Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Its the economy stupid


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

coins.jpg
Phillip Tilley: When Bill Clinton was running for President in the early 90’s, he used to ask his campaign manager what where the issues he should be talking about. His campaign manager would always say, “There is only one issue, it’s the economy stupid”. So Bill Clinton talked about the economy, got elected President, and fixed the economy, sort of. Sixteen years later the cry heard most often in the Presidential race is, “It’s still the economy stupid”. If Bill Clinton fixed the economy stupid, how could it still be broken? The truth is, the economic moves he made led to what looked on the surface like a long run of prosperity. And if we had real money it would still be working. In reality, most people don’t even know how our economy works.

Nothing the economists do works the way it is supposed to. That is because our current economy does not run on money the way it is supposed to, if it did the economic moves being made would work. Our current economy runs on “credit”, or debt, which is not money and reacts exactly opposite of an economy that uses money. Even our current President with his economic stimulus package has been predicted not to do what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to give the economy a shot in the arm. The economy was already shot in the head, shooting it in the arm isn’t going to help!

When you put a tourniquet on an artery to slow the bleeding, the problem isn’t fixed. Temporarily it seems better but the root problem of why the artery was bleeding in the first place still has to be fixed for a permanent cure.

In this Presidential race only one candidate, an obscure Congressman from Texas named Ron Paul really wants to fix the economy stupid. He wants to close the IRS and shut down the privately owned Federal Reserve and have the Treasury and Congress do what they are supposed to do, issue real money.

He’ll never get elected President though, and if he did the monied elite would have his head blown off like they did Kennedy.

Some people say Ron Pauls measures would destroy the economy stupid. Look around you, the economy is already imploding all around you stupid. When you kill a cancer, something has to die. Hopefully the cancer dies, for if it doesn’t it will kill the host that supports it.

In the Money Matrix, YOU are the host! Wake up people, the money matrix has you!

Phillip Tilley is the author of The Money Matrix of the New World Order and other articles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 18
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Oen Anderson

    5

  • IronGhost

    3

  • Siara

    2

  • cerberusxp

    1

In this Presidential race only one candidate, an obscure Congressman from Texas named Ron Paul really wants to fix the economy stupid. He wants to close the IRS and shut down the privately owned Federal Reserve and have the Treasury and Congress do what they are supposed to do, issue real money.

He’ll never get elected President though, and if he did the monied elite would have his head blown off like they did Kennedy.

I will say that Ron Paul was the only candidate whose platforms showed original thought. He and Romney seemed to actually think about what they were beleiving. The rest seemed written for their respective parties wholly and represent no change.

Original ideas like Paul put out ARE scary to those who depend on no change. I don't know he is right, mind you, some of them were drastic shifts in how we do business. But, I respect him for having obviously thought about his views and putting them out there, and I suspect that some of them might be good for us to seriously consider.

Which means he probably would get shot. The very rich never seem to be able to get enough to be satisfied.

You can go to cnn.com in the political section and read all the candidates' platforms, side by side. All the more original thinkers have been run off already. We are safely assured of another 4 years of more of the same, no matter who wins the hot seat.

JMO

NS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering -- isn't "real money" basically a symbol, too? Even if we went back to the gold standard, then gold would be the basis of real money -- I'm not an expert in this so correct me if I am wrong.

But then, isn't gold merely a symbol for "real" wealth -- for example, something you can eat, live inside or stay warm with.

I'm wondering how far down the symbolic ladder the author thinks we should go?

It seems to me that the idea of what wealth has has shown a steady progression toward increased levels of symbolism throughout the centuries. Before there was money, people bartered -- they traded a goat for a pile a wheat, for example. But remaining stuck in that kind of system also limited the progress of toward the greater creation of wealth -- when money was invented, bartering was streamlined because it could be carried out on a more symbolic level.

You might say, then, that getting away from the gold standard, or "real" money as some would call it has again increased our ability to produce even greater wealth because now we are using even "higher" forms of symbolism, or "metasymbolisms" -- such as the buying and selling of stocks, then the buying and selling of stock options, and then I think there is even opitions on opitions ...

...or, for example, when people speculate in the commodities market, they can buy "put" or "call" options -- they can "bet" that a price will go up or down, and they can make money even when prices go down. The latter is called "going short."

All this activity produces no real weatlh, yet the end result is that it facilitates the production of real wealth because, again, it adds a layer of symbolism to the ebb and flow of wealth, streamlining the whole process.

I remember once reading about an experiment in which they decided that onions could no longer be speculated on in the commodities market -- the result was extremely damaging to the prdocution of onions. I'll have to go look that up.

But anyway, my quesiton to the author would be -- while there are dangers of not using "real" money -- are there also not definite advantages to increases the level of symbolism and moving away from the "real"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what Tilley stated.

The economy was not/is not set up for the common folks to live in prosperity but cleverly set up for us to remain in a constant 'matrix of debt' by the Money Masters (private corporate banking interests)...err emphasis on interests.

'Till debt do us part' or if ya like 'Till death do us debt' or does 'Till debt do us death' sound better?... :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what Tilley stated.

The economy was not/is not set up for the common folks to live in prosperity but cleverly set up for us to remain in a constant 'matrix of debt' by the Money Masters (private corporate banking interests)...err emphasis on interests.

'Till debt do us part' or if ya like 'Till death do us debt' or does 'Till debt do us death' sound better?... :rofl:

I agree somewhat here -- it's interesting that the Federal Government is issueing huge multi-billion dollar bailout to banks -- who made millions of risky home owner loans to people -- yet the people who are on the ground losing their homes are getting jack nothing. Rather, they're being told, "pay up, pay with interest, pay on time, or get the hell out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the word "stupid" in the title of this blog is very appropriate

Edited by Moon Demon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering -- isn't "real money" basically a symbol, too? Even if we went back to the gold standard, then gold would be the basis of real money -- I'm not an expert in this so correct me if I am wrong.

But then, isn't gold merely a symbol for "real" wealth -- for example, something you can eat, live inside or stay warm with.

I'm wondering how far down the symbolic ladder the author thinks we should go?

It seems to me that the idea of what wealth has has shown a steady progression toward increased levels of symbolism throughout the centuries. Before there was money, people bartered -- they traded a goat for a pile a wheat, for example. But remaining stuck in that kind of system also limited the progress of toward the greater creation of wealth -- when money was invented, bartering was streamlined because it could be carried out on a more symbolic level.

You might say, then, that getting away from the gold standard, or "real" money as some would call it has again increased our ability to produce even greater wealth because now we are using even "higher" forms of symbolism, or "metasymbolisms" -- such as the buying and selling of stocks, then the buying and selling of stock options, and then I think there is even opitions on opitions ...

...or, for example, when people speculate in the commodities market, they can buy "put" or "call" options -- they can "bet" that a price will go up or down, and they can make money even when prices go down. The latter is called "going short."

All this activity produces no real weatlh, yet the end result is that it facilitates the production of real wealth because, again, it adds a layer of symbolism to the ebb and flow of wealth, streamlining the whole process.

I remember once reading about an experiment in which they decided that onions could no longer be speculated on in the commodities market -- the result was extremely damaging to the prdocution of onions. I'll have to go look that up.

But anyway, my quesiton to the author would be -- while there are dangers of not using "real" money -- are there also not definite advantages to increases the level of symbolism and moving away from the "real"?

Sounds similar to calculus. Taking the "nth Derivative" - taking a derivative of a derivative of a derivative...etc. Most people don't understand calculus and maybe the "money elite" like it this way?!

In my opinion, Plato invested a lot of time in his writings warning us of "derivatives."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering -- isn't "real money" basically a symbol, too? Even if we went back to the gold standard, then gold would be the basis of real money -- I'm not an expert in this so correct me if I am wrong.

But then, isn't gold merely a symbol for "real" wealth -- for example, something you can eat, live inside or stay warm with.

I'm wondering how far down the symbolic ladder the author thinks we should go?

It seems to me that the idea of what wealth has has shown a steady progression toward increased levels of symbolism throughout the centuries. Before there was money, people bartered -- they traded a goat for a pile a wheat, for example. But remaining stuck in that kind of system also limited the progress of toward the greater creation of wealth -- when money was invented, bartering was streamlined because it could be carried out on a more symbolic level.

You might say, then, that getting away from the gold standard, or "real" money as some would call it has again increased our ability to produce even greater wealth because now we are using even "higher" forms of symbolism, or "metasymbolisms" -- such as the buying and selling of stocks, then the buying and selling of stock options, and then I think there is even opitions on opitions ...

...or, for example, when people speculate in the commodities market, they can buy "put" or "call" options -- they can "bet" that a price will go up or down, and they can make money even when prices go down. The latter is called "going short."

All this activity produces no real weatlh, yet the end result is that it facilitates the production of real wealth because, again, it adds a layer of symbolism to the ebb and flow of wealth, streamlining the whole process.

I remember once reading about an experiment in which they decided that onions could no longer be speculated on in the commodities market -- the result was extremely damaging to the prdocution of onions. I'll have to go look that up.

But anyway, my quesiton to the author would be -- while there are dangers of not using "real" money -- are there also not definite advantages to increases the level of symbolism and moving away from the "real"?

I think you missed the point of his article, it was about the economy, not wealth. In his book Tilley has a chapter on wealth, and he said that unless you are God, you are not creating wealth. All the wealth on this planet has always been here and will always be here, we only get to use it and show stewardship of it for the short time we exist on this planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree somewhat here -- it's interesting that the Federal Government is issueing huge multi-billion dollar bailout to banks -- who made millions of risky home owner loans to people -- yet the people who are on the ground losing their homes are getting jack nothing. Rather, they're being told, "pay up, pay with interest, pay on time, or get the hell out."

