NWO Monetary System

Post Reply New Topic

One can engage the arguments from money by just arguing economics.


Umm.... I was responding to an assertion by you about what was obvious. Given that there was no argument in that instance, me making an ad hominem is logically impossible given that an ad hominem is an argument from the other person's character.


I merely addressed them because their claims and critiques exist, but yours are still excluded.


Do you want me to go around asking academics? I mean, I am not surprised that they might not mind discussing it around friends, but the fact that they aren't publishing seems a major problem.


Umm.... you quoted yourself. I do not know what you are responding to.


I dissect into snippets to respond point by point. If you do not make arguments reducible to points, then you probably aren't making arguments.


Probably due to globalization and internationalization. After all, the pace of these things has been perceived as increasing, and the international ideology has changed to accept this kind of change. These changes can be accounted for without referring to a conspiracy theory. I think the point about people referring to "New World Order" is just some honest statements taken out of context by some conspiracy theorists, or even just interpreted against what it probably means. I mean, let's just face it, if it confirmed an evil conspiracy then why do these people keep on doing it in public? I mean, the NWO hypothesis is a smattering of various facts without much of a meaningful logical structure, you might as well say it IS lizards.


Right....

I never claimed they weren't. From my original post:



My point was that based on the nature of the position, it naturally follows that some or all of these appointed "governors" can have extensive ties to the finance industry, and that the remaining members of the FOMC are effectively chosen by Banks.



I don't purport myself to be an economist, and will not debate you on the merits of the fiat money system. However, I will say from my own understanding, I don't see how fiat money can be considered stable. What does it derive its value from? I would genuinely like to understand this, as it has never made sense to me. Perhaps this is the place for someone to explain it to me in a way that I understand. Also, if anyone could explain why the gold standard was so bad, I'm not really clear on that either.

I will, however, agree with you on the trustworthiness of politicians. It seems that the more power they get, the more their focus shifts to maintaining that power and away from the interests of the people that presumably got them there in the first place.



Again, I'm not picking on you specifically, but this illustrates my point as well. I don't fundamentally disagree with the idea of having the Fed, as I don't know enough about economics to stake any claims. The way it is run, however, lends itself to corruption.

As for the logical fallacy argument between AG and Concenik, let me try to weigh in on that (hopefully without incurring anyones wrath):

The way you laid out your logic in the Socrates example, AG, seems to imply that you are saying that logically, if men are immortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates must be immortal. You then say that this is wrong. I take that to mean it's wrong because Socrates is obviously not immortal. We knew this from the start, though, and no amount of logic will change its truth value. If x = Socrates is a man, and y = men are immortal, and z = Socrates is immortal, your logic statement is (x & y) ---> z. This is a true statement because x&y is false, not because z is true. Socrates' immortality is irrelevant.

I realized whilst typing that out that it was not actually what the argument was about, but I'll leave it because I'm a stickler for accuracy

Hopefully not.

Well, my point was that even if a person is logically correct in the use of their premises, they could still be wrong for reasons external to the logic they used. I used this to illustrate that I thought I used logic correctly, but that Concenik was disputing one of my premises, and calling that a logical fallacy. Yes, your point that X&Y are false not that Z is true is correct, and that is my point. Concenik cannot call me out on a logical fallacy if he thinks that my X or my Y are false. A logical fallacy would involve my use of my premises as being incorrect.

whatev.. Insinuating I probably believe in Lizards ruling the world - twice - seems to be an assault of character AFAIC


Yeah, I think so too




No, I didn't but you're reply wasn't in quotes - it matters not



My conjecture was that it is requires broadening the criteria from solely economic discourse, I fail to see that that isn't a point *shrugs*



Why in public? probably because they can with impunity. After all, it's only the 'CT's' that seem to be aware of it and we all know how they are fun to poke a stick at and not take at all seriously *shrugs* I agree that it's exponetial. I am nonplussed by Gorbachev's belief in the coming of the Maitreya for instance and that that said hidden messiah's' representative was invited to speak to the UN..kinda weird but maybe you know little about these things..or something more bogstandard like Ahmendinejad with the Madhi etc if you don't see the eschatological scripting to all this that's your thing. ALl it takes is some open minded study and access to good libraries. As said, I'm more focused on gerontological/AI foundations and research bodies. Tbh, at this point I see embroilment in economic waves as nigh on superfluous in terms of what an NWO really constitutes. We've still got 30+ years unless Kurzweil is off base.

