$1,000.oo 3% interest added annually
for
50 years value will be $ 4,383.91
--
(
100 years value will be $ 19.2818. 63
Now what gets scary is this. leave the same $1,000.oo in for;;
ready
500 years. value will be $ 2,621,877,234.--
Now that is some serious money even I can come up with that thousand in cash..
Indecently that is why there are laws against perpetual trusts... (",)
to prevent major universities from extreme wealth..
but that would not keep a ?Secret? society from doing it.... ah the secret society of "The Golden Calf."
It is shear madness.. but easily do able when you look in the long term.. now just look at adding several zeros to the original 1,000 and see what happens..
which countries do we want our future generations to Own??
Allan
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:34 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree most of that Allan. We could have banks small enough to
compete for our business with very little regulation. On the current
banks - it's doubtful many are really worth anything.
On Oct 22, 1:45 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back to what I was saying,, I see a society today including bankerism that
> is based an economy based off debt.. As I see it a trust that could be set
> up that (actually split as to not draw attention) it could be used to help
> people, I am thinking about a small economy strictly toursit based where
> it could be used to help people doing things like develop wind generators
> then selling the power to pay for themselves and at the same time grow the
> fund.. other things like building vertical green houses for supplying
> food to make sure every one ate..
>
> I do not think charity is a way to go,, but the process of growing a
> business designed to help people is not to bad.. it can get into things
> like the skycat and transporting goods across oceans to pay for themselves
> and grow the trust,, when it came to times like the big earth quakes and
> natural disasters,, where the could be actually flown into
> the disaster areas to supply aid directly .. helping to keep it out of
> the corruption cycle.
>
> As the trust fund{s} grew they could actually buy out the greed banks stock
> taking them over.. ending the cycle that way..
>
> Transferring the economy from a debt economy to a stable debt free
> economy.. you will be well on your way to ending Bankerism.. It can be
> done simple because they are based on debt,, remember a share actually sez
> they owe you money..
>
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for the ideas Neil,, I for one actually believe ?bankerism? can
> > be controlled but not necessarily with regulations.. It is well known and I
> > think it was discussed here on the financial power of the trust fund
> > especially non-expiring ones,, to the point that they are regulated by
> > the government requiring them to spend the interest.. I have to run I
> > will get back to this when I return..
> > Allan
>
> ...> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> My guess is that modern rationality starts with Descartes - though he
> >> doesn't provide a template, just some ground we can get into the
> >> issues through. The great warnings to us on 'solutions' is real
> >> history and the failure of Germany as the most cultured and scientific
> >> nation culminating in "Hitler" - the lesson being so-called triumphs
> >> in rationality, science and culture are dreadful fantasies. I would
> >> hope in this that German friends would not see any blaming in this -
> >> the culpability is wider-set in imperialism and our still stupid
> >> notions of leadership. In intellectual terms we are supposedly in
> >> postmoderism (really read that and weep in a different way from
> >> Gabby's sonnet). The crisis is one of legitimation and the need for
> >> an incredulous stance towards grand narratives like religion and the
> >> 'wealth creation' espoused in the status quo of oligarchy (rather than
> >> competitive capitalism).
>
> >> I'd say the big issue is dishonesty and the ease with which we swallow
> >> chronic lies whole as the facts stand up against them. The idiocy is
> >> in demanding paragons of virtue in politics. Honesty is not so easily
> >> produced. As a population we remain crudely ignorant and politicians
> >> can rely on this. I can prove over and again that voters don't know
> >> what they vote for - the result being my regard as a smartarse,
> >> "commie" or whatever suits. We get bogged down by popular opinion
> >> (Idols in Bacon) and inane rationalist fantasies as to whether god
> >> exists or not to which there is only 'answer' in sentient (Hume). We
> >> rightly point to failures in communism whilst failing to spot we have
> >> already been carried away in the anti-communism (even anti-democratic
> >> management - see the use of the UnAmerican stuff against quite mild
> >> adherents of such) that drives our resources into the hands of a tiny
> >> few, leaving even 1 in 5 Americans poor etc. and wars all over -let
> >> alone poverty through massive over-breeding and climate change.
