PDA

View Full Version : NWO Currency System to be Presented to U.S.A. by EU Leaders




Volitzer
10-18-2008, 11:00 PM
NWO Currency System to be Presented to U.S.A. by EU Leaders

European Union President Nicholar Sarkozy and Saturday, Oct 18, 2008 - If we are to believe the Washington Post, French president and current EU leader Nicolas Sarkozy has pledged to save us from nameless “freewheeling bankers and traders” who get the blame for the current economic crisis.

Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, and EU honcho José Manuel Barroso are talking up an international summit to di More..scuss an “urgent overhaul of the world’s financial architecture,” that is to say a new Bretton Woods to establish a brand spanking new international economic order. Sarkozy has managed to grab George Bush’s ear and he will travel to Washington on Saturday to lay the groundwork for a conference.

In 1944, 44 allied nations met at a resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to fiddle with monetary standards, fix exchange rates, and create the IMF and World Bank. “Launching a remake of this old model — particularly in such a short time, with so many new participants — would represent a daunting challenge at any time, but particularly during the twilight of the Bush presidency and the crisis that is still jolting banks and stock markets around the world,” reports the Post.

Sarkozy and the EU leaders would have us believe this new Bretton Woods will call for “globally coordinated regulation of the financial industry, elimination of tax havens and a compensation system in which traders are not rewarded for dangerous risk-taking,” among other things.

It was the demise of Bretton Woods in 1971, insists European Central Bank president Jean- Claude Trichet, that led to the abandonment of regulation and subsequent market turmoil. “The explosion of the first Bretton Woods in a way could be interpreted as a rejection of discipline,” said Trichet, reports Bloomberg.

Gordon Brown, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, wants to fix that turmoil with a new spate of regulations aimed at international finance. On October 13 in London, Brown said “we must devise new rules for a world of global capital flows” just as the founders of Bretton Woods “devised rules for a world of limited capital flows.”


“We now have global financial markets but what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision,” Brown lamented from Brussels.

All of this is nonsense. It should be obvious by now the bankers engineered the current crisis in order to consolidate their hold on the global economy and all the talk about rogue traders, tax havens, and over-compensated executives is merely that — talk, or more specifically a sales pitch, a slick parlor trick devised to fool the commoners.

Glossed over in all the corporate media coverage is the global elite demand that a global currency be established. “Europe wants to present a blueprint for a new worldwide currency system,” reports the AFP in the video here.

“Another subject in tomorrow’s world is that of the great currencies,” Reuters reported Sarkozy musing on October 16. “How many should there be? What should the agreement between these great currencies be? Should we organize a discussion?”

Any discussion would be purely academic, as the ruling elite long ago decided to force a global currency down our throats. In fact, a global currency is at the very core of their plan to dominate the world. Control money and you control the destiny of states, you eliminate national sovereignty. “The control of money and credit strikes at the very heart of national sovereignty,” A.W. Clausen, president of Bank of America once observed.

As Georgetown professor and CFR historian Carroll Quigley noted, the goal of the banking families and their minions consists of “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

It remains to be seen if the EU will realize its “solution” to the world economic crisis. In 2007, Robert Mundell, “the father of the euro,” noted that “international monetary reform usually becomes possible only in response to a felt need and the threat of a global crisis.”

Certainly, the elite cooked up an appropriate global crisis, now they will engage in a full court press to establish a global currency and eventually a global government.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=11d_1224365393

Andrew Ryan
10-18-2008, 11:38 PM
Uh-oh.
..

pacelli
10-18-2008, 11:49 PM
Fuck.

TER
10-18-2008, 11:55 PM
and so, the Book of Revelation comes closer and closer to fruition...

DFF
10-19-2008, 12:52 AM
The credit situation will have to deteriorate significantly more before a one world currency would be accepted by the masses - and we're not at this juncture yet.

So in the meantime, the NWO cheerleaders will have to be content with merely pumping their Socialist pom-poms.

IPSecure
10-19-2008, 01:12 AM
I propose the "Ron Paul Printing Press Company", we win a no-bid contract to print the world's money, and have the paper we use subsidized. We will markup the value, charge for rush delivery, and of course have huge cost overruns, and maintenance fees... We will be paid in Gold only, for our service... We will not be held accountable for anything we do.

ultrahumanite
10-19-2008, 03:07 AM
"The credit situation will have to deteriorate significantly more before a one world currency would be accepted by the masses - and we're not at this juncture yet."

