Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The UK banking system

White Lotus said:
So, we're all owned by the World Bank. But money is an illusion .... ? :confused:
:D

Look at everything around us; technology, business, clothing, food

all produced through the economy.
If the economy is fake at its core, where does that leave the things it produced?

Hegal, Descarts, Marx, fields of sociology, psycho-analysis all emerge from the view point of 'use value'. Marx says 'exchange value' and 'use value'.
These fields of thought have sign value as their base but explain that it is use value.

When i say that capitalism, communism, socialism are fake, i dont mean they dont exist, instead i saying that they are created through a system that has nothing solid or real as its support.

The term 'illusion' indicates these systems of thought are based upon myth.
 
I rarely meet people so totally ignorant of even the most basic economic principles ZaRK, so congratulations. Capitalism is unstable you say. Nobody's ever said that before. Give yourself a pat on the back.
 
slaar said:
I rarely meet people so totally ignorant of even the most basic economic principles ZaRK, so congratulations. Capitalism is unstable you say. Nobody's ever said that before. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Give the man cedit for his "stickability" & belief in his own bullshit. If flogging a dead horse was an olympic event we would have a gold medal prospect.
 
zArk said:
Look at everything around us; technology, business, clothing, food

all produced through the economy.
If the economy is fake at its core, where does that leave the things it produced?

Hegal, Descarts, Marx, fields of sociology, psycho-analysis all emerge from the view point of 'use value'. Marx says 'exchange value' and 'use value'.
These fields of thought have sign value as their base but explain that it is use value.

When i say that capitalism, communism, socialism are fake, i dont mean they dont exist, instead i saying that they are created through a system that has nothing solid or real as its support.

The term 'illusion' indicates these systems of thought are based upon myth.


you mean my clothes are imaginary? Damn!

*covers nakedness and blushes*
 
After delivering his monthly report to Congress Nov. 3, 2005, [alan] Greenspan spent a few moments answering reporters’ questions. He then excused himself, presumably to go to the bathroom. By the time he returned, all but one reporter had left the area. Appearing as though he was only holding a pen and notepad, the reporter asked Greenspan if he thought his replacement Ben Bernanke was adequately prepared to take control of the world’s largest economic system. The camera in the BBC reporter’s tie clip reportedly caught the following comment from the world’s most powerful international banker: "It’s all going to collapse and I can’t wait." He then walked away.


everything i have stated about the Bank of England and World Banking is fact and indisputable.

my explanation on how this impacts upon identity, culture and society is, of course, up for argument and argument that i wish to engage in.

if you are unsure on my former sentence please take advantage of watching these three documentaries;

Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve -
http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3395578

Monopoly Men
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/534439/Phenomenon_Monopoly_Men_Excellent

Money masters
http://ts.searching.com/torrent/534...al_Bankers_Gained_Control_of_America_must_see

all are torrents.

( i have on my server the money masters as a compressed version only 80mb.. but i cant afford the bandwidth at the moment)
 
Global Economic Collapse
Al Martin of almartinraw.com has written an article about an interview on CNBC with the renowned funds manager Julian Robertson. Julian Robertson formerly ran Tiger Management, the world's largest hedge fund. Al Martin says the interview took place on the 24th of May 2004.

Al Martin said "‘Never Been Wrong’ Robertson. He has predicted every economic cycle, every debacle, every bull market, and every bear market. Of course, he’s a very old man now. But his reputation on the Street is like nothing you could imagine. When the segment of his interview was through, his comments alone took the Dow Jones down 50 points. Just on his comments alone. That’s how powerful this man’s reputation is."

Al Martin quotes Julian Robertson talking about a coming global economic collapse he predicts.
 
DOA said:
. . . .
Al Martin said "‘Never Been Wrong’ Robertson. He has predicted every economic cycle, every debacle, every bull market, and every bear market.
. . . .
No he hasn't. He totally misread the tech bubble (as did Soros) and did his nuts in US Treasuries in the mid 90's

DOA said:
But his reputation on the Street is like nothing you could imagine. When the segment of his interview was through, his comments alone took the Dow Jones down 50 points. Just on his comments alone. That’s how powerful this man’s reputation is."

Bollox.
He was a very good money manager in the 80's and early 90's. He's well known. That's all.

Ahhh, DOA : another 9/11 theorist :rolleyes:
 
The surest sign that a fund manager is about to begin making bad judgements is when they are talked about as making great decisions. There's a simple reason for this, and it's called Galton's Principle of Regression to the Mean. There's so many fund managers, and economic and business variables so difficult to forecast, that some have to get lucky for a while, especially when allied with some genuine skill but it'll all fall at some stage on an individual basis.

Possibly the greatest economist of the last century, John Maynard Keynes, has some words of wisdom for anyone predicting an imminent collapse:
JMK said:
The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent
As for that "reported" quote by Greenspan, you're an absolute loonspud ZaRK. Off the rails. You probably need some professional help in fact.
 