>
> >> The answer is a massive change in our ways, including world-government
> >> - but the rub here is this can't involve the kind of people doing
> >> politics at the whim of banksterism and it does mean not allowing
> >> 'riches' as currently conceived, which many think 'fair' owing to
> >> propaganda. The statement on population ignorance itself needs review
> >> as it can't itself be just another bid for leadership and power. On
> >> the odd occasion I do chemistry for schoolkids I do experiments that
> >> go bang, flash light and then a tame one in which heating Lead
> >> Carbonate turns it yellow before it melts. The kids rarely understand
> >> (which isn't the point). Teaching economics is much the same in
> >> result - most end up with no clue and would need to be in intensive
> >> educational care to get a grok. I am much more confident in my
> >> scientific prognostications than on those of how we should live and a
> >> viable economics. Yet the world of science is much less authoritarian
> >> than that of public opinion, despite the techniques being much more
> >> reliable. If you don't want to listen properly on how to make,say,
> >> gunpowder - then you're free to blow your hands off. Yet how do I
> >> tell anyone not to have children in excess? Recruit Indira Gandhi?
> >> How do we get work done - sit around drinking tea voting?
>
> >> The basic idea is often to get everyone up to western standards - yet
> >> what 'standard' do we offer? Planet burning firsts? A model that has
> >> always favoured a few rich with a minor blip after WW2 and is as debt-
> >> ridden as ancient Mesopotamia? A big part of the answer is the
> >> setting up of complex regulation that prevents undue power accretion.
> >> The human tendency in this is towards bureaucracy and that runs into n
> >> iron cage (Weber). I believe computing offers new avenues -but we'd
> >> have to guard against this being perverted in the usual ways. The key
> >> roadblock is world peace and not believing we could have it and the
> >> daft assumption just laying down our 'guns' would produce it.
>
> >> There's a massive literature that could help - the problem being few
> >> read and would even watch if our media could summarise it. Should I
> >> issue a bibliography? This doesn't even work at university.
>
> >> The first solution is getting resources into individual and collective
> >> control with banking as a utility (rather than designed to steal them
> >> as happens now even with micro-credit). This itself should produce
> >> enough argument to fill several books - but watch this space. The
> >> move is broadly capitalist but anti-oligarchy pro-democracy in the
> >> sense of (Popper's) control of those allocated 'power'. Questions
> >> immediately arise as to what is not allowable - like a bunch of
> >> Taliban mistreating women and trying to build an H-bomb or burning
> >> coal for the hell of it.
>
> >> To see this as other than 'castle-in-the-air' one needs an
> >> understanding of social economics and the mad stuff of the mainstream
> >> and what its results are. This requires a lot of negation -something
> >> widely perceived (still, long after science) perceived as negative
> >> because of Idols. Rigsy started a thread on Freud in which this and
> >> the paranoid-schizoid and 'depressive' positions could have been
> >> explored. This level of intellectualism can even lead to 'academic
> >> bullying' claims in universities in these dumbed-down days. A good
> >> start would be Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' would be a start, but
> >> only a start (you can get it on Movshare and the like).
>
> >> I'm much more positive than most people I know in spirit, from running
> >> myself into the ground and desperate tackles to trying new stuff. One
> >> meets this negative stuff everywhere from underperforming sports teams
> >> to simple changes like not buying vastly over priced ink and toner and
> >> getting advice from the data protection officer that means don't put
> >> anything on your project website. The 'highly positive', of course
> >> ain't going through the Pillars of Hercules because they'll fall off
> >> the edge. The positive question is nearly always 'what junk are we in
> >> thrall to now' - what is today's "flat earth theory". The big
> >> challenge isn't ignorance but incompetence even to the point of not
> >> recognising one's own. The arguments many think they take part in are
> >> carefully structured inside highly parochial propaganda (Idols).
> >> Rather than learning through gleaning the facts, most people just
> >> reinforce there dullard positions - this means you (or me if I don't
> >> check myself).
>
> >> Most, even in this group,lack enough knowledge to have more than mere
> >> opinion, whether on how to make TNT or understand what the banking
> >> crisis is. Much of what I say won't work would not be negative if you
> >> knew more, but seen as pointing to reasons for radical change.
> >> Classic moves include atheism meaning I must lack morality or am not
> >> open-minded about god possibilities - you know the form. With, say,
> >> nitroglycerin manufacture you can leave it to me (at a safe distance)
> >> - but why are we generally so reluctant to learn what is available on
> >> ideological and economic-practical issues? What model of the positive
> >> do you guys work with - Mollyarian letting fear slip away (which is
> >> complex in her elaborations, not barking), how would you get across a
> >> street under fire (the answer is you don't unless there is no
> >> alternative) - how do you assess what is negative?
>
> >> Many of the issues discussed in groups like this are deeply
> >> constrained because most people don't study and have false views on
> >> fact. I see this as key in developing 'democracy' - I'm anti-democrat
> >> in the same terms as Joseph Heller's lovely book - but how many have
> >> read it and would recognise I'm not being negative but asking for a
> >> review of the ideas and practices for better, wider control of
> >> authority and how we might achieve it? Try making nitro by just
> >> bunging the constituents
>
>
> read more »
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário