Nationalization; Take a load off Fanny

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Okay, (please don't crap all over me) can you guys help me understand this? I know that it's serious. But I just can't totally wrap my head around it. The article above is really good at explaining it but it's only the tip of the iceberg. Who's involved? What can we as Canadians expect from this?

Nationalization = the North American Union, right? So, this is something they say they are going to force on us? Now I understand why Harper has called an election.

I don't understand how the economy is related to the military or vice versa - except that war is expensive but how does that translate into people loosing their homes? How do the banks co-relate to the military or war?

Banks can only lend on a ratio of money they have deposited with the Fed. I believe it's 1:7 (don't quote me on that though) so they can lend out their deposit + 7 times as much. So if you deposit $100 you can lend out $800. But what do you do if you have already lent out your maximum? That's easy; you bundle it up as an investment portfolio and sell it to investors (for a tidy profit of coarse). Now they are taking the risk so your ratio is cleared up and your good to lend out another $800. The Fed doesn't have the money they have the right to make the money. So when you sign an agreement for a mortgage your signature is literally creating the money.

The crisis is that there is no more "liquidity" in the banks that is no bank has enough ratio left to "lend" money. You can't simply increase the ratio or the economy will really go for a dump. A bubble needs to be found to soak up all that excess cash. Before the mortgage crises the bubble was in housing. This is why houses were increasing in value so much. It wasn't realistic but an effect created by the system. Now a new system needs to be found if the whole thing isn't going to collapse like a house of cards. Global warming and energy seems to be what economists are hoping will sop up the excess money.

This is where the bail out is such a crime. The people who should be taking the risk aren't but instead the American people are; by being unfairly taxed both with the bailout and the resulting inflation. It is quite right to say inflation is taxation in a system with central banks. The only problem it is a tax not by government but by the elite that control the flow of credit, i.e. money.

Here is a video that will explain the central banking system. It is probably very different than you were led to believe: Money As Debt.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
That video is awesome at explaining it. Thanks Scott Free! That has been a great help.

So Nationalization would be giving in to the world banks and eventually it will be nwo.

Harper = nationalization = nwo

So are the democrats supposed to save the world?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
That video is awesome at explaining it. Thanks Scott Free! That has been a great help.

So Nationalization would be giving in to the world banks and eventually it will be nwo.

Harper = nationalization = nwo

So are the democrats supposed to save the world?

If you're talking about The American Democratic Party no, if you're talking the democrats who make up democracy yes.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
If you're talking about The American Democratic Party no, if you're talking the democrats who make up democracy yes.

ok but why? That's what I want to know. If the republicans are nwo and the democrats are nwo then wtf?

It's obvious the ties with the rep but where are the ties with the dems? I don't see them.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
Right, but according to what some people believe, the American public don't have a choice. The choice is already made for them before it's all said and done.

The only thing about that theory is that it would explain the lop-sided voting for the last 2 presidential elections. Remember what happened when Gore WON the vote for President? See that didn't work out because, although the American people had spoken, there was obviously a silent but greater voice behind the curtain that wanted it the other way. And they made it that way whether the public wanted it so or not.

It just explains things a bit. I don't think that the whole voting thing is necessarily the American public's fault. Just like I couldn't blame the Americans for what their government did to not just the American's themselves, but to the world with 9/11 and now these 2 stupid wars on terror.

I don't think it's fair to blame the people for their corrupt governments.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
It would be a lot easier if we all converted to personally mining gold for our currency, wouldn't it? The world has only ever mined the equivalent of about a cube that is 70 sq ft on all sides, so be prepared to work hard in the search.
 

givpeaceachance

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2008
196
3
18
Any country that would put bush in for a second term, has no intelligence, so they will put up with anything...

It would be a lot easier if we all converted to personally mining gold for our currency, wouldn't it? The world has only ever mined the equivalent of about a cube that is 70 sq ft on all sides, so be prepared to work hard in the search.

Ya, but then gold would become the new oil and we'd mine the s**t out of that and the cycle would start all over again.

I like the approach the video, that Scott Free linked here, had. I think it was to turn the money supply back to the governments for some kind of regulation and to stop and get rid of the interest the the gov owes to itself!?, get rid of the Federal Reserve and world banks, and stop making so much friggin money. Those are some of the solutions the video talked about. They make sense to me but the video is a thousand times better at explaining it than I am.

You should check it out.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Ya, but then gold would become the new oil and we'd mine the s**t out of that and the cycle would start all over again.

I like the approach the video, that Scott Free linked here, had. I think it was to turn the money supply back to the governments for some kind of regulation and to stop and get rid of the interest the the gov owes to itself!?, get rid of the Federal Reserve and world banks, and stop making so much friggin money. Those are some of the solutions the video talked about. They make sense to me but the video is a thousand times better at explaining it than I am.

You should check it out.
Does the video take into account all variables? It's still money supply and demand and the value of money and assets, no matter how you slice it. It still has to be distributed, no matter how you slice it. If money is lent out directly by the government at "no interest" what does that do to the value of the assets and the value of that currency and to the government expense sheet? Do we have global wars over gold, a metal with limited practial use except for microchips and dental work?

I'm a firm believer that it is a zero-sum game no matter what system is used. You just shift the reasons to fight and gain power to a different focus and mechanism.