leigh it is not your fault that you feel as you do[but its time people knew the house of saud is nothing to do with mahamoud/islam they infact hate the shitites..[iran islam etc]...alex jones explained it comprehensivly on yesterdays show..it might be opn here somewhere
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheAlexJonesChannel&view=videos
or here on the archives link[junes isnt up yet]
http://www.infowars.com/

anyhow he revealed that kurd sunni wahabi/saidi are change agents[or rather their leadership has been used to create alcarda[underrt a form of division he calls baulkinisation...its basic divide and conquer...with the main point being..not all muslims follow their messenger...some follow orders from..usa/briton/israel..to suit other adgenda's

[lest we forget most of the terroists who supposedly bought on 911 were saudies..[as is bin larden]..a former cia operative[or sadman insane also served us oil intrests,..till the yanks hung his imposter with crooked teeth..[yet another facit of this wierd colusion wrought under illusion imprinted into a common hatred of islam by the media

even the cairo message..was delivered in egypt[under an oppressive regime,..as the sauidi connection in serving big oil is will known..[as are their links with terror]...911 etc

in short not all..claiming islam support islam...bowing to a saudi isnt the same as bowing to god..each race/belief has their black sheep..i will leave it to others to explain..as its their own family business...how kurds/wahabi have their own adgenda..as well as the adgendas of those they serve

Pericles sprouts more nonsense.While average incomes have increased since 1970 when we analyse the distribution of wealth the picture shows that the top 25% gaining while the rest losing.See "Inequality In Aust" by Alistair Greg.Frank William Lewins amd kevin White.It is on the web.Also see;
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/12/09/income-and- consumption-inequality

Add to this the enormous amount of debt ie houses are now 36 times more expensive while,wages have only gone up by 12.5 times.There are an estimated 2 million working poor in Australia.

Yabby "The US Fed Res is dictated to by the Board of Governors oppointed by congress." Here is the Chief inespector on the Board of Governors not answering questions on where all the tax payer debt money has gone.The Board is a joke! It is the Sgt Shultz of the Fed."I see nothing,I know nothing"
http://www.youtube.com/watcg?v=EsTEn-fcjU0
The facts are that the 12 banks who comprise the US Fed weild enormous power.They have shares in all the major media outlets and at least 60% of Congress at this moment are too afraid to vote for Ron Pauls Bill 1207 for transparency.After viewing Elizabeth Coleman's performance,how could anyone say in their wildest dreams say that this is an honest and satisfactory situation.It is outrageous!

The major 5 Australian banks have made a net profit after tax of $5 billion in the last 6 months.Ten billion per yr means they make $1000.00 pa from every working person[or $2000.00 per household] and still the fees and charges rise.

The least productive businesses in Aust make the greatest profits.They are but money changers.When the host has too many parasites feeding off it,the host dies.It is time to shed parasites.

Arjay, where is your evidence that the 12 US Reserve Banks, own
shares in US media companies? They are Reserve Banks after all,
set up for a specific purpose, not trading banks to make a profit.
Read your history.

If the auditor of the Fed could not answer certain questions,
why did George Bush appoint her? The people chose George Bush
after all. But then Bush chose the head of the SEC too, who was
a regulator who did not believe in regulation. There is democracy
for you, if the people vote for a dummy, they get dummy results
and pay a heavy price.

At the end of the day, the Fed is answerable to the Prez and to
Congress.

Yes Australian banks make good profits, but in relation to the
amount of capital invested in them by shareholders, not unreasonable.
BTW, lending to business is far more profitable then lending to
mums and dads. By the time UOG or others have banked their dole
cheque, then drawn it out again at the ATM or counter, it costs
banks money. Its a community service that they provide.

Take a look at BHPs profits, its in the billions too and of
similar capitalisation as banks.

If you feel that banks are making too much profit, you are free
to buy shares in banks and risk your hard earned savings, or
even start a bank and offer people a cheaper deal. Bendigo Bank
had all these idealistic dreams, but I am yet to see where
consumers are better off.

If you refuse to risk your hard earned savings and put them
on the chopping block if you lose them, then shut up, for when
you borrow from banks, you clearly want others to do it and trust
you. If you want people to take a risk with their capital, clearly
they will want a return.

