Mini Bilderberg?

Started by Turks, May 20, 2013, 08:59:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Turks

"Has the Bilderberg meeting become too mainstream for some of the world's richest elite? From Warren Buffet and Monsanto-linked Bill Gates to Oprah and Jeb Bush, the local media has begun reporting on a closed doors meeting between billionaires and politicians at the gated beach island of Kiawah, South Carolina."



http://www.storyleak.com/mini-bilderberg-bill-gates-jeb-bush-sc-island/#ixzz2TqhqVkWg

simpsonofpg

I am almost to the point where I don't think that all those in power, POTUS to the mego rich are busy looking out for themsleves.  The rest of us are just collateral damage.
The Golden Rule is the only rule we need.

Darth Fife

Something about this article stirred the dusty cobwebs of my brain. It had to do with a meeting of a small group of very powerful men on an island on the Southeast Coast of the U.S. A little googling helped restore my memory.

It was right after the Panic of 1907 that a meeting was held on J.P. Morgan's estate on Jekyll Island, Georgia that Morgan and a  very select group of politicians and bankers hammered out what would come to be known as the Federal Reserve System.

The Federal Reserve System came into existence almost 100 years ago today.

Coincidence... ?

-Darth

redlom xof

QuoteI am almost to the point where I don't think that all those in power, POTUS to the mego rich are busy looking out for themsleves.  The rest of us are just collateral damage.

I found my new signature. For once, I will actually agree with my forum signature.
"Christians are expected to pacify angry Muslims, Communist brats and homosexual radicals and Mexicans who convinced themselves that they own our land. That tells me the Christians are the better people among brutal and violent beasts."  Yawn - 15th May, 2013

Mountainshield

Quote from: simpsonofpg on May 21, 2013, 08:22:25 AM
I am almost to the point where I don't think that all those in power, POTUS to the mego rich are busy looking out for themsleves.  The rest of us are just collateral damage.

I think rich thrive under any system. Most millionares after the russian revolution converted to communism. But I dont understand why the rich simple don't embrace conservatism as we want to leave their wealth alone. Sadly though it seems most millionares want socialism in order to keep others down/out.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Mountainshield on May 21, 2013, 08:56:51 AM
I think rich thrive under any system. Most millionares after the russian revolution converted to communism. But I dont understand why the rich simple don't embrace conservatism as we want to leave their wealth alone. Sadly though it seems most millionares want socialism in order to keep others down/out.

Under a highly regulated market the capitalists no longer have to worry about responding adeptly to the needs of consumers, or the strategy of competitors.

The skills needed to make money are not the same skills valued in a market...

Imagination, foresight, and alertness characterize the capitalist/ entrepreneur in the free market.

In the regulated market wealth is earned through a political privilege. So capitalists forget about meeting consumer needs and instead develop skill sets geared toward meeting the needs of the political class.

Wealth and profit becomes a function of political connections, privileges and clout.

It is much easier to sit back and let your protected monopoly position add up wealth.

And the longer society is geared this way the fewer real entrepreneurs that will exist.

Those skills sour and become calcified. 

The biggest lie in the world has nothing to do with the devil and his existence, it has to do with capitalists wanting free markets..

They want nothing of the sort, for free markets mean that profit and income are precarious and ultimately, always temporary.

The biggest victory these knaves ever won was to convince the masses, through the politicization of education, that free markets benefit the rich and harm the working class.

The truth is just the opposite.

Darth Fife

Quote from: TowardLiberty on May 21, 2013, 01:48:32 PM
Under a highly regulated market the capitalists no longer have to worry about responding adeptly to the needs of consumers, or the strategy of competitors.

The skills needed to make money are not the same skills valued in a market...

Imagination, foresight, and alertness characterize the capitalist/ entrepreneur in the free market.

In the regulated market wealth is earned through a political privilege. So capitalists forget about meeting consumer needs and instead develop skill sets geared toward meeting the needs of the political class.

Wealth and profit becomes a function of political connections, privileges and clout.

It is much easier to sit back and let your protected monopoly position add up wealth.

And the longer society is geared this way the fewer real entrepreneurs that will exist.

Those skills sour and become calcified. 

The biggest lie in the world has nothing to do with the devil and his existence, it has to do with capitalists wanting free markets..

They want nothing of the sort, for free markets mean that profit and income are precarious and ultimately, always temporary.

The biggest victory these knaves ever won was to convince the masses, through the politicization of education, that free markets benefit the rich and harm the working class.

The truth is just the opposite.

If this wasn't so damned long, I'd use it as my sig!

Capitalism is all about corporate protectionism. Take the automotive industry for example. When was it that a completely new and independent U.S. auto maker was started? You'd have to look back at least half a century to when Hudson and Nash-Kelvinator merged to form American Motors.  And even that was a merger, not a new start up!

Of course one might mention the DeLorean Motor Company but, although its headquarters were in the U.S. the cars were built in Northern Ireland...

-Darth

TowardLiberty

#7
Quote from: Darth Fife on May 21, 2013, 03:29:33 PM
If this wasn't so damned long, I'd use it as my sig!

Capitalism is all about corporate protectionism. Take the automotive industry for example. When was it that a completely new and independent U.S. auto maker was started? You'd have to look back at least half a century to when Hudson and Nash-Kelvinator merged to form American Motors.  And even that was a merger, not a new start up!

