Our Economy Was Pushed Off the Edge.

reply to post by Rockpuck

In the hopes that through some obscene, undescribed way trickle down economics will help us? That in the end WE benefit.. that WE, we the people cannot exist with the like of Bank of America, Chase, Berkley, Royal Bank of Scotland, Fortis, etc, etc, etc ..

By Berkley, I'll have to assume you mean Barclays. You are paying attention.

All the banks doing the consolidation amongst our banking industries are majority owned by the International Bankster elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, etc.). They are merely consolidating the banking industry in their corner for pennies on the dollar just as they did in 1929, 1987 and many years in between of which most are unaware of.

The Question is, what are you going to do about it?

Expose them, organize, demand a thorough audit of the institutions I mentioned previously. Take your deposits OUT of these banks. Refuse to do business with any of these banks or their subsidiaries. Put them out of business. Become more self-reliant as possible. Grow your own food, source your own water, source your own energy, build your own home or pay and supervise another to build it per spec. under your supervision, etc. Become as independent as possible.

Regard debt from here forward as a tool to your slavery as it is. Try to develop a closer connection and identity with nature. There is alot to learn from nature itself for it is the creation of 'the' creator and provides more answers to our questions and problems than we know.



[edit on 7-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]

DUDE, that was an awesome thread. i would love to see the look on Paulson & his buddy Bernakie face if that went across there desk with some US marshalls standing right be hind it say i believe you know what this is . i think they are trying to buy time to cover this like a cat covers s**t. kudos to the OP. STARS & FLAGS

Yea.. I guess I'd never expect these huge companies to be completely honest.. but.. WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE CONSUMER? Am I the only person on earth who thinks that people need to live inside their means and read their contracts that they have with these large institutions? Can anyone agree with me? Probably not, seems too hip to complain..

reply to post by crontab


Short selling is a safeguard for the collapse of a stock, since one has to buy back the shares they shorted to begin with, thereby causing the stock to rebound by those covering the shares they shorted.

Naked short selling was what I was referring to above. It has remained legal only through 'illegal' collusion among those who stand to benefit at the 'publics' expense.

reply to post by crawgator406


Oh yes, I enjoy watching their distress for it is founded on the distress of the public at large. They are on the cross. Will they be crucified? Whether or not they are crucified publicly, I have solace in knowing they will be crucified none the less. They will pay for their crimes one way or another. They are doomed from within and without.

reply to post by Perseus Apex
has anyone even brought this up to the house judicial committee,and show that there was a over site of this happening or do they already know and don't care. i would love to know.

reply to post by Rockpuck


The bankster owned media like to call this a government bailout.

This is nothing more than disinformation.

The Federal Reserve is privately owned and operated. It is not government owned.

It is owned by Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, and a few others of whom are now buying up America's and Europes assets for pennies on the dollar. Yes, they did this with the support of their 'agents' within the realm of collusion. Hello Paulson, you are to be put to trial IMMEDIATELY. You have no power over myself or the people at large. You are guilty of crimes against humanity, fraud, collusion, conspiracy, racketeering, wire fraud and a whole host of other charges.

You were 'their' Rhodes scholar puppet. Now you are their scapegoat. Congratulations, now you are to face judgement. You are doomed from here forward unless you repent, though that takes courage, they took that away from you long ago. The banksters have enough on this guy to lock him up to death....though of course that would never occur since he would never live that long. He speaks, he disappears. He knows this well. Remember this, next time you see him sweat.

Don't worry, I've taken 'precautions'.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]

reply to post by crawgator406


The members of the Senate and House of Reps.? are either too ignorant or too afraid to speak. You see, the international bankster folk, the same trillionares of whom you never see on Forbes 100 richest and for good reason, either have paid off our 'represenatives' via campaign contribution, privilages etc. or have blackmailed, extorted, extorted or assassinated their resistence.

These families have had their eye on a NWO for over 200 years and have invested a lot of time and 'trouble' to see its END. You other human beings are mere pawns to accomplishing their ends. Sure, they're all miserable in reality, though they are more than willing to spread that misery onto you.

That's what happens when a government doesn't have 'checks and balances'. You are left with a blue-blood tyrant, who never lived a normal life, never had to 'earn' a dollar, never had to be insulted growing up thereby never learning the lessons in life. Yes, that is what happens when you don't have a system of checks and balances. You have one at the 'top' who knows not his own identity.

