>> ^notarobot:

@NetRunner, @GenjiKilpatrick, It is unfair to blame any single person in recent memory. Not Bernake, not Greenspan. They were making the best choices they knew to make given the system they have inherited.
The people at fault are no longer alive today. I'm sure I don't know American history as well as Americans, but I know that similar issues are being faced by pretty much every country that has left the management of the nation's money supply in the hands of private interests. For myself, in Canada, I'm pretty worried.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”
-William Lyon Mackenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada.


The people at fault are very much alive because they could've done something to prevent it years ago. They're in Obamas cabinet now.

@NetRunner, @GenjiKilpatrick, It is unfair to blame any single person in recent memory. Not Bernake, not Greenspan. They were making the best choices they knew to make given the system they have inherited.

The people at fault are no longer alive today. I'm sure I don't know American history as well as Americans, but I know that similar issues are being faced by pretty much every country that has left the management of the nation's money supply in the hands of private interests. For myself, in Canada, I'm pretty worried.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

-William Lyon Mackenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada.

“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

-William Lyon Mackenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada.

That is not correct, he doesn't know what he is talking about. If you read the passage, it's referring to Christians and not the unsaved. It is the dichotomy between the good and wicked servant:

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:25-27 (KJV)


>> ^luxury_pie:
So if I am reading this correctly, Christians are planning on murdering us, unless we forsake our personal definition of life and our whole understanding of what it means to be human.
Well don't we have a place for people like that?
I don't want to be murdered... say tomorrow?! That just seems a bit harsh!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I would love this to succeed and kill usurious systems like Paypal - but a pile of dead virtual currencies before bitcoin leave me skeptical. Beenz, flooz and many more. I'm quietly hopeful though because paypal is not good in so many ways.

Also, the tax implications are not a small problem.

I see banking and divorce on the rise, yet both usury and divorce are sins. Then again, bringing logic to the religious table is mental suicide.

>> ^shinyblurry:

This argument is invalid from a Christian standpoint. God doesn't create gay people, he creates people. What Christians believe is that everyone is born with a sin nature, because creation is in a fallen state due to the sin of Adam. This sin nature can manifest any number of ways. Some people are challenged by excessive addiction, others by their vanity and pride, and yes some are challenged by their sexuality. Though this is a hot-button issue in the Christian world, Christ never taught we should single out anyone for a particular sin..sin is sin is sin.. The bible says there is no one good, not one. So, any Christian who is constantly railing against homosexuality is a hypocrite at best.

quoting bible, Luke 19
12He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

13And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

14But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

15And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

16Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

18And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

19And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

20And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

21For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

22And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

I think it's difficult to dispute that you weren't arguing against free trade in your previous post even if that wasn't your intention. The first paragraph seems clearly about it when you talk about being up in arms about your job going overseas, and I think in the second you misunderstand how capitalism works. But anyway, I don't think that we disagree on a great deal then. Like I stated in my original post, I believe in necessary government regulation and oversight in a capitalist economy, preventing deterimental effects like market failure, and financial, environmental or other crises.
>> ^Asmo:

>> ^RedSky:
Well, at this point you're simply arguing against free trade.
Would I be infuriated to lose a job because a firm has chosen to use cheaper labour from overseas? Sure. I go about preventing this from happening by studying about and working in an area that requires technical knowledge that cannot be easily substituted. As a comparison, would you be for sticking to old technologies purely because there are workers only trained in them? Should be have avoided embracing computation simply because previous generations were unfamiliar with them and stuck to letters and typewriters? Obviously given that these factors are mostly out of people's control, specific and unemployment assistance should be and is provided in most highly developed countries. The countries which don't have generous unemployment benefits are usually the ones that simply can't afford them. Typically though, they're the biggest relative beneficiaries of free trade though.
The better question should be, are willing up to give up the drastically lower prices, product variety and willing to scare of businesses who bring employment? Because you can bet that if you restrict companies from laying off workers in favor of cheaper employment overseas, they'll move overseas in droves to countries which do not and you'll have created a self fulfilling prophecy.
Free trade works two ways as well, which people seem to blissfully forget. Where do you think developing countries go to get their technical expertise?
Free trade leads to lower prices not higher profits. When all firms lower their wage costs, this creates the incentive to lower prices and capture more market share. Once one company in an industry does that, everyone follows suit. If that doesn't happen, it's a failure of competition policy and anti-trust and has nothing to do with free trade.
No offence, but I honestly think you should take Economics 101, or at least Wikipedia the basic concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand


None taken, but you've become so impressed with your own rhetoric (and wandered off in to free trade) that you've ignored the key element...
Exploitation. Foreign outsourcing was an example of 'free' trade (rather than 'fair' trade). But exploitation wears many coats. Usury rates on credit cards combined with stagnant wages, for example. Or sub prime mortgages for another. Destroying the environment to squeeze the last few drops of resources out.
And this is the core of the penultimate capitalist ideal (as opposed to individual flavours). Accumulate wealth. The more corners you cut, the faster you can accumulate wealth. Then you die and someone else get's it. Yay, you win.
Regulation, fair trade, competition laws etc are all ideals forced upon capitalists because people generally recognise that capitalism without checks = a disaster (BP + gulf, Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster etc). There is nothing wrong with working and expecting fair recompense for your labours but too often these labours aren't honest. They game the system and exploit (there's that word again) not only the workers but the customers as well so the man in the middle can make as much cash as possible.
ps. For the record, I don't have an issue with fair trade and the commensurate rise in prices if quality rises with it. That's the whole point of fair trade, not increasing wages for sweatshop quality.

>> ^RedSky:

Well, at this point you're simply arguing against free trade.
Would I be infuriated to lose a job because a firm has chosen to use cheaper labour from overseas? Sure. I go about preventing this from happening by studying about and working in an area that requires technical knowledge that cannot be easily substituted. As a comparison, would you be for sticking to old technologies purely because there are workers only trained in them? Should be have avoided embracing computation simply because previous generations were unfamiliar with them and stuck to letters and typewriters? Obviously given that these factors are mostly out of people's control, specific and unemployment assistance should be and is provided in most highly developed countries. The countries which don't have generous unemployment benefits are usually the ones that simply can't afford them. Typically though, they're the biggest relative beneficiaries of free trade though.
The better question should be, are willing up to give up the drastically lower prices, product variety and willing to scare of businesses who bring employment? Because you can bet that if you restrict companies from laying off workers in favor of cheaper employment overseas, they'll move overseas in droves to countries which do not and you'll have created a self fulfilling prophecy.
Free trade works two ways as well, which people seem to blissfully forget. Where do you think developing countries go to get their technical expertise?
Free trade leads to lower prices not higher profits. When all firms lower their wage costs, this creates the incentive to lower prices and capture more market share. Once one company in an industry does that, everyone follows suit. If that doesn't happen, it's a failure of competition policy and anti-trust and has nothing to do with free trade.
No offence, but I honestly think you should take Economics 101, or at least Wikipedia the basic concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand



None taken, but you've become so impressed with your own rhetoric (and wandered off in to free trade) that you've ignored the key element...

Exploitation. Foreign outsourcing was an example of 'free' trade (rather than 'fair' trade). But exploitation wears many coats. Usury rates on credit cards combined with stagnant wages, for example. Or sub prime mortgages for another. Destroying the environment to squeeze the last few drops of resources out.

And this is the core of the penultimate capitalist ideal (as opposed to individual flavours). Accumulate wealth. The more corners you cut, the faster you can accumulate wealth. Then you die and someone else get's it. Yay, you win.

Regulation, fair trade, competition laws etc are all ideals forced upon capitalists because people generally recognise that capitalism without checks = a disaster (BP + gulf, Union Carbide/Bhopal disaster etc). There is nothing wrong with working and expecting fair recompense for your labours but too often these labours aren't honest. They game the system and exploit (there's that word again) not only the workers but the customers as well so the man in the middle can make as much cash as possible.

ps. For the record, I don't have an issue with fair trade and the commensurate rise in prices if quality rises with it. That's the whole point of fair trade, not increasing wages for sweatshop quality.

There is no reason for a bank to charge 29.999% interest. It is usury.

Banks ALREADY get 2-7% from the total amount people spend by charging the retailer for accepting the card.

Massive interest rates are just them trying to milk every last cent from people who can't afford it.

Usury - thats what it was called many years ago. To lend someone money at interest was considered parasitic and people who engaged in the practice were killed.

Without profits, banks can't function. Without banks, no one can borrow money for homes, cars, educations, etc... If you can't meet the terms of a loan, then don't spend the money (duh). There are banks who are "aggressive lenders", true but it isn't a problem without the second partner in the tango - "stupid borrowers". The onus is on the borrower to have the sense to NOT spend borrowed money they can't afford. Regulations provide a framework with ample consumer protections and information. I don't blame legally operating banks when borrowers exceed their means. Banks aren't your daddy and it isn't their job to control your spending.

