| View single post by Joe Kelley | |||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
||||||||||||
Joe Kelley
|
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3626brits_hook_zhou.htmlThat link and that quote flows from the source to this node on the net. Is that link an example of accurate currency? I see evidence supporting that hypothesis; yes, that is accurate currency. I have yet to read the rest of the link, and I will comment as I read. I read the rest of the article. The recipe for reform, to me, appears to be another case of employing the cause of the problem as a means to fix the problem. Hamiltonian debt based financial systems; it seems to me, is as big of a problem as is the current regiment labeled as: The Dollar Hegemony. I may have missed something in the text. This: Whenever someone claims such a claim as the one above, where "only" one possible thing can be done to fix the problem, I see a problem. The fix, it seems to me, is to stop fixing that problem with the one and only cure, which is almost always some version of crime, some version of making plans to injure innocent people for profit, and then executing those plans. The fix whereby all competition is eliminated (only one fix is planned on and executed by the "fixers") is the fix that destroys the natural force of nature built into the natural system of self-fixing, which is by any other name, the same thing i.e. competition. Competition (instead of the one and only fix - fix - where competition is destroyed, on purpose, for profit), competition is many fixes, not just one, and each fix, each competitor, in nature, is working the fix, working to be more better, working to increase quality, working to reduce cost, because failure to do so, removes the power to do so, and that power is supplied by all the customers who demand higher quality and lower cost. Who desires lower quality and higher cost? If you don't know the answer to that question, then my offering for a competitive (and accurate) answer is: Monopolists (with their one and only one fix). That one and only one fix, it seems to me, is the same thing over and over again, as if doing the same thing over and over again, one more time, will result in a better (and lower cost) result this time, despite the fact that every other time, for as far back as human's have been recording these things (accurately, not "spun"), that fix, that same fix, has always ruined the thing it was intended to fix - that one and only fix, the fix that plans on and then executes the plan to eliminate competition. I can search for more data on that author of that article since that article does offer some very interesting text, on history, and other things. Like this: Note the link between "The Dollar" and "London-created petroleum spot market". Petro-dollars. Now look at the latest effort to eliminate competition in oil-currency: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_417757.html I never said that Chavez was not a dictator, but compared to what, what is the standard of excellence in that department? Whose plans to injure innocent people for profit is the most profitable when the dust settles? Who benefits? Who pays? Who is going to pay for the southern front war of aggression this time? How about some old news on an old power employed toward competition? File this under "things to consider in defense of liberty" - while most everyone else is employing the one and only fix (the one that never works - as advertized)? http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods121.html Madison was the "federalist" turned "anti-federalist" once he saw the light. Once it was proven to Madison that the anti-federalists were accurate in their exposure of the crimes of "Nationalism" (spearheaded by Hamilton), once things like the "Alien and Sedition Acts" proved the point, with an exclamation point!, once the false flag of "Federalism" was sufficiently stripped from the bare naked criminals who donned that cloak, once that happened, Madison began campaigns to undo what he had helped do. No longer was the idea the same old, one and only fix, no, no, no, the idea returned to something more like competition; where separate and sovereign states could compete for market share and the consumers could pick and choose which state was higher in quality and lower in cost. But I'm just a troll, so don't mind me. The articles speak for themselves. Is it accurate currrency, or not? How is it measured - exactly?
|
||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||