# The Future Conflict Between the US and International Banking Cartels (& co.)



## konkon (23 July 2011)

_Please note that this is the same post by me titled 'The Net Effect of Global Banker Control and the Future US led 'Conflict' Against Them', I wanted a better title. The title I would like to use is *The Future Conflict Between the US and International Banking Cartels (& co.)*. It would be much appreciated if the administrators allow this adjustment and thank you for allowing us to post our views on your message-board. Here is the original post by me:_


No, the drones won't come-out to take down 'respectable' bankers in suits and ties! But a different type of conflict will emerge, if it hasn't already, against international shadowy-bankers and some of their networks. As absurd as this sounds the probabilities of this occurring later on are quite high, although the probabilities of any of us (the general population) knowing that this is conflict is occurring will be slim. Gate-keepers like the media won't focus on such a conflict because it won't be perceived by the general public as a real conflict. That involves guns etc, doesn't it!?

I use the term 'banker' loosely to mean all those powerful groups of corporate and banking 'executives' and co. that want to control the world, the people in it and the world's economies, by for example irresponsibly and deliberately issuing more and more debt to pay for existing and future debt (and knowing: 1.that this model will not work, 2. this will further burden the middle classes which would mean that the international bankers will to some extent be able to control them especially at a crucial time). This does NOT include the majority of hard working banking executives around the world, that are not involved and are unaware of such a conflict. Now if you can control the world's economy with issuing more perpetual and unpayable debt, you can control geopolitics in the future as well. Why stop there? There are the seas, the skies and electromagnetic world too. A joke? NO! And the US led fight-back has, and I think has for some time, seen certain higher-order banking related events on the macro level, as a serious long-term threat to stability in the geo-political, economic etc world, and the US's long term interests.

Conflicts, other than battles we see on CNN, are fought every day on the international markets, but are more stealth in nature. Some, like the take-down of a currency, are more aggressive than others, like pegging your own currency to the USD, for example, to protect your domestic and international economic agendas, while slowly jeopardizing someone else's. This is nothing new. What will be, will be the US's interest to get back into the game of overseeing and controlling to some extent the direction of the US's economy and global interests (geopolitical etc) relative to the rest.

If the international 'banking' conglomerates were left to do as they please, then we will end up having a very different world altogether, and quickly too. Not only will they fund all types of governments/countries at all levels and make multiples of more money in the process, the international banker conglomerates would have financed sets of long-term (irreversible) problems for the world. Financing hostile governments with nasty agenda, for one. Without the US-led watchdog service, we would be living in a far more dangerous world. All those conspiracy theories about major wars between, for example, Iran vs Israel/US etc would perhaps become real. And guess who'd be there to finance both sides or nearly all sides? The international banking cartels and all of their supporters/sponsors/backers.

Another problem for the US will be those global bankers and co are well networked with resources, capital (of course) and people of all sorts and in different fields/vocations etc. Unfortunately, some of the interest to transfer power from the United States (military, CIA, NSA etc etc) and transferring it to shadowy international banking groups and their sponsors, is clearly coming form within the US. 

There will continue to be a latent and an ongoing conflict at different levels between the US led defense against international banking cartels and their supporters. The net effect, at different periods/times in the future (and it won't be the same) will be the world you and I are living in and have been living in, even if the gatekeepers of the world, like the media at large, prevent us from seeing it for ourselves. A different issue altogether, or perhaps not!


----------



## konkon (24 July 2011)

International banking cartels have been running things for a long long time, centuries even and with numerous motives along the way. In the modern era, let's say the last decade (or even two), there seems to be a move to go at it alone and without the backing of the US and its defense and clandestine agencies. 

Sure the US needed these banking cartels and co. for financing purposes throughout history, as we all did indirectly, and still do. BUT, a turning point must have come about during the beginning of the GFC, when it became obvious that the banking cartels and co. were no longer going to allow the US to prevent it (the banksters) from financing the world the way it sees fit.

Running nations by economic means, like the international banking cartels and co. appear to be doing, has no intrinsic value for the longevity of a nation's welfare. Economists and accountants just don't create like engineers, for example, would. When it's left to accountants and economists to create market instruments, that even courts find hard to understand, then you're entering a very dangerous world indeed. We have seen this played-out during and after the GFC, but it is possible that this is a prelude to an even greater catastrophe. One thing's for sure, the international banking cartels will, once again, feel the least amount of heat if this happens. They appear to be an insulated lot.

Controlling supply and demand dynamics has become a major problem in the world today, even though it seems a harmless activity. I wrote in 'The (Economic) World in 2030', that controlling supply and demand dynamics to boost wealth (which is pretty much an accounting/economists construct) isn't a way to move forward at all! What is is creation and innovation which is lacking; not talking about iphones and apps here. I'm referring to engineering developments and innovations etc (how many engineers do you know that are driving cabs! Nothing wrong with driving cabs, but engineers are better suited elsewhere, I would have thought).

The packaging of asset classes and other forms of economic creativity is in some way a star-gate or gateway to a new (but dangerous) world.

