I was pushed into this by the Jews' plan to put Copyright laws on amateur music tabs and lyrics, if the original song was copyrighted. I have had enough of this bullshit. I am sick of being cut and bled every time I move or do something. Do you have any idea how wealthy we are? We could work 5 or 10 hours a week and everyone's table would be groaning with good food and drink, everyone could take holidays in the sun every year, everyone could have a big house and acres of land, everyone could go to school and learn as much as he was able, and we would have all of the inventions, all of the technology, all of the art and culture and music that we already have, and more. We could, if we got rid of this sick Capitalist system, where the work of millions is stolen from them and goes to buy the Fat Pig's yachts, Rolls Royce cars and mansions, luxury hotel rooms and caviar and champagne room orders and his kids' private educations, while we working people are left scrabbling for the crumbs under the table. They are even trying to make people pay for ideas now. Why should all of the farmers and factory workers and everyone who works, to use his skills and energy to produce something by the sweat of his brow and the strength of his arm, have to go through layers and layers of parasitic merchants, who buy goods for pennies on the dollar and then sell it all back to us at massive mark up? You know if you earn $30,000 a year, you are paying well over half, directly or indirectly, in tax. And whenever you buy something, you are paying more profits to a merchant who has done no work. But if you are paid $30,000, you have probably generated around $130,000 worth of goods. Why the fuck should 500 factory workers sweat their guts out in an unpleasant environment for 8 hours a day, to pay millions of $ a year to some fat pig in a suit who does nothing but sit on his ass moving numbers from computer to computer all day? Most of the stuff made in a Capitalist society is useless trash anyway. And the companies deliberately change the technology every couple of years, so you have to buy new stuff, upgrafded PCs, tape cassettes to CDs to mp3 players, new car engines, etc etc. You don't need some bullshit candy bar and processed, irradiated, artificially flavoured junk in a plastic packet that cost 10$ a pound, you need healthy normal food that costs 50cents a pound. Because that is what it costs to produce. People are brainwashed into wanting to waste their money on all of this garbage. And people think that they can own land. How can you own land? Did you make it? No. The land doesn't belong to us, we belong to the land. And I am sick of all of the government regulations on everything, I already mentioned the ridiculous taxes that drain your work and make you basically a slave in your own country to the government. Want to drive? You need a license. Want a gun? Need a license. Prove yourself obedient to the government. Register you details with the government. Want to work? You need a government number. Want to enter or leave the country? Only if the government allows you to. You want to build a building? Check with the government first. You want to have children? Oh you need the government to declare you are married. And the government will supervise you to make sure that you obey all of its laws about marriage, and you will send all your kids to government hospital to get all of their government numbers and vaccinations and government brainwashing at government controlled schools, where they will swear allegiance to the government every day. You want to go on TV. etc. etc. etc. I say fuck all of these bureacrats tying us up in red tape. And fuck all of the vampire Capitalists stealing our work from us and then selling it back to us at mark up. Backed up by the police and army, whose real job is supposed to be to prevent the people from being attacked, not to attack them themselves. They are nothing but the guard dogs of the rich. No one ever invented one thing or wrote one song or poem or science theory to make money. They do it because that is their nature, to create. All that the government does is take, take, take. All the fat pig Capitalists do is take, take, take, and wallow up to their double chins in the wealth that we created. While we pay them rent to be allowed to live in this country. And all of these restrictions and uptight enforced moral codes have got to go, chaining people down. There is no need to restrict sex, or drugs, or how people dress (can you believe it is a crime to show your naked body? That is unbelievable). Even in some places Big Brother says that I have to wear a motorcycle helmet or a car seatbelt 'for my own good'. Well it is not for my own good, it is to break me down into a little putty man that gets beaten with a hammer until he is a nice square peg for a nice square hole like a good little drone for the government and society. I do not exist to serve anyone else's standards. It is none of anyone's business how I dress or talk or what god I believe in, if any, or whom I have sex with or what I put in my body. Anyone trying to force me to live my life like a little tame sheep in a pen and trying to restrict my self expression can go straight to Hell. Why do you get abused and thrown out of places for dressing different or cutting your hair different, why do you have to stand a certain way and talk a certain way and do certain hobbies to be 'a good person'. This is complete bullshit. Other such long centuries of degeneration we have built a big prison cell for ourselves, climbed in and locked the door. I guess I am not a top political theorist but this is just common sense. Like many in the N.S.D.A.P. said, after they took over, they thought the real revolution would be the second one, that cleared out all of these parasites stealing the work of the people. I am sick of being a slave. Everyone has the right to live in a house on his land and have sex and make art and work and keep what he makes, or swap it for something else, and he does not have to be accountable to any self appointed Master. First we get rid of the Jews and all of the muds. Then we execute every one of these Capitalist parasite thieves, and we shall be free again.

