Topic: No Money Exists Without the Majority (Read 10252 times)

The OP of this thread is being further explained and agreed to over in another thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3350891

it (this topic) exists so I could post a picture of the President with a puppy - for that reason and that reason only.

all of these 9 pages have built up to this point , Anonymint will tell you himself.

he is in full compliance with he puppy picture.

i'd even go as far as to say he is "pro" the President / Puppy picture.

Shouldn't this be in some political section of the forums or something?

The middle east isn't using altcoins for all this oil crap yet so why is this here in altcoins section?

-MarkM-

The sober truth about USA economic trajectory. There is a structural shift ongoing along with global sovereign debt collapse.

http://soberlook.com/2013/04/what-happens-to-workers-who-drop-out-of.html

---

Birdbrain, I guess you forgot about all the people Putin has murdered to maintain power. Like the guy they poisoned with radiation who died a few days later in the UK.

I don't know what your talking about ?


In all seriousness you are deluded, the Russian Federation is stopping an attack , you can talk about where gas pipelines go all day , so what , Syria is a nation it's being attacked by bank sponsored cannibal terrorists , Russia is sticking to int law and helping the world.   The moon is going around the earth as well , should we be talking about that in relation to the Presidents evil plans to defend , Russia's interests and by default humanity .

http://blog.mpettis.com/2013/09/rebalancing-and-long-term-growth/#comment-1406


Amen to orthogonal models (don't expect anyone to really grasp the distinction in your point though):

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/scala-language/lChLcLES_Dk/b78ywjsHcbMJ


Coup de Pettis, merci beaucoup!


And the high-consumption companies are a greater share of global GDP, thus expect a massive implosion of global GDP ahead, which will mean the high-end 3-4% growth target for China is impossible.


Yup, it ain't gonna b purty bro.


Now you are being more realistic.

Cheers.

I guess you are too naive to see that Putin is just protecting his monopoly on natural gas exports to Europe.

And he packaged in a "I am a good guy" to fool you.

See first B&W chart (energy paradigm waves) down the page after the stock market charts:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/article/breakdown

  This

It is all about the USA overthrowing the dictators who are not friendly to Western oil corporations. Simple as that. The Neocons are nothing but an arm of the oil behemoths.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html

"Arab dictators are supposed to be deposed – unless they are the friendly kings or emirs of the Gulf"

"In Arab eyes, Israel’s 2006 war against the Shia Hizballah was an attempt to strike at the heart of Iran. The West’s support for Syrian rebels is a strategic attempt to crush Iran. But Iran is going to take the offensive.  Even for the Middle East, these are high stakes."

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/12/putin-pens-nyt-op-ed-urging-caution-in-syria-very-informative/

"This is absolutely correct and every source I have confirms the US will undermind the only chance we have to help President Hassan Rouhani in Iran who was elected by a landslide of young Iranian who disagree with the old hardliners and want Iran to rejoin the world community. Obama will destroy the creditbility of those election and Rouhani will not stand a chance."

Ha ha I guess you both look a little silly/ stupid with this recent news hey ?

Mr bible and Mr paranoid ?

The Russian Federation just brokered the deal that allowes the west to save itself from itself.

This deal was brokered by foreign minister Lavrov the face of the syrian war , the man on the right side of history , the man of peace .

You poor confused children don't understand that the Russian Federation has moved on from the 20th century idea of occupation and aggression .

The system they are emplacing the structure of which was built on multidimensional information systems does not need war.

So now if the " west" insists on attacking this nation the minority agressors that lead our majority peacful human populations , they do so with the lowest and smallest amount of political and social credibility. 

Try hard to understand smart friends, when you are forced to attack  you lose.

It time to step back from the system of war , as the major human population becomes aware.

Yeah but why is Russia not going to participate?

Because Russia also wants the Middle East to fall into chaos, so that they won't receive that competition for oil and gas pipeline to Europe.

Russia is pretending to be the good guy to gain international power, yet they also want the USA to attack, but they want to be in public position of being against it, so when they profit from oil, no one will accuse them.

Harboring Snowden is to gain that appearance of being against the USA.

In fact, the oil powers want to have monopoly on oil and want to put the M.E. into chaos, as they ramp up production in the USA (Russia has its production with a strong military to protect it) and interfere with production any where else in the world, e.g. Spratly Islands in South China / West Philippines Sea, in Nigera, Middle East, Venezuela, etc.

---

> I thought about this scenario several times and was
> not convinced it has a high degree of probability.The
> level of destruction you describe would destroy the
> already teetering global economy and unleash chaos in
> the developed world.  I don't believe TPTB are able or
> willing to simultaneously risk a battle on the home front
> and international conflict, esp. at a time when public
> consciousness is about to reach a tipping point.

They need to blame the economic implosion coming on something. Better to blame it on Obama, than the banks.

I pretty sure about this. They always planned to sacrifice Obama, as they did Hitler.

