11/49. Europe has been taken to a Ride in a joint effort by Oligarchy and Politicians
November 8, 2011
The Irish new wave economist Constantin Gurdgiev explains a simple way the reasons to our current economic and political catastrophe.
A wise man said long time ago: "Whatever happens in politics you can bet that it was planned to happen that way". What has happened appears more and more clearly as joint effort by our politicians and the oligarchy. Was is all organized through the Bilderberg Group and the descendants of such groups like Free Masons? Not necessarily but those are the obvious tools that has been used to reach the point in time where we are now. We are in an economic war between raging between the front of all peoples of Europe against the joint front of Oligarchy and our elected Politicians.
As summary it appears that the way out must contain political independency for all EU countries while improving the joint competitive manufacturing base together. The common currency is not that important in this environment while some countries may elect to have one together and with that they create a more homogenous group.
11/47. Christianity and Capitalism as Developed cannot Coexist
October 24, 2011
Original: "America's Descent to Depravity" by John Kozy, retired professor of philosophy and logic,
The Protestant ethic once defined the American character. It was held to be responsible for the success of Capitalism in Northern Europe and America by sociologists, but the Protestant ethic and Capitalism are incompatible, and Capitalism ultimately caused the Protestant ethic to be abandoned.
A new ethos emerged that the governing elite completely misunderstands. It is the ethos of the "big break," the "jackpot," the "next big idea." The slow and deliberate road to success is now anathema. Coming up with the next big commercial idea is the new model of the American dream. All that matters is the money. Given that attitude, few in America express moral concerns. Wealth is its own reward; it's even worth destroying ourselves for. And if we haven't done it yet, we surely soon will.
I suspect that most people would like to believe that societies, no matter how base their origins, become better over time. Unfortunately history belies this notion; societies have often grown worse over time. The United States of America is no exception. It was not benign at its origin and has now descended to a region of depravity seldom matched by even the worst nations of history.
Although it is impossible to find hard numbers to prove that morality in America has declined, anecdotal evidence is everywhere to be seen. Almost everyone can cite situations in which the welfare of people was sacrificed for the sake of public or private institutions, but it seems impossible to cite a single instance of a public or private institution's having been sacrificed for the sake of people. If morality has to do with how people are dealt with, one can legitimately ask where morality plays a role in what happens in America? The answer seems to be, "Nowhere!" So what has happened in America to account for the current epidemic of claims that morality in America has collapsed? Well the culture has changed drastically in the last half century, that's what.
Once upon a time in America, the American character was defined in terms of what was called the Protestant Ethic. The sociologist, Max Weber, attributed Capitalism's success to it. Unfortunately Max was lax; he got it wrong, completely wrong. Capitalism and the Protestant ethic are inconsistent with each other. Neither can have been responsible for the other.
The Protestant (or Puritan) ethic is based upon the notion that hard work and frugality are two important consequences of being one of Christianity's elect. If a person is hard working and frugal, s/he is considered to be one of the elect. Those beneficent attributes, it was believed, made Americans a more industrious people than people elsewhere (although Europe's Protestant societies were considered a close second while Southern Europe's Catholic peoples were considered slothful.) Some now claim that we are witnessing the decline and fall of the Protestant ethic in Western societies. Since the Protestant ethic has a religious root, the decline is often attributed to a rise in secularism. But that case is considerably easier to make in Europe than in America where Protestant fundamentalism still has a huge following. So there must be some other explanation for the decline. Nevertheless, the increase in secularism has led many to claim that secularism has destroyed religious values along with the moral values religion teaches. There's another explanation.
In 17th Century Colonial America, the economy was agrarian. Hard work and frugality fit that economy perfectly. But America is no longer agrarian. The American economy today is defined as industrial capitalism. Agrarian economies rarely produce more than can be consumed, but industrial economies do every day. So in order to keep an industrial economy functioning, consumption must not only be continuous, it must continually increase.
I doubt that there is a reader who has not heard that 70% of the American economy results from consumption. But 70% of one is 0.7, of two, 1.4, of three, 2.1, etc. As the economy grows from one unit of GNP to two units, consumption must grow from 0.7 units to 1.4 units. But continually increasing consumption is not compatible with frugality. An industrial economy requires people to spend and spend and spend while frugality requires people to save and save and save. The American economy destroyed the Protestant ethic and the religious views upon which it was founded. Conspicuous consumption replaced hard work and thrift.
In his Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith claims that Capitalism benefits everyone since acting in one’s own self-interest benefits others. Now we are being told that, "Saving more and cutting debt might sound like a good plan to deal with the recession. But if everyone does that, it'll only make matters worse. . . . what the economy needs most is for consumers to be spending more freely." The great recession has stood Adam Smith on his head, but no economist will admit it. "[A]n environment where everyone wants to save cannot be conducive to growth. Production needs to be sold and for that you need customers."
