Originally posted by Atobe:
why why why ????Why should you be asking this ?
Did you not state the following in your last reply which I responded ?
"big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout."
If you did not mean "economic turn around" with the words "can affect the economy" - what possibly do you mean when you also mentioned that the economy had received 700 billion bailout ?
So what did you intend to say which you did not say what you had wanted to, and that remained locked in your mind ?
why why why did you take my words out of context?
is it that difficult to take my post in full and read all of it, and understand it as it is written? why do you exagerate my words again and again to reverse the flow of gravity or the turn the economy around?
why can you not accept that my post just means a big country like USA can affect the economy more than Singapore? Is this statement wrong?
Originally posted by Atobe:
If you do not care how the previous Jury system worked in Singapore - is there any point in discussing this further ?No one said that the jury are legal professionals, and who said that they are not as accountable for the verdicts ?
The fact that the defendant has been given a right of appeal does not mean that the Jury System is flawed, if that is the case are you suggesting that Trial by a Single Judge is similarly flawed as the defendant is also given similar rights to Appeal ?
How many persons form the jury in any trial ?
Can these few persons in a population of 4.5 million residents affect the economy ?
If the tenure of the judges are not contracturally renewable and whose appointment is not subjected to the whims and manipulation of ONE Man or a Single Political Party, it can be conceded to be considerably more efficient in a country run on the industrial or commercial productivity standards.
So you want to compare to the previous jury system, than bring it up and compare it loh. how many juries was selected? In US, every trial needs 12 people. and these twelve people cannot work for the time of the trial. and there is also the selection of the jury, which needs to go through a system. no matter how you look at it, it is an economical cost.
you seem to question the appointment of the judges. so how are the judges in other countries selected? they run for election?
Originally posted by skythewood:why why why did you take my words out of context?
is it that difficult to take my post in full and read all of it, and understand it as it is written? why do you exagerate my words again and again to reverse the flow of gravity or the turn the economy around?
why can you not accept that my post just means a big country like USA can affect the economy more than Singapore? Is this statement wrong?
Even if I were to quote the entire passage with the key words in it, what did you intend to convey from the intended unspoken ideas that remained mysteriously fettered in your mind ?
The following exchanges on Page 2 will remind you of your replies given and my response - both colored in blue for the past replies, while my present reply is black.
Page 2 : 28 Nov '08, 1.49 PM
Originally posted by skythewood:
like i posted, if a country is powerful, it can still affect the economy. an example will be US.
but to think that Singapore can be that powerful... not very likely.
How does a country that is powerful still affect the economy ? In what manner ? Are you suggesting that a powerful country can even defy the gravity pull of the forces in a market economy ?
What kind of example are you expecting anyone to draw from the first inconclusive statement that you have made ?
Singapore has been seen to be a very powerful entity both financially and militarily despite its size - when compared to her immediate neighbors.
Which country do you wish Singapore to be compared with in terms of power ?
Is it realistic to do so - given the size and resource that Singapore has to work in ?
Page 2 : 29 Nov '08, 10.11AM
Originally posted by skythewood:
my example is quite simple, but was somehow skewed by you. big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout. good enough example for you? it cannot defy gravity, which is your words, not mine. my words was affect the economy. Singapore obviously cannot match the 700 billion bailouts..
Was your example so simple when it was inconclusive in the statement made ?
like i posted, if a country is powerful, it can still affect the economy. an example will be US.
but to think that Singapore can be that powerful... not very likely.
Now that you have clarified your statement that a "big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout" - you have at least been encouraged to give a clearer explanation to what was stuck in your mind, which you seem to be unable to express in simple ways, and resulted in your thoughts being skewed by your inconclusive statement.
Not so clever to blame others for skewing an incomprehensible simple statement.
Do you seriously think that the 700 billion bailout will turn the US economy around - by this amount alone ?
Big countries are like small countries - economic fundamentals need to be managed at the right time and with the right dose of direct or indirect governmental supervision.
Many reviews have already stated that the present situation in the USA is due to the complete removal of regulations that allowed the Financial System to run amok by creating all kinds of financial programs.
