Pindar

That's the choice of the informed individual. Nobody is suggesting that the CEO of a huge corporation would personally oversee the detailed running of his business. That's just not realistic. It's a fact that matters of content are delegated to editors with whole teams of curators with editorial responsibilities. I'm sure you don't believe the CEO of Unilever oversees the production of ice cream in each of his factories so why is it so difficult for you to accept that a purveyor of news in an organisation such as Reuters would delegate editorial responsibilities down through his organisation?

All the more reason to steer public opinion. It's buying power and choice over how money is spent that gives the ultimate power. This assumes there is also a choice of where/how to procure goods, services and government services. If the public can be convinced to support one or two corporations for all of their purchases in the private sector and their choice in healthcare is limited in most cases to one provider, it becomes increasingly difficult for there to be any real competition. My point is that this point has now been reached. Of course in any game of monopoly, this is the desired outcome of the winner.

Why? If you were super rich and wanted to influence the world and its affairs to your commercial advantage, wouldn't you use every means at your not inconsiderable disposal?

I didn't say nobody had heard of them, I'm saying that it's because the wealthiest people on the planet own the likes of Reuters and the largest media organisations that those news outlets obfuscate the true sources of influence by simply not drawing attention to them. If somebody is determined enough they can trace this back but there are few whose influence and credibility is sufficient to convince the majority of people that this is the case. I like what George Carlin used to say and it was that it's a big club and you ain't in it.

Same old same old. I rather think that the people with unlimited funds and hence, power, don't tend to be known to the likes of us. We're talking the multi generational old money banking dynasties I think. Soros and Gates might be wealthy by most people's standards but they're still only gophers.

These same clips that are so often re-hashed from the WEF, UN etc. are stitched together in so many different videos by different "content creators", one might almost assume that there's a library of them from an official news agency. Whatever their agenda, nobody elected these people. AFAICS they're the spokespeople for our owners and as such, are gophers themselves. The real power and money never reveals its true face because that would spoil the fun,

Look not at what the EU is doing but at what the bankers are up to. This is irrelevant to the UK since it left the club. It will be business as usual afterwards though, since with banking, there are no borders as such. Expect house prices to be propped up no matter what until they're ready to pull the plug globally.

Of course house prices will not be allowed to fall. Indebted servitude isn't going anywhere and he who controls the printing press, controls anybody with a mortgage. The Money Week article linked on the front page alluded to this fact, indirectly. The analogy is of going into a food shop and offering to pay whatever the limit of your credit card dictates for your weekly shop, regardless of actual value. In a world where money is printed faster than you can save it, this money eventually filters through to housing.

If, hypothetically, remuneration somehow accurately reflected ability to perform a task, and it could be proven that the success or failure of an institution was contingent on a sliding scale of increasing competence as you head toward the top, then all things being equal I'd say that MPs are under rewarded if we are to believe and accept that they work for us in a benign and transparent way. However, I do not personally believe that the majority of them are working to represent the interests of the electorate and if they are to be judged on their publicly stated role, they are therefore grossly over paid. If MPs were evaluated along the lines of real track record and concrete achievements, as judged by their constituents, they'd all be out on their ear. Maybe a crude alagogy but they're something akin to those who lie at a job interview.

With the government in control of the printing presses and centrally planned economy, what could possibly go wrong?

The dollar will serve its purpose until a viable replacement can be found. The USD is too useful to the 1% right now to fund the US as the world's defacto police force. Once it can be replaced with something digital and something which they can control (i.e tax and manipulate the value of) the USD will IMO remain for a while yet. How long have people like Schiff and Celente been calling the death of the dollar now?

£9!? How things have changed since I last did this. In some countries apartment blocks have their own clothes washing facilities in the building, usually in the basement. I don't think it should cost £9 to do a wash if it's done on a non-profit basis. Modern technology creates more possibilities for a sharing economy. IMO it's legacy attitudes that hold it back. In Vietnam you can get your clothes laundered and ironed for a small fee. This is a true service economy and it provides employment for thousands. Whether laundry robots and serviced accommodation and apartments become more normal in future depends on mindsets I think.

The answer to many if these problems might be unpopular (perceived negatively as being too collectivist) but instead of everyone buying their own washing machine, they could share one like our forefathers were used to. Launderettes are usually equipped with sturdy, long lasting industrial type machines and there are many of them so there's redundancy in case of faults. The same might apply to self driving cars, lawnmowers, all sorts of other expensive gadgets that are used infrequently.

It's been apparent to me for a while that I don't really want for much as long as basic needs are met. I think that the mainstream media "economist" talking heads need to change their perspective. I think after this dies down people might start to appreciate things that they once took for granted such as walking out of their house without being watched and avoided like radioactive waste.

Unless they're wealthy criminals..

It says on their homepage "Changing banking for good"! Certainly they seem to be living up to their promise. Regardless of whether you used the personal account to receive money for a small business, it seems wrong that they've basically stolen your dosh and aren't even willing to discuss it. BTW if they're regulated under the FSA you should be able to prove your relationship with them via credit bureau or through GDPR.

It's pocket change when you consider how much they printed to bail out useless RBS and Lloyds. Totally pathetic amount when you compare it to the real new deal. The difference is that the financial collapse of 2008 could have been prevented yet the reckless behaviour of the banks was rewarded with our money.

I agree, LVT is a fairer means of taxation but this should IMO be accompanied by abolition of council tax which unfairly penalises those in HMOs. and single households.

Not really. I don't understand why it's OK for anybody to dictate how private property is used by its occupier(s) unless it's something illegal. Pensioners were paying into the system for decades. They paid to have some care through taxation all their lives. I don't recall having ever mentioned an LVT on this thread so what's your point?

What kind of mental gymnastics did you employ to come to that conclusion?

That would be far too sensible to ever happen in a largely centralised system of big NHS dictating how care should be provided. Seriously though, people seem to be advocating for the state to stipulate how people should use their own private property. This may be part of the change in mindset where there's a widely held acceptance that private property ownership is banned.

Which has been allowed to happen by successive generations. Under the rule of law and with property rights it's perfectly acceptable for people to stay in the homes they've paid for. Who is anybody to take away that choice because they think that's the reason they cannot afford their own family home? The bigger changes in our society are the root cause of this and it's all by design. Don't begrudge those at the end of their lives and who happen to be living through the birthing pangs of this brave new world the comfort of living in their own family homes. It's nasty and divisive and once again gets the proles arguing with each other instead of directing their anger at the political and power class who let this all happen.

It's not a matter of getting old people to downsize. They've mostly paid for their homes and have paid taxes all their lives. Why should they feel like they're doing something wrong? Personal choice. If you want to put pressure on somebody, put pressure on the government to end the perks for the big building firms and stop them from propping up prices by artificially withholding stock from the market. If somebody wants to live in a mansion or even a modest detached or semi on their own, that's their business.

I'm not sure if the Ferguson model has been adjusted retrospectively to account for what we now know about this viruses mortality rate, which according to the CDC is similar to that of seasonal flu. If not then I suggest your 500,000 theory is questionable at the least.

And you trust the figures coming out of Vietnam?