2005 Petrocollapse Conference in New York City

[rwwff]

Grim indeed, the order of things before oil was feudalism, the elites think that the order of things after oil should also be feudalism.

It's up to us to stop them doing this.

Better yet, position yourselves to become part of the new aristocracy.. Scrimp now, save cash, gold, etc; watch everyone else living beyond their means, then after real estate prices have crashed, and properties are being auctioned off as quickly as absolutely possible for cash only terms, step in, buy low, lock in the appraised value for tax purposes at that low sale point, then find some poor middle class idgit who thought he had a right to play in the big leagues before, and rent that house out to him for 50% of his take home pay.

They are simply trying to "borrow themself rich" and the idea is a complete nonsense.

Amen.

This will achieve multiple objectives, transfer massive amounts of wealth to these hidden elites, and get the people of america fired up for a major war in central asia against russia/china.

They aren't hidden at all! Their names are all over various boards of directores of publicly traded companies across America.

Not their fault no one likes reading 10-K's ...

edit: spelling

[shakespear1]

It is the same as those microscopic messages GIVING additional information to the TV viewer of a commercial. The only problem is that the viewer can't read it due to TV resolution and the short time the message is shown.

Another method is throwing so much verbage at the reader spiced with legalistic construction of sentences so as to as soon as possible stopping him/her from reading on.

[Ibon]

Would it be valid to assume that the average consumer who is too stupid to take respopnsibility for thier own financial security and lacks the integrity to live within their means are actually calling out to be subjegated and enslaved by an elite who will force it upon them? Is freedom flawed when it turns millions into irresponsible consumers? Aren't these consumers actually asking to be subjegated by showing no restraint? Can you really blame the elite with their corporations that spin the media into turning you into a consumer zombie? Don't get me wrong. I am not defending the rapacious greed of the elite but as long as you buy into their power dominance and allow yourself to be subjegated and do not revolt well I guess you have to conclude that you really want to be enslaved.

My father went bankrupt when I was 15 in 1973. He had three cars and a boat and bit into the American Dream full on. I remember well the juggling of credit cards and how he finally had to give it up and declare bankruptcy. It left a deep impression on me. I have never in my life bought a new car or had one cent of debt on a credit card and yet I am now 50 and own a home outright and have a comfortable savings for retirement. I was determined never to be beholden of the system. That was my choice. The elite exist becuase the subjegated are willing to be enslaved. That is my most humble opinion.

[shakespear1]

I suspect that many people simply do not understand how the trap works. They think themselves smart as is the case with what magicians do. You think you understand what is happening put do not realize how the trick works.

Credit cards are just this, they are a trap which undisciplined individuals easily fall into. With high credit limits it is easy to see how one can really dig a deep hole.

[dr_doom]

Grim indeed, the order of things before oil was feudalism, the elites think that the order of things after oil should also be feudalism.

It's up to us to stop them doing this.

Better yet, position yourselves to become part of the new aristocracy.. Scrimp now, save cash, gold, etc; watch everyone else living beyond their means, then after real estate prices have crashed, and properties are being auctioned off as quickly as absolutely possible for cash only terms, step in, buy low, lock in the appraised value for tax purposes at that low sale point, then find some poor middle class idgit who thought he had a right to play in the big leagues before, and rent that house out to him for 50% of his take home pay.

All very well. But it still doesn't the negate the fact that elites have some pretty dark shit planned. My understanding was that under feudalism, unless you were a feudal lord you didn't have any private property rights.

This will achieve multiple objectives, transfer massive amounts of wealth to these hidden elites, and get the people of america fired up for a major war in central asia against russia/china.

They aren't hidden at all! Their names are all over various boards of directores of publicly traded companies across America.

Not their fault no one likes reading 10-K's ...

edit: spelling

Not that well hidden admittedly. But I have to say personally I had no idea the House of Rothschild was worth over a trillion, a fortune that dwarves Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al.

I had no idea about Bilderberger meetings, and the extent of Rockefellers' wealth and power.

These things are never discussed in mainstream publications.

[GoIllini]

American citizens are responsible in so far as letting the money lenders install a privately owned / controlled central bank.

It is the money lenders that have carefully planned the current mess. It seems pretty predictable what their plan is, crash the housing market, then destroy the currency, and blame china for the latter.