Leaders in history like Napoleon, for example, were embroiled in some form of bankster dilemma, at a different level to the ones mentioned today. So there is nothing new about banking cartels, in history, wanting to rule some part of the world, at least. Banking cartels were pretty much behind the rise of the United States and perhaps the demise of the British Empire. Arguable, like many of the things I write, but I'm happy to debate this. *Now the cartels (that are never the same, but always changing throughout history to serve different motives and agendas) appear to be behind the deliberate and calculated, but stealthy, moves to destabilize the US from controlling the world's currencies, markets, perhaps seas, skies and electromagnetic world (later on). *

The biggest strength these banking cartels and co. have is their enormous and technically limitless amounts of capital and their control of it. So their purchasing power is a real problem if you happen to be on the wrong side of the equation. But they are still up against the US, a formidable force, even at times like these. Does any one really believe that the US agencies mentioned above are working with shadowy, new world order type of banking cartels (not talking about some US conglomerates, some high-end bankers and perhaps some members of congress(!) who seem to be siding with those banking cartels)? It just doesn't make any sense for US high end protective services agencies to have this agenda. They have to be the US's last line of defense. And they happen to be receiving a hair cut from congress. mmmm


----------



## Starcraftmazter (24 July 2011)

Engineers FTW.

I however have to protest; the banking cartel *owns* USA, and every other country. All politicians are simply their puppets. Thus, I do not understand what you mean when you talk about any fight between USA and the Worldwide Banking Cartel, unless you refer to the people of USA rising up against their rulers.


----------



## Glen48 (24 July 2011)

We need to include drug cartels like the ones who threatened to remove their money from banks if the USA introduced new laws on drug dealers forcing the feds to back down or face a run on banks.
 Any one who looks at buying a Russian sub to ship drugs into the US is aforce to be reckoned with and as the depression grows the demand for drug will as well.


----------



## konkon (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Engineers FTW.
> 
> I however have to protest; the banking cartel *owns* USA, and every other country. All politicians are simply their puppets. Thus, I do not understand what you mean when you talk about any fight between USA and the Worldwide Banking Cartel, unless you refer to the people of USA rising up against their rulers.




*No, I don't mean the people of the US should rise-up against their rulers, at all.* The people of the US are at the mercy of what is going on in the international markets in general, including the faulty set of structures behind the system that gives them perpetual debt. There is probably very little they can do and electing either politician for a congressional seat will make very little difference to the middle classes' plight. Congress has been tainted long ago. That's not to say they're all 'bad'. I think they are ineffective, inconsistent, contradictory even, and self destructive overall, and yes, congress does tend to look after conglomerates and bankers ahead of their own constituents. 

I'm not even talking about the local bank down the street or even their head office in town. Not the employees of these banks nor its mainstream clients. Although local banks were issuing out bad loans of all sorts, they were receiving pressure, even indirect pressure, from above to boost revenue (for a while) and sales; someone forgot about the profits! So the administrative and logistical side of banking in general (*individual banks that seemed to have operated in isolation* from the collective lot) would *not have been aware of the overall (US and world wide) debacle that was occurring prior to the GFC.* *But many at the top of the banking/corporate network must have known what was occurring, and they would have for years even*. Some banking companies even began shorting banking stocks and were very quick out of the blocks. 

But all this was subsequently heavily covered by all media outlets. *What wasn't and still isn't, is the intentional moves to destabilize the middle class even further with more and more debt*, masquerading as something viable (which it isn't); *this is kind of like a next stage to destabilize and transfer power and wealth from middle classes, around the world and high end protective services agencies in their countries!* I'm more than convinced of this. Look at Europe at the moment; the politicians and bankers (and co.) are giving each other high-fives over, pretty much burying Europe with more and more debt. They're calling it something other than issuing more debt, and soon they will all run out of names. 

This is an international crisis as much as it is a US one. Hard to justify a comment like 'our debt crisis is not as serious as theirs', but I hear this a lot on those finance channels. *Those international banking cartels and their cohorts are involved in many practices other than general lending.* They are very secretive and highly influential. No point waiting for Fox News, for example, to let you know their next move. They don't want us to know and I have a feeling the cartels or _banksters_ try to keep things from even the very best clandestine agencies, like the NSA and CIA.

*So the US is not out to go after all banking institutions; probably not even some. * What will be, and probably is, a focus, will be the powerful banking and corporate groups *from around the world* that:

1. burdened the middle classes with perpetual and unpayable long-term debt, which means the US military, clandestine services of all kinds will not get the necessary funding they deserve, via taxes and robust revenue. 

2. perhaps deliberately attempted and are attempting to transfer wealth and power form the United States (and even its allies).

3. are placing the world in a very serious, precarious situation that probably won't be as defensive as before.

4. are ready to finance all forms of governments and any country at all levels, even ones with dangerous agendas.

Personally, I think if congress can't agree on viable and long term measures and if supply from treasury is blocked, the US military and all high level protective services agencies, should have the mandate to:

1. bypass congress and go straight to the treasury and seek a substantial amount of funds to continue to operate at an optimum level, as it sees fit. This can be based on some very real (and secretive) measurements that potentially puts the US in harms way; harms way is NOT just physical! Why shouldn't the US agencies (continue to) protect the future of the United States, no matter what type of macro threat it is.

2. perhaps as a last resort, if things turn south over the next year or so, the President should order high level protective services agencies to take _control_ of parts of the government, unofficially if need be. Not talking about marching on in with guns here. This of course would not sit well with the public, but if it's a matter of preserving the US as much as it can from international and some domestic influences, then so be it. It would only be a transitory measure of sorts, until order is restored. Sure is a controversial point, but who will protect US citizens from further demise? Congress, big business, the so called free markets or bankers?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 July 2011)

konkon said:


> *So the US is not out to go after all banking institutions; probably not even some. * What will be, and probably is, a focus, will be the powerful banking and corporate groups *from around the world* that:




Everything up to this made sense and I agree with; but what do you mean by "the US"?

I assert that the very vast majority of Congress and all politicians in general are indeed corrupt and do not care about the low, middle or high class of Americans. They get immense funding from corporations, banks, and whoever else wants them to do their bidding, and they do not particularly care about America as a country, as they as well as various interests which use them can always influence public opinion in various ways.

Do you disagree and suggest that US politicians actually act in the best interests of the American people?


----------



## konkon (26 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Everything up to this made sense and I agree with; but what do you mean by "the US"?
> 
> I assert that the very vast majority of Congress and all politicians in general are indeed corrupt and do not care about the low, middle or high class of Americans. They get immense funding from corporations, banks, and whoever else wants them to do their bidding, and they do not particularly care about America as a country, as they as well as various interests which use them can always influence public opinion in various ways.
> 
> Do you disagree and suggest that US politicians actually act in the best interests of the American people?




*A small but influential and powerful percentage of politicians don't have US citizens' and the military's, (and all protective services agencies') best interests at heart.* Many politicians (not talking about the President and his large team here) are putting on a show for us at the moment, but their real (subtle) intentions are to conform/yield to multinationals and international banking conglomerates (many of which are operating from the US), that don't have traditional US best interests in mind. 

*I think that many politicians are siding with a newer form of globalization, in which a transfer of power and wealth is leaving the US and ending up in the control of large and shadowy (banking/corporate) institutions, with a different agenda to the United States'*. A grey area though, because clearly quite a lot of this control is coming from within the US. But it's not exclusively a US ownership scenario like in yester-year. These global shadowy bankers/corporates are being sponsored and protected by many politicians (not Obama) and I think that for the first time (although it's been happening for some time now) *the banking cartels and co. are going at it without the US government at large and any of its higher-end defense agencies (US military, CIA, NSA etc). *This is partly why there is a continuing economic crisis in the US; capital is being sucked-out of the US and the multinationals, banking cartels and co. seem to be looking in other directions for next generation wealth and opportunities. They are doing this while clearly *using US resources of all kinds* and leaving the middle classes, at large, behind. Once again, I think that they are trying to do this without traditional US defense agencies, as mentioned before.

*Now the middle classes are largely funding all of these practices indirectly and a lot of this is happening through the issuance of more debt. The United States middle classes (all Americans really) and all of its protective services agencies (military, etc etc) are not being represented by these international banking and corporate groups, that are clearly utilizing US resources of all kinds for their own agenda. It's not just taxation without representation, but the issuance of layers of debt without representation, or a guarantee of any sort!*


----------



## Starcraftmazter (28 July 2011)

So you claim that Obama himself is not corrupt?


----------



## notting (28 July 2011)

HHHmmm. Do these banking cartels have minds of there own? Or are they mindless robots? Do they live in countries? Perhaps they are aliens from another planet?


----------



## konkon (29 July 2011)

notting said:


> HHHmmm. Do these banking cartels have minds of there own? Or are they mindless robots? Do they live in countries? Perhaps they are aliens from another planet?




Really? Do you have a mind of your own or do you let others decide for you? Have you been a resident of our planet for the past couple of decades or so?


----------



## konkon (29 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So you claim that Obama himself is not corrupt?




No, I don't see Obama as corrupt. A President (almost) always wants to win a second term in office, and although I might not agree with some of his ideologies, he represents a party, constituents and corporations that want him to do things a certain way. All sides have political rhetoric (hence, there is very little pure and technically logical soundness involved; rhetoric of any kind doesn't go hand in hand with logical soundness of a universal kind). Getting things done in politics in general involves a lot of wheeling and dealing that the general public would find distasteful. But that's the nature of that game that they all have to play, if they want to survive another day.


----------



## konkon (29 July 2011)

The markets have and will continue to be a platform where organizations or (even) countries will (legally) try to undermine, sabotage other organizations, countries or even deliberately try to restrict prosperous, long-term economic activities. It may be totally ignored (like it generally is) or spun a certain way by, for example, media outlets, to appear like something else was the catalyst for a downturn etc.

