General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Rash of Deaths and a Missing Reporter – With Ties to Wall Street Investigations
...
Deutsche Bank is also under investigation by global regulators for potentially rigging the foreign exchange markets an action similar to the charges it settled in 2013 over its traders involvement in the rigging of the interest rate benchmark, Libor.
..
JPMorgan is under the same global investigation for potential involvement in rigging foreign exchange rates as is Deutsche Bank. The firm is also said to be under an investigation by the U.S. Senates Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for its involvement in potential misconduct in physical commodities markets in the U.S. and London.
...
The case of David Bird, the oil markets reporter who had worked at the Wall Street Journal for 20 years and vanished without a trace on the afternoon of January 11, has this in common with the other three tragedies: his work involves a commodities market oil which is under investigation by the U.S. Senates Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations for possible manipulation. The FBI is involved in the Bird investigation.
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/02/a-rash-of-deaths-and-a-missing-reporter-%E2%80%93-with-ties-to-wall-street-investigations/
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)This stinks to high heaven.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I've never heard of this site, so I don't know how accurate it is, but it sure is interesting (and horribly tragic) if true.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)WaPo and the other from CNBC. Both of those articles refer to the defendants as "Banksters". Neither one of those media outlets would use the term "Banksters" in regular reporting.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)and the murders that were from regular, mainstream press. There is something strange going on, and we all already knew that the "banksters" actually ARE rigging the system and making brazillions of dollars off of it. I also know that some of the breaches of security that have happened toward Obama were EXTREMELY suspicious to me....they just looked too much like "warning shots". Nobody talks much about the "near crash" of an airplane Michelle Obama was on during Obama's first term....but it sounded weird to me at the time...sounded like a "warning shot".
These billionaires are sociopaths. They really have no conscience, and no morals. They live by their own code, and they don't care that they have to bring down the whole world to get what they think they should own.
So while the linked site above may be (and probably is) a little "out there" with the facts, I honestly do think there is "fire" where we see some of the "smoke" coming from, if you know what I mean.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)that led to the $780,000,000 TARP bankster bailout?
"There is something strange going on..."
Well, that nearly $1 Trillion was just a band-aid that postponed the crash. But the crash will happen eventually. And $1 Trillion is a drop in the bucket compared to the $64 Trillion (which may now be a low-ball number) in derivatives that are looming out there.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)put us the hook for an unaccounted, but estimated $14T - $17T more. Couple that with the political refusal to demand any guarantees or to change the way they are allowed to gamble with OPM, and if/when they blow it up again... well, nobody knows for sure how it will play out, but every scenario is horrible and the consequences too far reaching to calculate. It could very well erase the global economy.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)So they move most or all of their money into another currency, but all currencies would devalue and most would also collapse.
You can't eat a cyber-buck or a bitcoin.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Sauteed in butter with mushrooms, palm hearts and shallots, they make a delicious entree.
Just make sure you floss afterward, to get those tiny bitcoin fragments
out of your teeth.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Shrub refused to request the second half of TARP unless and until then President Elect Obama asked him to. Shortly after that hit the news, Obama asked him to and Bush went ahead.
Someone won 11th dimensional chess that week.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)unless you really want to go fifteen rounds with The True Believers, and in the end it's inconsequential compared to the total disaster that this administration has set us up for.
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's also a fact that Obama alone is not to blame. Far from it. He's only the flavor of this current 8 year period; and its face.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)say no.
That he chose to go along with, or had this scenario in mind all along is 100% on him and him alone. He wanted to sit in The Big Chair and that responsibility is the major part of what comes with it. The Big Chair is for leaders, not for the obsequious or the timid. He spent many years of his life getting there and when he got there he either showed that he was a consistent liar, or he shit his pants and bowed to the jackals that were telling him what to do.
The President is The Guy, period. If he didn't want to be there to lead, he should have stayed in Chicago.
No, there were and are and will always be thousands of parasites working the DC cesspool, he chose and pursued the chance to sit in the middle of it, and when he got it, he either didn't know what to do with it, or was among the worst charlatans in our history.
merrily
(45,251 posts)He has responsibility. But I don't think it's his alone. There are so many national and international organizations, think tanks, etc. financial "experts" that have devoted well over a century, if not several centuries, to acquiring, influencing and directing power. And they will convince people of things like "What's good for General Motors is good for America." And my personal favorite, "liberals can't win" so it's the lesser evil to go Third Way than to let the greater evil win."
I am not giving you some kind of CIA Kennedy conspiracy theory here. Bilderberg Group, Carlyle, ALEC, Third Way. They all exist. The religio-political groups, too.
And, as you know, it's not so they can sit around in a tank and think all day. It's so they can direct people all around the country and the world like Obama.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)to do anything. That's where leadership comes in, and that's what he lacks, unless you think he is a conniving liar, and I don't discount that entirely as he did choose to base himself in Chicago.
But I don't subscribe to the latter, and that's why I often compare him to Wilson. I think he found he was way out of his depth and just rolled over, pissed and shit himself, and did exactly as he was told to do.
And that's why I have zero respect for him as a leader, he leads nothing.
Have you ever seen this bit from Bill Hicks?
I don't think this is far off and anybody that wants the be President should be prepared to deal with it after the election. FDR was allowed in the White House because he was known to be on their side. He got the power and went wild by going around them and taking his case directly to the public. He showed us how to beat them, they can't stand in the light.
merrily
(45,251 posts)No, I have not seen that before, but I have seen the punch line, only as to the CIA. Which was much why I specified that I was not giving you any Kennedy CIA conspiracy theories. Your video gives a, if you will, privatized version of the CIA Kennedy "Any questions?" story.
He seems to be talking about a handful of people who run all US corporations. I am talking about official and unofficial institutions that have been around for a long time that have run most of the world at this point. Not necessarily in a conspiratorial way, as in "let's start the Bilderberg (and other organizations) and use it as a base to run the world. However, things have evolved that way, whether conspiratorially or just because.
And, in my prior post, I posited that these institutions could convince any newly-elected President that they know what's best. I am sure they have books and all kinds of things to explain to him or her just why all kinds of upheavals and collapses will occur unless it does things the way that they explain. If so, he could be leading in a way he believes he needs to lead, but is mistaken.
One could speculate forever. And some of the yarns might even be true.
But, suppose I told you that I knew the real skinny, cast in stone. And then I told you the real skinny. Would that put food on your table or help you put food on the table of a single hungry family?
BTW, The real skinny is that some very rich people who are also very powerful and clever are somehow in control of a lot of things and a lot of people in this world and they want even more. Who or why or how may have mattered long ago, but, at this point, it is what it is.
So, the only speculation in which I am really interested is, what, if anything, can we do to improve things?
merrily
(45,251 posts)The former was done with a lot of fanfare and the latter was just business as usual, Timmeh and Ben.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)were paying particularly close attention.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)But to the Right Wing "banksters" is defined as "Obama Supporters".
merrily
(45,251 posts)That's less either true or not and can be researched, probably even online.
And the success of Obama's fundraising and his donors are a matter of public record, also available online.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Clinton bragged about being able to raise more money from Wall Street than Republicans.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And I don't even know about the "soft money" donations.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Of course, the most beautiful may be no limit on the amount that can be donated.
Remember in 2008 that Obama and McCain said they'd accept public financing and therefore limit the amount they could get privately, then Obama didn't do that?
Good times.
Actually, if you think about it, the first person to have to live with a broken Obama campaign promise was McCain. Of course, McCain did cheat a bit, using his wife's private plane and whatnot, but, the FEC let him pay back the money quietly and let bygones be bygones. Guess they thought that losing the Oval Office was for the last time was punishment enough for John McCain.