I worked this summer at a residential mortgage securitization desk at an investment bank. It's in everyone's best interest in the financial system behind mortgages to make sure that there isn't a crash in the housing market or a huge spike in defaults, so I'd doubt that there's some huge conspiracy among money-lenders to crash the housing market. Here's how the process of lining up capital for a mortgage loan works:

1.) A mortgage originator makes a set of loans to individuals who want to buy houses.
2.) The mortgage originator then calls up several investment banks and asks them if they want to buy these mortgages. The investment banks place bids on them, based on information like the mortgagee's FICO score, the area the home was purchased in, the down payment, and other risks. Finally, the mortgage gets sold to the highest bidder.
3.) The investment bank then breaks the mortgage up into standardized bonds that pay a regular interest and/or principal payment based on cash flows from a set of mortgages. The investment bank often creates several different kinds of bonds out of the mortgage that allow investors to better manage issues like prepayment risk or default risk. They'll then also have S&P or Moody's give these bonds a rating (like AAA or AA- the same kinda ratings that corporate debt gets) and then sell them to wealthy investors and fund managers.
4.) The mortgage originator has the right to manage the collection of this money. Often, this management will get transferred, however.

So I'm trying to figure out who in this whole system would benefit from a currency collapse or massive spate of defaults:

1.) The wealthy investors and mutual fund managers would see their mortgage-backed bonds get defaulted upon. The investors stand the most to lose, and the fund managers might be liable to be fired. This is obviously a losing situation for them, too.

2.) An investment bank would lose a great deal of its reputation and a lot of its clients if a large number of its mortgage backed bonds were defaulted upon. People would stop doing business with their mortgage desk, at the very least. So at the very least, an investment bank might not care if the whole housing market sinks, but it would care if its clients lost more than other investment banks.

3.) In the same way, mortgage originators would also lose a lot of their reputation if their mortgages, in particular, went down in value. Traders would see them as selling lower-quality mortgages, and it would be harder for them to sell these mortgages.

This will achieve multiple objectives, transfer massive amounts of wealth to these hidden elites, and get the people of america fired up for a major war in central asia against russia/china.

I just don't see the vested interest in this. First off, all the "evil rich people" (Before anyone looks at me, I got paid like a typical college grad working anywhere would get paid for 12 weeks of work) are extremely specialized. Many of them make money by taking it from other rich people. Most of the ones that do make money off the middle class make more money when the middle class does well than when it does badly. When the middle class is thriving, buying new houses, getting mortgages on them and paying them off easily, the mortgage originators, investment banks, and bondholders love it.

I think the problem in this country is that everyone is more interested in short-term greed than long-term greed. Why take good care of a client and make $10K/year from him forever when you can screw him and make a quick $50K? Why save up to make a 20% down payment for that new house if you can get an interest-only mortgage today? Why save up when you can borrow now and pay later? Why raise taxes 5% now when we can make our kids raise them 15% in fifteen years to pay off our debt.

[GoIllini]

It is the same as those microscopic messages GIVING additional information to the TV viewer of a commercial. The only problem is that the viewer can't read it due to TV resolution and the short time the message is shown.

Another method is throwing so much verbage at the reader spiced with legalistic construction of sentences so as to as soon as possible stopping him/her from reading on.

The SEC has certain requirements that 10-Ks be readable to someone with a highschool education, or something like that. They're not impossible to read; they're just "hard" to read because that fancy annual report with all the pretty pictures and glossy paper makes the 10-K feel hard to read. Try reading the 10-K first and the rest of the annual report second. If you still have trouble reading it, take a financial accounting class or two.

[mmasters]

I worked this summer at a residential mortgage securitization desk at an investment bank.

Best work your way over to the distressed debt department.

[jupiters_release]

So I'm trying to figure out who in this whole system would benefit from a currency collapse or massive spate of defaults:

I think its been noted before that Federal Reserve member banks are the ones that give credit to all the other non-affiliated banks(probably the one you worked for?) which would go down as well along with the general public. So the system is designed that only the Federal Reserve banks come out winning - a super tiny elite for sure.

[Ibon]

I think the problem in this country is that everyone is more interested in short-term greed than long-term greed. Why take good care of a client and make $10K/year from him forever when you can screw him and make a quick $50K? Why save up to make a 20% down payment for that new house if you can get an interest-only mortgage today? Why save up when you can borrow now and pay later? Why raise taxes 5% now when we can make our kids raise them 15% in fifteen years to pay off our debt.

Very true. This is the loss of social capitol that has made every middle class consumer their own little emperial elitist! I'll add one more example to your list. Why save our grandchildren's resources and financial security when we can spend it today on a brand new hummer! These are symptoms of a culture deep in the process of self anhilation.

[GoIllini]

Best work your way over to the distressed debt department.

. Either that or credit-default swaps. You guys (especially MQ) have scared me a little about complex derivatives, but I think I'm starting to understand them a little differently than I used to. Derivatives are really just an interesting way for different investors to get the kind of investments they want. They aren't a way to inflate the market like a balloon so that some terrorist with a needle (or 50 cents and a brokerage account) can come along and pop it. I'm just a college student, but I'd be happy to give a much longer version on why I think derivatives are OK.

I think its been noted before that Federal Reserve member banks are the ones that give credit to all the other non-affiliated banks(probably the one you worked for?) which would go down as well along with the general public. So the system is designed that only the Federal Reserve banks come out winning - a super tiny elite for sure.