The present US Government was at fault for the false assumption that pump priming home ownership program alone will help to boost the US economy, without any consideration that proper long term job permanence is required to support the repaymemnt to the freely available loans.
Towards this end, the US Government had removed regulations and allowed banks to offer loans to all and sundry - which the banks eagerly accepted to meet bottom line performance demands without considering the recoverable status of the loans.
As matters stand, the 700 billion bailout was not sufficient, as the recent concluded studies made by the US Congress stated that another 500 billion is required; while Obama and his new team has stated that structural changes will need to be made to the way the USA is being "managed".
Big country alone may not necessarily be "financially" powerful - if by big country you will mean population size or even in terms of territorial square kilometers.
For the USA, her territorial or population size has nothing to do with her wealth, as her wealth is due largely to her political system and the acceptane of a political ideology by both major political parties that support the liberties of the individual.
In terms of population size, the USA is smaller than China; and in terms of territorial size, the USA is smaller than Russia.
Yet it has more then trillions of dollar in private wealth within the USA - even as the country and the government is deep in debt.
Can Singapore be realistically compared to any country given the politial ideology that shackle Singaporeans ?
How was your statement taken out of context ?
As I have mentioned in my response on 29 Nov '08, 10.11AM - spending the 700 billion alone does not necessarily turn the economy around - as seen in the present situation when the US Congress had demanded that a further 500 billion is needed.
This amount does not include the additional demands made by the Automobile Industry which made a joint appeal for financial credit support; and also the appeal by Citibank for a bailout.
How can you say that - "big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout" ?
Am I supposed to swallow this based on your say so when current events do not support your position ?
Originally posted by Atobe:
Even if I were to quote the entire passage with the key words in it, what did you intend to convey from the intended unspoken ideas that remained mysteriously fettered in your mind ?The following exchanges on Page 2 will remind you of your replies given and my response - both colored in blue for the past replies, while my present reply is black.
Page 2 : 28 Nov '08, 1.49 PM
How does a country that is powerful still affect the economy ? In what manner ? Are you suggesting that a powerful country can even defy the gravity pull of the forces in a market economy ?What kind of example are you expecting anyone to draw from the first inconclusive statement that you have made ?
Singapore has been seen to be a very powerful entity both financially and militarily despite its size - when compared to her immediate neighbors.
Which country do you wish Singapore to be compared with in terms of power ?
Is it realistic to do so - given the size and resource that Singapore has to work in ?
Page 2 : 29 Nov '08, 10.11AM
Was your example so simple when it was inconclusive in the statement made ?Now that you have clarified your statement that a "big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout" - you have at least been encouraged to give a clearer explanation to what was stuck in your mind, which you seem to be unable to express in simple ways, and resulted in your thoughts being skewed by your inconclusive statement.
Not so clever to blame others for skewing an incomprehensible simple statement.
Do you seriously think that the 700 billion bailout will turn the US economy around - by this amount alone ?
Big countries are like small countries - economic fundamentals need to be managed at the right time and with the right dose of direct or indirect governmental supervision.
Many reviews have already stated that the present situation in the USA is due to the complete removal of regulations that allowed the Financial System to run amok by creating all kinds of financial programs.
The present US Government was at fault for the false assumption that pump priming home ownership program alone will help to boost the US economy, without any consideration that proper long term job permanence is required to support the repaymemnt to the freely available loans.
Towards this end, the US Government had removed regulations and allowed banks to offer loans to all and sundry - which the banks eagerly accepted to meet bottom line performance demands without considering the recoverable status of the loans.
As matters stand, the 700 billion bailout was not sufficient, as the recent concluded studies made by the US Congress stated that another 500 billion is required; while Obama and his new team has stated that structural changes will need to be made to the way the USA is being "managed".
Big country alone may not necessarily be "financially" powerful - if by big country you will mean population size or even in terms of territorial square kilometers.
For the USA, her territorial or population size has nothing to do with her wealth, as her wealth is due largely to her political system and the acceptane of a political ideology by both major political parties that support the liberties of the individual.