In his book, Tilley said you don't own your house anyway. If you haven't already read his article, "There Is No Money", I think you'd like it, it's right up your alley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his book, Tilley said you don't own your house anyway. If you haven't already read his article, "There Is No Money", I think you'd like it, it's right up your alley.

Thanks for this and previous comments, Oen. I'll definitely have to give Mr. Tilley's book a read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refreshing writing. Different view. Enjoyed the piece.

I do not agree with all of Ron Paul's platform but of course some of it was dead on which was why he did as well as he did. Hope you continue to write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hahaha the banks made millions from people that worked so hard for so little yet the government issue billions to the banks and i wonder where the government got the money from?

Economy is stupid but not to the banks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's all a game, not as evil and sinister as conspiracies make it to be, but more about greed and individualism. I mean we are capitalists, right? So I don't see the need for panic when we are acting like capitalists. If you want to protect yourself, study a little finaince and manage your money properly, debt can be tricky, but try raising a family without having debt, its impossible. But if your smart and take the time to manage your debt its really not that big of a deal.

And believe me the rich aren't the only ones abusing the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all a game, not as evil and sinister as conspiracies make it to be, but more about greed and individualism. I mean we are capitalists, right? So I don't see the need for panic when we are acting like capitalists. If you want to protect yourself, study a little finaince and manage your money properly, debt can be tricky, but try raising a family without having debt, its impossible. But if your smart and take the time to manage your debt its really not that big of a deal.

And believe me the rich aren't the only ones abusing the system.

We either are capitalists or we act like capitalists, which is it? The Government has brain washed us into believing our economy is capitalist, and in treating it as such there is the problem, because it's not. Ask yourself, in a truly capitalist society, would the Government regulate every aspect of our lives? Would the Federal Reserve regulate inflation and job growth? NO! The society would decide these things through the law of supply and demand. There would be busts and booms, inflation and deflation, recession and growth, all without regulation. You are right that it's a game though, one Tilley calls the money matrix. I believe he would tell you to wake up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Obama talks change, this is what he says he will do. Raise taxes across the board, distribute among'st various bureaucracies plus adding more bureaucracies. Where the bulk of that money will stay within that bureaucracy. Which will take billions out of the free market and put it in Gov. hands. Change will be all that you have when you get your pay check so he is not lying about CHANGE!!!

Edited by cerberusxp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Obama talks change, this is what he says he will do. Raise taxes across the board, distribute among'st various bureaucracies plus adding more bureaucracies. Where the bulk of that money will stay within that bureaucracy. Which will take billions out of the free market and put it in Gov. hands. Change will be all that you have when you get your pay check so he is not lying about CHANGE!!!

How ironic that you should post this within hours of the time when the Bush administration announced yet another drastic intensification of the federal government's power. See

Paulson Offers Sweeping Rule Changes ( http://money.cnn.com/ )

Honest to God, you people don't read the paper AT ALL do you? You're as bad as the PC liberals from the 1980's, brainlessly quoting the party line. Shame on you.

Edited by Siara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back when Rush Limbaugh started out he was great. A mass of people who were brainlessly loyal to their party doctrine had been downing the rest of us in poorly thought out knee-jerk political rhetoric for years. Limbaugh was one of the guys who stood up and announced "Look around you, idiots. Your theory isn't working".

Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. We've drowning in brainless conservative rhetoric. How ironic that so many people mouthing this latest pile of manure model themselves on the old conservative talk show hosts who were originally opposing mindless partisanship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ironic that you should post this within hours of the time when the Bush administration announced yet another drastic intensification of the federal government's power. See

Paulson Offers Sweeping Rule Changes ( http://money.cnn.com/ )

Honest to God, you people don't read the paper AT ALL do you? You're as bad as the PC liberals from the 1980's, brainlessly quoting the party line. Shame on you.

The Treasury says this is the most sweeping reform since the Great Depression. That ought to get somebodies attention, since we are nearing the next even Greater Depression. And, just like when the Federal Reserve created the stock market crash of 1929 and where then given more power, history is repeating itself. They caused the current crisis and the Treasury is giving them full power to take over even more. Stop giving the key to the hen house to the wolf!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I just heard trends annalyst Gerald Celente on Coast to Coast AM. He said the new catch phrase is "It's the economy stupid"! It took me an hour to find and re-read this old article and all the comments. It makes me wonder why an article written over a year ago is so far ahead of a trends annalyst? Maybe the author is psychic or a time traveler or a better trends annalyst than the trends annalyst Gerald Celente. At any rate I continue to watch this column with no money but great interest!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.