ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags socialism , worker cooperatives

Reply
Old 15th August 2017, 08:25 AM   #81
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I hear the Asians are good with numbers.

Ah, who am I kidding, its the Jews.
That would seem to be Tippit's message, given that Rothschild appears in these notions. But the CT is an odd one. The crimes - and they are of astounding scope - appear to be committed simply by evil individuals, like Goldfinger in James Bond, rather than by any coherent group definable in socio-economic or ethnic terms.

What do US conspiracists have against central banks, by the way? The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street gets more than her fair share of abuse, but she has survived since 1694, and has never been abolished like the Banks of the United States, or condemned as a swindler who brought about the communist revolutions of the twentieth century, no less, as a mere cover for some nefarious personal activities.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 10:21 AM   #82
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 18,914
For a group that has been controlling the world for a long time, the Jews have done a piss poor job of controlling the world.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 02:42 PM   #83
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by Spindrift View Post
For a group that has been controlling the world for a long time, the Jews have done a piss poor job of controlling the world.
Maybe that piss poor job
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
is just a popular scapegoat for the ignorant.
and they're really doing a grand job, but they're not telling anyone cos they're keeping it a secret.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 03:31 PM   #84
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That would seem to be Tippit's message, given that Rothschild appears in these notions. But the CT is an odd one. The crimes - and they are of astounding scope - appear to be committed simply by evil individuals, like Goldfinger in James Bond, rather than by any coherent group definable in socio-economic or ethnic terms.
Why when the Rothschilds are mentioned, is the charge of anti-semitism always invoked? I hold the Rothschilds accountable for what the Rothschilds have done, I don't blame my neighbor who may or may not be jewish. In fact, there are some who claim the Rothschilds aren't even jewish at all, but Khazarian/Turkish.

Quote:

What do US conspiracists have against central banks, by the way? The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street gets more than her fair share of abuse, but she has survived since 1694, and has never been abolished like the Banks of the United States, or condemned as a swindler who brought about the communist revolutions of the twentieth century, no less, as a mere cover for some nefarious personal activities.
What gave you the impression that the BoE is any less culpable in what is a global cartel of glorified counterfeiters? In fact, the Rothschild's are alleged to have seized control of the BoE after Wellington's victory at Waterloo over Napoleon (it's in the documentary I linked).

Can you address specifically the idea that anyone or any entity with the power to create money can set a floor on any price and acquire/control any asset? And then there is the fact that central banks aren't really transparent, and, that they could be fabricating/doctoring their balance sheets. Who would really know? We do know that central banks can and do make private loans and swaps, and acquire private assets from private sellers. I submit that the burden of proof shouldn't be on "conspiracists", but on those who apologize for a system that is obviously rife with world-dominating corruption.

We know that asset prices are sky high, we know that the largest banks cannot fail, they will be bailed out with unfathomable amounts of fiat money, and we know that wealth condensation is real and that the super-rich are getting vastly richer while the poor and middle class are being destroyed. It seems to me that we should lay blame where blame is due - the money system - as opposed to the ideal of capitalism, which I would submit does not even exist in reality anymore.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 04:11 PM   #85
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
What gave you the impression that the BoE is any less culpable in what is a global cartel of glorified counterfeiters? In fact, the Rothschild's are alleged to have seized control of the BoE after Wellington's victory at Waterloo over Napoleon (it's in the documentary I linked).
The BoE was nationalized in 1945.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
And then there is the fact that central banks aren't really transparent, and, that they could be fabricating/doctoring their balance sheets. Who would really know?
Apart from Federal Reserve Notes (each one which is fully accounted for) the rest of the base money is balance sheet money (mostly reserves). How can you fabricate balance sheet money without it appearing on the balance sheet?

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
We do know that central banks can and do make private loans and swaps, and acquire private assets from private sellers. I submit that the burden of proof shouldn't be on "conspiracists", but on those who apologize for a system that is obviously rife with world-dominating corruption.

We know that asset prices are sky high, we know that the largest banks cannot fail, they will be bailed out with unfathomable amounts of fiat money, and we know that wealth condensation is real and that the super-rich are getting vastly richer while the poor and middle class are being destroyed. It seems to me that we should lay blame where blame is due - the money system - as opposed to the ideal of capitalism, which I would submit does not even exist in reality anymore.
Yes, the Fed is complicit in all of that. It is better to blame the system than look for faceless individuals who are siphoning money from the Fed "off the books".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 15th August 2017 at 04:14 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 08:10 PM   #86
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
... there are some who claim the Rothschilds aren't even jewish at all, but Khazarian/Turkish.
Who claims that? On what grounds? What if the Rothschild were of Khazar ancestry anyway? Would that make then not Jewish? Wiki
Meyer Amschel Rothschild was born in 1744 in the Judengasse, the Jewish ghetto of Frankfurt am Main, Holy Roman Empire, one of eight children of Amschel Moses Rothschild (d. 1755) and his wife Schönche Rothschild (née Lechnich, d. 1756). The ancestry of the Rothschilds can be traced back to 1577 to Izaak Elchanan Rothschild (Isaac (Isaak) Elchanan Bacharach, zum Hahn), whose name is derived from the German zum rothen Schild (with the old spelling "th"), meaning "with the red sign", in reference to the house where the family lived for many generations.
This "Khazar" stuff tends to be an extremist Christian idea. These Christians have taken over the Jewish scriptures as holy books, but they hate Jews, so they have to find a way if detaching Jews from the Bible. That's not easy to do, so how do they go about it? By identifying Jews as Turks, and by claiming that these Jews are people not of the Torah, but of the Talmud.
Quote:
What gave you the impression that the BoE is any less culpable in what is a global cartel of glorified counterfeiters? In fact, the Rothschild's are alleged to have seized control of the BoE after Wellington's victory at Waterloo over Napoleon (it's in the documentary I linked).
Who alleges this? Note: I never look at linked video documentaries. If you have evidence of anything, put it in your post, with sources of data. Who stated that Rothschild took over the B of E, and who alleges that the B of E counterfeited its own paper money? That's a strange accusation!
Quote:
Can you address specifically the idea that anyone or any entity with the power to create money can set a floor on any price and acquire/control any asset?And then there is the fact that central banks aren't really transparent, and, that they could be fabricating/doctoring their balance sheets. Who would really know?
Why are you spouting such gibberish? Ah, I know. Because the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street doesn't in fact own all the assets bought with pounds sterling, as your CT requires. How do you get round that difficulty? Well, maybe she's doctoring her balance sheet. Evidence? Well, she could be, couldn't she? How do you know she isn't? Not terribly convincing. And finally
Quote:
We do know that central banks can and do make private loans and swaps, and acquire private assets from private sellers. I submit that the burden of proof shouldn't be on "conspiracists", but on those who apologize for a system that is obviously rife with world-dominating corruption.
No. The burden of proof of your antisemitic CTs is on you. You can't pass it on to your opponents.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 11:26 PM   #87
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The BoE was nationalized in 1945.
That means nothing. Do they make private loans and buy private assets?