How would you feel if your Father, Grandfather etc. had the history these guys had? How would you feel about yourself. Meanwhile, those that were to groom you, grew up with their benefits in mind? It drives a youth crazy to grow up around those they can't trust that were designed to be their mentors? They live life in absolute paranoia with cameras and audio devices around every corner. This is the jail they created for themselves though have a key if they have the courage to use it.

Just because one is of a 'family' tradition, doesn't mean they have to brand themselves a slave to the pauper. Was the pauper ever happy?
All they have to do is open their heart, open themselves to another, though that is difficult when one holds the 'cards', or assume so.

Oh well, so is history.

Let's try not to repeat eh?

Good night people.



[edit on 8-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]

reply to post by eventHorizon


I'm not Jewish though went to school with many. Have had a few close freinds in the past. People are people.

These families are actually not very jewish at all. The Rothschilds for example are of Ashkenazi Jewish origin; the area around today's Georgian province or a current 'satellite' state of the former USSR.

Rothschild basically financed the relocation of the jews to the newly formed state of Israel. They are indebted to him.

I know cause a relative signed the papers, though didn't realize it was already signed. President Truman was a good man though surrounded by wolves.

There was a question as to where to put the Jewish refugees after WW2 since no country wanted to take them in as they were seen as a liability.

I don't have an issue with Jews with the exception of Zionism. When one group isolates themselves from the other, they truely 'isolate' themselves.

A sovereign state of Palestine should have been established long ago. The West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights were stolen from the Arab folk. That was a wrong move in the wrong direction.

Jews and Arabs got along fine before the map of Israel was drawn. Now they have the nukes and Arabs have the rocks. Sure, Isreal needs to protect themselves though why push their neighbors and take their land and deny them a government to govern their own affairs?

Most Jews I know are quite smart and educated. I could only imagine how those skills could be applied for the advancement of mankind in general. The problem is, many have difficulty trusting others. This is in part due to history. We no longer live in an 'ignorant' society. Most have seen the brother in another with the advances in technology. Trust is a two way street. America cares not what is your religion as to whom you are and with whom your loyalties lye.

For some dual Israeli/American citizens Israel is #1, for others #2.

For those with the #1 idea, I'd rather they didn't serve in the DoD, Dept. of Homeless Security, CIA, NSA or associate with the Mossad. The Mossad need to be checked asap. They have become a serious threat to this country. No more false flag operations, blackmailing, assassinations. That's enough!!

This is the USA, not your puppet regime. Israel, Rothschild is not your master unless you choose to bow to him like the queen. Yes, the queen bows to Rothschild upon entering his sovereign kingdom "The City of London" of which is a sovereign city within greater London and run by the "House of Rothschild".

There are dual Israeli/Americans whom have comitted many of the worlds largest financial crimes and remain in countries with non-extradition of whom will more than oblige to 'assist' in investing the loot.

I've always been amazed at how people separate each other from one another. They seldom realize it was by design. Divide and conquer. Tolstoy? Worked in the past......working to date?

All 'peoples' are guilty of crimes among humanity, though should we not evolve as we have? Have people not come to see the brother in one another?

Religions, cultures, ideals, titles of which are designed to divide mankind among one another are merely tools to divide and conquer a nation, country what have you, to control the peoples amid chaos and encourage wars to further indebt a nation to the lender of last or 'only' resort.

As soon as people start seeing each other as a Brother, with 'something' to offer the other, they will never achieve a higher existence.

The Zeitgeist films part 1 and now 2 are the beginnings of a new movement amongst the people. Spread the word. It's an important message.

When one divides and conquers, they're only dividing and conquering themselves.

Silly people thinking they can discriminate among 'one' another.

Who's your brother?

Your neighbor.




[edit on 8-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]

I agree with a lot of what has been said and fully support a S&F of this thread.

However where does the data come that the DTCC owns 99% of all stock and that it's total assets are valued at over 20 trillion? The Ming The Mechanic article is quoting another article by an Anthony Wayne, apparently written some time in April 1999. However if you were to look at the company's own balance sheets, the asset numbers do not nearly add up.

