Fascinating. There are several dots mentioned in the article, that are goo additions, others that require further scrutiny.
The real threat is not $200 oil. It’s a fracture of the system. It is cheap energy in export nations and ruinous energy costs in places far from reserves. It’s $2 oil in the Persain Gulf, $20 dollar oil in the Gulf of America and $2,000 oil in the UK.
A fractured oil price .....
I don't think it is a bad thing per sé. I think it is only correct to apply the real costs to where they should fall. An if countries cannot hold up their own trousers by a belt, but in addition need suspenders as well .... I would argue that Frank's observation in Once upon a Time in the West hols true:
how can you trust a man who does not trust his own pants.
If countries can only survive thanks to subvention by piggy banking on producers, perhaps those countries are in dire need of a sea change [ mare-chaussee?] in their priorities.
I refer back to this post on global money. I think it is worth considering. Why? Because, as the above article points out: one global price is detrimental. It is basically, the Colonial extraction system.
In terms of money, two factors:
silver was sold back then at 50% value into the global market, while the trader enjoyed the markup of 2%. It means that the value of real money is diminished, moving interest from production to financialization of commodities, an the commoditization of all rights.
Under this [..]globalist regime[..]the many are the slaves of the few who rob them by legislation
The Goldstandard was one such mechanism. Centralization of insurance is another, by taking stakes into each others companies.
Think the model: Staple Street has a stake in Black Rock an Vanguard. Black Rock has a stake in Vanguard an Staple Street. Vanguard has a stake in both Staple street and Black Rock. A nice circle jerk. Insurance is no different. This way, policy can be influenced under the guise of shareholder value / benefit.
When companies globally do the same thing, it usually means: there is no actual competition. Not a real marketplace. No real freedom to contract and take risks.
To break that stranglehold, now here is where 5 chess does come in. In essence, whatever the globalist say, do the opposite. A bit like with that Jim Cramer guy ....
Fascinating. There are several dots mentioned in the article, that are goo additions, others that require further scrutiny.
A fractured oil price .....
I don't think it is a bad thing per sé. I think it is only correct to apply the real costs to where they should fall. An if countries cannot hold up their own trousers by a belt, but in addition need suspenders as well .... I would argue that Frank's observation in Once upon a Time in the West hols true:
If countries can only survive thanks to subvention by piggy banking on producers, perhaps those countries are in dire need of a sea change [ mare-chaussee?] in their priorities.
I refer back to this post on global money. I think it is worth considering. Why? Because, as the above article points out: one global price is detrimental. It is basically, the Colonial extraction system.
In terms of money, two factors:
The Goldstandard was one such mechanism. Centralization of insurance is another, by taking stakes into each others companies.
Think the model: Staple Street has a stake in Black Rock an Vanguard. Black Rock has a stake in Vanguard an Staple Street. Vanguard has a stake in both Staple street and Black Rock. A nice circle jerk. Insurance is no different. This way, policy can be influenced under the guise of shareholder value / benefit.
When companies globally do the same thing, it usually means: there is no actual competition. Not a real marketplace. No real freedom to contract and take risks.
To break that stranglehold, now here is where 5 chess does come in. In essence, whatever the globalist say, do the opposite. A bit like with that Jim Cramer guy ....