Of course one might mention the DeLorean Motor Company but, although its headquarters were in the U.S. the cars were built in Northern Ireland...

-Darth

State capitalism or modern capitalism is just what you say. The automotive industry is a good example, though I believe Tesla Motors is a new upstate. It would be interesting to see if the established automakers put up any resistance or sought any protections from Tesla.

I would argue that even free market capitalism ultimately will devolve into a regulated "mixed" economy, if there is a political system in existence at all.

For those who are successful at meeting needs on the market will have resources to devote to crafting favorable policy and they will.

So is limited government even possible for any extended period of time?

That I am unsure about...

Darth Fife

Quote from: TowardLiberty on May 22, 2013, 07:31:25 AM
State capitalism or modern capitalism is just what you say. The automotive industry is a good example, though I believe Tesla Motors is a new upstate. It would be interesting to see if the established automakers put up any resistance or sought any protections from Tesla.

I would argue that even free market capitalism ultimately will devolve into a regulated "mixed" economy, if there is a political system in existence at all.

For those who are successful meeting needs on the market will have resources to devote to crafting favorable policy and they will.

So is limited government even possible for any extended period of time?

That I am unsure about...

I've always viewed a "mixed" economy as the equivalent of being a little bit pregnant. It just ain't possible. You either have a Free Market or you don't. When the Federal Government has the power to pick economic winners and losers, you don't have a Free Market.

-Darth

AndyJackson

#9
Quote from: Mountainshield on May 21, 2013, 08:56:51 AM
I think rich thrive under any system. Most millionares after the russian revolution converted to communism. But I dont understand why the rich simple don't embrace conservatism as we want to leave their wealth alone. Sadly though it seems most millionares want socialism in order to keep others down/out.
Very true.  All you have to do is look at bastards like Bloomberg, Soros, Ted Turner, and so on.

Once they've acquired billions and immeasurable physical assets.....the only thing left is to pursue control of the masses.

It was probably easier in the 1800's and early 1900's, as evidenced by the enduring "Big Boys" such as the Rothschilds, Duponts, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Kennedies.

The Kennedies had a pretty ambitious plan.  But the unlucky bastards didn't bank on Joe Sr's 4 sons getting taken out by WW2, 2 assassinations, and Chappaquiddick.  Then the backup plan of the grandsons getting taken out by a plane crash, skiing accidents, drugs, etc.

The new crop of Waltons, Gates, Jobs.....almost seems apolitical.  Don't know if Carlos Slim actually runs Mexico or not.  The ME billionaires seem to simply spend their money on blowing each other up.

Bushes are mysterious.  They almost seem quaint and coy.....doesn't seem to be much info on whether they're worth a million or a trillion.  But they do show up in every confab of the world elite.  I'm surprised that Jeb isn't being groomed more aggressively for pres.  Unless the concept of using punks like Obama as your stooge has become more trendy.

Clintons seemed to want to join the club, but they're just too trashy and abrasive,  apparently.

Mountainshield

Well each one of these families have unique and different story to tell.

i.e Rothchilds were colluding with governments from the beginning of their existance and have depended on control of government since.

The Rockefellers built their fortune on hard work on producing the best product at lowest cost in addition to using what we today see as corrupt methods through 19th century nontransparent market mechanisms such as controlling the railroads through hidden "taxation" on competitors in order to subsidize their own transportation cost, as well as forcing the railroads and buyers to give Standard Oil monopoly within their company or loose Standard Oil as a customer/supplier. Standard Oil was broken up by the government. They did not grow big thanks to government intervention, but more on non transparent market contracts.

I don't know much about the others but you are right on about the Kennedies. I see Bill Gates on TED advocating global depopulation with what I assume to be sterilization through medication and food supply. Bill Gates is in my mind one of the more diabolical evil super rich just like George Soros.

But people give these people too much credit, they are not able to control vast complex bureaucracies and markets perfectly even though they often try they many times fail. For example the Rotchilds nearly financially ruined themselves with Napoleons defeat at Waterloo, even though conspiracy nuts give the other impression. And I feel most people want to feel a sense of hopelessnes when they argue everything lost, the end is nigh, there is no hope etc etc because it is easier to give up than to acknowledge that history has many turning points and unpredictable events.

Communists in particular wants people think that they have 100% controll psychologically, read the tactics and strategy of STASI the East German secret police which were one of the most effectice totalitarian institutions the world has ever seen, they used huge amount of resources into targetting potential political dissidents and intimidating into thinking that the cause is hopeless and therefor surrender.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Darth Fife on May 22, 2013, 07:40:33 AM
I've always viewed a "mixed" economy as the equivalent of being a little bit pregnant. It just ain't possible. You either have a Free Market or you don't. When the Federal Government has the power to pick economic winners and losers, you don't have a Free Market.

-Darth

Well said and indeed true.

And I would also argue that there is no free market without sound money and ultimately competition in money.

AndyJackson

Some others that I forgot about are the newspaper barons, especially Hearst.  Now there was one sneaky, dirty SOB.  Maybe singularly responsible for the prohibition on hemp / marijuana, to protect his incestuous paper (wood) empire and newspapers to use it all. Funded "Reefer Madness" to scare the country about the weed.  Invented yellow journalism as a business practice.

Murdoch is doing a pretty good job as the guy today.  Though I can't be too mad at him for creating FOX or USA Today.  A little bit of truth and balance as an untapped niche, lol.  Imagine that.