The state of Socialism… Denmark sells out of staple goods to investment banks.

crayzeed
Sometimes I cannot believe how "we the people" are played. Let me enlighten you all. Whether you like it or not ALL of the inside players and buyers of your national goodies (whether land, food, water or power grids) are multi- national. They are global, universal. So no matter how you bleat about taking back your national identities (stop the EU, fight the international trade treaties) you are on the losing train. There is only one way to fight this insistent take over of national assets is to fight it globally, internationally. How to do that is beyond me, but make no mistake no-one can fight this by being insular or believing you can survive if you take the power and become nationalistic. The people behind this would only pick each country off one by one. I sincerely hate to say it but the first major step should be a single global currency. Do not be afraid but think what these multiple currencies are doing to you. First it allows people with money to promote countries or bankrupt countries(think of George Soros nearly bankrupting the UK) this allows them to dictate to your governments. Job done, castrated governments. Everywhere in the world(no matter what political persuasion) people make billions off your backs by buying Yen, selling Yen, buying Dollars, selling Dollars, buying Euros(get the message) and producing absolutely NOTHING. Take that power off them. don't believe the boogie man that's waved in front of you. Wait for it. Wooooo, The New World Order. It's already here. Who do you think is orchestrating all the power shifting. Got an answer for it? Sorry not me.

I think you misunderstand macro-economics a bit so I'll clear some things up to you. Many people who are making big moves in the market are representing the "empire" in some fashion and people like George Soros are tinkering with the system in a way that brings them immediate gains and brings the people later gains or stability. Things like recessions happen the way they do and frequently as they do to keep economic calamities like the great depression from happening. Many of the worlds top financiers get a bad rap by conspiracy theorists and disgruntled people because they are very rich and taking advantage of the system but if they are not exploiting it for the wrong reasons and do not exploit it merely to spend on their own selfish endeavors (i.e. enormous stores of personal non-transferable wealth) then it often has a good effect. I'll show an example by using your bit about people making billions trading currencies and producing nothing. Much of the profits made there are rolled over into system stability, much of the rest is people taking from other traders and using it for personal use so in the end it has a negligible effect on the actual people using the currencies as part of their lives. It's as if they're taking the cream of the crop - and if they didn't that cream would evaporate into nothing during harvest anyway. Then the benefit is insulated currencies. Then in other cases such as George Soros' crashing the Pound, it was something that was necessary in order to ensure smooth function of the system in the long-term. If it wasn't then he wouldn't have been able to pull it off and boast of it to the public no less. Furthermore in some cases taking profits in the currency markets can actually make the currency worth more because someone took part of the supply as profits. See, it's people that are the problem. Two people can do the same exact thing in the market and depending on intentions it can be good or bad for the world in the long run. Strangely it is this global "empire" that is keeping the world together. Remember the nonstop direct conflicts the world endured before WW2? Now it's been isolated to small conflicts and superpower conflicts, then the usual mostly non-violent domestic conflicts. Over the past few years I have come to realize that people, especially conspiracy theorists tend to point their fingers at the wrong people.

reply to post by On7a7higher7plane

On7a7higher7plane
I don't see the necessity for such powerful states in such small countries. They should be divided regionally and tied by a basic low budget low power government. Leave big government to the superpowers.

In principle I agree, but why would you deprive the people in bigger countries of the same liberties?

Also, we cannot have functioning minarchism in independent small states, as long as we have the syndicalist centralists running the big superpowers.
"They" would just skew the GFS and it's markets against minarchistic states, else their own populace would demand the same, as soon as it's advantages became obvious. "They" are literally the reason why we can't have nice things.

On7a7higher7plane
It's a bit surprising that smaller countries like Denmark aren't overwhelmingly right-wing-libertarian. If I were dictator of such a small wealthy country as Denmark I would rig it as supremely free-market conservative with extremely low taxes on domestic private business.

Libertarianism isn't really considered right-wing here. It's outside of the status-quo, beyond of the "wings" of statism. Conservatives, liberals, aswell as social democrats and socialist parties throughout Europe are all compliant with the centralist status-quo.

On7a7higher7plane
Withdraw financially from the Eurozone and let the dogs rip the EU financial system apart, most importantly don't bail it out, let it crash! Then re-institute national currencies like the German Mark and bring back old school classy European financial relations.

S+

ColCurious
reply to post by On7a7higher7plane

 

On7a7higher7plane
I don't see the necessity for such powerful states in such small countries. They should be divided regionally and tied by a basic low budget low power government. Leave big government to the superpowers.

In principle I agree, but why would you deprive the people in bigger countries of the same liberties?

Also, we cannot have functioning minarchism in independent small states, as long as we have the syndicalist centralists running the big superpowers.
"They" would just skew the GFS and it's markets against minarchistic states, else their own populace would demand the same, as soon as it's advantages became obvious. "They" are literally the reason why we can't have nice things.

On7a7higher7plane
It's a bit surprising that smaller countries like Denmark aren't overwhelmingly right-wing-libertarian. If I were dictator of such a small wealthy country as Denmark I would rig it as supremely free-market conservative with extremely low taxes on domestic private business.

Libertarianism isn't really considered right-wing here. It's outside of the status-quo, beyond of the "wings" of statism. Conservatives, liberals, aswell as social democrats and socialist parties throughout Europe are all compliant with the centralist status-quo.

On7a7higher7plane
Withdraw financially from the Eurozone and let the dogs rip the EU financial system apart, most importantly don't bail it out, let it crash! Then re-institute national currencies like the German Mark and bring back old school classy European financial relations.

S+

edit on 15-4-2014 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)

Bigger countries are harder to manage and it's more difficult for members of society to take responsibility for their nation when it requires such a large power structure just to keep order. With smaller nations it's not the same, everyone's more so on the same page or at least the same chapter. In a country like America some people are on different books so they can't reasonably take even a shred of responsibility for what's going on outside of their little page. It's not a matter of liberty for the people, it's a matter of liberty for the government. The liberty for it to go to war with any nation, repress a rebellion the size of an entire smaller state, etc.

And about skewing minarchistic states, why? It's a shame they would, I think smaller minarchistic nations divided regionally would foster the best cultures and most balanced stable economies. Then again everyone wants the money and it would be hard for those nations to compete in international trade. Oh well, I guess you have to give the people what they want in this stage of world development, as long as what they want is more.

reply to post by On7a7higher7plane

On7a7higher7plane
Bigger countries are harder to manage and it's more difficult for members of society to take responsibility for their nation when it requires such a large power structure just to keep order.

That's not true. A federal republic can be minarchistic - with independent organized federal states.
Each taking care of their page, working together in the book of a true great nation.

On7a7higher7plane
It's not a matter of liberty for the people, it's a matter of liberty for the government. The liberty for it to go to war with any nation, repress a rebellion the size of an entire smaller state, etc.

A true libertarian Government is non-interventional and has no need for a giant imperialistic military apparatus. Defensive armed-forces and alliances is all we need to provide for our security.

On7a7higher7plane
And about skewing minarchistic states, why? It's a shame they would, I think smaller minarchistic nations divided regionally would foster the best cultures and most balanced stable economies.

Yes, and that's exactly why the centralists can't allow a successful minarchistic state to stand, in fear the example would catch on.

Last year I made this thread because a lot of us left winged or non-political Danes could see the complete fallacy of selling out our core infrastructure to a vulture like Goldman Sachs.

Today the "prophecy" became truth, as what used to be a stately owned service, threatened the government of Denmark with power outtages if Dong Energy is not allowed to either:

A. Receive a higher state subsidy

or

B. Raise the price for electricity for the common consumer.

This move is unpresidented and obviously a clear case of what happens when you sell out service facilities to private companies or investment banks.

Protect your infrastructure, and never ever let pure evil companies like GMS get a foot in the door... It will NOT help you or your country!

Politicians: Threat of power failure similar to extortion

translate.google.dk...ømsvigt-lig ner-afpresning%2F

The Bankers control damn near everything. They've had un-audited control of central banks for centuries.

For the Communism and Socialism lovers---
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

And they will determine which abilities you get to have or are able to learn, and when and where you work.
And what your needs are, and when and where those "needs" will be met.

The only thing holding them back in the USA is a sizable portion of the population still believing in the Constitution as our fundamental agreement, and the 100 million or so firearms in the hands of citizens. If we lose these, we will be serfs and subjects, not citizens.

And to think that our own minister of finance sat there and underlined how good an idea the sale was, even though 3 Danish pension funds came up with a matching offer to GMS.

The craziest part is that the minister of finans is still pretending to be a social democrat.

We handed in 192.000 signatures on paper ( DK has 5.000.000 people) and how did he respond to this act of democracy? He didnt even want to take them. He flat out refused to take them.......

It's called Neo liberalism. It's pretty much what every country and party is these days.

"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. "Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

www.corpwatch.org...

So you've got GREED in high places. Welcome to the club.

As Americans, it's all we've ever known.

All countries & creeds will eventually fall to the Corporatocracy. The end is nigh. Self Destruction....imminent.

a reply to: Tusks

They're only about half a generation away from having anyone that even knows what the constitution is anymore.

a reply to: On7a7higher7plane

The "empire" as you call it is what could be called the new world order. These are NOT conspiracy theories, they are what's happening and no matter how many successful examples you can give about how their efforts in the world economies work out right they are just as many bad examples. The bottom line is, nationally or globally, countries should not be critically influenced by a few individuals or corporations for good or bad.
As for the money markets I can agree that traders are taking the cream off the top but the question you have to ask is where is that cream coming from and the only place it can come from indirectly is mine and yours pockets.
As for"conspiracy theories" of who to point the finger at begs the next question"who else is there in the frame"? Answer"no one" but them.