In terms of population size, the USA is smaller than China; and in terms of territorial size, the USA is smaller than Russia.
Yet it has more then trillions of dollar in private wealth within the USA - even as the country and the government is deep in debt.
Can Singapore be realistically compared to any country given the politial ideology that shackle Singaporeans ?
How was your statement taken out of context ?
As I have mentioned in my response on 29 Nov '08, 10.11AM - spending the 700 billion alone does not necessarily turn the economy around - as seen in the present situation when the US Congress had demanded that a further 500 billion is needed.
This amount does not include the additional demands made by the Automobile Industry which made a joint appeal for financial credit support; and also the appeal by Citibank for a bailout.
How can you say that - "big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout" ?
Am I supposed to swallow this based on your say so when current events do not support your position ?
good, you quote the whole thing, so now it downgrades from "reverse the flow of gravitry" or "turn the economy around" to "affect the economy".
the 700 billion bailouts has not been expanded yet. did they spend all of it? no. a large part of the 700 billion bailout has been set aside for Obama's administration to plan.
did the US economy improve after the bailout? you tell me no, than this debate is over, i lose, the 700 billion bailout was ineffective and useless, US cannot affect it's economy with the bailout, and save it from impending doom of crash and burn to a controlled descend.
go on, just tell me that,
Originally posted by skythewood:So you want to compare to the previous jury system, than bring it up and compare it loh. how many juries was selected? In US, every trial needs 12 people. and these twelve people cannot work for the time of the trial. and there is also the selection of the jury, which needs to go through a system. no matter how you look at it, it is an economical cost.
you seem to question the appointment of the judges. so how are the judges in other countries selected? they run for election?
Singapore's Trial by Jury system was modelled after the English Jury System, and had also 12 members serving as jurors - and with this Trial by Jury system being abandoned in Singapore in 1969.
What possibly can your reasons be for being so hung up on the economic issues - as if these 12 members will affect the economy as badly, when the thousands of young Singaporeans are called up every month for Reservist Training irregardless of the occupation position for up to 45 days ?
Yes, I am concerned with the manner in which Singapore judges are appointed and their renewal of tenure subjected to scrutiny by the Prime Minister's recommedation to the President.
In the USA, the President's nominees are subject to a Review Panel formed by the a bi-partisan panel from US Congress, whose decision will be subject to the review and approval of the Senate.
Can there be any ‘Independence of the Singapore Judiciary’ - when the career of the Judge is subject to the review of the Prime Minister ?
There is a difference between 'Judicial Impartiality' and 'Judicial Independence' - as indicated in the given referenced piece above - (Page 11 of 21)..
Originally posted by freedomclub:Well, according to Bloomberg recently, the $7.2 trillion has already been spent. More recent estimates range at around $8.5 trillion to the corporate-financial sector. Try to understand this, you cant fix a problem that is the result of debt induced by monopolised money creation with more money creation. Thats like trying to fix corruption with more corruption. The Fed is a private corporation that has a monopoly of money creation over the US. When it loans money (which it created out of air) to banks, who in turn loans it to consumers (I mean human beings), the debt includes the principle (money created out of nothing) and the interest (money which doesnt exist). In the long run, it is clear that the system is only sustained by more money being created, which is why inflation is a constant. And when one component of this system goes bankrupt (an event built into this system of fiat money), the rest is history. The system has to keep pumping out money to cover up the existing debt and in the process, creates more debt. Crazy? Well, thats called our beautiful fractional reserve banking system which serves to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a small elite.
As I pointed out, the $700 billion figure can be thrown away. How can the US Government save the derivatives market that is estimated at $525 trillion-$550 trillion (to put this in perspective, world GDP is around $55 trillion), with the quoted $700 billion or even if the Fed pledges $7.2 trillion in bailouts?
You want to solve debt with more debt? Anyway, where is the US Government going to get $7.2 trillion? The US is already the world's largest debtor nation (in other words, bankrupt) that is surviving on the reserve currency status of the USD and military might. This privately-owned fractional reserve system simply cannot go on any longer.
