StarGateWars Forums

I've heard the claims that "banks rule the world" and the counterclaims that "that's irrelevant". I've come to shed light into this matter, as it's really not nearly as complicated or exotic as many make it out to be.

First, I'll start by listing my premises. I'll make everything clear so that if someone wants to contradict me, they will find my structure easy to take apart if it contains any flaws.

The Creditor-Debtor Argument

PREAMBLE
Whereas it is in the best interest of the individual to understand the system that claims power and authority over them, this Argument shall examine a part of that system's structure, and more specifically, the relationship between two elements of that structure.

SECTION I. THE PREMISES
1. Many countries, nations and states, the United States of America in particular, are heavily indebted.
2. Debt evidences to a creditor-debtor relationship.
3. A creditor-debtor relationship implies a state of subserviency on the part of the debtor towards the creditor.

SECTION II. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE PREMISES
1. The state of subserviency, in the context of SECTION I.3., is evidenced by the obligation of the debtor to pay the creditor.

SECTION III. THE ARGUMENT
1. It follows that the creditor party has a strong say in how the debtor party administrates its affairs.
2. It also follows that, by virtue of having a strong say in the administration of another party's affairs, a party excercises a measure of control over that other party.

SECTION IV. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE ARGUMENT
1. The action of having "a strong say", in the context of SECTION III.1., as applied to the United States of America, can imply any of the following:
a) That the creditor threatens, explicitly or implicitly, to take possession of the debtor's collateral.
b) That the creditor threatens, explicitly or implicitly, to stop issuing loans, implying that the debtor may be in a state of dependency.
c) That the creditor has taken possession of the collateral and is administrating it through the guise of democracy.
d) That the creditor has not taken possession of the collateral, but enjoys or potentially could enjoy the indirect administration thereof through the means outlined in this SECTION, Subsection 1, points a) and b).

SECTION V. THE CONCLUSION
1. Therefore, it may be concluded that the creditor party excercises a measure of control over the debtor party, and more specifically, in a context where the debtor party is a country, nation or state.



Agapooka

Nice topic



*Waits for KMA to tear it apart. lol*

i thought Nietzsche died but...here you are!

Rudy Pena wrote:Nice topic



*Waits for KMA to tear it apart. lol*

i had a feeling peeps would waiting for me with baited breath to make the first reply...however...i'll let others go first in this one...

why not you Rudy?


PS, i agree with Rudy...nice topic

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Rudy Pena wrote:Nice topic



*Waits for KMA to tear it apart. lol*

i had a feeling peeps would waiting for me with baited breath to make the first reply...however...i'll let others go first in this one...

why not you Rudy?


PS, i agree with Rudy...nice topic

lol


I can not even attempt to try because I dont know jack about these things. Also this is not my area of expertise.

watch The Money Masters and Money As Debt and you'll soon become an expert...

what's your area of "expertise"?

It is History(mostly from 1939 to 1945), also space and some US military stuff.

You need very little knowledge to consider the above. Actually you only need expertise to counter the premises, themselves. The argument and conclusion can be countered without knowledge if you find that they do not follow from the premises.

You my friend have a gift

Ok, since nobody's commenting on the actual implications of my conclusion, I'll vulgarise them. I appreciate the fact that the aesthetics and structure of my argument are appreciated, but I think that the implications of its conclusions are important enough to merit discussion, so heregoes:

Essentially, if a country is indebted to an entity, that entity has some measure of control over how the country administrates its affairs. If a bank is the entity and the country is the US, this would mean that the bank runs the US government to some extent. The extent is presumably large, but admittedly difficult to define. I mean, if the US has the possibility of facing complete bankruptcy and no access to loans, they would have no power to act, so it's likely that they will act in a manner that is favourable to the agenda of the creditor.

Now, I never made a lien between the "creditor party" and any bank, group of banks, or any financial institution. I'm not here to point fingers, only to establish the concept. Once one is aware of the concept, they may find it interesting to endeavour to find out to whom the US owes money, and maybe even look at other nations' debts and trace those, too.

Agapooka

NB: If this post doesn't make sense, it's because it's 4AM and I just spent 9 hours playing Risk. o.o I hope it makes sense, though. I shall see later on today. I'm going to bed.

