The true definition of a Ponzi scheme.

What is a Ponzi scheme?

A ponzi scheme is an organization with strong ties to private and public centers of power.

A ponzi scheme must first be able to dominate it's image through media outlets who exchange influential positions as experts for ad revenue. Generally, the print, radio or tv organization will quote and or interview from organization/bank (x) while carrying ads for them. It seems reasonable that recently it dawned on everyone that these "experts" would have to disclose if they had a vested interest in the success of the investments that they recommended to reveal their conflict of interest. It would be better if the media outlet would end the segment with how much financing they receive from bank (X), ad revenue and how much investment the organization has in that outlet or any of it's subsidiaries.

A ponzi scheme must wield uncanny clout in the corridors of power. In a situation where there is increasing outrage about using public depositors funds for personal bonuses to keep up exotic lifestyles while failing (at their job to make money), it's nice to know that you will be receiving MORE public funds with no whisper of indicting, raiding, closing, prosecuting or convicting anyone.

According to our blood money recipients (media and government), the economic downturn exposes lack of expertise, fraud and ponzi's like madoff and standford. This economic downturn somehow failed to expose and cause media derision & government assault on scotia/caisse or jpmorgan/bank of america. They hear the public outcry for punishment about the inequity in them going unpunished and spend day and night arresting and running stories about relative small timers whom you've never heard of and don't affect the public at large.

Maybe charles ponzi would be proud of madoff but he definitely would be more proud of the g-8 governments and media outlets, that are still attempting to talk past the crimes by these organizations that brought civilization to it's knee's.

Now exclude these organizations from the ponzi scheme checklist:

This is the type of trivia that has your mind racing to keep all banks from being ponzi schemes. Unfortunately for our corrupt friends in the media and government the law requires guilt to be based on the accepted practices of an industry. This means a judge who doesn't know anything about running a nuclear plant can't simply find someone guilty of acting recklessly at one. The first measure is to find if the person acted in a credible fashion for his/her occupation/industry e.g. it can't be reckless if it is the standard practice and would have been the action of 9/10 other informed professionals.

How this applies to all of the ponzi/fraud cases out there is how can a public constantly exposed to banks expect anything other than those practices listed above. Since these institutions are considered the standard bearers of the industry, how can a prosecutor not look to them for what would be acceptable practice.

You ever notice that most of these people have some banking/brokerage background? It would seem that they picked it up from the source and after watching media and government confer so much reverence and respect on these organizations, figured that this must be the proper way to do it. What a shock it must be to wake up arrested while your mentor continues to receive support. If some of these people are crooks, we know they learned from the best ;)

p to the mutherfkn s

A washington post article referred to bankers as casualties of the economic downturn. The point of the article was actually just to put that lie into the public psyche. It is outlandish right now while it's happening and fresh on everyone's mind that the banks are the culprits. Sell that ad space, dawg!

Here's a refresher: Northern rock a british bank experiences a run(when the legitimate banks are asked to make good on all of their statements and can't).

google some "legitimate names for your future investments: Bnp paribas halt's withdrawals:

UBS helps wealthy steal from federal government. Remember bear stearns and lehman bros.? Oh and don't forget the state of cali FORNia wih AH-nold. Weren't there banks called wachovia and washington mutual once upon a time?

Also governments around the world are creating "bad banks" to buy all the red ink off of the banks balance sheets. So that they can survive and we can pretend that they weren't inept crooks who destroyed 50 years of generated wealth. This is like someone buying all of your debt from you with cash, your bad credit is purchased from you and cleaned up, while you keep your assets. We all could benefit from a corrupt deal like that, hell most of madoff clients would be better off it madoff would have made the list of corrupt titans eligible for a bailout.

What industry and government crony told the post to print this nazi style propaganda?
No wonder all the media outlets are going bankrupt.

Damn you all to hell!! La mort de la culture de l’argent : Banks & the planet of the raped.

We are in a car careening out of control on ice with the brake line cut and they are still trying to steal the remaining pieces in an attempt to have total ownership when we recover. It started as an orchestrated coup by the central and commercial banks to gain ownership of the bulk of global assets. As is always the case with these things, they were so blinded with greed and arrogance that they missed the entire forest for the trees.
Let’s start over, the large multi-national banks were rigging the laws across the globe to allow faster and more frequent consolidation. Nearly every country on earth has fewer banks than a decade ago. The growth of the internet which should have doubled their business actually has turned out to be a more democratic and competitive market place. Democracy and competition have their place; unless you are the one who has the most.