I am just wondering what is the next bubble they are building up...
Originally posted by Atobe:
Singapore's Trial by Jury system was modelled after the English Jury System, and had also 12 members serving as jurors - and with this Trial by Jury system being abandoned in Singapore in 1969.What possibly can your reasons be for being so hung up on the economic issues - as if these 12 members will affect the economy as badly, when the thousands of young Singaporeans are called up every month for Reservist Training irregardless of the occupation position for up to 45 days ?
Yes, I am concerned with the manner in which Singapore judges are appointed and their renewal of tenure subjected to scrutiny by the Prime Minister's recommedation to the President.
In the USA, the President's nominees are subject to a Review Panel formed by the a bi-partisan panel from US Congress, whose decision will be subject to the review and approval of the Senate.
Can there be any ‘Independence of the Singapore Judiciary’ - when the career of the Judge is subject to the review of the Prime Minister ?
There is a difference between 'Judicial Impartiality' and 'Judicial Independence' - as indicated in the given referenced piece above - (Page 11 of 21)..
dude, singapore guys already needs to serve NS so that it can defend itself, having extra jury duty is of course of a bigger concern.
so let's narrow down the whole thing to the appointment of judges, since this will happen irregardless of having a jury or not. how would you propose how singapore will appoint judges than?
last i check, chief justice was appointed by the president.
Originally posted by freedomclub:As I pointed out, the $700 billion figure can be thrown away. How can the US Government save the derivatives market that is estimated at $525 trillion-$550 trillion (to put this in perspective, world GDP is around $55 trillion), with the quoted $700 billion or even if the Fed pledges $7.2 trillion in bailouts?
You want to solve debt with more debt? Anyway, where is the US Government going to get $7.2 trillion? The US is already the world's largest debtor nation (in other words, bankrupt) that is surviving on the reserve currency status of the USD and military might. This privately-owned fractional reserve system simply cannot go on any longer.
Originally posted by skythewood:good, you quote the whole thing, so now it downgrades from "reverse the flow of gravitry" or "turn the economy around" to "affect the economy".
the 700 billion bailouts has not been expanded yet. did they spend all of it? no. a large part of the 700 billion bailout has been set aside for Obama's administration to plan.
did the US economy improve after the bailout? you tell me no, than this debate is over, i lose, the 700 billion bailout was ineffective and useless, US cannot affect it's economy with the bailout, and save it from impending doom of crash and burn to a controlled descend.
go on, just tell me that,
Was the 700 billion bailout not an attempt to "reverse the flow of gravity" ?
Are you rejecting the bailout plan was not to "turn the economy around" ?
Or what did you actually wanted to mean with your words that big country can "affect the economy by getting 700 billion bailout" ?
It seems that you are attempting to smoke your way out of your own untenable position by indulging in uselss semantics.
Have you tried reading from a list of response that you can google concerning the effects of the 700 billion dollar bailout plan on the US economy ?
The 700 billion bailout plan has been seen to burden subsequent generations in the USA, and as matter stand the US Congress had recently concluded that the 700 billion need an additional 500 billion to make the entire bailout more comprehensive.
This position had been borne out by the big three Motor Corporations coming together to ask Congress for a bailout plan for the US Motor Industry - and which George Bush has declined that the rescue package should come from the 700 billion.
Now, even Citibank has stepped into the limelight to seek a bailout plan for them.
Is your 700 billion bailout plan working ?
It has attracted new calls for bailouts from other established US corporations that were seen to be sturdy.
Originally posted by Atobe:
Was the 700 billion bailout not an attempt to "reverse the flow of gravity" ?
Are you rejecting the bailout plan was not to "turn the economy around" ?
Or what did you actually wanted to mean with your words that big country can "affect the economy by getting 700 billion bailout" ?
It seems that you are attempting to smoke your way out of your own untenable position by indulging in uselss semantics.
Have you tried reading from a list of response that you can google concerning the effects of the 700 billion dollar bailout plan on the US economy ?
