A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....

Thu Jan 26 03:39:58 CST 2012

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> The trust is that people  and institutions will pay their debts and reify
> the loaned money. In this realm trust becomes fungible. But there are many
> liars who use trust to gain what they don't earn. Some  claim the ability
> to turn any dollar into 10 dollars . The deep insiders know when to bail
> and leave others to pay those debts, or they depend on those governments
> they loan to  to bail them with taxpayer money.

Who are the "deep insiders"? We can list so many insiders, these
are individuals, in the US and in other nation states, who have inside
information and use it to, first, get the deals,for example, get large
quantities of very hot IPO stock (Romney got Solly stock) or
get "favorable" uptick trades (Hilary on pork bellies) or sell toxic assets
to the government and buy assets on the cheap. Insiders exist in every
field and human endeavor. For example, if a nurse, whose father needs heart
valve surgery knows the best doctor in his hospital and can use this
insider information arrange to have this surgeon perfom the surgery on his
father, he will use it. Same goes for a farmer in west China who knows that
the local boss has a quota for buying tractors and invites the boss over to
dinner. We all know the scale of this information and the size of the
transactions, the people impacted by such deals is larger on a macro-scale,
but it is a universal, something humans do and have been doing
since we discovered how to make fire. But who are the deep insiders? Why do
some huge insiders fall or get caught holding the bag? Why AIG or Bear
Searns or Shearson failed, WaMu failed...so on while GM was bailed. this is
an interesting question to consider in terms of the conspiracy theory that
is erected on the idea that their are some that are too (what is it? deep
inside?) inside to fall outside. Can you exaplin who these folks are? If,
for example, the Saudi monarchs are to be counted as deep insiders and the
Bushies are too, what would call the Obamas and the Clintons? Or, for that
matter, what would we call Chavez and Castro?

> This system is highly organized and backed by violence toward those who
> resist it. If you haven't read the Shock Doctrine, you will not understand
> the fascist nature of Friedmanite economics.  Anyway the whole fucking
> thing is a Ponzi scheme based on the impossibility of continuous growth.
>   The rape and mass killing of Iraqis was a conspiracy, the overthrow of
> Mossadegh, the holocaust, the racist abuse of Haiti ,  The conquistadors,
> The East Indi Company, the bolsheviks -all conspiracies. The republicans
> and democrats conspire to take control of the government and the bankers
> and industries conspire to control the parties. The question is not whether
> there are large and small conspiracies, secretive and open conspiracies.
>  The question is whether there is any way to defuse the Ponzi nature of
> modern economic practice and the colonial nature of modern politics and
> incorporate biospheric health and the humane distribution of wealth as the
> norms of what a workable economy does before the claims on diminishing
> resources turns most of the planet into Iraq/Auschwitz/Haiti/hell.
>
> Ron Paul is more correct than the other candidates , not in the accuracy
> of his theory or in the usefulness of his economic model, but in the raw
> fact that he understands the  monolithic conspiratorial nature of imperial
> power structures, and he hates it.  He knows it is incompatible with the
> constitution. He doesn't want to replace it , he wants to abandon the
> military imperial model altogether. The gold standard already exists. The
> price of gold is tracking the scarcity of real wealth residing  in paper
> money. The dictatorship is there already and both parties are part of it.
> Call it the 99% vs the 1%. Call it the generals versus the the peaceable
> rule of law, the starving versus the stuffed. Does anyone really believe
> that the earth's majority wants things arranged as they are, that the US
> empire wants democracy? That is the nutty shit that Obama and Bush say
> constantly with endless advertisements for the abundant American dream
> because fewer and fewer believe it.
>
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:
>
> > On 1/25/2012 12:42 PM, David Morris wrote:
> >>
> http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/government/ron-paul/gallery.html?curPhoto=11
> >>
> >> The New World Order
> >>
> >> "[Is there] an international conspiracy to overthrow our government?"
> >> Paul said in 2003, repeating the question of an audience member at his
> >> Austin speech. "The answer is 'Yes'. I think there are 25,000
> >> individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our
> >> Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One
> >> World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you
> >> are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking
> >> about setting up something that you could well call a dictatorship -
> >> and those plans are there!"
> >>
> >> Ron Paul's call for a return to the Gold Standard are clear proof that
> >> he's w/o a clue about economics and monetary dynamics.  But neither do
> >> most people...
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey, I got an idea.  Why doesn't the Fed just SAY it has enough gold
> buried somewhere to "back" all the money it creates.  Of course, the public
> would have to take this on faith.  It wouldn't be possible to actually
> count or weigh this much gold.  So in the end the value of money depends on
> trust.  Like so much else in this world.
> >
> > Approached from another angle, is there enough gold in the world, above
> or below, ground to "back" but a tiny fraction of the money supply?  Any
> kind of conceivable "gold standard" would just add an unnecessary, though
> minor,  complication to something that is complicated enough already.
> >
> > Saying all money must be backed by gold  is kind of like saying that all
> books have to be printed on paper.
> >
> > Good-bye Kindle.
> >
> > P
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>  wrote:
> >>> It's my impression that spinners of this particular conspiracy theory,
>  espoused by Ron Paul and others, don't really understand how money and
> banking work, or of American economic history.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120126/4c1afd43/attachment.html>