People did lose their homes due to shady, illegal lending practices in 2007 and the following years. Many banks were penalized heavily for these practices. In many of the cases it was not the fault of the bank as a whole, but rather the individual shady mortgage lender who was deceiving lower-income families into taking loans and/or refinancing that they simply couldn't afford. While the banks did in fact exploit the risk of these loans for profit, the risk was there regardless because of illegal, deceptive lending practices which were the real problem.

However many people lost their homes is far, far outweighed by the number of people who were able to purchase homes with reasonably agreed upon term loans from banks. If you want to live in a house but do not have the cash to purchase it, you must take a mortgage from the bank. In exchange for the capital they loan to you for the purchase, you pay a small, agreed upon interest fee. This process has allowed many more people to get homes in nice areas to live in rather than be trapped under renters and land-contractors, which in my opinion are far worse than small interest payments on top of principal.

Also by just assuming the banking system is evil and calling it so is just a begging the question fallacy. "People consider banking evil because it is evil" is not a very strong argument, of course, without evidence that banking is evil!

Excellent, informative documentary!!! You should definitely make the time to watch this one RAM.

I learned very little as I am already well aware of how immoral & unethical the entire system is, however I do really appreciate how well this video was put together. A lot of well-made points from people who have been deeply involved in the banking system.

I wish more people knew all the things that this documentary presents, but alas, because the masses have been lulled into thinking that this is the only way to do it, nobody thinks otherwise.

Thank you Bodhisativa!!!

World Bank is about as nefarious as it gets, funding the expansion of the oligarchy, military-industrial complex.
you can argue semantics and tautological banter all day, but central banking executives are sociopaths like insurance company group execs, and corporate CEOs.

check out what nonprofit groups like Allied Progress are revealing..

besides that, one only needs to look deep into the history of the Federal Reserve. it's not necessarily an institution of benevolence.

i want to further clarify: the institution of a corporate entity, whether it be a bank or business, is like a gov't.. a virtual concept, inanimate, and insentient. it cannot be considered evil in itself. however, the entity defined as an individual of "corporate personhood" may be held legally accountable for abuse and misconduct.
"corporate personhood" is also an antithesis to the democratic process, as lobbyists tend to have a stranglehold on the election process and policy-making.

Funny, the solutions of your documentary stand in contrast to the documentary I've posted.
Mine warns of a currency backed by gold, yours advocate it. Mine cites Milton Friedman positively, yours depict MF as a neoclassicist, who's to blame... So who is right?

However, both docus call for a debt cut.

It's bigger than banking...banking is just one component of broader systems of capital. Private property = people with superior firepower roping off the commons and declaring it off-limits to the rest.

If you trace the "right" of private property back to its source, you inevitably find a robbery in progress. It is paradoxical that society labels it "theft" whenever people challenge systems built upon theft.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme...there's really no escaping that.



Fwiw, it's also worth noting that none of the financial institutions/executives were significantly penalized for their actions in the mortgage crisis. It's also worth noting that numerous financial institutions have been exposed for having direct ties to drug cartels, enabling them to launder vast sums of money. None of these institutions have received more than minor fines/slaps on the wrist.

It's important to note that the prosecution of the individuals or institutions will not fix these problems; they're systemic. As long as this system is in place, this is the sort of activity we can expect to see. For a quick comparison, look at extractive energy corporations dumping waste products in the environment. As long as the cost of fines/punishments is below the cost of "properly" disposing of such waste (if such a thing is even possible, depending on the waste in question), it makes economic sense for corporations to dump these things into the environment.

Well, as long as Capitalism is in play and you allegedly can't escape it, where are you placing yourself in the pyramid? Does it even matter to be at the top or the bottom? Personally, if your fatalistic viewpoint proves to be true and it doesn't matter, I'd place myself on the top. Would be interesting to hear from other ppl, who disagree with me and their reasons.