The 700 billion bailout plan has been seen to burden subsequent generations in the USA, and as matter stand the US Congress had recently concluded that the 700 billion need an additional 500 billion to make the entire bailout more comprehensive.
This position had been borne out by the big three Motor Corporations coming together to ask Congress for a bailout plan for the US Motor Industry - and which George Bush has declined that the rescue package should come from the 700 billion.
Now, even Citibank has stepped into the limelight to seek a bailout plan for them.
Is your 700 billion bailout plan working ?
It has attracted new calls for bailouts from other established US corporations that were seen to be sturdy.
the 700 billion bailout is to save the US economy, not to miraculously make everything pretty again.
they estimate 500 billion, so what? sure, the US can approve another 500 billion, and maybe the money will "reverse the flow of gravity"
why, suddenly 700 billion becomes my plan?
for the fourth time, it can not "reverse the flow of gravity", and for the fourth time, i did not say it can.
for the 2nd time, i will say that it can prevent the economy from crash and burn, and instead steer it into a control descend.
Originally posted by skythewood:dude, singapore guys already needs to serve NS so that it can defend itself, having extra jury duty is of course of a bigger concern.
so let's narrow down the whole thing to the appointment of judges, since this will happen irregardless of having a jury or not. how would you propose how singapore will appoint judges than?
last i check, chief justice was appointed by the president.
With the number of jobless that are increasing, do you think that there will be so many Singaporeans who are tied up ?
How many trials are there in a calendar year in Singapore ?
Even if we have High Court Trials on political and criminal charges based on the involvement of Citizen participation as Jurors in the Jury Panel, we do not necessarily need to have their services on more direct issues heard in the Subodinate Courts.
It is far better for Singaporeans to judge the evidences to support the accusations made against politicians like Chia Thye Poh, Lim Chin Siong, Lee Siew Choh, JBJ, CSJ and those accused as Communist agitators such as Tan Wah Piow, and the Catholics accused to be Marxist conspirators.
Is your objection to the Jury System purely based on economics, or simply your inability to trust even your own judgment or values about what is Right and Wrong ?
For your information, the Chief Justice is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
In a closed Political Society such as Singapore, where the ONE Man politics is all pervasive in every strata of Singapore Society, can any indpendent panel be created to appoint a Chief Justice ?
Even the position of the Elected Presidency is a joke, when the Approving Committee is stuffed by safe political appointees.
Originally posted by skythewood:the 700 billion bailout is to save the US economy, not to miraculously make everything pretty again.
they estimate 500 billion, so what? sure, the US can approve another 500 billion, and maybe the money will "reverse the flow of gravity"
why, suddenly 700 billion becomes my plan?
for the fourth time, it can not "reverse the flow of gravity", and for the fourth time, i did not say it can.
for the 2nd time, i will say that it can prevent the economy from crash and burn, and instead steer it into a control descend.
Say what you like - you did print the following:-
1. like i posted, if a country is powerful, it can still affect the economy. an example will be US.
2. big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout
Originally posted by skythewood:
dude, money generates more money in the economy. you bailout the bank, the bank lends money, the money changes hands lots of time, and it will slowly generate the money. solving debt with more debt is something only a powerful country can do. i don't propose the solution, but that is what they are doing. and in the long term, they are fucked.
I dont deny that. But the thing that is screwing the economy up is that the Fed actually lends the US Government money because it is a privately owned bank. How can a government expect to run the country if it is subjected to the whims of a banking elite?
The Fed lends the US Govt, say $100 million, at interest, but only the principle exists because the Fed has a monopoly on money creation. So the US Govt has to perpetually borrow more and more to pay off the debt and interest on the previous amount. Thats why in the long run, this is unsustainable.
The solution is simply to get the US Govt to issue its own currency instead of letting a private corporation do it. That way, money will not be used as a corporate tool to make more profits, but will be like public infrastructure that facilitates the running of a country (trade of goods and services). Simple isn't it? But of course, I havent taken into account how the corporate-banking elite have the US Govt by the balls.
