ok i have looked at ya link
its full of spin

so is designed to misslead
he quotes wiki..[then says the wiki..very closely watched is wrong]

yet he hasnt taken the time to edit it
or if he did..it was deleted cause he is lying

its going to take a bit to unwind his spin
but here goes

""However, the same Wikipedia article
almost immediately contradicts itself..when it states:

"Central banks in most developed nations
are independent*..in that they operate
*under rules designed...[by govt]..to render them
free from political interference."

this is conmpletly true
govts set them up..then went broke
cause the bankers..bought up the bonds
then demanded IMMEDIATE payment..in gold

well govts didnt have..the gold silver..cash
so they issued war bonds..when the colluding bankers wanted it IMMEDIATLY..govts got scared..and gave in to the bankers

yes govt set them up
but then the bankers took it all

its described in..'the creature from jeckle island'
and in..'the secret bankers manual'

but back to his spin
he continues

""How can a bureau..that is established
by the government and possesses extraordinary powers..'

ie under a govt act

""be independent and free from political interference?""

by others taking over thec powers by threat of bankruptcy

he then continues with his lack of fact
""The "central bank" embodies political interference!""

not giving any proof

""And to the extent that a Monetary Authority
such as the FED has been granted powers..
that it can exercise free of political interference,

how can such an institution be held accountable?"'

supposedly by the 12 bankers
and the fed reseve banking act

""How can it operate
without being responsible to the government
and indirectly to the people?""

by 12 bankers
controlling all the other feds

this is complicated
but note his replies
he isnt giving any fact..!

only asking questions..in lue of quoting the act
or giving proof..[like wiki has to have..*proof]

its spin

2b..continued

ok gone to the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

from the link

a large volume of economic research has been done to define the relationship between central bank independence and economic performance, the results are ambiguous.

Advocates of central bank independence argue that a central bank which is too susceptible to political direction or pressure may encourage economic cycles ("boom and bust"), as politicians may be tempted to boost economic activity in advance of an election, to the detriment of the long-term health of the economy and the country.

In this context,
independence is usually defined
as the central bank's operational and management
>>*independence..*from the government.

herck the info is there

but read the darn thing yourself in full

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank#Independence

i have gone away from your blogger link
but its ccccrap

independance from govt is a must
you dont get independance by govt telling bankers whats what

and tghus the criminals stole the bank
and the gold...blooming capitalists..too clever by half

i suggest people read the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank

its your super they are stealing
look up the other links

back to the fool at the link

""Fifth, the government has made them
to be at the heart or center of the banking industry and the monetary system.

Sixth, government power is itself centralized or national.

All of these statements are factual.


Now this is an imposing array of reasons why "central banks" are called "central banks". But the most important of these reasons is the fifth reason,

which is that the government
*has used..""..NOT IS USING>.!

""its power to make the "central bank" central.""

and INDEPENDANT

"""And because the government has used""

has used
not is using..!

""its power to create the "central bank"
and make it central,..

we know that the "central bank"
is not a free market institution."""

cccrap
what proof you nutter

""This is the main ground
upon which I challenge..the notion
that a "central bank"...is a bank.""

lol
too clever by half
thats not proof..its opinion

spin..!

"desperado...ignoramus...pathetic"

Peter, you old charmer. It's no use you sweet-talking me. I'm already spoken for.

Btw - that's rather an impressive Napoleon Complex you seem to have going there - now that's pathetique.

Well, after some ime avoiding it, I finally read this thread. Interesting, but not especially enlightening.

To sum it up (and I'm happy to be corrected if anybody feels so moved):

Squeers/Poirot/Mollydukes don't like Capitalism because they like the idea of having a "big brother" to look after their back if their best efforts end up producing an outcome that is not in accord with their projected wants. As they are self-consciously not "bosses", they identify with Marx's "proletariat", even though I'm sure they don't live or work with genuinely low-skilled, low-income, low-education people which were what Marx was considering in his deliberations.

Davidf doesn't like Marxism because he's Jewish and two of the more egregious examples of totalitarian States based on Marxism (or at least, claimed to be so based) were also historically tough on the Jewish people within their control. This was principally because the Jewish people have held themselves as somewhat separated from the state and Marxist socialism decries such class-distinctions. I find this fascinating, since I'm sure that David wouldn't identify himself primarily as a Jew on other economic/social issues.

"Why should they disapprove of their special yoke if they approve of the general yoke?" to quote Marx in "On the Jewish Question".

Peter Hume doesn't like Marxism because he is committed to a different form of totalitarianism - that of the "Market" and he likes the idea of a Libertarian state, in which one rises or falls based entirely on one's own capacity to make oneself useful to others.

All fairly predictable so far, but where does it take us?

In the world today we have Euro-zone nations failing economically because they have spent far too much on social welfare and not nearly enough on structural supports for industry. The US is in similar trouble for almost diametrically-opposite reasons. Both are responses to Marx and the economic philosophers who informed his work.

Isn't it time we looked at some things differently?

Dear Antiseptic,

We have very different views on this list. However, you seem to be the only one capable of reading our minds and telling why we have those views. I can't read your mind so don't know why you are so presumptuous as to claim to read other people's minds.

I'm simply doing a precis of what I've read here, David. Do you disagree with my summation? If so, why? As I said, I'm happy to be corrected.