The federal reserve, IIRC, mostly does business with traditional banks, like Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, or the local bank where you have a checking or savings account. Investment banks make money by helping out with mergers and IPOs, and by engaging in trading operations.

The federal reserve banks aren't "owned" by anyone, and Bernanke doesn't benefit financially if the federal reserve "has a good year". So at the end of the day, assuming that politicians aren't stealing money, the system is designed to benefit the people that the government's policies benefits. Since the 1930's in the U.S, government policy has mostly at least tried to benefit the poor.

[rogerhb]

The federal reserve banks aren't "owned" by anyone, and Bernanke doesn't benefit financially if the federal reserve "has a good year".

Really?

Hm, private banks not owned by anyone, .... interesting, interesting.

[GoIllini]

Really?

Hm, private banks not owned by anyone, .... interesting, interesting.

Well, I still have a lot to learn about the financial markets, but I'd always assumed that the federal reserve was owned by the federal government, and ultimately, by the 300+ million people in the U.S.

Now, I have found some websites that claim that several investment banks own the federal reserve (Like this one: http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20an ... serve.html ) The problem with this website, however, is that it also tries to sell me on a way of legally cancelling my credit card debt.

Wikipedia claims that the bank is "nominally" owned by seven private member banks. However, it also says this:

The Federal Reserve System is financially independent because it runs a surplus, due in part to its ownership of government bonds. In fact, it returns billions of dollars to the government each year. However, the Fed is still subject to oversight by the Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. To further communication with Congress, the Fed delivers a report to both houses semiannually. Its independence from the executive branch was strengthened by the 1951 Accord. In general, the Federal Reserve System must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government.

So while its nominally owned by member banks, it looks like its "surplus" (not profits) goes back to the federal government. Additionally, its board of governors is appointed by the president.

Even if the member banks really did own it, wouldn't it be really tough for them to actually take control of it and stop letting the government act like it controlled it?

Finally, I found one last website that explains things about the federal reserve:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Em ... herty.html

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

So thanks for correcting me. I guess I learned something new about our financial system, today.

[jupiters_release]

Hi GoIllini,

Those sources are dubious.

The following links have been posted here countless times but only because they are very informative on the Federal Reserve, well worth the four hours of video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1010099392
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8524208549
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1923167501

cheers

[GoIllini]

Hi GoIllini,

Those sources are dubious.

The following links have been posted here countless times but only because they are very informative on the Federal Reserve, well worth the four hours of video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1010099392
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8524208549
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1923167501

cheers

Jupiter,

Thanks for the video, but I'm also concerned that this video might have an agenda:

http://www.themoneymasters.com/

Some other concerns about the money masters is the unusual historical revisionism it advocates. It also advocates that the media not only has a vested interest in, but is fully controlled by the bankers that own the federal reserve:

The film contends that by the end of World War I private central banks owned and controlled much of America's large media, paper and film outlets, and that they achieved this through the large consolidation of wealth generated by Fractional-reserve banking and later a fractional based finance system. The film contends this alleged near-monopoly of the financial system goes largely unnoticed or redacted from the human history because of the control of human information exchange through this mainstream media ownership.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Money_Masters )

Additionally, it tries to suggest that the income tax is illegal:

The film touches briefly on the U.S. Federal income tax. See also Tax protester constitutional arguments.

I watched about 15 minutes of the video, but I also did some research on it while I was watching. Some of the people featured in it are far-right politicians like Charles Collins. Others, like Larry Bates, are mentioned as authors on websites about home schooling and cultish-leaning church websites. I don't want to be closed-minded, but other than the fact that someone went through the trouble of making a video on it, "The Money Masters" doesn't seem like a trustworthy source.

Is there any material out there on the fed that's been subject to wide review?

Here's another paper I found, published by the American Institute on Economic Research (AEIR). (Source: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org ... cy_04.html )

One recent form of the allegation that the Federal Reserve System aggrandizes the private bankers at the public's expense turns on the fact that the 12 Federal Reserve banks are owned by the private member banks of the Federal Reserve System. By implication or assertion, the charge is made that the private bankers as owners of the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve System -- have controlled and continue to control U.S monetary policy and regulation to enrich themselves...

The AIER, like me, also thinks the federal reserve system is relatively foolish for people who own U.S. currency (Don't tell that to my boss or the company I work for.), but they also don't think the whole "more than nominally privately held federal reserve" argument is a very compelling one:

Long-time followers of our work will know that our research suggests that today's grave monetary and economic problems are largely attributable to actions taken since the founding of the Federal Reserve System. We also have declared many times that leading private bankers have used their great influence with central bankers and politicians to obtain adoption of monetary policies and banking laws that were in the bankers' immediate interest but against the long-run public interest and that of the bankers, too.