Bobby Fisher is a Jew.

Bobby Fisher is a Jew.

Try sticking to the subject matter of the thread rather than insert your disruptive and troll like comments!
Charles,I agree with your sentiments: Capitalism is one of the greatest threats to our racial survival.

What this diatribe is describing is not Capitalism but Corporatism which used to be called Fascism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Political scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science) may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby an authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian) state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), through the process of licensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing) and regulating officially-incorporated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29) social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy).

What this diatribe is describing is not Capitalism but Corporatism which used to be called Fascism.

No,it is describing capitalism which is nothing other than another Jewism `ism` with the intention of bleeding dry ordinary working Aryans and encouraging the dynamics for a globalist multicultural consumer society.
Capitalism will have no place in the Aryan Imperium of the future,none at all.

While I am not defending capitalism or corporatism, as defined above, I am sorry to say that I think Charles' recipe for a Garden of Eden is a bit simple. We would have to return to a pre-industrial rural society to have all that simplicity that you love so much. But how do several hundred million folks do that in an orderly manner and not die by the wayside in the process of getting there? Remember Pol Pot's and every other communist dictator's plan and the collateral damage that occurred on the march to The New Jersusalem?

We are weak and spoiled and love our cars, paved roads, central heating and flush toilets too much. And these sneered-at aspects of our taken-for-granted infrastructure which 100% of western "civilized" man enjoys are the result of that double-chinned capitalist pig's shameless ambition. We cannot possibly be dumbed down to a truly simple life without side effects that would make allout nuclear war look like a tea party.

Remember Pol Pot's and every other communist dictator's plan and the collateral damage that occurred on the march to The New Jersusalem?

That's being way too selective, ain't it?

Go back to Homer instead.

In the Illiad, the elites are treating the average Hellenic grunts like cattle. And waging war for their own enrichment. Under false pretenses. Taking their pick of nubile women just because they can.

In the Odyssey the elites are... gone!

We know what happened now, the Bronze Age collapsed. But in that second great work, the plowmen and fishermen and herdsmen are doing just fine. And the Upper Class? Gone, man!

Recent theories on the fall of the Bronze Age have tended to support Homer. There was some sort of revolution, and a great displacement of yuppies (have to call them something). Either way, after the deadwood was cleared, the working man never had it so good.

Point is Charles is quite correct here. No civilization was built by Capitalism. When a sort of interrelated, complex trade economy developed in the Bronze Age, the workers got screwed. And as Homer illustrates, when the fucking thing fell, the workers won. This implies the Bronze Age had "help" falling.

We may never know the details, but the general idea is sound. Small town free market economy, okay. Big nation-or-global capitalism, not okay.

It's Odyyseus time again after 3000 years. Push the parasites off their perches so the working man can breathe again.

I am not an economist, nor am I well-versed in matters monetary, but simple logic reveals that usury is a true evil. Consider that 30 pieces of silver invested at 3% interest compounded anually for 2000 years comes to 1,419,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pieces of silver. The modern "synagogue of Satan" would have us believe we owe them all that and more. In other words, a financial system based on usury is inherently unstable, since debts incurred through usury cannot ever be paid. So we get the "boom and bust" cycle that is attributed to some mystical term "capitalism," when what is really being referred to is systemic, uncontainable greed, which itself appears as a sort of materialized lust that swells exponentially.

...

Go back to Homer instead.

In the Illiad, the elites are treating the average Hellenic grunts like cattle. And waging war for their own enrichment. Under false pretenses. Taking their pick of nubile women just because they can.

In the Odyssey the elites are... gone!

We know what happened now, the Bronze Age collapsed. But in that second great work, the plowmen and fishermen and herdsmen are doing just fine. And the Upper Class? Gone, man!

Recent theories on the fall of the Bronze Age have tended to support Homer. There was some sort of revolution, and a great displacement of yuppies (have to call them something). Either way, after the deadwood was cleared, the working man never had it so good.

...

FJ,

This is a fascinating observation. Are there any references, articles, or books that expand this idea?
---
Charles,

Excellent post. I'd nominate it for one of the better posts in the history of this forum. At first, I thought it need some paragraphs, but it reads just fine the way it is.

