Monday, March 30, 2009

Krugman is Wrong

The act of "creating financial structures" IS less valid than making a physical good. As Lincoln said:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Bonddad tries to argue that securitization helped people by making more credit available. Ultimately, credit is unhelpful to an individual because it is debt. If inflation weren't so high and the U.S. still had good-paying jobs producing physical goods, people wouldn't need credit.

But average annual inflation has never decreased since 1956. Inflation is of course a hidden tax on the worker, and it is caused by the presence of too much money in the system. Which of course is caused by things like securitization, which is a product of the fractional reserve banking system.

Don't be fooled--securitization may help the little guy a little bit in the very short run--i.e., he gets a house or a degree--but the grossly inflated prices of things ensure that the little guy is tangled up in debt for literally most if not all his life.

The real beneficiaries of securitization are/have been the big financial institutions, who can create money literally out of nothing and treat liabilities as assets in a way that the little guy is not allowed to do.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

From my post on the Hattiesburg American forum:

Extrano, are you implying that Mississippi doesn't have "dilapidated towns" or "crumbling infrastructure" or "crime and corruption" in government?

If so, you're dreaming. This state is a hellhole. And yes, I live here and pay taxes here and all the rest. So I'm allowed to say that. But even someone who doesn't live here or pay taxes here is allowed to say that. There is objective, independently verifiable evidence to point to the conclusion that Mississippi is, like I said, a hellhole.

Just go check out the "American Community Survey" at the Census Bureau website:

Here are the facts:

Mississippi is dead last (or near it) in:

-Median household income
-Median Family Income (In 2007 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)
-Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed High School (Includes Equivalency)
-Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelor's Degree (next to last place)
-Employment/Population Ratio for the Population 16 to 64 Years Old (next to last place)

Mississippi is first (or in the Top 10) in:

-Percent of grandparents responsible for grandchildren (3rd place)
-Percent of People 65 Years and Over Below Poverty Level
-Percent of Children Under 18 Years Below Poverty Level
-Percent of People Below Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months (For Whom Poverty Status is Determined)
-Percent of Related Children Under 18 Years Below Poverty Level
-Percent of People 21 to 64 Years Old With a Disability (2nd place)
-Infant Mortality (2005 figure from this link:

Why Not Bank CEOs?

The reason car company CEOs are required to step down and not bank CEOs?

Because the country is now owned and run by the banks. This was sealed by the forced passage of the October 2008 Banker Takeover Bill, otherwise known as the TARP, or bailout. It's as simple as that.

Also, car companies actually produce things, i.e. vehicles. The bankers who now openly run the country don't like production--they like producing fake money and getting people into literal debt slavery. Companies that actually produce things are a threat to the bankers, who produce nothing except debt for us and gargantuan profits for themselves.

Why are productive companies a threat? Because they can provide good-paying jobs which people might use some of the proceeds from to actually pay off debts or even worse (in the minds of the bankers), not have to borrow money (read: finance their own indebtedness) at all!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tuesday, March 10, 2009


This was the question debated on the Prison Planet forum. I offered my two cents:

Wow! I'll have to check out the podcast of Alex's comments about the movie. The movie sucked compared to the comic. I have to agree with Roarshock and tonyg--the Rorschach character is the true hero. He's kind of the Alex Jones of the story, now that I think about it. He's real, he doesn't buy into the right/left paradigm, he's hardcore, he wants to get the truth out, etc.

Alex is fond of the saying "Justice be done, though the heavens fall." Rorschach says something similar when he tries to leave Ozymandias' compound to go reveal the truth of Ozy's false flag attack:

Nite Owl: "Rorschach, wait! Where are you going? This is too big to be hard-assed about! We have to compromise..."

Rorschach: "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise."

Rorschach also sounds like Alex in the scene right before Dr. Manhattan vaporizes him:

Dr. Manhattan: "Where are you going?"

Rorschach: "Back to Owlship. Back to America. Evil must be punished. People must be told."

Yes, the NWO is present in the book and the movie, in the form of Ozymandias, who is the villain. Ozymandias is shown to be someone who believes that the ends justify the means. In other words, the NWO imagery is included so it can be shown for what it is--evil. The NWO is portrayed as something bad, and in the story, the villain Ozymandias represents the NWO.

For Pete's sake, Ozymandias acts just like the NWO--uses propaganda, murders people who would become whistleblowers, sets up front corporations, plans and executes false flag terror attacks, and so on. There is no mistaking what Ozymandias represents--the evil NWO.

For those concerned about the delivery company and the Pyramid company--those are owned by Ozymandias, the bad guy. Those things are not meant to be portrayed as good.

And yeah, Silk Spectre...hoo boy...

Alex should read the book. The movie is fairly faithful to the book, but the book is much better.

One more thing: Moore uses lines from "All Along The Watchtower," a song Alex obviously likes, in the book. The song is also used in the movie. And for those who say Moore is anti-Christian, he uses Genesis 18:25 as an epigraph in the book: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

First, the comment that I'm responding to:

"Sure every bank is in business to make a profit. If you have a business don't you expect to make a profit. I sure wouldn''t call it fraud if you did. Get your head on straight!"