Bet John Edwards wishes that he could have gotten that deal.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)The original HTML is cached on this link http://pastebin.com/mp15xtCn
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Never in a million years would I believe CNBC would print an article with the word "banksters" in it. A rogue insider, maybe?
In any case, looks as if I stand corrected. Thank you, LiberalArkie.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)the page and no one has reported on it again.
pnwest
(3,266 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)This week financial news organization CNBC gave some mainstream attention to the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History, in which Banksters and their U.S. racketeering partners are being accused of laundering of 43 trillion dollars worth of ill gotten gains.
Within hours the original page for the article was taken down, and CNBC senior vice president Kevin Krim received news that his children were killed under very suspicious circumstances.
Some of the alleged conspirators are Attorney General Holder, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary, Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former communications director for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the Banksters themselves, and their affiliates and conduits.
This story was run on CNBC on October 25 at 2:09 PM
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)ready for the next crash??
pnwest
(3,266 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)murdered by their Nanny? what was the date of that event again? And do you have names & location (city/state)?
On Edit, I see the name of the exec in a previous post..presumably the date of this event occurred at the least the day of or before the report, I'm assuming.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)The homicide of Lucia "Lulu" Krim and Leo Krim occurred in the late afternoon of October 25, 2012 on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in New York City, New York, United States. The children's part-time nanny is accused of stabbing the children to death while their mother and 3-year-old sister were a few blocks away at a swimming lesson. Upon returning home, their mother, Marina Krim, and sister found Lucia and Leo dead in a bathtub at the family apartment. The nanny then began stabbing herself repeatedly in the neck and throat.
The children had lived with their parents, Marina and Kevin Krim, in New York City. Kevin Krim was at the time, and is still currently, an executive at the television network CNBC and Marina Krim was a stay-at-home mom and blogger who chronicled the children's lives in New York City.[1][2][3]
The murders were reported by the international press. The entrance to the family's apartment was covered in flowers by sympathizers in the days after the murders of the children.
2banon
(7,321 posts)People of their means have the level of resources to carefully screen out emotionally and mentally disturbed people.
But in this case, it would appear that the Krims made other choices. What a horrible tragedy.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)Historic NY
(37,451 posts)n the hours since a nanny was taken into custody as the suspect in the murder of two children in her care, a picture has started to emerge of the Upper West Side family at the center of the tragedy.
The children, identified by a law-enforcement official as 2-year-old Leo Krim and his 6-year-old sister, Lucia, were found by their mother after she returned home about 5:30 p.m. They were both taken to St. Lukes Hospital, where they were declared dead.
Yoselyn Ortega, 50, who had been watching the children, was lying unconscious on the bathroom floor with apparent slash wounds to her neck and a kitchen knife by her side, police said. She is believed to have attempted suicide.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/26/killer-nanny-case-what-the-krims-didn-t-know-about-yoselyn-ortega.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/accused-killer-nanny-maintains-denial-article-1.1510555
Squinch
(50,955 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Squinch
(50,955 posts)when there was a huge outcry, and the Chinese government is sending out signals that there is a liquidity problem caused by over-lending in the Chinese construction industry.
The article this links to says at least one of these guys was involved with "fixed income derivatives" which were what caused our 2008 crash.
My bet is that China's construction bubble is beginning to burst, and I bet HSBC, among other people, have a lot of money in Chinese mortgage or loan derivatives.
Response to phantom power (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Principate Roman Empire is the name given to the Roman Empire from the Accession of Augustus Caesar as Sole Emperor to the near collapse of the Roman Empire during the crisis of the Third Century (27 BC to about 235 AD). The end date of the Principate is often given as the start of the Dominiate, but in reality the Principate was long dead when Diocletian basically reform the Empire out of its near collapse in 284 AD. Thus the better date for the end of the Principate is 235 AD when the Emperor's troops murdered the Emperor and the start of the Dominate is 284 when Diocletian made himself sole emperor (and then divided it with a co-emperor).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century
Debasement of Currency and switch to a barter economy:
The Crisis of Third Century were caused by several fundamental changes within the Roman World. First was the water out of the Silver Mines of Spain. Spain had been a source of Silver since before Julius Caesar and Silver the main item of coinage within the Late Republic and the Principate. Nero had started the practice of debasing Silver but his and the subsequent debasement over the next 150 years was relatively minor. You had silver inflation during this whole time period. As more and more silver was mined, what that silver could buy dropped. under the Principate the Troops were paid in Silver, but between the time of Augustus and Nero what they could buy with that silver had dropped almost 40% (and that was before Nero debase the coinage). This rate of silver inflation went down over the 150 years after Nero but it still existed. Any modern economists will tell you a low inflation rate of 1-3% is good for the economy and that is what the silver inflation produced including the occasional debasement when a new Emperor was made.
The problem with the watering out of the Spanish mines meant that the amount of Silver in the Roman World became more or less fixed and thus Silver Inflation could no longer occur. This lead to deflation that forced the Emperors to debased the currency to a degree unheard of before, just to have enough coins to pay the troops. The debasement became so bad that most Roman Citizens could tell how much silver was in the coin by the sound it made when dropped on a wooden table. Thus also had the effect that the money the troops were getting became almost worthless (in fact one of the differences between the Armies of the Principate and the Dominate is that the Army of the Dominate were NOT paid in coin, but promise of land, food, and a little bit of money to buy equipment and arms etc). Coinage became so worthless that barter became the normal way for most people to exchange goods. With no coinage worth anything the value of most items fell for no one had any good coins to buy the items with.
Thus deflation was the big problem after 235 AD not inflation AND at the same time the value of Coinage dropped to nothing.
Raise of the Sassanian Empire
The second problem was do to the actions of Septimius Severus in 197 AD. Septimus Severus sacked the Capital of the Parthian Empire, Ctesiphon. The Partian Empire had been a weakly held together empire centered on Modern day Iran (Persia). Unlike the two previous Roman Taking of the Capital (Trajan's in 117 AD and 164 AD by a non Emperor Roman General), which Rome returned intact to the Parthians, Septimus Severus sacked the Capital and used the loot to stabilized Roman Coinage. This had a ripple effect, for the sacking destroyed what hold the Partians had over the Persian people so that by 224 AD the Parthian Empire had been overthrown and The Sassanian Persian Empire had replaced it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesiphon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Empire
Unlike the Parthian Empire, the Sassanian Empire was able to go toe to toe with the Roman Army. The Parthian and Sasanian Empire's army had always been Cavalry mad, while Rome depended in its Infantry. The big change with the Sassanian was they could maintain large forces in the field for long periods of time (Something the Parthians could not do but Rome could). Sassanian also were willing to use Infantry to a much greater degree then had the Parthians.
The need to go to a Universal Service Army and Rome's refusal to do so for it meant cutting the wealth of the 1%
In short, for the first time since Rome had defeated Carthage and Macedonia around 200 BC, Rome had an enemy that could match it in military power. At the same time, Rome was NOT willing to give any power to its peasants so that the peasants had reasons to fight for Rome. Thus Rome could NOT go to the Universal Service Army it had had at the time of the wars with Carthage and Macedonia, for such an army needs to know why the war they are fighting is in their best interests. The Rights of Roman Peasants (its 99%) had been going down hill since Marius had formed the first Mercenary Legions in 109 BC. For example even as late as the Time of Christ, it was illegal to whip a Roman Citizen (thus Whipping of Christ was legal for he was NOT a Roman Citizen, but St Paul had to be beheaded for as a Roman Citizen he could NOT be put on a Cross, which was reserved for non-Roman Citizen). By 200 AD, Roman Citizens could be whipped and put on a Cross.
Thus Rome could NOT go back to a Universal Service Army for such a peasant based Army would first overthrow the 1% and do the land reform that Roman Peasants had been demanding since the time of the Gracchi around 150 BC. In my opinion such a move would have saved the Roman Empire, but the 1% did NOT want to share the wealth. Thus when you do have Barbarians invading the Empire in the Fifth Century you notice that the armies INCREASE in strength as Roman Peasants joined them. You had similar situation when an invading army invaded a country with a high percentage of its population did NOT support the goals of the Government of that Country. Sherman's Army through Georgia is an example of this. As Sherman marched through Georgia the size of his Army INCREASED as run away slaves joined his column. American Slaves joined with British Forces during the Revolution for the same reason, they opposed the American Government policy of supporting slavery.
Thus the Goths after sacking Rome in 410 AD saw they army INCREASE as Roman Peasants joined. This was true of other invading "Barbarians" during the Fifth Century. Somehow Aetius managed to get the peasants to support him against Attila the Hun in the battle of Chalons (This can be seen in that the Armoricans, from present day Brittany, held the center of the Roman line in that Battle. Armorica had been in open revolt against Roman elites for almost 20 years by that time, turning most Roman Estates in Armorica into small farms run by the peasants.
I suspect Aetius had promised them legal recognition of their claim to these farms in exchange for service at Chalon, a promise the Roman Emperor refused to agree to, so Aetius stayed in Gaul when Attila invaded Italy the following year. I suspect Aetius was acting as if the Emperor had legalized the claim of the Armorican peasants when the Emperor had him killed after Attila died. That Emperor was subsequently killed himself within a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_Aetius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ch%C3%A2lons
I bring this up for it is clear the Roman Peasants would fight for the Roman Empire, if it meant improvement in their lives. The problem is the people who would have to give the most to give these peasants reasons to fight for Rome, did not want to give up their control of the land. Thus the Roman Empire slowly declined in size till it was restricted to Southern Italy, Modern Greece and 2/3rds of modern Turkey. This is also the only area within the Roman Empire where peasants had retained ownership of their land (The Roman elites preferred the more fertile and thus profitable lands of Gaul, Spain, Italy, modern Tunisia and Egypt). When the Roman Empire was reduced to the above, the Empire made a switch in its army, it gave up the Mercenary Army it had used since 109 BC and turned to a more Feudal Army that tied in military service with land ownership. If you did not do your military duty, you lost your land, but that change did not occur till the Rule of Heraclius 610-641 AD) and that was the main Miltiary change that saved the Eastern Roman Empire for the next 400 years and the battle of Mazakurt in 1071 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert
The Dark Age Cold Period
Overlooking the above is the onset of the Dark Age Cold Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
As you can see, around 250 AD you had a significant drop in temperatures this lasts to about 300. The 300s the temperatures were steady, but lower then it had been pre 200. In the 400s the Tempertures were again steady by lower then it had been in the 300s. You had another drop about 550 AD. 620 and 810 you have additional drop in temperatures (with higher temperatures in between in fact higher then it had been in the 300s but not as warm as in pre 200, through some data indicates other wise).
Recent retreat of Glaciers in the Alps has revealed Roman Settlements beneath those Glaciers, but nothing after about 200 AD (Some say 180 AD and the death of the next to the last Antoine Emperor Marcus Aurelius).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius's son the last Antoine Dynasty Emperor and the only one the natural son of his predecessor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
Marcus Aurelius died in 180 AD, it is during the reign of his Son Commadus that you first read of palgue and population drops within the Empire. A steady drop in Tempertures would have cause a drop in crop yield and force people living in the North to move south in search of food. The increase movement of the Barbarians throughout the 200s seem to reflect this. This further weakened the Empire as it meant increase spending to control these "Barbarians" on the move and reduce revenue as crop yield fell. The already weak condition of the Empire would do to its almost total control by its 1% and little input from the other 99% of the Roman Population would be magnified by these changes. The Troops would see their pay cut but then asked to do more with less. Peasants had to produce as much as they father had done, but their fathers had worked in an era where the higher temperatures permitted higher yields (and less crop failures do to earlier and later frosts).
A population already weakened by reduction in the amount of food they could keep for themselves, would open up the peasants to higher death rates if and whenever a Plague would hit (and such Plagues would hit till about 750 AD. These plague seems to be severe but became smaller after trade died after the fall of Carthage to the Vandals in 430 AD and the sacking of Rome by the Vandals in 455 AD. It increase with the Plague Justinian in 541-542 but then fell till you hear no more plagues after 750 AD till the Black Death of 1348-1350 AD).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#Kingdom_in_North_Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_plagues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
Extreme Weather Event of 535-536 AD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
Yes the above is a lot, but the worse case of decadence of the Roman Empire was at the time of Christ, and Rome survived Nero. The Coinage problem was containable till Rome had no more access to more silver then it already had. Even then it was workable (Constantine solved the problem by raiding all the Pagan Temples of their Gold and using that Gold to mint the Gold Coins. Called Soldius, that became the Currency of the World from the Time of Constantine till the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204. It was not till the 1400s that the German Taler truly replaced the Soldius. The German Taler became the Spanish Dollar from which we derived our Dollar from).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidus_(coin)
Thus, while the problem of Coinage and its debasement is known, that problem had to deal with the crisis of the Third Century (200-285) and that was solved by Constantine's decision to embrace Christianity and thus use Christianity as an excuse to take all of the gold from the Pagan Temples for his coinage reform (Diocletian had done the first attempt as such reform but had tried to stay with Silver but never had enough silver to replace all the bad coinage in use. Constantine embrace of Gold from the temples gave him enough coins to replace all the bad coins.
Conclusion
Thus the collapse of the Principate can be put on the debasement of Coinage, but all that lead was to the Dominate. On the other hand, the refusal of the ruling elite to accept that they needed the support of the peasants meant that the Empire could NOT face any serious challenge and the raising Sassanian Empire was such challenge along with the need to increase defenses against the "Barbaric" tribes from the north, pushed south do to the onset of the Dark Ages Cold Period.
Christianity seems to have been an attempt to get everyone, peasants and the 1% to support the needs of each other, but while the peasants seems to be willing to accept the 1%, the 1% did not want to have to give up to much of their wealth. The Successful invaders of Rome in the Fifth Century were either heretical Christians (mostly Arrians), Catholics (Such as the Franks) or converted to Christianity as soon as they started to rule a part of the former Roman Empire (the Vandals is the classic example of this). Thus when you had barbarians and Romans living together in the 400s and 500s, they were all Christians (You had some pagans left after 400, but none of them were of much political value except for those barbarians that allied with Attila the Hun and his empire collapsed at his death).
Most writers ignore the fact that the Roman Empire did survive till 1453, in the form of what historians, but not the empire itself, calls the Byzantine Empire. That name was invented in the early 1700s by a historian who did not want to associate his great admiration of ancient Greece and Rome, with what he considered a decadent state, thus he renames what up till then was called the Roman Republic to the Byzantine Empire (The Rulers of Constantinople never gave up their claim to be successors of Augustus Caesar, and like the citizens under Augustus and all of his successors, they called their Empire the "Roman Republic" till it fell to the Turks in 1453).
Why did the Stump of the Roman Empire, the most Greek Speaking part, which we call the Byzantine Empire Survive but Egypt and Western Europe was lost to the Roman Empire? First, the Greek speaking part of the Empire had the most free peasants and the least slaves. Diocletian's reforms as to taxing peasants appear to have been only fully implemented within the Greek Speak part of the Empire (and parts of those reforms would last till after WWI, including how much land and other items a soldier released from duty was entitled to). Do to the pressure of the Sassanian Empire, the Roman Empire had to slowly enlarge its army and finally it had to accept the fact it could no longer afford that army to be mercenary, thus reverted to a Militia based army, an army raised based on land ownership implemented by Heraclius (Through it appears to have been started earlier, as the final Roman-Persian war came to a head). Heraclius also seems to made a decision that if the 1% wanted to control lands, they had to do it themselves, he was NOT going to send troops in to return land to the Roman 1% unless they paid for it (and most refused and this seems to be the main reason when after defeating and crushing the Sassanian Empire, he left the Arabs take and hold Syria to Egypt, that population had turned against rule by Rome and he was NOT going to waste Roman Soldiers blood to keep those areas within the empire unless they wanted to be in the empire). Heraclius's decision saved Greece and Constantinople from the Arab onslaught, preserved his then new Feudal/Militia to protect Greece and Constantinople.
Byzantine "Themes" the key to its success. Military and Civilian were combined in a form of what can be called Feudalism. The ruler of the Theme had to the right to rule the Theme, but only if he could raise the money and the troops the Emperor needed from that Theme. That also went down to the village, they right to farm was only protected if they could produce the number of horse soldiers the Emperor wanted (or in some districts the number of foot solders and Archers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)
Thus the reason the Roman Empire Fell had nothing to do with its Currency, that problem was solved before the Roman Empire Fell. The Empire fell for its citizens no longer had faith in the Empire or its ruling class. That faith seems to have been lost by 100 AD (if it lasted much beyond the 109 BC adoption of a Mercenary Army). Christianity did return some of that faith to the Empire in its last Century but the failure to address much of the problems of the peasants was a killer.
The raise of the Sassanian Empire and the reduction in productivity do to reduction in Temperatures (and increase barbarian activity on the Frontiers) were just icing on the cake that was killing the Empire. The problem was to much money in to few hands and the only part of the Empire that addressed that problem (through more by accident then design) was the part that survived.
This same idea can be seen in the following books about American Homicide and that the American Homicide rates goes up and down depending on how much faith the people as a whole have in the Government and Society:
http://books.google.com/books/p/harvard?id=DNTu6vYe9wgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
The author points out four observation on US Murder rates (and those rates in other countries). It is how the people of US (or any other society) feels about these four things. The more people say these are true, the lower the murder rate, the more people say they are NOT true the higher the murder rate:
1. The belief that the government is stable and that its Judicial and legal institutions are unbiased and will redress wrongs and protect lives and property.
2. A feeling of trust in government and the officials who run it, and a belief it their legitimacy
3. Patriotism, empathy, and fellow feelings rising from racial, religious or political solidarity.
4. The belief that the social hierarchy is legitimate, that ones position in society is or can be satisfactory, and one can command the respect of other without resorting to violence.
Notice the Roman peasants do not think any of the above applied to the Roman Empire at the time of its fall and it is for this reason, the Empire collapsed.
Response to happyslug (Reply #39)
TheMathieu This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Also pay attention to currency exchange shenanigans coming up.
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)start a "cash stash". He says there's another meltdown coming, and to reduce our expenses and save, save, save (cash). He said this time, pensions will be stolen.
We've had him for 14 years and hasn't been wrong yet.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)Does that mean that the ones not on pension loose theirs and those that are drawing a pension still have theirs guaranteed or do all pensions with a company come to a complete halt?
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)How it affects anyone waiting to retire, I don't know. It wasn't relevant to our situation.
He predicted the crash in 2008 about 2-1/2 months before it happened. I'd trust him with my last dollar.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)to around $50,000 per year to those already drawing. But those not drawing yet would get a reduced amount.
I only get $425 per month, so I guess I would keep that.
That is unless they shut down the Pension Guaranty plan.
I was a little off, I figured it would happen in 2007.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Pay down debt; go to cash; and (in some cases) buy precious metals.
If he called the crash 2.5 months before it happened in 2008, he was late to the party. Housing values in Florida, Arizona, and Nevada had already started dropping by Spring of 2006. By the beginning of 2007, it was a full-on rout.
OTOH, if he told you that the market was overbought at DJIA 16,500, he was absofreakinglutely correct. I'm out of equities in my 401 K, and won't look to get back in until the market has dropped to = or < DJIA 14,500 (roughly 10%) (20% wouldn't shock me one bit) (a 20% sell down does not mean the sky is falling; it means the suckers are being washed out again).
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)he told us at our regular appointment at that time. And we've been told from the beginning to check with him before making any kind of financial decisions. The only change we've made in 14 years is re-fi-ing the house through Obama's plan, which of course was after the crash.
I saw something interesting this morning - the US and UK are practicing "bail-ins":
...
BOE Says U.S. Could Do Today And U.S Authorities Doing Simulation Exercises
The U.S. already has in place plans for bail-ins in the event of banks failing. Indeed, the U.S. has conducted simulation exercises with the U.K. in recent weeks and will do so again in 2014.
On October 12, Art Murton, the FDIC official in charge of planning for resolutions, and the Bank of Englands Deputy Governor Paul Tucker, both confirmed that the U.S. system is ready to handle a big-bank collapse.
The Bank of Englands Tucker, who has worked with U.S. regulators on the cross-border hurdles to taking down an international firm said that U.S. authorities could do it today -- and I mean today.
...
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-12-11/part-vi-how-likely-are-bail-ins-bank-england-says-us-%E2%80%9Ccould-do-today%E2%80%9D
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)1) Absorb them into a "national bank" (the oldest political argument in America)
2) Bust em up and sell off the pieces.
I vote option 2
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)days back suggesting that JP Morgan tried to play games with Russian investors - not a very healthy business practice. The Russians believe in personal banking.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Is there any major financial firm that isn't under investigation?
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)course of the investigation and outcome.
Now if the media breathes one word of it, the media outlet's exec's kids get murdered by a nannie who then slits her own throat...
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)calimary
(81,322 posts)Something smells rather fishy here.
arikara
(5,562 posts)and I hope the truth all comes out.
K&R
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Saw an article about the "suicides" in the Friday news dump. Hadn't heard about the missing reporter though. Sure does smell like something bad is brewing...
One advantage to being relatively poor, there isn't much to lose.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I'm glad to be a "nobody", as it were, who has nothing anyone else wants. I do not know anything that would cause anyone else ruin either.
Julie
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)no holdings, don't own a house, very little savings.. The whole system will have to collapse before it affects me too much...
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that "invested" their hard earned money). The Stock Market has to be the biggest "legitimate" scam ever.
TBF
(32,067 posts)legitimate scam. The market is just part of it ...
It's like a giant pyramid scheme with the few at the top holding the wealth and everyone below trying to climb up. Now, if that pyramid is built on faulty derivatives we could have a disaster coming.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)capitalism implodes.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The biggest business there is. More money in one year of the oil business than all the world's governments' annual expenditures combined.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Or for Wall Street, any day of the week.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)TheMathieu
(456 posts)But this is too many coincidences to ignore.
Too many puzzle pieces falling into place.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)ancianita
(36,093 posts)Seriously, if a huge debt avalanche is about to fall on people, maybe Obama's all like "fuck those banksters!" and just forgives a whole generation that will have to rebuild.
mathematic
(1,439 posts)What kind of person believes the following 4 things are related:
1) Retired financial executive's death
2) Financial software executive's death ("Lead Architect Technology"
3) Chief economist's death (a researcher)
4) Oil commodities reporter's death
when the 4 people didn't work in the same place, the same city, in the same parts of the industry, or have anything else in common, really.
If there was a suicide at yahoo, apple, best buy, and the washington post would anybody have the same reaction? This is frankly absurd. I mean there's not even a HINT of any relationship between these people.
Say there are a bunch of suicides in a hated industry, call it suspicious, and everybody breaks out their pet paranoid theories and starts stockpiling like they're Linda Hamilton in a Terminator movie. It's truly mind-boggling.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Nothing to see here. Move along now.
K&R