Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The UK banking system

A Dashing Blade said:
To help you along zArk, here's the OED definition of Fiat in its montary context

"3. attrib., as fiat-power; fiat-money, U.S. money (such as an inconvertible paper currency) which is made legal tender by a 'fiat' of the government, without having an intrinsic or promissory value equal to its nominal value."

So, fiat money is not a commodity.


Yeah, great, Fiat money that is a glorious I.O.U which again must pass through and be converted by the nations debt based economic structure.

I'll take a fiat down to the shops to pay for a bottle of milk shall i? dont be soft dashingblade.

Fiat money is make believe, just as capital is. A 'sign', nothing more. Value is detached from the nations economy and totally controlled by an elite few who determine it.

Playing with numbers.

This fiat money, is the result of the debt based national system seeking survival by expansion globally.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Third time zArk.
Do you agree that money is not a commodity?

Ahhh, i see your game DB.

let me clarify.

A nations legal tender, money1, is a commodity and exchange mechanism
Fiat *money*, money2, isnt legal tender inside a nation and is a supra-national I.O.U.

You think that because you play on the word 'Money', youare gonna confuse me?

silly you.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Third time zArk.
Do you agree that money is not a commodity?

you are a cheeky fuck. You havent even answered

why its good that *pounds sterling* is a commodity and an exchange mechanism?
 
zArk said:
. . .
I'll take a fiat down to the shops to pay for a bottle of milk shall i? dont be soft dashingblade.
. . .

You still don't understood what fiat money is do you?

Let's try the Wiki definition of money (apols for C&P but zArk either doesn't go and look at sources demonstrating his muppetness or doesn't understand them) . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

"Money" is any good or token used by a society as a medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account.

Trade without money more often than not is the direct bartering of one commodity for another. Bartering is often inefficient because it requires a coincidence of wants between traders. The emergence of some form of money is a natural market phenomenon observed repeatedly across civilisations and is not dependent on any central authority or government. Indeed, the division of labour in any but the most basic of forms cannot occur without it.

Commodity money was amongst the earliest forms of money to emerge. Under a commodity money system, the object used as money has inherent value. It is usually adopted to simplify transactions in a barter economy; thus it functions first as a medium of exchange. It quickly begins functioning as a store of value, since holders of perishable goods can easily convert them into durable money. In modern economies, commodity money has also been used as a unit of account. Gold-backed currency notes are a common derivative form of commodity money.

Fiat money is a relatively modern invention. A central authority (government) creates a new money object that has negligible inherent value. The widespread acceptance of fiat money is most frequently enhanced by the central authority mandating the money's acceptance under penalty of law and demanding this money in payment of taxes or tribute. At various times in history government issued promissory notes have later become fiat currencies (e.g. US Dollar) and fiat currencies have gone on to become a form of commodity currency (e.g.Swiss Dinar)."


So, yes, you do go down the shops and pay for a pint of milk with fiat money.

So, fourth time now zARk, I've given you citations from the Oxford English Dictionary and Wiki, do you accept that money is not a commodity?
 
A Dashing Blade said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

"Money" is any good or token used by a society as a medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account.

So, yes, you do go down the shops and pay for a pint of milk with fiat money.

So, fourth time now zARk, I've given you citations from the Oxford English Dictionary and Wiki, do you accept that money is not a commodity?

I have answered that question above.

If i was expressing something of general opinion then i am sure wiki would clearly validate the facts.

Why cannot you accept that the BoE is a factory, thus destroys Marx's Capital claims, the foundations of modern sociology and uproots sociology /culture/ psychoanalysis?
 
zArk said:
Fiat *money*, money2, isnt legal tender inside a nation and is a supra-national I.O.U.

Personally I'd call that a note, bill or bond depending on it's structure and maturity.

So, reading between the lines of your inane drivel and in an attempt to bring some clarity to the debate, you're saying that Gov Bonds are a type of "fiat money" and a £5 note is "commodity money"?
 
zArk said:
I have answered that question above.