Enkidu

You're on the proper path, Charles. There are those who would believe and like to get others to believe that if it were not for capitalism, then we would not be experiencing the conveniences of today. Bullshit. Capitalism is not the mother of invention. Capitalism merely capitalizes on others inventions. Capitalism capitalizes on everything from the inventors to the producers to the manufacturers to widows who know no better. Capitalism profits at everyone's expense save for the capitalist.

Is all capitalism big and bad? How about, say, Henry Ford, who started out small and had lots of patents in his own name...isn't it logical that with such inborn creativity he would end up producing goods that everybody wanted? And that he would become a rich capitalist? Yes, he was vicious & aggressive. If he had not been, I don't think the Ford Motor Co. would have been built.

How do you dig for oil without a lot of capital? Could we live without oil and all the good stuff that results? Not that there is not a bad side to capitalism. There is a bad side to the "simple life" also.

Look, this is all grist for the mill. I am trying to debate, not attack anybody. Is there anybody trained in economics who can butt in here?

Is all capitalism big and bad? How about, say, Henry Ford

I'm not going to go to extremes to blast H. Ford, but he did create a method of manufacturing that was so mind-numbingly-boring that even though he paid twice the going wage, many men quite rather than work the assembly line. (I saw a PBS show on this.) He also prescribed behavior for his employees in their personal lives that was patronizing to the extreme. He told them what to wear in their off time. He also required them to go to company dances and dance little Ford Co. dances, kinda like a dememted old woman dresses her cats up and makes them dance.

Enkidu

You're on the proper path, Charles. There are those who would believe and like to get others to believe that if it were not for capitalism, then we would not be experiencing the conveniences of today. Bullshit. Capitalism is not the mother of invention. Capitalism merely capitalizes on others inventions. Capitalism capitalizes on everything from the inventors to the producers to the manufacturers to widows who know no better. Capitalism profits at everyone's expense save for the capitalist.

Capitalist profit is usually less than 5% on a product.

How in the fuck is that exploitation?

I want you to answer that.

FJ,

This is a fascinating observation. Are there any references, articles, or books that expand this idea?

Better stuff now than before. My favorite short recap was Eberhard Zangger's in The Flood From Heaven:

…The end of the Bronze Age was accompanied by a selective disappearance of the city populations consisting of the leading classes, aristocrats and officers, while the bulk of the people lived on. The priest emphasized a similar phenomenon, the survival of ”herdsmen and shepherds” after the catastrophes in Greece. The peak phase of the Achaean civilization was characterized by aristocratic rule, but the post-Achaean era was clearly a time of plebeians. Homer, too, dramatically emphasized this sudden change in his poems. The protagonists of the Illiad, which relates to the culmination of the Trojan War, were exclusively nobles; while the Odyssey, describing the aftermath of the Trojan War, assigned a leading role to herdsmen and shepherds…

Zangger's thesis was that the story of Troy and the story of Atlantis were two versions of the same thing, the confused end of the Bronze Age. His fellow-scholars have attacked him, but there's plenty of good stuff in his book.

Since Zangger, though, things have improved. The independent fellow Ralph Ellis has proved that the "revolution" (or whatever happened) was Mediterranian-wide. Ellis was able to provide evidence that the "Hyksos Invaders" of Egypt were not invaders at all, they were Egyptian nobles, yet another arrogant upper class destroyed during this era. I was lucky enough to hear Ellis speak locally and his evidence is sound.

Mycenae, Egypt, Crete, Asia Minor... something swept the nobles off the thrones in these places and made the world safe for human scale again. Someone did not like how it happened or we wouldn't be piecing the story together over three millenia later.

Like many in the N.S.D.A.P. said, after they took over, they thought the real revolution would be the second one, that cleared out all of these parasites stealing the work of the people. I am sick of being a slave. Everyone has the right to live in a house on his land and have sex and make art and work and keep what he makes, or swap it for something else, and he does not have to be accountable to any self appointed Master. First we get rid of the Jews and all of the muds. Then we execute every one of these Capitalist parasite thieves, and we shall be free again.

Good points. I almost missed the last part when I read it the first time.

Capitalism like communism allows no dissent, no real choice. They both empower the parasite at the expense of those who actually do the work.

NSDAP's list of demands remains the answer to all that: The only affirmation in the 20th century that said Europeans have the right to exist for their own sake, not as some commie proletariat or as capitalist human resources. (No difference between those two, notice?)

Though the whole book to this point is extremely informative and fascinating, Brown’s breakdown of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes is absolutely superb. It becomes clear that Hermes by the time of the Hymn is the embodiment of the common man’s ideals. He is the patron of the ‘Nuevo Riche’ in an early democratic society where acquisitive individualism has helped break down the barriers between the common man and the aristocracy.

Brown presents Apollo as a symbol of aristocracy. As with Hermes’ diatribe telling his mother that he wants equal footing with his half brother; the chapter exposes how at every turn Hermes now encroaches on all the areas once reserved for Apollo, a clear signal that the social environment was in upheaval when the hymn was written. It is with this interpretation in mind that Brown then further examines minute details in the Hymn to prove that it was a product of a very specific time in 5th Century Athens and whose court it was probably written for.

The entire study is captivating as Brown really does an excellent job explaining away inconsistencies by putting it all in perspective. Hermes becomes even more endearing as you realize how old his cult really is and how through it’s very humanistic symbolism, it has evolved overtime to stay fresh in our minds and eternally appropriate in our hearts.

-- http://www.unrv.com/book-review/hermes-the-thief.php


:) 10 characters

I am not an economist, nor am I well-versed in matters monetary, but simple logic reveals that usury is a true evil. Consider that 30 pieces of silver invested at 3% interest compounded anually for 2000 years comes to 1,419,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pieces of silver. The modern "synagogue of Satan" would have us believe we owe them all that and more. In other words, a financial system based on usury is inherently unstable, since debts incurred through usury cannot ever be paid. So we get the "boom and bust" cycle that is attributed to some mystical term "capitalism," when what is really being referred to is systemic, uncontainable greed, which itself appears as a sort of materialized lust that swells exponentially.

Excellent description. Capitalism is jew-imposed chaos! "Zionist Occupied Anarchy", when viewed from above or across time

Or, also true: Usury is simply THEFT

...Usury is simply THEFT

Usurers are creepy, but back when the system of charging interest started, it started with Person A loaning Person B a sum of money because Person B did not have it at the time, and didn't want to wait until he could earn it. So usury is Big Business now, involving all of society directly or indirectly, but this doesn't change the fact that Person B was willing to show his gratitude to Person A by paying what we now call "interest".

If Person B needed the loan for some important thing and just couldn't wait until he had the money himself, then that is a sad situation and we would have to look deeper to see if the borrower was in this needy situation thru some fault of his own, or because of some overall fault of the society he lived in.

If it is the latter situation, then usury was (and is) the lesser of two evils. But theft? It is theft only if the lender is a total bastard who was responsible for the borrower's needy condition in the first place. This may have been the situation hundreds of years ago in Europe when rulers gave jews exclusive right to lend money and charge interest, I really don't know for sure. And in any case it was a grave mistake on the part of our ancestors to allow one racial group alone to practice usury.

I would like to know how you would deal with people who need money for, say, a house, and just didn't want to wait 30 years while they saved up for it. What are the alternatives? Live at home with your parents (for free of course) for those 30 years while you save up for that house of your own? I like to deal with specific situations when discussing money, and not in abstractions, so I think that the matter of saving up for a house is a good place to start. That it is much nicer to own than to rent is taken for granted, and I assume you agree

If we want to get rid of usury, the only slow-but-sure, natural way to go about it is for every person to tighten his belt and save like crazy until he has enough to pay cash, and that way we become a voluntary pay-as-you-go society. How we could do that and still have all our creature comforts I don't know.

One more point: it is not only bankers who loan money. Money is lent by individuals who have some extra cash lying around and who don't mind helping a relative or friend. Nothing morally wrong with charging interest in these situations, either, as far as I can see.

He also prescribed behavior for his employees in their personal lives that was patronizing to the extreme. He told them what to wear in their off time.

He had company police go round to employee houses on Sundays. If they drank on the Lord's day, he docked their pay. There were other infractions just as loopy.

It might be a coincidence (I bet not) that Ford is now the industry leader in forcing Diversity Training on their employees, suppliers and even contractors. I couldn't believe that last but it's true. There was a knock out crew locally that Ford hired to close a plant. They had to attend a one day sensitivity course that included that f**cking "brown eyes - blue eyes" video made a generation ago by a sadistic jew bitch and is considered a classic to the diversity crowd.

That also might be why Ford stock closed at $6.90 the other day... way down in the toilet.

I would like to know how you would deal with people who need money for, say, a house, and just didn't want to wait 30 years while they saved up for it. What are the alternatives? Live at home with your parents (for free of course) for those 30 years while you save up for that house of your own? I like to deal with specific situations when discussing money, and not in abstractions, so I think that the matter of saving up for a house is a good place to start. .

A century ago in America (actually less -- I'll be describing what family in West Virginia did during the Depression) a house took all of 18 months or so to own free and clear.

As a wedding present to the new couple grandpa and grandma gave them a half-acre. Both families provided such things as wood, nails, brick. Laying the foundation of the new home was often part of the wedding ceremonies.

As with Amish barn-raisings now, people would show up and do what they were good at. Like, I'm a half assed carpenter but there ain't much in the way of wiring I haven't done at one time or another and I even got certified once as a heating/AC repair dude. Between me and people like me the house got built.

They actually wrote this up in the old Reader's Digest which is why I know the average time was 18 months. My family was quicker than that in W. Va, but no doubt there are other places (urban, or maybe way out in the bush) where logistics add time to the job. Either way from groundbreaking to fee-simple ownership averaged a year and a half when this was a real country.

Just tote up what we ain't got now and that's how come bankers get their 20-40-50* year mortgages:

* Breakdown of extended families (lots of building talent no longer available.)

* Exploding land prices (Speculating killed that giveaway half-acre)

* Zoning laws and building codes (suppose they're always for our benefit, or can we imagine how they might be used as weapons against the little guys?)

It goes on, but either way spending 30 years paying off a house is the purest form of debt slavery Americans usually know. The older system worked better but most Americans have forgotten it.
_____________
* No joke. I've heard of some very l-o-n-g mortgages. Not yet as bad as the hundred-year mortgages being signed in Tokyo, which are expected to be paid off by the grandchildren of the original contract signer.

Capitalist profit is usually less than 5% on a product.

How in the fuck is that exploitation?

I want you to answer that.

You need to look at the profit margins of the various stages, i.e. the producers profit margin, the WHOLESALERS profit margin, and the retailers profit margin. Do this and you will see the exploitation for yourself.

I'm not going to go to extremes to blast H. Ford, but he did create a method of manufacturing that was so mind-numbingly-boring that even though he paid twice the going wage, many men quite rather than work the assembly line. (I saw a PBS show on this.) He also prescribed behavior for his employees in their personal lives that was patronizing to the extreme. He told them what to wear in their off time. He also required them to go to company dances and dance little Ford Co. dances, kinda like a dememted old woman dresses her cats up and makes them dance.

Enkidu

Not just Henry Ford. I remember a pathetic account of how the shoeless employees of Bata Shoe Company's mfg plant in some poor African country had to sing the company's official song every morning.

Is it any wonder those people hate "us".

He also required them to go to company dances and dance little Ford Co. dances, kinda like a dememted old woman dresses her cats up and makes them dance.Or, like Wal-Mart requires it's "associates" to start the day with the Walmart cheer.

Or, like Wal-Mart requires it's "associates" to start the day with the Walmart cheer.

Google is my friend:

give me a W,
give me a A,
give me a L,
give me a M,
give me a A,
give me a R,
give me a T.

What do you have?
Walmart!
Can't hear you.
WALMART!!!

Who is number one?
The customers!!
Who's walmart is it?
My walmart!!

Enkidu

Can't hear you.

ENKIDU

I've always felt that Communism and Capitalism were 2 sides of the same jew coin.

I've always felt that Communism and Capitalism were 2 sides of the same jew coin.

Sounds right. Ever since Communism (officially) dried up, capitalism is more and more coming to resemble what Comrade Stalin had in mind. It just proves that when certain people run things, it always comes out the same way.

Enkido

Re.
"Like many in the N.S.D.A.P. said, after they took over, they thought the real revolution would be the second one, that cleared out all of these parasites stealing the work of the people."
I understand that just before their surrender (provisionally!) the National-Socialists swore in the second revolution. Does anyone know the date for this declaration? Any links?

I know a few so-called nationalists who constantly deride Hitler for betraying the cause! So a link for the second revolution would be most useful in dealing with idiots in our midst.

If you ever had a doubt that Capitalism stinks, this article should persuade you. Yes indeed, Fuck Capitalism!!

Enkidu

---------

Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure

Company will only seek licence for medicine that costs 100 times more

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Saturday June 17, 2006
The Guardian

A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market.

Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients.

But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe.

Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it. In spite of the growing drugs bill of the NHS, it will appraise, and probably approve, Lucentis next year.

Although Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness, it says it cannot appraise a drug and pass it for use in the NHS unless the drug is referred to it by the Department of Health. The department says its hands are tied.

"The drug company hasn't applied for it to be licensed for this use. It wouldn't be referred to Nice until they have made the first move," said a Department of Health spokeswoman. "They need to step up and get a licence. If they are not getting it licensed, why aren't they?"

New drugs for the condition are badly needed: those we have now only slow the progression to blindness. With Avastin, many patients get their sight back with just one or two injections.

