Really, such a loaded piece of shit would almost force me to become an euro supporter.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

You finished it already !?? Damn you are good :)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I must confess I didn't read it VERY carefully, so I may have missed the finer points.

The recap, however, says still nothing new to me and the whole article seems to have been worked from the conclusions, to wit: I don't like euro and thus I can find and point flaws in the policy that supports it.

Myself, I really don't swing way or the other about euro, and I bet neither does the "two thirds of the population who oppose it". And I bet neither do Finland (as the one quoted in the article), nor Estonia.

That said, I agree with that Czech guy from (I think December) Rīgas Laiks: former head of Statistics bureau of Czech republic and all in all seemingly quite intelligent person: euro does look like a political project and euro and EU do look like primarily means of preventing war between France and Germany.

This doesn't mean that there are no implications for the rest of us, but, honestly, we have seen 3 currencies in the past 30 years and living with one or the other really doesn't change much.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

To me it is another right cross onto the chops of national democracy (whatever you think of that). Another issue (monetary policy) more firmly off limits to the grubby mitts of voters.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, well, frankly, this particular policy I unfortunately trust EU bureaucrats more with than our own government, at least for the next 10-20 years.

I still remember all that "gāzi grīdā!" bullshit and Šlesers has risen his ugly mug again, as soon as he feels the smell of country's finances improving.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

You know sometimes I think Slešers/Šķele were quite useful for supranational central bankers' to realise their designs on this country - they certainly have destroyed many locals' belief in national self-determination (now I aint sayin' it is a conspiracy - I'm just sayin' - is all:)). And let us not forget that when all is said and done it is central bankers not bureaucrats who are now firmly in charge of the issuance of currency we have to pay tax in (although having said that, you can look to the All Souls boys from Oxford University occupying hugely influential civil service positions - Arthur Salter, Con O'Neill et al. UK establishment types working for Federal European power - enjoining us to "swallow it all and swallow it whole"). Who is behind the curtain? We can't be sure.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> Who is behind the curtain? We can't be sure.

Nobody really, I think. Conspiracy theories all seem to be reflection of a human wish for things to make a coherent story and for effects having a single cause (impossible).

Real world doesn't make as much sense.

To be sure, there can be conspiracies galore, as many as you want, but for somebody(or bodies) to actually BE effectively in charge, ORGANIZING and unfailingly DIRECTING things, especially on international level -- that seems to be just ridiculous, having seen how much pure randomness exists already in the lower-medium levels of governance of this country.

As far as lobbies go, bankers obviously have their opportunities, however, even they are extremely far from omnipotent -- if you have noticed, for example, we are about to pass the law, which states that in case of mortgages you can only lose the house -- compared to the current loans, in which you would lose the house AND still have to repay the whole debt.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I try to live with a healthy sense of paranoia - to that end I believe that it is conceivable for events to be directed at higher levels as the higher you go, the fewer people/organisations that need to be coordinated - be these organisations in full view (more or less) as in the Central Bank system/Bank of International Settlements/European Union/Council of Foreign Relations/Royal Institute of International Affairs - or be they a murky apparition in the fog - and here, of course, we can just conjecture.

Re banks, I believe they are far more than just a lobby as I've pointed out before. I welcome the new law, of course, but it will hardly cause them any misfortune as it is hard to see how they can lose. In fact, it will encourage borrowers to take part in a new bubble, thus boosting "interest" payments (you know what I think of that) in the short-term and, at the least, guaranteeing them property rights in the long term (all for a miniscule of actual skin in the game thanks to the Central Bank support).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

> I try to live with a healthy sense of paranoia - to that end I believe that it is conceivable for events to be directed at higher levels as the higher you go, the fewer people/organisations that need to be coordinated

Firstly, regarding a healthy sense of paranoia -- how would you yourself distinguish it from an unhealthy one? I mean, do you have a clear enough internal sense of what would constitute a ridiculously paranoidal thought? It is not strictly an idle question. As I am prone to paranoia myself, I have had to occasionally think "oh, come on, that's ridiculous" to my own thoughts. Liking spy novels doesn't help either.

Secondly, the need for coordination does not diminish with the higher levels, simply because all the higher levels need to bring that coordination back to their respective lower levels. A daunting task, when you are trying to accomplish anything surreptitiously.

As I said, I do not refute that many influential groups try to achieve their ends -- that is a given. What I think extremely unlikely is that any such group can succeeed in maintaining high level of control internationally for very long.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Good question - 'healthy paranoia' is an oxymoron, but I guess I was going for the paradox-easing-the-birth-of-truth approach by alluding to the fact that there is also an unhealthy absence of paranoia. For example, imagine you were shown a video of your Prime Minister performing a high masonic handshake. Unhealthy absence of Paranoia (UAP turpmaak), involving as it does the assumption that there are no grand conspiracies/no high-level plotting - merely random uncoordinated power struggles more-or-less as transparently presented by the media, would lead to a 'so what?' reaction. Having UAP would mean that you would be sure that even if it is a masonic handshake, it has no real significance as they are just funny chaps with aprons, and they donate a lot to charity. Well, maybe - but if you allow for the possibility that something could be going on (healthy paranoia - as opposed to unhealthy paranoia, which would mean that you would be almost 100% sure that you know a dastardly plot is afoot and exactly how it is working), then if you had the time and inclination, you could delve a little further - Who are the masons? How many of them are in the City of London? What is the City of London? Why did Gordon Brown give full independence to the Bank of England and deregulate in 97? Why did Ed Balls advocate it in 92? Why was half of the UK's gold sold at rock-bottom prices? Was it connected to a Goldman Sach's short position? What are the links between Goldman Sachs and the UK government? And so on, and so on..

In other words, healthy paranoia means your mind is open to the possibility that the world is working in ways not often presented to us. It is as healthy as your ability to apply logic and reason to what you uncover. If you just want to cherry pick to find facts that support your thesis, then you know you are straying into UHP (unhealthy paranoia), BUT if you dismiss new, maybe disturbing discoveries too quickly, I would say that you are loitering in the realm of UAP.

Okay rambling over - I hope you understand broadly how I view it.

Re, the ability to influence events from 'high up', I would say that as long as the direction is set, how it is achieved, implemented at lower levels doesn't really matter so much. I would draw the analogy of a river: if the course is set, it can meander here and there, get blocked in places by beaver activity, but sooner or later the waters will run more or less as desired.

(Reply to this) (Parent)