The analogy:

Of course I don't begrudge anyone their profit. But suppose the way I made a profit was by producing sugar pills (i.e., a placebo) that I was allowed by law to sell as a cancer treatment. Suppose that I could just crank out sugar pills with nothing in them but ordinary sugar, but the government allowed me to market them as a cancer treatment with ingredients besides sugar that have been proven to treat cancer. In fact, the government supports my marketing claim that the pills are useful for treating cancer. I wouldn't have to pay for any research on cancer treatments, I wouldn't have to pay to have any medicines developed that actually treat cancer.

Let's further suppose that the government required all cancer patients to buy my pills from me, even though they're just sugar pills, or placebos. And no one else can make these pills but my company. And so I make obscene profits off my simple sugar pills that cost almost nothing to make. Would you find that at all objectionable? Shouldn't you call that fraud, even though it's all nice and "legal?" I should think so.

But that is no different than what is being done with the money supply. The money created by banks is equivalent to my sugar pills--it costs nothing to produce, everyone in the country must use it, and no one else is allowed to produce it. Just like my sugar pills are not in any way a cancer treatment--but the government says it is--money created by banks is not in any way real money, the kind that is derived from labor and productivity. But the government says it is real money and that we must treat it as such. This fake money is fraudulent, then, even though it is legal.

Written today for Hattiesburg American forum:

1. A new bank opens and has no deposits. Bill, the new bank’s first customer, deposits $1,000 in the bank.

2. For some reason, the bank doesn’t receive any other deposits.

3. However, Jane comes in and wants to borrow $1,000 from the new bank.

4. The bank loans Jill $1,000 and opens an account in her name because under current reserve requirements (that went into effect 1/1/09) a bank with deposits of $10.3 million or less does not have to keep any money in reserve.

5. The bank deposits $1,000 in Jill’s new account. The bank is now allowed to say it has $2,000 in deposits, even though Bill is the only customer who has deposited money that originated from outside the bank. Also, if Bill wanted to come in and take out his $1,000, the bank would be obligated to give it to him.


6. Jim comes in and he also wants a $1,000 loan. The bank says “No problem,” opens an account for Jim, and deposits $1,000 into Jim’s new account.

7. The bank has now loaned out $2,000 even though they have only received $1,000 that originated outside the bank (namely, Bill’s deposit of $1,000).

8. Thus, the bank has created $1,000–a 100% profit off of Bill’s original deposit. The bank has not performed any useful work to create this $1,000. They are merely allowed by law to do this.

9. The bank also is allowed to charge interest to both Jill and Jim. In Jim’s case, the bank did not receive any new money to fund his loan, so Jim has been lent phantom money–money that did not previously exist until he agreed to pay it to the bank over time.

10. Now the bank can say it has total deposits of $3,000, all because of Bill’s original $1,000 deposit.

11. Mary comes in and wants a $3,000 loan. The bank can give her the entire amount because they still have less than $10.3 million in deposits. They open an account for her and deposit $3,000 into it.

12. Meanwhile, no one other than Bill has deposited any money that originated from outside the bank

13. The bank is now allowed to say it has $6,000 in deposits and has created $4,000, all due to Bill’s original deposit of $1,000. Jill, Jim, and Mary are now all indebted to the bank for their respective amounts PLUS interest. The only one of the three who could conceivably be said to have received “depositor’s money” was Jill.

14. Don’t forget, the bank is still obligated to give Bill his $1,000 anytime he asks for it. Even if the bank did give the money to Bill, it would not cancel the loans to Jill, Jim, and Mary even though the bank would no longer have even the original $1,000 that allowed the bank to be able to “lend” “money” to Jill, Jim, and Mary.

15. Also, if Bill does come in and withdraw his $1,000, the bank is not obligated to share one cent of the 400% + profit it has made from his $1,000 deposit.

16. One last thing: Jim and Mary have literally been charged (via interest) for creating money for the bank. In other words, the bank did not actually have on hand the money to loan to Jim and Mary. But the promissory notes signed by Jim and Mary allow the bank to treat future repayment as real money in the here and now. So even though Jim and Mary are literally funding the amount of their loans, which is a favor to the bank, the bank is charging them Jim and Mary money to do them this favor. And only at the end of the term of the loan will the bank then have the money they “loaned” to Jim and Mary. Therefore, many “loans” from banks aren’t “loans” in any commonly understood sense of that word–they are favors done for the bank by customers that banks charge the customers for doing for them.

This sounds like it can’t be real, but that’s exactly what the Federal Reserve tells us that banks do. The big question to ask after realizing that this is how the system works is: Why do we allow banks to do this but not ordinary citizens? Why are banks allowed to use money as only profit whereas it is only debt for ordinary people? Why do we allow banks the privilege of charging us for funding our own “loans?”

If this doesn’t strike you as an outrage, then nothing will.