We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
If Darling saves our Icesave money - my family will all vote for Labour!
Comments
-
Urban myth.
Well, it's an "Urban Myth" if you believe Victor Rothschild's version of events. In his book he gave the fawning title of "The Shadow of a Great Man", Victor was never likely to admit his great great grandfather Nathan was a rogue who bankrupted England!
Another person of note who disputes the contemporary account is Niall Ferguson, the historical revisionist. Ferguson wrote the semi-official biography of the House of Rothschild, and was allowed exclusive access to the Rothschild archives to do so...
Perhaps you should check the credibility of your sources."If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-- Thomas Jefferson0 -
Perhaps he would give us a link so we know from where it was plagiarised?Nigel
Is that supposed to offend me, Nigel ?! Every word was my own! It might surprise you to learn that some of us are capable of writing original passages of text.
As for my sources, they are varied, including G Edward Griffin, Eustace Mullins and Bill Still.
But then an old crook, like you, knew all that from the outset!
What is your point? Do you have a useful comment to make, or are here just to spew ad hominems?"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-- Thomas Jefferson0 -
Is that supposed to offend me, "Nigel" ?! Every word was my own! It might surprise you to learn that some of us are capable of writing original passages of text.
As for my sources, they are varied, including G Edward Griffin, Eustace Mullins and Bill Still.
But then an old crook like you knew all that from the outset!
What is your point? Do you have a useful comment to make, or are here just to spew ad hominems?
What is your point? Do you have any useful comments to make
In fact what was your motive in posting the story, which is considered to be a myth, in the first place?
If it was written in your own words perhaps you could explain why you use the terms "treasury Bonds" and "T-Bonds" ?
And can you explain why if one does a google search on Nathan Rothschild so many other web sites have used "your words" ?
It would indeed suprise me if you did write an original passage of text.
Nigel0 -
If it was written in your own words perhaps you could explain why you use the terms "treasury Bonds" and "T-Bonds" ?
Well if you must, I can use the word "consol".. Does that soothe your delicate English sensibilities, "Nigel" ?
Point to those websites, please. I thought not! You really are a fraud! Every word was my own, as you know.And can you explain why if one does a google search on Nathan Rothschild so many other web sites have used "your words" ?
I will reiterate. You are a barren, semi-literate non-thinker with no argument of your own. Instead, you survive by hurling petty insults and lies."If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-- Thomas Jefferson0 -
what was your motive in posting the story, which is considered to be a myth, in the first place?
(1) You have provided no proof whatsoever that the Waterloo story is a myth! Since you are making that claim, the onus is on you to prove it! Where is YOUR proof?! I've already pointed out that the Rothschild family itself, and the family biographer, Niall Ferguson, are not credible sources.
The following is from Mullins' book, Secrets of the Federal Reserve (1952):
[SIZE=+1]The New York Times, April 1, 1915 reported that in 1914, Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild went to court to suppress Ignatius Balla's book I]The Romance of the Rothschilds[/I on the grounds that the Waterloo story about his grandfather was untrue and libelous. The Court ruled that the story was true, dismissed Rothschild's suit, and ordered him to pay all costs. (my italics)
[/SIZE]
It seems a court was persuaded by the story, so where is your proof to the contrary?
(2) In answer to your question about the relevance of the Waterloo story, you should go back and review this thread. You will see that discussion had turned to the Treasury's auction of Britain's gold reserves. I pointed out that just as Brown announced the gold auctions, Jacob Rothschild announced that he, too, was selling all his gold. That statement could only have compounded the depression in the price of the metal. To anyone purchasing Britain's gold, that depression would have proved very advantageous.
I then pointed out that the Rothschilds are masters at creating market rumours for their own gain. By way of example, I cited the Waterloo story, as told today by Griffin, Still, Mullins and others.
You seem incapable of tackling the substance of the story, instead you wallow in mindless insults and baseless innuendo.
If you can't keep up with this thread then maybe you shouldn't try."If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-- Thomas Jefferson0 -
Why are they giving people above £35,000 back when they knew the risk , everyone knew if you put more then £35,000 in then you wouldnt be covered for the whole lot!!!!
Im sure Icesave was b!!!!!ed before it then went from £35,000 to £50,000 , but hey what the hell give the rich their money back and raise our taxes , well done .
Im all for people getting the money back , yes under £35,000 but getting more just annoys me , if people want to take risk then thats upto them , but why should everyone else pay for others mistakes
As usually it will be the poor who surfer
I cant stand labour , just have to look at the state of the country to see how bad they are.
What a stupid lame reason to vote labour :rolleyes:
Probably when im old ...ill retire else where as thats how much i can no longer stand a far left wing country.0 -
Surely part of the present problem was caused by Labour in the first place. It didn't regulate properly and promoted greed... Remember who was Chancellor not so long ago. So now suddenly Brown and Darling are good guys... right. I don't think so.
Also, in a few years we'll ALL be bailing out the Labour government with our increase in taxes etc to pay for the Olympics.“It was only a sunny smile, and little it cost in the giving, but like morning light it scattered the night and made the day worth living.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald0 -
The current crisis has nothing to do with the Labour government...
It originated in America with their sub-prime mortgages dolled out No Income Jobs or Assets persons who then went and bought homes. When these homes devalued the persons defaulted on their mortgages, but since the homes devalued to a sum less than the mortgage the banks were stuffed. But since these mortgages had been bundled up in their thousands and sold on suddenly they became worthless and banks were staring a massive hole in the face. Because obviously no one is going to want to trade in worthless mortgage bundles, so the credit market froze.
The failings were as a result of a combination of factors; Bill Clintons legislation enforcing "political correctness" on banks in terms of who they gave credit to (ie failing a minority person would mean an investigation), banks' slightly frivolous attitude to credit, Iceland's faulty banks and the general over optimism of everyone indulging in credit incl joe public.Buy for value not cost.
Feb Grocery = £55.87 / 800 -
(1) You have provided no proof whatsoever that the Waterloo story is a myth! Since you are making that claim, the onus is on you to prove it! Where is YOUR proof?! I've already pointed out that the Rothschild family itself, and the family biographer, Niall Ferguson, are not credible sources.
The following is from Mullins' book, Secrets of the Federal Reserve (1952):
It seems a court was persuaded by the story, so where is your proof to the contrary?
(2) In answer to your question about the relevance of the Waterloo story, you should go back and review this thread. You will see that discussion had turned to the Treasury's auction of Britain's gold reserves. I pointed out that just as Brown announced the gold auctions, Jacob Rothschild announced that he, too, was selling all his gold. That statement could only have compounded the depression in the price of the metal. To anyone purchasing Britain's gold, that depression would have proved very advantageous.
I then pointed out that the Rothschilds are masters at creating market rumours for their own gain. By way of example, I cited the Waterloo story, as told today by Griffin, Still, Mullins and others.
You seem incapable of tackling the substance of the story, instead you wallow in mindless insults and baseless innuendo.
If you can't keep up with this thread then maybe you shouldn't try.
Don't believe I insulted you.
I asked the relevance of the myth about Nathan Rothschild to the current situation.
I also asked why, if they are your own words, did you refer to the bonds as "Treasury Bonds" and "T-Bonds" ?
Nigel0 -
echelon101 wrote: »The current crisis has nothing to do with the Labour government...
It has everything to do with the Labour government. They have singularly failed to deal with 'economic externalities' throughout their entire period in office. That's because they are pretending to operate a capitalist system, much as they are pretending that taxes are not going up.
An economy based upon ever rising land and house prices is a fools paradise. All that cost passes through to the productive part of the economy and makes us uncompetitive in the world.
The US subprime was just the trigger that started the collapse. It could just have easily been UK repossessions or any number of other stress points.
Once we are through the current mess, we need to ask who was tasked over the last decade with looking after the money supply and the balance of payments and then ask why they didn't act.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards