Sanders is more honest than most other politicians and the rabidly anti-any-thing-good-other-than-music fools at PBS, in that he admits he is a socialist. But, since he is foolish enough to think that socialism is a good thing, I have no interest in anything he thinks or says. Those financial institutions are far more dangerous than anything Sanders imagines but only because of their relationship with government. Add any negative modifier to relationship in that last sentence that you want to, it will probably apply.

The underlying message of the obfuscation of Wall St. with the banks is to present private ownership of and private transactions in productive capacity to be be greedy or illegitimate.

"Wall Street" is a blanket term describing the ownership and transfer of private assets.

The governments would have you believe they should control the real assets and their transfer.

Reply from The Daily Bell

True.

Dear Bell, taking a step back, there are several things to consider.
We DO live in a neo-Luddite world. Mega corporations knock out the little guy. They are ever-more competitive. They reduce employment in the name of efficiency. Obummer's job-czar from G.E. is outsourcing like crazy.

The more that the private sector works to be efficient,,,, the more that GOV works to be inefficient. GOV is ever-growing while focused on inefficiency. Rumsfeld reported that $ 2.3 trillion went missing and he didn't know where. Think about the life expectancy of an entity that has $ 212 trillion of GAAP debt. The FED is now monetizing about 90% of new debt. GOV writes 80 million checks a month and 53% of Americans rely on these checks.

The bankers planned to do an "Argentine job" on America. I don't believe that they contemplated a total disintegration of GOV. If GOV disintegrates, how are they going to do a "Russian job" and privatize everything? They run the risk of eliminating fiat currency.
Prosperity is directly linked to freedom. The bankers may take over infrastructure and resources but, they will be grasping a dying empire. You can't stop efficiency.
The R.O.W. is hard at work to get rid of an inefficient reserve currency AND a horribly inefficient financial system. Neither the FED nor Treasury have any "Paper" that would be acceptable to the R.O.W.

Century after century, the bankers try to inflict a currency that is not a store of value. Century after century, it crashes down. They have no grasp of Eastern history. They rely on wishful thinking instead.

Dear Bell, Bischoff has educated us as to the importance of the "real bills" doctrine.

Paragraph 6 in this article appears to have a re-invented "real Bills" component.

Click to view link

Could we contemplate the end of mercantilism?

Reply from The Daily Bell

More and more we believe the elites are fighting a losing battle and will have to "take a step back."

Good link, thanks.

Dear Bell, it's a pretty quiet day so, I'm going to drop off something to think about.

Ibn Khaldun or Ibn Khaldoun (full name, Arabic: ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????????, Abu Zayd 'Abdu r-Ra?man bin Mu?ammad bin Khaldun Al-?a?rami, May 27, 1332 AD/732 AH - March 19, 1406 AD/808 AH) was a Tunisian Muslim historiographer and historian who is often viewed as one of the fathers of modern historiography, sociology and economics. (wiki)

British historian Arnold J. Toynbee called the Muqaddimah "a philosophy of history which is undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place."

The British philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner considered Ibn Khaldun's definition of government, "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself", the best in the history of political theory.

The British philosopher Robert Flint wrote the following on Ibn Khaldun: "... as a theorist of history he had no equal in any age or country until Vico appeared, more than three hundred years later. Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine were not his peers, and all others were unworthy of being even mentioned along with him".

He is best known for his Muqaddimah (known as Prolegomena in English), which was discovered, evaluated and fully appreciated first by 19th century European scholarship,[2] although it has also had considerable influence on 17th-century Ottoman historians like ?ajji Khalifa and Mustafa Naima who relied on his theories to analyze the growth and decline of the Ottoman Empire.[3] Later in the 19th century, Western scholars recognized him as one of the greatest philosophers to come out of the Muslim world. (wiki)




The Wisdom of Islamic Economics and Ibn Khaldun


By Santiago Sevilla Economist University of Zurichsevillagloor@Click to view link

The key issue here is the rate of interest. While the capitalistic world believes that interest must be paid on loans and time deposits, the Islamic belief is that interest is usury (Riba). Instead, only profit should be shared, due to the fact that risk is already covered by counter guarantees.Interest is not so much a problem of morals and ethics, but a matter for mathematic logics. Interest rates are the growth factor for money. In other words, if the macro-economic interest rate is at allto be paid, money supply must always increase. As a result, the western or capitalistic economy is awash with ever growing money.The unstoppable money tsunami causes long term inflation,particularly, price increases in real estate, and precious metals.


here is a need for Western capitalistic economic theory to be re-considered, reviewed, and, if discovered to be contradictory,changed for the better. Let us not forget that the first economist in history was Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), and, as we can see, his thinking



is valid still today. ??Riba?? or usury has always been a problem, both for morals as well as for logics.As a way to deepen our thought about the rate of interest, we should meditate about the mathematical constant ??e??, or the logical idea of compound interest causing money growth by at least 2,7182818?.,according to Leonhard Euler and Jacob Bernulli.We must accept that interest rates accelerate ? pari passu ? with inflation. There is plenty of statistical evidence that galloping inflation feeds on interest rates, which tend, the more inflation grows, to explode and to shoot up at an exponential pace.Interest rate increases do not combat inflation, but cause stagflation first, and accelerating inflation, the more the rates grow.Islamic economics, to our surprise, are right.And there is much more to it, than it appears: The incredible achievements of Islamic investment in Dubai, where the Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed has built a splendid city in the form of a palm tree in the ocean, without causing inflation, using his capital in a most productive, daring and magnificent way, shows that the penny pinching ways of western economics, always busy pretending to balance budgets and raising taxes again and again, wasting money in tiresome bureaucracies, neglecting public works, and ruining old peoples retirements as a way to save expenditure, proof that Economics as conceived in the West by Lord Keynes, and put in practice by the IM
F
needs to be re-considered due to its frequent failures.Bubbles and more bubbles caused by desperate greed, enormous damage to private investors inflicted by certain important dis loyal banks shows a most vicious situation in our western economies.

There is a need of grandeur, decency and moral principles which are valid within the frame of Islamic Economics.The example of Europe ruined by excessive sovereign debt and corrosive interest rates show us the misconceptions of Economics asa science. A key issue which must be resolved, in accordance with the principles of logics, is the solvency of sovereign debt: If public debt is issued in the national currency, either in US$ or Euros, then itis contradictory to sound thinking to deny the repayment on maturity at face value, because the sovereign country is able to issue money.In the case of Greece, a member of the European Community, its sovereign debt should have had the guarantee of the European Central Bank at face value. Banks and other creditors bought sovereign debt well assured that it did not imply risk, due to the principle that sovereign debt can always be repaid in the national currency.This rule has always applied to Treasury Bills issued by the US Government. There is no logical reason why this principle would not be applicable to the European Community as a whole.In any case it appears as foolhardy that member states of the EUshould have issued bonds to be sold in the capital market, instead of requesting such credit from the European Central Click to view link any rate it is contrary to sound thinking that sovereign countries who can issue money should go into debt at all. Interest payments by sovereign states, who can issue money, would be utter nonsense.

Sanders is a good guy, but he has chosen to limit his battles, and they are not with the money masters. People like him have been involved with politics for so long, that they have made life compromises. They have chosen their constituency in order to acheive their objectives.

Sanders is no dummy. He knows about the money masters, but has made a life choice not to go into that battle. If he mentions the subject, he would likely get knocked sideways by the part of his constituency that doesn't want to hear that the posion goes even deeper.

Sanders is content with his message, but it is partial and so therefore a bit disingenuous. That's a problem IMO. It is a type of willful ignorance in the service of a type of disinformation, which unfortunately plays right into the hands of the elite. This is why people need to keep drilling deeper and see that many good people, especially the progressive left, are screwing up by not calling for broader systemic change by identifying the money masters and their crimes against humanity.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good comments, thanks Hapa.

Yep, it's important to keep hammering on the money masters. Don't get lost in the forest - pay attention to the big trees. They're the ones that are calling the shots. As the article states, pursuing wall street or politicians is not getting at the heart of the poison. We need to root out those central bankers and their controllers, the names of whom we probably don't know.

Their time is coming to an end. They will surely attempt to engineer another control scheme to replace the present one, but it won't work in the long haul.

But, who knows how it will unwind, and what the process will be like going forward to a new, stable system. We do know however, it will be quite messy. Buckle up, and Buck up...

There is no difference between Wall Street (Goldman, Chase, et al) and the Fed (run by ex-Goldman, Chasers, et al) and the government (controlled by Goldman, Chasers, et al), all of whom answer to the BIS that is owned by the small handful of elite families who lie wadded in wealth inside the The City -- the richest square mile on earth -- in the middle of London; deciding who gets to work, do business, die in "conflicts," eat sterilizing foods, take vaccines tainted with toxins, procreate, and live to further their world government plan with themselves in charge; all perfectly legal with purchased "laws," legislatures, and "officials" regardless of the nation.

Sure, it's no problem that an group of folks (banksters) can make "money" from nothing, "lend" it to the government, and charge interest on it when there's another government department (the Treasury) which can do the same thing for FREE. Right?

NO, the Fed is not "fine". Past presidents have gotten rid of previous versions of it and some presidents have even been ASSASSINATED because of their dislike of it.

Hard to believe how elected people love to point the finger. How many out there get a pension for life at full salary plus bennies after being elected for one term? Who did you say is greedy?

Excellent DB! This aligns with my feedback to Peter Schiff article.

'Wall Street" is just an edifice and nobody points at the players who grace its revolving doors. But they are just players, dutifully playing their part and recieving their bonuses just like many Senators.

The pecking order is interesting though. Will the top peckers ever dare to step out into the light of day?