The flow of money as it had been known which would normally allow taxes to be collected and then passed directly to the banks for them to loan back to the public at a profit was crumbling. Why pay $500 per trade if you could trade for $10? Why pay a broker at all when you can trade for yourself and pocket the fees? While they were gaining in one sector by gobbling up smaller banks and dictating political policy, market share was becoming more competitive. Fees and commissions are like store warranties on electronics and are generally 100% profit. It never cost a brokerage $1000 to buy a few shares on your behalf. They could have taken the entire internet by storm by offering discount services to the masses but they believed that the poor spend all of their money; the middle class has a little left to save and only the rich had the means and intelligence to invest. If they offered discount services then they simply would be giving back billions each year in profits. They could no longer simply buy market share through mergers. Sure Toronto dominion could link up with ameritrade but there are tons of online competitors for investing and trading. Even the well-heeled customers began to consider the cost savings in discount fees and so the major banks and brokerages late and begrudgingly rolled out their own over priced online banking services. This was not the only industry to make this mistake, we all remember napster and amazon as entertainment and retail woke up behind the eight ball and determined to turn back the clock on their greedy business model. All the major retailers allow you to purchase online except the largest - wal-mart but this holiday season will surely change this outdated attitude. The auto industry and it’s let them eat cake attitude, the media acting only as a megaphone for industry now wants me to blog on their site or twitter and facebook them. It has all changed in a a world where CNN needs facebook more than the other way around. The free blogs and news submissions are a realization that news was no longer going to be determined by a few people with a common life experience. The thought now is that what started with the banks has spread to retail and media among others but the truth is the banks are only the most recent to have to deal with the new reality. They were able to determine who became middle class or rich, whether cars would stay old tech or if new tech could gain their favor and that the media conglomerates would be the captains of information. Why would the retailers, media and industry change, they were the ones with the most access to credit and credit has long replaced merit. Merit says that there were people who developed ideas for flying cars decades ago; Credit says that they never got the financing to get off the ground ( get it? Off the ground, flying cars!!!…never mind). Credit allowed white factory workers to get $200k to buy a home in the suburbs and only allowed his black foreman $110k to find a home in the city because that’s all the homes cost where they thought he SHOULD live. The banks were not interested in giving him access to homes in places they didn’t feel he belonged. Banks used credit to steer people into the communities DESPITE merit. This example is often cited and always shows up in government testing, Despite the persistent dogma to the contrary. In case you haven’t noticed what this normally causes to happen is in any “intergrated” middle or upper-class community the non-white is 1-3 classes above their white neighbors. Black doctors can get the credit to live next to white roofing contractors, when he parks his top of the line audi in the drive way all he can see is a sea of contractor vans and trucks and modest home vehicles. The real kicker is that all the whispers are about how he is the one bringing the value down and how could he get the money to afford one of the homes. This is not an attempt to elicit “white guilt” which seems to be an oxymoron at best but to set the premise for offering a solution for this horrific quagmire we find ourselves in.

The banks stunted innovation and used credit to skew merit and so the public much the same as industry began to believe their own press. That merit must be color coded, the car companies that had the most money, have the best cars. The brokerages with the most market share and locations offered the best service. What separated you from the poor people in the social underbelly was your willingness to work hard. Well it’s time to wake up!! Now no one can stand now that the king making banks are closing off the lines of credit and hoarding all the money. The best part is that they simply changed the standards arbitrarily, until now you didn’t know it was arbitrary and really didn’t care as long as you were chosen. Now hard work isn’t enough, size of the company isn’t enough as the spicket to all your advantages is turned off. All of a sudden companies that have been around forever off of “merit” don’t seem able to survive solely based on the quality of their business. So car companies are told to sell cars if they need money and they can’t imagine trying to survive like that and no one will “buy” the cars. The problem is most people never buy cars, the banks told them they had enough “merit” to deserve the credit to access the car they wanted in exchange for interest payments to allow the bank to profit. Most people did not save and write a check for their home, car, clothing and furnishings and most people who did; don’t really have anything that anyone would envy.