In terms of Trot analysis I tend to agree with Mandel about cycles in Capitalism where crashes are needed for rejuvenation. I disagree with you that this isn't orchestrated with a goal in mind, at this point. Consider how JP Morgan et al incited the last big crash. And now CDS's have proved an easy bet if you want to pull the rug out *shrugs*

You can say it's lizard's if you want, it just shows me,like most naysayers, when someone rolls such nonsense out as a mockery, that they know practically nothing about the subject of what's around the corner. No doubt the pandemic will hit before 'we' see anything come to fruition anyhow.

Good luck though I do actually hope you're right but doubt it.

But it isn't my way of dodging a logical argument.


I only cared about the economic matters. Also, could you stop quoting yourself when attempting to address me? It doesn't add to anything.


So, they are just giving you people evidence because they jerks. That's a really convincing answer. I suppose I now must shift over to conspiracy theories, as that's all the evidence I need.

In any case, you are right, global conspiracy theories aren't my forte. I really do not care about them, and posted in this thread due to comments about the monetary system. In any case, if your argument is that politicians are mentioning the NWO more and more just to be obnoxious and arrogant, I am not sure that's a great case. And no, I am not too interested in finding out more, the reason being that conspiracy theories are often like many religions, mind viruses where when a person is infected, they cannot escape with ease, also filled with all sorts of things necessary to research that are probably pointless and will just confirm the conspiracy theory bias.(after all, selecting the right/wrong evidence, one can make a theory about anything)

I wasn't quoting myself - I quoted you - aber es machts nicht.

It isn't intended to convince - it's just symptomatic. You're on a farm, get used to it. or not. It's not a case if when you finally get it, it's just how it is imsho. and I'm not delusional - I had an evaluation not long ago and I was totally honest how how I see the world and was found NOT delusional by any clinical standard *shrugs* - you've already fallen foul of the stereotype of the 'conspiracy theorist' even the damn word has been demonised - do you think there's no memetic intervention upon the English language from..places like Tavistock, for ONE example..?!?

That's where the rerouted bus blew up btw - Tavistock square - if you ever want to talk about the London Bombings send me a PM and I'll start up a thread - I know a LOT of FACTS about that incident and can PROVE beyond reasonable doubt to you that it was not the way you heard. Think of it as a challenge.

You don't want to look into it - that's up to you - fair enough - 'mind viruses' - our world is populated by top down memes - coping with them would be the first step - I don't mind entering into that sphere as I am intelligent and discerning, although I would totally understand your trepidation for there is a lot of mis and disinformation not to mention insincere capitalists looking for a buck from people who feel lost..I don't dent that ..and 'wackjobs' are attracted to *shrugs*edit] 'too'. One can make a theory out of anything but I have tried over the last years to clean up and sharpen Occam's razor and apply it - it is often misused due to the pejorative inflection that 'conspiracy theory' receives - not that 'it' is a homogeneous blob as y'all/many seem to reckon *shrug*

If you like, I'm trying to represent those who are ALWAYS ridiculed as narcissistic fantasists, partially because some of us are actually serious minded and not applicable to the 'write them off as nutters' category .

As you reiterate it is a thread solely concerned with financial apparatus and as,of that, I am largely ambivalent, I shall desist and link this thread to some who focus on such who may comment or not..probably not, of course.

You didn't mention the CDS's - which to me occurs as a point and one based wholly in the monetary sphere..

Please feel free to engage on any threads I make - but please lose the 'lizard believer' slurs or ultimately it will appear that it is you that is small minded and I know you very probably aren't, as caustic as you are in defence of the given 'consensus' view from academia you are.