Nevertheless, we point out that allegations that a secret conspiracy illegally directed formation of the Federal Reserve -- and continues to control it -- disregard some pertinent events: (1) Years before the Federal Reserve System was formed, Supreme Court decisions had given Congress virtually total power over the U.S. monetary system and that power was used to advance easy-credit, fiat-money interests. (2) The Federal Reserve bill was openly debated in Congress and before the American public, and it was passed with broad bipartisan support (however misguided) in a political and social climate that strongly favored the creation of a central bank. (3) The power of the member banks as stockholders of the Federal Reserve banks is narrowly circumscribed by the terms of the Federal Reserve Act; thus, the influence of bankers on U.S. monetary policy is via some avenue other than the little-known fact of their stock ownership in the Federal Reserve banks.

Then, the paper goes on to explain that, even though the bank is privately held, it's really the government, not the bankers, that determine market policy, through the FOMC:

Of course private bankers prefer "easier" Fed policy so that the bankers can increase their loans and investments in order to raise their profits. But open market policy is determined not by the member banks but by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Its membership is the seven members of the Board of Governors and five presidents of the Federal Reserve banks, one of whom is the New York Fed president. The other four presidential places on the FOMC are rotated among the remaining eleven Federal Reserve banks.

By legal structure, then, the private bankers do not determine the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. If they do determine it by virtue of their influence with the FOMC members (gained from deserved respect or feared financial clout), that is a problem unrelated to the fact that member banks own the Federal Reserve banks. If the U.S. central bank were wholly owned by the Federal Government, some private bankers still would have more influence on policy than other bankers and the great majority of Americans.

Also contrary to conspiracy contentions, the private member banks are not making huge profits from owning stock of the Federal Reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Act prohibits the payment of more than a 6 percent dividend on the stock of the Federal Reserve banks, and by recent standards, 6 percent is a fairly modest rate of return. Net earnings of the Reserve banks in excess of the dividends and any additions to the Reserve banks' capital surplus, in order to keep the surplus equal to paid-in capital, are paid annually to the U.S. Treasury as "interest on Federal Reserve notes." In fiscal year 1985, the Federal Reserve banks paid a total of $17.8 billion to the Treasury, 173 times more than the $103.0 million paid to the member banks as dividends in 1985.

For more information on the AIER, you can go to http://www.aier.org/

[jupiters_release]

Don't you think the accumulation of wealth within a few families would be impossible without a fixed economic system? You say conspiracy I say good business. Maybe you'll get time to watch the rest of the series.

[GoIllini]

Don't you think the accumulation of wealth within a few families would be impossible without a fixed economic system? You say conspiracy I say good business. Maybe you'll get time to watch the rest of the series.

The accumulation of wealth by a few families is simply the nature of the world. I've noticed a few people on the forums suggesting that there are families much wealthier than Bill Gates (like the Rothschilds), but are there any well-reviewed sources for this claim?

[jupiters_release]

but are there any well-reviewed sources for this claim?

Yeah that'll be great for public relations, why do you think many of these families are known for their philanthropic foundations.

[GoIllini]

but are there any well-reviewed sources for this claim?

Yeah that'll be great for public relations, why do you think many of these families are known for their philanthropic foundations.

Mostly because having $1 Billion in the bank doesn't make you feel good about yourself if you see a whole lot of problems in the world. Warren Buffett's giving everything away. You'd think that maybe one or two out of the Rothschilds, who supposedly control a combined $7 Trillion of wealth, would do so.

I see a whole lot of evidence to suggest the London branch of the family is worth closer to $1 Billion- that's the market cap of their investment bank. They mostly do M&A, IIRC.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Don't you think the accumulation of wealth within a few families would be impossible without a fixed economic system? You say conspiracy I say good business. Maybe you'll get time to watch the rest of the series.

Good old phrase is remaining us that should you take all available money and divide them equally between all the people tommorow, than one day later you would have current situation again.

There is no need for elites to conspire to destroy society.
Common folk will do this dirty job himself and for free, and he will vote to elect government, who would help him in this task most efficiently.

If you look at our society you will find out that only few dosens or may be few hundreds of families are fit to own big money, million of families or so is fit to own some money, ten millions or so are fit to break even (means still own personal freedom) and LARGE majority is not fit to own anything, except of huge credit card debt in addition to other loans.
This last group would make for enslaved peasants in feudal society.
It is sad to say, that most of common folks are only fit to owe money rather than own them.

PS. Dr_Doom,
Essentially lords in feudal society were those who held deeds title to any land, however small. In various european societies there was usually between 5 and 10% of lords, who was considered FREE people capable to take a part in public life.
This mean, that lord and aristocrat is not the same, but aristocrat was simply a VERY RICH lord.
Poorer lords were usually coopeating closely with richer ones in exchange for some favours.