So how did this world recession start?

[James-1986]

Why are we letting them get away with it?

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours 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 advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government ever since
the days of Andrew Jackson…" -Franklin D. Roosevelt

The BIS (Bank for International Settlements) has 53 member central banks. A good example is the federal reserve, a privately owned bank. Each of these banks has a monopoly on the printing of currency within a nation, they control the amount of money we have and loan to the government with interest. The BIS sets the rules for these banks, even in Switzerland where the BIS is based they have total immunity from the government. In 2007 the BIS told its banks that they needed a certain amount of reserves for the money they were lending. They could not comply with the new rules, the flow of cash and credit was immediately restricted. The US stock market crashed overnight and the depression began.

Remember in times of depression wealth is not destroyed it is redistributed, this depression and all those that have happened in the past are not an accident. The banking system is not going to increase the flow of money if it is profiting from the depression of an economy. The history of modern banking stretches back centuries, it is staggering to see the effect it has had on the course of mankind.

The part I cannot understand is the fact that we don't even NEED banks, yet they have convinced everybody that we would be poor and destitute without them! Who do you think owns all the third world debt....

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

If you have a few hours spare have a gander at "the money masters", a documentary produced in 1996. It educates on the history and practices of international banking; and why it is so harmful to us. This is not a silly conspiracy video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Why are we letting them get away with it?

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours 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 advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial
element in the large centers has owned the government ever since
the days of Andrew Jackson…" -Franklin D. Roosevelt

The BIS (Bank for International Settlements) has 53 member central banks. A good example is the federal reserve, a privately owned bank. Each of these banks has a monopoly on the printing of currency within a nation, they control the amount of money we have and loan to the government with interest. The BIS sets the rules for these banks, even in Switzerland where the BIS is based they have total immunity from the government. In 2007 the BIS told its banks that they needed a certain amount of reserves for the money they were lending. They could not comply with the new rules, the flow of cash and credit was immediately restricted. The US stock market crashed overnight and the depression began.

Remember in times of depression wealth is not destroyed it is redistributed, this depression and all those that have happened in the past are not an accident. The banking system is not going to increase the flow of money if it is profiting from the depression of an economy. The history of modern banking stretches back centuries, it is staggering to see the effect it has had on the course of mankind.

The part I cannot understand is the fact that we don't even NEED banks, yet they have convinced everybody that we would be poor and destitute without them! Who do you think owns all the third world debt....

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

If you have a few hours spare have a gander at "the money masters", a documentary produced in 1996. It educates on the history and practices of international banking; and why it is so harmful to us. This is not a silly conspiracy video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw

How does any of this explain the vast rises in Sovereign debt over the last decade or so?

Bankers are not responsible for Sovereign debt. Governments are. Governments are also responsible for the regulation of banking activity on their patch. However this crisis is analysed, governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

 

[Jacob]

....... governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

Dead right. It's down to feeble government. And it's down to us for having allowed this gang of prats into power.

 

[James-1986]

How does any of this explain the vast rises in Sovereign debt over the last decade or so?

Bankers are not responsible for Sovereign debt. Governments are. Governments are also responsible for the regulation of banking activity on their patch. However this crisis is analysed, governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

The BIS have no governmental controls, yet control the economies of nations. Exactly whom is going to control their activities? The government take blame by proxy; they are one side of a coin and cannot be seen as benign or acting in our interests. They have successively placed more wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands; this is the behavior of the corrupt.

If a bank can crash the stock market and bring in a worldwide depression overnight, what sort of fool would stand against them? Banks have used this power in the past to push through legislation in America to widen their influence. Anybody who speaks out is easily swept aside, any politician who's ambition outweighs his morals will turn a blind eye; the rest will take the bonus.

Sovereign debt also highlights why we need to rethink our banking and monetary system, I am sure private individuals have never profited from sovereign debt... :wink:

 

[andersonec]

Governments are in debt because the population demands everything for free, to get elected they then promise these things which the country cannot afford,,,,governments get elected on the promises they make to the gullible public, promises like "No university fees" they borrow the money to pay for these promises then the public call them idiots for getting into debt, catch 22.

Economists are always talking about 'growth', 'the country needs to grow', well it is blatantly obvious that continuous growth is not possible, same as house prices, it is impossible for a country to continuously grow, we are now seeing the effects of this non sustainable growth.

Most of the population has everything they need hence manufacturing has to suffer because the bottom has dropped out of the market, although it is said that people now have the highest standard of living ever, it is a fact that people are no happier now than they were in the fifties, just greedier.

Andy

 

[Phil Pascoe]

....... governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

Dead right. It's down to feeble government. And it's down to us for having allowed this gang of prats into power.

