They Get The Cake While We Get The Crumbs

It's not even worth arguing the the majority of people here (or anywhere for that matter).

 

.

Because it isn't the true. The most basic form of money (currency) doesn't represent a liability (debt) to anyone. The money supply (In any variant from M1 to M4) isn't equivalent to the sum total of private and public debt. In any country.

 

Yes.

You are right in that the major problem is distribution and not production. But this isn't because of the "banking system". Go look where famine and starvation is an actual threat.

You will have one of three things:

Conflict creating refugees, which destroy distribution channels (ie: Sudan in '89)
Autocratic leaders affecting production (China in the late 1950s, early Soviet famines).
Crop/weather failure combined with a non-functioning banking system that prevents access to credit to the poor, who mostly operate outside of the cash economy (2012 Sahel drought).

You'll have to admit that no country with a functioning banking system (in the modern sense) has suffered widespread famine.

 

You aren't arguing or making any kind of point. You're making wild assertions (control by a small group of super elite bankers), with no evidence to support it, and then making snide comments when others don't hold your assumptions as valid.

It's hilariously close to the strategy used by fundamentalist churches arguing against evolution (the Bible says so).

But keep feeling superior.

 

Yeah, everything the banking system does is completely transparent and good for everyone. That's why there's never been a single independent audit (that is a REAL, FULL audit) of the Federal Reserve.

 

And evolutionists are just as brainwashed as the creationists who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

There is a reason the THEORY (I am referring to the Darwinian theory) of evolution is called a theory, and that's because there is no definitive proof to support it. In fact the theory is continuously being disproven as fossil evidence is unearthed showing that intelligent life on this earth is far older than many have been lead to believe.

 

I thought Sitka and Storch have started a great discussion, I really enjoyed their last couple of posts in here! Hope they carry on reading and responding to eachother as they did You however are the one making posts after it that are not really worth reacting to (well only to ask you to elaborate your one liners perhaps, which you at first seem to excuse yourself from with above statement )

 

Maybe when you're finally ready to leave the bubble/echo chamber you live in, you'll read this link and realize that a scientific theory isn't the same as a general theory:

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

This is also why you and so many others are also so utterly clueless about the theory of anthropogenic climate change and can never ever be persuaded-- you're so eager to dismiss these things that you don't even bother attempting to understand them.

And even if life was far older than 'many have led us to believe' (as if science isn't about using the best data available), WTF does that have to do with whether or not evolution is real? What is your source for this information? You're constantly just making these weird claims, not backing them up in any way and then mocking or belittling anyone who disagrees. It seems to me that if you really did value 'wisdom and learning', then you would at least spend a few minutes making sure that what you're saying has at least some vague connection to reality.

 

Solely by association:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN23k6m3J-A

Carry on!

 

A scientific theory is still a theory. It isn't a scientific law. Even the article you posted alludes to that.

Also, why do proponents of anthropogenic climate change never mention the words "global warming" anymore?

 

Yes, it's still a theory. The theory of gravity, the theory of evolution and the theory of anthropogenic climate change are all theories. ALL of them are the most widely accepted explanations for why certain things occur primarily due to the mountains of evidence supporting them.

And global warming is mentioned all the time... AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, and I frequently use this acronym in the climate change related threads. The reason you hear about climate change AND global warming these days is because the two are related, but not the same.

http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Sorry for the low credibility of the site, it's only NASA and not illuminatiandnwowillruletheworld.blogspot.com.

 

Well, NASA is part of the government, and the government is pushing the idea of anthropogenic global warming while squelching the THOUSANDS of scientists who reject it, so no, I really don't find NASA to be credible because they operate with the same agenda as the government which funds them. But I get the doublespeak.

 

Another strawman argument. Nobody is arguing the system is perfect - I'm an advocate of increased regulation, especially of asset-backed commercial papers. Most central banks are externally audited. The bank of Canada is yearly - and not by the Auditor General of Canada. The FR's annual financial statements are also audited annually by third-parties. More transparency in their decision-making process would be good, but there isn't any mystery in their goals, their tools or their assets.

I'm still not even sure how you think the system is exploitative. It is easy to get a mortgage - although people often make poor choices by purchasing houses beyond their means at variable interest rates. I save about 40 percent of my paycheck, and it is easy to invest in a wide variety of markets and get a reasonable return on investment (I got about 6 percent last year). Inflation hasn't been a major problem since the OPEC oil crisis. What exactly are you complaining about?