Originally posted by seyKai: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 Poh Ah Pak: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...
Essentially, I agree. But this piece doesnt really come to a conclusion about the way society is run. It leaves out how privately-owned banks lend money to the government at interest, which guarantees a country in debt, subjected to the control of the corporate banking elite. Furthermore, I also agree that today money is debt. So we are being subjugated ECONOMICALLY; ergo economic slavery.
Even under a fractional reserve system, but controlled by the government, with no infiltration by corporate elites, things would be better for the common man.
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
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.
Yes, its all mafia politics to put it in crude terms.
In my opinion, it doesnt matter what the post does. Its all part of the revolving door to stay in control.
Even under a fractional reserve system, but controlled by the government, with no infiltration by corporate elites, things would be better for the common man.
I don't agree.
You seem to be very anti-corporation.
You don't agree that corporations have hijacked governments in today's age of globalisation/capitalism gone wild?
Of course I'm anti-corporation. They are the primary forces that are perpetrating human misery across the world all in the name of making profits behind the facade of democracy. If they just stayed out of politics and let elected officials do their job of serving the interest of the people, things wouldnt be so bad. But no they couldnt just stay in business, they want more and more power/profits and they'll do anything to make 1 more dollar.
So how to deal with the situation?
Spread the knowledge. When people become aware, building critical mass will be easier.
Spread the knowledge.
Do propaganda work?
You seemed to be looking at the stituation as if it is all the corporations' fault that we are what we are now. Like somehow the corporations are some foreign virus that invaded human society.
But you forget that it is the greed from the common human like you and me that fuels the corporations, not the other way round.
What are you talking about?
I thought I already explained this earlier on...
Propaganda is defined as an organised effort to promote a particular belief or doctrine. It is a technical word. But today, it has taken on a negative connotation due to media conditioning (though the education system could be blamed as well).
Propaganda only becomes despicable when the promoters know that the facts being propagated are lies or prejudiced towards the social good.
What are you talking about?
I talking about doing propaganda work.
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/12/how-to-do-propaganda-work
Originally posted by Stevenson101:You seemed to be looking at the stituation as if it is all the corporations' fault that we are what we are now. Like somehow the corporations are some foreign virus that invaded human society.
But you forget that it is the greed from the common human like you and me that fuels the corporations, not the other way round.
Absolutely. Thats why in some earlier post, I advocated the abolishing of the monetary system to get rid of corporate greed that is messing up our world.
I admit that getting rid of money wouldnt solve human greed. But with money gone, society can achieve a more equitable distribution of goods than money prevents. Our present fractional reserve banking system just concentrates money and wealth into the hands of a corporate elite. Otherwise, the money that creates societal distortion will vanish and one problem will be solved.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I talking about doing propaganda work.
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2007/12/how-to-do-propaganda-work
You dont seem to understand what I've tried to explain. Everything one says, reflecting a particular belief, is "propaganda work". I am doing propaganda work. You are doing propaganda work. Everyone on a forum, and who thinks and shares his opinion, does propaganda work. The difference is whether your propaganda serves to exploit and to misinform people.
But with money gone, society can achieve a more equitable distribution of goods
I think that is quite a strange idea.
Had the thesis been tested?
Everything one says, reflecting a particular belief, is "propaganda work".
Exactly.
Absolutely. Thats why in some earlier post, I advocated the abolishing of the monetary system to get rid of corporate greed that is messing up our world.
I admit that getting rid of money wouldnt solve human greed. But with money gone, society can achieve a more equitable distribution of goods than money prevents. Our present fractional reserve banking system just concentrates money and wealth into the hands of a corporate elite. Otherwise, the money that creates societal distortion will vanish and one problem will be solved.
What you propose cannot be achieved without a massive amount of blood and a complete overhaul of the current global order. It's not media propaganda, it's just simple human history.
Even then, it changes nothing. There will always be a new mode of exchange. There will always be a group of people who are more equal than the rest. That, is how human society functions.
Already, we have hijacked this thread.
As I explained somewhere else, there is no need for a mode of exchange because there is an abundance of everything.
The concept of self-preservation/competition etc is all made possible through the monetary system where everyone is competing for pieces of paper and to accomplish that, they're willing to exploit and abuse others. If the monetary system disappears, then there is no need for such a perception.
I'm sure that this topic was being discussed somewhere else right?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:I think that is quite a strange idea.
Had the thesis been tested?
Nope, its a radical new idea that is being propagated at www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
meh, let's continue this discussion on your own thread. Hehe
As I explained somewhere else, there is no need for a mode of exchange because there is an abundance of everything.
I don't agree with this thesis.
they're willing to exploit and abuse others. If the monetary system disappears, then there is no need for such a perception.
This is equally fantasy in my view.
Originally posted by skythewood:
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.
Was it stated anywhere that the jury is made up of jobless people, or if it should be made up of jobless people ?
You are certainly brilliant in reading more to a simple statement that simply said in plain English that -
"With the number of jobless that are increasing, do you think that there will be so many Singaporeans who are tied up ?"
To make it even simpler - do you think that with the way that the economy is sliding downhill, can there be so many Singaporeans tied up with work that will affect the economy.
Added to this will be the previous arguments that with more Singaporeans returning for Reservist Training, will the various groups of 12 persons attending High Court proceedings cause any worst effects ?
How many High Court cases hit the news headlines in the last 6 months ?
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 value in a jury system is to prevent the accusations that the judge is beholden to the political party in government who will renew his contracted tenure.
The misgivings of the Singapore judiciary is so obvious that after the recently concluded conference of the international legal fraternity in Singapore, a report was issued by ‘International Bar Association – Prosperity vs Individual Rights ?’
This report would have detailed all failings of the Singapore Judiciary, which could have been avoided if these actions are taken to alleviate the criticisms levelled at the Singapore Judiciary.
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.
The SELECTION of the Chief Justice is DECIDED by the PRIME MINISTER, who will then ADVISE the Predident to confirm the APPOINTMENT.
How did your brilliance lead you to assume that I had suggested that the President is corrupt ?
If you cannot appreciate the weaknesses in the entire process of how the Chief Justice and the High Court Judges are appointed - based on what has been described, is there anything intelligent to discuss ?
Do you not believe that the whole Government is one big Party of co-conspirators ?
It looks like you have a long way more to be politically savvy.
Originally posted by Atobe:Was it stated anywhere that the jury is made up of jobless people, or if it should be made up of jobless people ?
You are certainly brilliant in reading more to a simple statement that simply said in plain English that -
"With the number of jobless that are increasing, do you think that there will be so many Singaporeans who are tied up ?"
To make it even simpler - do you think that with the way that the economy is sliding downhill, can there be so many Singaporeans tied up with work that will affect the economy.
Added to this will be the previous arguments that with more Singaporeans returning for Reservist Training, will the various groups of 12 persons attending High Court proceedings cause any worst effects ?
How many High Court cases hit the news headlines in the last 6 months ?
The value in a jury system is to prevent the accusations that the judge is beholden to the political party in government who will renew his contracted tenure.
The misgivings of the Singapore judiciary is so obvious that after the recently concluded conference of the international legal fraternity in Singapore, a report was issued by ‘International Bar Association – Prosperity vs Individual Rights ?’
This report would have detailed all failings of the Singapore Judiciary, which could have been avoided if these actions are taken to alleviate the criticisms levelled at the Singapore Judiciary.
The SELECTION of the Chief Justice is DECIDED by the PRIME MINISTER, who will then ADVISE the Predident to confirm the APPOINTMENT.
How did your brilliance lead you to assume that I had suggested that the President is corrupt ?
If you cannot appreciate the weaknesses in the entire process of how the Chief Justice and the High Court Judges are appointed - based on what has been described, is there anything intelligent to discuss ?
Do you not believe that the whole Government is one big Party of co-conspirators ?
It looks like you have a long way more to be politically savvy.
because the economy is bad, so people are more free? so what happens when the economy is good, and people have more jobs?
about the jobless stuff, my bad, my english is bad, and since you have clarified it once, i won't mention it again and again and again and again.
yah, there are books and reports on the cons of not having a jury system. why am i not surprise? maybe because every system is not perfect? why not read a book on the cons of the jury system while you are at it?
The SELECTION of the Chief Justice is RECCOMENDED by the PRIME MINISTER, not DECIDED by the PM.who will then ADVISE the Predident to confirm the APPOINTMENT. If the President is going to be the one who confirm the nomination, and can thus reject any fucked up candidates, or appoint just about anyone, he is the one who select.
and unless the president is corrupt, how than will can we explain your statement,
"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 ?"
you believe the government to be co-spirators, and is out to get you, what are you going to do about it?
The rules of the game is different for every country, learn the rules, play the game, and win them by their own game. whining about the rules is not going to get you anywhere, if you want to be politically savvy.
Originally posted by skythewood:
because the economy is bad, so people are more free? so what happens when the economy is good, and people have more jobs?
How many jobs can anyone work on with the Labor Laws that even determine the amount of time ?
Unless you are a factory production worker that sits as a machine operator and becomes part of the machine, your productivity is measured by the number of items produced.
With the more talented foreigners doing this kind of repetitive works, what is there left for intelligent sparks like you to perform ?
In any case, can you even abscond from NSF Reservist Training for reasons of your work being too much ?
The same goes with Jury Duties as a responsible Citizen, which obviously you know nothing about as you have not even experienced nor understand its usefulness and functions.
about the jobless stuff, my bad, my english is bad, and since you have clarified it once, i won't mention it again and again and again and again.
yah, there are books and reports on the cons of not having a jury system. why am i not surprise? maybe because every system is not perfect? why not read a book on the cons of the jury system while you are at it?
Are there any cons in any system that cannot be fine-tuned and ironed out ?
Have you read any book on the cons of a jury system that is impossible to be fixed ?