Here's a good piece on business from an Aya standpoint:

I would posit that yours sounds like the fatalistic viewpoint...wanting to get over on as many people as possible to secure the greatest possible value for yourself. I've posted about the need for dismantling capitalism and industrialization in numerous threads...I'm not looking for escape, I'm looking for ways to eliminate the inherent coercion/violence of industrial capitalism.

I don't think the best thing to do is place myself on the top...I don't want my existence to be predicated on the subjugation or control of others, that sounds terrible. The other thing is, very few (if any) people get to "place themselves" on this pyramid. Factors of wealth/privilege can be/are well out of the control of many (most?) people. If you start out with large amounts of capital, you are in a position that is markedly different from those without such luxuries.

This goes back to private property. If one person owns thousands of acres of land that they use solely for the purpose of generating more personal wealth, this denies access to the land for people who could actually use it to survive...and the person who "owns" the profit-generating land can only make such a claim of ownership because somewhere along the line, someone declared this particular section of the commons "theirs" for such production. Personally, I don't find that particularly legitimate. And this is, of course, without taking a biocentric look at things and questioning the use of nature as a "resource." I don't personally ascribe to the view that ecosystems were put here for humans to use as they see fit for the production of whatever knick knacks.



Good for him Everyone's entitled to their opinion, his certainly isn't authoritative for all ayahuasca users...being a good business person is a survival skill in this landscape. Being good at self-defense/eliminating people is a survival skill that could be of benefit in a number of landscapes (prison, war zones, etc). However, presenting the desire to be good at something, without examining the underpinnings that present being good at that thing as necessary for survival means that you completely miss the context of why it is good for your survival to be good at that thing.

In other words, saying "this person said being a good businessman helps him survive" misses the radical question of "Why?" It's a pretty easy question to answer within a capitalistic framework...being a good salesman means you can acquire resources, much as being a good hunter/forager might mean the same thing in a different framework. The issue is, in this framework, being a good salesman is frequently predicated on destructive processes. So, what might appear as "good" to the individual, may in fact be "bad" on a larger scale.

For example, if I work a job that pays me...it's "good" for my survival. It means that I'm able to secure the things I need to survive, in this paradigm. However, if my job entails facilitating the needs of tech execs and people involved in extractive resource acquisition, my personal "good" fortune of being able to provide for my material well-being is not actually "good" for plenty of other people. In fact, it could be tremendously "bad" for them, even though we have no actual contact.

Remember the question from before...what's the body count of a hospital? The greatest good provided by industrial capitalism is not an inherent/objective good...the question is not (imo) about good or bad, but about the real world consequences of these systems and capitalism is predicated on absurd amounts of death and destruction.

In case anyone forgot, the starting capital for capitalism was created through slavery and genocide...and things really haven't changed all that much. That fact doesn't simply go away because people don't like to hear it.

In order to keep the debate well-mannered, I'll reread your post tomorrow and try to answer it from my viewpoint.

Capitalism doesn't have to be a pyramid scheme. Many people operate on the false premises that any difference in "wealth" relative to other individuals is inherently robbing someone else. This would be true if all people produced equally, but that's not the case. There will always be those who hunt, grow, invent, run, sing, or whatever better than others or faster or more efficiently. Everyone is not equal (our rights are a different matter though ). These discrepancies allow for a capitalist society, just nowhere on the scale of modern economies (at least not in my playbook anyhow). Even if everyone had equal opportunities and resources, some people would eek out more for themselves and others less. I just think that we need to make everything truly fair and implement a large degree of socialization of essential industries.

I should have mentioned, 'The Creature from Jekyll Island" is an extremely detailed history of the US Federal Reserve. Here's a free copy (if the link works) to any who are interested

https://archive.org/deta...G.Edward-G.EdwardGriffin

I would also suggest 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' by John Perkins. An autobiography featuring the darker side of international finance.

And SnozzleBerry, I have shared your views on private property for my entire adult life (amongst other artifacts of self-entitlement). Though, in the early days of the '08 crisis I thought re-instituting the guillotine was the only just end for the perpetrators (you know any of us commoners would have been executed for treason if we were to play a part in such mayhem) I have slowly realized over the last few years; your take is the higher road and I can now return to another sentiment I have shared with you since my adolescence. It must all be dismantled in the least harmful way possible.

