How LIBOR worked, and what it meant, from someone who saw the inside

page: 2
65
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by herrw
I am going to respectfully disagree. After Korea, Americ began a path to a more antesceptic form of war rather than one based on overwhelming response. The rest of the world followed our lead. That has led us to wars where the soldiers die, while the civilians continue to support continuations of hostility.

Let me be clear here. I do not support war, but I do understand that it serves a purpose, however distasteful that purpose might be. Mankind is his own natural predator, and by predating on himself helps to ensure the survival of the species as a whole.

The only solutions, if we do not predate upon ourselves, are either the mass extinction of individuals at the hands of our governing bodies, or the expansion into space. The planet cannot support any more of us. And given the direction we're headed, I don't see an Ark to the Stars in our near future.


Oh I see so you are not a proponent of facts and history Sigh! We lost millions on the world wars tens of thousands in the korea 36000 and vietnam 52000 and south America which most Americans don't even know about.and that does not include the other side and collateral damage same with the other wars i mentions. We have been at war most of the last century and so far all of this century...


This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos...

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan...

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.
www.countercurrents.org...

I also see you are a believer in the myth the planet cannot support the population when we only live on 10% of the land mass... Did you learn nothing from your banking experience? the False scarcity is so there is more for the evil bastards you claim you found out where making trillions off of human misery and suffering and now you are saying that such population reduction is necessary...Sigh!

I thought there was something fishy about you and your avoidance in addressing my previous posts. Can't put my finger on it just yet but I smell an agenda of some sort here...




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Hawk, no agenda. War has become more sanitized, and the tendency is towards more of the same. We've now begun sending drones instead of people. Imagine if we had a war where no people died. Who would know who won?

As far as what the earth can support, lets say you're right for a moment. Given our current rate of expansion, that only buys us a little while on a geological scale. We still need to figure out a solution.

However, feel free to disbelieve. I made clear in my first posts that my concience is now clear.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Hawk, additionally I wasn't avoiding your posts. I didn't have anything salient to add, so I let them stand without a 'me too'.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Fascinating topic.
Second...



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by herrw
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Hawk, no agenda. War has become more sanitized, and the tendency is towards more of the same. We've now begun sending drones instead of people. Imagine if we had a war where no people died. Who would know who won?

As far as what the earth can support, lets say you're right for a moment. Given our current rate of expansion, that only buys us a little while on a geological scale. We still need to figure out a solution.

However, feel free to disbelieve. I made clear in my first posts that my concience is now clear.


Ok fair enough. I agree that the current model is unsustainable but where I disagree is that it is the only model and there is no solution except population reduction.

Here is something I posted in another thread on the solutions:

"It’s easy to complain it is always harder to come up with solutions. Here’s some main points and solutions I jotted down:

Problem: petroleum based factory farming is unsustainable and ruining the environment and our health with synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and GMOs etc. Most food travels an average of 1400 miles to get to our tables. Which of course uses a ton of energy too.

Solutions: We need local/regional food production. Aquaponics, and green house technology can save us energy, increase yields and use less water with vastly less travel to our tables. It needs to be natural, organic, heirloom, and non-hybrid as much as possible. Nature has spent millions of years developing and evolving the fruits of the earth and our bodies have also developed and evolved on those foods so natural is what is best for us.

Problem: Oil is peaking (not running out) as far as production meaning we produce less then we did 30 years ago but demand is higher and increasing. The low hanging fruit (easy to get oil) is much less now days (we have got most of it in the last century) and shale and other means is harder and more expensive to get and process so prices will be going up while production continues to decrease…

Solutions: Ethanol, Biodiesel, methane, and wood gas/gasification etc. all need to be ramped up along with research into alternative energies such over unity devices etc.. They also need to be done locally and regionally not using the gasoline model with centralized processing plants trucking fuels thousands of miles or they are not as cost effective. However the idea they don’t put out as much energy as they take to produce is a myth put out by big oil (more to come on that in other articles). We will have to cut energy use while in transition and learn to be more frugal with its use all around regardless and even if we stayed on oil.

Problem: we waste tons of water. Sewage and water treatment plants are not sophisticated enough to filter out all the exotic chemicals that we consume in medicines and food like caffeine anti-depressents etc. and they are showing up in the water supply now. Water use is increasing exponentially and our aquifers are not being replenished as as fast as we are depleting them in some areas.

Solution: we need to compost our manure and collect and filter rainwater locally and individually. 1 inch of rain on 1000 square feet of roof is 500 gallons of water. Nature brings water right to us but we let it get away and then have to expend lots of energy to get it back out of the ground when all we need to do is collect it right were we live in most cases.

Problem: Credit based fiat debt system is completely unsustainable and could implode at any moment and we see the effects already with the 2008 crash and we are heading for a bigger crash.