Quote:

Apart from Federal Reserve Notes (each one which is fully accounted for) the rest of the base money is balance sheet money (mostly reserves). How can you fabricate balance sheet money without it appearing on the balance sheet?
How do you know Federal Reserve Notes are fully accounted for? And you can fabricate electronic money with the press of a keystroke. Are you suggesting that it would be impossible for the Federal Reserve to create money off the books, setting aside the fact that they already do create money on the books used to benefit *private* sellers of assets, and *private* borrowers? Isn't that problematic enough? The fact that the Fed's open market operations are not transparent means that there is essentially no limit to what they can do.

Quote:

Yes, the Fed is complicit in all of that. It is better to blame the system than look for faceless individuals who are siphoning money from the Fed "off the books".
I disagree. I think it's important to arrest criminals, no matter how powerful or influential they may be, and shut down their institutions. If you do the former without the later, someone else will assume control of the institutions. If you do the latter without the former, then the same people will eventually reinstate the institutions.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2017, 11:54 PM   #88
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Who claims that? On what grounds? What if the Rothschild were of Khazar ancestry anyway? Would that make then not Jewish?
What difference does it make what ethnicity or religion they are? Do you think it's problematic that extraordinarily powerful, influential, and obscenely wealthy people should be able to avoid criticism or oversight by hiding behind the "anti-semite" card?

Quote:

This "Khazar" stuff tends to be an extremist Christian idea. These Christians have taken over the Jewish scriptures as holy books, but they hate Jews, so they have to find a way if detaching Jews from the Bible. That's not easy to do, so how do they go about it? By identifying Jews as Turks, and by claiming that these Jews are people not of the Torah, but of the Talmud. Who alleges this?
So you're claiming that the best way to engage in anti-semitism, is to disavow the idea that they're semites? Seems legit. I don't hate jews. I really don't. I was talking about a very specific subject, and you asked for some names. Now, instead of discussing the merits of the original argument, you would rather paint me as an irrational bigot. Why?

Quote:

Note: I never look at linked video documentaries. If you have evidence of anything, put it in your post, with sources of data.
Is there a reason why you willfully ignore video evidence? The documentary has a well-researched bibliography. It's also interesting, I recommend watching it. If you were earnest you wouldn't have accused me of being an anti-semite for referring to the legendary Rothschild banking dynasty when you asked for names of elites (while ignoring the fact that I listed the Rockefellers, who are apparently anglo-saxon). By your "logic" I am an anglo-saxon bigot! Case dismissed, I guess.

Quote:

Who stated that Rothschild took over the B of E, and who alleges that the B of E counterfeited its own paper money?
The biographer Morton documented how Nathan Rothschild assumed control of the British consol market, when after receiving news of Wellington's victory he began to publicly sell consols, while having his agents privately buy them up at a discount over the resultant panic. The public believed that Napoleon had won the battle. It is then that they are alleged to have gained control over the BoE.

Just as murder in war is legal, when I refer to "counterfeiting", I'm referring to what central banks legally do when they create money, because the results are the same, legal or not.

Quote:

That's a strange accusation! Why are you spouting such gibberish? Ah, I know. Because the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street doesn't in fact own all the assets bought with pounds sterling, as your CT requires. How do you get round that difficulty? Well, maybe she's doctoring her balance sheet. Evidence? Well, she could be, couldn't she? How do you know she isn't? Not terribly convincing. And finally No. The burden of proof of your antisemitic CTs is on you. You can't pass it on to your opponents.
Did you ignore my question about the ability to fix any price through setting a floor with unlimited fiat money, as well as the ability to acquire any assets? It's a philosophical question that requires you to think independently, and has nothing to do with the BoE specifically. In fact, all of this could be done ON the balance sheet and it wouldn't change the consequences at all. The fact is that central banks don't make their open market transactions public, though.

The point is that the ability to create money/credit ex nihilo is so powerful, and the fact that the institutions that have been tasked for doing this are opaque and not-transparent, that the burden of proof should be on YOU for why they should be allowed to exist.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton

Last edited by Tippit; 15th August 2017 at 11:57 PM.
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 01:39 AM   #89
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
That means nothing. Do they make private loans and buy private assets?
It means that the era of the great short by Nathan Rothschild ended a long time ago.

Yes, government owned central banks do the bidding (to some extent) of the banks just as much as the Fed does but that is a long way from claiming that they are controlled by a secret cartel.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
How do you know Federal Reserve Notes are fully accounted for?
Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Treasury, loaned to the Fed who sells them to the banks in exchange for reserve credits. The process whereby new notes are exchanged for old (which are then destroyed) is also designed to ensure that the old for new is exactly equal.

