I agree most of that Allan. We could have banks small enough to compete for our business with very little regulation. On the current banks - it's doubtful many are really worth anything.
On Oct 22, 1:45 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > Back to what I was saying,, I see a society today including bankerism that > is based an economy based off debt.. As I see it a trust that could be set > up that (actually split as to not draw attention) it could be used to help > people, I am thinking about a small economy strictly toursit based where > it could be used to help people doing things like develop wind generators > then selling the power to pay for themselves and at the same time grow the > fund.. other things like building vertical green houses for supplying > food to make sure every one ate.. > > I do not think charity is a way to go,, but the process of growing a > business designed to help people is not to bad.. it can get into things > like the skycat and transporting goods across oceans to pay for themselves > and grow the trust,, when it came to times like the big earth quakes and > natural disasters,, where the could be actually flown into > the disaster areas to supply aid directly .. helping to keep it out of > the corruption cycle. > > As the trust fund{s} grew they could actually buy out the greed banks stock > taking them over.. ending the cycle that way.. > > Transferring the economy from a debt economy to a stable debt free > economy.. you will be well on your way to ending Bankerism.. It can be > done simple because they are based on debt,, remember a share actually sez > they owe you money.. > > Allan > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for the ideas Neil,, I for one actually believe ?bankerism? can > > be controlled but not necessarily with regulations.. It is well known and I > > think it was discussed here on the financial power of the trust fund > > especially non-expiring ones,, to the point that they are regulated by > > the government requiring them to spend the interest.. I have to run I > > will get back to this when I return.. > > Allan > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> My guess is that modern rationality starts with Descartes - though he > >> doesn't provide a template, just some ground we can get into the > >> issues through. The great warnings to us on 'solutions' is real > >> history and the failure of Germany as the most cultured and scientific > >> nation culminating in "Hitler" - the lesson being so-called triumphs > >> in rationality, science and culture are dreadful fantasies. I would > >> hope in this that German friends would not see any blaming in this - > >> the culpability is wider-set in imperialism and our still stupid > >> notions of leadership. In intellectual terms we are supposedly in > >> postmoderism (really read that and weep in a different way from > >> Gabby's sonnet). The crisis is one of legitimation and the need for > >> an incredulous stance towards grand narratives like religion and the > >> 'wealth creation' espoused in the status quo of oligarchy (rather than > >> competitive capitalism). > > >> I'd say the big issue is dishonesty and the ease with which we swallow > >> chronic lies whole as the facts stand up against them. The idiocy is > >> in demanding paragons of virtue in politics. Honesty is not so easily > >> produced. As a population we remain crudely ignorant and politicians > >> can rely on this. I can prove over and again that voters don't know > >> what they vote for - the result being my regard as a smartarse, > >> "commie" or whatever suits. We get bogged down by popular opinion > >> (Idols in Bacon) and inane rationalist fantasies as to whether god > >> exists or not to which there is only 'answer' in sentient (Hume). We > >> rightly point to failures in communism whilst failing to spot we have > >> already been carried away in the anti-communism (even anti-democratic > >> management - see the use of the UnAmerican stuff against quite mild > >> adherents of such) that drives our resources into the hands of a tiny > >> few, leaving even 1 in 5 Americans poor etc. and wars all over -let > >> alone poverty through massive over-breeding and climate change. > > >> The answer is a massive change in our ways, including world-government > >> - but the rub here is this can't involve the kind of people doing > >> politics at the whim of banksterism and it does mean not allowing > >> 'riches' as currently conceived, which many think 'fair' owing to > >> propaganda. The statement on population ignorance itself needs review > >> as it can't itself be just another bid for leadership and power. On > >> the odd occasion I do chemistry for schoolkids I do experiments that > >> go bang, flash light and then a tame one in which heating Lead > >> Carbonate turns it yellow before it melts. The kids rarely understand > >> (which isn't the point). Teaching economics is much the same in > >> result - most end up with no clue and would need to be in intensive > >> educational care to get a grok. I am much more confident in my > >> scientific prognostications than on those of how we should live and a > >> viable economics. Yet