Look mum, it's a high-tech fruitlloop with google and everything.
fruitloop_small.jpg
 
The corpoaration called "The Bank of England" doesnt have to answer to anyone.
It has no ethical or moral principles, its only function is to make money.

It doesnt care about you.

Dont you get it? When applying policy it doesnt worry about you, your house, your family it is only concerned with making money. That is its core fundamental.

If making money means you starving or being houseless, it doesnt care. It isnt answerable to you.

You best wake-the-fuck-up.

Do you believe that i am saying these things to somehow make your life worse? Your life is getting worse everyday and you must approach the reason for this.

Havent you wondered why property damage doesnt result in convictions? When someone damages your property, the cops catch them and then for some reason the criminal isnt convicted for criminal damage, dont you wonder why?
Its because that property is not yours. Plain and simple. You dont own it, therefore the law will not convict agaiinst the criminal.
Its that simple.
Instead the real owners say that the criminal must be entered into the criminal justice system;
(tagged liked dogs and will be used as slaves to keep the economy going [read the Going Straight document http://www.cdf.org.uk/pooled/articles/BF_NEWSART/view.asp?Q=BF_NEWSART_130577 ]

then the owners promote their insurance policies which will collapse.

The law is not failing the public, the law is functioning quite correctly it is just that the public are unaware that they own nothing!

When kids smash up a house, witnessed by neighbours, the cops come along and say they will not arrest the kids, even though there are witness' to the crime. (Liverpool 3rd Februrary 20006 - witnessed ) WHY? The cops know the law, you cannot convict someone of property damage if the owner says dont convict. The cops want to arrest them, their chief supa dupa says dont do it, you will be sacked if you do. The [perceived] house owner was screaming arrest them, but she doesnt understand that she doesnt own that house.

Do you understand? It is clear, open and in plain view.
 
zArk said:
You best wake-the-fuck-up.
Without agreeing with any of the nonsense you're spouting, what do you expect people to do when they 'wake-the-fuck-up' to the lizard infested evil private coporation that is the bank of england?
 
zArk said:
Havent you wondered why property damage doesnt result in convictions? When someone damages your property, the cops catch them and then for some reason the criminal isnt convicted for criminal damage, dont you wonder why?
Its because that property is not yours. Plain and simple. You dont own it, therefore the law will not convict agaiinst the criminal.
Its that simple.

*chortles*
you <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->reality
 
fractionMan said:
*chortles*
you <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->reality

exactly.

why dont you define reality for me?
 
fractionMan said:
Without agreeing with any of the nonsense you're spouting, what do you expect people to do when they 'wake-the-fuck-up' to the lizard infested evil private coporation that is the bank of england?

mr fraction, i have already spoken about the 'lizard' phenomenon in previous pages.

I suggest you go back to the start of the thread, follow the arguments and read what i said.

thanks
 
zArk said:
mr fraction, i have already spoken about the 'lizard' phenomenon in previous pages.

I suggest you go back to the start of the thread, follow the arguments and read what i said.

thanks
I've read what you've said and it's still rubbish. How about I re-word that for you?

Without agreeing with any of the nonsense you're spouting, what do you expect people to do when they 'wake-the-fuck-up'?
 
fractionMan said:
I've read what you've said and it's still rubbish. How about I re-word that for you?

Without agreeing with any of the nonsense you're spouting, what do you expect people to do when they 'wake-the-fuck-up'?


define Reality please
 
fractionMan said:
What's that got to do with what do you expect people to do when they 'wake-the-fuck-up'?

are you claiming no responsibility for typing

zArk <------------------------------------------------> reality

???

You may find flippant comments like that fun and playful, but since this thread was plunged into theory/philosophy/history please define

"reality"
 
zArk said:
are you claiming no responsibility for typing

zArk <------------------------------------------------> reality

???

You may find flippant comments like that fun and playful, but since this thread was plunged into theory/philosophy/history please define

"reality"
Yes, I typed that, but it has no relevance to the question at hand.

I'll type it again, in case you missed it the first two times.

Without agreeing with any of the nonsense you're spouting, what do you expect people to do when they 'wake-the-fuck-up'?

Answer me that and perhaps I'll start another thread on the definition of reality. After all, it's another topic and deserves a thread of its own.
 
zArk said:
. . .
Do you believe that i am saying these things to somehow make your life worse?
. . .

Quite the contrary, what you are saying has had me in hysterical fits of laughter since your original post. :D
 
No no you asked;

Without agreeing with any of the nonsense you're spouting, what do you expect people to do when they 'wake-the-fuck-up' to the lizard infested evil private coporation that is the bank of england?

Nothing to do with me. I am not expecting, presuming or advising anyone to do anything.