Where? I'm looking for a simple, one-sylable answer consisting of either the word "Yes" or "No"

Fourth time zArk.
Do you agree that money is not a commodity?
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Where? I'm looking for a simple, one-sylable answer consisting of either the word "Yes" or "No"

Fourth time zArk.
Do you agree that money is not a commodity?

which money?

pounds stirling[or any other national legal tender] or fiat money?

i have answered above.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Personally I'd call that a note, bill or bond depending on it's structure and maturity.

So, reading between the lines of your inane drivel and in an attempt to bring some clarity to the debate, you're saying that Gov Bonds are a type of "fiat money" and a £5 note is "commodity money"?

oh no i aint. Your question is blathering non-sense like your grip upon how the economic structure affects identity, psycho-analysis, society, philosophy and especially marxist theories.

£5 note is a commodity and an exchange mechanism -- the term money is a mild distraction.

I am not saying Gov Bonds are a type of fiat money.
 
Just give it up. My argument flows through philosophical, social, economic, cultural, psychoanaltical discources smoothly.
 
ahh psychoanalyst appears, the one who knows fuck all about rockall,

wait wait, claims he knows everything [hence the name] but never actually produces anything of substance. Just question after question, then switches to mild abuse, then to dismissal, then to i know everything - you know nothing, then to question.

full of shit and a waste of time in this thread.
 
zArk said:
ahh psychoanalyst appears, the one who knows fuck all about rockall,

wait wait, claims he knows everything [hence the name] but never actually produces anything of substance. Just question after question, then switches to mild abuse, then to dismissal, then to i know everything - you know nothing, then to question.

full of shit and a waste of time in this thread.


oh the irony
 
zArk said:
Why cannot you accept that the BoE is a factory, thus destroys Marx's Capital claims, the foundations of modern sociology and uproots sociology /culture/ psychoanalysis?

Yes, but you have to cliam that, don't you?

You have to posit a paradigm shift to a state where all the old certainties are dead, otherwise your claims make no sense (except of course to you and your fellow "truthspeakers").

Perhaps if you moved beyond regurgitating the work of others and formulated your own theses (with supporting evidence of course) you'd have more credibility, but as it is you're just churning out the same set-piece rhetoric that you can find in any issue of "Nexus".
 
ViolentPanda said:
Yes, but you have to cliam that, don't you?

no, i dont.

The reasoning is correct though.

ViolentPanda said:
Perhaps if you moved beyond regurgitating the work of others

All the work of *others* (marx, hegal, fraud, lacan, baudrillard, haraway, deleuze, foucault, said, all of them) is correct, just that i am repositioning it because the fact that 'pounds sterling' within the debt based economic system demands it.

I dont say Marx was wrong, just misleading through his negation of the fact that the Bank of England [or any other National Bank] is a factory with a produce.

ViolentPanda said:
but as it is you're just churning out the same set-piece rhetoric that you can find in any issue of "Nexus".

nope, it is very difficult to find any discussion of

"the science of co-incidence"

I have a basis and support using established and respected authors.

ViolentPanda said:
You have to posit a paradigm shift to a state where all the old certainties are dead

i claim nothing of the sort. There is no paradigm shift, instead i position my argument outside the generally accepted paradigm that Capital exists.

ViolentPanda said:
except of course to you and your fellow "truthspeakers"

unfortunately i think you have no idea of the purpose of my argument and probably have the general ideas of 'control of the banking industry', 'rothschilds' etc etc revolving about your head.
I am no where near those ideas, i do not even accept there is control of the banking industry. The Bank is a living entity, self-sustaining and self-evolving.

"the science of co-incidence" uses marx, foucault, baudrillard, haraway, well any author i wish because they all support my argument following the initial point about the Bank being a factory.

Identity --- my area of specialism
 
zArk said:
no, i dont.

The reasoning is correct though.