For the Fed (or some secret entity) to be able to circulate large quantities of Federal Reserve notes off the books they would have to be able to get their hands on large quantities of Treasury notes undetected or have a massive printing press capable of duplicating Treasury notes that are indistinguishable from the real thing.

This would be news of the century stuff that, if true, would be uncoverable by a junior reporting cadet - let alone experienced teams of reporting journalists. Of course, CT has it that the same cartel that controls the central banks also controls every aspect of the media (including the posts that appear in this forum).

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
And you can fabricate electronic money with the press of a keystroke. Are you suggesting that it would be impossible for the Federal Reserve to create money off the books, setting aside the fact that they already do create money on the books used to benefit *private* sellers of assets, and *private* borrowers? Isn't that problematic enough? The fact that the Fed's open market operations are not transparent means that there is essentially no limit to what they can do.
That was a quick sleight of hand you performed there. You mentioned "off the books" once but dedicated the rest of your paragraph to on book activities.

Yes I am suggesting that it is near impossible for the Fed to create money off the books. Accounting is such that every single transaction is zero sum (ie credits equally matched with debits). An asset or a liability can not appear out of nowhere. It has to be accounted for somehow. It is sometimes suggested that you should "look in the footnotes" of an accounting book if you want to discover accounting irregularities.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I disagree. I think it's important to arrest criminals, no matter how powerful or influential they may be, and shut down their institutions. If you do the former without the later, someone else will assume control of the institutions. If you do the latter without the former, then the same people will eventually reinstate the institutions.
If we can't convince people that the financial system is flawed then I fail to see how you are going to convince anybody to join you on your witch hunt.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 06:06 AM   #90
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
you would rather paint me as an irrational bigot. Why?
An antisemite, by which I mean that you have an aversion to Jews. I don't care about your theories as to the ethnic origin of the Jewish people, Semite or Ural-Altaic, I don't give a toss.
Quote:
The biographer Morton documented how Nathan Rothschild assumed control of the British consol market
Well here's something from Frederic MortonWP's biography,
Frederic Morton (October 5, 1924 – April 20, 2015) was an Austrian-born American writer. Born Fritz Mandelbaum in Vienna, Morton was the son of a blacksmith who specialized in forging (manufacturing) imperial medals. In the wake of the Anschluss of 1938, his father was arrested, but later released. The family fled to Britain in 1939 and migrated to New York City next year, when the senior Mandelbaum also changed the family name in order to be able to join an anti-Semitic labor union.
Be careful of such a source when examining the activities of the Rothschilds.
Quote:
when after receiving news of Wellington's victory he began to publicly sell consols, while having his agents privately buy them up at a discount over the resultant panic. The public believed that Napoleon had won the battle. It is then that they are alleged to have gained control over the BoE.
He made a killing in consols (government debt certificates) because he bought them before the UK victory in 1815 and sold them after. Who alleged he took over the B of E?
Quote:
Just as murder in war is legal, when I refer to "counterfeiting", I'm referring to what central banks legally do when they create money, because the results are the same, legal or not.
Utter nonsense.
Quote:
The point is that the ability to create money/credit ex nihilo is so powerful, and the fact that the institutions that have been tasked for doing this are opaque and not-transparent, that the burden of proof should be on YOU for why they should be allowed to exist.
I have already explained why the burden of justifying your CTs remains with you.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 08:26 AM   #91
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It means that the era of the great short by Nathan Rothschild ended a long time ago.
Can you answer my question? Do they make private loans, and buy private assets? The fact that they were "nationalized" means absolutely nothing, given the scope of the power involved. If you give me the power to create money, I will buy as many or all of the national politicians I need to run the institution to my benefit, period.

In fact, the Rothschilds were worth some $6 billion in 1850. If you use even a modest discount rate, the family is worth trillions today, beside the fact that they are capable of creating money out of thin air. Please prove that the "nationalization" of the Bank of England affected their fortune one iota, and/or cite the cause of their allegedly lost fortune to the likes of Jeff Bezos, an online retailer.

While you're at it, prove that the sherman anti-trust act, which "splintered" the Rockefeller's petroleum dynasty into pieces, actually dissolved the Rockefeller fortune as well.

Quote:

Yes, government owned central banks do the bidding (to some extent) of the banks just as much as the Fed does but that is a long way from claiming that they are controlled by a secret cartel.
The Fed is by *definition* a cartel. It's a group of regional banks that has the exclusive power to create money and credit ex nihilo. How is this not obvious. It doesn't need to be run by a secret cartel to be against the public interest given the facts that we already know. The fact that even just part of it is not fully transparent, should be enough to signal a problem to any reasonable human being.

Quote:

Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Treasury, loaned to the Fed who sells them to the banks in exchange for reserve credits. The process whereby new notes are exchanged for old (which are then destroyed) is also designed to ensure that the old for new is exactly equal.

For the Fed (or some secret entity) to be able to circulate large quantities of Federal Reserve notes off the books they would have to be able to get their hands on large quantities of Treasury notes undetected or have a massive printing press capable of duplicating Treasury notes that are indistinguishable from the real thing.
You mean, like a "restricted" intaglio printing press, used to create supernotes? Lol.

https://news.vice.com/article/north-...-have-vanished

Quote:

This would be news of the century stuff that, if true, would be uncoverable by a junior reporting cadet - let alone experienced teams of reporting journalists. Of course, CT has it that the same cartel that controls the central banks also controls every aspect of the media (including the posts that appear in this forum).
Are you accusing me of believing that the bankers are censoring this forum? Are you suggesting that this forum is an "aspect" of the media? Really?

I'm not advancing a CT though I am positive it exists as I've described it. I'm making an a priori argument for why fiat money, whether paper or electronic, should not exist, and claiming that it's impossible for you or anyone else to guarantee the sanctity of such money.