It shows that your perception of anyone critising the BoE is schewed by using ideas such as lizards.

What would i suggest as an alternative? A publicly owned banking system, so that the treasurery is actually the UK itself and not a compartmentalised area for private use.

now,

reality?
 
The corpoaration called "The Bank of England" doesnt have to answer to anyone.
It has no ethical or moral principles, its only function is to make money.

It doesnt care about you.

Dont you get it? When applying policy it doesnt worry about you, your house, your family it is only concerned with making money. That is its core fundamental.

If making money means you starving or being houseless, it doesnt care. It isnt answerable to you.

You best wake-the-fuck-up.

Do you believe that i am saying these things to somehow make your life worse? Your life is getting worse everyday and you must approach the reason for this.

Havent you wondered why property damage doesnt result in convictions? When someone damages your property, the cops catch them and then for some reason the criminal isnt convicted for criminal damage, dont you wonder why?
Its because that property is not yours. Plain and simple. You dont own it, therefore the law will not convict agaiinst the criminal.
Its that simple.
Instead the real owners say that the criminal must be entered into the criminal justice system;
(tagged liked dogs and will be used as slaves to keep the economy going [read the Going Straight document http://www.cdf.org.uk/pooled/articl..._NEWSART_130577 ]

then the owners promote their insurance policies which will collapse.

The law is not failing the public, the law is functioning quite correctly it is just that the public are unaware that they own nothing!

When kids smash up a house, witnessed by neighbours, the cops come along and say they will not arrest the kids, even though there are witness' to the crime. (Liverpool 3rd Februrary 20006 - witnessed ) WHY? The cops know the law, you cannot convict someone of property damage if the owner says dont convict. The cops want to arrest them, their chief supa dupa says dont do it, you will be sacked if you do. The [perceived] house owner was screaming arrest them, but she doesnt understand that she doesnt own that house.

Do you understand? It is clear, open and in plain view.
 
zArk said:
. . .
The corpoaration called "The Bank of England" doesnt have to answer to anyone.
It has no ethical or moral principles, its only function is to make money.
. . .
And there was me thinking that the BoE's role was to set interest rates in order to accommodate the Chancellors policy on infaltion as per the Bank Of England Act 1998

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/1998act.pdf
(I would, in particular, direct you to Part II on page 6 headed "Monetary Policy, Role of the Bank")

with accountability etc assigned as per the the "Memorandum of Understanding between HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA 1997"

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/mou.pdf

Never let facts get in the way of a good story zArk :rolleyes:

Edited to add:
Btw zArk, http://www.cdf.org.uk/pooled/articl..._NEWSART_130577 cannot be found. The page you are looking for does not exist. It may have been removed or had its name changed.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
And there was me thinking that the BoE's role was to set interest rates in order to accommodate the Chancellors policy on infaltion as per the Bank Of England Act 1998

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/1998act.pdf
(I would, in particular, direct you to Part II on page 6 headed "Monetary Policy, Role of the Bank")

with accountability etc assigned as per the the "Memorandum of Understanding between HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA 1997"

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/mou.pdf

Never let facts get in the way of a good story zArk :rolleyes:

Edited to add:
Btw zArk, http://www.cdf.org.uk/pooled/articl..._NEWSART_130577 cannot be found. The page you are looking for does not exist. It may have been removed or had its name changed.

first the 'Going Straight' document

http://www.cdf.org.uk/pooled/articles/BF_NEWSART/view.asp?Q=BF_NEWSART_130577

WORKING

Monetary policy: responsibility to stability. Thats it.

£1.5 trillion in debt <--- nice stability.

Sale of UK Gold reserves;

Conducted by the Bank of England and sold to who they specified. <--- nice

(1) There shall be a committee of the Bank, to be known as the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, which shall have responsibility within the Bank for formulating monetary policy.

great, so the corporation sets its own policy.

The entire document is with regard to the Treasurary being answerable to the Bank of England.

Oh and about the minutes of the meetings
section 15, sub 2, page 8
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to minutes of any proceedings relating to –
(a) a decision to intervene in financial markets, or
(b) a decision about the publication of a decision to intervene in financial markets,


oh right! so the bank tells you everything except decisions to intervene in financial matters?????? what else does the Bank do?

it is so clear that this document is a protection policy under the guise of openess.

or how about section 15, sub 5, page 8
Publication under this section shall be in such manner as the Bank thinks fit

so i can stand by my statement, the BoE is not accountable to anyone.
 
A Dashing Blade said:
Hats off to zArk for starting the most viewed thread in theory/philosophy/history!
:)


it didn't start here, it was thrown here to be hidden by the pro establishment censors

they would have binned it but then the censorship would have been too obvious

(edited to add an extra "o" to "too" before the spelling fascists circle).
 
Back
Top Bottom