1999: DTCC Consolidated 1999 Balance Sheet

Total Assets (in thousands): $5,001,556 or $5 billion

2007: DTCC Consolidated 2007 Balance Sheet

Total Assets (in thousands): $30,222,740 or $30 billion

These numbers are a far cry from trillions of dollars. Those two items we are basing part of this thread on is from information relayed to Mr. Wayne via a Jim McNeff who was Director of Training for the DTC when the article was written in 1999. Who knows how accurate it actually is. I just don't see any evidence for that large of a number beyond heresay in an article in an article. Granted, if you really held 19 trillion, would you let the books show it? Of course not. Hrm.

I am shocked to know that pretty much every stock transaction goes through this company. This is a fact. As far as legal ownership by them? I can see how it could be true ... but someone with more expertise in this area would have to chime in.

What does everyone else think after reading that Ming article? I might just be ignorant to how those types of companies really work and what they have to claim as an asset on their balance sheet. I just see those 19 trillion/99% figures popping up all over ATS and wanted to research them. Great post Loam. Hopefully this will open some eyes at least to how things REALLY work on the inside (even if some numbers and facts are off or obscured).

I generally consider myself a fairly smart person, but economic issues often confuse me. I think I am quite possibly looking at the most important thread to come by in a very long time, but I'm a little too dense to make a lot out of it.

I'm reasonably confident that this economic crisis was engineered somehow, but I'm not really sure how or by whom. I'm trying to figure out who benefits or how people in the right positions could benefit from this catastrophe. I haven't come up with anything, since at least at first glance it looks like everyone's losing money who has anything invested at all. I feel like I'm watching the endgame of some sport to which I don't know the rules.

This crisis doesn't seem to have spilled over into my home Canada too much (yet) although the Toronto Stock Exchange has taken a beating just like most other exchanges. I can't imagine this is going to be good for the job market, and the market around here is already pretty weird, with high employment but also high 'underemployment', with people stuck in dead-end jobs despite having excellent training. (Lots of manual labour and service industry/fast food stuff)

I just don't know what's going on, but it sure isn't good.

A few asides based on things people have said:

Is naked short selling legal? It's definitely dishonest, but that doesn't mean a lot on Wall Street.

Is there a timeline somewhere of the recent events, say since Bear Sterns fell apart? Seems to me that's about when it started, and it slowly got worse until it ballooned into what we see today.

Is cheque kiting legal? I haven't heard of this idea before, but I came up with a very similar idea myself involving real estate and mortgages. I abandoned it because I couldn't afford it even if I could bring myself to do something so dishonest.

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Is naked short selling legal? It's definitely dishonest, but that doesn't mean a lot on Wall Street.

Let me explain. Short selling is a necessary part of the market. It's placing a bet that the stock will go down, but you have to own the stock. Therefore, when your bet goes wrong, you have to cover the short.

In naked short selling which was never legal, people are shorting without owning the stock (part of the problem here is that it creates on paper more stock than exists, and if the bets on the shorts are right, people are earning money on stocks that do not exist.)

BUT a blind eye was being turned for a long time on this activity, and has done nothing but hurt the market. Then they ban it - ban a practice that was becoming common but was never legal.

Another example of the regulatotors allowing market manipulation that they were not suppossed to allow.

reply to post by Perseus Apex


There is no evidence what so ever that indicates that those people in fact "own" the Federal Reserve. In fact, as far as I have seen no stock has ever been issued for the Fed, making it an entity that no one "owns".. it just regulates the banking industry...

However..

If you wish to provide EVIDENCE to the contrary .. with such as .. vast knowledge.. of the economy, you would know that anyone who owns over 10% of a company has all their financial information regarding that company public information..

So you can pull up any company Rothchilds own 10% or more in!

Good luck lil buddy, until then I will regard all further comments as jealous bigotry against people with more money then you.

Of course they aren't cleaning up the mess or closing the wide open back doors - that should tell all of us just how far they intend this "crisis" to go.

Just like certain trades prior to 9-11 those with insider knowledge couldn't resist grabbing a little something for the effort. Unlike the real crooks, these "insiders" aren't as well covered.

An examination of stock transactions by various government employees might be worth the time and effort...