You prove to me that such a system isn't being abused, instead of asking me for evidence. The evidence is that a *********** hamburger here costs twice as much as it did a couple years ago, yet the minimum wage hasn't budged.

Quote:

That was a quick sleight of hand you performed there. You mentioned "off the books" once but dedicated the rest of your paragraph to on book activities.

Yes I am suggesting that it is near impossible for the Fed to create money off the books. Accounting is such that every single transaction is zero sum (ie credits equally matched with debits). An asset or a liability can not appear out of nowhere. It has to be accounted for somehow. It is sometimes suggested that you should "look in the footnotes" of an accounting book if you want to discover accounting irregularities.
I made it clear that it doesn't matter whether monetary debasement occurs on the books, off the books, legally, or illegally. The consequences are the same, which are, at best, a highly regressive form of taxation, and at worst, abject theft from the poor on a monumental scale. How is this not clear to you by now?

Quote:

If we can't convince people that the financial system is flawed then I fail to see how you are going to convince anybody to join you on your witch hunt.
Who is "we", and why does it go from "we" to "I"? In fact, I'm using a priori reasoning and human nature to point out the flaws that I believe guarantee the conspiracy. I don't want a "witch hunt", I want the money scam to end, and the criminals brought to justice.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 08:40 AM   #92
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
An antisemite, by which I mean that you have an aversion to Jews. I don't care about your theories as to the ethnic origin of the Jewish people, Semite or Ural-Altaic, I don't give a toss.
You are a sad combination of logic impaired, and dishonest. Prove that by linking the name Rothschild that I have an "aversion" to Jews. I also linked the Rockfellers, who are not Jewish. What does that mean, in your little mind?

Also, i don't own any theories as to the ethnic origin of Jewish people. I don't care.

Quote:

Well here's something from Frederic MortonWP's biography,
Frederic Morton (October 5, 1924 – April 20, 2015) was an Austrian-born American writer. Born Fritz Mandelbaum in Vienna, Morton was the son of a blacksmith who specialized in forging (manufacturing) imperial medals. In the wake of the Anschluss of 1938, his father was arrested, but later released. The family fled to Britain in 1939 and migrated to New York City next year, when the senior Mandelbaum also changed the family name in order to be able to join an anti-Semitic labor union.
Be careful of such a source when examining the activities of the Rothschilds.
Who wrote that about Morton? What does Morton's father have to do with Morton? Should we accuse you of the crimes and misdeeds of your father? And so what if they were both anti-semitic? Maybe they became anti-semitic after doing all of this research on the Rothschilds. If so, it would have been far more productive (and fair) to simply blame the Rothschild's rather than all jews, for fear of lunatics in the future summarily dismissing the facts in their biography with the horrible taint of anti-semitism!

Quote:

He made a killing in consols (government debt certificates) because he bought them before the UK victory in 1815 and sold them after. Who alleged he took over the B of E? Utter nonsense. I have already explained why the burden of justifying your CTs remains with you.
Not quite. His courier arrived even before the official British courier, giving him advanced notice of Wellington's victory. Using inside information, he publicly sold bonds to signal the public that Wellington had lost, while using agents to privately buy them at a huge discount - manipulating the consol market. He was perhaps one of the first insider traders in the world.

I'm not clear on how he obtained control of the Bank of England as a result, or if that is even true. It was mentioned in the documentary as an allegation. Certainly being able to manipulate and control the entire British bond market is extremely influential in and of itself.

No, I'm not an anti-semite. It really is about the money.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 09:19 AM   #93
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
@Tippit

Your insider trading consols story is dismissed here
A fantastic tale… and a complete myth.

As with many myths, it may have its roots in a real event. In 1814, a year before the battle of Waterloo, a group of men led by Lord Cochrane conspired to spread the rumour that Napoleon was dead. The men traded on this information, leading to some great profits… though not the legendary amounts that Nathan Rothschild was alleged to amass from a similar gambit. This became known as the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814, and ended in the conviction of Lord Cochrane for fraud.
That 1814 incident can be checked, and I will in due course.

ETA I've started checking. Here's the report on the Cochrane 1814 incident.

Last edited by Craig B; 16th August 2017 at 09:22 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 10:05 AM   #94
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
@Tippit

Your insider trading consols story is dismissed here[indent]A fantastic tale… and a complete myth.
Lol. Let's examine that chart linked in the article. The author claims that there was no precipitous drop after the battle on June 18th, 1815, which is true. However, note the quite precipitous drop from early 1814 through mid-to-late 1815, which documents a decline from about 70 to about 55, a 21.4% selloff. The British Empire was the equivalent then of the US Empire today. A decline of 21.4% in the US treasury market over slightly more than a year would be financial armageddon, resulting in the loss of trillions. The "Rothschild formula", which describes the financing of all sides of war for profit is, of course, attributed to the Rothschilds. Thus, they would presumably be capable of not only predicting outcomes but deciding them, even well in advance. I think that chart is entirely consistent with the alleged Rothschild manipulation of the British consol market, if not in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Waterloo, but in the months preceding and following. Case not dismissed. History, of course, is replete with liars, but that applies to all historians, including the ones that you are sympathetic with. Who knows what the actual truth is. One thing can be certain, the Rothschild wealth is legendary and unparalled in the world.

Since you take that mises.ca article to be the absolute truth on the matter, does that also mean you agree with the author's sentiment when he states this?

Quote:

It is unfortunate that a fictional story created by Nazis lives on until this day. The existential threat to the fabric of civilization presented by central banks is very real.(emphasis from *your* article, mine) Stories such as these only serve to distract from that. As the great H.L. Mencken warned us:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
I will assume based on the fact that you linked this article that you do agree, and have just been playing Devil's advocate this whole time. That is certainly as reasonable an assumption as you assuming me to be an anti-semite because I name-dropped the Rothschilds is. Glad to have you on board!
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton

Last edited by Tippit; 16th August 2017 at 10:07 AM.
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 10:40 AM   #95
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Can you answer my question?
..........

