Hooray,
A voice of reason well done Pericles.
I couldn't agree with you more on all counts here.
Like they say never with animals or children.
'Chaos rules OK'.....

Pericles for a start I did not promulgate any theory I'm just asking the question.That video may have been pure BS but they seemed genuine.
If you have a few major ISP,s in the market and people like Murdoch or Conrad Black can buy controlling shares they then have a big influence over the net.It takes capital to be a ISP so they can esaily form a cartel like the oil companies.The TV media at the moment is controlled by very few people and they bombard the airways with their view of the world.There is nothing stopping this also happening to the WEB if they get a strong enough foothold.

Jay Rockerfeller has passed a bills 773&778 that enables Obama to shut down the net and access any information they want.You and many others had better wake up since there are seriously unstable events happening in the US right now.I just hope all the doom merchants are wrong.

I guess I make one fundamental mistake when I read your posts, Arjay.

>>Pericles for a start I did not promulgate any theory I'm just asking the question.That video may have been pure BS but they seemed genuine.<<

I make the assumption - silly of me, I know - that you actually try to find out a little background to the topic before you post.

So let me assure you that the YouTube video you posted first, with the earnest bunch of geeks getting excited about ISPs getting together to turn the Internet into a subscription service, is pure baloney.

But it obviously made them feel that they were doing something important. And when 2012 comes around, and the Internet is still open, they will be able to tell each other what a great job they had done to prevent it from falling into the clutches of evil ISPs.

1st Man: "Why are you tearing up sheets of paper and scattering them in the road?"

2nd Man: (still tearing and scattering) "Keeps the streets free of tigers"

1st Man: "But there are no tigers in Sydney"

2nd Man: "Yeah. Effective, isn't it"

>>It takes capital to be a ISP so they can esaily form a cartel<<

Actually, it doesn't take nearly as much as you think. And as I said, it only takes one "freedom fighter" and the cartel crumbles.

>>Jay Rockerfeller has passed a bills 773&778 that enables Obama to shut down the net and access any information they want<<

Firstly, they have not yet been passed into law.

Secondly, he cannot "shut down the net". Only close specific parts of it.

And he would only do that - given the impact on his own economy of doing so - to protect essential services from the direst of cyber attacks.

>>You and many others had better wake up since there are seriously unstable events happening in the US right now.I just hope all the doom merchants are wrong.<<

Actually, I believe that you secretly hope they are right, Arjay.

It's in your nature.

"...in 1846, Henry David Thoreau left his cabin at Walden Pond for a brief walk into town and ended up in the Concord jail for refusing to pay his poll tax. A fervent abolitionist, Thoreau explained, "I cannot for an instant recognize . . . as my government [that] which is the slave's government also." The next morning, he learned that someone had paid the tax. He never knew who. Although Thoreau objected, the constable insisted on releasing him. This experience led him to write a powerful lecture on the "relation of the individual to the State." The lecture was published in 1849 as "Civil Disobedience." This masterful essay has influenced generations of activists, including Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." http://massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=214

Playing the man again Pericles?If you look at your mortage agreement your bank can call in a loan at moments notice even if you are servicing the debt.If things really get out of hand then banks needing liquidity,will call in loans in a very depressed market,thus many will be sold up and still be in debt to the bank.No,I do not want a collapse,unlike you,I'm looking at the reality.

This could be far worse than the Great Depression since back then they did not have this amount of debt,they had a productive viable manufacturing industry and did not import many consumerables.Many people both here and the US have businesses based on discretionary spending such restraunts,cleaning,pooch washing,retail junk etc.When people really tighten up,millions of jobs will go.Kevin cannot continue with stimulus packages that premote consumerism over real porductivity.When you bail out the unproductive,you destroy the golden goose of real productivity.That is the reality.

It is better to have a couple of years of hard times,than have decades wandering in the wilderness as Japan has done.No more bailouts or stimulus packages!The big boys will have to face their medicine and not be bailed out by the hard working tax payer.

You cannnot solve a debt problem by creating more debt.

It was a little more informative than that, Arjay

>>Playing the man again Pericles?<<

So yes, I did have a little dig at your ingrained pessimism, forever searching for the disaster that is about to befall, courtesy of the evil corporations and rabid bankers.

But I did try to put a few of your ideas into context at the same time.

To no avail, it would appear.

>>If things really get out of hand then banks needing liquidity,will call in loans in a very depressed market,thus many will be sold up and still be in debt to the bank<<

One really odd aspect of this observation, is that you have put your finger on the precise reason for the "bail-out" funds, that you have been so paranoid about.

It goes a bit like this.

If a Bank is tempted to do as you suggest, they will be left - not with cash - but with a bunch of properties, and a piece of paper that tells them that a bunch of people - who can't afford to pay - still owe them money.

To actually get their hands on the liquidity that you refer to, they would need to sell the property into a falling market.

Their asset base would be decimated, and their provisions for bad debts would skyrocket. A queue would form outside their doors, as the word got around that they were in trouble...

So what you suggest is, in fact, Banking suicide.

To help them through - since tapping their customers for liquidity clearly won't work - the Government has printed a whole lot of new money, to prop up the system.

>>You cannnot solve a debt problem by creating more debt.<<

Not directly, of course you cannot. That would be silly.

But this process is not designed to solve the "debt problem" on its own.

It is designed to keep the economy moving until it has a chance to catch up with the mammoth indebtedness that it has already created for itself on the back of over-priced (mostly property) assets.