I wish I could believe that this was true, but I'm not so sure. We've been careening towards this for so long now, and the people who stand to benefit from it have become masters of presenting it to the public with the friendliest face possible. I used to believe that there was a point, a line somewhere that people just wouldn't cross, a degree of freedom that people simply would not sit quietly and allow to be taken, but after the last 20 years or so, I'm just not sure.

Rich
10-19-2008, 07:15 AM
Most folks obviously don't see it, or don't get it. Obama is a communist. I found the U.S. Communist Party webiste....(yes there is one) and the goal of the U.S. Communist party is to take the U.S. first to socialism..then to communism. Most of the statements and goals Obama has stated ..is taken directly from the U.S. Communist manifesto and goals. read it for yourself!! "Redistribution of wealth, taking from the rich to give to the middle classes, taking control of banks and the top corporations, socialized medicine, housing for all, jobs for all....all under government control and eventually...ownership." The database for "our" nationalized medical program was announced by a high ranking Demcratic party member as completed, ready to start adding names to etc..
I was told when I was in high school that the socialist/communist party had infiltrated both political parties and in the following 30 years, we would be socialist..then communist. I thought they were talking crap. That was in 1967...
If you read the U.S. Communist website and their blog..they state they have no concerns because they will have 1400 days to reseat the courts, will have most of the seats in the house...and will transform our government into socialism and then communism expedisciously. They plan to use the strength and power of the U.S. Government that exists, to convert other countries..as stated...this isn't me saying this...READ IT FOR YOURSELF!!

I don't know if url's are permitted here so simple goggle in a search as ..
"U.S. Communist Party"

and you shall see....we are screwed if and when Obama gets elected and/or...if the Democrat's get majority seats.

Get ready for the "retraining camps" !!

We are "days away".... from becoming a communist state.

There was and is only ONE MAVERICK in our government that HAS FOUGHT for the people of this country..... and that person "IS" Ron Paul.

Ron, I know ya did and are doing your best.

God bless ya sir.

slacker921
10-19-2008, 07:49 AM
^^^ first post.. heh.

now back on topic, realize that they don't have to create "one currency" - we can be holding bills that look different from the bills in Europe. What they're going for imho is an agreement amongst the central banks to continue the global move in monetary supply like they did recently. It doesn't matter to them if we're holding Euros or Dollars for now as long as they can control/inflate all of them at once.

Johnnybags
10-19-2008, 08:32 AM
Americans will get devalued the most in any new world currency. It will come, we are in the beginnings of a worldwide depression, China gets the prize for least devaluation and will probably appreciate against a so called world currency. EG, the us dollar is exchangeable for 2 dollars for every dollar of new and China exchangeable at .75 Yuan for every new. Biggest debtor nations get screwed, biggest savers live like kings.

A. Havnes
10-19-2008, 11:20 AM
Well, I for one refuse to a NWO currency, and if need be, I'll do my shopping in the black market!

Volitzer
10-19-2008, 11:24 AM
Read on...


Harper, Sarkozy vow to work toward Canada-EU deal

Last Updated: Friday, October 17, 2008 | 12:13 PM ET

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, second from right, speaks with Canada's Governor General Michaëlle Jean, left, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, second from left, and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso before the start of a meeting at the Citadelle in Quebec City on Friday. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vowed to work toward a comprehensive economic agreement with the European Union, saying countries must avoid the tendency to "turn inward and erect barriers" in this time of economic turmoil.

Harper made the comment at a news conference in Quebec City Friday afternoon after meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy, French president and current head of the EU, and Jose Manuel Barroso, the head of the European Commission.

"Without question, these times call for closer economic co-operation among key players in the global economy," Harper said.

"Among other things, this means rejecting the frequent tendency in difficult times to turn inward and erect barriers between our economies and our citizens," he said. "Indeed, we must stand against protectionism and work to lower and eliminate barriers."

Harper said the European Union and Canada have completed an economic study and agreed to begin working on negotiating an "ambitious" and "truly historic" economic partnership.