The Fed is by *definition* a cartel.
I did answer the question. Your claim that the BoE has been seized and run by the Rothchilds since the 19th century does not stack up.

Your rants are all over the place. Are you claiming that soulless global corporations are taking advantage of existing systems to extract as much wealth from the world as they can or is it your claim that a small bunch of uber-powerful individuals are doing it all?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 11:22 AM   #96
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
@Tippit

You're admitting that the Rothschild Waterloo insider dealing story isn't true, aren't you?

There was a decline in values of UK government bonds in 1814 to 1815 I imagine because war broke out again that year after a French capitulation the previous year. Nothing remarkable about that. But the insider story about the consols coup simply isn't true. Neither then is it true that Nathan Rothschild used the proceeds of this imaginary transaction to buy over the Bank of England. It's all complete nonsense, and can easily be shown to be such.

Last edited by Craig B; 16th August 2017 at 11:37 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 01:13 PM   #97
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I did answer the question. Your claim that the BoE has been seized and run by the Rothchilds since the 19th century does not stack up.
You didn't answer the question, as far as I could see. Does the BoE issue private loans and buy assets from private sellers? I think that's the third time.

Quote:

Your rants are all over the place. Are you claiming that soulless global corporations are taking advantage of existing systems to extract as much wealth from the world as they can or is it your claim that a small bunch of uber-powerful individuals are doing it all?
Lol. In what universe are these things mutually-exclusive? The bankers own and control all the equity through proxies like trusts and foundations. Ever seen this?

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

Of course, again, using endless fiat money to buy up all of the assets doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. We can forgive the New Scientist for that error.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 01:20 PM   #98
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
@Tippit

You're admitting that the Rothschild Waterloo insider dealing story isn't true, aren't you?
If the historical data used to generate that chart of British consol prices is correct, then yes, I agree that the specific story that claims that Rothschild shorted the consol market directly after Wellington's victory must be false. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't involved in the manipulation from early 1914 onward, which resulted in a 21% decline in bond prices for over a year and a half, until he decided to buy!

Do you agree with the author of the article that you submitted that, and I quote:

Quote:

The existential threat to the fabric of civilization presented by central banks is very real.
Since you posted the article, that would make you a "conspiracist", wouldn't it? That allegation holds as much water as the idea that because I linked the name Rothschild that I'm an "anti-semite".

Quote:

There was a decline in values of UK government bonds in 1814 to 1815 I imagine because war broke out again that year after a French capitulation the previous year. Nothing remarkable about that. But the insider story about the consols coup simply isn't true. Neither then is it true that Nathan Rothschild used the proceeds of this imaginary transaction to buy over the Bank of England. It's all complete nonsense, and can easily be shown to be such.
I'm pretty sure the Rothschild's legendary wealth, power, and influence, and the financing of all sides of modern wars is still intact, despite the fact that they would prefer myth to be their public relations.

By all means though, continue to apologize for them, and brand anyone who disagrees a bigot.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 01:24 PM   #99
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Of course, again, using endless fiat money to buy up all of the assets doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. We can forgive the New Scientist for that error.
The article says nothing about fiat money being used to buy up the world. What it does say is
One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 01:30 PM   #100
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
The article says nothing about fiat money being used to buy up the world. What it does say is
One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara.
The group wasn't attempting to analyze how the network came to own the assets, it was attempting to confirm the existence of the network itself, which it did successfully. The speculation of the likelihood of conspiracy by Sugihara of how it arose and it's intent, is just that, pure speculation.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 02:14 PM   #101
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
You didn't answer the question, as far as I could see. Does the BoE issue private loans and buy assets from private sellers? I think that's the third time.
OK, I don't know the precise nature of the activities of the BoE. If it is like the Fed then its primary activities would be buying government securities and lending money to banks. Whether it is also making cheap loans to the modern day Rothschilds I couldn't say. If it were then it would be via a network of intermediaries that only a trained forensic accountant could unravel.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 04:09 PM   #102
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
OK, I don't know the precise nature of the activities of the BoE. If it is like the Fed then its primary activities would be buying government securities and lending money to banks. Whether it is also making cheap loans to the modern day Rothschilds I couldn't say. If it were then it would be via a network of intermediaries that only a trained forensic accountant could unravel.
Thank you for attempting to answer the question. Here is a youtube video from the Bank of England which makes the answer clear (you can skip to 0:40 if you don't want to wait, or, if you're Craig B, you can ignore video evidence entirely, for some kooky reason).

Quantitative Easing - How It Works

As for the Rothschilds, I seriously doubt their central banks are lending them cheap money or buying their assets at a premium directly - they merely have to perform those services for the 737 banks and corporations that control 80% of the wealth in the network, which the Rothschilds (and a few other dynastic banking families) undoubtedly control themselves via proxies and agents.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact. There is enough historical evidence to prove that these families are astoundingly wealthy and influential, and not at all enough evidence to suggest that they've squandered it. In fact, the Rothschild's and Rockefeller's conspicuous absence from high ranking positions in the Forbes list is almost laughable, in my opinion, unless you truly believe people like Jeff Bezos and Carlos Slim are the wealthiest men in the world who - between the two of them, couldn't even buy a 50% stake in Apple Computer.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2017, 09:10 PM   #103
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Thank you for attempting to answer the question. Here is a youtube video from the Bank of England which makes the answer clear (you can skip to 0:40 if you don't want to wait, or, if you're Craig B, you can ignore video evidence entirely, for some kooky reason).
I don't see that the video proves that the BoE is making loans to private entities but it reminded me that I started a thread about the BoE buying corporate bonds last year. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=312408)
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 12:03 AM   #104
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't see that the video proves that the BoE is making loans to private entities but it reminded me that I started a thread about the BoE buying corporate bonds last year. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=312408)
FYI a central bank buying a corporate bond is making a loan to a private entity.