Saving is (presumable) good for individuals but bad for the economy which requires continuously increasing spending. If an economist had told that to me to my face, I would have told him that that clearly means that there is something fundamentally wrong with the nature of the economy, that it means that the economy does not exist to provide for the needs of people but that people exist only to fulfill the needs of the economy. Although it may not look like it, such an economy enslaves the people it claims to serve. So in effect, industrial capitalism has perpetuated slavery; it has re-enslaved those who were once emancipated.
When consumption replaced thrift in the American psyche, the rest of morality sank into depravity with it. The need to sell requires marketing which is nothing but a liars lair. After all, the entire enterprise is founded on Edward L. Bernays 1928 book, Propaganda. The American culture has been inundated by a tsunami of lies. Marketing has become the culture's predominant activity. No one can isolate her/himself from it. It's carried on by businesses, politicians, and the media. No one can be certain s/he's being told the truth by anyone. No moral code can survive in a culture of dishonesty, and none has!
Having subverted the Protestant ethic, the economy destroyed every ethic America has ever promoted. It became a society without an ethos, a nociety with no humane purpose. Americans have become lambs sacrificable for the sake of machines. Then a new ethos emerged from the chaos, one that the governing elite completely misunderstands.
It is often claimed that Washington has lost touch with the Americans it governs, that it no longer understands its people or how its common culture operates. Washington and the nation's elite don't realize it but the culture no longer values right over wrong or hard work and frugality over sloth and profligacy. Americans today are looking for the "big break," the "jackpot," the "next big idea." The American Dream has now been reduced to "hitting it big!" The slow and deliberate road to success is anathema. Watch American Idol, The X Factor, and America's Got Talent and survey the Mongolian hoards that show up for auditions. These people, for the most part, have not worked hard at anything. Count the number of people who wager on the Lotto regularly. Such wagering requires no work at all. All these people want to do is hit it big. And who are our most extolled businessmen? Entrepreneurs! Entrepreneurs are, for the most part, one time flashes in the pan although there are notable exceptions. The trouble with entrepreneurship, however, is the high regard in which it is held. But the only value attached to it is the amounts of money entrepreneurs have made. We rarely hear anything about the nefarious ways in which they have made it. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, hardly present images of people with sterling moral characters, but in an economy without moral scruples, no one cares; all that matters is the money. Given that attitude, why should anyone in this society express moral concerns? Few in America do. So while the American elite still talk about the need to produce a workforce suitable to the needs of industry, the people want none of it.
The elite often bemoan the American educational system's failure and have been trying to fix it unsuccessfully for several decades. But if one remembers that many of America's present, most successful entrepreneurs are college dropouts, how can the young be convinced that a college education is a worthwhile endeavor? As Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg have shown, learning to write software does not require a college degree. Neither does winning the Lotto or a place on American Idol. Being drafted by the NFL may require a stint in college, but it doesn't require a degree. All entrepreneurship requires is a new marketable idea.
Entertainment and sports, lotteries and game shows, consumer products that people have had no need for billions of years are now the stuff of American culture. But they're not stuff, they're fluff; they cannot form the basis of a stable, prosperous, humane society. It is a culture governed by merely one attribute—wealth, ill gotten or not!
The human capacity for self-delusion is limitless. Americans have deluded themselves into believing that aggregate wealth, the sum total of wealth rather than how it is distributed, makes right. It matters not how it is gotten or what is done with it. Aggregate wealth is its own reward; it is even worth destroying ourselves for. And if we haven't yet, we surely soon will.
History describes many nations that have become depraved. None that has ever reformed itself. No beautiful boy can be counted on to come forth to undo the catastrophe of the Midas touch. Money, after all, is not one of the things human beings need to survive, and if money isn't used to produce and distribute the things needed, human survival is impossible no matter how much aggregate wealth is accumulated.
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who writes on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site's homepage.
11/46. Swiss study confirms - no conspiracy - the Banks just control the global economy
October 22, 2011 (RT)
Bankers really do control the world! That’s according to Swiss researchers who, in an exhaustive scientific study, mapped out a blueprint showing the real architects of global economic power.
From freemasons to the Council on Foreign Relations to Bilderberg, the belief that secretive groups control the world’s economic and political system are quite possibly as old as human civilization itself.
But while Occupy Wall Street protestors may be slightly exaggerating in calling themselves the 99 per cent, a recent study conducted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich shows that they aren’t too far off the mark.
Drawing from a 2007 Orbis database, which lists 37 million companies and investors spanning the globe, the researchers focused on 43,000 transnational corporations and the share ownership which connected them. Based on their analysis, the Swiss team found that a core of companies, the majority of which are in the banking sector, yield excessive power over the global economy, the weekly New Scientist magazine reports.
Within this group, 1,318 companies with intertwined ownership structures were on average connected to 20 other companies.