This gang of prats and/or the last few gangs of prats?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

....... governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

Dead right. It's down to feeble government. And it's down to us for having allowed this gang of prats into power.

This gang of prats and/or the last few gangs of prats?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

How does any of this explain the vast rises in Sovereign debt over the last decade or so?

Bankers are not responsible for Sovereign debt. Governments are. Governments are also responsible for the regulation of banking activity on their patch. However this crisis is analysed, governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

The BIS have no governmental controls, yet control the economies of nations. Exactly whom is going to control their activities? The government take blame by proxy; they are one side of a coin and cannot be seen as benign or acting in our interests. They have successively placed more wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands; this is the behavior of the corrupt.

If a bank can crash the stock market and bring in a worldwide depression overnight, what sort of fool would stand against them? Banks have used this power in the past to push through legislation in America to widen their influence. Anybody who speaks out is easily swept aside, any politician who's ambition outweighs his morals will turn a blind eye; the rest will take the bonus.

Sovereign debt also highlights why we need to rethink our banking and monetary system, I am sure private individuals have never profited from sovereign debt... :wink:

Nobody would profit from Sovereign debt if governments were not so addicted to issuing it.

 

[Losos]

Nobody would profit from Sovereign debt if governments were not so addicted to issuing it.

Aren't you forgetting that governments use debt to 'buy' voters. It must be obvious that almost all governments increase debt in order to hand out cash to people who really shouldn't be receiving anything. It has reached the point where by far the biggest cost in the UK is the social and benefits sytem, it has become the 'norm' people are memarised by it, and have come to 'expect' a handout if even the tinyest thing goes wrong in their lives, every man women and child in UK now owes £68,000 but of course no one worries, it will never be repaid, and anyway it is the future generations who will have to find an answer. There is a big storm looming and I'm so glad that (hopefully) it won't come until I'm long gone :lol: but it will come, the present profligate spending by all governments can not continue forever.

 

[riclepp]

....... governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

Dead right. It's down to feeble government. And it's down to us for having allowed this gang of prats into power.

So what feeble government of prats would you have in place of the current goup of twats?

 

[Jacob]

....... governments - notably the American and UK governments, and the Eurozone - cannot be absolved from blame.

Dead right. It's down to feeble government. And it's down to us for having allowed this gang of prats into power.

So what feeble government of prats would you have in place of the current goup of twats?

Even a lib lab coalition would do better. Incompetent probably, but relatively free of nutcase right wing ideology (free market, low tax, de-regulation, privatisation etc.)

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I think I'd prefer a government that was free of nutcase ideology of any sort, but took a sensible and pragmatic approach to addressing the current problems. For example, public spending exceeds tax receipts by over £100 bn a year, so getting that sorted out would be good. Some spending cuts are obviously required, some attempt to promote economic growth and thus higher tax receipts also highly desirable, but less easily achievable.

 

[devonwoody]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGYYYYYYY


COSTS

Since the middle eastern war in the 60's and those costs went up is when it started.

It made economics change and has not yet been corrected or cured.

 

[JakeS]

Even a lib lab coalition would do better. Incompetent probably, but relatively free of nutcase right wing ideology (free market [...])

Sorry, but I seem to recall pretty much all the current crop of Lib Dem front benchers are free-market loons... and didn't good old Gordo leave business more or less alone?

I guess they could agree on... fox hunting?



I think we should just put Vince Cable in charge of everything. EVERYTHING! Dictator for life, get him one of those nice hats and all. Boris Johnson can be Information Minister.

 

[devonwoody]

BBC headlines this morning, retail sales down £136 billion.

What do they expect when VAT went up, (less to spend in shops)

And energy increases again have taken the money they would have spent in the retail sector as well.

I reckon I could do a better job as chancellor.

 

[graduate_owner]

I'm glad I started this thread - there have been numerous really interesting opinions. I sometimes wonder if our elected politicians enter parliament with good intentions, but find that they are up against 'the system' which stifles progress or any significant change.
I also sometimes wonder if anyone in authority does really understand what's going on. I'm thinking of the pre election debates between Cameron and Brown (and that other guy) - both had completely different opinions on what to do about the recession. They can't both be right. The worrying thing is, perhaps neither was right.

It reminds me of Yes Minister - always blocked / snookered. Perhaps that program was more true to life than I realised at the time.

Apparently US presidents rarely achieve anything significant in their second term. Again, they are just up against it.

K

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It was a Prime Minister of Luxembourg or one of the other small countries who said - we know exactly what to do about the economy, we don't know how to do it and get elected again afterwards.