Did you watch the video and read the captions?

Quote:
"The bank purchases assets from private sector businesses, including insurance companies, pension funds, high-street banks, and non-financial firms."
It doesn't get much more explicit than that. In the next slide it says:

Quote:
"Most of the assets purchased are government bonds. There is a large market available, so the bank can buy substantial quantities of assets fairly quickly."
"Most" implies "not all of", which poses the question what are the other types of assets that the BoE is allowed to create money ex nihilo and subsidize. I certainly don't have a comprehensive list, but if it's anything like the Swiss National Bank, they can monetize stocks as well, even foreign stocks.

Even if they're expressly forbidden from purchasing certain specific assets, they can simply conjure up some money and loan it to a front corporation which will do it on their behalf, similar to how the Federal Reserve bailed out the AIG insurance company on behalf of Goldman Sachs, through Maiden Lane LLC II and III.

So we've established that there are few limits to what central banks can do. If you believe in free market capitalism, as I do, then clearly this system is antithetical. If a few select entities with the favor of whoever controls the central bank can never lose, then you no longer have capitalism, but something else entirely. Capitalism is about profit, and, just as importantly, loss. Fiat money renders the notion of "private ownership" almost completely meaningless, and thus capitalism itself on which the definition depends.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 12:28 AM   #105
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
If
Since you posted the article, that would make you a "conspiracist", wouldn't it? That allegation holds as much water as the idea that because I linked the name Rothschild that I'm an "anti-semite".

I'm pretty sure the Rothschild's legendary wealth, power, and influence, and the financing of all sides of modern wars is still intact, despite the fact that they would prefer myth to be their public relations.

By all means though, continue to apologize for them, and brand anyone who disagrees a bigot.
This is all classic CT nonsense. Your stories about how wars are really caused by secret Jew plutocrats, who also manufactured the communist revolutions and all manner of other things, because you're "pretty sure" of the fact, is as crazy as NASA having faked the moon landings or other rubbish of that kind. There is nothing that can be done about these delusions, so you'll have to be left in possession of them. After all, anyone who doesn't share your delusions must be an "apologist" for the secret Jewish world rulers, eh?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 12:33 AM   #106
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I don't see that the video proves that the BoE is making loans to private entities but it reminded me that I started a thread about the BoE buying corporate bonds last year. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=312408)
Great thread, by the way. I just re-read it. Pretty much everyone's posts were on point besides septic-pk's.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 12:40 AM   #107
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
FYI a central bank buying a corporate bond is making a loan to a private entity.
Only if it purchases the bond directly from the corporation. If it purchases the bond in the open market then the corporation benefits indirectly from higher bond prices (hence less interest) on future bond sales. I described this in the link I gave.

This may be a distinction without a difference but it is still a distinction.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
So we've established that there are few limits to what central banks can do.
I have never said that central banks can't make crony loans. However, even if they use creative accounting, these are still going to change the bottom line on the balance sheet. So the scale is limited. The BoE's planned purchase of corporate bonds amounts to about 2% of its assets.

Ideally the scope of the central bank should be limited to purchasing government securities only, borrowing cash for distribution to the banks and managing reserve accounts for banks. If checkable deposits were on a full reserve basis then the only way that a bank could make surplus loans would be to borrow from the central bank. This would place greater controls on the abuses that banks practise.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 05:46 AM   #108
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
That is what I would prefer, but that wouldn't work considering the same elites I mentioned have already bought up all of the precious metals and now suppress their price.


Outstanding. This is what happens when idealogues get it wrong, but are unwilling to accept it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...s&pollid=62124
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2017, 06:00 AM   #109
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
Great thread, by the way. I just re-read it. Pretty much everyone's posts were on point besides septic-pk's.
I particularly liked this post, which references your imaginary "free growth without inflation" assertion you first raised 5 (?) years ago. Still waiting on that response; I would have hoped someone of your amazing insight would be able to afford a new record to play to the punters at Club JREF.

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
Yeah I remember that one time, too. An absurdly-short 25-year (IIRC) period in 19th Century USA. When I pointed out the graph provided by your own source showed a fairly significant relationship between economic growth and increased inflation, you never responded. You never responded the second time you brought it up a few years later, either.
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2017, 03:38 PM   #110
Jerrymander
Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 227
Quote:
So you're claiming that the best way to engage in anti-semitism, is to disavow the idea that they're semites?
Trying to deny someone's heritage (which is what the "Jews are really Khazars" claim is) is a form of racism.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 08:15 AM   #111
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Only if it purchases the bond directly from the corporation. If it purchases the bond in the open market then the corporation benefits indirectly from higher bond prices (hence less interest) on future bond sales. I described this in the link I gave.

This may be a distinction without a difference but it is still a distinction.
It creates a bid which should not exist in a free market, thereby benefiting the seller (and existing holders) of the bonds by punishing savers and holders of dollars (or whichever fiat currency is in question).

Quote:

I have never said that central banks can't make crony loans. However, even if they use creative accounting, these are still going to change the bottom line on the balance sheet. So the scale is limited. The BoE's planned purchase of corporate bonds amounts to about 2% of its assets.
I don't see how you can make any such guarantees. We're at the mercy of whatever they feel like publishing.

Quote:

Ideally the scope of the central bank should be limited to purchasing government securities only, borrowing cash for distribution to the banks and managing reserve accounts for banks. If checkable deposits were on a full reserve basis then the only way that a bank could make surplus loans would be to borrow from the central bank. This would place greater controls on the abuses that banks practise.
I don't see how that's ideal at all. Let's revisit Thomas Edision:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/161...l-full-of-dirt

Quote:
"If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way."
Do you have any specific issue with what Edison said? Assuming you're in favor of fiat money, then the ideal situation is to abolish the quasi-private Federal Reserve System and allow the US Treasury to simply monetize its expenses.