> Of course, it's important to consider all possibilities.
> I strongly suspect that many times Russia straddles the
> globalism framework and might routinely cooperate in the
> geopolitical theater.  I did warn today in comments on the
> Syria issue that we should be aware that the worlds' elites
> might cooperate to share M.E. power and profits and in the
> process come to an agreement to control the masses in their
> global techno fascist surveillance prison.  That being said,
> I don't think the Russians want to be bootlickers for western
> elites, especially after the way they were humiliated when their economy collapsed - made to grovel.  Let's hope egos and
> centuries of mistrust force a compromise of a multipolar world,
> that would give us some breathing room. As I said before, maybe
> plan B is to foment unrest in the Gulf monarchy states.  That
> would work out well for the western elites and Russia, plus
> Russia's satellite Syria would be spared.  Maybe what is
> happening now is the big set up for "plan B," the expected
> compromise (kind of Hegelian too).  That would be very slick
> and the staging has the trademark appearance of Brzezinski et al.

It is possible Syria and Saudi will be spared, but how do you get chaos in the Middle East to both provide distraction about the economy and also to give the USA a monopoly on energy without chaos in Syria (thus Iran, Israel, etc)?

http://www.nestmann.com/civil-forfeiture-of-cash-it-could-happen-to-you

I addressed those issues at the links I provided:


Also, we can decentralize energy with PoW:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3090924

An alternative goal could be to shut off M.E. energy to give control to the big oil companies who control USA natural gas.

I don't know if the USA has plans to ship LNG into Europe from Louisiana. Seems easier to reach Europe from there, and then use BP's pipeline across the USA to ship LNG a shorter distance from west coast to Asia.

The elite have options.

Saudi is one of those countries with an exploding population, and thus if you shut off oil income, the entire M.E. can go fundamentalist chaos.

I had understood the plan was to topple Syria and Yemen before Saudi Arabia. First they wanted to suck Saudi Arabia in as doing these illegal activities, then it can revealed in a Wikileaks to turn the wrath of Arabs against Arabs.

Total chaos is indeed I think the more likely master plan.

It is obvious that Halliburton, BP et al have been preparing for a major future for exporting LNG and raising production levels with fracking. Halliburton (Dick Cheney) invented fracking.

> I still think the Syria issue could remain an indefinite impasse for quite
> some time.
> I also think there could be a bargain being set up where Russia and Iran
> maintain some autonomy while the monarchies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and
> Bahrain are allowed to be overthrown.  Saudi Arabia is in the crosshairs,
> the neoliberals are setting up the taken down in the MSM and using
> gatekeeper writers in the alternative media.  If my suspicions are
> correct, then this would be a very slick and convoluted move that few
> could have guessed - a fascinating twist.

Worms meet can and can opener > hand > Excelsior.

Unfortunately it does not, because such coins which don't use PoW can not be secure. This is an unarguable mathematical conclusion:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3064154
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3061431

Armstrong correctly explains that it is the depth-of-liquidity that maintains a reserve currency:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/05/behind-the-curtain-why-syria-must-go-it-is-gas-this-time/

But that misses the point of what maintains the depth-of-liquidity.

The reason the dollar is now the reserve currency is because the international capital fled from Europe in the early 1900s to the USA. The USA became the dominant financial center with the rise of New York in the 1950s.

Capital fled from socialist (big government) Europe to capitalist (small government) USA, because the large government (as % of GDP) model was bankrupt and could only steal capital, not support return-on-investment.

However, if you are in control of the levers of the reserve currency and the immense power it yields, how do you prevent upstart economies from gaining the economy-of-scale to challenge the liquidity of the global reserve currency?

Well you make sure they always need to pay their major expenses in the reserve currency, thus you drain their productivity back to the liquidity of the reserve currency.

In the developing countries, food and energy are 30+% of the average families' budget. Cost of food derives from energy (fertilizer, tractors, and delivery to market). Thus if you price energy in the reserve currency, you keep the developing countries on the hamster wheel.

Now the big change coming after this sovereign crisis is that the reserve currency won't be a particular nation's currency, rather it will be an SDR attached to a basket of assets (which the elite can manipulate in price via their control of energy) which all nations' currencies float against.

Thus no nation will be able to sell international bonds in their national currency and will be completely enslaved by the elite.

I believe there is an elite cartel who are members of coordination groups, e.g. Bilderberg, Trilateral commission, Council on Foreign Relations, etc..

I believe that the dollar is the reserve currency (i.e. global unit-of-account) because most of the world's exported energy is priced in dollars.

I believe this cartel understands that the only solution to sovereign debt crisis is a new global SDR unit-of-account which is tied to a basket of assets and is independent of sovereign fiscal policy, i.e. all countries' currencies will float against these coming SDRs. Thus governments will run too high of debts, will be slave to the controller of the SDRs, as Europe's nations are now slave to the Euro controllers.

I believe the only way to force the world to use a global unit-of-account is to require it for purchases of things everyone needs, e.g. energy and global taxes (i.e. carbon credits). Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is well known to be a fraud. It was popularized by elite controlled mass media and I believe ostensibly for the above purpose.

