nlMediator:

A thing should be separated from its abuse. Mixing them up does nobody any good. Your backsmith-carpenter example is good. But runs into a number of problems. The carpenter may be able to barter with the blacksmith, but he needs a whole lot of other materials to build the table. He may also decide to barter with the suppliers of those materials. E, g., fetch water for the timber owner in exchange for wood. Cut grass for the nail owner in exchange for nails. After a while, he'll run out of strength and time to engage in these exchanges. Besides, if he were to monetize his time, it would be obvious the worth is far more than the $10 he's paying in interest. By the time, he's done building that table, he's not only so exhausted, but the product would be far more expensive or take much longer time to get to the buyer (end user). You cannot sustain a society for long that way.

Also, the modern approach (banking) is preferable and better suited for the complex economy, which you probably acknowledge. So, Mr X gets a job 50 miles away and needs a car to get there. He has no savings and nobody in his circle of friends or relatives has enough money to purchase the car outright. He approaches a bank for a 5-year loan. Every month, he pays a little with interest and in 5 years owns the car. He also gets to keep the job. I don't see how this is bad for the individual, society, christianity or God. Now, if the bank charged him too much interest (abuse), that's a different kettle of fish. He may never be able to get out of the transaction better off. But we shouldn't mix the two.

The idea that the suppliers of capital do virtually nothing while others work very hard is also largely incorrect. I don't know how much of a finance background you have. But the work is hard! (Even the Nigerian system of sending girls to LovePeddler or making friends with politicians so they can support their corruption through your bank is not easy - though that's not real banking).

Of course, my blacksmith and carpenter example is a simplification of an economic system and I am aware of the complexity of trade and commerce in a society. that is why I said:

What is obvious that society needs is a medium that everybody trusts and can be used to trade Goods and Services.

A common medium of transaction is necessary for the complexity of transactions that make up a society's economy. While I think there are dangers inherent in having such a common medium, it has it pros and cons, that is not the point I was making. I was talking about the right and ability of the banks to create money out of nothing in our present day economic system. I am talking about the banks controlling the MONEY SUPPLY, not about money itself.

Also, the modern approach (banking) is preferable and better suited for the complex economy, which you probably acknowledge. So, Mr X gets a job 50 miles away and needs a car to get there. He has no savings and nobody in his circle of friends or relatives has enough money to purchase the car outright. He approaches a bank for a 5-year loan. Every month, he pays a little with interest and in 5 years owns the car. He also gets to keep the job. I don't see how this is bad for the individual, society, christianity or God. Now, if the bank charged him too much interest (abuse), that's a different kettle of fish. He may never be able to get out of the transaction better off. But we shouldn't mix the two.

You are mixing up having a common medium for storing and representing value, ie money, with the need for banking itself. I can not acknowledge that modern banking is necessary for a complex economy.

The idea that the suppliers of capital do virtually nothing while others work very hard is also largely incorrect. I don't know how much of a finance background you have. But the work is hard! (Even the Nigerian system of sending girls to LovePeddler or making friends with politicians so they can support their corruption through your bank is not easy - though that's not real banking).

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say do nothing. If I carry a heavy rock from Lagos to Ibadan and back again and return it to the same spot I have expended a lot of energy but I have done nothing. I have not made a difference anyhow. I have produced nothing. The fact that something is hard does not make it productive. Armed robbery is not easy work, but it is not productive work.
I wonder what you mean by 'real banking' since quite a considerable effort on the part of bankers goes into manipulating politicians.

nlMediator:

That's the nature of life. The Good Book tells us: 'The Rich ruleth ver the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender.'

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I am actually talking about. 

nlMediator:


The first part has little to do with banking. In a society, those who have money control and the rest, including politicians, bow to them. It doesn't matter if the money came through manufacturing, construction or finance. Look at today's Nigeria as an example.

If the money came through manufacturing and construction then at least we can say that they produced something tangible that people can use.  Finance, though, is a totally different kettle of fish. It is a complete and total sleight of hand.  Please I don't think you're following my posts or watching the links that I'm posting up.  I wish I knew how to embed the videos so it will be less trouble for people.  Can someone please show me how to do it  (. . again!)?

Look at Nigeria as an example!  I don't know what you see Nigeria as an example of, but I see Nigeria as an example of why bankers must be curbed.  Look at what they did to Nigeria, look at how they destroyed our lives, our prospects, our society with Odious debt.  I don't know how old you are, but I was there when it all happened, when they drop kicked us with Odious debt, then head butted us with Austerity measure and then finally sodomized us with SAP (structural re-adjustment program).  By them I'm talking about the international banking cartel, such as World Bank and IMF.  Our leaders have been nothing but tools in the hands of these people.
Fela sang about them in his tune, Chop And Clean Mouth (like say nothing happen na de new name for stealing) 

S.A.P
suck african people
suck dem die
with babangida's help-i o
Suck dem die
with Mobutu's help-i o
Suck dem die
S. A. P o
Suck African People

nlMediator:

The second part relates to banking. What you forget is that the bankers do not force anybody to borrow. The politicians borrow to finance their projects and maintain power. Accordingly, they became slaves of the bankers. IMO, the major culprit here is the politician. Does that mean we should abolish politics as a profession because some people abuse it? Ditto banking.

Actually this is so untrue.  Yes the bankers force people to borrow. That is how they get you into their trap.  The lure whole populations through politicians into Odious Debt and then destroy the country for their own greed.  If you believe that the major culprit is the politician then you have been fooled.  The politicians are only pawns in their hands.  Any politician that tries to resist will find himself dead.  There are many dead politicians.  Look at the pressure that they brought to bear on Woodrow Wilson.  That is the American president that pretty much handed the fate of America over to the bankers.

Who tells the President of the United States to 'Speed it up'?

Pastor AIO:

Thank you NL Mediator, for your contributions. It gives me a sounding board to talk with so it doesn't feel like I'm talking into a bottomless pit.

I know what investment banking is, and in fact I am not against investment or shared concerns in an enterprise. What I'm against is the lending of money on usury. There is a difference. A Musician and a Cook can decide to go into business together and open a bar/restaurant. They both have skills they can bring to the project. The Cook will supply the meal while the musician entertains the client as they eat. If the business does well they share the profits, if it doesn't then they both sink.

A money man can invest into a business. He has a shared concern in the business. If the business prospers he will share in the profit, if the business fails he will share in the losses.
Usury is different. The money man says I'll lend you, (not invest in you), 1000 dollars, and I want 1200 dollars by the end of the year whether or not your business concern prospers or fails.
There is a big difference between Bonds and Shares.

Thank you for the example of Jesus' statement. I wanted to bring it up earlier but I thought it might distract from the main thrust of my point.
I share the opinion that it is an insertion into the gospels. Remember Jesus was a Jew and his audience were largely Jewish. And Judaism ban usury. How would Jesus say a thing like that to a Jewish audience, being Jewish himself. 'But ahhh . . .', you may argue, ' . . .maybe he meant that the money could have been used to lend to non-Jews upon usury'. However that flies in the face of everything else that Jesus taught. He didn't make a distinction between Jew and gentile, but gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan to show us who our neighbour was. If Jesus said that then he would be recommending that the money was lent upon usury to gentiles, and I do not see Jesus saying something like that.

The insertion angle is interesting. But I don't buy it. One, there are many things not in the Bible that I'm hearing these days. So, I'm not eager to focus on taking out the ones there. Also, Jesus being God knows that an advanced society like the one we have today needs banking. Rejecting it outright would have made many question His omiscience.

I'm sure you know what investment banking is. I was only saying you're mixing it up with commercial banking.

You also said that there's a big difference between stocks and bonds. Your suggestion is that bonds are bad and shares (stock) are good (correct me if I misunderstood you). But in reality, neither is better than the other - for the business or investor. It all depends on the needs and situation of the investor (creditor, shareholder), the businesss and its exisiting owners.