If you don't think you can hold politicians accountable with this power of arbitrary unlimited taxation via the creation of money, then what makes you think you can hold unelected technocratic central bankers who will act for their own private benefit and those private interests they serve, accountable?
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 12:51 PM   #112
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
I don't see how that's ideal at all. Let's revisit Thomas Edision:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/161...l-full-of-dirt



Do you have any specific issue with what Edison said? Assuming you're in favor of fiat money, then the ideal situation is to abolish the quasi-private Federal Reserve System and allow the US Treasury to simply monetize its expenses.
Considering that central banks are either government owned or (in the case of the Fed) turn their profits over to the government, it is pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Originally Posted by Tippit View Post
If you don't think you can hold politicians accountable with this power of arbitrary unlimited taxation via the creation of money, then what makes you think you can hold unelected technocratic central bankers who will act for their own private benefit and those private interests they serve, accountable?
If a central bank can only purchase securities from the government then that takes away a lot of the scope for crony corruption. In fact, this aspect could be set up to work according to a fixed formula which would take corruption out of the picture altogether (crypto currencies work like this).

The other issue is whether central banks should be able to lend money to banks. The "corridor" system (not in use in the US but in other parts of the world) is basically a formula type system and can be made unmanipulable. Even the "cash" rate (the rate banks charge each other) can be part of the overall formula so essentially, the central bank could just be an open source computer program.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 03:50 PM   #113
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,512
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Considering that central banks are either government owned or (in the case of the Fed) turn their profits over to the government, it is pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other.
What does "profit" even mean in the context of an entity that can create unlimited money ex nihilo? What about the limitless profits that accrue to the sellers and borrowers that are counterparties to the central banks? Clearly the fact that the Federal Reserve can loan endless money and buy endless assets from private sellers without congressional appropriation is a big distinction between the quasi-private Fed and the US Treasury.

Quote:

If a central bank can only purchase securities from the government then that takes away a lot of the scope for crony corruption. In fact, this aspect could be set up to work according to a fixed formula which would take corruption out of the picture altogether (crypto currencies work like this).
That doesn't answer my question. Why do we need central banks at all? Can you comment specifically on Thomas Edison's comment that governments don't need to create bonds, when they can simply create bills? It's very difficult to get people to answer specific questions on this forum.

Quote:

The other issue is whether central banks should be able to lend money to banks. The "corridor" system (not in use in the US but in other parts of the world) is basically a formula type system and can be made unmanipulable. Even the "cash" rate (the rate banks charge each other) can be part of the overall formula so essentially, the central bank could just be an open source computer program.
It's not an issue in my mind. Why should any entity that can create unlimited amounts of money ex nihilo be allowed to make loans to private, for-profit banks, at all? As far as interbank loans, the banks can make those decisions themselves. The answer is no.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton

Last edited by Tippit; 21st August 2017 at 04:07 PM.
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st August 2017, 06:33 PM   #114
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 11,483
This thread has drifted far away from the question of worker owned and managed economies.

Most or your issues were discussed in Saggy's thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=321665). You should review that thread and raise your objections there.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2017, 02:03 PM   #115
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,929
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
It has been proposed in libertarian socialist and anarchist circles that industry and factories should be completely worker owned and any leaders of a company should be elected by them. Can it work? Could it eventually work in the future?
There are many examples of such companies. But such an ownership model doesn't really solve any tangible problems. Such a company behaves nearly identically with investor-owned companies.

For example, the two largest supermarket store chains in Finland are S Group (jointly owned by hundreds of thousands of customers, each of them with the same 50 EUR deposit), and the K Group (owned by larger investors). These two store chains control something like 80% of the daily necessities market in Finland -- and behave nearly identically, abusing their market position rather nastily indeed.

So the answer is: Yes it can work, but an ownership model does not turn sinners into saints, nor vice versa. I tell you a secret: workers are as human and as selfish as major investors.

Last edited by JJM 777; 26th August 2017 at 02:05 PM.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2017, 02:24 PM   #116
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
... I tell you a secret: workers are as human and as selfish as major investors.
That's not a secret; it's well known. But the point is that these workers are individually less powerful than major investors, and to gain influence they have to act collectively either as trade union members, political party members, or voters.

These roles are more compatible with democracy than is influence wielded by rich individuals. Also, where workers are acting collectively, individual human idiosyncrasies or failings are cancelled out by, or submerged in, the general interest that emerges from the collective enterprise.

That is the theory of the thing. It may be that there are countervailing effects that tend to negate these advantages of collective action. We have already seen a suggested one in the example of the sole-trading lemonade stall owner.

Can a collective replicate enterprises of that kind?
If it can't, who cares?
Or is that a symptom of a more general inadequacy of the model described in the first para above?
Perhaps we could discuss issues such as these.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2017, 03:12 PM   #117
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,081
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
There are many examples of such companies. But such an ownership model doesn't really solve any tangible problems. Such a company behaves nearly identically with investor-owned companies.

For example, the two largest supermarket store chains in Finland are S Group (jointly owned by hundreds of thousands of customers, each of them with the same 50 EUR deposit), and the K Group (owned by larger investors). These two store chains control something like 80% of the daily necessities market in Finland -- and behave nearly identically, abusing their market position rather nastily indeed.