I think the main beef we have/had was not the analysis of what "is", but whether we can escape it or not. I think the system is escapeable in the long run. And since it doesn't make sense to dismantle a system you can't escape, means that you too believe it's escapeable.

Actually, to make myself clear, by placing me on top of the system means, that I try to educate myself as comprehensive as possible about what "is" and how to escape it most efficiently. Like the prof in Bodhisativa's docu said: "study the enemy".

In your pyramid scheme pic, I believe being at the top (Obama) is as shitty as being at the bottom (mine worker). Therefore I propose a new level above the pyramid. I call it: Fractional Reserve Capitalism IS a pyramid scheme... time to elevate yourself.

No problem. Sharing is caring.



I think having contrasting opinions is important for such a big issue such as this. It allows debate and a chance to see different perspectives. I don't think gold should be the "gold standard". It's too... unreliable.

The economy is an invention by humanity. As with all things that pertains to humans, this issue is incredibly complex. Even more so in a globalised world. We used to live in a time where everyone in the tribe would contribute to the functioning of the tribe. What we have is a large scale version of that. Except, everyone is contributing to their own interests. So, I guess it's not like the tribe at all.

That's why communism failed. I guess I'm a communist. But I'm also a capitalist. Communism shouldn't be enforced, it should be intrinsic within the individual. Communism is derived from community, and that's my belief. That's the cement of social cohesion. The sense of community. Imagine if everyone in your neighbourhood was very hostile to one another, and only seeking to gain for themselves. That's the type of world we live in. Not a very nice neighbourhood, is it?

You realize that Obama is nowhere near the top, right? Why does everyone think that A) Presidents are wealthier than CEOs and B) that they have immutable, complete control over national political and economic affairs? Come on now, I know you know better

Perhaps Ufo mentioned that because he was referring to the actual picture which shows such...

But anyways, you really think he is nowhere near the top? I guess from a very, very narrow viewpoint of the "top", sure...

But the amount of money he has alone would put him very easily within the top .1% of the worlds population...That's basically at the top of the pyramid if you ask me...

...Regardless of the fact that politicians are often bought and paid for puppets

EDIT: You know what, forget it. Y'all can live in CT land, I don't care. The Nexus is full of nutcases anymore, I don't know why I try to fit in here. Enjoy all your vegan fur suit transsexual craziness, I'm going back to real life. I'm done, you're all nuts. Fuck it.

Yes, I agree with you.


Obamas' income drops 21% to $481,098

The fact that wealth begets more wealth was illustrated once again last year by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, currently the two richest people on Earth. According to Bloomberg, the pair finished 2014 a combined $21.1 billion richer than when the year began. (Gates' fortune rose $8.1 billion to a total of $86.6 billion. Buffett's rose $13 billion; he's now worth $73.8 billion.)


Caamaahn... The real life is full of nut cases, too. Everything needs a balance, so does this thread. Therefore I post an ultra capitalistic video for relaxation:

What is so CT about that exactly? Obama's net worth is apparently several million, and the large influence of bankers/corporations/etc. on the political system is no shrouded mystery.

If you can't handle having a calm discussion on an internet forum without having a temper tantrum then this place probably isn't for you, especially if you're going to resort to belittling peoples lifestyle choices because their opinions differ from your own.

I think you need to adjust our tinfoil hats design because the EMF death rays are clearly frying your brain

I liked where this thread was going, but as I stated I'd like to keep emotion out and try to use rationality and questioning to move forward. We don't have to agree but conversation doesn't need to hurt our egos.

https://wiki.dmt-nexus.m...e#No_Conspiracy_Theories

I suppose it's up to the discretion of the mods as to whether the views here have crossed the CT point. I do not think they have; we need as much questioning as possible of our capital systems as they are responsible for many of our standards of living!