Representing some 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the study also shows this group of 1,318 controls the bulk of the largest blue chip and manufacturing firms. In terms of the real economy – the part which produces actual goods and services – they take in some 60 per cent of global revenues.
The team was further able to break down this group into what they described as a “super-entity” of 147 companies that controls some 40 per cent of the network’s wealth.
"In effect, less than one per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says James Glattfelder, one of the researchers behind the study, as cited by the New Scientist.
And when it comes to the top 50 groups within the super-entity, more than a few would be familiar to those who have been camping out in downtown Manhattan over the last month.
Bank of America Corporation, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Merrill Lynch & Co Inc, and JP Morgan Chase & Co were included among the top 25.
Quick to dismiss criticism that they are merely concocting another conspiracy theory, Glattfelder insists that their research is evidence-based. "Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based, "he said, as cited by the weekly.
The most recent study of the Swiss researchers builds on past economic theories which also recognized such systemic concentrations of wealth.
In 1906, an Economist named Vilfredo Pareto discovered that around 20 per cent of the population in his native Italy controlled around 80 per cent of the land. This observation has come to be known as Pareto's Principle.
Pareto also found that while individual ratios of wealth and control might vary from country to country, the actual distribution is always the same. That is to say, natural wealth, regardless of human effort, tends to accumulate rather than spread around. That accumulation leads to wealth condensation, a theory more commonly understood as the idea that money makes money. And if less than one per cent of the surveyed companies control 40 per cent of the network, it appears that a slim few have managed to concentrate an astronomical level of wealth into their few hands.
For the researchers, however, the issue of wealth concentration is less important than how deeply the network is integrated.
As the 2008 financial crisis has shown, when a relatively small group yields tremendous power over the global economy, their mistakes will ripple across the world.
Ultimately, those invested in studying the network which controls the bigger part of our world economy hope that through greater understanding, they will be able to make the financial system more stable.
For example, Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute, has suggested taxing firms if their interconnectivity becomes excessive in order to discourage risk, the New Scientists reports. Others have proposed global anti-trust laws to help regulate the level of connectivity.
One question not answered by the study is just how much political power the financial elite are able to wield. John Driffill, a macroeconomics expert at the University of London, told the New Scientist that the interests of 147 companies would most likely be too diverse to sustain collusion.
But while the capitalist network which controls our economy might not be an active conspiracy, they will inevitably have some interests that correspond. The desire to fight any attempts to regulate the network most likely remains a point they can all agree on.
We must cut the power of the banks, not simple but still necessary move to invigorate the alraedy failed western democracies. There is no point even to vote any more as those that are on the ballots are already one way or the other controlled by these banking giants. We refer here to the open letter to the banking Oligarchy found also on the starting page of this site:
Dear Western Oligarchy:
Again you have forced us under feudalism and serfdom. You are camouflaged now as private banking empires controlling the money supply to the western world. You know perfectly well that the money supply must be controlled by Sovereign Nations and not by private enterprises. The fact is: The sovereign Nations will always have permanent debt in books to cover the amount of money that circulate as wages and salaries and is used to buy food, shelter, transportation, etc... It escapes us why tax payers of any country should pay interest for this money?
Dear oligarchy, you have bribed our leadership to shut down the government printing presses and then to borrow money from your banks against interest. This interest goes directly back to you instead of the Nation's coffers. As an example $100,000 loan for 30 years at 8% interest means that you can collect both your loan of $100,000 and an additional $160,000 as interest. With the just reported 188% interest rate from Greece, this means payment of $5.6 million interest for each $100,000 borrowed over 30 year period. You claim this is different as Nations want only short term loans. Yes but only because you offer them only short term loans. The outrageous interest rate in Greece make you all criminals. This has started dawning in the minds of the people in Greece and elsewhere around the globe. the interest you collect drains money from all development programs in the world. You recent predecessor friends and ancestors like Hitler, Franco and Mussolini did the same using wars as their primary tool like countless leaders before them. In any case you are the first generation in oligarchy that ever succeeded to manipulate Sovereign educated Nations into Financial Slavery. The anger on the streets in Greece is already close the boiling point. If that happens revolution starts and the events of the year 1793 can no more be stopped. You have the means and perhaps still a little time to reverse this - but we doubt as you simply are too greedy!
11/45. The Seven Biggest Economic Lies in the USA
October 19, 2011
By Rober Reich, the Labor secretary for President Bill Clinton:
11/44. Arab Spring - European Summer - Wall Street Fall
October 15, 2011
It is time to let the sledgehammer come down and crush those who learn not
This started Occupy movement:
What is this all about?
Problems are growing for politicians. They have totally mishandled the financial crisis since it's eruption on September 15th, 2008. On Saturday, October 15th, the world joined in mass demonstrations against the elected politicians who are invariably handing tax payer money to banks and with that siding with the aristocracy. This "gray mass" has the power through their media to control who gets elected and who gets rejected:
Assagne on Corrupted Banks:
Occupy movement is spreading globally: