Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security

zogger's Journal: Going to the Stupor Market 33

Journal by zogger

This is something that is really disturbing to me and I hope to more people, food security and prices. We have a food commodities market now that is skewed way out of proportion, it results in higher than necessary prices for consumers, really doesn't address farmers security, forces people to pay tribute to-once again-that nest of global thieves in Manhattan.

I farm because I want a peaceful life, do an honest job, and just make a living, not a killing, and provide food for people..because all of that is a combined good idea. But see, we all are subject to the parasite tax now, we've become defacto put into economic bondage to these gents, and they try to hide it like saying biofuels drive up the prices of food, etc, which is hogwash, and will also kill off the only viable option we have to use instead of pumped crude for all the millions of existing vehicles out there. This is the same sort of thing they do in the metals markets, and the same guys doing it, game the system because they now pwn the system..and they shouldn't..no one elected these thieves, but they sure have seized control.

Here is a nice interview with an additional link to the original story on manipulations in the global food markets.

Oh, food security? We swapped actual stockpiled mass quantities of food, which is a good idea, for server entries in these investor banks and letting them skim off zillions. That's not security, it's stupidity.

"Ya, Mom, what's for dinner"?

"Here ya go Junior and Sis, nice heaping plate of news reports about some huge banks with their leveraged and hedged futures contracts..dee lish"!

"Wahhh..we wanted real food"!

"Sorry, our betters decided this was..better..it makes them more money, which we all know now is the most important thing in the world..we are lucky we all get to work for them"

"Oh..."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Going to the Stupor Market

Comments Filter:
  • I read about that recently... Thought around the lines of "have they learned nothing about the real estate bubble"? *sigh*

  • by tqft (619476)

    you don't like chocolate.

    zerohedge & cryptogon both have the same story (zerohedge more detail) on someone cornering the market in cocoa

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/phibro-takes-willy-wonka-chocolitango-futures-market-reeks-physical-squeeze-attempt [zerohedge.com]

    • ...in the comments there, about how trying to garner such a huge slice of a particular market was illegal in the 80s with the hunt bros and silver, but today, it seems to be perfectly legal. Interesting how things change.

      And yes I do like chocolate...of course this time of year I can cut down on ice cream (my chocofetish there) and just fill up on home grown melons..yum yum!

      • by tqft (619476)

        A more relevant point maybe that what would be an outsized risk for any actual "natural" player in the cocoa market - buyer, seller, chocolate maker - is chump change to a big hedge fund diversifying into commodities.

  • Well yes, we did actually. We put their cronies into office time after time. We have made hardly the feeblest effort to lock the revolving door and effectively use the ballot box. We continue to believe what we are told to believe. And we accept every denial they make as god's truth and let them continue to go about their dirty business. We make a bigger fuss when neighbor's dog craps on our front lawn. The simple fact is that nothing will change until we make it so. How are we going to revise the rules if

    • Sorry about that harper's link, I failed there, Shoot. Seems I read a copy of it someplace else but now have forgotten where and I admit I didn't click it because of that. Man, I am sorry..still though, the article I first posted gives a good enough synopsis I think, and there is the video (same thing)

      As to the vote the same corrupt skunks in..yes, you are technically correct as in we voted them in by proxy representation of mostly other crooks in their gang. That's why I consistently dis and rank people wh

      • There was no fault on your part at all. Please understand that you have no need to apologize. Your link got the point across. Besides, aside from explaining the mechanisms, it can't do much more than confirm what I have suspected* for years. The failure is in the concept of the pay wall itself. It's only purpose is to perpetuate ignorance for the sake of profit. It is to preserve the status quo. Harpers, as good as it is, is only doing what is expected by their masters. It's all part of the show.

        *With my su

        • by Bill Dog (726542)

          It's only purpose is to perpetuate ignorance for the sake of profit.

          Really? I would've thought it was to pay for operations and salaries and things. Nah, what am I thinking, I'm sure you're right.

          • Operations and salaries? What business invests in THOSE anymore?

            • by Bill Dog (726542)

              None, they're not things you invest in, like R&D, rather they're simply expenses. And if you need a paywall to help meet your expenses (such as if advertising and donations and whatever else aren't enough), then choosing to construct one rather than going out of business and laying off all your employees is not exactly evil capitalists wanting to perpetuate ignorance, as Lefties crazed with hatred for economic freedom would spout. Freedom is more than just being able to wander about stoned, like maybe s

              • Viewing your human resources as mere expenses is a huge part of the problem. An employee is very much an investment- an investment of training time, business knowledge, and skills.

                A paywall- like the newspaper itself- however is a sign of a mind stuck in the past- in an age where access to content was the product.

                It just occurred to me what makes me a "liberal" in your point of view- you and I have a drastically different definition of "economic freedom". To me- it IS the ability to wander about stoned, o

  • by Bill Dog (726542)

    Well like with the markets for narcotics, regulating or outlawing these investment scamsters is definitely not the answer, cuz it won't work, right?

    Besides, unlike the drug cartels, as these guys are so haughty about, if some forms of their gambling are banned they can just change them overnight, like malware authors with easily morphable virus code.

    It's no suprise that the proposed solution in TFA is a centralized, socialist solution. Deregulation is blamed, we're told it was better under Clinton, and the

    • Well like with the markets for narcotics, regulating or outlawing these investment scamsters is definitely not the answer, cuz it won't work, right?

      Yes, absolutely. Prohibition does not work. All these so-called "reforms" are designed to enforce the corruption, not mitigate it. It is up to each one of us to resist temptation, as opposed to ceding our authority to a tyrant. I do believe that is what most of the holy books preach in one form or another.

      Capitalist or not, one thing that has to be accepted is t

      • by Bill Dog (726542)

        Just pointing out the readily (or not so readily, depending on whether one's been paying attention) apparent Leftist pedigree of TFA, and that while it correctly defines the problem, as you said what's offered is not the solution, it's just the other side's brand of enslavement.

        And that's not fighting fire with fire, it's joining in in the deception game. No matter how much the Right (mostly the nannyist Christian subset, I'm sorry to have to admit) abuses "think of the children", the other side engaging in

        • I'm not talking about those individuals on their own tracts. I'm not interested in taking away your 40 acres and mule (just watch your runoff, and no poisoning the aquifers/rivers with your pesticides), but there should be enough space between all property lines to build a two lane road, put up power lines, train tracks, etc, so that nobody is landlocked. I do have a right to walk from "sea to shining sea" without having to jump any fences or having to ask permission. This is about vast swaths owned by mass

          • by Bill Dog (726542)

            I do have a right to walk from "sea to shining sea" without having to jump any fences or having to ask permission.

            So are you with the Progressive globalists on open borders?

            And where did you get the idea that you have the right of egress over land? I guess it's prolly necessary for functional capitalism that there are paths to be used as shipping routes, so I think what you say is a good idea, I just wonder how you connected it with one of the innate rights we all possess.

            Do you think you have a right to en

            • The so-called "globalists" only want open borders for their capital to move tax free. They want no such thing for people. Borders keep human trafficking in business and profitable. I want no borders. Civilized people have no need for them. The right to move freely is a birthright, just like what you might claim for gun ownership or free speech. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

              • by Bill Dog (726542)

                If you hail from the U.S. and have been here at least a little while, to you are there any other major kind of people here in the U.S. who also don't support closed borders, but for a reason other than the two you offered?

                • I honestly don't know.. It's such a basic thing. It's like arguing for the right to breath. At the same time I understand the instinct behind the desire for borders, It's an animal instinct, and people are animals. I guess that makes it difficult for me to get the point across. I do know that, unlike animals, we can move resources wherever they are needed, so the fences required for exclusive use for some are no longer necessary. It is strictly a political/economic thing motivated by instinct (greed is inst

                  • by Bill Dog (726542)

                    I'll try one more time. To briefly recap, the global capitalists want open borders because they need slaves. You want open borders because you say the right to move freely is a birthright. Are there any other major group of people out there, especially in America, who are also for open borders, but for a different reason than these two?

                  • by Bill Dog (726542)

                    p.s. It's not clear to me if your last reply beginning "I honestly don't know..", that I took to be merely the beginning of a stream of thoughts on how people don't grok what you see as a basic right, was instead meant to be in direct reply to my question with the following sentences being the start of a new stream of thoughts. That's how come I asked the question again.

                    p.p.s. On a related but distinctly separate topic, while I would tend to agree that autonomous communities would the best way to go, I'm te

    • Anti-capitalists (who want to subvert and twist and control the free market for themselves, so that the market isn't really free (i.e. for whom plain, real capitalism and building wealth slowly like everyone else isn't good enough for them))

      Since when was "real capitalism" about "building wealth SLOWLY"? I thought the entire lure of capitalism was the get rich quick fraud scheme- building wealth slowly is for those wimpy distributists (like me) who actually CARE about their customers and labor.

    • The problem with the casino banks and their alleged produts is, they run the fed and the treasury and the SEC, etc, plus, by inflating the money supply, they have everyone trapped into "investing" with them because you can't just save money without it dropping in worth all the time. An airgap between the government and those guys would go a long way to "reforming" the system. There is absolutely NO reason investment casino bank heads should set foot into any position of huge governmental directorship or aut

  • The following micro/macro economic snippet is home-grown and open to adjustment. But I think I've got some key aspects right.

    IMHO the real problem here is an imbalance of money. Too much money has moved out of the "consumption market" and into the "investment market". As a result, we see two things. First, real people don't have enough money to buy the real things that they need. Second, people with money to invest, especially with all of the financial market scares, are looking to invest in commoditie

    • Not taking on debt can take two forms however:
      1. Careful personal money management
      2. Luck of the draw

      I was $60,000 in consumer debt, not including the house, in 1999. I'm consumer debt free at the moment. But medical debt is about to strike, big time, and I'm heading into unemployment at the same time my son needs surgery- I expect to be $20k in debt with no job by the end of September.

      Sometimes, debt just isn't optional.

      • by dpilot (134227)

        There, but for the grace of God...

        One does what one can, but there are things beyond one's control, and things that within any ordinary income, simply can't be planned for.

      • Have you looked into medical tourism to see if this surgery can be accomplished much cheaper elsewhere?

        • No- and don't think I want to. I believe in supporting my local community too much- and he's got the best doctor this side of the rockies.

    • The main problem is, they switched from a productivity and asset based currency system, one also backed by a scarce tangible, to a hot air and buffonery system, backed by debt, future debt load.

      They kept taxes though, which is mind boggling, as they are no longer necessary at all except to use as a bludgeon on the people. The system is heavily rigged to put everyone into debt for the top 1% of the population, the ones who can afford to buy up huge blocks of governmental paper, which we the people ha

      • by dpilot (134227)

        I was with you, though much less extreme, until you got to "Tea Party." IMHO the Tea Party is just a tool of the Republican party to tar the Democrats. It may be an unwitting tool, though I think that some Tea Party members are fully witting, while some may be innocent. I'll have to agree with you that Democrats aren't necessarily that much better on the fiscal front than Republicans, but I think there is a key difference.

        I believe Republicans are actively, consciously, and effectively driving an agenda

        • It's *entirely* possible to restructure the fiat currency system we use now so that instead of lending it into existence from the top down, it is merely *given* into existence from the bottom up. The only reason they like top down is because it rewards the uber fatcats. they get to poof create the money via fractional reserve, then lend this poof created money, and charge interest on top of that!

          Stroke of the pen and this could be reversed, every adult citizen gets a fair share check once a quarter, based o

"Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus

Working...