The study indicates liberalized trade in goods and services could boost Canada's economy by $12 billion seven years after implementation, Harper said.

No details were revealed but Harper said talks on the partnership will begin as early as possible next year.

Canadian negotiators will also try to hammer out an air services agreement with the EU by Nov. 30, he said.

"This will offer new possibilities to our business communities and new transfers to our various markets," Harper said.

Barroso called the talks "fruitful" and said an opening of aviation markets will bring more than 1,000 direct jobs in the first year and up to 3.5 million extra passengers each year in the medium term.

He said increasing European investment possibilities in Canadian airlines will be an important step.

'Pressing need' to work together
Harper reiterated that the fundamentals of Canada's economic and banking system are sound.

"We are, nonetheless, part of an interdependent global economy that is facing a slowdown," he added. "Thus, there is a pressing need for us to work together."

Sarkozy, meanwhile, was asked at the news conference about financial upsets at home, where a mutual savings bank revealed it had lost 600 million Euros in a trading incident last week. The French finance minister has called for a special audit of all French banks.

The president called the incident unacceptable and said it shows "lack of consequence, lack of responsibility-taking."

The three leaders met behind closed doors to discuss the world's financial markets and are in Quebec City for the Francophonie summit.

Leaders of nearly 70 French-speaking nations are expected to attend the summit, including Belgium, Switzerland and a number of African countries.

Sarkozy's visit cut short
The French president was initially expected to stay for the duration of the three-day Francophonie summit but cut his trip short to visit U.S. President George W. Bush at Camp David on Saturday to talk about the economy.

Sarkozy dismissed concerns about his shortened trip and said many advised him to stick around Europe. "I said 'No no no, it's far too important. We need Canada."

He also expounded on France's history with Canada, calling Quebecers part of "our family" and the rest of Canada "our allies and our friends."

Meeting with the European Union leaders to discuss the economic crisis and strengthen trade relations was part of Harper's six-point economic plan laid out the day after his re-election on Tuesday.

Harper has vowed to ensure Canadian banks are not put at a disadvantage by the United States and European countries pumping money into financial institutions to help stem further economic downturn.

Sarkozy also made a speech Friday in Quebec's national assembly, a first for a French president in the provincial legislature.

Sarkozy's wife, singer and former model Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, is not accompanying him on the trip.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/17/quebec-city.html?ref=rss

It's getting worse !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cheapseats
10-19-2008, 11:40 AM
As Georgetown professor and CFR historian Carroll Quigley noted, the goal of the banking families and their minions consists of “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”






now back on topic, realize that they don't have to create "one currency" - we can be holding bills that look different from the bills in Europe. What they're going for imho is an agreement amongst the central banks to continue the global move in monetary supply like they did recently. It doesn't matter to them if we're holding Euros or Dollars for now as long as they can control/inflate all of them at once.


There are a few Libertarian positions that make zero sense to me, one of them being Libertarian opposition to hefty taxes on mammoth estates.

Americans hear "Death Tax" and with knee-jerk alacrity, they oppose "another" Government Grab.

Pick not just a sensible number, pick a highly motivational number...like a HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. How many people die with estates of even ten million dollars? Maybe the number is 25.

Below that number, I envision the same taxation rate that is applied on "living" income. Since Big Shots deem that 15% is the Right tax for passive income, intuitively but also morally the tax on income earned by the sweat of one's brow and by commitment of one's greatest asset, Time, can be no higher. Fifteen percent, it is.

I appreciate that that amounts to double-taxation but, who cares? The dude's dead. If we keep going as we're going, we won't just have to tax the dead, we'll have to EAT them.

Above the magic number, 25 or even 100 million dollars, I envision the tax as the complimentary portion of !00%. I envision a tax not of 15%, but of 85%.

Liberty and freedom, right on. The less meddling in my life by people I don't know, the better. As a society, it should be a goal that the absolute greatest fraction possible of a man's own earnings remains in the earning man's hands, to dispense as he pleases within far fewer laws than we carry, at a price, on our books...think, toxic assets. Arbitrarily taking away that which a person earns is outrageous on its face.

HOWEVER, comma, what entitles the stroke-of-luck offspring of the uber rich to start the game of Life with the warchest accumulated by another, after ALREADY enjoying developmental years of unparalleled advantage? That is ALSO outrageous on its face.

A lotta the guys who did a lotta this damage are within meaningful range of kicking the bucket.

But even Good Guy uber rich are prepared to set their own bloodlines up for perpetual security, at the expense of the broadcloth of the American citizenry. Read Andrew Lahde's letter to get an earful about the behavior of their pampered, privileged, indulged, entitled, thankless, callous kids.

Random as I may sound, I urge People to consider a connect-the-dots picture...Baby Boomers will remember those, also Hidden Objects puzzles, in the Highlights Magazines that graced the doctor and dentist offices that we went to regularly without thinking anything of it, because regular health and dental care did not send Family Finances into chaos. That the American Estate Tax and the New World Order are connecting dots is bankable.

Charles Wilson
10-19-2008, 11:51 AM
and so, the Book of Revelation comes closer and closer to fruition...

I predict the events written in the Book of Revelations will come to fruition within the next ten years. Most, if not all of the principle players are in place to make it happen -- One World Government, Mark of the Beast, etc.

I also predict that the current world economic crisis will grow to biblical proportions. The huge amount of fiat currency already dumped on the world market will insure hyperinflation that in turn will cause unspeakable misery for folks on a fixed income. I am preparing for the worse and praying for the best.

cheapseats
10-19-2008, 11:58 AM
I predict the events written in the Book of Revelations will come to fruition within the next ten years. Most, if not all of the principle players are in place to make it happen -- One World Government, Mark of the Beast, etc.

I also predict that the current world economic crisis will grow to biblical proportions. The huge amount of fiat currency already dumped on the world market will insure hyperinflation that in turn will cause unspeakable misery for folks on a fixed income. I am preparing for the worse and praying for the best.

I IMPLORE you to consider that the same Greedy Bastards who orchestrated this bullshit are SELLING Believers on End of Times because, as far as Conscienceless Uber Rich are concerned, it IS the end of everything when they are personally gone.

Egomaniacs of Napoleon's grade and Greedy Bastards of Midas' ilk are looking down the unforgiving barrel of Mortality, and they do NOT want anyone to surpass them. They're going All In, because they have nothing to lose.

Believers and Non-Believers-But-Good-Guys-Just-The-Same are so downtrodden, confused, overworked and underpaid...Sick and Tired...they acquiesce to a reality that is being defined, then executed, by people who have demonstrated themselves A.) NOT to be men of their words and B.) NOT to be Christian in their deeds.

cheapseats
10-19-2008, 12:13 PM
And I implore the international community, since my own Congress knows not of Restraint and my own President is a Rogue, to do NOTHING until we Kick The Traitors Out.

To the extent that we permit present Authorities to negotiate on our behalf, we are negotiating with the world from a position of weakness. It would be LUNACY to permit present Authorities...who are known 'round the world to be unscrupulous...to enter us into binding contracts in the Eleventh Hour of their reign.

But we ARE insane, in the manner of Addicts. Therefore I implore the international community to act neither as Enablers nor Accomplices. This shit has been building up for a long time...the world can hang on until January.

Charles Wilson
10-19-2008, 12:16 PM
I IMPLORE you to consider that the same Greedy Bastards who orchestrated this bullshit are SELLING Believers on End of Times because, as far as Conscienceless Uber Rich are concerned, it IS the end of everything when they are personally gone.

Egomaniacs of Napoleon's grade and Greedy Bastards of Midas' ilk are looking down the unforgiving barrel of Mortality, and they do NOT want anyone to surpass them. They're going All In, because they have nothing to lose.

Believers and Non-Believers-But-Good-Guys-Just-The-Same are so downtrodden, confused, overworked and underpaid...Sick and Tired...they acquiesce to a reality that is being defined, then executed, by people who have demonstrated themselves A.) NOT to be men of their words and B.) NOT to be Christian in their deeds.

No one sold me on anything. The facts speak for themselves. One World Government and Government control over every aspect of our lives is fast becoming a reality. All of the laws necessary to enforce a totalitarian government are approved and in place -- as are the jack booted thugs who will enforce those laws. This is the end of the world as we know it whether you are a believer or not. Just because we recognize the facts do not mean that we give up and give in -- we continue to fight against it as much as humanly possible.

heavenlyboy34
10-19-2008, 02:19 PM
There are a few Libertarian positions that make zero sense to me, one of them being Libertarian opposition to hefty taxes on mammoth estates.

Americans hear "Death Tax" and with knee-jerk alacrity, they oppose "another" Government Grab.

Pick not just a sensible number, pick a highly motivational number...like a HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. How many people die with estates of even ten million dollars? Maybe the number is 25.

Below that number, I envision the same taxation rate that is applied on "living" income. Since Big Shots deem that 15% is the Right tax for passive income, intuitively but also morally the tax on income earned by the sweat of one's brow and by commitment of one's greatest asset, Time, can be no higher. Fifteen percent, it is.

I appreciate that that amounts to double-taxation but, who cares? The dude's dead. If we keep going as we're going, we won't just have to tax the dead, we'll have to EAT them.

Above the magic number, 25 or even 100 million dollars, I envision the tax as the complimentary portion of !00%. I envision a tax not of 15%, but of 85%.

Liberty and freedom, right on. The less meddling in my life by people I don't know, the better. As a society, it should be a goal that the absolute greatest fraction possible of a man's own earnings remains in the earning man's hands, to dispense as he pleases within far fewer laws than we carry, at a price, on our books...think, toxic assets. Arbitrarily taking away that which a person earns is outrageous on its face.

HOWEVER, comma, what entitles the stroke-of-luck offspring of the uber rich to start the game of Life with the warchest accumulated by another, after ALREADY enjoying developmental years of unparalleled advantage? That is ALSO outrageous on its face.

A lotta the guys who did a lotta this damage are within meaningful range of kicking the bucket.

But even Good Guy uber rich are prepared to set their own bloodlines up for perpetual security, at the expense of the broadcloth of the American citizenry. Read Andrew Lahde's letter to get an earful about the behavior of their pampered, privileged, indulged, entitled, thankless, callous kids.

Random as I may sound, I urge People to consider a connect-the-dots picture...Baby Boomers will remember those, also Hidden Objects puzzles, in the Highlights Magazines that graced the doctor and dentist offices that we went to regularly without thinking anything of it, because regular health and dental care did not send Family Finances into chaos. That the American Estate Tax and the New World Order are connecting dots is bankable.

You've been reading Marx and Lenin too much, dude. Are you a plant from the Communist party? Calm down and go read the books in the suggested reading thread about economics, and watch the John Stossel vid that was posted yesterday about free markets. The less money and power the government has, the better.

cheapseats
10-19-2008, 04:49 PM
The less money and power the government has, the better.

No question.

HOWEVER, comma, have you observed that a conglomeration of wealth and power in the hands of an entrenched Aristocracy, who don't even have to pretend to answer to elections, has promoted a Free Market or even a sustainable paradigm?

NOT that I advocate for more regulation...I argue for less and sensible regulation, administered by HONEST regulators...but the Truth is, "all things being equal," even an excessively regulated market will adapt to a semblance of free trade (intuitively, on those who benefit from trade will enter into it, voila, everyone is satisfied), so long as rules are the same for everyone and enforced with an even hand. That's not our story, obviously.

Monopolies, price collusion, price fixing, insider trading, conspiracies in restraint of trade, stealing, lying about weights and measures and INSTITUTIONALIZE ADVANTAGE (which is the genesis or enabler of so many of the others) are ALL anathema to a Free Market and corrosive to its optimal function. Entrenched Aristocracy is the violation-of-basic-Rights-of-Man-grade Institutionalized Advantage.



Calm down and go read the books in the suggested reading thread about economics, and watch the John Stossel vid that was posted yesterday about free markets.

Calm down? Who was last telling me to do that...Henry Paulson and George Bush?

I suggest consideration of probability. Given America's sustained rejection of hard-core Libertarianism, and given America's wish to be coddled into okay-ness (which is a positive function of fear, therefore increasing), what are the chances that the American People's NEXT move...reactive to this ratcheting up The Clusterfuck...will be to jump on the Libertarian bandwagon? They could do worse...but they are KNOWN for doing worse.

I suggest that, for anti-Collectivists, some of y'all have some fairly restrictive notions about what is permissible thinking and a fairly specific list of indoctrination materials. And I will suggest that, if you can't capsulize the gist of a position in your own words, you can't be sure you know what you're talking about.



You've been reading Marx and Lenin too much, dude. Are you a plant from the Communist party?

No and no. In these here parts, this constitutes insult, yes? Have I anywhere insulted you? Is unprovoked insult a Libertarian thing?

heavenlyboy34
10-19-2008, 04:59 PM
No question.

HOWEVER, comma, have you observed that a conglomeration of wealth and power in the hands of an entrenched Aristocracy, who don't even have to pretend to answer to elections, has promoted a Free Market or even a sustainable paradigm?

NOT that I advocate for more regulation...I argue for less and sensible regulation, administered by HONEST regulators...but the Truth is, "all things being equal," even an excessively regulated market will adapt to a semblance of free trade (intuitively, on those who benefit from trade will enter into it, voila, everyone is satisfied), so long as rules are the same for everyone and enforced with an even hand. That's not our story, obviously.

Monopolies, price collusion, price fixing, insider trading, conspiracies in restraint of trade, stealing, lying about weights and measures and INSTITUTIONALIZE ADVANTAGE (which is the genesis or enabler of so many of the others) are ALL anathema to a Free Market and corrosive to its optimal function. Entrenched Aristocracy is the violation-of-basic-Rights-of-Man-grade Institutionalized Advantage.




Calm down? Who was last telling me to do that...Henry Paulson and George Bush?

I suggest consideration of probability. Given America's sustained rejection of hard-core Libertarianism, and given America's wish to be coddled into okay-ness (which is a positive function of fear), what are the chances that the American People's NEXT move...reactive to this ratcheting up The Clusterfuck...will be to jump on the Libertarian bandwagon? They could do worse...but they are KNOWN for doing worse.

I suggest that, for anti-Collectivists, some of y'all have some fairly restrictive notions about what is permissible thinking and a fairly specific list of indoctrination materials. And I will suggest that, if you can't capsulize the gist of a position in your own words, you can't be sure you know what you're talking about.

First of all, monopolies aren't necessarily bad. If one telephone company provides the best product, customers will flock to that company-making the company a "monopoly" in that they set the standard because customers simply like it. This is a result of pure market capitalism. Bad monopolies are those imposed by government (such as fiat money).

Just because I refer you to a book doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. It just means I don't have time to type out a friggin book's worth of dissertation/argument, for fuck's sake! :rolleyes:


No and no. In these here parts, this constitutes insult, yes? Have I anywhere insulted you? Is unprovoked insult a Libertarian thing?

You can take it as an insult if you like. I meant it to point out the flaws in what you said/wrote. I'm not one for ad hominems either, so I apologize if I came off that way.

phoenixrising
10-21-2008, 12:33 AM
there has got to be a larger means that allows us a bigger audience...rather than continuing to preach to the choir.

http://www.heyokamagazine.com/heyoka.17.uribezmonov.htm

Doktor_Jeep
10-21-2008, 01:33 AM
Forget it.

Start using competing currency when you want to, and stop waiting for Joe Sixpack and Sally Sokkermom to get hit with a clue.

When they see you doing better than them they will learn - but don't feed them. It's the world they wanted, and it's the world they deserve to live in.

We need to start building and living in - and be ready to defend - ours.

jeff4476
10-21-2008, 10:17 AM
I think before you see a global currency, we'll see a North American Trade Union developed. It will be billed as protecting us from the strength of the euro and as a way to stabilize oil prices. The Amero will become the standard currency for oil trading. After that fails then we will see the emergence of a global currency.

Nationwide
10-21-2008, 12:42 PM
what are ya'll using for currency? Liberty dollars? Libertatems ?

Volitzer
10-21-2008, 03:57 PM
I seriously think a state or 2 will have to secede first then a new currency will become viable.