Solution: Sound or hard money such as gold and silver and local currencies that are backed by precious metals or commodities. Not leaving it in the hands of government anymore. No more credit based currencies and no more fractional reserve period a free market in currency!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
S&F

I'm saving this for later.

oo tired to read through it all but it does sound interesting.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Although I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions, I am no expert on those subjects. And since we've gotten fairly off topic, I will save the discussion for a different thread.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


I agree with you, but I don't like it. Everyday I rack my brain.. I havn't come up with any thing worth while. Maybe my own game if I survive some giant riot? I somehow don't think Tyler Durden is the answer.

You know without hunters many more deer would die in mass die offs, poisoning the DNA pool.. Or you kill them day by day, and hopefully kill enough so the rest can eat. To quote South Park "you got to kill the deer so they don't die."

I don't like the idea of self predation or Totalitarian fascism, but what other options could there be? New energy sources? More value per person, by longer hours? I see a Brave New World out there, but there is no room for the soul in such a place.

We can either continue acting like a virus, or we can act like a cell..

A few Fight Club quotes to go a little darker:

"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
"We are all part of the same compost heap"
"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

Smile Cause I don't have the answers.



Of Course that's exactly what they want me to think... That it's all hopeless, and they will save me by killing half the world... So NO I don't believe the post I just wrote, and neither should anyone else.. It's time we hand them their pink slips.

edit on 12/17/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


I scanned a story yesterday with that name Libor. Havent had time to look into it yet. It went on to say the fathers of both the Conn. school shooter and the Colo.theater shooter were directly connected to Libor. Interesting if true. Some kind of Bourne Identity thing going on.
edit on 17-12-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Op, did you ever hear chit chat from bankers about any secret "clubs" they were going to? Was the name Rothschild brought up at all? Anyway this was a great read.

But the thing that caught my eye was the name lanza. Father of Alex lanza. If this man was testifying in the libor scandal and the UN wants more gun control in the US, what a great way of killing 2 birds with one stone. Looks like Alex is yet another McVeigh and Oswald.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
OP: I read the wiki on the LIBOR scandal and noticed it affects student loans.

As a college student, what are the implications of this scandal on mine, and other students finances?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by herrw
I do not support war, but I do understand that it serves a purpose, however distasteful that purpose might be. Mankind is his own natural predator, and by predating on himself helps to ensure the survival of the species as a whole.

Very interesting thread OP, thanks for posting it here.

The quotes below actually do tie into what you wrote and I believe that those mentioned below are also the same people who orchestrated everything related to LIBOR.

Wars have NOTHING to do with survival...

They ONLY benefit those who start them.


"Wars are all based on lies, could not be fought without lies" — Charles M. Young.


"All war is based on deception." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War


HISTORY IS A LIE! ALL WARS ARE STARTED ON PURPOSE!
Link


"War is the major way for the EVIL, sinister, insane Illuminati to control humanity."
Michael Shore


One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet. This evil cabal is few in numbers but, like a deadly octopus, its tentacles reach out to grip and strangle untold multitudes of innocent victims. The initiates of every secret society and internationalist organization, from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Jesuits to the Bilderbergers and the Order of Skull & Bones, obey the dictates of this sinister group and tremble when standing before its leaders.

The cabalist group I refer to is the Synagogue of Satan, an ancient, yet modern, elite so politically powerful and so fabulously wealthy that even past history has been twisted, reshaped, and revised to meet its preferred version of humanity's gloomy, totalitarian future.

Religious in nature, the Synagogue of Satan is, at its essence, a grotesque, satanic cult. It's high council is composed of High Priests of Lucifer; these are men who literally worship death while practicing sexual magick and occult rituals of the blackest nature. The Synagogue of Satan



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Hmmm, Hmmmmm, Hmmmmmmmmmm

I do acknowledge that more money needs to be introduced into the system when there are more people, but as for how it is currently done leaves a bit of head scratching, not really surprising. Considering how the political system has been for a while, a few of the other indications are not really surprising either.

If it was up to me to fix I would eliminate all taxes and interest and just let the governments get the first bite as the new money comes online. Maybe this is a socialist type solution, would upset a lot of things right now so not too realistic in the short term. Also has big government funding problems with maintaining a stable or declining population.

To help level the playing field though, just need to open up all books for public review. Companies and people that do work for their money can justify them and the public accepts it. Those that scam, lie and steal their way up the money chain will end up with a lot of uncomfortable questions and calls for action where appropriate.

At the core of money it is about managing supply and demand, measuring a persons input and output with society. The debates, fights and wars over resources has been a very long and hard one. Monies real worth is in its confidence and trust that binds social trade and cohesion. When we cannot be straight up with what we are working, striving and fighting for are we really on the right track?

Great thread by the way, thanks for posting.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 

I see that I am not going to get away from this direction of conversation so easily. Let me wrap it up as best I can.

Part of my career is to look at systems in a cold, rational manner, to observe them without prejudice. As such, I am able to make rather inhuman observations. I do not like those kinds of observations, but a difficulty with occasionally having to look at human interactions in that way is that you often find yourself slipping into that role when you don't want to.

I do NOT believe that war is the answer. I do believe, strongly, that mankind is his own natural predator. He congregates in cities, and when density of population reaches a high enough point he begins to naturally predate against his fellow man for the commodities of life. In those cases where he does not, viruses generally kill off what man does not. Either way, population density generally drops and he tends to move toward a sustainable level.

