economy collapses and they return to the state they were in before then it proves my theory quite accurate. They've only come to power in the last decade or so and they've gone straight to the top far too quickly and with no foundation their economy is too heavy for itself.

[efflux]

"One thing we've learned from history is that we don't learn from history."

Another good point. If everybody studied some history and in particular the history of money, there would probably be millions of people marching on Washington or whatever other governments are involved. There would literally be revolutions happening everywhere because the whole system is one huge con.

The USA is an empire and it's also hooked with a financial empire still in Europe, in particular London. It's a hidden Empire that's why people don't think it exists. Organizations like the IMF are instruments of this Empire. It is too far stretched like every empire before eventually became. The problem is that this is a point where the maniacs controlling often take a kind of desperate double your money gamble.

[efflux]

The world economy is bankrupt. No amount of bail outs can solve this. The bail outs would have to go into quadrillions of $.

The Council On Foreign Relations actually staged a trial run of this 8 years ago. Insiders say that this trial run was not about looking to solve the issue but how to actually create it. It even involved war with Russia via an incited invasion of the Ukraine, just like the $ bank rolled problems in Georgia. These globalists then want to step in as the saviours when crisis is huge. World currency etc. It's problem, reaction, solution just as Icke talks about. It has been used since time immemorial. You have something you want to achieve (global empire) but it's not supported by people so you create a reaction through wars, food shortages, financial meltdown etc to get the people to back your solution. The Bush regime uses this again and again. It is government by constant manufactured crisis. Our leaders are totally useless to humanity now. There are no waring superpowers for them and their backers to exploit anymore. They need to find other crisis to divide and conquer.