Interesting Document on the Banking System

Clare_Guy

http://www.devvy.com/pdf/2006_October/GougeOnPaperMoney.pdf

Gordon

93 pages. Any chance of you giving an opinion and a summary?

oscarBravo

A bit near the start caught my eye: "...and trade by barter became the custom of the country. If the Government had not interfered, all would have been well."

It seems to be a document decrying the very existence of money and clamouring for the good old days of the seventeenth century.

PoshParrot

oscarBravo wrote: »

A bit near the start caught my eye: "...and trade by barter became the custom of the country. If the Government had not interfered, all would have been well."

It seems to be a document decrying the very existence of money and clamouring for the good old days of the seventeenth century.

I would love to move back to the good old days of the 17th century. I am not a happy slave.

oscarBravo

What would you barter in exchange for a house?

Clare_Guy

Gordon wrote: »

93 pages. Any chance of you giving an opinion and a summary?

Read it yourself, draw your own conclusions...

I'm not gonna waste time arguing with idiots (not aimed at anyone in particular) who log-in here looking to shout down other people's opinions.

bonkey

Clare_Guy wrote: »

I'm not gonna waste time arguing

You were asked for a summary, not a commitment to an ongoing discussion.

PoshParrot

oscarBravo wrote: »

What would you barter in exchange for a house?

I assume it would be something less than the lifetimes work of a two parent family.

oscarBravo

What would you barter in exchange for a house?

PoshParrot

I would trade using a non interest based system. Therefore when I buy a house, I dont end up paying for 5 houses. Simple concept.

Clare_Guy

bonkey wrote: »

You were asked for a summary, not a commitment to an ongoing discussion.

read it yourself, if you want a summary, do it yourself...

humanji

Then why bother posting here at all if you neither want to explain what you posted or talk about it? That's just spamming the forum.

Clare_Guy

it's a resource relevant to several threads here.

you're welcome.

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

That's just spamming the forum.

yet another word you don't seem to understand...

What is spam?

Spam is flooding the Internet with many copies of the same message, in an attempt to force the message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it. Most spam is commercial advertising, often for dubious products, get-rich-quick schemes, or quasi-legal services.

humanji

Maybe look up e-etiquette or manners?

Simply posting a link to another site is spamming. We don't know who you are or what you do/represent. So how are we to know you're not trying to pimp that site? You seem to have no intention to explain the link or discussing it. So what are we left to believe?

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

Maybe look up e-etiquette or manners?

Simply posting a link to another site is spamming. We don't know who you are or what you do/represent. So how are we to know you're not trying to pimp that site? You seem to have no intention to explain the link or discussing it. So what are we left to believe?

what are you on about? etiquette? manners? who is WE?
what or who i represent is totally irrelevant, and frankly it's none of your (or anyone's) business!

Many times posters and moderators have requested links, that's what i provided, and it's relevant to several threads.


By your logic, if anyone wants to put up a link then they also must provide a summary!? is that what you're saying? where's that in the rules of the forum?

Grow up!

oscarBravo

Ironically, the sum total of what you've typed so far in refusing to offer a summary would have probably made a concise summary in itself.

Would I be far off the mark in speculating that you don't want to summarise the document because you don't, in fact, understand it well enough?

Clare_Guy

No you're right....

I have wasted enough time replying to people like you, bonkey, humanji, diogenes, etc....

Gordon

Clare_Guy wrote: »

Read it yourself, draw your own conclusions...

I'm not gonna waste time arguing with idiots (not aimed at anyone in particular) who log-in here looking to shout down other people's opinions.

Are you calling me an idiot?

Clare_Guy

see where i put in brackets... (not meant for anyone in particular)???? that meant to no-one in particular.... see?

billy the squid

Clare guy banned for a month for being an idiot.