I personally don't have a problem with this, as this is the way things have been for, perhaps, centuries. You just can't eliminate this process. 

The Euro, for example, the way it stands today might be in a lot of trouble later on, *if* the Republicans and Tea Party members are unyielding about raising the debt limit or allowing a nation that's buried up to its eyeballs in debt to accept more and more debt to pay for previous, current and future debt! Even though this technically can not work!

*If* credit markets end up tightening up because of this or some other factors (combined even), then an inverse related currency, and a competing world's reserve currency to the USD, the EURO, with all its delicate contractual debt obligations will perhaps suffer the most harm down the track.  Its creditor nations and organizations (banks) might pull-out of these complex and highly ambitious debt agreements with Greece, Ireland etc etc. Now many Tea Party and Republicans, that want to continue to see the USD as the world's reserve currency, must know that this is a possibility. But of course, it's a good idea to try to generate revenue to pay for all forms of debt, and maybe this is their real motive, *even though this is an impossibility* given the techniques and methods that will be adopted. But I don't think the US would want to lose its reserve currency status, as this would lead to gaps in its dominant geopolitical status and it won't stop there. I personally think the world will be a more unsafe place if the US does lose its reserve currency status, which would slowly lead to an inevitable downfall of its current geopolitical status. 

Personally, I have a feeling this will play-out a certain way within this decade, if certain important factors (some are become increasingly unlikely, though!) are not met. But I will keep these thought to myself for now, as I don't want to alarm too many.


----------



## notting (29 July 2011)

Perhaps you could get a financing degree and apply for a job at the "The Big International Conglomerate Bank." Work your way up till you rule the world!
Though you would get better bonuses at Goldman Sacks. 
So maybe that's a better idea, better lifestyle too.


----------



## konkon (29 July 2011)

notting said:


> Perhaps you could get a financing degree and apply for a job at the "The Big International Conglomerate Bank." Work your way up till you rule the world!
> Though you would get better bonuses at Goldman Sacks.
> So maybe that's a better idea, better lifestyle too.




You're obviously missing the point about shadowy groups and latent intentions. But that's ok.

A financing degree didn't do many a just service when they were all @$%#^$%* themselves during and after the GFC. Didn't need an economics etc degree to see that coming! Economist, accountants know jack $%&# about how the real world should work. This is their contribution to the world. I guess you probably believed we were out of the global financial crisis when all those economists 'told us' we were out of it. We're still in it.

A bonus for creating very little, but more and more net debt around the world!


----------



## notting (29 July 2011)

konkon said:


> I guess you probably believed we were out of the global financial crisis when all those economists 'told us' we were out of it. We're still in it.




You guessed wrong! 
Beware all this guessing may lead you to jump at shadows.


----------



## konkon (29 July 2011)

notting said:


> You guessed wrong!
> Beware all this guessing may lead you to jump at shadows.




No need for me to beware or to worry about shadows.

So I gather you think that there's no real problem for multinational banks if the United States blocks trade in certain countries and restricts trade in others? How much money would the international banking system in general make, if there were no unofficial or official restrictions (rightfully) placed by the US and its allies?


----------



## notting (29 July 2011)

But your whole post has been about paranoia with respect to Shadows. Big Giant Hidden conglomerates.
If you want to be worried perhaps you should be worried about the Communist Chinese dictators who are most restrictive. Blocking free trade , fair trade even free speech they have just made a new law where you can be imprisoned for listening to a rumor!! (usually three years with reeducation via electric prods, tazers etc)
Perhaps you should be more concerned about that than the US or imaginary shadowy conglomerates?
With a current account surplus of more than $US3 trillion ($2.7 trillion), of which more than $US1.16 trillion has ended up being lent to the US in the form of Treasury bills and other government bonds, communist China has in effect become capitalist America's largest bank.


----------



## konkon (1 August 2011)

notting said:


> But your whole post has been about paranoia with respect to Shadows. Big Giant Hidden conglomerates.
> If you want to be worried perhaps you should be worried about the Communist Chinese dictators who are most restrictive. Blocking free trade , fair trade even free speech they have just made a new law where you can be imprisoned for listening to a rumor!!...




I think we all should be worried, and yes, not just about very powerful, influential, wealthy and sophisticated shadowy groups, that seek to control many aspects of the world we live in, in different ways. I do, however, see China as less of a problem overall.


----------



## notting (1 August 2011)

Glad you agree that China's currency manipulation and use of slave labor has destroyed manufacturing all over the world and caused the massive unemployment issues globally as well as the trade imbalances and huge debt problems we see in the world today.

But this is nothing compared to the human rights abuses and brainwashing of their own people who have no idea about it all due to the propaganda that is not just in it's own country but all over the free internet.

If this isn't bad enough Chinas butchery is far worse in countries it has recently invaded and brutally occupies like East Turkistan - Genocide of Uyghurs, peace loving Tibet - 1,200,000 tortured and slaughtered (mostly monks and nuns!!) their even brutally occupying areas of Mongolia.

Did you know that everything North Korea does is directed from China! Terrible.

Yeah! China's the very powerful, influential, wealthy and sophisticated shadowy group alright!


----------



## konkon (5 August 2011)

There seems to be a lot of behind-the-scenes goings-on, here!!

This can't be ignored! *Christine Lagarde, is to me, a US backed chief* (a position that was traditionally a dominantly European friendly organization), *that appears to be targeted by Europeans (perhaps the EU). *

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15296063,00.html

"The head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, has come under suspicion for abuse of power. A French court ruled she should be investigated for her role in settling a financial dispute while she was France's finance minister." from the above article. 

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the previous Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund had popular support amongst the financial and political community in France and Europe, in general. His ousting of head of the IMF for alleged sexual assault charges would have disappointed a lot in Europe. 

Just seems as though there's a real fight for control of the IMF here, and the fight isn't restricted to just bankers! A lot of covert stuff going on, and I think it's well known within those circles, although the rest of us have to put up with boat people and carbon tax, 24-7!!


----------



## konkon (5 August 2011)

As for the market tanking today, and performing badly over the past couple of weeks, well, don't believe those ******** Wall Street brokers too much. They still don't get what is causing most of these problems! *There may come a time (not yet, and we're probably years away from this possibility; although it's becoming highly likely) where the issuance of more debt itself WILL NOT be enough to solve even the most basic of problems, or to pay for the most basic of things.* Then you might find countries going for harder assets, like another country's state-owned assets, for example. This might be the biggest catastrophe we might face, post WWII, but let's hope we don't go there!


----------



## konkon (5 August 2011)

Here is an interesting article from Bloomberg:

"British Companies Trading With Iran Hidden by U.K. to Avert U.S. Sanctions"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ran-hidden-by-u-k-to-avert-u-s-sanctions.html

_"The U.K. government is determined to keep secret British companies that applied to sell goods with potential military uses to Iran, saying *international banks are under U.S. pressure to drop them as clients.*

The disclosure of the companies may result in them losing access to bank services, Britain’s Export Control Organization said in reply to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News.

President Barack Obama signed a law almost a year ago broadening the scope of sanctions against Iran to stunt its nuclear development program. Even before then, *U.K. banks were cutting off customers with links to Iran to avoid being targeted by American authorities or losing permits to do business in the U.S*., said the export agency, which issues licenses to ship supplies with dual military or civilian uses, as well as torture equipment and radioactive material to other countries."_  from the Bloomberg article above.

I added the bits in bold just to emphasize the point that international banking organizations must see the US as a barrier to do more trade and to make more money. Without the US _watchdog service_ we're pretty much #$%@#%ed!

Bloomberg is doing us a real service and I will watch more of their programs. Well done!


----------



## konkon (7 August 2011)

Just need to reemphasize a point here: the US defense networks will need to put their 'own people' (with appropriate qualifications, contacts/networks, expertise etc) in leadership roles, within the shadowy groups (heads of many of these organizations). This is part of what I meant by suggesting the US will target many shadowy groups. 

Hey this is my opinion here, and you won't find it covered on CNN, for example: *Seems to me that shadowy groups are accelerating their efforts to transfer power from USA this past week! It's as if they've been caught-out and are speeding things up a little! The S&P rating agency picked an extremely odd, difficult and sensitive time to downgrade the US. *

It's also interesting to note the number of countries that are lining up to push for another reserve currency. China, Russia and the Philippines (who cares!) are three that have done so in the past few days. 

Here's the annoying bit: China, for example, has had a free ride with the USD for a long time, which has meant that China has unfair trading advantages over the world. A country that makes bloggers that criticize it, for example, disappear (which is why I will never go there!), wants to criticize the US even though China has never paid a premium for its concessions over the years.

I think that those countries that are quick out of the gate to push for the US's downfall, by wanting the USD to falter and by reinforcing the downgrade, should be looked at carefully. They are clearly not gong to support a US-led initiative to protect the world from potentially irreversible harm in the future (preventing countries like Iran from getting really aggressive, for example). 

*All those that want to criticize US defense initiatives of all kinds, especially those in Asia, who will protect the world from potential chaos if the US loses it's grip on geopolitical dynamics, and the world becomes an open place for all sorts of escalating and conflicting agendas?*

China stockpiling of all kinds of resources (that are clearly not being used to make toys in factories) is really beginning to make a lot of sense now! Weren't zi Germans (not criticizing Germans now-days!) doing similar things prior to WWI and WWII? A real concern for anyone living in Asia, if you ask me. So get behind the US and don't be narrow-minded opportunists that see fragmented distributions of wealth as the new norm. *The push for alternative currencies and leadership power distribution, will inevitable lead to an unsafe world, if the US and all its (real!) allies aren't properly supported by the rest of us.*


----------



## Glen48 (7 August 2011)

IBM suplied the Germans during the war with a card system to assist them in record keeping of the Jew bound for the camps, Henry Ford was a Jew hater and helped the Germans with Funds and engines.

Stalin helped the Germans build and run the camps well before WW2 started. 
 We will never the full extent of what goes on but we are at thier mercy however maybe the net FB, Twitter, USb srticks etc will help free up information
and slowly rekaese their strangle hold,


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 August 2011)

konkon said:


> No, I don't see Obama as corrupt. A President (almost) always wants to win a second term in office




It is interesting that you would say these two things so close to each other. Do you imply that is a politician is corrupt that they will for some reason have trouble getting re-elected?

If Obama is not corrupt, can you explain for one of many things, his complete lack of action against the individuals and institutions which caused the GFC? In many other countries they would have been given the death penalty.



konkon said:


> *All those that want to criticize US defense initiatives of all kinds, especially those in Asia, who will protect the world from potential chaos if the US loses it's grip on geopolitical dynamics, and the world becomes an open place for all sorts of escalating and conflicting agendas?*




I'm just speeding through your posts and....are you actually implying that the US has any interest whatsoever in protecting the world from anything?

Are you implying that US politicians (the very same ones who get millions of dollars of corrupt money from the defense contractors they give funding to, not to mention every other lobby group that comes knocking) are somehow moral and just?

I just don't understand where you are getting these assumptions from. Mate, all but maybe half a dozen US congressmen (and women) deserve the death penalty.


----------



## konkon (12 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> If Obama is not corrupt, can you explain for one of many things, his complete lack of action against the individuals and institutions which caused the GFC? In many other countries they would have been given the death penalty.




President Obama is not corrupt. Obama, like the rest of us, are a part of a faulty system on many levels. Fiat currencies, perpetual debt, too much credit (and not enough revenue to pay for it) are just some of the problems that spring to mind. There are a lot more.

Where does one start with the GFC? The GFC may well have started way before 2008 and there are a multiple of *worldwide* factors that one must take into account. Debatable, but I personally don't think sub-prime in the US _caused_ the GFC. Europe and other parts of the world were over-leveraged too. Obama had nothing to do with the problems in Europe, for example, that were clearly brewing even 7 years ago, and maybe even before this period. And Obama had nothing to do with the problems in the US. 

White collar crime is, at large, not seen as important by most people in the world, as blue collar crime. This is a world wide phenomenon and it doesn't help if those that probably could do something about this type of stealthy, but serious crime, like your law enforcement agencies, are too preoccupied (through no fault of their own) to focus on other types of crime. The system those law enforcement agencies work in is _designed_, subtly and over a period of time, to channel their energies, expertise etc in other directions. 

And another point, that is becoming obvious in the UK, law enforcement agencies are under resourced in general. Cutbacks or proposed cutbacks certainly don't help. 

Congress is a different problem altogether. I don't think congress should have as much power as they do, personally. They should perhaps spend endless amounts of time debating what the next postal stamp should look like, for example. But congress, and there are other organizations, like some media outlets, should not have such an important gatekeeper role. 



Starcraftmazter said:


> I'm just speeding through your posts and....are you actually implying that the US has any interest whatsoever in protecting the world from anything?




*Most definitely, the US (The President, defense services of all kinds etc) does have a real interest in protecting the world from all kinds of serious harm.* Here's a question for you; let's say the US wasn't in control of geopolitics around the world or didn't oversee the world the way it does, which country would look after us in the West and East? There is no other country that has the expertise, will and resources to oversee geopolitical events (current and future ones). 

I personally see the GFC as a time for many countries around the world to support the US and its allies' efforts to protect us from potential major global conflicts in the future. WWI and WWII were _inevitable_ because (amongst many technical and historical reasons) you didn't have a global superpower to oversee all parts of the world and focus in on the troubled parts; this is what the US does. And not just some parts like a potential next superpower (ie. China) might focus on. 

If China, for example, overtook the US's geopolitical role, China might do this fragmentedly, but there would be some serious gaps in perhaps some precarious parts of the world. There may not be a country with the will, resources etc, like the US, to take the necessary actions if (in the future) serous conflicts were brewing in some parts of the world. Without the US and its allies in control (and of course it's very difficult at times), you might have many countries in different parts of the world, at different times, go for the top dog position. 




Starcraftmazter said:


> Are you implying that US politicians (the very same ones who get millions of dollars of corrupt money from the defense contractors they give funding to, not to mention every other lobby group that comes knocking) are somehow moral and just?
> 
> I just don't understand where you are getting these assumptions from. Mate, all but maybe half a dozen US congressmen (and women) deserve the death penalty.




*Congressmen don't deserve the death penalty!* I don't know why you would suggest this! I don't have a very good opinion of congress and other organizations, like shadow banking cartels. Not talking about the local bank in town. 

Like I mentioned before, I think it would be a good idea to give congress a special role of overseeing the next type of stamp that will hit the post office. As for deciding on really important issues. I think the people in general can do this without needing to be parented by their local constituents. 

But I also believe (and I am not that patriotic myself, I admit) that the military and of course the President (and his team) should have a greater influence in matters internal and abroad, without being sidetracked by gatekeepers like congress and media outlets (who seem to be serving other masters). 