Originally posted by Atobe:Say what you like - you did print the following:-
1. like i posted, if a country is powerful, it can still affect the economy. an example will be US.
2. big country can affect the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout
yup, i did. and i still think they are still not wrong.
1. realistically, a country so much in debt should be bankrupt.
2. US is affecting the economy by getting a 700 billion bailout. infact, it has affect the economy by getting so many bailouts over its many years of history, that it has a very huge national debt.
I dont deny that. But the thing that is screwing the economy up is that the Fed actually lends the US Government money because it is a privately owned bank. How can a government expect to run the country if it is subjected to the whims of a banking elite?
The Fed lends the US Govt, say $100 million, at interest, but only the principle exists because the Fed has a monopoly on money creation. So the US Govt has to perpetually borrow more and more to pay off the debt and interest on the previous amount. Thats why in the long run, this is unsustainable.
The solution is simply to get the US Govt to issue its own currency instead of letting a private corporation do it. That way, money will not be used as a corporate tool to make more profits, but will be like public infrastructure that facilitates the running of a country (trade of goods and services). Simple isn't it? But of course, I havent taken into account how the corporate-banking elite have the US Govt by the balls.
Actually your above analysis is also not quite accurate.
Pray, correct me then.
Originally posted by Atobe:
With the number of jobless that are increasing, do you think that there will be so many Singaporeans who are tied up ?
How many trials are there in a calendar year in Singapore ?
Even if we have High Court Trials on political and criminal charges based on the involvement of Citizen participation as Jurors in the Jury Panel, we do not necessarily need to have their services on more direct issues heard in the Subodinate Courts.
It is far better for Singaporeans to judge the evidences to support the accusations made against politicians like Chia Thye Poh, Lim Chin Siong, Lee Siew Choh, JBJ, CSJ and those accused as Communist agitators such as Tan Wah Piow, and the Catholics accused to be Marxist conspirators.
Is your objection to the Jury System purely based on economics, or simply your inability to trust even your own judgment or values about what is Right and Wrong ?
For your information, the Chief Justice is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister.
In a closed Political Society such as Singapore, where the ONE Man politics is all pervasive in every strata of Singapore Society, can any indpendent panel be created to appoint a Chief Justice ?
Even the position of the Elected Presidency is a joke, when the Approving Committee is stuffed by safe political appointees.
are you sure that the jury is made up of jobless people? and should a jury be made up of jobless people?
i don't know how many trials are there, why don't you tell me.
no matter what kind of criminals, be they political or criminal or whatever, why should a jury be better than a judge?
i agree that economics is not the main issue, more like the bonus issue. but i think instead of having a judge to guide the jury to reach a conclusion, i will prefer the judge who has more experience and more proffessional to judge the case himself.
yes, having a jury will be fine, but to me,it doesn't really value add.
the chief justice is appointed by the president, the final decision. is made by him. if you are saying that the president is also corrupt, than i think you can migrate le, since the whole government is just one big conspiracy, and they will soon drag people who protest at speaker's corner to execute.
I cant say that the president is corrupt because I dont know. But SR Nathan was a top official at SPH before he ventured into politics(PAP). And I'm sure you would agree that SPH is a government (PAP) mouthpiece. The PAP has a history, and a continuing one at that, of suing (foreign) media publications for being critical. So given Nathan's connection to the PAP, wouldnt he be part of the PAP apparatus?
Let me define a conspiracy in my own words, "two or more people planning in secret to commit an illegal act".
Originally posted by freedomclub:I cant say that the president is corrupt because I dont know. But SR Nathan was a top official at SPH before he ventured into politics(PAP). And I'm sure you would agree that SPH is a government mouthpiece. The PAP has a history, and a continuing one at that, of suing (foreign) media publications for being critical. So given Nathan's connection to the PAP, wouldnt he be part of the PAP apparatus?
so you are saying PAP is corrupt, so SPH is corrupt, so nathan is corrupt? so we need to find someone that is unrelated to PAP in anyway to ensure that guy is not part of PAP? maybe import mahathir?
Pray, correct me then.
What about below logic:
...We will explore some of these terms, starting with the most obvious feature of financial systems, their role in supplying credit.
Credit involves lending money to people on the understanding that they will pay the money back later along with a bonus or 'royalty', usually in the form of a rate of interest.
There is nothing necessarily capitalist about credit and large parts of national credit systems are not related to production at all. Workers can put their savings into a credit co-operative and draw loans from it in hard times in the hope of paying the money back in better times.
They pay a royalty for the service but this can be small because the co-operative is non-profit-making. Such co-operatives serve consumption needs, not production and they are not capitalist. Building societies confined to the housing market play a similar role in supplying credit for people to purchase housing.
A common feature of these kinds of organisations is that the credit-money that they issue is directly derived from savings deposited within them. In other words, their resources come from the past production of value in the economy: employees' savings come from wages that they have already earned in production.
>Banks are different because they are able to create new money in their credit operations. We can see this when we realise that at any one time, the banks as a whole could be giving overdrafts to everybody in the entire economy. Thus, far more money is circulating in the economy than the money derived from savings generated by past value creation. Part of the money is actually what we can call fictitious money -- money derived not from the past but from expectations that it will be validated by future productive activity.
Within capitalism, banks also do not have to be operated as private capitalist companies. At the beginning of the 1990s, for example, more than half of the 100 biggest banks in Europe were publicly owned and their financial criteria for operating were, in principle, matters of public choice.
And even if they are private, the banks play such an essential and powerful role in the public economy because of their capacity to issue credit money that any sensible capitalist class will ensure that the state is constantly interfering in their operations (even though, for ideological reasons, one wants to keep these state functions 'low profile'). As Kapstein puts it: "Banks are told how much capital they must hold, where they can operate, what products they can sell, and how much they can lend to any one firm."10
The existence of this fictitious credit money is very beneficial for the whole economy because of its role in facilitating the circulation of commodities. Without it, economic development would be far slower. It is especially important to employers, enabling them to raise large amounts of money for equipment which will yield up its full value in production only over many future years. If employers could invest only real savings -- the money derived from past value-creation -- investing in fixed capital would be far more costly --too costly for a lot of investment.
>And credit has also become a very important means of expanding the sales of goods to consumers. This is another way of saying that modern economies run on large amounts of debt. So the banks do play an important role in both channelling savings and creating new funds (fictitious money) for productive investment. An entire capitalist economy could be run with a financial system consisting entirely of such banks...
Originally posted by skythewood:so you are saying PAP is corrupt, so SPH is corrupt, so nathan is corrupt? so we need to find someone that is unrelated to PAP in anyway to ensure that guy is not part of PAP? maybe import mahathir?
Did I ever say that? I said "I dont know". Neither did I imply that SPH was corrupt. I merely highlighted Nathan's association with the SPH. I merely questioned, in summary, Nathan's allegiance to justice, instead of seeing eye to eye with the PAP.
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Did I ever say that? I said "I dont know". Neither did I imply that SPH was corrupt. I merely highlighted Nathan's association with the SPH. I merely questioned, in summary, Nathan's allegiance to justice, instead of seeing eye to eye with the PAP.
ok
The world is just a BIG CON JOB, you need to be a bigger con to con another, some just trying to con another here and not knowing wat the f*** they r talking
dont even have the experiences and trying to coach others - trying to teach your father how to fuck
Originally posted by freedomclub:I cant say that the president is corrupt because I dont know. But SR Nathan was a top official at SPH before he ventured into politics(PAP). And I'm sure you would agree that SPH is a government (PAP) mouthpiece. The PAP has a history, and a continuing one at that, of suing (foreign) media publications for being critical. So given Nathan's connection to the PAP, wouldnt he be part of the PAP apparatus?
Let me define a conspiracy in my own words, "two or more people planning in secret to commit an illegal act".
huh? Would the despot reward him for working in SPH?
"Among the Singapore officials was the then Director of Security & Intelligence Division, Mr S R Nathan (now the President of Singapore)."
You should know what "Director of Security & Intelligence Division" does.