AngryHippie

Did anyone get to read the 96 page document ?
I know It was probably horse****e but I'm in bed for a few days with a back sprain, So I'm only dyin for interesting stuff to read, I've already scorched through No Logo by Naomi Klein and my conspirasometer is on high alert....God I need some weed:rolleyes:

bonkey

I read it...didn't see anything amazing about it. The only reason I'd say its interesting (as the OP alleged) is the date it comes from, which is also interesting about the doc he posted in the Fed thread.

If anything, it just shows that people have been saying "its all a con" for a long, long time, but the system just keeps on a'ticking.

Ekancone

humanji wrote: »

Maybe look up e-etiquette or manners?

Simply posting a link to another site is spamming. We don't know who you are or what you do/represent. So how are we to know you're not trying to pimp that site? You seem to have no intention to explain the link or discussing it. So what are we left to believe?

Humanji, what you don't get is that these conspiracy people don't have a bulls notion of economics or engineering or any of the subjects they keep posting links about. That is why they cannot engage in debate on the subject and all you get are a flurry of links and videos, and when they do they resort to argument and name-calling. Pathetic.

edanto

AngryHippie wrote: »

Did anyone get to read the 96 page document ?
I know It was probably horse****e but I'm in bed for a few days with a back sprain, So I'm only dyin for interesting stuff to read, I've already scorched through No Logo by Naomi Klein and my conspirasometer is on high alert....God I need some weed:rolleyes:

Have a go of Shock Doctrine.
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Summary - the ruling political and economic (and often military) elite can and have abused periods of societal shock to introduce a paradigm that benefits their stakeholders disproportionately to the average person. Evidence based book.

andrewlownie101

edanto wrote: »

Summary - the ruling political and economic (and often military) elite can and have abused periods of societal shock to introduce a paradigm that benefits their stakeholders disproportionately to the average person. Evidence based book.

There is a bit more to it than that, they create the crisis in the first place so that they can offer a long planned for solution.

DubTony

Another one from the Archives.

But I think Clare_Guy might have some anger issues.


Cliff Notes:

Clare_Guy: Here's a Link to do with money and stuff.

Somebody Else: Wow, it's a long document that I'll never have time to read. Can you provide us with a summary?

Clare_Guy : NO - F*CK OFF AND FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF YOU LAZY GOODFORNOTHIN' BASTARD.

Another Somebody Else : Hey, there's no need to be rude. Don't you want to discuss what you lead us to?

Clare_Guy : GET OUT OF MY FACE YOU WASTE OF F*CKING SPACE. I'M SICK OF COMING HERE AND HAVING PEOPLE CALL ME NAMES. F*UCK OFF!!!

:rolleyes:

rexusdiablos

DubTony wrote: »

Another one from the Archives.

But I think Clare_Guy might have some anger issues.


Cliff Notes:

Clare_Guy: Here's a Link to do with money and stuff.

Somebody Else: Wow, it's a long document that I'll never have time to read. Can you provide us with a summary?

Clare_Guy : NO - F*CK OFF AND FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF YOU LAZY GOODFORNOTHIN' BASTARD.

Another Somebody Else : Hey, there's no need to be rude. Don't you want to discuss what you lead us to?

Clare_Guy : GET OUT OF MY FACE YOU WASTE OF F*CKING SPACE. I'M SICK OF COMING HERE AND HAVING PEOPLE CALL ME NAMES. F*UCK OFF!!!

:rolleyes:

Funny stuff. To be completely fair a concise paragraph could have done the trick. Not every forum member wants to invest in such a contrived document. Skimming and expedient assimilation is the nature of ye old web. Clare_Guy's attitude nailed himself to the cross and the retorts are justified.

Clare_Guy

DubTony wrote: »

Another one from the Archives.

But I think Clare_Guy might have some anger issues.


Cliff Notes:

Clare_Guy: Here's a Link to do with money and stuff.

Somebody Else: Wow, it's a long document that I'll never have time to read. Can you provide us with a summary?

Clare_Guy : NO - F*CK OFF AND FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF YOU LAZY GOODFORNOTHIN' BASTARD.

Another Somebody Else : Hey, there's no need to be rude. Don't you want to discuss what you lead us to?