All the work of *others* (marx, hegal, fraud, lacan, baudrillard, haraway, deleuze, foucault, said, all of them) is correct, just that i am repositioning it because the fact that 'pounds sterling' within the debt based economic system demands it.

I dont say Marx was wrong, just misleading through his negation of the fact that the Bank of England [or any other National Bank] is a factory with a produce.



nope, it is very difficult to find any discussion of

"the science of co-incidence"

I have a basis and support using established and respected authors.



i claim nothing of the sort. There is no paradigm shift, instead i position my argument outside the generally accepted paradigm that Capital exists.



unfortunately i think you have no idea of the purpose of my argument and probably have the general ideas of 'control of the banking industry', 'rothschilds' etc etc revolving about your head.
I am no where near those ideas, i do not even accept there is control of the banking industry. The Bank is a living entity, self-sustaining and self-evolving.

"the science of co-incidence" uses marx, foucault, baudrillard, haraway, well any author i wish because they all support my argument following the initial point about the Bank being a factory.

Identity --- my area of specialism

So many assumptions on your part.

So little solidity.

What's it like, swimming in the post-modern pond, knowing you're going to drown in your own subjectivity? :)
 
ViolentPanda said:
So many assumptions on your part.

So little solidity.

What's it like, swimming in the post-modern pond, knowing you're going to drown in your own subjectivity? :)

what is the post-modern pond?

what is subjectivity?

please explain
 
circular_argument.jpgmid.jpg
 
how very apt

the self-sustaining system consumes and attempts to deny exposure of itself.

the internalised system makes one the protector and the stalwart against its own death.
 
9/11 Simulation drills by NORAD/FAA/Pentgaon – ‘real’ attack on USA
7/7 Simulation exercise by VISOR/London Underground – ‘real’ attack on UK

These co-incidents must be analysed and explained. It is not good enough in the age of reason to dismiss them as just 'co-incidences' without attempting to explain what that means.
I am going to explain how these co-incidences occur and provide a political, sociological and philosophical reasoning for 'co-incidence'.

Traditional thinking of agency and self-determination doesnt explain co-incidence, it cannot. Traditional thinking has the problematic that at its beginnings identity and society is formed through an economic structure that allows power and control to flourish. The beginnings of modern sociology can be found in the works of Descart when he postulated the mind/body separation. Marx took this philosophical analysis and produced a body of work that has at its basis Capital. Through these works post- modern sociology, psychoanalysis, cultural studies, politics of identity emerged and have produced work that are partial explanations of how society and culture work.
The science of Co-incidence doesnt figure at all within these texts.
I propose that specific co-incidences can be scientifically anaylsed but it requires a re-evaluation of the basis of modern sociological thinking.

A re-evaluation of the base of current analytical thinking is required, namely identifying the basis of society being 'sign value' thus defragmenting the entire philosophical and social theory plethera which is under the impression that it has a solid base.

Why sign value?

beginning with Capital - this states;

The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,”[1] its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.

The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital.

The first distinction we notice between money that is money only, and money that is capital, is nothing more than a difference in their form of circulation.

The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C-M-C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the change of the money back again into commodities
Marx -Capital

Yet, the debt based Banking system is a factory producing a commodity. Marx is fundamentally misleading the entire thread of sociology, cultural studies and psychoanalysis and indicates this with the simple statement;

But we have no need to refer to the origin of capital in order to discover that the first form of appearance of capital is money

I assert that the origin of Capital is a fraud, in that i am saying that money = commodity, therefore the circulation of commodities is;

C/M----C/M---C/M

Commodity and money are co-inciding and from this point a re-working of values, ethics, morals, power and control is very enlightening. The entire basis for the Marxist strand of modern sociology et al. is 'symbolic'. It has no root in the real. Reality, through economics in its present form, is entirely symbolic and everything produced through it is actually more correct to describe as 'Re-productions'.

Lacan – mirror phase, is now not the recognition of the child as a separate entity in the world but instead :-

the recognition of the childs simulacrae, the simulation re-producing itself as more than the real.