Avastin was first used on human eyes by Philip Rosenfeld, an ophthalmologist in the US, who was aware of animal studies carried out by Genentech that showed potential in eye conditions. This unlicensed use of Avastin has spread across continents entirely by word of mouth from one doctor to another. It has now been injected into 7,000 eyes, with considerable success.

Professor Rosenfeld has published his results and a website has been launched in the US to collate the experiences of doctors from around the world. But although the evidence is good, regulators require randomised controlled trials before they grant licences, which generally only the drug companies can afford to carry out.

Prof Rosenfeld said the real issue was drug company profits. "This truly is a wonder drug," he said. "This shows both how good they [the drug companies] are and on the flip side, how greedy they are." He would like to see governments fund clinical trials of drugs such as Avastin in the public interest.

Rising drug bills are a big problem on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, said David Wong, chairman of the scientific committee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, doctors are fighting battles to persuade primary care trusts to pay for drugs to stop their patients going blind while they wait for Nice to decide on Lucentis and another expensive drug called Macugen. That decision is not expected before the end of next year.

About 20,000 people are diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration in the UK each year. "From the patient's point of view, if they have an eye condition that deteriorates very quickly, there is no question of waiting," said Professor Wong. "We're talking about days and weeks, rather than months. The question is should we do nothing and say there is no randomised controlled trial to prove Avastin is of value?" He called for primary care trusts to agree to pay for the planned phasing-in of new drugs for the condition.

Last night Genentech said its main concern over the use of Avastin to treat eye conditions was patient safety. "While there are some small, single-centre, uncontrolled studies of Avastin being performed, safety data on patients who are treated with Avastin off-label is not being collected in a standard or organised fashion," said a spokeswoman for the company.

Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.

Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.

Bullshit. This fraud has been exposed for at least a decade ago. Drug companies spend squat on developing new drugs. They spend a fortune on litigation, patent lawyers, lobbying and marketing.

The wife gets migraines pretty bad sometimes. The shit the doc gives her is the most toxic crap imaginable, something called Imitrex (sp?) that might as well be plutonium, the shit's poison. I was told by a local NORML fellow that a far, far better cure for her type of migraine is weed. A few hits of marijuana is effective and hundreds of times less physically harmful than the expensive perscription medicines they sell for it.

Fact is, marijuana was used for cramps, headaches and nausea before we had a fucking DEA. Queen Victoria used it when she menstruated. Drug companies know grass would replace at least six of their billion dollar drugs and that's why we have a "war on drugs."

They hate us because we're free, oh yeah.

Even the Bigboys say we're screwed... what's happening is what honorable bankers were warning against in the 80s. Had deregulation not happened, things would move slower but there would be accountability, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

For any human institution to work, it must be controlled. Unrestricted capitalism is like unrestricted cell growth, and capitalism has been compared to a type of cancer before. -- FJ.


http://www.counterpunch.org/kolko06152006.html



Global Economic Deluge Looms



People who know the most about the world financial system are increasingly worried, and for very good reasons. Dire warnings are coming from the most "respectable" sources. Reality has gotten out of hand. The demons of greed are loose.

What is that reality? It includes a number of factors. Alone they would be exceedingly serious; combined, they are very likely to be lethal.

First of all, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been undergoing both a structural and intellectual crisis. Structurally, its outstanding credit and loans have declined dramatically since 2003, from over $70 billion to a little over $20 billion today, leaving it with far less leverage over the economic policies of developing nations--and even less income than its expensive operations require. It is now in deficit.1

A large part of the IMF's problems are due to the doubling in world prices for all commodities since 2003 -- especially petroleum, copper, silver, zinc, nickel, and the like -- that the developing nations traditionally export. While there will be fluctuations in this upsurge, there is also reason to think it may endure because rapid economic growth in China, India, and elsewhere has created a burgeoning demand that did not exist before, when the balance-of-trade systematically favored the rich nations.

The U.S. has seen its net foreign asset position fall as Japan, emerging Asia, and oil exporting nations have become far more powerful over the past decade, and have increasingly become creditors to the U.S.2 As the U.S. deficits mount, with its imports being far greater than its exports, the value of the dollar has been declining -- 28 per cent against the euro from 2001 to 2005 alone.