Sorry, Arjay, it is too late to change the groundrules.

>>Pericles sprouts more nonsense.While average incomes have increased since 1970 when we analyse the distribution of wealth the picture shows that the top 25% gaining while the rest losing.See "Inequality In Aust" by Alistair Greg.Frank William Lewins amd kevin White<<

I had a look at the bits of the book that are available on the web. It was pretty obvious that the authors were scrabbling around to find facts on which to hang their arguments. What resulted was an entirely new definition of "inequality"

I think this was my favourite paragraph.

"Just as ethnicity and Aboriginality are not fixed concepts or realities, neither is gender... It is only by taking into account individuals' lived experiences of gender identity that we can clearly see the ways in which it is a negotiated reality. However, we are careful not to dissolve gender identity to the level of complete voluntarism, and in a case study on transexualism show how individual choice is restricted and defined by a wide range of structural variables."

It is quite possible, given the logic presented here, that you may find that "wealth" is not a fixed concept either, and is "measured against individuals' lived experiences", to the point where it is simply another "negotiated reality".

Your other reference didn't go anyplace interesting either, by the way

>>Also see; http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/12/09/income-and- consumption-inequality<<

Quiggin says nothing about Australia, and is even pretty wishy-washy about the US.

As he points out, he could find nothing conclusive, to the point where he admits "Obviously, More Research Is Needed™"

>>Perricles for the vast majority of Australians their living standards are lower than 40 yrs ago.Only the top 20% are better off.<<

When you have something even slightly convincing, do let me know. Until then I'll stick to facts.

i note the board..[fed open..market..lol..commitie]..acts like a firewall/between the fed proper and the board of goveners

anyhow..update on the fed audit resolution
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=2306

but seems there is a snag

Handwritten Notes Show Fed Oversight Bill Neutered On Senate Floor

Legislation to give Congress greater oversight of the Federal Reserve..was severely watered down on the Senate floor Wednesday..in private negotiations..between two powerful Republican senators.

Thanks to an overlooked document posted on the website of Sen.Charles Grassley of Iowa,..the top ranking Republican on the Finance Committee,..voters can virtually watch the water being dumped into the brew that Grassley had hoped to force the Fed to drink.

(See the document at the bottom of the link.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/handwritten-notes-show-fe_n_200515.html

On page five of Grassley’s amendment,..he intends to give the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office power to audit..“any action taken by the Board under…the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act” —

which would be almost everything that it has done..on an emergency basis..to address the financial crisis, encompassing its massive expansion of opaque buying and lending.

Handwritten into the margins,however, is the amendment that watered it down:..“with respect to a single and specific partnership or corporation.”..With that qualification,..the Senate severely limited the scope of the oversight.

On the Senate floor,..Grassley named the top Republican on the banking committee,Richard Shelby of Alabama,..as the man pouring the water.

“Although I would have preferred to include all of the Fed’s emergency actions under 13(3),in consultation with Senator Shelby I agreed to limit my amendment to actions aimed at specific companies,”said Grassley.

“This modified version of the amendment..does not give GAO authority to look at all of that additional taxpayer risk...It is much narrower than the one I originally filed,..

The original version of the amendment..also scratches out congressional authority to oversee Fed actions..as they relate to the TARP bailout or..“similar authority that the Board exercises under urgent and exigent circumstances.”

much more specific/detail at link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/handwritten-notes-show-fe_n_200515.html

UOG, the board of governors determines policy, the 12 reserve banks
impliment that policy. All very simple really.

Now I know that you see a conspiracy wherever you look and I know
that you think that you know better then the 300 million Americans
who decide all this, but trust me, they have to make their own
decisions and wear their own responsibilities for getting it wrong.

So far, you cannot show any money that the Fed have ripped off,
cheating the American public. Fair enough, I did not think that you
could.

But keep busy as a google cyber sleuth, for clearly you are having
fun and amusing yourself. If you ever should discover something
of actual significance, where there is substantiated evidence,
I am sure that people will take note. In the meantime, we'll
just have to classify your posts as little more then verbal
masturabation.

have fun