The image, the mirror image, is the symbolic (simulation). It is not a reflection of the child, it is an entirely separate thing to the child.

From this point onwards Lacan is entirely available to describe the simulation from a psycho-analytical perspective as the anaylsis can be conducted from outside the simulation.

Derrida – exactly the same principle involved. Replace the underpinning with ‘sign value’ and the system de-fragments.

I am not saying this is the answer to everything, but i am saying that a real example of economics (that money isnt real, it is based through sign value) re-invigorates social theory and philosophy away from the pitfalls of subjectivity and re-invests subjectivity into the simulation.

The Gordian Knot of subjectivity doesnt need to be dissimulated or de-fragmented [as post-modern thinking attempts], it will be used on itself. Folding in on itself as it attempts to re-produce the real during every attack on its validity.

With an economy based upon money as an exchange mechanism solely, sign value remains yet the gordian knot is not containing us. We have been given an opportunity to reject the mirror phase and although it exists as a spectacle its seduction is powerless.


The effects of the Debt Based Economy

The Global economy after WW2 has resulted in a continuing headache for the US. Money flying out of the country to buy middle eastern oil while the Middle east buy basically nothing from the US.
Ok ok Saudi Arabia have macDonalds in their country, they sell oil to US—Iran and Iraq dont have maccades in their country, basically no US companies pre 2003 and they sell oil to the US.
Thomas Barnet (‘Pentagons New Map’) who is buddy buddy with Donald Rumsfeld (post 9/11) set forth an entire world plan to regain US economic dominance in the world.

The US before the 9/11 event was up shit creek. Overspent on military, big time.
1999- 2000 $2.6 trillion went ‘missing’ from the pentagon—well, not missing as such, just lost into a computer system and still to this day has not emerged. See cynthia mckinney

To say that the US pre-9/11 was in a bit of pickle would be a gross under-estimation.

The US nation is transfixed by “the war on terror” and has no time to watch the money,

(Michael) Ruppert describes how the US Treasury and Federal Reserve System have used 911 as a pretext to just continue the game but at a much more expensive level

9/11 was the most sublime event ever seen by the world. An event that was the greatest distraction ever conceived. It was a massive bank robbery. The gold in the towers (as reported) did not exist—yeah yeah i know the official reports state that there was hundreds of billions of dollars of gold in the towers but only $200 million was ever accounted for . This was a robbery of gold that didnt exist. How can you rob non-existant gold? baffling eh? well so is the banking system. Distraction distraction distraction.

The debt based economy is completely outta control and the politicians are desparately trying to control this entity and are at breaking point. This is why control and power are being expanded upon the public.

“The books would balance if only the public would do exactly what we say”

Make no mistake, this is exactly the thinking behind these politicians.
The WTO, IMF and World Bank are all thinking the same thing. Social architects locked into the paradigm taught to them that exchange value and use value are ‘real’ and that Marxist theories are correct.
The system has totally subsumed them.

“The economy is paramount and will offer prosperity and equality for all ---- if you just do what we say”

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests." - Rothschild Brothers of London communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863

These crazy social architects are planning a perfect world, one in which economic instability is a thing of the past and cannot see outside the perfect hermaneutic circle that is their world and their thinking. The system is acting through them. The system, the symbolic, mirror phase, has been totally accepted by these social architects. The symbolic world is completely internalised and the system is acting through them.

Throughout all wars, economic depressions, political changes who remains the same, always. Who never gets involved, killed, affected, effected? The people who are beyond the system.
The Monarchy of the World.
They don’t control it or meddle with it, they don’t need to. It functions for itself.

So, in effect, the politicians are honestly acting in the best interests of the State. US administration committing 9/11 was self-defense against a financial situation that is ready to engulf the nation and the UK is in similar circumstances -- hence the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world [see Thomas Barnetts Pentagons New Map]. All these supposed governmental nutters and liars are doing everything in their power to help their respected country and even help other countries but they will not admit that the Economic System is fucked and is fucking us.