So to reverse engineer the problem will help in understanding the solution. When this most recent symptom arose the solutions were idiotic at best because they were based on this credit = merit myth. I ran out and immediately said if the underlining assets are mortgages then the efforts should be focused on keeping the home “owners” in place. What everyone else decided from the blog sites to governments was that the people who were suffering with these predatory loans were not victims. In the twisted warped reality stoked by the media was a version where the banks were the victims of bad underserving people trying to game the system. The banks were also the victim of governments requiring private organizations that receive public funds from everyone treat everyone the same. What a ridiculous idea that people who pay in their money be considered for having it LOANED back to them. The banks pumped that version through the central banks to the governments and media to the public and received trillions in infusions as everyone spurned the homeowners. A year later the western governments and public found that they had once again been successful in keeping homeownership out of the hands of hardworking deserving people but everything was worse. How could this be? Didn’t we just sacrifice all of these families on the alter of the banks to save ourselves? Yes, but the banks demand more sacrifice, the terms are now give the banks more and more money and power while they throw more families and business into the sacrificial pit. Finally everyone woke up and realized that no one or nothing was immune, things keep getting worse and worse while the banks continue to demand more and more. It’s your fault, the media, government and public told them that they were “too big to fail” no sacrifice was too big, saving corrupt titans was paramount to all things. The answer is still what it was a year ago; start at the BOTTOM and work your way UP. Create public jobs and finance homes of the workers. Double welfare and social assistance checks to stimulate consumption. Issue massive government grants to business and start-ups. Ignore the conservatives, there is not a single one alive who doesn’t owe his station in life to these solutions being put into place after the depression and world war. Americans conservatives who owe their class to the G.I. bill and the new deal or Europe which would be living in the stone age without the marshall plan. I have no respect for people who want to burn the ladder once they climb up. Massive government iniatives were the foundation of modern prosperity, all rigged faux merit systems bring is bursting bubbles. If you prefer faux merit and bursting wealth bubbles to real merit then you are going to find yourself isolated as a selfish throwback to a failed dogma. This ruin that we are all suffering in is the direct result and so the proponents of this failed state will now spend their time as the voiceless and disenfranchised but at least they earned stigma; finally merit at work.

It's going to be better in the good old days!!

Reason 4.5 A world safe for democracy and hitler


As an indicted person with the government attempting to go all hiroshima on your divine rights, you get to review what protections you actually have in society.

Yes, divine rights, in the u.s. they say "endowed by the creator (and or darwinism)with inalienable". This is a long-winded way to say that the government will be on a unrelenting mission to steal your freedom on behalf of various interest to allow others to run amok(my explanation is actually more long-winded:). Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist in the united states: it says but wait... EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME. This means, wait for it.............SLAVERY IS STILL LEGAL! That's a beautiful loophole, that has been used to banish more people(and per capita)to bondage than any other nation rich enough to not have to. Hitler would have brought peace(eventually)no tyrant in history has wanted endless fighting, they just want to win first. Once you're in total submission you are free to live in peace but as a defeated group it probably won't feel very peaceful.

The jews weren't rounded up, they were actually asked quite politely to leave. They were offered relocation and received fabricated letters from loved ones saying "come on in, the waters fine". Hitler distributed propaganda reminding blacks and africans that they were fighting for their own oppressors. His mistakes were of course, fighting in africa, russia in winter and immediately declaring war on the usa while it was still reluctant to fight him. So when you mix your actual rights with only minor differences in the outcome of world war two, then you will notice that liberty is much more fragile than one might expect. There were no nazi's just people dispatching their military to remake the world in their own image (and WE defeated fascism?). The german public whipped into a frenzy of encroaching danger and humiliation at the hands of their enemy decided the only way to be free was to dominate. This of course led to greater humiliation and submission to it's rivals. That 1 watt bulb is starting to flicker in your head.

If fascism and slavery are alive and kicking, then what freedom do you ACTUALLY have? Actually is the important part because it means that you can't wake up and find it gone tomorrow? Of course this is canada, not germany or the USA, so everyone is free? Canada doesn't offer any protections. In fairness the canadians have only had say for about 25yrs (1982). So they haven't wanted to write down too many things before they secure their own place in canadian society. The constitution and laws are a mix-matched quilt of french and british with a few new things tacked on to look independent. Since most canadians were around in 1982 (and 1882, get it? because the canadian population is old)canada is like an adult child who has moved away from it's british parent. The country still takes pride in england, with the queen on the money and everywhere else(courts, supermarkets, strip clubs). The U.S. is of course the brother who left home at 15. The american bill of rights is a laundry list of rights to own guns and shoot anyone who tries to take them. It took another 70+ years and a bloody war to partially refine slavery and then another 60 to get to women suffrage. Guns = amendment 2, paid slavery amendment 14 and oh yeah women amendment 19. The canadian system like the american one does say you kinda have even more rights even though they aren't enumerated but in practice it's hard to enforce the ones that are. The differences come from history, where america fought a bloody war and wrote the bill of rights as a F-you, the canadians kind of slid into freedom.
Are wars always labeled noble quest? Generally, the american revolution was about taxes, so it actually could have been worked out and a lot of people didn't appreciate the anti-english rants. The civil war was about labor, half of the north didn't want a freed black population coming to compete for jobs, the same area was flooded again as european immigrants came by the boat loads 70 years later. Again the issues remain contempary, immigrant labor, wage stagnation, working conditions, worker rights, taxation, and slave workers keeping production cost low. Your freedoms are endowed by the creator and are inalienable, they are not to be doled out by any society. Societies controlled by the interest of the day, will constantly look to abridge, circumvent and downright steal your rights.

