On Fri 24 Apr at 10:25pm A Person wrote:
It's BORN AND BRED.
If you've got scabs on your hands it's because your knuckles drag.
On Sat 25 Apr at 7:49am Hyena wrote:
Could you be more pacific
On Sat 25 Apr at 10:29am Green Sleeves wrote:
"Born and Bread" would make a great name for a bakery. *quickly googles* .....ahh blast, its been done to death already.
On Sat 25 Apr at 12:22pm Tom Pain wrote:
No surprises there freebie.
On Sun 26 Apr at 12:57pm Tom Pain wrote:
Hi greenie,in an attempt to normalise our situation and show the needlessness for your constant vilification of me and to show you I am not a far right extremist, an anti Semite, conspiracy theorist or any of the things you so tactfully allude to me being ,may I suggest you read this book~ "a history of monetary crimes" by Alexander Del Mar. You can read it online or download it at archive.com It's absolutely kosher so you need have no worries on that account,the author is Jewish. It's quite short and will give you a good perspective on the world situation. You're quite welcome to continue disliking me,the feeling is mutual, but you could do it on a rational basis.
On Sun 26 Apr at 6:26pm Mark wrote:
I'm straight off to Waterstone''s to get Tom's book.
On Sun 26 Apr at 6:46pm Nevillman wrote:
I have just looked up the author and book. He was a late 19th century economist and American politician. He wrote about the money supply. Tom. I know you recently said you thought the laws of economics were labyrinthine. Do you know that the study of the supply of money is only one very small part of the study of economics?
Nice to see you trying to be nice to green. There is after all more that unites us than divides us but I don't think recommending someone read that book is really doing them any favours. It is hard to see anyone getting that bored. Even I am regretting the time it took to look it all up and write this. I could have been learning a foreign language or how to play a musical instrument or having another drink.
On Mon 27 Apr at 2:00pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Nevillman, thanks for at least saving me, and potentially others, the bother of looking it up!
On Mon 4 May at 2:05pm Nevillman wrote:
Tom. Referring to your post about this book in the NHS thread above, the book is not about a gang of pirates. It is about how the money supply has been manipulated historically and I think you are talking about the attempt by the East India company in the reign of Charles the second. I have in the past been employed as an economist and so I am sure this puts me into the category of useless experts who should be ignored and even despised. I am not an expert on the money supply. The last economist who was interested in the money supply was Thatcher who attempted to control it. She soon realised that it could not even be measured, let alone controlled and abandoned trying to. It has been a neglected area of economics since and I am not interested in it myself as it does not seem to me to be very relevant to how the economy functions. You may disagree. Please explain what the learnings of the book are. Many individuals and groups try to manipulate the economy for their own ends and I am very much in favour of publicising and exposing this. To focus on a 17th century attempt to control the money supply written by a 19th century irrelevant economist is pointless. To do it in the middle of a thread on something else entirely where we are discussing what the NHS is about and the significance of tax dodgers is ridiculous and annoying. You wrongly accuse me of being unkind towards you. Don't encourage me to completely ridicule you.
On Mon 4 May at 5:36pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well it wasn't just an attempt was it! It wasn't just the East India co. either. Whoever creates the means of exchange and controls it's volume and distribution must therefore control it's value. I'd have thought that must be of some interest to economists. Having been on the forum so long, I'm sure you have had time to observe that ridicule is the last resort of those who have nothing better to offer and something to hide. Keynes used the same technique to divert attention from the fact that bank loans are created out of nothing. The forensic demonstration by Werner that it is ,in fact,the case proves it conclusively. It's a fact worth trillions to hide isn't it? the inevitable economic chaos caused by the lockdown could be used by those who really control the economy to further cement that power or a more egalitarian system could be introduced IF their fraudulent system is exposed. The investigations of Del Mar are certainly not irrelevant and ,at this juncture, quite the reverse is the case.
On Tue 5 May at 8:40am Nevillman wrote:
I think you've got to accept that not everyone is as interested in historical analysis of the money supply as you or find it was relevant Tom. Studying the supply and demand of and for a product is of course important to economics but the medium of exchange is just that, a medium of exchange. You haven't said anything by to change my view on that. I agree strongly with you that the economic chaos caused by the lockdown can be used to cement the power and wealth of some but I think this is what we should look at rather than your obsession with historical money supply. This is why I raised the issue of the NHS being turned into a charity as it is a possible example of this manipulation in action. When you try to turn the thread into something else you are diverting attention away from this important topic. Please put your own separate points in their own thread.
I am familiar with the work of Keynes and Werner and do not see their particular relevance to the issue of the NHS being turned into a charity so that it can be fundamentally altered to its detriment.
I will turn to ridicule if I feel there is no other way to prevent you ruining a thread on something else entirely. I think I know who you are and like you as a person so don't want to do this but it is annoying when what I think is an interesting point of debate is hijacked by you ton because you can't be bothered to start a new thread or go back to an old one.
On Tue 5 May at 12:57pm Tom Pain wrote:
I don't think I've ruined your thread at all and only posted on it because it was current and people don't seem to read old ones. It's all just conversations after all. As to my identity, I don't go to any lengths to hide it. A friend said it was transparently obvious from my monikers! I try to imagine all the people on the forum as acquaintances in real life and communicate accordingly. The anonymity gives us plausible deniability and confers face saving on all participants; thus we can be more frank in our exchanges without being insulting. Back to the subject. What I'm saying is that the means of exchange is a product in itself, loaned out by privately owned businesses. Thus an unelected financial power has influence over the government by granting or withholding the means of exchange and deciding it's value. In the face of this contingency talk of charity or government funding for anything is irrelevant. It's not history I'm concerned with but the result of it~ the monopoly of credit by an unelected minority which gives them a choke hold over the economy. They, not the government rule national policy with the results we can see all around us.