Umm.... you having an evaluation on anything doesn't prove anything to me. "Mind virus" is not a reference to a psychological disease, it is a reference to a rather stupid line of thinking that is resistant.


I actually didn't hear about Tavislock square the first time.


My trepidation? I am just unconcerned. I mean, it is a waste of my time, and the point to which you would have to prove your claims would still be more immense than I am willing to put the effort into even reaching.


Umm... credit default swaps didn't emerge in our conversation.


Look, I only called you that after you said what you thought was "obvious". I disagreed and thought you were being foolish there, so I lumped you in with lizards.

pesky double posting

Last edited by Concenik on 16 Apr 2009, 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sounds bad

reptile jibes are tried and tested - i expect it - no problem. 'trepidation' due to 'mind virus' phrase - which you defined well as how I intended to imply the use of 'meme' as a phrase that I considered as comparative in the previous post. .no concern - fair enough - as said if you wish to hear about the London bombings from this end..

I don't mind being called a fool so much.

All systems of currency have shortcomings - there is hardly something perfect. Going back to a gold standard (which was anyway only generally used between the 1870s and 1914, prior silver based currencies or bi-metal currencies were used) would raise a lot of problems. Just to point to very few:

A raise in the good and services without providing more money will cause a deflation. To avoid a deflation more money must be issued. If the amount of money is absolutely fixed on the amount of "yellow bricks" (aka physical gold) in strong rooms of the central bank or the amount of coined gold in circulation there is an absolute gap. The central bank therefore can't intervene to stop a deflation - with all it bad consequences.

Creating new money would mean to produce new gold via mining. This would mean that some countries would have a monopole in creating money. Suddenly Russia, Peru, Canada and South Africa would become the near monopolist in controlling the worldwide money supply, whilst nations (like most of the EU, Japan or to lesser extent the USA, as a significant gold producer) with a strong industrial base but without gold mining would rely in their currency on the grace of those gold producers. Certainly not a healthy economic situation.

It is really not a reasonable idea to that the most important medium of the economy, money, should be linked to a single metal with a quite limited practical use.

What is the function of money. When I have a banknote in my hand an it says 50 £/$/€ what does this really means? It means that I have the right to ask for a certain part of the economic output of the UK/USA/Euro-Zone. This works on two basis: The one is a common "faith" and agreement within the society that this the case; and the other one is state declaration.

If not more currency unit are issued than it can be balanced with the economic output of currency area this faith will be maintained, because we all need a universal measurement and exchange mechanism for running a complex economy. Therefore accepting this fancy pieces of paper (aka banknote) as a real representation of value is in the interest of everyone. This is main reason we have money.

If this claims/rights are issued responsible and the underling authority of the state is maintained there is no reason, why this system shall not be stable. Historically such systems only failed if either the state/s behind this money failed (typical example Germany 1945) or the to much of this money is issued (again typical example Germany 1923).

I agree. I think a reasonable compromise position between the gold bugs and the fiat advocates would be the adoption of a Friedmanite monetary rule- take the money supply out of the discretionary control of politicians.

This is exactly what the European Central Bank is about. Without a central bank outside the political realm Germany would never accept the Euro, thus of its very bad experience with government manipulated currency and with the warning example of the Banque de France and the constant devaluation of the French Franc (1958: DM 1.00 ~= FFr1.00; 1995: DM1.00 ~= FFr3.30) on the front door.

[quote="Orwell']
Not in error so much as a bizarre decision- why capitalize a random word repeatedly? Honestly, most critics of fiat currency you find online have absolutely no understanding of fiat currency, the gold standard, or economics in general.[/quote]

Because it often is - as Dussel illustrated - sure, I agree - some not even knowing accurately when the inception of a FIAT system came about. *shrugs*

No time or interest to trawl back through - as I remember it your X and Y may well have been correct but they didn't logically follow onto Z - hence me noting the fallacious supposition in your line of reasoning.