Equally important, the IMF and World Bank were severely chastened by the 1997-2000 financial meltdowns in East Asia, Russia, and elsewhere, and many of the two institutions' key leaders lost faith in the anarchic premises, descended from classical laisser-faire economic thought, which guided policy advice until then. "{O]ur knowledge of economic growth is extremely incomplete," many in the IMF now admit, and "more humility" on its part is now warranted.3

Worse yet, the whole nature of the global financial system has changed radically in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with "virtuous" national economic policies that follow IMF advic. These are ways the IMF cannot control. The investment managers of private equity funds and major banks have displaced national banks and international bodies such as the IMF, moving well beyond the existing regulatory structures and they have "reintermediated" themselves between the traditional borrowers, both national and individual, and markets. They have deregulated the world financial structure, making it far more unpredictable and susceptible to crises. They seek to generate high investment returns, which is the key to their compensation, and they take mounting risks to do so.

A "brave new world" has emerged in the global financial structure, one that is far less transparent because there are fewer reporting demands imposed on those who operate in it. Financial adventurers are constantly creating new "products" that defy both states and international banks. The IMF's managing director, Rodrigo de Rato, at the end of May, 2005, deplored these new risks -- risks the weakness of the U.S. dollar and its mounting trade deficits have magnified greatly.4

In March of this year the IMF released Garry J. Schinasi's book, Safeguarding Financial Stability, giving it unusual prominence then and thereafter. In essence, Schinasi's book is alarmist, and it both reveals and documents in great and disturbing detail the IMF's deep anxieties. Essentially, "deregulation and liberalization", which the IMF and proponents of the "Washington consensus" advocated for decades, have become a nightmare, creating "tremendous private and social benefits" but also holding "the potential (although not necessarily a high likelihood) for fragility, instability, systemic risk, and adverse economic consequences."

Anyone who reads the data in Schinasi's superbly documented book will share his real conclusion that the irrational development of global finance, combined with deregulation and liberalization, has "created scope for financial innovation and enhanced the mobility of risks". Schinasi and the IMF advocate a radical new framework to monitor and prevent the problems now able to emerge, but success "may have as much to do with good luck" as policy design and market surveillance.5 Leaving the future to luck is not what economics originally promised. The IMF is desperate, and not alone.

As the Argentina financial meltdown proved, countries that do not succumb to IMF and banker pressures can play on divisions within the IMF membership, particularly the U.S., comprising bankers and others to avoid many, although scarcely all, foreign demands. About $140 billion in sovereign bonds to private creditors and the IMF were at stake, terminating at the end of 2001 as the largest national default in history. Banks in the 1990s were eager to loan Argentina money and they ultimately paid for it. Since then, however, commodity prices have soared and the growth rate of developing nations in 2004 and 2005 was over double that of high income nation, a pattern projected to continue through 2008.

As early as 2003 developing countries were already the source of 37 percent of the foreign direct investment in other developing nations. China accounts for a great part of this growth, but it also means that the IMF and rich bankers of New York, Tokyo, and London have far less leverage than ever. Growing complexity is the order of the world economy that has emerged in the past decade, and with it has come the potential for far greater instability, and dangers for the rich.

High-speed Global Economics

The global financial problem that is emerging is entwined with an American fiscal and trade deficit that is rising quickly. Since Bush entered office in 2001 he had added over $3 trillion to federal borrowing limits, which are now almost $9 trillion. So long as there is a continued devaluation of the U.S. dollar, banks and financiers will seek to protect their money and risky financial adventures will appear increasingly worthwhile. This is the context, but Washington advocated greater financial liberalization well before the dollar weakened. The world now has a conjunction of factors that have created a far greater risk than the proponents of the "Washington consensus" ever believed possible.

There are now many hedge funds, with which we are familiar, but they now deal in credit derivatives and numerous other financial instruments. Markets for credit derivative futures are in the offing. The credit derivative market was almost nonexistent in 2001, grew fairly slowly until 2004 and then went into the stratosphere, reaching $17.3 trillion by the end of 2005.

What are credit derivatives? The Financial Times' chief capital markets writer, Gillian Tett, tried to find out. She failed. About ten years ago some J. P. Morgan bankers were in Boca Raton, Florida, drinking, throwing each other into the swimming pool, and the like, and they came up with a notion of a new financial instrument that was too complex to be easily copied (financial ideas cannot be copyrighted) and which was sure to make them money. But she was highly critical of its potential for causing a chain reaction of losses that will engulf the hedge funds that have leaped into this market.6 It for reasons such as these, as well as others, even more opaque, such as split capital trusts, collateralized debt obligations, and market credit default swaps, that the IMF and financial authorities are so worried.