Clare_Guy : GET OUT OF MY FACE YOU WASTE OF F*CKING SPACE. I'M SICK OF COMING HERE AND HAVING PEOPLE CALL ME NAMES. F*UCK OFF!!!

:rolleyes:

am... the document begins with a summary...

BUT, YOU LIKE TOTALLY, GOT ME!!

Clare_Guy

rexusdiablos wrote: »

Funny stuff. To be completely fair a concise paragraph could have done the trick. Not every forum member wants to invest in such a contrived document. Skimming and expedient assimilation is the nature of ye old web. Clare_Guy's attitude nailed himself to the cross and the retorts are justified.

again... the document has it's own summary...

humanji

And again, you didn't provide it and got all defensive.

Flamed Diving

*raises hand*

The reason he cannot provide a summary is because he doesn't understand the content?

Flamed Diving

For non-conspiracy loon criticism of modern banking:

http://mises.org/

Clare_Guy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*raises hand*

The reason he cannot provide a summary is because he doesn't understand the content?

*sighs dramatically*

for the final time... the article begins with a summary, in points, of the complete article!

Clare_Guy

Flamed Diving wrote: »

For non-conspiracy loon criticism of modern banking:

http://mises.org/

William Gouge is a conspiracy theory "loon"?!!! have you even looked at the article nevermind read it?

humanji

The five page summary that isn't really in lay-mans terms, is it? How exactly do you expect to win people over if they don't even know what they're meant to read?

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

The five page summary that isn't really in lay-mans terms, is it? How exactly do you expect to win people over if they don't even know what they're meant to read?

93 pages down to 5 is a pretty good summary. Who said i'm trying to "win people over"? I thought the document was interesting, i added the link so others can read it, IF THEY WANT TO.

edanto

oscarBravo wrote: »

It seems to be a document decrying the very existence of money and clamouring for the good old days of the seventeenth century.

Makes at least one very interesting point in relation to that.

What do the banks actually do to deserve the big share of the profits that they get from our labour and our debt?

Screw the banks, I'm going to the credit union. Try and find one big enough to give me a mortgage in a few years.

humanji

Clare_Guy wrote: »

93 pages down to 5 is a pretty good summary. Who said i'm trying to "win people over"? I thought the document was interesting, i added the link so others can read it, IF THEY WANT TO.

Well surely if you posted it, you want people to read it. A bit of a description of what it is, or why people would want to read it would be of benefit.

You posted it over 7 months ago. There are now 39 posts in this thread. 25 of those posts are not about the content of the document, but about the fact that you simply posted a link and said nothing about it. Hell, the only reason I clicked on the link was to see the summary and as I said, it's not exactly for the lay-man.

A simple description at the start would of helped everyone out, people may have been more interested in the document and we might of had a full blown discussion on it.

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

Well surely if you posted it, you want people to read it. A bit of a description of what it is, or why people would want to read it would be of benefit.

You posted it over 7 months ago. There are now 39 posts in this thread. 25 of those posts are not about the content of the document, but about the fact that you simply posted a link and said nothing about it. Hell, the only reason I clicked on the link was to see the summary and as I said, it's not exactly for the lay-man.

A simple description at the start would of helped everyone out, people may have been more interested in the document and we might of had a full blown discussion on it.

i have NO control over what people post on any thread. I posted a link to a document that i found interesting, i didn't want to give an opinion on it because then what happens here is people jump on the opinion without reading the document. Your posts have been REAL addition to this thread too. Thanks.

DubTony

Flamed Diving wrote: »

*raises hand*

The reason he cannot provide a summary is because he doesn't understand the content?

I think this might just be true.

Come on Clare_Guy. Give us a taste. Just a snippet. A little teeny weeny morsel of what it's all about.
Why?
Because it's 93 effin pages and outside of this silly forum most of us do have lives. Even the Economics guys aren't reading it. Now do I know? Because if they had, they'd have told you why it was all a load of sh*te. Why haven't they read it? Because it's 93 pages and believe it or not, they have lives as well (and they're too busy trying to get a degree).