Pennypacker, I think you missed the point of this girls story.

I understood quite clearly. She's a fired employee telling a story where she portrays herself as an unfairly treated saint tilting at the windmill of a heartless, evil bank who is twirling its moustache as it gleefully curbstomps weeping grandmothers, orphans, babies, and puppies. I deem her boss & co-workers could tell a much different story...

Even if her story is remotely accurate (very debatable) then the only germaine fact is that she was fired with cause. Everything else is whining about how she wants BoA to run its business. That's not her call. Sister - if you think you have a better business model with less 'evil' then open your own bank. Don't be surprised one day when some fired entry level clerk makes a video talking about YOUR evil business practices though...

It amazes me how people who are so against government tyranny will bend over and take it hard from a corporation.

No corporation has the power to make me do something stupid. When a bank offers a credit card, I don't take it. When a mortgage company asks if I want a re-fi, I say "No thanks!". When I see a sport's car I can't afford I DON'T BUY IT. See how that works? As a result of not being stupid, I have zero debts, a nice home, 2 cars, and money to spend & lend. And guess what? No company has any power over my life. Guess who is the only entity with power to make my life miserable? That's right. Government. Because they can make/change laws, rig the system, and confiscate property. In other words - they can behave tyrannically. Companies can only do that if I give them power by acting stupidly. Government can take that power without my consent.

usury.
thats what it was called many years ago.
to lend someone money at interest was considered parasitic and people who engaged in the practice were killed.
thats right...death.
bankers are a parasite on society.they produce nothing,create nothing (except debt,owed to them)and add nothing of substantial value to society.

in this century alone financial institutions were regulated in regard to interest.that all changed in the 80's and ever since the interest started to creep up,hidden charges,"convenience fees".the fractional monetary system is the biggest ponzi scheme going and the federal reserve has it locked.

i applaud this young lady for recognizing that she was stepping on peoples faces to get a paycheck.will someone replace her?of course!there is always someone willing to subjugate others to benefit themselves,but not this young woman.good for her.

how many out there can truly say they would do the same as this young lady?
i know i would because i have.cost that company a pretty penny too.
what worth is a paycheck at the detriment of another?or many?
how far would you go?at what depth would you dig?where would you draw the line?
the subjugation of my fellow man is not worth any amount of money.thats my philosophy anyways,seems its this young womans also.
bravo young lady.

...Sure, but her original contract had a lower interest rate and the charges were incurred before the almost* illegal level of raised interest. Maybe she isn't doing the best thing, maybe she should get a layer - but that costs money as well.

At what point does one finally say enough is ENOUGH?
As a population we have all become too complacent when it comes to letting the bigger guy stick it too us!

*Usury Laws in US: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/19980202.asp

a perfect example of bad doctrine and even worse theology.
to infer that the doctor was even REMOTELY responsible for his own execution is morally and ethically reprehensible.
i find it most interesting how zealot pastors sift through dogma and doctrine and only use what they deem necessary to manipulate their parishoners.behind many a religious zealot is an even more rabid preacher pulling the strings..disgusting.they hide in cowardice behind the cloak of biblical doctrine
like a leech and propound dogma like it was a holy secret,to be doled out in small doses.keeping their flock dimwitted and dull.
many of these fundamentalists use old covenant text,which i find VERY ironic due to the fact of how many of gods "laws" in that text are utterly ignored,yet others are used like a sledgehammer to pound into the religious followers the idea of "righteousness".
if this doctor had actually "reaped what he had sown" according to biblical doctrine,then why are they not stoning the adultress to death?or giving up all that is "worldly" and extoll the money changers?hanging the bankers for usury?why is it that so many people listen to preachers such as this man?
did not jesus bespeak "in the times before my return,there will be many who sayeth they speak in my name,but they will be false yet they will hold sway over my house,and over all nations".
how come i never hear these televangelists or money preachers ever say this quote?
how come supposed "christians" do everything BUT act like a "christian" would,and should?
and how could this hypocrisy be so lost on them?
DD=dumbfounded and deer-eyed,ignorance is curable but stupid is forever.
jesus wept.....

Citibank you can go fuck yourself... thanks for stopping universal default a few years ago. Suck my usury legislation bitches.