Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russwinter who wrote (14312)	5/23/2004 1:48:26 PM
From: glenn_a	Respond to of 110194

Russ. In response to my comment about the "system" collapsing of its own fundamental decrepedness, you replied, "Yes, a "capitalist" version of the Soviet collapse I suppose? It has been my thesis for some time that the collapse of the Soviet Union and its communist satellite states was not so much a "victory" for free-market capitalism (though to a degree I do believe it was also that), but more importantly the collapse of one half of a inseparable dialectic (to use a Hegelian term). I mean, historically, Communism and Socialism both arose "in response" to flaws inherent in the Capitalist system. However, in an industrial mass manufacturing economy, before the invention of the microchip, it seems that such a bi-polar geopolitical arrangement allowed for relative geopolitical stability (at the centers of this political arrangement, at the periphery of course it was basically hell, inflicted from the center). However, the dawn of the information age appears to have made the old political polarities of "capitalism" and "communism" in their industrial manifestations somewhat obsolete. That is not to say that there are not still important differences in class interests, that it is not important to develop social safety nets for the less fortunate members of our societies, or that efficient mechanisms of capital formation have been made obsolete. Rather, the information age appears to put rigid hierarchical structures and narrow channels of information flow at a serious disadvantage. And furthermore, greatly improves the possibilities for transparency and accountability of political and representative structures. So yes, I believe 1989 (or whenever the Iron Curtain fell), is probably 15 to 20 years ahead of the breakdown of the other great "ism" of the rational materialist age - that of Capitalism. As Newtonian physics had to make way for quantum physics and relativity, so Capitalism and Communism in their traditional forms of centralized power I believe will make way for new, and more humane forms, of representative democracy, and a sharing of the scarce resources of our fragile planet. A "velvet" Revolution in Capitalist societies is definitely the best case scenario. The worst case scenario ... well, I don't even want to think about it. Regards, Glenn

To: russwinter who wrote (14312)	5/23/2004 1:55:24 PM
From: glenn_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

((who are the criminal enterprise apparatchiks? ... What have you located?)) Message 19340473 Russ, have you ever seen the roster list for the Council of Foreign Relations? Or any of the Bilderberg gatherings? If so, you'll recognize the fundamental concentration of power that could pull something like this off. Just for a teaser, here's a site that "outs" the 2004 Bilderberg gathering. But already, it's so much less secretive than it once was: bilderberg.org Off course, you have to have "cutouts" and plausible deniability. But these are the "covert" bodies that represent the decision-making interests. And of course, the absolute fulcrum of power, is the merchant banking interests, so well described by Quigley. Regards, Glenn

To: russwinter who wrote (14312)	5/23/2004 6:48:36 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

the amazing thing is too realize that their neednt be any sort of truly organized backroom conspiraccy....the conspiracy is simply a fully functional alignment of self-interest between parties that are very shortsighted and greedy. like most of us, they do what they think is in their own best interests and convince tehmselves of their own lies that it is in everyones best interest.

To: russwinter who wrote (14312)	5/24/2004 8:49:55 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Respond to of 110194

<<For example, how did a wild, deceitful guy like Ben Bernanke get his appointment? Or Franklin Raines? Then how does the Ministry of Propaganda mechanism support them, and give them credibility? The behind the scenes, back room dealings, would be quite another "most interesting" story.>> Bernanke and Raines and simply front men in the operation, without any real power or control, just as Bush is in the White House. The real levers are in the hands of the directors of companies like Goldman, Merril, Morgan Stanley, $hitigroup and in the security apparatus of the US. People like Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Rubin, Weill, Welch, Murdoch, Ken Lay and Tenet. That's where you'll find the beating heart of the Matrix. It supercedes political party alliances, though some of the players change from time to time. Those who don't play along (like O'Neil) simply get shunted aside and discarded. It's all built on a framework of money, and it requires a steady and ever-increasing amount to keep it functioning. Why do you think the financial services industry has gained it's current omnipotent status, to the point where practically no meaningful reform is possible, even in the face of massive fraud and abuse like Enron, WCOM, Global Croosing, Tyco? Ultimately it's simply an apparatus to keep the elites entrenched financially and politically, to make sure the game never stops......