I have some counters for you

The creditor does have influence on the debtor, but only to the extent that the creditor is willing to risk. As illustrated in the novel Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, if a party is oppressed for long enough and/or hard enough, they may fight back in revolution. Regardless of the power of the United States military and it's creditor's military, the United States may fight back either politically, verbally, or forcefully if it sees that it has nothing more to lose. Therefore, the creditor does not implicitly have "a strong say" in the sense of controlling affairs.


Good enough?

Thanks for your reply, ramen07. I'll point out the assumptions in your post that need answering, at the the very least, in order for your conclusion to follow.

ramen07 wrote:I have some counters for you

The creditor does have influence on the debtor, but only to the extent that the creditor is willing to risk.

Assumption #1: There is risk for the creditor in excercising the influence it has over the debtor. Which risks, exactly?
note: You later refer to the risks of oppression over a long period of time, not the risks of a creditor excercising influence.

ramen07 wrote:As illustrated in the novel Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, if a party is oppressed for long enough and/or hard enough, they may fight back in revolution.

Assumption #2: A party excercising influence over another party will necessarily oppress the latter party. Why?

Assumption #3: An oppressed party usually or always realises that it is oppressed. What if it doesn't?

Assumption #4: The only factor involved in whether or not an oppressed party is willing to revolt is that it is oppressed. What of other factors, such as distractions, entertainment and the likes? If it's possible for an oppressed people to escape and therefore remain in denial of its oppression, it's unlikely that it will act upon the oppression by means of a revolt. Then again, you did say "long enough and/or hard enough" and you used the word "may", so it's possible that, instead of making this assumption, you made Assumption #5. It's also possible to make both assumptions.

Assumption #5: Oppression, over a long periord of time, when it is not "hard enough", can bring about a revolution. Because of your "and/or", your statement essentially reads that it's possible for oppression which carries on for a long period of time, but isn't "hard enough", to cause revolution. Technically, it's not a complete impossibility that revolution might result; however, this is the most effective kind of oppression. Usually, in a natural revolution, something will push the oppressed party over the edge and into revolution. Now, in a very stable or slow, incremental approach to oppression, revolution is unlikely to occur, just as natural gas is unlikely to burst into flames without a spark.

ramen07 wrote:Regardless of the power of the United States military and it's creditor's military, the United States may fight back either politically, verbally, or forcefully if it sees that it has nothing more to lose.

Assumption #6: The size of two military forces is irrelevant to how the two parties represented thereby interact politically, verbally or forcefully, if one party is a debtor and the other is its creditor. How does that work?

Assumption #7: The debtor has the power to act aggressively, either politically or forcefully towards its creditor, even if it has no funds to do so. The US, for example, is trillions of dollars in debt. How could they fund political or forceful action if they offend the party funding them?

Assumption #8: The United States can enter a state of "having nothing more to lose." However, politicians can always lose their positions and there are always lives to be lost in conflict. Furthermore, it's possible that politicians have the creditors' interests in mind, anyway, as it's not impossible for the creditor to excercise its influence over the debtor by choosing the people who run it. When the American people vote, they really only choose between two individuals, assuming that the system works as it claims to work. (Although many claim that it doesn't.) Those two individuals were chosen by political party members, but that choice is easier to manipulate with little risk of an outcry.

I would add that, if banks are the creditors, as they have a large capacity to lend money, the Obama administration's affinity for giving ridiculously large amounts of money to the banks might serve as evidence that they are operating with the creditors' interests in mind. In my original argument post, I mentioned that the creditor could threaten to stop issuing loans to the debtor. I've somewhat explored what that would entail and it would not be dissimilar to a complete collapse of infrastructure. If the bank bailout scheme is to keep the American financial situation from collapsing, it may very well be because of a threat to stop issuing loans! Note that this paragraph only discusses possibilities. It doesn't affect my initial argument if the liens made herein are not accurate, as my argument doesn't depend on those liens and makes no mention of them.

ramen07 wrote:Therefore, the creditor does not implicitly have "a strong say" in the sense of controlling affairs.

This conclusion doesn't follow unless you can show that the assumptions you made are true.

ramen07 wrote:Good enough?

We'll see.


Agapooka

*brains drip onto floor*

Well...perhaps I could give a proper rebuttal if I had a few days...which I don't. I'll try later when I'm not running to work in 5 minutes

Hey Pookie

Are you not assuming that the creditor/debtor paradigm is the sole relationship between the two bodies? For example, country A may own much of country B's debt, but, country A is dependent on many exports from country B, whilst country B also has a far superior military force. How far can country A truly direct country B's actions simply because of the creditor/debtor relationship?