So the answer is: Yes it can work, but an ownership model does not turn sinners into saints, nor vice versa. I tell you a secret: workers are as human and as selfish as major investors.
As support for that sort of braindead moralizing that passes for argument around here ("turning sinners into saints", "as selfish as major investors") you give 2 examples of companies which are explicitly not owned by their workers?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 26th August 2017 at 03:14 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2017, 09:33 PM   #118
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,100
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As support for that sort of braindead moralizing that passes for argument around here ("turning sinners into saints", "as selfish as major investors") you give 2 examples of companies which are explicitly not owned by their workers?
Your point, that the companies referred to are not in fact owned by their employees, is well made. One of them is stated to be owned jointly by customers owning an equal number of shares, so it illustrates the collectivist principle mentioned in my last post, rather than being workers control as such.

However, the "braindead moralising" (as you call it) is not so easily dismissed. One of the major errors of the early Bolshevik administration was to act as if moral as well as economic problems were solved by installing workers' control in place of bourgeois ownership. This led to gross misbehaviour by the Bolshevik regime, but it was excused on the principle that whether acts are morally justified or not is determined by the social class of the people who do them, and the assumption that the Bolsheviks were identical with the working class as a whole. These ideas were wrong, and it is worthwhile to point out why they were wrong.

ETA. This principle, expounded by Felix DzerzhinskyWP, is morally unsound.
Dzerzhinsky said: "We represent in ourselves organized terror—this must be said very clearly." and "[The Red Terror involves] the terrorization, arrests and extermination of enemies of the revolution on the basis of their class affiliation or of their pre-revolutionary roles.

Last edited by Craig B; 26th August 2017 at 09:50 PM. Reason: ETA
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2017, 03:06 PM   #119
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,929
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That's not a secret; it's well known.
It wasn't well known to Karl Marx.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
where workers are acting collectively, individual human idiosyncrasies or failings are cancelled out by, or submerged in, the general interest that emerges from the collective enterprise.
If the working class all humans formed a universal collective, which is managed with direct democracy, then individual interests would get cancelled out, and the collective would serve "general interest". But such collectives don't exist.

The collectives that do exist, be they labour unions or the kind of shop chains that I mentioned, serve the colletive interests of their members. There is an irreconcilable difference between that and "general interest". The labour union of medical doctors goes on strike if they don't get a 5 times higher salary than nurses. And so on. The massive (by local national standards) shop chain that I mentioned, acts in the interests of its 100,000 owners, the customers, by putting thumbscrews on farmers and producers of any product whatsoever, to bargain as low prices as possible. Milk farmers in Finland are literally living on poverty line, because the two massive shop chains have a commanding position in price negotiations with small producers. That the investor-owned shop chain does this, is predictable. But Marx didn't predict that also a working-class-owned company would act like a wolf against other working-class people -- the producers.

Homo homini lupus est. Marx understood that the Wolf of Wall Street is a wolf. But he failed to understand that workers are wolves too.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As support for that sort of braindead moralizing that passes for argument around here ("turning sinners into saints", "as selfish as major investors")
Hmm, if you want to suggest that morality does not exist at all, then it makes sense to be annoyed when someone makes any comment whatsoever regarding morality.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
you give 2 examples of companies which are explicitly not owned by their workers?
Owned by the working class, but not exactly by their workers.

If the said company were owned by its workers, which would be some 10,000 people instead of the current 100,000 customer-owners, then the company would behave even more selfishly, in the interests of an even smaller inner circle. Unless you are aware of some mechanism that would raise the morality of these 10,000 people above that of those 100,000 people.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
One of the major errors of the early Bolshevik administration was to act as if moral as well as economic problems were solved by installing workers' control in place of bourgeois ownership.
Marx taught that the bourgeoisie are morally corrupt, but the working class is morally noble, so all we need is a violent revolution to take power from the bourgeoisie. People believed that, and made violent revolutions. In came Stalin, Mao, the Kim of North Korea, and so on. What a disappointment awaited the people who believed in these revolutions.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
This principle, expounded by Felix DzerzhinskyWP, is morally unsound.
Careful when talking about morality here. Such strong content might offend some of our more sensitive readers.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2017, 04:38 PM   #120
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,114
The thing is, though, we're more and more operated by computers. Stock market transactions for example have less to do with some genius banker doing shrewd stuff, and more with a program doing it faster and more accurate than any human could. In fact when real humans do intervene, such as tweaking the figures until the computers said it was ok to give loans to broke people (which, yes, it happened,) the results are actually worse than when letting the computers do their job.

Planning the industry is not all that far behind, actually. E.g., if you're an oil company, you don't use smart people per se to figure out how much diesel to produce and how much gasoline and how much of all the other fractional products, you use an optimization algorithm that tells you in real time how to tweak your refineries.

Or I actually worked in programming logistics stuff. You'd be surprised what kind of things they do with computers these days. It's less and less about personal contacts and shrewd negotiations, and more about computers tracking supplies (down to it arriving in the exact order needed to stock the assembly line) and grading suppliers by reliability and availability and whatnot. In fact, when people tried to still bring in their personal golf-course relations and negotiation partners and whatnot, it was invariably worse than going with the computer grading and planning.

And then there's data mining, showing correlations that no human could do in any reasonable and competitive amount of time.

And for the scary part, now computers are starting to be able to LEARN. After about 40 years or so of AI being just smart people pulling dumb postulates out of the ass (e.g., that the best AI must use the tightest data compression, never mind that it can't retrieve it randomly fast enough) now people are starting to use Bayesian learning. And it works frighteningly well, actually. So even things we don't really know how to formalize in a traditional procedural program, they can just learn what the humans are doing.

So we're more and more run by computers anyway, regardless of who owns the factory, or who's negotiating with those farmers. You can replace the CEO or the whole personnel for that matter, and the programs will work just the same. Literally, you could probably replace every single manager and financial analyst in, say, the Deutsche Bank or Citi, and their computers will still do the same transations anyway.

It doesn't even matter if people are wolves or not. The programs will adapt accordingly.

So my take is: would collective ownership work in 1918? Nope, no chance. Would it work today? Maybe not completely yet, but we're getting there fast.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.