Thus the issue in the Middle East is that some countries refuse to join this plan and want to remain independent of it. Thus the plan that General Wesley Clark stated was in effect 20 days after 9/11, which is to overthrow 7 M.E. countries.

I thus believe the point of all this is to route control over energy supplies to those who follow the plan of this elite cartel.

Thus I don't believe the elite cartel is failing or losing power. I believe they will be even more powerful after the sovereign crisis is resolved in favor of this new SDR solution.

I am disappointed that Martin Armstrong does not write about or appear to share this perspective, i.e. he thinks the "Club" are idiots who can't tie their shoelaces and destined for failure and he things something like SDRs is necessary and good solution. For that reason, I am not sure if he is naive, complicit, or more knowledgeable than me.

For this reason, I think something like a better Bitcoin is the only savior of mankind at this point. Nevertheless, I am a pragmatist and recognize that I may just not have the correct perspective on human progress, cooperation, and the future.

Good find. Yup. Remember I told you that.

And look at the other angle I mentioned which is LNG exports from USA, and the suppression of the development of gas fields in the China Sea by the meddling USA (pretending to protect the Philippines from China, bullshit!):

http://www.dailywealth.com/2271/us-natural-gas-exports-fuel-world

http://pro1.contrarianprofits.com/135289
(after page loads, click to close the window, when it prompts you, choose Stay On This Page, then you can read the transcript instead of watching the video)

Now you see what the BP nonsense in the Gulf of Mexico was about. It is about them gaining control over the area, so they can do as they damn well please. You know BP is building a gas pipeline across the USA.

Big oil owns Australian natural gas:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324904004578538831952138920.html

Another angle:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/04/syria-iran/


> Tuesday, September 3, 2013
> Will The United States Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
> Michael Snyder
> Activist Post
>
> Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the
> rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of
> liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural
> gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet
> regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable
> them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.
>
> Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and
> why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command
> centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the
> Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?  Well, it turns
> out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in
> Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through
> the region.
>
> On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole
> bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block
> the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring
> higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly
> involved in the conflict.
>
> If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be
> good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will
> be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about
> natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do
> with chemical weapons at all.
>
>
> It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to
> construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to
> Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article
> from 2009...
> Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the
> emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's
> biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than
> double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG)."We are eager
> to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al
> Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the
> Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
> in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in
> the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a
> working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in
> the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news
> agency.Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were
> exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco
> pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern
> gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up
> with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month,
> Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a
> transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment
> decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence
> on Russian gas.
> "For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve
> the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in
> several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a
> pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia,
> Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia,
> Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option
> would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through
> Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has
> also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.Based on production from
> the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding
> position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that
> through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG
> production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31
> million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a
> moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to
> conduct a reservoir study.As you just read, there were two proposed routes
> for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the
> first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from
> an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...
> In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the
> British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a
> proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's
> North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi
> Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European
> markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to
> protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top
> supplier of natural gas."Instead, the following year, Assad pursued
> negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran,
> across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas
> to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of
> Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as
> Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this
> year Iraq signed aframework agreement for construction of the gas
> pipelines.The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the
> face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a
> failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir
> Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in
> Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf
> country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with
> Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused,
> the Prince vowed military action.If Qatar is able to get natural gas
> flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the
> conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about
> the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuire
> summarized things quite nicely...
> The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and
> Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline
> across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix
> as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from
> Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem
> with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.Qatar
> would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets.
> The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have
> already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The
> only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with
> the U.S.Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made
> a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a
> port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a
> lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations
> is Syria.The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas,
> in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why
> natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to
> set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while
> smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What
> appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S.
> and Russia! The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are
> Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed
> gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the
> Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The
> other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups
> in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they
> too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that
> would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes
> through to Nabucco.
> Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.
>
> But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the
> United States to be getting involved in this conflict.
>
> If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda
> terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...
> Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers
> traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a
> mother and a 40-days old infant.Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of
> Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed
> everyone before setting the bus on fire.Is this really who we want to be
> "allied" with?
>
> And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a
> full-blown conflict very easily.
>
> If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops
> into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack
> Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization
> to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door
> wide open for American "boots on the ground"...
> The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It
> authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and
> any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets –
> either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian
> government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the
> targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be
> used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the
> proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with”
> the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s
> use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force
> must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.
> Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use
> of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be
> designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within,
> to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its
> allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the
> proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to
> determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be
> necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no
> procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).I
> think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.
> Some questions for Congress to ponder:(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize
> the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian
> rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as
> long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere)
> connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of
> force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation
> of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies
> (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is
> very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard
> to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.
> (2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against
> Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the
> President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to
> the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran
> or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD
> within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g.
> Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.Would you like to
> send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a
> natural gas pipeline can be built?
>
> What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious
> that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...
> I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old
> grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi,
> my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with
> Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking
> about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well,
> what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'Unfortunately, his
> grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem
> absolutely determined to take us to war.
>
> In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural
> gas pipeline?
>
> This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse Blog.  Michael
> Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own
> blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter
> here.
>
> http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/is-united-states-going-to-go-to-war.html#more