Nationwide
10-22-2008, 07:26 PM
Been thinking more about currency - I'd really like to use something other than FRNs (federal reserve notes) but I see that the govt has harassed/raided several of the alternatives (e-gold, liberty dollar, etc). What if we just started a warehouse of US govt coins. And then issued warehouse coin receipts. These receipts could be traded (along w a digital version). Is that legal? If not, could we not make it a ubiquitous, multiple-distributed system similar to bittorent so there'd be no central server/warehouse to go after?
Additionally, we could label the currency (endtheFED) to wake up the sheeple to their serfdom. I'm hopeful this would be a temporary currency until the US took back it's constitutional right to issue currency.
"the dollar is a national resource that belongs to the people. It was an original invention of the early American colonists, a new form of paper currency backed by the "full faith & credit" of the people. But a private banking cartel has taken over its issuance, turning debt into money and demanding that it be paid back with interest. Taxes and a crushing federal debt have been imposed by a financial ruling class that keeps the people entranced and enslaved."
-- Ellen Brown Web of Debt

cheapseats
10-23-2008, 08:44 AM
First of all, monopolies aren't necessarily bad.

This is completely false. Completely. Do you realize how few things in life are black and white, no gray whatever? Monopolies are to a free market as a dictator is to democracy.

Naturally occurring monopolies is EXACTLY where nationalization is called for. WHAAAA WHAAA about government bureaucracy and inefficiency. The truth is, we could slash our federal workforce by a quarter, easy, and put the rest on notice that, henceforth, you bring your A-Game to work for us and collect the Federal Compensation Package.

Government bureaucracy and inefficiency, bad as it is, is better than rapacious pricing. To the extent that the product or service is necessary to survival, a monopolistic enterprise is subject to no mitigating influence on price, none...except government intervention. And then you have the worst of two worlds, not to mention that behemoth businesses are ALSO riddled with nonsensical procedures and littered with waste.




If one telephone company provides the best product, customers will flock to that company-making the company a "monopoly" in that they set the standard because customers simply like it. This is a result of pure market capitalism. Bad monopolies are those imposed by government (such as fiat money).


Again with the Fiat Money, i.e. only those monopolies that affront Libertarians are bad.

In your example, you have pre-supposed multiple service providers, yes? Or "best" would have no meaning. While those customers flock to the latest best product or service, the other merchants will counter with product development and/or discounts/incentives. But that is the stuff of hardware, the physical phones that are held up to ears.

Telecommunications is another story. AT&T provides shitty products and shittier service, Verizon does the same, so does Sprint and a handful of others. This is oligopoly, not monopoly. I spy a business opportunity...to provide excellent connectivity AND unprecedented customer service featuring straightforward inexpensive plans that do not feature all the bells and whistles...just straightforward, reliable, cheap connectivity.

Do you recommend that I start building reception towers, or do you think it will be more cost-effective in the long run if I simply bite the bullet and launch a satellite?

Dr.3D
11-01-2008, 10:46 PM
I predict the events written in the Book of Revelations will come to fruition within the next ten years. Most, if not all of the principle players are in place to make it happen -- One World Government, Mark of the Beast, etc.

I also predict that the current world economic crisis will grow to biblical proportions. The huge amount of fiat currency already dumped on the world market will insure hyperinflation that in turn will cause unspeakable misery for folks on a fixed income. I am preparing for the worse and praying for the best.

Watch, and see what happens in six to nine months.
You may find your ten years is going to be three and one half by then.

heavenlyboy34
11-02-2008, 09:33 AM
This is completely false. Completely.

Au contraire.

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm

Monopoly

What is a monopoly?
Today, a monopoly is defined as a single seller in a given industry (appropriately defined). There are massive problems with this definition which I will comment on below.

Are not all monopolies harmful?
Being a single seller, by itself, is not good, nor evil -- it depends on how one obtained that single-seller status. Did one obtain a monopoly by economic competition in the marketplace, or did one obtain it by political pull, i.e., lobbying? If such status is gained by competition in the free-market then the "monopoly" -- the successful business -- is good. If such status is gained by using the government, or Mafia, to force one's competition out of business, then the monopoly is evil. As all political intervention (initiation of force) in the marketplace is outlawed under capitalism, a harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible. If one considers a monopoly by definition as intrinsically evil, then only "businesses" that obtain their market share by having their competition outlawed (as the U.S. Post Office does) can be called a monopoly.

