Let's face it: we are on the verge of an economic collapse which starts, let's say, in Greece but could easily spread. The financial system remains extremely vulnerable...
He also said, as reported by Reuters, that a country will eventually exit the euro zone and urged policymakers to come up with a "plan B":
The euro had no provision for correction. There was no arrangement for any country leaving the euro, which in the current circumstances is probably inevitable.Two points. Soros is correct, a financial collapse could occur, but it need not damage anyone beyond those in the bankster system. The average man in the street could benefit if there is a collapse and it is too big for the shakedown artists, the IMF and World Bank, to handle. Unfortunately, what is likely to occur is that the European Central Bank and other central banks will crank up the money printing presses to bail out the banksters.
Point 2, the prudent thing for any country that leaves the euro would be to default on its debt and institute a hard currency (most likely backed by gold). Unfortunately, any country that leaves the euro will probably start running their printing presses 24/7.
Bottom line: Crisis will likely mean accelerating money printing and accelerating price inflation.
All this really means is that the ending of credit expansion is upon us yet again. No central bank can prop up a system unless people indebt themselves further. In this present environment WHO is likley to do it? Better yet WHO can do it? The debtors are all broke in the western world including their governments. Money was created over decades that in truth was NEVER needed and it went to the ultra rich who patiently wait over time for their investments to mature. A Fool and his money are soon parted.
ReplyDeleteAlways talk about EURO Talk about bankrupt USA
ReplyDeleteprinting fiat money giving it to banks so they carry with their ponzi banking system and speculate
in commodities putting up prices for people
Remember Galbraith? "There are no economic problems, only problems."
ReplyDeleteOligarch - if you aren't sure of the meaning of a word, look it up before you broadcast it on the internet and make yourself look stupid. Mr. Soros is not a government official nor politician, so he does not qualify for the adjective -
ReplyDeletehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligarchy
Anonymous 2:04
ReplyDeleteI think he falls under defintion 1 and 3. He doesn't have to be an official just have the influence over the officials. Or do you think elected officials don't answer to others?
It isn't clear that Soros selected Obama for president. It is clear, however, that he, as the largest single contributor to liberal/progressive efforts in the US, had a veto.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteWenzel is 100 percent right on that. Power is exerted not only by government structures, but THROUGH them, by way of money power.
Soros took over the funding of many outfits that used to be directly run by the CIA
He funds scores of media/academic groups and think-tanks
He has an untold influence on the capital markets
He's written influential books and articles pushing his viewpoint
He sponsors/funds revolutions and coups....
Sir, he is an oligarch IN SPADES.
Robert, the primary definition is "government by the few". Influence may be necessary, but can hardly be considered sufficient. I vote, which has influence on government. Does that make me an oligarch? While it is true that a strict definition could exclude officials, I think it's quite a stretch to say that Soros is an oligarch. He has made large campaign contributions, as have many wealthy individuals and groups - but IMO even the Koch brothers do not qualify as oligarchs. Though they might exercise substantial influence, they themselves do not govern - I believe that is the test of the definition.
ReplyDeleteHere is Miriam-Webster on the topic:
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy?show=0&t=1309199192
Anonymous 2:04--Oligarch is a noun, not an adjective. This isn't something I would normally point out, but you may as well be consistent with your pedantry.
ReplyDeleteOligarch, as defined by today's common associations, may be anyone who has a controlling power or governance over the government, or any small faction of the ruling elite.
ReplyDeleteSoros, by that definition, is an oligarch. It is foolish to think otherwise. And please dont hung up on a technicality. He is not an oligarch by traditional definition. He is an oligarch through evolution of the term as see it today; power and control need not be concentrated in those families who have years of dynastic royalty or those who are explicitly part of the government. There are many now (and have always been) behind the screens, acting in power through puppets.
Do not be fooled. Soros is by far a powerful oligarch.
money is a joke and really the root of all that's is wrong with this world. I say this because money is how all the world governments control us. We are born on this planet but to survive we must go to work to get the money we need to live, I challenge anyone to try to just live off the land like my ancestors did. you cant because the world governments own all the land and deed them to so called independent states. As a result we must pay a yearly tax on land we own for the rest of our lives or until we sell it then we still must pay taxes on the money we get from it. we must work to get the goods we need to survive but yet both the state and federal government take what the think is due them, you buy goods and you must pay a tax on that as well. its a very good way to control a population. because of our forced indentured servitude people are not free to study what interests they may have. As most all the financial systems today are privately owned and care for only them self's they are more than happy to keep the statuesque. What needs to happen is for the people to stand up to there governments and say enuf and let all the banks fail.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anonymous' Comment on June 27, 2011 at 4:28 PM. -
ReplyDeleteIt sounds as if what you are describing (and/or advocating) is REMARKABLY similar to a pair of organizations I have read about, known respectively as "The Zeitgeist Movement" and "The Venus Project". If you haven't heard of them yet, you might just want to give them a quick look to see if the ideas are something that you would agree with. Even if they aren't your cup-of-tea, at least some of the points and concepts discussed seem to make for interesting reading (along the lines of your posted comment, that is).
Dictionary
ReplyDeleteSearch Results ol·i·garch noun /ˈäliˌgärk/ /ˈōl-/
oligarches, plural; oligarchs, plural
1.A ruler in an oligarchy
2.(esp. in Russia) A very rich businessman with a great deal of political influence
@ MensaWASP
ReplyDeleteHello,
No I was not aware of either of them and after a very fast skimming of them I have to agree that the Venus projects resource based economy page is kind of how I feel especially this part "Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such." But I have to disagree with this statement in part only because they call the resources scarce and things needed for daily survival like food and cloths are not really scarce. Thank you for pointing them sites out I will read up on them more.
Joe
Daddyinvt05655@aol.com
It's very disturbing to see posters lay this crisis at the feet of banks and the private sectors. It's the GOVERNMENTS that are spending OUR money way over OUR heads. All simply to establish the politician's power base. Get a clue and insist on responsible policymakers!
ReplyDeleteMensaWASP & anon@1040am(akaJoeDaddy)-
ReplyDeleteMoney facilitates the division of labor. If everyone was working 8-12 hours a day just to shelter, feed and warm/cool themselves then the Internet, cars, exotic non-local foods, etc. would not be possible. Money as a FREE-MARKET (anarcho-libertarian) transactional system is a wonderful thing. It is corrupted and distorted only when people that fancy themselves as masters of other people, and control them via fiat money, that it becomes a pox.
It is a "social convention" only because a divided labor system requires it. it IS a natural resource, in that it represents an ability to do a few things well and purchase the things we cannot make, thus making the world wealthier and happier than it was before.
All resources are scarce and require labor and inventiveness to properly create and allocate them. The society you envision would be poor and violent- more violent even than the current system of plunder that has developed due to the ubiquity of fiat money.
@ Anonymous June 29, 2011 2:31 PM
ReplyDeleteIt's very disturbing to see posters lay this crisis at the feet of banks and the private sectors. It's the GOVERNMENTS that are spending OUR money way over OUR heads. All simply to establish the politician's power base. Get a clue and insist on responsible policymakers!
Well the banks and several others from the private sector did go to the government and as to be bailed out, not one bank said no thanks we got our self's into this and its not the peoples job to bail us out. It was quite the contrary most all the big banks went with hands out and after they got the cash they gave the same people that mad the bad policies or decisions big bonuses. But I must agree with you the government does spend way to much. I also find it odd that the federal reserve is except from having its books looked at. A private bank that is that powerful and has that much leverage over the American people should be subject to at the very least yearly or biannual inspection of its books.
@ Dale
I am not sure what a lot of that means as I am just a simple country boy/man could you try to put that in laymen s terms for me?
Joe
daddyinvt05655@aol.com
Lila Rajiva:"Power is exerted not only by government structures, but THROUGH them, by way of money power.
ReplyDeleteSoros took over the funding of many outfits that used to be directly run by the CIA
He funds scores of media/academic groups and think-tanks
He has an untold influence on the capital markets
He's written influential books and articles pushing his viewpoint
He sponsors/funds revolutions and coups....
Sir, he is an oligarch IN SPADES."
You can't tell me that Karl Rove, the boys at the Heritage Foundation, and Roger Ailes wouldn't qualify for that same distinction. It goes both ways.
@Anonymous 1.11
ReplyDeleteOf course it goes both ways. I'm not a partisan. Don't have a party. I completely agree.
"When you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, it rests softly inside your being with no judgment, no guilt & no imbalance. You KNOW!"
ReplyDeleteI worked for a bank (over $100 billion in assets) that did not need TARP funding. However, the feds leaned on us. "Take the TARP money so that the public will know that you are not in trouble." The feds hinted, but of course would not actually say it, that if we didn't take the TARP money, that such action would be remembered when we applied to merge with, or take over, another bank. We took the TARP money, but paid it back as soon as the feds said we could. They system is so corrupt now. Bondholders are not guaranteed their place in line in a bankruptcy. Gov't favors some corporations and not others. The money is debauched and price discovery fades. All over-extended empires go down this path. And you know where is ends.
ReplyDelete