Clare_Guy

DubTony wrote: »

I think this might just be true.

Come on Clare_Guy. Give us a taste. Just a snippet. A little teeny weeny morsel of what it's all about.
Why?
Because it's 93 effin pages and outside of this silly forum most of us do have lives. Even the Economics guys aren't reading it. Now do I know? Because if they had, they'd have told you why it was all a load of sh*te. Why haven't they read it? Because it's 93 pages and believe it or not, they have lives as well (and they're too busy trying to get a degree).

i'll try this again... THE DOCUMENT BEGINS WITH A SUMMARY, IN POINT FORMAT. try reading that yourself...

another great addition to the thread, cheers big ears.

humanji

Clare_Guy wrote: »

i have NO control over what people post on any thread. I posted a link to a document that i found interesting, i didn't want to give an opinion on it because then what happens here is people jump on the opinion without reading the document. Your posts have been REAL addition to this thread too. Thanks.

I've done exactly what you did, ie added nothing. You just can't see where you went wrong, can you? It's a discussion board. Where is the discussion if the creator of a thread refuses to discuss his topic, or even let people know what it is? Why should anybody waste there time on something that, as far as we can tell, you haven't read yourself? You simply get shirty and abusive.

If you have an opinion, people aren't going to jump on it without good reason. When they do, it becomes your turn to validate your opinions and discuss those of others. Otherwise, as I said before, you're just spamming.

DubTony

Clare_Guy wrote: »

i'll try this again... THE DOCUMENT BEGINS WITH A SUMMARY, IN POINT FORMAT. try reading that yourself...

another great addition to the thread, cheers big ears.

.................................................. Up Yours Noddy.




OK. You Win. I'll read the f*ckin thing. But if it turns out out be a load of old crud, I'll hunt you down and make you eat it. All of it. Including the summary. On 100g paper.


or maybe I'll just leave it on the iMac. How's yer gob for one of these

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

I've done exactly what you did, ie added nothing. You just can't see where you went wrong, can you? It's a discussion board. Where is the discussion if the creator of a thread refuses to discuss his topic, or even let people know what it is? Why should anybody waste there time on something that, as far as we can tell, you haven't read yourself? You simply get shirty and abusive.

If you have an opinion, people aren't going to jump on it without good reason. When they do, it becomes your turn to validate your opinions and discuss those of others. Otherwise, as I said before, you're just spamming.

i have not refused to discuss the topic, i have refused to provide a summary because there is already a summary. not one of your threads has been about the topic, i added the document for people to READ, you seem p*ssed off that i won't tell you about it. READ IT YOURSELF.

Clare_Guy

DubTony wrote: »

or maybe I'll just leave it on the iMac. How's yer gob for one of these

i've got 2!!! :P

humanji

No, I'm not pissed off, I'm confused why you are so adverse to a simple summary of what you linked to. You simply say it's interesting. Why would anybody want to bother clicking on the link then?

If you really want to discuss it, then go ahead. You've yet to post anything on it's contents. Of course, this will mean you'll be giving a hint as to what's in the article, so I guess you won't be doing that.

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

No, I'm not pissed off, I'm confused why you are so adverse to a simple summary of what you linked to. You simply say it's interesting. Why would anybody want to bother clicking on the link then?

If you really want to discuss it, then go ahead. You've yet to post anything on it's contents. Of course, this will mean you'll be giving a hint as to what's in the article, so I guess you won't be doing that.

for the final time.. THE DOCUMENT BEGINS WITH A DETAILED SUMMARY.

you still haven't brought up anything on the topic to discuss... you're obviously the one who has no idea what the document pertains to...

humanji

You haven't either.

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

You haven't either.

ermmm... i posted the article. i'm waiting for someone to bring up the contents. go on read it.

humanji

You created the topic. You'd meant to start the discussion. That's how it works. Without your input the discusison can go in any direction away from the topic you wanted to talk about (as evidenced by the fact that after 51 posts there's still bugger all discussion about the contents of the document).