Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Martin Armstrong Warns Civil Unrest Is Rising Everywhere: "this Won't End Pretty"

Recommended Posts

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-28/martin-armstrong-warns-civil-unrest-rising-everywhere-wont-end-pretty

The greatest problem we have is misinformation. People simply do not comprehend why and how the economic policies of the post-war era are imploding. This whole agenda of socialism has sold a Utopian idea that the State is there for the people yet it is run by lawyers following their own self-interest. The pensions created for those in government drive the cost of government up exponentially with time. The political forces blame the rich and this merely creates a class warfare with no resolution for the future. Even confiscating all the wealth of the so-called rich will not sustain the system. Consequently, we just have to crash and burn and start all over again.

The Guardian reported that some 50,000 people marched in London to protest against austerity. They cried: “Who is really responsible for the mess this country is in? Is it the Polish fruit pickers or the Nigerian nurses? Or is it the bankers who plunged it into economic disaster – or the tax avoiders? It is selective anger.”

The exploitation by the bankers has been really a disaster. They have been their own worst enemy and in the end, they have become the symbol that inspires class warfare if not revolution. They are not the representatives of those who produce jobs. They are merely those who wanted to trade with other people’s money for free. When they win, it is their’s, but any losses are passed to the taxpayers. Bankers should be bankers – not hedge fund managers who keep 100% of the profits using other people’s savings.

Glass-Steagall-Signing-Repeal.jpg?resize

The repeal of Glass Steagall was the final straw that broke the back of the world economy. That was the single worst act that could have ever been done and we are now paying the price in spades. The collapse from 2007 has wiped out even the liquidity of the markets. The second worst act was the creation of the euro when the real goal was the federalization of Europe from the outset. That undermined the entire European banking system and has led to a serious undermining of the entire global economy.

The solutions from politics will always be the same – grab more power. We are in a downward spiral of liberty and how far we go down this path to the future will be determined by the people and if they at least wise up and see this is not class warfare, it is the people against government. This is why I say career politicians are dangerous for they can be bought way too easily as Clinton was to open the flood gates for the bankers.

This is not going to end pretty. The question is when does society wake up? Just how high will this price be that we have to pay? They will blame the rich and the idiots will cheer – get them. What will happen when there is no more wealth to hunt? We end up with a communist state by default – no wealth, just career politicians who blame everyone but themselves.

If you're a politician the answer is always more power as that's why you are in politics to acquire power, is something is wrong it's because the govt didn't have enough power, which means the answer is more power.

However the good news is no matter what happens we'll end up with a new elite who will abuse power and corrupt the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that I will get to be an old man dying in my bed at 100. I suspect that the lynch mob will have got to me before then. This is the 1920s again. The 1930s are ahead of us still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Piketty is right. The problem is R>G banks went bust not because they lent to much. They went bust because the people holding the debt weren't the people holding the money. It's the 1% that has all the money and they don't spend it fast enough into the economy for the people in debt to service their debt.

everything works fine so long as there is some one after you taking out more debt. You can work and capture some of that new debt money to service your debt. When the debt stops increasing that's where you get the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is privatisation and reduction of state owned homes that lead to this mess, as state assets decrease state spending increased, as privatisation increased state spending increased. As the spending increased everyone wanted a cut from tax payer spending greed, bankers did not create the problem they just took advantage of a gap, just like anyone else.

The true cause were the governments MPs relatives and special elite individuals with power.

The welfare system and the housing system were working till governments started to tinker with the rules etc.. and the EU played a part in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is privatisation and reduction of state owned homes that lead to this mess... bankers did not create the problem they just took advantage of a gap, just like anyone else.

The true cause were the governments MPs relatives and special elite individuals with power.

I can't understand why the banks, with the power to control the supply of money, would not also lobby for mass privatisation of assets. It would give them so many more assets with which to leverage debt and make more profit. The idea that they lay neutral on the sidelines seems bizarre.

And... I can't see how banks can be compared to anyone else. The license to print money is a massive distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand why the banks, with the power to control the supply of money, would not also lobby for mass privatisation of assets. It would give them so many more assets with which to leverage debt and make more profit. The idea that they lay neutral on the sidelines seems bizarre.

And... I can't see how banks can be compared to anyone else. The license to print money is a massive distinction.

Banks would have made money even if the assets were state owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But those people marching against austerity want more and far bigger govt., they are communists whether they realise it or not.

Wanting to reverse the past 35 years of gains for the 1% at the expense of everyone else doesn't make them communists. The reason your prospects of a decent life are worse than they would have been a couple of generations ago is not because of more government, it is because the rich have stolen your future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They will blame the rich and the idiots will cheer

The rich will blame the politicians and the idiots will cheer.

Twas ever thus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Piketty is right. The problem is R>G banks went bust not because they lent to much. They went bust because the people holding the debt weren't the people holding the money. It's the 1% that has all the money and they don't spend it fast enough into the economy for the people in debt to service their debt.

everything works fine so long as there is some one after you taking out more debt. You can work and capture some of that new debt money to service your debt. When the debt stops increasing that's where you get the problem.

Spot on.

You can either raise wages or aggressively redistribute the captured wealth or some combo.

The alternative is even greated wealth flowing to the top.

Beggars belief that anyone would argue for the continuation of that state of affairs, but most on here seem to.

Quite perplexing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on.

You can either raise wages or aggressively redistribute the captured wealth or some combo.

The alternative is even greated wealth flowing to the top.

Beggars belief that anyone would argue for the continuation of that state of affairs, but most on here seem to.

Quite perplexing.

How many people on here argue for the continuation of this state of affairs? You must be talking about another forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting to reverse the past 35 years of gains for the 1% at the expense of everyone else doesn't make them communists. The reason your prospects of a decent life are worse than they would have been a couple of generations ago is not because of more government, it is because the rich have stolen your future.

That depends on how they do it really, doesnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on.

You can either raise wages or aggressively redistribute the captured wealth or some combo.

The alternative is even greated wealth flowing to the top.

Beggars belief that anyone would argue for the continuation of that state of affairs, but most on here seem to.

Quite perplexing.

Or kill off fractional reserve debt-money and return people's purchasing power to them.

Deflation, as we saw in late 2008 occurs organically and easily, wage growth is difficult, and if forced by regulation, destroys the price mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends on how they do it really, doesnt it?

Or kill off fractional reserve debt-money and return people's purchasing power to them.

Deflation, as we saw in late 2008 occurs organically and easily, wage growth is difficult, and if forced by regulation, destroys the price mechanism.

Don't know how to do multi quotes either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But those people marching against austerity want more and far bigger govt., they are communists whether they realise it or not.

If I see them, I'll tell them for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism failed. Communism failed. Unfortunately I can see facism/national socialism on the rise and being given another (people have forgotten the history of 1930s Europe), politicians have stirred the hornets nest of xenophobia in order to divert attention from their chums who really caused the problems.

Using some very very simplistic examples I can see why:

Communism - everyone gets their share of the pie no matter how little they work (doesn't seem to fit the money grabbing ethos of our age)

Capitalism - everyone can have as big a slice of pie as they want so long as they work for it (as opposed to sitting on your backside whilst HPI takes place)

Facism/national socialism - everyone can have their slice of the pie and get also get some of the pie from those dirty money-grabbing ________ who'll be gotten rid of one way or another (because your lack of pie is the fault of someone else). However, those who'll benefit the most will be those who have a large slice of pie already (as always).

Oh and before some people start cheering, those dirty money-grabbing ________ could well include HPC'ers with massive deposits who haven't been playing property snakes and ladders. Just remember home ownership stood at nearly 75%, it's currently about 60%, so there will a lot of people who will be very unhappy with the minority who've hoarded money hoping for a crash and hence haven't propped-up the ponzi scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or kill off fractional reserve debt-money and return people's purchasing power to them.

Silly boy. Since the State has spent most of the last couple of decades stealing money from the poor and giving it to the rich, either through taxing them to funnel money to their cronies or faking inflation measures while bloating the money supply at artificially low interest rates, clearly the correct solution is a bigger, more powerful State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism failed. Communism failed. Unfortunately I can see facism/national socialism on the rise and being given another (people have forgotten the history of 1930s Europe), politicians have stirred the hornets nest of xenophobia in order to divert attention from their chums who really caused the problems.

Using some very very simplistic examples I can see why:

Communism - everyone gets their share of the pie no matter how little they work (doesn't seem to fit the money grabbing ethos of our age)

Capitalism - everyone can have as big a slice of pie as they want so long as they work for it (as opposed to sitting on your backside whilst HPI takes place)

Facism/national socialism - everyone can have their slice of the pie and get also get some of the pie from those dirty money-grabbing ________ who'll be gotten rid of one way or another (because your lack of pie is the fault of someone else). However, those who'll benefit the most will be those who have a large slice of pie already (as always).

Oh and before some people start cheering, those dirty money-grabbing ________ could well include HPC'ers with massive deposits who haven't been playing property snakes and ladders. Just remember home ownership stood at nearly 75%, it's currently about 60%, so there will a lot of people who will be very unhappy with the minority who've hoarded money hoping for a crash and hence haven't propped-up the ponzi scheme.

I reckon all four main parties are economic fascists.

The old three are proven fascists with their overt support for the bank bailouts. It's a strange kind of fascism that allies itself with international banks, but I guess in some ways it makes a lot of sense as banks are after all very big and very strong corporations. They all like to run their so-called "socialist" policies, but this is only to prevent a wider revolt against their core aims. In this respect they are socially speaking crypto-fascists.

UKIP are National Socialists; also fascists but less willing to sell their own people down the line for the sake of stability for the rich. Like the old three they are too scared to let banks fail, but are more likely to support their own people by controlling immigration and dismantling parts of the false patronage system relied upon by the other three. They would rather rely on rising wages and living standards for popular support and so are socialists, in this respect.

Neo-Fascism versus National Socialism. Take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-30/what-do-you-want-free

There are not enough billionaires to pay the bill for everyone else. Job growth since 1948 in government reached 310% in 2009 compared to 170% in non-farm private jobs. Male job growth has increased only 65% since 1948 on par with population growth while female job growth has increased about 135%. Women won the right to work, but lost the right to stay home.

The problem is NOT that the rich do not pay enough, it is that government takes too much from the economy as a whole. You can listen to the propaganda all you want and believe they will only target the rich. But they ALWAYS go after everyone. There are videos of IRS agents dragging pregnant women out of their cars leaving them on the streets and confiscating the cars. The latest is taking your money claiming some family member owed them money.

My point is not to protect the billionaires – it is to protect society from those that plunder everything we have. The only viable solution is to restrict the size of government. I disagree with the social state for it would be cheaper for just about everything to be private and far less corruption. They started the income tax swearing they were only targeting the rich – lie. Then they started the payroll tax so they could give you social security – now people pay more in SS than taxes and they keep raising the age and reducing the payouts.

The govt promises too much and billionaires hoard too much. Naturally the proles don't work hard enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   219 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.