Gent, i note that you have started this morning in a more informative manner (at least after your poor response to Hot Head first thing) - which is welcome, so lets forget about last night. The 1946 ACT was indeed a major step forward for our country, but it did not last, or go far enough. In 1694 the Bank of England was set up as a private company loaning money to the British Government In 1946 it was Clement Atlee that nationalised the bank in an attempt to wrestle control from private bankers - though importantly the Bank of England continued as Royal Charter Company - providing it exemption from public record. To this day it is fully exempt from any reporting as to its ownership structure and is afforded protection by the official secrets act. In 1977 the Bank of England Nominees Ltd was formed - a private company acting as the Nominee for the Bank of England. It does not trade, and has not done to this day. There is no way of finding out who owns it. You will note that the 1946 act calls for the appointing of a Nominee to own the stock. Since then more ACTS have been passed including the 1998 ACT which revoked much of what Clement Atlee did with the 1946 ACT. To suggest that the Bank Of England is a public company is wrong. It is in effect owned by a Nominee, a private company, and the public body has protection from record (thus making it private in nature). The Rothschilds are not a single company, or person. Given the amount of research done on the subject, much of which I have studied, it is my conclusion that it is indeed the Rothschilds that own the BOE. This view is not undermined by the 1946 ACT in any way. What is clear is that SOMEBODY owns it and it NOT "we, the people".
I'm sorry but I don’t believe that for a second even if Oil plays a major part of their wealth tourism is a major part of income for many of these countries especially Dubai for example where their main revenue is tourism followed by real estate and finical services. Oil might have been a trigger but it is highly ignorant to suggest that these countries just live off of oil. And Qatar has the highest GDP per Capita in the world and has the fastest gorwing ecnomoy in the world so the standard of living in many of these places is very good.
There is nothing inherently wrong with loans and interest, but you have missed the point. Private bankers somehow managed to set up a system that allowed them to loan money the didnt have, creating it out of thin air, and charge interest on it! Sovereign countries ARE now forced to borrow from them, because they have no control. Central banks can now do what they want with the money supply, contracting or increasing the supply of money when they want. Prime Ministers have even spoken about the fact they use this power to influence policy.
You'll be on my ignore list, if you wonder why I'm not answering your questions. And yes your sources are just as dodgy as those of people who suggest holocaust was a hoax.
See, I consider semantics pretty important in any discussion. If you had said something like "i suspect the Rothschilds have undue influence over the BOE and the FED" or something similar, I might have let it go. Your statement was absolute... "the Rothschilds own the BOE too" (the other being the FED). That is an extraordinary claim, that you are nowhere even close to supporting, let alone proving.
Well that's the good thing about falsifiable claims, beliefs/opinions don't matter. You can check it up. This was around a decade ago, a 'popular economics' book which I can't seem to remember the name of. I'll check it at home if I have it in evernote or something. But if you find sources of GDP as percent of industry you can easily verify that.
Not unlike your own statement that the Fed and BOE are transparent in their ownership - you stated it as a fact which is clearly wrong. You see I didnt let that go either, mainly because it was hypocritical and completely undermined your own argument and point of attack. Last night you didnt really offer anything constructive to the discussion but wasted time on semantics. By the way Hothead is completely correct about the Fed. It is owned but is kept secret as to who owns it. Legal cases have been fought in the US as to the status of the FED. In 1982 a US court ruled that the FED was indeed a private institution - "independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations". I am quite comfortable doing extensive reserearch and drawing a conclusion. My conclusion is that the Rothschilds own the Bank of England. This thread is not the place to go over all the evidence, but I would encourage you to do your own research - there are several well written and well researched pieces to draw from. If you find anything that actually gives you an opportunity of counter argument then by all means let me know - I would be genuinely interested to see it.
The Fed and the BOE are transparent in their ownership, the intricacies of their management is "complex", and I'm not claiming I have a complete understanding of it. Ownership =/= Management. The thing is there is no "argument" for me to counter. The burden of proof is on you. You made a very serious claim which is not considered common knowledge, nor shared by (peer reviewed) academics who are well regarded in their field or anyone else with any credibility for that matter. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that...
Fractional Reserve Banking is not a well kept secret, or a recent thing, if that is what you are talking about. Nothing is created "out of thin air" either, nor without the involvement of governments. Can you please define who these "Private Bankers" are in this context?
No gent - the ownership is not transparent at all. If it was you could name the owners, but you cant. Same with the Fed. Both are in fact secretly owned. All we can do to uncover that secret is to research. Based on research you draw a conclusion, which I have. If you are looking for a document which lists the owners and their share holdings - it does not exist. Your position seems to be one of believing what you are told by your masters.
Now I know you are not worth debating with. If you believe that money is not created out of nothing then there is no hope for you. I will try and help you though: You have £100 and you take it to the bank and deposit it. The bank is then able to loan up to £1000 (multiples of your hundred vary by country). The £900 difference is effectively just entered into a computer screen - it doesnt exist as currency. The bank charge interest on the money they just created from nothing and loaned. You get virtually nothing of that interest - just some puny interest on your £100 if you dont touch it. Nobody said fractional reserve banking was a well kept secret, or is new. You need to watch this - it has been posted for you already [video=youtube;JXt1cayx0hs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs[/video]
Except that is not "money created out of thin air", nor do "private bankers" have anything to do with it. The practical reasons for its creation cannot be dismissed just because of the possibility of abuse. Everything can be abused. It is within the power of governments to choose another system. The point is this is transparent, and the system was chosen by regular means. No backhanded stuff going on.
Please explain the practical reasons. Private bankers own the Fed and the BOE - so they have everything to do with it. I have already told you that the FED has been ruled to be a private organisation by the US courts. IN England the run by a NOMINEE who we are not allowed to know of. Money is indeed created from thin air. There is less real money in existence that exists withing peoples bank accounts. Thats why if we all went to the bank to draw our money every bank would go bust.
Hmm, let's see the official version: - The Bank of England is wholly owned by the government, accountable to the Parliament. - The Federal Reserve System is an entity within the government operating independently. Here is what that says: these are not privately "owned", and are accountable to the respective legislatures. What you suggest is that this is just an outside "shell" and behind the scenes these institutions are owned by the same group of people (exclusively?). So its a big conspiracy and the whole world is in on it, including the representatives who you elected. That is the kind of claim that requires extraordinary evidence, no?
Holy ****. Where have we established that?? Say it loudly a few more times and maybe it becomes a fact? Is that where you are going with it?
The Bank of England was founded as a private bank in 1694. It was nationalised in 1946, but power given to a secret Nominee. I have told you this already (and it is easily reaearchable even ina link you posted) , but you refuse to listen and learn The Fed have never bee audited since it's inception in 1913 and have been ruled by US courts to be a private profit making corporation. Again I have advised you of this, and once again easily researchable but you refuse to listen and learn. Credible men through history have spoken about private control of nations money supplies. They are not conspiracy theorists. You just need to put the effort in to learn, which you appear not to want to do. Might I suggest that you go and spend some time learning - and then we can pick up the discussion again.
A "secret" Nominee? REALLY? "Bank of England Nominees Limited acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey." The Fed was last audited a year ago. (jeeebus it's getting hard to keep up with all your falsehoods) I have given you every chance to 'elevate' the discussion. You keep on posting unsupported falsehoods left and right, as if you are some arbiter of truth, because "you've done learning". Incredibly childish even for your standards.
You're a muppet who can't argue, simple You don't understand the Fractional Reserve system if you think money is not produced from thin air. If everyone in the world withdrew their money from banks/claimed money owed there would not be enough physical money in the world to pay it back - credit is money created from thin air. The Fractional Reserve system allows banks to lend money they don't have. I suggest you read up on it. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/fractional-reserve-banking I also suggest you also read up on the term "run on the bank" and why it happens. http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=bank-run I am happy to educate the knowingly stupid !
Then I question the validity of this book you have mentioned, are these statistics based on Western approximates or actual statistics presented by these Arab countries you have mentioned? Also you have said that They are about the most wasteful economies in the world as far as actual production goes. given that much of these countries are baron and have little resources in comparison to many Western countries suggests otherwise.
Fed audit: "The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out" There has been no audit to uncover the owners of the Fed and all their dealings. This is still being pushed for by the Senate. I would encourage you to learn as I have said and i am willing to help you. Look up the bill H.R.459. As for the nominee of the BOE , you completely missed my point. The BOEN is a secret organisation that acts on behalf of the bank. We dont know what they do or who is invloved and it is forbidden for even parliament to ask. By the way have you watched Money Masters yet, or are you too lazy to learn and take on board anything outside the comfort zone of your masters?