For a business, it may sometimes be a good idea to issue equity securities (shares) instead of debt securities (bonds, debentures). Looking at the musician-cook example, bringing in a third investor who gets shares in exchange for his investment means the business has more capital, without worrying about repaying it back or making monthly interest payments even when the business has no money. It also means that if the business collapses, everybody is in the same position in terms of sharing the remaining assets. If you had a debt holder, he'll have priority and it's only if something is left that the equity holders get anything. The debt holder can also push the firm into bankruptcy if there's a default in loan repayment. Also, if the business failed within those 5 years, the debt holder may have gotten some money back (monthly payments with interest), thus minimizing his losses. Whereas a shareholder would have lost everything. So, all these sounds like equity is better for the business and its existing owners and debt is better for the investor who chooses to be a debt holder. But not exactly!

Issuing shares to the third man dilutes the equity of the existing owners. Instead of 2 people sharing the benefits (say at 50-50), 3 people now share it at 33.3%. Debt has no such dilutive effect. Also when you pay off debts, the debtor is gone and the shareholders enjoy anything left. E.g., the restaurant business was started with 1 million naira contributed equally by musician and cook. They borrow 500,000 naira from C to be repaid in 5 years at 10% annual interest. In 5 years, they pay back 500,000 + 250,000 + compounding. In all, most likely less than 1 million naira. The 6th year the retaurant gets a big contract to cater at Abuja Sheratons. The annual profit is worth 1 million naira. In the next 5 years, the business makes 5 million from that alone, shared equally by musician and cook. C is not in the picture. If C's money purchased shares for him, he would have shared in this and it would have been better financially for him. Musician and Cook would have fared worse under this arrangement than taking a loan from him. C is worse off because only equity holders share in the upside potential of the business. When you add the fact that only shareholders can vote (to elect directors, etc), and that debt allows the business managers to gamble with other people's money (OPM) to the detriment of the suppliers of that money (debtholders) , you see equity's additional attractiveness.

So, either one has its strong points and weaknesses for everybody. Touting one as better than the other has no basis in finance theory or practice.

Pastor AIO:

Of course, my blacksmith and carpenter example is a simplification of an economic system and I am aware of the complexity of trade and commerce in a society. that is why I said:
A common medium of transaction is necessary for the complexity of transactions that make up a society's economy. While I think there are dangers inherent in having such a common medium, it has it pros and cons, that is not the point I was making. I was talking about the right and ability of the banks to create money out of nothing in our present day economic system. I am talking about the banks controlling the MONEY SUPPLY, not about money itself.
You are mixing up having a common medium for storing and representing value, ie money, with the need for banking itself. I can not acknowledge that modern banking is necessary for a complex economy.


I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say do nothing. If I carry a heavy rock from Lagos to Ibadan and back again and return it to the same spot I have expended a lot of energy but I have done nothing. I have not made a difference anyhow. I have produced nothing. The fact that something is hard does not make it productive. Armed robbery is not easy work, but it is not productive work.
I wonder what you mean by 'real banking' since quite a considerable effort on the part of bankers goes into manipulating politicians.

1. I think you're conflating 'finance" with "financialism". A lot of what's going on in the markets today is not finance and is rightly condemned.

2. You've not explained to me how a modern complex economy can run without finance or banking.

3. Finance or banking is not only hard work, it is productive. You probably wouldn't be on the internet today without investment bankers arranging the finance for many many manufacturing and internet businesses. If you have a great idea or business model, finance experts can help match your ideas with capital. Not all owners of cappital want stock in your company for sundry reasons. But the loan you get from them nevertheless is the source of vibrancy of many big firms today. If you think arranging those loans and ensuring these businesses continue and thrive is not productive, I don't know how to respond.

4. A lot of banking work, in more advanced societies, has nothing do with politicians. There are thousands of kids and entrepreneurs with great ideas in Silicon Valley, Research Traingle and other places that are looking for somebody to match them with capital. I think you're using the misdeeds of international finance to tar the terrific work being done by bankers in general.

Pastor AIO:

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I am actually talking about.

If the money came through manufacturing and construction then at least we can say that they produced something tangible that people and use. Finance, though, is a totally different kettle of fish. It is a complete and total sleight of hand. Please I don't think you're following my posts or watching the links that I'm posting up. I wish I knew how to embed the videos so it will be less trouble for people. Can someone please show me how to do it (. . again!)?

Look at Nigeria as an example! I don't know what you see Nigeria as an example of, but I see Nigeria as an example of why bankers must be curbed. Look at what they did to Nigeria, look at how they destroyed our lives, our prospects, our society with Odious debt. I don't know how old you are, but I was there when it all happened, when they drop kicked us with Odious debt, then head butted us with Austerity measure and then finally sodomized us with SAP (structural re-adjustment program). By them I'm talking about the international banking cartel, such as World Bank and IMF. Our leaders have been nothing but tools in the hands of these people.
Fela sang about them in his tune, Chop And Clean Mouth (like say nothing happen na de new name for stealing)

S.A.P
suck african people
suck dem die
with babangida's help-i o
Suck dem die
with Mobutu's help-i o
Suck dem die
S. A. P o
Suck African People

Actually this is so untrue. Yes the bankers force people to borrow. That is how they get you into their trap. The lure whole populations through politicians into Odious Debt and then destroy the country for their own greed. If you believe that the major culprit is the politician then you have been fooled. The politicians are only pawns in their hands. Any politician that tries to resist will find himself dead. There are many dead politicians. Look at the pressure that they brought to bear on Woodrow Wilson. That is the American president that pretty much handed the fate of America over to the bankers.

1. Sure, the Bible quote has everything to do with your point about Woodrow Wilson complaing about control. My point is that whoever has money will control others, whether that person is a banker, manufacturer or something else, even criminal.

2. The bankers forced you to buy a house, finance a car, take out student loans? No, they generally do not force people to borrow.

3. Bankers connive with corrupt politicians to borrow. It's not just about the IMF. State governments in Nigeria are owing billions because bankers arranged with governors to float bonds. So, you believe that Zenith forced Ohakim to borrow, as opposed to Ohakim being corrupt?

4. You truly believe that SAP ruined Nigeria? Nigeria is far worse today than the 1980s days of SAP. Besides, Obasanjo paid off most of the loans. Why are Nigerians still suffering?

5. So, how many politicians will the bankers kill if they refuse to take the loans? Ultimately, you get a politician ready to sell his people for a mess of porridge. That's who you blame. Were there no bankers when Lula won elections in Brazil just a few years ago, transformed the country, and in 8 short years lifted millions out of poverty? The bankers need not kill anybody to find a bad politician. The local example in Nigeria today confirms that.

6. Bankers are asking Obama to speed things up, I guess, is your point. With 14 trillion dollars in debt, you want the debt holders to keep quiet? BTW, China also holds a lot of American debt and is complaining.

7. I do not doubt that bankers wield a lot of power in the world today. I do not need to watch a video to know that. Greece plays out in our eyes because the bondholders are putting pressure. But you're discusssing one kind of banker and using it to condemn every kind of banker. That's strange.

Great thread! Bring it on, brainboxes.

pastor aio's tutorial on embedding youtube's video

[list]
[li]for example the video link for eminem's mockingbird is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZUZ7Q7x61w[/li]
[li]change that to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZUZ7Q7x61w i.e. delete watch? and replace = with /[/li]
[li]type [fl@sh=400,400][/fl@sh] to make a 400 by 400 flash video : notice that i used fl@sh instead of flash[/b]to prevent a false positive or false start [/li]
[li]insert the prepared link into the flash tags like this [b][fl@sh=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZUZ7Q7x61w[/fl@sh][/li]
[/list]

you will end up with this. it's cool, alright? 

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZUZ7Q7x61w[/flash]

Reading the thread through, it seems to me that we are talking about 2 or 5 different subjects altogether.  The dialogue is so sprawling it is on the verge of being incoherent.  A beg let us try to iron it out.  It is probably as much my fault as it is yours.

My issue is with Usury (1), and control of the money supply(2).

your issue seems to be with  . . .( what?, I don't know).  You seem to be a real Arulogun.  I don't know if you understand yoruba, but Arulogun is what oyinbos call a berserker.  Warriors who scatter the battlefield.  Fela would say 'clear road for jaga jaga'.  Your enemies flee.  Your co-warriors flee too.  everyone gives you a wide berth.  You are even in danger of injuring yourself. 

Berserkers (or berserks) were Norse warriors who are reported in the Old Norse literature to have fought in a nearly uncontrollable, trance-like fury, a characteristic which later gave rise to the English word berserk. Berserkers are attested in numerous Old Norse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker

In short I really do not know what exactly the thrust of your argument is. 

Mine is simple.  I think Usury is wrong.  I think[b] having the Money Supply of a society in the hands of a few private interests is wrong.[/b]  This is why I said:

Whoever is controlling the Money supply of a monetary society is the Lord and master of the society and everybody else is their SLAVE. 

This is my position.  What your position is is hard to tell?  First you say Jesus endorses usury and you dismiss my objections not by countering them but by saying, of all bizarre things that because things are added to christianity you don't want to take anything out. 

The insertion angle is interesting. But I don't buy it. One, there are many things not in the Bible that I'm hearing these days. So, I'm not eager to focus on taking out the ones there. Also, Jesus being God knows that an advanced society like the one we have today needs banking. Rejecting it outright would have made many question His omiscience.

I'm flummoxed.  What do you have to say that about Jesus, a jew, addressing jews with a story that encourages usury when Jews despise usury amongst jews.  I wonder, in your bible, do you leave out the doxology in Matt chapt. 6 , the lord's prayer or still keep it in because you don't want to take anything out.  I also wonder if Jesus in his omniscience would know the havoc that usury would wreak on the planet earth and it's resources.  Are you claiming that when Jesus told that parable he was actually addressing us in the future? 

You tell me I'm conflating investment banking with commercial banking but you do not tell me the difference between the two and why that is relevant at all to the position that I am taking. 
I'll repeat that position.  That Usury is wrong, and putting the control of the money supply in private hands is wrong. 

Then you give me a lecture on the difference between shares and bonds.  And then  you tell me that I'm conflating finance and financialism.  I normally google a word up when I don't know what it means but this time abeg, Mr Grammarticological, I want you to tell me what you mean by that.  What is the difference?  What is financialism, I want to hear it from your mouth.  Since you can't be bothered to look at the videos I posted links to, then me too I won't google that word. 

Abeg, try to address the issues that I'm raising and if you think that I don't understand anything then try to explain it to me, like financialism, or the difference between commercial and investment banking.

nlMediator:


You also said that there's a big difference between stocks and bonds. Your suggestion is that bonds are bad and shares (stock) are good (correct me if I misunderstood you). But in reality, neither is better than the other - for the business or investor. It all depends on the needs and situation of the investor (creditor, shareholder), the businesss and its exisiting owners.

Yes, you misunderstand me.  I am saying simply that Usury is not good.

nlMediator:

1. I think you're conflating 'finance" with "financialism". A lot of what's going on in the markets today is not finance and is rightly condemned.

I wonder how many True Scotsmen there are in the world of finance.  Please sir, what is finance and what is financialism, and how have I conflated the two?


 

nlMediator:


2. You've not explained to me how a modern complex economy can run without finance or banking.

You see why you are not getting it.  I never said anything about running the economy without finance or banking.  I attacked the SYSTEM of finance and banking.  To create or evolve a new, fairer and more equitable system would require some creative thinking and mankind has always showed ability for that.  Please (I take God beg you),  watch the following video from around 5:00 minutes.  Around 6:20 it gets good. 
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCXbNsfito&NR=1[/flash]

nlMediator:


3. Finance or banking is not only hard work, it is productive. You probably wouldn't be on the internet today without investment bankers arranging the finance for many many manufacturing and internet businesses. If you have a great idea or business model, finance experts can help match your ideas with capital. Not all owners of cappital want stock in your company for sundry reasons. But the loan you get from them nevertheless is the source of vibrancy of many big firms today. If you think arranging those loans and ensuring these businesses continue and thrive is not productive, I don't know how to respond.

I maintain that Usury is destructive.  If you can provide me with an argument as to why internet and much manufacturing could not have happened without usury then I would consider it a relevant point. 
Please read Judges Chapter 7.

nlMediator:

4. A lot of banking work, in more advanced societies, has nothing do with politicians. There are thousands of kids and entrepreneurs with great ideas in Silicon Valley, Research Traingle and other places that are looking for somebody to match them with capital. I think you're using the misdeeds of international finance to tar the terrific work being done by bankers in general.

Nay, it has everything to do with politicians.  Politicians pass laws to enforce debt, to deregulate or regulate bankers etc etc etc.  The basic principle of modern banking, ie, Usury and manipulation of the Money Supply is fundamentally wrong and so pointing to silicon valley and saying hey look this is a good thing doesn't wash.  The ultimate end of it is destruction.

nlMediator:

1. Sure, the Bible quote has everything to do with your point about Woodrow Wilson complaining about control. My point is that whoever has money will control others, whether that person is a banker, manufacturer or something else, even criminal.

Ol boy, read the Woodrow Wilson quote again.  He doesn't say anything about having money and subsequently having control.

He talks about: a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it

It's not the money.  It's the conspiracy, the tight organisation of it, the underhand subtle way they go about things and make sure that their will is done.  These are very powerful people and the power is not just based on having money.  It is based on being tightly organized and reaching into every aspect of society more than anything.

I'm afraid you're just not getting it.  Your bible quote demonstrates that. 

nlMediator:


2. The bankers forced you to buy a house, finance a car, take out student loans? No, they generally do not force people to borrow.

To answer that I'm going to quote you someone that I know you respect highly:

nlMediator:

Like you, I also have not seen any pastor "force" or use physical weapon to make anybody give. But that assumes that physical compulsion is the only form. No, there's also psychological compulsion and spiritual compulsion or manipulation (withcraft). In fact, if Paul was speaking of physical compulsion, that would have been almost meaningless because there is hardly any history in the Bible or elsewhere of people being physically forced to give to God's work.

Madison Avenue understands psychological compulsion that's why they craft their adverts to influence consumers. Wonder why in some places, cigarette adverts or very glossy cigarette are not permitted or frowned upon. Reason is that kids will be made to adopt certain habits like smoking simply through subliminal messages sent through adverts. Spiritually, we know or hear of people being made to do things they didn't want to do because somebody spiritually stronger was 'remoting' them.

The church should be careful about practices that smell like psychological or spiritual control (in giving) especially because of the special vulnerabilities of people in church. The church is where people let their guards down because we're all supposed to be God's children and the leaders are seen as fathers and mothers. This makes them more susceptible to influences they could more readily resist from TV and forces outside. Some people in church are also wounded and weak-willed, which is partly why they're in church - to get healing and be made whole. Any form of manipulation worsens their plight and many are suffering in silence.

If advancing the gospel means using underhanded tactics, especially at the expense of inflicting hidden harm to people Jesus shed His blood for, the gospel is not worth advancing.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-701699.32.html#msg8617241

nlMediator:


3. Bankers connive with corrupt politicians to borrow. It's not just about the IMF. State governments in Nigeria are owing billions because bankers arranged with governors to float bonds. So, you believe that Zenith forced Ohakim to borrow, as opposed to Ohakim being corrupt?

Very very beautiful.  Now compare that to this statement:

nlMediator:
But going through your posts, I can see you are mixing up a number of things, like commercial banking and investment banking [/b]or primitive economies and modern economy.

and this:

7. I do not doubt that bankers wield a lot of power in the world today. I do not need to watch a video to know that. Greece plays out in our eyes because the bondholders are putting pressure.[b] But you're discussing one kind of banker and using it to condemn every kind of banker. That's strange.

So please now tell me, what kind of banker is Zenith.  Since it is the wicked international banks (IMF) that are giving the commercial banks a bad name.
Please, conniving with a state governor to lumber a state with Odious Debt means that both the Bank and the Governor and partners in crime. They are both criminals. Having a partner does not absolve you of crime. The State should not have to pay the debt owed to Zenith.

nlMediator:


4. You truly believe that SAP ruined Nigeria? Nigeria is far worse today than the 1980s days of SAP. Besides, Obasanjo paid off most of the loans. Why are Nigerians still suffering?

Is that what you read?  Please read what I wrote again.  It started in the 70s.  First they saddled us with Odious debt.  Did you read that part?  And then they inflicted Austerity measures on us.  This was during the days of Shagari.  I don't know your age so I don't know if you're experientially aware of what I am talking about.  Then came SAP.  There were a host of measures dictated on us.  And it was not only Nigeria.  They did this the world over, wherever they could get away with it.

nlMediator:

5. So, how many politicians will the bankers kill if they refuse to take the loans? Ultimately, you  get a politician ready to sell his people for a mess of porridge. That's who you blame. Were there no bankers when Lula won elections in Brazil just a few years ago, transformed the country, and in 8 short years lifted millions out of poverty? The bankers need not kill anybody to find a bad politician. The local example in Nigeria today confirms that.

I love you, I love you, I love you.  You just gave me a mental heavenly feeling by mentioning Lula.   

Lula's matter requires a post of it's own.  Coming Soon.

nlMediator:

5. So, how many politicians will the bankers kill if they refuse to take the loans? Ultimately, you  get a politician ready to sell his people for a mess of porridge. That's who you blame. Were there no bankers when Lula won elections in Brazil just a few years ago, transformed the country, and in 8 short years lifted millions out of poverty? The bankers need not kill anybody to find a bad politician. The local example in Nigeria today confirms that.

For a start it is actually more of a carrot and stick approach.  And most politicians succumb at the carrot stage. 

Again I'll quote Baba Kuti:
Them go pick one africani man
A man of low mentality
Them go give am million naira bread
to become of high position here . . .
Like rat dey do them go dey passi passi, peepi peep . . .

Now to answer your question: were there no bankers when Lula won elections in Brazil?  Let's see what the records say.  They may give us a guide as to how to get out of our present predicament in Africa.

What is Lula's attitude and opinion towards the European banking establishment?

Gordon Brown’s efforts to broker an £80billion bailout for world trade on a trip to Brazil hit a stumbling block tonight when the country’s president lashed out at ‘white, blue-eyed’ bankers for bringing the world economy to its knees.
Mr Brown watched on uneasily as his host, President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva, launched a bizarre tirade in which he warned that next week’s G20 summit in London would be a ‘spicy’ affair.

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165089/White-blue-eyed-bankers-brought-world-economy-knees-What-Brazilian-President-told-Gordon-Brown.html#ixzz1QiHaDT8q

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1165089/White-blue-eyed-bankers-brought-world-economy-knees-What-Brazilian-President-told-Gordon-Brown.html

Lula has also been clear-sighted in his determination to reverse the extraordinary wave of privatisations carried out by Cardoso, under which many large and viable state companies were sold for a song to multinationals. To head the country’s powerful development bank, BNDES, Lula appointed the economist Luciano Coutinho, who favours the development of “Brazilian champions”, that is, powerful national companies, the equivalent to South Korean chaebols and Japanese keiretsu. Disbursing over the last two years a huge amount of money – RS$189bn (£66bn), more than the combined amount lent during the period by the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the US Eximbank – the BNDES has funded mergers and takeovers, as well as investing heavily in roads, railways and hydroelectric power stations, all seen as crucial for national development.

Under BNDES stewardship, JBS-Friboi, the largest Brazilian multinational in the food industry, has taken over all of Argentina’s largest beef producers and the beef division of Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer and processor. It is now the world’s largest producer of beef. Companies like Odebrecht, Camargo Correa and Andrade Gutierrez, which used to be large domestic construction firms, have grown into gigantic, diversified conglomerates, with investments in a whole range of activities in many countries. Because of this massive consolidation, big Brazilian companies are no longer vulnerable to old-style takeovers by multinationals. Royal Dutch Shell, the world’s largest private sector oil company, will shortly be announcing a tie-up with Cosan, Brazil’s largest sugar and ethanol producer. But because Cosan is so clearly a world leader in its own right, this is a marriage of convenience between partners of comparable clout, each with separate areas of expertise.

http://www.lab.org.uk/index.php/news/57-focus/621-brazil-lulas-legacy

How much of the above is different from what the video I asked you watch says about alternative means of controlling the money supply, and money creation based on value rather than on debt.  BNDES is a state controlled bank, not a private affair, and it pumped money into the economy by funding critical infrastructural projects.  In other words it created money based on value. 



Lula is what I call a smart socialist, as opposed to someone like Sankara whom I would call a Dumbassed Socialist.  Lula stopped all the privatisations of key national interests that the International banks encouraged Cardoso to sell.  He didn't just stop it, he reversed it.  There are certain things of National interest that should simply not be in private hands.  Including the Money Supply.  Lula was smart cos he didn't just snarl at the Foreign banks, he made reassuring noises in their direction.  Contrast that with Sankara. 

nlMediator:

6. Bankers are asking Obama to speed things up, I guess, is your point. With 14 trillion dollars in debt, you want the debt holders to keep quiet? BTW, China also holds a lot of American debt and is complaining.

7. I do not doubt that bankers wield a lot of power in the world today. I do not need to watch a video to know that. Greece plays out in our eyes because the bondholders are putting pressure. But you're discusssing one kind of banker and using it to condemn every kind of banker. That's strange.

6.  Actually I was making a reference to a scene in Michael Moore's new movie.  The president at the time was Reagan.  You should see that movie.  It's interesting. 

7.  Please can you explain what the various types of bankers are.

And here are the videos that I would love you all to watch:

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0IJCGuNtqk[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRCzt0VH18w&feature=related[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDzo2efYUt4&feature=related[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umCXbNsfito&feature=related[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcVipoCIN4U&feature=related[/flash]

My brother, I’ll address your points in 2 direct posts – for easy reading.

1. I agree that you have focused on usury and money supply. I have focused primarily on usury. While the money supply portion is salacious and provides good basis for populist agitation, I generally avoid it because it is full of conspiracy theories. Until the conspiracy theorists are bold enough to speak out openly about the people they’re talking about, I do not know enough about the topic to engage them.

2. Your position is that usury means lending money with interest, not just high interest. That’s what I’ve addressed. I’ve explained that there is nothing wrong with that because the alternative you mentioned – trade by barter – is not sustainable in a complex economy. I can see you’re shifting now to: “we can devise a better alternative than usury.” That may be true, but until then, banking is better than barter.

3. I “lectured” you on stocks and bonds, because you clearly stated that there’s a difference between stocks and bonds. In the context you used it, musician-cook restaurant business, there’s a difference indeed. But the difference is not in your favor. Simply, either one can be useful or harmful depending on the circumstances. You’re making it look like one is good and the other is bad.

4. Commercial banking consists of accepting deposits from the general public + shareholder funds and lending it. Investment banking consists of arranging funds for businesses that need them, including facilitating mergers and acquisitions. IBs generally do not take deposits. Usury or even interest is hardly applicable to investment banking. Both of them are capital-facilitating, but the scriptures may not be referring to the type of IB that we know today. IB is of very recent vintage and need not involve lending. Okeke in Imo just invented a short wave radio. Adamu in Sokoto has a lot of cash. Neither knows of each other’s existence. IBanker through his research, vast contacts, coincidence, etc. knows of the two and brings them together. They partner to mass produce the radio and profit from them. The IBanker gets paid a fee for facilitating this arrangement. I don’t see the usury or evil in this. Nor do I see how this work is easy or unproductive. And even if it is characterized as usury, such as any banker, commercial or investment “lending” money, I still do not see how this activity is a net loss to society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_bank

5. Finance is providing money to those who want or need it. Financialism is a recently-coined term that describes the creation of exotic financial instruments and trading on them almost as an end in itself, instead of as a basis to bring money to those that need them, such as manufacturers, construction industry. Check out these links:
http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/24/destroy-american-dream-leadership-leaders-financialism_2.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1655739

[“ This economic system is one in which the financial markets exist primarily to serve themselves. In this system, capital is raised for the purpose of creating, selling, and trading securities and derivative securities that do not finance industry but rather trade within markets that exist as an economy unto themselves. At the same time, those markets have profound and adverse effects on the real economy. This new economic system is Financialism.”]

6. I’m glad you found my comments in another thread useful. Yes, control can be more than physical. But your earlier reference was primarily about physical control (“bankers kill politicians”). Even on the psychological level, my post mentions the control of advertisers. They make you interested in products you may not want and only if they succeed do you get to the banks. But let’s say they’re working in cahoots with each other. My post still makes it clear that people can resist influences, but it’s more difficult in the church where they let their guards down. I don’t know about you, but I know of people propelled by greed to buy bigger homes, better cars they couldn’t afford while their friends avoided such.
7. Lula did what he did. Nothing stops other politicians from doing it. That’s my point. Again, glad to see you shift from exclusively condemning the bankers to jointly condemning the politicians AND the bankers.

8. Let’s leave odious debt for now. I have a lot to say on that, after reading 1000s of pages on that a few years ago. After all, you already admit the politicians are partly to blame.

9. I have little to add on Jesus’ statement. You think He did not say it. I think He did. One of us is right. And seeing the good that lending with interest does, not just the bad, I’m more comfortable in my belief that Jesus endorsed it.

10. The IMF and the World Bank are not truly banks. Stop using them to tar the local community bank, savings and loans bank, and even national banks that are helping people fulfill their dreams. Some people are highly successful today because they got student loans to study. It’s the evil bankers that made it possible.

My brother, I’ll address your points in 2 direct posts – for easy reading.

1. I agree that you have focused on usury and money supply. I have focused primarily on usury. While the money supply portion is salacious and provides good basis for populist agitation, I generally avoid it because it is full of conspiracy theories. Until the conspiracy theorists are bold enough to speak out openly about the people they’re talking about, I do not know enough about the topic to engage them.

This is how I understand you. You say that (1) usury is a good thing. And (2) that Control of Money Supply by private interests is a bad thing, 'salacious'.
Would you agree though that without succumbing to conspiracy theories or even needing to name conspirators that something can and ought to be done about letting banks control the money supply?

2. Your position is that usury means lending money with interest, not just high interest. That’s what I’ve addressed. I’ve explained that there is nothing wrong with that because the alternative you mentioned – trade by barter – is not sustainable in a complex economy. I can see you’re shifting now to: “we can devise a better alternative than usury.” That may be true, but until then, banking is better than barter.

Please, may I advise you not to put words in my mouth or twist my arguments. It is not something that I take very lightly. Please I did not mention trade by barter as an ALTERNATIVE to Usury. Don't be ridiculous. How could that even make sense. Barter is a form of trade, Usury is a form of finance. Comparing them would be like suggesting ironing clothes as an alternative to eating. I brought up the barter example as a simplified model of how trade works and how money helps to facilitate trade in a complex economy. You know what I was saying when you read my post. Unless you have problems with English comprehension.

3. I “lectured” you on stocks and bonds, because you clearly stated that there’s a difference between stocks and bonds. In the context you used it, musician-cook restaurant business, there’s a difference indeed. But the difference is not in your favor. Simply, either one can be useful or harmful depending on the circumstances. You’re making it look like one is good and the other is bad.

The point was not to present one over the other. To be honest I can't remember my train of thought on that one. It doesn't fit in to the argument I was making before it. Maybe I edited the post wrongly. What I was trying to compare into Good and Bad was the type of concern one has in a project.
Did you check out the Judges 7?

4. Commercial banking consists of accepting deposits from the general public + shareholder funds and lending it. Investment banking consists of arranging funds for businesses that need them, including facilitating mergers and acquisitions. IBs generally do not take deposits. Usury or even interest is hardly applicable to investment banking. Both of them are capital-facilitating, but the scriptures may not be referring to the type of IB that we know today. IB is of very recent vintage and need not involve lending. Okeke in Imo just invented a short wave radio. Adamu in Sokoto has a lot of cash. Neither knows of each other’s existence. IBanker through his research, vast contacts, coincidence, etc. knows of the two and brings them together. They partner to mass produce the radio and profit from them. The IBanker gets paid a fee for facilitating this arrangement. I don’t see the usury or evil in this. Nor do I see how this work is easy or unproductive. And even if it is characterized as usury, such as any banker, commercial or investment “lending” money, I still do not see how this activity is a net loss to society.

Are you trying to tell me that Commercial banks only lend the money that depositors have deposited? Please can you mention one bank in your local area, or in Europe, I don't know about 9ja, that doesn't use the fractional reserve ratio to create money.
I think that you are trying to pass off the idea of banking as a means to bring finance to industry as what is going on as the actual practice of banks today. I've already addressed this in this prior post:

And the following is what they want you to think is going on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-HOz8T6tAo

It is just not true. No bank operates like that. They all create credit using fractional reserve ratio, and in sometimes there isn't even any fractional reserve ratio.

Like I said before a lot of the problems has it's roots in what money is. It has it's pros and cons and it seems that you fail to see it's negative influences. Let me try to explain what I mean in the next post.

What is Money? Money is a means to represent and store value. It can be anything as simple as a piece of paper saying I O U 5 naira and promise to pay it at the end of next week. It can be a certain weight of gold. Any generally accepted means of representing value can be used as money.

The benefit of this is that having a general currency in a society makes trade very easy and facilitates complex trading systems in a complex economy.

However there are negative effects. Money represents value, but in doing so does it also have the effect of distorting value? Might Money come to be seen as a thing of value in itself rather than just a representation of something of value.

If money accurately represented value then chasing after monetary profits would automatically be equal to chasing an increase in value, whether in the form of Goods or Services.

If however money does not accurately represent value then it follows that chasing after monetary value could bring about a distortion of real value in the form of Goods and Services and in fact cause a reduction in value.

Let me give a few examples to illustrate what I mean:

Imagine the market being so distorted that you actually make more money, not by delivering a service, but rather by NOT delivering a service. This is exactly what happened with ENRON and the Californian power supply in 2001.

Two US senators are demanding a criminal inquiry after evidence emerged which suggested that Enron manipulated the power market to make extra money out of California's energy crisis last year.
The disgraced energy firm is now reshaping itself as an old-fashioned power company after its move into global energy trading ended in disaster.
But in its heyday, confidential memos released by federal regulators suggest that the company abused the rules designed to protect consumers in California.
The state's lawyers have long alleged that power companies were partially responsible for the critical shortage of electricity which triggered rolling blackouts and massive price increases during 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1972574.stm

In other words Enron made more money by NOT providing a service than they did by Providing a reliable service. The produced less value and yet they made more money.

Imagine a situation such as in Africa about 400 to 200 years ago, whereby there is a heavy demand for Africa's labour force in the form of slaves. For many decades/centuries the Slave trade was the most lucrative trade that any ambitious person could get involved in. If you want to maximise your earning potential then you would be a real dumb-ass to waste your time on the farm. When you mates are making a killing organising raiding parties to get slaves.
However this activity that is extremely rewarding monetarily is in fact the most self destructive activity that a society can engage in. A great deal of talent, labour, skills, ingenuity (things of real value) was being shipped out of Africa in return for relatively useless tokens of wealth.
Again monetary wealth is increased by in fact reducing the actually value created in the society. In fact value was being destroyed.

Another example would be drug ridden communities where the drug dealers are the most 'successful' members monetarily, but their monetary success comes from their destroying the actual value or their communities.

You see, in attempting to represent value, money does not always do so very accurately. In fact it can have such an extremely distorting influence on value that monetary increase will actually mark a decrease in real value.

The best way to deal with Money is to accept how it facilitates complex trading systems, yet all the while never take your eyes off what is of real value to you. It is important to articulate what is of value to you (individually) in tangible terms rather than in abstract terms such as XYZ dollars.
As long as you are doing what you are doing for tangible reasons, ie 'I'm doing this to pay my rent and groceries and clothes and my school fees so I can become a doctor one day', then you're okay. It is when you lose sight of that and you see opportunities to make money and you just dive in thinking, 'money money money, money cometh to me, money money money', that is when you get in trouble cos you lose sight with what you're really about.

5.   Finance is providing money to those who want or need it. Financialism is a recently-coined term that describes the creation of exotic financial instruments and trading on them almost as an end in itself, instead of as a basis to bring money to those that need them, such as manufacturers, construction industry. Check out these links:
http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/24/destroy-american-dream-leadership-leaders-financialism_2.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1655739

[“ This economic system is one in which the financial markets exist primarily to serve themselves. In this system, capital is raised for the purpose of creating, selling, and trading securities and derivative securities that do not finance industry but rather trade within markets that exist as an economy unto themselves. At the same time, those markets have profound and adverse effects on the real economy. This new economic system is Financialism.”]

Can you not see that the exotic-ness of 'financial instruments' is just a matter of degree? Cash Money, notes and coins, is simply the simplest of financial instruments. Cash can be traded as an end in itself too, as for example, on the Forex markets.

Further more, I can invest cash in an industrial project, not because I believe in the fundamental or moral value of the project but simply because I know it will turn a profit. For example I could invest money in the Pornographic industry even though I believe it is wrong, however I am just looking at the profits to be gained from investing in it. This brings about a distortion in my values, especially moral values.

My bottom-line, is that 'trading on them almost as an end in itself' occurs with cash as much as with the more exotic forms of money. And the effect is the same. There is a divorce of money from real tangible value, and a distortion.

6.   I’m glad you found my comments in another thread useful. Yes, control can be more than physical. But your earlier reference was primarily about physical control (“bankers kill politicians”). Even on the psychological level, my post mentions the control of advertisers. They make you interested in products you may not want and only if they succeed do you get to the banks. But let’s say they’re working in cahoots with each other. My post still makes it clear that people can resist influences, but it’s more difficult in the church where they let their guards down. I don’t know about you, but I know of people propelled by greed to buy bigger homes, better cars they couldn’t afford while their friends avoided such.
7.   Lula did what he did. Nothing stops other politicians from doing it. That’s my point. Again, glad to see you shift from exclusively condemning the bankers to jointly condemning the politicians AND the bankers.

I said that they used the carrot and the stick and that most politicians succumb at the carrot stage. Politicians get bumped off all the time, throughout history. This is a fact of politics and of history. Ultimately many of these operations require finance to carry out which suggests that they cannot occur without the goodwill of the financiers.
Nobody is forcing anybody to let their guard down in church. People have a tendency to trust Authorities. When you pastor says bring money to get into heaven then you trust him cos he's an authority figure.
When Alan Greenspan encourages home owners to (I paraphrase), ' Tap into your home equity', in other words borrow using your home as collateral, people are going to trust him because he is an authority figure. They will let their guard down. This is the great Alan Greenspan talking, the cleverest man in America.

It was with great interest that I read the transcript of Alan Greenspan's Monetary Policy Report to the Congress on February 11, 2004. I must admit, I found portions of the speech to be refreshingly open and forthright. And, while I don't share some of his more optimistic views, I can understand why many would.


The basis for this Greenspan directed recovery has always appeared to ride on the back of the American consumer. The idea apparently being that if monetary policy remained accommodative for long enough, then consumers would carry the economy forward on a rising tide of consumption until growth could once again become self-sustaining. This is obvious as Greenspan says, "Once again, household spending was the mainstay, with real personal consumption spending increasing nearly 4 percent and real outlays on residential structures rising about 10 percent." Not only does he admit that this is a consumer based recovery, but he subtly acknowledges the rapid rise in residential housing in the same sentence. Greenspan is counting on that 10 percent per year growth rate in home prices and people have come to expect it. It's unrealistic to assume growth of this sort is sustainable,
Greenspan reiterates that, "household spending was the mainstay", and that "The very low level of interest rates also encouraged household spending, " In other words, had it not been for their policy of low interest rates, we would likely be in much worse shape. So, what does that mean for us if interest rates do rise through either a Fed hike or unplanned market action? And, what happens if the "mainstay" consumer is unable to continue at even the current level of consumption? He acknowledges, "The lowest home mortgage rates in decades were a major contributor to record sales of existing residences, engendering a large extraction of cash from home equity, " Greenspan thinks this is good? We want to encourage people to ante up their futures in a desperate attempt to fill this economic inside straight? This is hardly sound policy.

He talks very casually about how, "many households took out cash in the process of refinancing", which, "freed up funds for other expenditures, " This resulted in, "Home mortgage debt increased about 13 percent last year, while consumer credit expanded much more slowly, " So, rather than run up the credit cards people took their over-inflated appraisals to the banks, took their "free money", and restarted the clock on their home loans giving rise to, "the ratio of overall household debt to income continued to increase, " He almost seems to gain satisfaction from the fact that consumer credit expansion slowed while people were lured into taking his gift of "free money" through low interest rates.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/chuhran021604.html

Lula did what he did and got away with it because Brazil sits on top of a lot of gas deposits and that always helps, especially when paired with a population who have had it up to their necks with capitalist oppression. This is a general mood sweeping certain parts of South America. Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela (again Chavez knows the power of having an oil rich nation. They are smart enough to ally themselves with nations like Iran and China and thus can play the superpowers off against each other.
LOL! I don't think condemning politicians AND bankers is such a major shift from condemning bankers. Are you trying to be disingenuous? Bankers use politicians as pawns. What you're accusing me of shifting is similar to saying, 'ah, I see you've shifted from blaming the burglar for the crime to blaming the burglar and his crowbar'.

8.   Let’s leave odious debt for now. I have a lot to say on that, after reading 1000s of pages on that a few years ago. After all, you already admit the politicians are partly to blame.

I'm happy to leave Odious Debt aside if it is making you feel uncomfortable. I don't know why you are telling me that you've read 1000s of pages on it though. Is that to impress me? So you obviously work in finance, or you've just studied and you're hoping to get a job in finance. That must be why you are getting so hot under the collar. What has politicians being partly to blame got to do with absolving bankers of Odious Debt? If armed robber and meguard plan to loot your home, does that mean that the arm robber is absolved of crime because the meguard that is supposed to protect you conspired with them.

9.   I have little to add on Jesus’ statement. You think He did not say it. I think He did. One of us is right. And seeing the good that lending with interest does, not just the bad, I’m more comfortable in my belief that Jesus endorsed it.

Obviously, you don't want to discuss this either, or address any of the points I raised. I prefer to address issues rather than just dismiss things with, this is what you think and this is what I think and so let's leave it at that. I raised points as to why I arrived at my own position. What are your points?

10.   The IMF and the World Bank are not truly banks. Stop using them to tar the local community bank, savings and loans bank, and even national banks that are helping people fulfill their dreams. Some people are highly successful today because they got student loans to study. It’s the evil bankers that made it possible.

Please, Where do the World bank and the IMF get their funds from?
People can get funding to fulfil their dreams without Usury. Some people today have got student loans to study, who only a few years ago had a free education paid for by the state. What role do you think that the 'evil bankers' had in that?

[b]@sun of god u be mumu, why can't u guyz stop thing like a goat. we muslims own the world. say yes to islamic banking.[/b][color=#770077][/color]

Pastor AIO:


Can you not see that the exotic-ness of 'financial instruments' is just a matter of degree? Cash Money, notes and coins, is simply the simplest of financial instruments. Cash can be traded as an end in itself too, as for example, on the Forex markets.

Further more, I can invest cash in an industrial project, not because I believe in the fundamental or moral value of the project but simply because I know it will turn a profit. For example I could invest money in the Pornographic industry even though I believe it is wrong, however I am just looking at the profits to be gained from investing in it. This brings about a distortion in my values, especially moral values.

My bottom-line, is that 'trading on them almost as an end in itself' occurs with cash as much as with the more exotic forms of money. And the effect is the same. There is a divorce of money from real tangible value, and a distortion.


I said that they used the carrot and the stick and that most politicians succumb at the carrot stage. Politicians get bumped off all the time, throughout history. This is a fact of politics and of history. Ultimately many of these operations require finance to carry out which suggests that they cannot occur without the goodwill of the financiers.
Nobody is forcing anybody to let their guard down in church. People have a tendency to trust Authorities. When you pastor says bring money to get into heaven then you trust him cos he's an authority figure.
When Alan Greenspan encourages home owners to (I paraphrase), ' Tap into your home equity', in other words borrow using your home as collateral, people are going to trust him because he is an authority figure. They will let their guard down. This is the great Alan Greenspan talking, the cleverest man in America.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/chuhran021604.html

Lula did what he did and got away with it because Brazil sits on top of a lot of gas deposits and that always helps, especially when paired with a population who have had it up to their necks with capitalist oppression. This is a general mood sweeping certain parts of South America. Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela (again Chavez knows the power of having an oil rich nation. They are smart enough to ally themselves with nations like Iran and China and thus can play the superpowers off against each other.
LOL! I don't think condemning politicians AND bankers is such a major shift from condemning bankers. Are you trying to be disingenuous? Bankers use politicians as pawns. What you're accusing me of shifting is similar to saying, 'ah, I see you've shifted from blaming the burglar for the crime to blaming the burglar and his crowbar'.