The SELECTION of the Chief Justice is RECCOMENDED by the PRIME MINISTER, not DECIDED by the PM.who will then ADVISE the Predident to confirm the APPOINTMENT. If the President is going to be the one who confirm the nomination, and can thus reject any fucked up candidates, or appoint just about anyone, he is the one who select.
and unless the president is corrupt, how than will can we explain your statement,
Do you think that in the present Singapore context, when MM LKY - instead of the PM - will select a candidate to be the Chief Justice and the Elected President will reject ?
Do you seriously think that in the Singapore context - the Elected President will defer from the recommendations made by MM LKY ?
Why do you insist that it is the President's role to select the Chief Justice or the High Court Judges - when it has been stated - more then once - that it is the Prime Minister who selects and recommend to the President to appoint the Chief Justice ?
The constitution clearly state this functions between the President and the PM:-
The Prime Minister consults the Chief Justice on the appointment of any Judge other than himself.
"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 ?"
you believe the government to be co-spirators, and is out to get you, what are you going to do about it?
The rules of the game is different for every country, learn the rules, play the game, and win them by their own game. whining about the rules is not going to get you anywhere, if you want to be politically savvy.
Why should the government be out to get at me ?
If the rules of the game are loaded against the Citizens, should the Citizens reject such rules ?
If the South Africans believed in your political standards of acceptance of existing rules, learning it, and play by those unfair rules - will the South Africans gained their freedom from Aparthied that loaded the rules against the Blacks ?
If the African-Americans had accepted the rules loaded against them by the American Racists - will Barack Obama have made it today, if the struggle did not begin with Martin Luther's declared dream to change the status quo ?
If all the UK Colonies had accepted the rules of Colonial Government, accepted it, and play by it - would the Crown Colonies have gained independence ?
Would there have been a United States of America if the settlers led by George Washington did not throw the King's Ruling Elites out of the New World ?
It looks like you certainly have alot to go before you will mature not to accept any status quo that is loaded against yourself.
LKY learnt to out manourver those whom he lulled as friends, introducing the most threatening personality as the "Future Prime Minister of Singapore" - while seeking the help of the Colonial Government to change the ground rules by having his political competitor arrested.
If you do not change the ground rules to make a level field, can you succeed ?
Are the efforts to change the rules and create a level playing field an often heard refrain in our trade negotiations with bigger countries ?
Changing the rules have always been a route to success - only the methods differ based on the options available.
Are you savvy enough to appreciate the nuances of life ?
Originally posted by Atobe:How many jobs can anyone work on with the Labor Laws that even determine the amount of time ?
Unless you are a factory production worker that sits as a machine operator and becomes part of the machine, your productivity is measured by the number of items produced.
With the more talented foreigners doing this kind of repetitive works, what is there left for intelligent sparks like you to perform ?
In any case, can you even abscond from NSF Reservist Training for reasons of your work being too much ?
The same goes with Jury Duties as a responsible Citizen, which obviously you know nothing about as you have not even experienced nor understand its usefulness and functions.
Are there any cons in any system that cannot be fine-tuned and ironed out ?
Have you read any book on the cons of a jury system that is impossible to be fixed ?
Do you think that in the present Singapore context, when MM LKY - instead of the PM - will select a candidate to be the Chief Justice and the Elected President will reject ?
Do you seriously think that in the Singapore context - the Elected President will defer from the recommendations made by MM LKY ?
Why do you insist that it is the President's role to select the Chief Justice or the High Court Judges - when it has been stated - more then once - that it is the Prime Minister who selects and recommend to the President to appoint the Chief Justice ?
The constitution clearly state this functions between the President and the PM:-
The Prime Minister consults the Chief Justice on the appointment of any Judge other than himself.
Why should the government be out to get at me ?
If the rules of the game are loaded against the Citizens, should the Citizens reject such rules ?
If the South Africans believed in your political standards of acceptance of existing rules, learning it, and play by those unfair rules - will the South Africans gained their freedom from Aparthied that loaded the rules against the Blacks ?
If the African-Americans had accepted the rules loaded against them by the American Racists - will Barack Obama have made it today, if the struggle did not begin with Martin Luther's declared dream to change the status quo ?
If all the UK Colonies had accepted the rules of Colonial Government, accepted it, and play by it - would the Crown Colonies have gained independence ?
Would there have been a United States of America if the settlers led by George Washington did not throw the King's Ruling Elites out of the New World ?
It looks like you certainly have alot to go before you will mature not to accept any status quo that is loaded against yourself.
LKY learnt to out manourver those whom he lulled as friends, introducing the most threatening personality as the "Future Prime Minister of Singapore" - while seeking the help of the Colonial Government to change the ground rules by having his political competitor arrested.
If you do not change the ground rules to make a level field, can you succeed ?
Are the efforts to change the rules and create a level playing field an often heard refrain in our trade negotiations with bigger countries ?
Changing the rules have always been a route to success - only the methods differ based on the options available.
Are you savvy enough to appreciate the nuances of life ?
woah, long post.
not gonna read it, i think it should be saying the same thing. next time, keep it like, 3-4 paragraphs.
leave same message, go find out about cons of jury, don't whine about the rules, be savvy about it and use it well