It really blows me away that a week ago 90% of the public in the US spoke out against the crooks. Apparently it was motivated more by the sense of personal and direct financial consequences than the motivations borne of truth we wish people would act out of. I remain hopeful the unwashed masses will awaken and soon but it's a long shot, unfortunately.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by nfotech]

My thanks to who ever metioned Zietgeist i watch part 1 and this quote realy freeked me out,

" I BELEIVE THAT THE BANKING INSTITUTIONS ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN STANDING ARMIES.......
IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVER ALLOW PRIVATE BANKS TO CONTROL THE ISSUE OF CURRENCEY....THE BANKS AND CORPORATIONS THAT WILL GROW UP AROUND THEM WILL DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THEIR PROPERTY UNTIL THEIR CHILDREN WAKE UP HOMELESS ON THE CONTINENT THEIR FATHERS CONQUERED"

Thomas Jefferson
1743-1826

what happened to the ideals of america a one where back in Jeffersons day would have stood up and died to up hold those belifs

Thank you, everyone, for the compliments with respect to this thread.

As I've already said, the implications of this material are staggering.

I keep thinking how powerful a tool naked short selling could be when coordinated by not just financial trading opportunists, business competitors, and plain vanilla vindictive agents, but by government interests, whether domestic or foreign.

It shocks me that so many knew of this risk-- particularly the SEC-- and did nothing.

Why is that?

And finally, who did all of the pushing this time? Wouldn't you like to know?

I would.


[edit on 8-10-2008 by loam]

The problem is not short selling. The main game is called privatize the gain, and socialize the losses. The banks operate like a casino. Most of the time you put coins into the slot machine, and you win nothing. However, occasionally someone wins the jackpot.

The banking executives take all of the coins out of the slot machines, and pay themselves huge businesses. Finally, when someone strikes the jackpot, they don't have the money to pay them. So, they get the government to bail them out to pay whoever won.

If there are proper government regulations, then they would have to make sure there is enough money in the slot machine to pay out the jackpot when they ocassionally lose. However, the bankers got gready, and they just took the money.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
In fact, as far as I have seen no stock has ever been issued for the Fed, making it an entity that no one "owns".. it just regulates the banking industry...

Are you sure of this, in regard to Federal Reserve banks? I ask because:

www.federalreserve.gov...

After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock.

Federal reserve banks, including the capital stock and surplus therein, and the income derived therefrom shall be exempt from Federal, State, and local taxation, except taxes upon real estate.

The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. They are also probably the major shareholders as Mullins claimed.

The member banks are the share holders.

Regardless of the foreign ownership conjecture, Mullins argued that since the money-center banks of New York owned the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they could hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district. Such an expenditure would require an outlay in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there is a cheaper path to global domination.

So now we see the reason for the season and why the big three are buying up all the regional and boutique banks and lenders.

The Federal Reserve System certainly makes large profits. According to the Board's 1995 Annual Report, the System had net income totaling $23.9 billion, which, if it were a single firm, would qualify it as one of the most profitable companies in the world. How were these profits distributed? By an agreement between the Board of Governors and the Treasury, nearly all of the Fed's annual profits are paid to the federal government. Accordingly, a lion's share of $23.4 billion, which represents 97.9 percent of the Federal Reserve's net income, was transferred to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Banks kept $283 million, and the remaining $231 million was paid to its stockholders as dividends.

source

reply to post by Rockpuck


I'm not sure where the 'lil buddy' comment came from though it's apparent you have an agenda. Are you on the 'right' or rather short side of the market? You seem to be ok with the current 'situation'. How is that? You have questions as to who owns, runs the Fed. Reserve? You obvisously havn't been paying attention to my posts.

You of all ATS'ers should know where I'm coming from. I'm well aware that you've read my posts in the past. You seem to be in my 'shadow' for some reason.

I've provided proofs in prior posts, therefor theres no need to rehash here. Digg if you must. Where do you stand Rockpuck? I find your comments out of place here.

You say I may have 'bigotry' over those who have more money than I? I liquidated most of my holdings 2 years ago and bought land, gold and silver (Real assets). I'm surprised most people assumed the Fed could just print more dollars into oblivion without the house of cards ever crashing.

The people were scammed plain and simple and should seek retribution, audits, and 'accoutability', not let em walk away with the loot? Those that thought they were ready to retire are now looking forward to going back to work for a dollar that still is backed by 'nothing'. Where's that doob damit. Gotta light? I think you need to refer to the second Zeitgeist film posted recently here on ATS. That should sum it up pretty well.

If the links below don't provide the answers you seek, perhaps nothing will.

Here you go 'lil' buddy:

Zeitgeist Addendum

Timeline of the Rothschild empire



[edit on 8-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]