I'm happy to leave Odious Debt aside if it is making you feel uncomfortable. I don't know why you are telling me that you've read 1000s of pages on it though. Is that to impress me? So you obviously work in finance, or you've just studied and you're hoping to get a job in finance. That must be why you are getting so hot under the collar. What has politicians being partly to blame got to do with absolving bankers of Odious Debt? If armed robber and meguard plan to loot your home, does that mean that the arm robber is absolved of crime because the meguard that is supposed to protect you conspired with them.

Obviously, you don't want to discuss this either, or address any of the points I raised. I prefer to address issues rather than just dismiss things with, this is what you think and this is what I think and so let's leave it at that. I raised points as to why I arrived at my own position. What are your points?
Please, Where do the World bank and the IMF get their funds from?
People can get funding to fulfil their dreams without Usury. Some people today have got student loans to study, who only a few years ago had a free education paid for by the state. What role do you think that the 'evil bankers' had in that?

You may be right about my ability to comprehend the beautiful language. Because a lot of what you wrote flew over my head. But the much I was able to understand, I’m mostly in agreement with you. My basic disagreement is the impression that lending with interest – no matter how low - is intrinsically wrong. That some people get by, including financing education, without it, does not take away its important place. Oh, btw, free education – as in Nigeria? I bet many Nigerians would rather have bank financing that go without education waiting for free education that has not materialized.

I also do not see the point in trying to excuse away the failings of other leaders or establish the evilness of the bankers by downplaying Lula’s remarkable qualities that led to his accomplishments. The natural gas angle is simply laughable. In terms of reserves, Brazil is a small boy. In terms of production, Brazil ranks so low as to be almost insignificant. That’s not to say that the reserves are not important to its economy. But if gas reserves or production gives that kind of power against the evil bankers or transforms leaders into Lulas, Nigeria and several other countries would be doing much, much better.

Check out the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production

Trying to get a job in finance? Now, that’s funny.

We can politely agree to disagree, in any case.

@NLmediator,
you are a very clever guy, you this NLmediator. You are very crafty and you got me fair and square. With hindsight now it is clear that your intention is obsfuscation of the thread. You took me completely off my track. No wahala, I've sussed you out now.

nlMediator:


Trying to get a job in finance? Now, that’s funny.

We can politely agree to disagree, in any case.

Sorry o! You are already an ogbologbo in finance, a big boi, The Kingpin of finance. How dare I suggest that you were merely still looking for a job in finance. I bow to you o master of the universe. I am but a poor slave and proverbs has told us that
'The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. '

Oh, by the way, if you keep reading that chapter you'll also eventually come to the verse that says

'He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want. ' (ooo, and I hope Joe and other 'sow into my anointing' mongers are reading this).

And further down the chapter it gets even more interesting,

'If thou hast nothing to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee? '

Quote that one for the banks that are repossessing people's homes. (and foreclosing people's homes in america too.)

^^^

OK. Sorry if I caused any wahala. It was not my intention.

nlMediator:

^^^

OK. Sorry if I caused any wahala. It was not my intention.

No worries. You actually brought up many issues that helped to flesh out the subject matter, which was why I was glad when you first posted on the thread. However what got to me what the manner in which you went about arguing, without addressing my points, dismissively refusing to watch the video, telling me how many pages you've read on Odious debt, using the ol' 'well that's what you think and this is what I think' and 'we'll have to agree to disagree', and worst of all misconstruing what I say deliberately. It's all very Joagbajeish.

For example jumping on the rank of Brazil in Natural Gas reserves and ignoring what else I wrote. Or claiming that I was 'downplaying' Lula's achievements. (and with Lula you managed to take the issue off banking altogether, which is the subject of this thread, and turn it into an argument about politicians).

Anyway sha, I think it is time to recap the thread thus far.

Frosbel Said:

If you like setup Shango banking system , whatever !!

As for Christians ( the true ones ) let us not get dragged into this unnecessary debate, there are more important things to be done for the kingdom of GOD.

Let the church goers and others bicker over this world and its financial systems.

"Every one who serves as a soldier ( In Christ ) keeps himself from becoming entangled in the world's business--so that he may satisfy the officer who enlisted him." - 2 Timothy 2:4

I think we have since established that the plight of our fellow humans on this planet is part of God's business, so discussing the global banking system should be satisfying to the officer enlisting us.

For example, I know Jesus was concerned about feeding the multitudes so I think it is only right that christians should be concerned about global hunger. If the banking system is doing anything to bring about global famine then we should stand up and speak up about it. We should make moves to curb the banks.

Johann Hari: How Goldman gambled on starvation

Speculators set up a casino where the chips were the stomachs of millions. What does it say about our system that we can so casually inflict so much pain?

By now, you probably think your opinion of Goldman Sachs and its swarm of Wall Street allies has rock-bottomed at raw loathing. You're wrong. There's more. It turns out that the most destructive of all their recent acts has barely been discussed at all. Here's the rest. This is the story of how some of the richest people in the world – Goldman, Deutsche Bank, the traders at Merrill Lynch, and more – have caused the starvation of some of the poorest people in the world.

It starts with an apparent mystery. At the end of 2006, food prices across the world started to rise, suddenly and stratospherically. Within a year, the price of wheat had shot up by 80 per cent, maize by 90 per cent, rice by 320 per cent. In a global jolt of hunger, 200 million people – mostly children – couldn't afford to get food any more, and sank into malnutrition or starvation. There were riots in more than 30 countries, and at least one government was violently overthrown. Then, in spring 2008, prices just as mysteriously fell back to their previous level. Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, calls it "a silent mass murder", entirely due to "man-made actions."

Earlier this year I was in Ethiopia, one of the worst-hit countries, and people there remember the food crisis as if they had been struck by a tsunami. "My children stopped growing," a woman my age called Abiba Getaneh, told me. "I felt like battery acid had been poured into my stomach as I starved. I took my two daughters out of school and got into debt. If it had gone on much longer, I think my baby would have died."

Most of the explanations we were given at the time have turned out to be false. It didn't happen because supply fell: the International Grain Council says global production of wheat actually increased during that period, for example. It isn't because demand grew either: as Professor Jayati Ghosh of the Centre for Economic Studies in New Delhi has shown, demand actually fell by 3 per cent. Other factors – like the rise of biofuels, and the spike in the oil price – made a contribution, but they aren't enough on their own to explain such a violent shift.

To understand the biggest cause, you have to plough through some concepts that will make your head ache – but not half as much as they made the poor world's stomachs ache.

For over a century, farmers in wealthy countries have been able to engage in a process where they protect themselves against risk. Farmer Giles can agree in January to sell his crop to a trader in August at a fixed price. If he has a great summer, he'll lose some cash, but if there's a lousy summer or the global price collapses, he'll do well from the deal. When this process was tightly regulated and only companies with a direct interest in the field could get involved, it worked.

Then, through the 1990s, Goldman Sachs and others lobbied hard and the regulations were abolished. Suddenly, these contracts were turned into "derivatives" that could be bought and sold among traders who had nothing to do with agriculture. A market in "food speculation" was born.

So Farmer Giles still agrees to sell his crop in advance to a trader for £10,000. But now, that contract can be sold on to speculators, who treat the contract itself as an object of potential wealth. Goldman Sachs can buy it and sell it on for £20,000 to Deutsche Bank, who sell it on for £30,000 to Merrill Lynch – and on and on until it seems to bear almost no relationship to Farmer Giles's crop at all.

If this seems mystifying, it is. John Lanchester, in his superb guide to the world of finance, Whoops! Why Everybody Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay, explains: "Finance, like other forms of human behaviour, underwent a change in the 20th century, a shift equivalent to the emergence of modernism in the arts – a break with common sense, a turn towards self-referentiality and abstraction and notions that couldn't be explained in workaday English." Poetry found its break with realism when T S Eliot wrote "The Wasteland". Finance found its Wasteland moment in the 1970s, when it began to be dominated by complex financial instruments that even the people selling them didn't fully understand. . . . . .

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html


If you have a whole system that focuses it's energy on producing an increase of something that is actually a phantom then it is inevitable that production of increase in real tangible things will suffer. That is at the heart of why modern banking is very dangerous. It can become more profitable to cut power supply to a whole state, it can become more profitable to starve the world, it can become more profitable to debilitate a community by selling it drugs etc etc etc.

At the basis of it is a misunderstanding of what money actually is. People confer so much value and worth to money, and this is wrong. So an activity such as usury whose primary goal is to bring about the increase of Money regardless of what is done to increase it can only be intrinsically destructive.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtIDKtaTz3M[/flash]

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwxzwnpqE4I[/flash]

Nice videos, I'll post my commentary on it tomorrow.

REVELATIONS 18

1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. 7How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: 12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. 14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. 15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

@OP,
I support Non-Interest Banking by any name, be it Islamic, Sharia, Holy Ghost etc, interest rates in a developing economy like Nigeria is way too high, everyone talks about but CBN,FG,NASS is willing to do anything about it. I believe that apart from sentiments right or wrong there is nothing wrong with Islamic Bank. Its really time Churches and GOs etc put the Tithes and Offerings to good use.

@ Pastor AIO, thanks for the lessons

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtIDKtaTz3M[/flash]

Okay, as most of us are probably aware now, there is a financial crisis in Europe that is revolving mainly around 3 countries at the moment, Greece, Portugal and Spain. Let us leave Ireland and Iceland to one side for the present.

These countries have colossal debt mountains that they cannot possibly pay off. So the next stage of the banking plan, Max Keiser calls them the Banksters, as in gangsters, the next stage is to take over the countries assets. In a nutshell the banking plan is simply to control the entire planet and it's resources. This is done encouraging people to borrow money, and when they cannot pay it back they take control of all the possessions of the borrower. The ultimate aim is to re-establish feudalism. Feudalism is a system where the Lords and nobles own and control all the land and means of production and the rest of the people, the serfs, live on the land and work it for just about enough money to survive. The very right to exist on the land is a privilege given by the Lords. All their activities are directed by the Lords and they are not even free to move from one land to another to seek better fortune elsewhere.

So this Banksters plan is implemented on 2 levels. On the individual level where they lend you money in order to eventually repossess your home and assets, and on the international level where they lend countries money to trap them in odious debt and then when they can't pay they take over the country. It is a takeover without firing a single bullet. The countries political system might still stay in place, ostensibly, but it's policies are dictated by the bankers and all it's resources and assets belong to the bankers and are used to serve the bankers interests. Ultimately it is all about control. Control of the world and it's resources. One World Government.

There is a fine book that discusses how this is done by a man who was involved in it. It is called Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Written by John Perkins.

According to Perkins, he began writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man in the 1980s, but "threats or bribes always convinced me to stop."

According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with debts they could not hope to pay, those countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations were effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run. In this capacity Perkins recounts his meetings with some prominent individuals, including Graham Greene and Omar Torrijos. Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly-paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

The epilogue to the 2006 edition provides a rebuttal to the current move by the G8 nations to forgive Third World debt. Perkins charges that the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to privatise their health, education, electric, water and other public services. Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

I hope I have hereby refuted the idea that the International banks do not 'force' anybody to take their loans.

So back to Greece. Greece has been saddled with debts that it cannot pay. This is the current situation at the moment. There is no more money, IMF told the government to impose Austerity Measures on the people, the people are not having it, there are riots on the streets.
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIu66kft9nM[/flash]

A couple of weeks ago some delegates from Greece came to England to seek buyers for Greeces National Treasures. Including the ACROPOLIS!!!

The Acropolis is not even merely a Greek treasure, it is a treasure of all humanity. It is like Egypt trying to sell of the Great pyramid.
Or Abeokuta trying to sell Olumo rock. Greek islands, some of the most beautiful in the world are also up for sale. In fact the whole country is being divided, packaged and being prepared for the market. Someone suggested that Greece should be annexed and called Southern Germany.

^^^ and guess what?  The US of A is not far off either.  With 14 trillion dollars of debt (incurred by Bush in 8 years) that it cannot possibly pay what is happening in Greece is about to happen in USA.  and the biggest joke of all is that most Americans are blissfully unaware of it.  A lot of those right-wing red-necks have drunk so much Kool Aid that they'll probably cheer as their lives are being stripped away from them.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwxzwnpqE4I[/flash]

The reason I like this video is because I want to quote Keiser here:


"yeah, that's right, They call it financial VAN-DAL-ISM, you see they're up-ing the rhetoric, we . . we been talking about financial terrorism for months and months and months now, they're upping the rhetoric, they're going to get to the point where they realise that this is in fact not vandalism, which is a quaint way of saying terrorism. They didn't accuse Osama bin Laden of Vandalism on 9-11, or whoever did that. It was an act of terrorism. Moody's, S&P are financial terrorists. They are purposefully targetting these countries for destruction because they want their assets for nothing. "

The long and short of it is that there are Credit Rating Agencies that rate the credit-worthiness of different countries. Like at the moment USA is rated AAA. Iceland used to be rated AAA but then it defaulted on it's debts and it's rating fell off the scale completely. According to your rating it is determined how much funds you can have access to.

The only problem is that these credit rating agencies are created by the banksters and so can be used by them to manipulate countries. For Instance, due to it's present troubles Greece is rated CCC. US is struggling to pay it's debts. S&P have then threatened that if US defaults on even one payment that they will drop US to D. D is even lower than CCC which is where Greece is at at the moment and there is mayhem on the streets in Greece. What is the rationale behind this? They are just using the credit agencies to manipulate and scare US into keeping up it's payments.

What none of the banks like to talk about is Iceland that refused to pay it's debts. In fact they held a plebiscite and the people decided together that they would rather not pay and the banks can go to hell for all they care. They fell of the credit ratings scale completely. Iceland could not have done anything better for it's economy. It is booming again. The fastest growing economy in Europe at the moment. Portugal though is trying hard to be a good boy and do what they are told and yet Moody's recklessly dropped their ratings. This is what is being referred to in the video as financial terrorism.

Pastor AIO:

^^^ and guess what? The US of A is not far off either. With 14 trillion dollars of debt (incurred by Bush in 8 years) that it cannot possibly pay what is happening in Greece is about to happen in USA. and the biggest joke of all is that most Americans are blissfully unaware of it. A lot of those right-wing red-necks have drunk so much Kool Aid that they'll probably cheer as their lives are being stripped away from them.

What I despise about what you're doing is that your emotion leads you write utter rubbish and disguise it as facts, which the gullible consume, while you smile. Bush incurred 14 T debt in 8 years? FYI, US debt when Bush came in was about $5 trillion. When he left it was about $10 trillion. Obama has incurred roughly $4 trillion. I'm sure you'll come back with a new spin and say that whatever debt incurred under Obama was also under Bush, as though that gives you a license to misstate facts. And the one incurred before Bush was by his father! In financial matters, you either stick to facts or not. Keep your politics away from facts.

On Greece, everything you wrote may be true. But let's look at one piece of fact you cleverly omitted. Greece borrowed heavily so that its citizens can retire with full benefits at 55 years of age. In the US, people don't even have that benefit, as they need to get to 65 or 67 to get full benefits. Why should the Greeks get that benefit? Oh, I get it: the bankers have to fund it, even if the Greeks have little they produce.

I won't waste one second defending the bankers, IMF, World Bank, etc. But ignoring personal and national responsibility and looking for someone to dump all the blame on is the kind of pastime that has kept the developing world underdeveloped. Keep up with it, if it makes you happy. And that national serfdom you decry would not be very late in coming.

Oh, before I forget, I have noticed one single solution from you about these problems. It's all about blame and stoking passions, which does nobody any good at the end of the day.