9/11 was carried out by people who were trying to preserve the USA through economics.
The co-incidences of simulated drills and the event is a perfect example of the 'system' and the internalised system working together.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away?

I doubt it.

It appears that "ZaRk" is in search of validation, and want's it's mish-mash (which I suspect "ZaRk" would spuriously claim to be "synthesis") of ideas, suspicions and relativism to be "accepted". Personally I find "pick 'n' mix" social science as offensive as I find any attempt at "blagging".

I mean we could all pretend to have unique theories, concepts and analyses, and invent our own framework in which these positions make sense, but most people are content to explain themselves and their ideas through reference to tools that are already available, rather than evolving a new (pseudo)science to do so.

But hey, perhaps ZaRk is right, in which case it's a crying shame that ZaRk is as inarticulate when it comes to explaining ideas to mere mortals as every single other "visionary" who makes these sorts of claims.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I mean we could all pretend to have unique theories, concepts and analyses, and invent our own framework in which these positions make sense,

go ahead then. please..

the floor is yours.
 
ViolentPanda said:
But hey, perhaps ZaRk is right, in which case it's a crying shame that ZaRk is as inarticulate when it comes to explaining ideas to mere mortals as every single other "visionary" who makes these sorts of claims.

You say it as if being human means you are weak and powerless. Thats just like..your opinion...maaan ;)
 
ViolentPanda said:
But hey, perhaps ZaRk is right, in which case it's a crying shame that ZaRk is as inarticulate when it comes to explaining ideas to mere mortals as every single other "visionary" who makes these sorts of claims.

you mean because i have spent years studying, reading and arguing and then submit a theory which [i am confident in saying] is quite good?

oooo shame on me for putting my studies to good use. Listening to lecturers and professors, gaining knowledge and then thinking for myself.

oh no. Now i am a visionary you say.

No-one, except Phil, has explained how

money being a commodity

affects Marxist theories and futher how that affects sociology in general, cultural studies and psychoanalysis.
 
To be honest, from what I've read (not all of it), I think zArk has somewhat got a good point. I've been arguing for years (without the education to back it), that the monetary system is a lie, and in fact we probably could progress a whole lot faster and better without it. Although, being mere mortals with different levels of evolutionary disciplines it would be hard to control us without it. The sheer mass of humans living on this planet is frightening and the larger the mass the harder it is to collectively control. The whole God thing worked for a few centuries but as we progressed its effects wore out, and so came out rules/laws... and then money.. obviously all three stand in place today and in some countries where progress is not so apparent the influence of god in their lives stands more rigid than it does in the somewhat "civilized" nations.

To be very honest the way forward is to take many steps back - I stand by that full heartedly.
 
with regard to my writing about the 911 event and how this is integral to the banking system;

How, in fact, the 911 event was a giant bank robbery in order to balance the financial books (nationally and internationally) and that the collapsing towers were a major distraction.

this guy Richard Andrew Groves lays it out
 
zArk said:
How, in fact, the 911 event was a giant bank robbery in order to balance the financial books (nationally and internationally) and that the collapsing towers were a major distraction
You really are a fucking fruitloop :D
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
You really are a fucking fruitloop :D

heh -- why not read 'michael rupperts' Crossing the Rubicon or Peter Dale Scotts - Drugs, Oil, War and listen to the above posted mp3 by Andrew Groves.

Plus GNN's Aftermath Video

I think you will find that 'fruitloops' are everywhere with a strong grasp of US foreign policy, us economic policy and the resulting 911 event.

No-one disputes that the War in Iraq and Afghanistan was an oil and heroin concern. Plus with Thomas Barnetts 'Pentagons New Map' (oh another book/film you can learn from) economics weighs heavy in pentagon circles.

I have solid references and historical evidence to come to my conclusion what have you got that can refute my claims?
 
Back
Top Bottom