Arjay..I was not suggesting we discuss the "Illuminati"...as I said.. it's all out in the open now anyway. There is no 'secret' agenda to expose..they are speaking on a daily basis about it.

SOLUTIONS.. for me, with my small aussie frame of reference.. the ONLY solution I can think of must have the following outcome.

**Thwart the capitalist networks on BOTH sides of politics, connected to the major parties.
**Thwart the insidious and perfidious agenda of the Orwellian GREENS

STRATEGY.

With 2 elections coming up..and Krudd in a downware spiral.. we need to work at State and Federal level in marginal seats to reduce the impact of the GREENS..who could (with preference deals) swing the elestion.

There are enough issues and marginals in my area to acheive this with some targeted door knocking and public information events.

Of the 3 evils.. the coalition is the lesser. Labour bad..the Greens the worst.

Family First is yet to be tested in a House of Reps role at state or federal level. They might have something more by way of true national interest to offer... I'll give them my support for this time.
Even they have become a bit too PC for my liking though.

*Free trade is a furphy and just opens up new opportunities to exploit the poor. Competition under FT rests solely on labour which risks other variables such as quality, innovation, governance (labelling, hygiene, chemicals etc).*

Not so Pelican, because of course the poor in Australia are the
major beneficiaries of cheap clothing and other goods. If these
were all made locally, at local cost, their standard of living would
drop dramatically.

Yes, the Chinese have benefitted, tens of millions of Chinese are
now no longer poor, as they once were. Would you like them to
starve once again, as they used to?

Despite all this, a country like Germany still remains right near
the top of exporters, as they focus on quality, value for money
and innovation. Price is only one section of the market, which
is something that you continue to overlook.

The whole idea of globalisation is that we do things where we
have a comparative advantage and things that we are good at.
Everyone benefits.

Arjay, it doesn't work like that.

>>instead of borrowing from China,much of this money could have been created here.We are locked into these global financial arrangements that keep us in debt to these global reserve banks.If they create money from nothing ,then why can't sovereign Govts do likewise? Fractional Reserve Banking is a huge scam.It steals from the population by creating too much money and diluting everyone's wealth.<<

One part at a time.

>>instead of borrowing from China,much of this money could have been created here<<

How would this be done, in your world? Printing?

>>We are locked into these global financial arrangements that keep us in debt to these global reserve banks.<<

In the same way as you and I are "locked into" repayment of our credit card debt. We keep borrowing, we keep repaying - it's an essential part of the deal.

>>If they create money from nothing ,then why can't sovereign Govts do likewise?<<

Two things. Money is not created from nothing. It is created through incurring a debt. Exactly as you do when you use your credit card. It may seem to you that money is magically brought into being at the checkout, at the exact moment you need it. But that is only because a debt is being recorded against your account at precisely the same moment.

Not magic, at all.

As to "why can't sovereign governments" etc. They do.

With the same lack-of-magic caveat as above, of course.

>>Fractional Reserve Banking is a huge scam.<<

You keep saying this. But as "scams" go, it is all pretty open and above board, is it not? "Scams" are generally thought to be illegal. Lending money against an agreed level of tangible reserves, on the other hand, is quite legal.

>>It steals from the population by creating too much money and diluting everyone's wealth.<<

We've been through this before, and you have never succeeded in getting past the "slogan" level, and showing any results that would illustrate your point.

I somehow doubt, given you are still using the same slogan, that situation is about to change.

Pericles,If the IMF, Federal Reserve and European Centarl banks can create money from nothing using the fractional reserve system,then why can't our own Govt do likewise? The end result of creating world inflation is the same only we don't get the double whammy of a depreciation currency plus the debt.The RBA has had to increase rates due to inflation.Where has this inflation come from? Yes Kevin's borrowing from China.China probably loaned us their US monopoly money which they hold at least a $ trillion.The Euro is collapsing and so will the $ US.

We should be allowed to create our own money to equal pop increases and productivity increases.To borrow from OS to equal wealth we have already created is economic enslavement.We would be then be paying a tax on our own productivity to international banks.This is why we are in so much debt and unable to build our own infrastructure.If the RBA creates all our needs,they can quite easily keep inflation under control via interest rates.

I would like to know the detail international financial agreements that limit countries from creating their own currency.ie What % of our currency can we create before we contravene international finance agreements?

You ask very good questions sometimes, Arjay.

>>Pericles,If the IMF, Federal Reserve and European Centarl banks can create money from nothing using the fractional reserve system,then why can't our own Govt do likewise?<<

Ignoring for the moment the "money from nothing" part, the answer is that they 'sort-of' can, and they 'sort-of' do.

What you really need to do first, though, is to get your head around is the entire concept of debt. Until you do, you will continue to confuse yourself with terminology.

Debt is created when people, businesses or governments borrow money. There is essentially no difference between the three - all have interest rates attached, all require repayment at some future date.

The major change over the past century or so has been a general shift in focus away from "ability to repay principal", towards "ability to repay the interest".

"Principal repayment" was the underpinning of lending in Dickensian times, where "calling in the loan" was the prerogative of the lender. "Notes" used to be traded informally, so you could find yourself being pursued for a debt by someone completely different from the guy you originally borrowed from.

But these days the lender views the loan more as a stream of future income, rather than a temporary position which will "right itself" once the loan is repaid. This has led to the separation, in financial terms, of the interest portion from the underlying asset. Actually "calling in" the loan was also separated from the interest coupon, which was packaged up with others into a "security".

If you look at the entire recent "toxic securities" fiasco, you will see that it came about because the income-stream part had become even further detached, via CDOs etc., from the asset part. Governments, institutions (such as some local councils here in Australia) were buying financial instruments that were far distant from the security (securities) upon which they were based.

Have a think about that, I hope it helps with some of the broader issues.

It is actually a very fascinating topic, even for amateurs like me.

Pericles,the problem with our financial system is that there is too much emphasis on debt.There are too many rent seekers and not enough producers.Our economy is cushioned by the sale of resources and energy and thus we have too many public servants and too many dependant upon state handouts.

The nanny state creates decay.Few aspire to greater goals than amassing money for the least amount of effort,or just doing nothing for dole money.We could have the most amazing country on the planet,yet are lead by fools and parasites.

It is time for a new political party that is based on libertarian philosophies with a keen sense of social justice.Pauline Hansen knew something was wrong but had not the intelligence to define the problem.Right now the communists and Greens are growing by default because people dislike both the major parties.

The mono-culture of Globalism is dead,and we need a new way that repects individual sovereignty.