One of the reasons why I know we will need defense agencies of all kinds to protect us, is because of the potential fragmented protective framework and the possible dangers that may arise, if we didn't have the US, for example, to oversee geopolitics on a global (and not a fragmented) scale. 

In other words, ask yourself why there was never a WWIII, and the answer has to be because the US and its allies (and there are plenty) kept on preventing this from ever happening. Now ask yourself what a world without global oversight would look like.

Now I probably wouldn't last three days in a military training camp, for example, and I'd probably get beaten up because I'm probably too annoying. But I'm sure glad that I can live a relatively comfortable life not worrying about serous global threats every ten minutes; I'm thinking of Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men here and what he said to Tom Cruise while they were having lunch outdoors. Only Nicholson could pull that off like that!


----------



## joea (12 August 2011)

Hi.
I would just like to comment that Obama was elected to fix the faulty system.
And he as I (and many others) have found that when you try to solve a problem(in his case many) that there are a number of people in powerful position will not let you have  space.
There is a unwritten code that says "you will not change the system", even if the code is corrupt.
Thats they way it is I am afraid.
joea


----------



## WhoToTrust (12 August 2011)

konkon said:


> I use the term 'banker' loosely to mean all those powerful groups of corporate and banking 'executives' and co. that want to control the world, the people in it and the world's economies, by for example irresponsibly and deliberately issuing more and more debt to pay for existing and future debt (and knowing: 1.that this model will not work, 2. this will further burden the middle classes which would mean that the international bankers will to some extent be able to control them especially at a crucial time).




I don't see how this has changed.  The origins of 'The Banks' was the formalisation/legalisation of thugs lending money to anyone, and if you didn't pay back when agreed, you would be physically and emotionally 'stood over' (bashed/killed).

I don't think much has changed in the morality of this much at all.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

konkon said:


> President Obama is not corrupt. Obama, like the rest of us, are a part of a faulty system on many levels. Fiat currencies, perpetual debt, too much credit (and not enough revenue to pay for it) are just some of the problems that spring to mind. There are a lot more.




I will not disagree with your assessment under the assumption that he a genuine politician, however I will claim that the office of the president of the United States has significant power (especially after all the Bush era laws), and if Obama had the will, he could have done *a lot* to put the people who caused the GFC in jail.

And yes there was a 20 year credit bubble, but I don't see this as a reason to not hold people accountable. Get Greenspan and put his old **** in a maximum security jail for starters.



konkon said:


> *Most definitely, the US (The President, defense services of all kinds etc) does have a real interest in protecting the world from all kinds of serious harm.* Here's a question for you; let's say the US wasn't in control of geopolitics around the world or didn't oversee the world the way it does, which country would look after us in the West and East? There is no other country that has the expertise, will and resources to oversee geopolitical events (current and future ones).




My counter-question is who really cares? Why do you think the USA (either people or politicians - genuine or corrupt) care about the rest of the world? You seem to think they have some sort of a moral agenda to save the world....nothing could be further from the truth.

The only agenda USA has in terms of foreign geopolitics is oil, and every single decision is largely driven by that. They would nuke the middle east for all they care and kill every last person there - if there will be no other way for them to get that oil.




konkon said:


> *Congressmen don't deserve the death penalty!* I don't know why you would suggest this! I don't have a very good opinion of congress and other organizations, like shadow banking cartels. Not talking about the local bank in town.




What is so special about congressmen that makes them exempt from the death penalty? I do not like your way of thinking.



konkon said:


> In other words, ask yourself why there was never a WWIII, and the answer has to be because the US and its allies (and there are plenty) kept on preventing this from ever happening. Now ask yourself what a world without global oversight would look like.




Why not? Because of nuclear weapons.

What would a world look like if USA and co were neutral? There would be a lot less debt and "terrorism" in the OECD.



konkon said:


> Now I probably wouldn't last three days in a military training camp, for example, and I'd probably get beaten up because I'm probably too annoying. But I'm sure glad that I can live a relatively comfortable life not worrying about serous global threats every ten minutes; I'm thinking of Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men here and what he said to Tom Cruise while they were having lunch outdoors. Only Nicholson could pull that off like that!




I would argue the opposite. Our lives would be far more comfortable and safe if all our respective countries were like Switzerland.


----------



## konkon (19 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I will not disagree with your assessment under the assumption that he a genuine politician, however I will claim that the office of the president of the United States has significant power (especially after all the Bush era laws), and if Obama had the will, he could have done *a lot* to put the people who caused the GFC in jail.




It just seems as though things have been engineered in such a way (not by Obama), over a long period of time, to make it very difficult to prosecute white collar crime of the kinds mentioned; you probably can't even call them crimes, and the excuses might be 'bad market practices' or something like that. The media doesn't even question those practices and they tend to lead the public to believe that it's just that - bad market practices. I don't think the President or the Justice Department can do too much about this. They have to follow sets of rules etc, as much as they might want to do something about those deceitful practices by many of these white collar types. 




Starcraftmazter said:


> And yes there was a 20 year credit bubble, but I don't see this as a reason to not hold people accountable. Get Greenspan and put his old **** in a maximum security jail for starters.




*This is what bankers and the like do; they finance bubbles of different kinds in different ways, throughout history*. This is not seen as a crime at all, and maybe it shouldn't be. You can't get half pregnant so financing and speculating on extreme bubbles wouldn't be seen as a crime either. But I have to admit I do see your point about these central bankers and their inherently faulty sets of beliefs. But they will always be an insulated lot and part of this has to do with the sets of (don't forget people!) man made laws (hello Congress, and how are those stamp designs going?) or the lack of them, that protects their asses! Another reason why law enforcement agencies and even The President can't do anything about this. 




Starcraftmazter said:


> My counter-question is who really cares? Why do you think the USA (either people or politicians - genuine or corrupt) care about the rest of the world? You seem to think they have some sort of a moral agenda to save the world....nothing could be further from the truth.




I'm sure glad the US and its allies are there or I might be saluting a red flag, working 60+ hours a week for minimal pay and had my assets taken from me and nationalized, long ago. 

I'd call the US's and its allies efforts over the decades to protect all our interests, as a real agenda. I certainly would prefer my mundane suburban life than, for example, those that have to work 70 hours a week at that factory that makes all our electronic gadgets, with all those safety nets! 




Starcraftmazter said:


> What would a world look like if USA and co were neutral? There would be a lot less debt and "terrorism" in the OECD.




Debt, I can handle. Worrying about geopolitics every 10 minutes would be a real problem for me. 




Starcraftmazter said:


> I would argue the opposite. Our lives would be far more comfortable and safe if all our respective countries were like Switzerland.




Switzerland couldn't give a rats ass about anyone other than Switzerland. I think they've shown this throughout history. I am glad Australia, the US, GB etc have protected my family, nieces, cat etc over the years and am glad to pay a premium for their continued support.

Trust me, it wouldn't take long for another country to go for the #1 position and make you and I dance to their tune. Call it human nature or something else; I have a theory, and I'm sure it's shared by many:

The only time you will get the kind of unity withing a planet that many discuss, is if the ruling life-form within that world saw a direct threat from other (but different) ruling life-forms, from another planet. One 'alien world' versus another (even if it's a light year away). Darwinism's survival of the fittest (with an obvious extension) would apply, or the threat alone would get their 'ass' (if they've got one!) in gear.

Back to Earth and we don't have this sort of problem (but with the 100 or so trillion stars out there, I'm sure other life-forms do). This opens up a whole range of probabilities, like a rapid expansion of technological achievements, not by us, but by other life forms that had/have those threats from other (not so far!) worlds. But I'm drifting. 

Treat this as a hypothetical framework even if you don't believe there's life out there (100 trillion to one; are we that lucky? No way!). Based on this assumptive framework, there would be very little reason for the numerous and diverse people in different countries on this planet, to unite, especially with all our differences. The void of world domination here on Earth will continue, and if it's not the US and its allies, then who?!


----------



## konkon (2 September 2011)

Here are some articles that may interest you. You can make up your own minds or draw your own conclusions. I certainly have. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100..._LEFTWhatsNewsCollection#articleTabs=comments

http://www.alleconomists.com/2011/09/even-goldman-sachs-secretly-believes.html

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...onomic-collapse-of-america-in-four-easy-steps


----------



## konkon (2 September 2011)

This just came through from http://www.reuters.com/

"BREAKING NEWS: Government set to file suit against more than 12 big banks for misrepresenting quality of mortgage securities: report"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/02/us-usa-mortages-lawsuit-idUSTRE7810ME20110902

"(Reuters) - The agency that oversees mortgage markets is preparing to file suit against "more than a dozen" big U.S. banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgages they packaged and sold during the housing bubble, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is expected to file suit against Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among other banks, the Times reported, citing three unidentified individuals briefed on the matter."


----------



## mullokintyre (27 October 2021)

This thread had a run some ten years ago, so time to resurrect it.
It seems that nothing has changed.
Ten years ago , Joea said above 


> I would just like to comment that Obama was elected to fix the faulty system.
> And he as I (and many others) have found that when you try to solve a problem(in his case many) that there are a number of people in powerful position will not let you have space.
> There is a unwritten code that says "you will not change the system", even if the code is corrupt.
> Thats they way it is I am afraid.



This statement is as true as ever.
The private consortium of banks  called the Federal reserve, is keen for the power over money and all things financial to be taken over by the chosen few with real power.
From Wall street on parade


> This month, the Vanderbilt Law Review published a 69-page paper by Saule Omarova, President Biden’s nominee to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal regulator of the largest banks in the country that operate across state lines. The paper is titled “The People’s Ledger: How to Democratize Money and Finance the Economy.”
> 
> The paper, in all seriousness, proposes the following:
> 
> ...



There is of course, no guarantee that Omaraova will get what she wants, but the fact that there has been no stink kicked up by the Republicans shows they don't think of  the idea as a problem.
bad luck for those who have money deposited in the banks.
Mick


----------