Banks simply do not understand the chain of exposure and who owns what. Senior financial regulators and bankers now admit as much. The Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund meltdown in 1998, which involved only about $5 billion in equity, revealed this. The financial structure is now infinitely more complex and far larger. The top ten hedge funds alone in March 2006 had $157 billion in assets. Hedge funds claim to be honest but those who guide them are compensated for the profits they make, which means taking risks. But there are thousands of hedge funds and many collect inside information, which is technically illegal but it occurs anyway. The system is fraught with dangers, starting with the compensation structure, but it also assumes a constantly rising stock market and much, much else. Many fund managers are incompetent. But the 26 leading hedge fund managers earned an average of $363 million each in 2005; James Simons of Renaissance Technologies earned $1.5 billion.

There is now a consensus that all this, and much else, has created growing dangers. We can put aside the persistence of imbalanced budgets based on spending increases or tax cuts for the wealthy, much less the world's volatile stock and commodity markets which caused hedge funds in May to show far lower returns than they have in at least a year. It is anyone's guess which way the markets will go, and some will gain while others lose. Hedge funds still make lots of profits, and by the spring of 2006 they were worth about $1.2 trillion worldwide, but they are increasingly dangerous.

A great deal of money went from investors in rich nations into emerging market stocks, which have been especially hard-hit in the past weeks, and if they leave them the financial shock will be great. The dangers of a meltdown exist there too.

Problems are structural, such as the greatly increasing ratio of corporate debt loads to core earnings, which have grown substantially from four to six times over the past year because there are fewer legal clauses to protect investors from loss, and to keep companies from going bankrupt when they should. So long as interest rates have been low, leveraged loans have been the solution. With hedge funds and other financial instruments, there is now a market for incompetent, debt-ridden firms. The rules some once erroneously associated with capitalism -- probity and the like--no longer hold even on paper.

Problems are also inherent in speed and complexity, and these are very diverse and almost surreal. Credit derivatives are precarious enough, but at the end of May the International Swaps and Derivatives Association revealed that one in every five deals, many of them involving billions of dollars, involved major errors. As the volume of trade increased so did errors. They doubled in the period after 2004. Many deals were scribbled on scraps of paper and not properly recorded. "Unconscionable" was outgoing Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan's, description. He was "frankly shocked." Other trading, however, is determined by mathematical algorithm ("volume-weighted average price" it is called) for which PhDs trained in quantitative methods are hired.7 Efforts to remedy this mess only began in June of this year and they are very far from resolving a major and accumulated problem that involves stupendous sums.

Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley's chief economist, on April 24 of this year wrote that a major financial crisis was in the offing and that the ability of global institutions to forestall it -- ranging from the IMF and World Bank to other mechanisms of the international financial architecture ­ are utterly inadequate. Hong Kong's chief secretary in early June deplored the hedge funds' risks and dangers. The IMF's iconoclastic chief economist, Raghuram Rajan, at the same time warned that the hedge funds' compensation structure encouraged those in charge of them to increasingly take risks, thereby endangering the whole financial system.

* * *

The entire global financial structure is becoming uncontrollable in crucial ways its nominal leaders never expected. Instability is increasingly its hallmark. Financial liberalization has produced a monster, and resolving the many problems that have emerged is scarcely possible for those who deplore controls on those who seek to make money, whatever means it takes to do so. Contradictions now wrack the world's financial system, and if we are to believe the institutions and personalities who have been in the forefront of the defense of capitalism, it may very well be on the verge of serious crises.

Putting cancer drugs into your eyes? I think not. We have to look at diseases of all body parts, including the eyes, as having their roots in overall body health deficiencies. If the eyes have diseases, it is because there is something going wrong somewhere else, i.e. the major organs. Even wet macular degeneration should be seen as something that's not inevitable.

Actually, I agree with you, Stronza. I avoid doctors and pharmaceuticals completely. The point of the article, however, is that even if they came up with a useful drug, they would keep it off the market, rather than put profits at risk.

Enkidu

Actually Stronza the solution to the problem you state should be obvious.

But first some basics.

As Adolf Hitler wrote in "mein Kampf" the state should exist so to serve the people (with people i dont mean individual persons but the entity,the Volk),not the other way around as it is practiced today when the people serve the state.

Taxes and other incomes of the state serve only one purpose: namely to be redistributed by the state among the people.And to those productive and needy members of our society more than to the rest.For example: white working class,big white families etc.

Now to the solution of your stated problem,which suprisingly noone else mentioned:

Nationalization!

All the capital belongs to the hands of the state.

Which means that all banks and credit institutes have to be nationalized by the National Socialist state.The individual wanting some capital will have to pay interest rates (which will be according his material status, for example poorer whites will pay lower rates than those who are materially speaking better off) to the state instead of to private hands as it is today.

This state income again will in turn be spend for the Volk.