I do not like this, nor do I want to live in a world of this nature. I am no expert on the subject, and my opinions (such as they are) are moot. If my attitude is defeatist, then at some point I hope that it will become optimistic with an idea to correct this. It has little to do with banking, however, which is the nature of this thread.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheToastmanCometh
 


In the short run, I have no good answers for you. I am not a banker.

In the long run, LIBOR affects everything from student loans to mortgages to the cost of commerce... Anything which utilizes any form of debt in its process. When a bank needs money to loan, it borrows it from other banks using LIBOR. Banks do not carry unlimited resources of cash. They constantly borrow from each other. Your student loan is predicated on the fact that you will repay it. It is an asset for the bank, and represents future income for them. It is easily transferred and traded between commodities brokers, and represents your vow of wage-slavery until it is paid off.

In another respect, the prime interest rate is independent of LIBOR. LIBOR, however, changes the value of the money so that it takes more to pay back the same value. The good news is that your total debt does not change if the value of the money changes. All that changes is the value of your industry. So in the case of inflation, your debt becomes less because the money it represents is worth less.

Does that help?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 

Kang, I remember only one conversation along that nature. I was kicking back with my boss (back when we still spoke to one another) and he was just daydreaming out loud. He said something along the lines of, "you know, once we're finally in we're part of a club that knows how things work." He didn't mention Rothschilds, and I don't suppose that he knew more than I did. He didn't seem to know about the stellar character level of the people with whom we were attempting to deal. I like to think that, at the outset, he would have backed away from this whole system had he known. After 5 years of scraping for the funds, however, I think he had worked too hard at it to let it go. I'll never know, as he blames me for not having the funds now (unfair, but it is what it is).



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


Speaking on your student loan answer...

How come inflation isn't higher now? Wouldn't the government (debtor) want their debt to be worth less or even worthless while at the same time having more money out of thin air to pay it off with? Or does that balance out some other way that I don't understand? Sounds like it may be a not so bad time to be in debt as long as you are getting inflated wages due to lowered buying power, but I guess minimum wage stays the same as usual..

I do not understand all this money stuff. I think it's on purpose like the tax code.. Need to have a life long study to find the loopholes, and connections to keep the holes open.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by herrw
 


Speaking on your student loan answer...

How come inflation isn't higher now? Wouldn't the government (debtor) want their debt to be worth less or even worthless while at the same time having more money out of thin air to pay it off with? Or does that balance out some other way that I don't understand? Sounds like it may be a not so bad time to be in debt as long as you are getting inflated wages due to lowered buying power, but I guess minimum wage stays the same as usual..

I do not understand all this money stuff. I think it's on purpose like the tax code.. Need to have a life long study to find the loopholes, and connections to keep the holes open.


No simple answer on this, but I will do my best.

There are several theories on economics. Most economists follow the Keynesian model, which says that in times of high unemployment the government must spend money on public works to jump-start the economy. The problem with this is that, eventually, the government will reach a point where it can no longer sustain itself. It works something like this:

Unemployment rises, so the government either lowers taxes or spends more money, or both. Then unemployment comes back up. When that happens, the governnment 'should' reduce spending or increase taxes to offset the earlier action. This is, however, not politically advantagious. So the spending remains and the taxes don't come back up. Industry flourishes under this environment, but the government continues to spend itself into oblivion. Inflation increases to close the gap, and unemployment rises. The government then increases spending or lowers taxes.

What we have reached, in western society, is the point where the only way that we can correct is either to completely dismantle the system in favor of a new one, or drastically increase the population to offset the ridiculous amount of money floating around out there.

Let's not fool ourselves, however. There are a lot of people in the world. The petro-dollar represents all of them. That is a lot of 'counters' to account for their industry potential. Further, a huge amount of those petro-dollars are sitting in banks unused. Unused currency doesn't affect the economy. In essence, saved money is money you have removed from the system. Further, the human race is increasing its numbers exponentially. This slows down inflation.

So, on the 'no inflation' side, you have these factors:

Population increase
Savings and Investment
Discovery of new commodities

On the 'inflation' side, you have these factors:

Cost of supporting population
Money in use
Money being printed (LIBOR Scam)

Flat-line, we have 10% inflation as a standard rule. Every 10 years, the general cost of everything doubles. It's a result of the system, even though the relative value of the goods remains constant.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


Well, I think I know what solution they have picked for us.. If the system goes down I wonder how they would introduce new currency as to be valued correctly, and how would people gain access to a new currency to begin with?

I guess it all starts with debt? Or is there some other way? Couldn't we just start with money and call it debt free? Start with the amount that is the GDP, as debt free, and then just directly print money to stay in line with the growth or shrink in GDP?

In this model the banks would have to borrow money from the government, and the government would make money off that interest.. They wouldn't want to hold on to too much money if it's at interest. A tax of sorts to the government.. They would want to loan out money, while also wanting to only make good bets..

Or am I explaining some other failed way of running things?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Good stuff, thanks OP!





new topics
top topics
 
65
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join