What is the key to a proper discussion of monopoly?
The key is to discontinue the equivocation of the term monopoly--that is to use the term "monopoly" to refer to two mutually exclusive concepts: a company formed by economic power vs. a company formed by political power. There are two different concepts denoted by the term monopoly: (1) a company that has earned 100% share of a given market (i.e., Microsoft) or (2) a company that has not earned its 100% market-share, but instead had the government outlaw its competition (i.e., US Post Office). The first should morally be praised--and the second should morally be condemned. By equivocating on the term monopoly and keeping it ambiguous it becomes an anti-concept so that: a company that has earned 100% share of a given market (actually Microsoft does not have 100% of the O/S/ market but has over 90%) is morally condemned. Such are the dangers of confusing economic power (Microsoft's power of production) with political power (the Post Office's power derived from coercion).

How does one judge a monopoly, or non-monopoly?
Observe what is evil here: the act of using the government to outlaw ones competition. It does not matter whether the government uses its power to outlaw competition to "protect" a single business, or to benefit a group of one hundred companies from a single superior competitor. Whenever the government outlaws an individual from entering and competing in any given industry it is evil and wrong. The criterion of judgment is: is competition (the freedom to produce and trade) outlawed in some respect (that is regulated) or not.

What happens when a company starts to make a higher profit in its industry, in comparison to other industries?
If any company is a single seller in any industry and starts making profits higher than other industries, due to high prices; it will attract competition into its industry, as other capitalists move their capital from less profitable markets to more profitable ones. If the profits are due to lower production costs, which other companies are unable to match, then the company deserves its profit.

What happens if a business attempts to charge prices higher than its competitors ("exploiting")?
If any business attempts to charge prices higher than the market will bear, he will lose all his business to his competition, since he cannot force his competition out of business. The businessman's power is dollars -- not guns.

What happens if a business attempts to charge prices lower than his competitors ("dumping")?
If a business attempts to "corner the market" by charging prices that are too low (i.e., below its' variable costs of production), the business may drive competitors out of the market temporarily (at the price of eating up its financial capital and eroding its profits); but, as soon as the business raises its' prices (in order to reap profits in order to build back the capital it has given away by selling products below their variable cost), new competitors will enter the market.

The only way a company can gain profitably gain market share by lowering its' prices, is if it can lower its costs of production. If a business can charge the lowest price because it has figured out how to build a better mousetrap (i.e., produce more for less), then it deserves whatever market share it can obtain.

How are all harmful monopolies created?
The sole source of harmful monopolies is the government, which is the only agency that has the power to physically force competitors out of business, i.e., it is the only agency that has the power to outlaw (i.e., regulate) competition. As evidence, witness the United States Post Office, which makes it illegal for anyone to charge less than 34¢ for first class mail (one entrepreneur attempted to compete by charging 5¢ -- he did not get far). Other examples include the East India Company of the 17th and 18th centuries, the American Pacific Railroads of the 19th century, and the AMA's monopoly over the prescription of medicine in the 20th century.

Only the government can physically force its competitors out of markets, or establish harmful monopolies through the granting of state "franchises". This is, of course, a clear violation of individual rights, since such state "franchises" prevent those who do not have "political pull" to enter the state regulated industry. In essence the "state franchise" is an insurmountable barrier to entry--and entry created by the the men in government. No businessmen (or government) can do this under capitalism -- only is such a feat possible in a mixed economy, or "totalitarian economy".

The only "force" a capitalist can use to put his competitors out of business, is the "force" of providing a better product at a lower price as judged by those who purchase his products -- such is the "power" of the businessmen. If this is how he achieves his monopoly, then it is in no way harmful. Just because something is a "monopoly" -- a single agent in a specified area -- does not make it evil. A proper government has a monopoly on the use of force, and it is an essential good to capitalism.

Are monopolies intrinsically evil?
As the term is used here, monopolies are not intrinsically evil (big is not inherently evil), nor are monopolies subjectively evil (good or evil judged by public vote, or polls); monopolies are good or evil depending on how they are formed. If formed according to the laws of the free market -- capitalism -- they are objectively good. If formed through irrational political policies they are objectively evil.

Is there such a thing as an "excessive profit"?
There is no such thing as a profit that is too high or too low. That is, there is no such thing as an "excessive" profit. There is only the profit that men earn.