the world of science is much less authoritarian > >> than that of public opinion, despite the techniques being much more > >> reliable. If you don't want to listen properly on how to make,say, > >> gunpowder - then you're free to blow your hands off. Yet how do I > >> tell anyone not to have children in excess? Recruit Indira Gandhi? > >> How do we get work done - sit around drinking tea voting? > > >> The basic idea is often to get everyone up to western standards - yet > >> what 'standard' do we offer? Planet burning firsts? A model that has > >> always favoured a few rich with a minor blip after WW2 and is as debt- > >> ridden as ancient Mesopotamia? A big part of the answer is the > >> setting up of complex regulation that prevents undue power accretion. > >> The human tendency in this is towards bureaucracy and that runs into n > >> iron cage (Weber). I believe computing offers new avenues -but we'd > >> have to guard against this being perverted in the usual ways. The key > >> roadblock is world peace and not believing we could have it and the > >> daft assumption just laying down our 'guns' would produce it. > > >> There's a massive literature that could help - the problem being few > >> read and would even watch if our media could summarise it. Should I > >> issue a bibliography? This doesn't even work at university. > > >> The first solution is getting resources into individual and collective > >> control with banking as a utility (rather than designed to steal them > >> as happens now even with micro-credit). This itself should produce > >> enough argument to fill several books - but watch this space. The > >> move is broadly capitalist but anti-oligarchy pro-democracy in the > >> sense of (Popper's) control of those allocated 'power'. Questions > >> immediately arise as to what is not allowable - like a bunch of > >> Taliban mistreating women and trying to build an H-bomb or burning > >> coal for the hell of it. > > >> To see this as other than 'castle-in-the-air' one needs an > >> understanding of social economics and the mad stuff of the mainstream > >> and what its results are. This requires a lot of negation -something > >> widely perceived (still, long after science) perceived as negative > >> because of Idols. Rigsy started a thread on Freud in which this and > >> the paranoid-schizoid and 'depressive' positions could have been > >> explored. This level of intellectualism can even lead to 'academic > >> bullying' claims in universities in these dumbed-down days. A good > >> start would be Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' would be a start, but > >> only a start (you can get it on Movshare and the like). > > >> I'm much more positive than most people I know in spirit, from running > >> myself into the ground and desperate tackles to trying new stuff. One > >> meets this negative stuff everywhere from underperforming sports teams > >> to simple changes like not buying vastly over priced ink and toner and > >> getting advice from the data protection officer that means don't put > >> anything on your project website. The 'highly positive', of course > >> ain't going through the Pillars of Hercules because they'll fall off > >> the edge. The positive question is nearly always 'what junk are we in > >> thrall to now' - what is today's "flat earth theory". The big > >> challenge isn't ignorance but incompetence even to the point of not > >> recognising one's own. The arguments many think they take part in are > >> carefully structured inside highly parochial propaganda (Idols). > >> Rather than learning through gleaning the facts, most people just > >> reinforce there dullard positions - this means you (or me if I don't > >> check myself). > > >> Most, even in this group,lack enough knowledge to have more than mere > >> opinion, whether on how to make TNT or understand what the banking > >> crisis is. Much of what I say won't work would not be negative if you > >> knew more, but seen as pointing to reasons for radical change. > >> Classic moves include atheism meaning I must lack morality or am not > >> open-minded about god possibilities - you know the form. With, say, > >> nitroglycerin manufacture you can leave it to me (at a safe distance) > >> - but why are we generally so reluctant to learn what is available on > >> ideological and economic-practical issues? What model of the positive > >> do you guys work with - Mollyarian letting fear slip away (which is > >> complex in her elaborations, not barking), how would you get across a > >> street under fire (the answer is you don't unless there is no > >> alternative) - how do you assess what is negative? > > >> Many of the issues discussed in groups like this are deeply > >> constrained because most people don't study and have false views on > >> fact. I see this as key in developing 'democracy' - I'm anti-democrat > >> in the same terms as Joseph Heller's lovely book - but how many have > >> read it and would recognise I'm not being negative but asking for a > >> review of the ideas and practices for better, wider control of > >> authority and how we might achieve it? Try making nitro by just > >> bunging the constituents > > ... > > read more »