Since I am in my prime (old and young at the same time: with the body of a god and just enough grey to look...distinquished )it means I am still young enough to speak and act with moral imperatives and still not old enough to think that things can't change for the better. I am too old to lash-out through crime or violence from frustation but young enough to not take no for an answer. With mandela free, a Mlk holiday and the end of the cold war, my generation may have believed that there was no more fights for freedom and justice, we would be wrong. the oft cited poem sheds some light: "First they came"
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

This poem credited to a reformed nazi, reminds us that the prisons can be full since it's those people in the city and let's build them around the world and skip due process, since neither type profile me. I didn't get my shiny pantsuit or flying car because I didn't know about contracts and production means as a child would stiffle innovation. People have nostalgia for the past always remembering a simpler time, while we keep hope for the future to lift the burdens and yokes that cripple the present. So the truth remains: It's going to be better in the good old days.

when you miss me check out my new topical UK blog at
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/aid4families

If U had a million dollars...U would be broke!!!

REASON: 3.5 ...and your mother dresses you funny.


When I started aid4families.com the first page added to the site was a brief summary of why the program was started called save your life. The title was, you're going to be broke. The point was not to make people feel bad or scare them into the program but to remind them to take an objective look at their situation. Paper millionaires are excluded from the millionaires club and most people don't qualify for that. There are towns where small homes or condos go for more than that. The people residing in them rarely qualify as millionaires, although some technical paper measure may allow them to impress their high school classmates. What any first year broker can often show these people is how their net worth is either much lower or negative. One for sure way, is living well beyond their means. This is a fact for most people (despite the hypocritical cries about sub-prime borrowers). To be a 21st century millionaire in a western hypocrisy, it is estimated that it takes between 21 to 700 million dollars to match a millionaire in 1900. With the worlds worst savings rate and wages devastated by cannibalistic inflation, there was no way the average person was going to survive retirement. What was needed for joe six-pack and susie secretary was what every politician, financier and captain of industry enjoys...A big fat bowl of passive income.

Yes, you would never know it from all the whining about income taxes and capital gains taxes beating leukemia for media and political attention. Most people couldn't get their mind around receiving more money than they earn or having money come from no effort on their part. How quaint the bottom 98% must seem to politicians who make more after they leave office or to brokers and CEOs' who make more in bonuses than pay. The primary taboo that I broke was bringing the unwashed masses to the party. The major arguments are: 1. When I made everyone rich, no one would be rich and 2. The rest of you slugs are too lazy to work if you have money(you have to be starved to be productive). For this they use the lottery example, how rare it is for some inbred like yourself to keep their job after winning and then it is usually wasted doing what the bottom 98% does, which is spend it. The problem with that argument is, the people who get rich setting up these lottery schemes are the ones telling you that you won't have to work anymore, this is the same society that demands you spend every dollar you get and then some and finally, working for no or low wages when you come into a huge sum is stupid. Another issue is that the opposite of what I am doing is the current situation. Whereas I risked everyone having money, we are now in a situation where no one has money. No savings and mountains of debt, even the banks and government(despite tone of accountability).

So if you don't have a million dollars, you're going to be on the side of the road with a sign. It's true! It's a setup no savings, huge debt, no retirement until you earn huge medical expenses AND THEY'RE cutting all the social spending, so us rich folk don't have to help your fat pasty butt. As a broker calling accredited investors, I NEVER talked to a millionaire that didn't have a job. Especially since I was calling them at work. This means that wealth is no deterrent to work(poverty maybe) but not greed. The poor made rich don't always know the game, some athletes and entertainers buy mansions for careers that last maybe 5 years in their twenties. They then turn into tabloid fodder. So why do people who swear by incentive based pay for themselves( and still get huge bonuses for running the company and the economy in the toilet) have so much disdain for the prospect of the bottom 98% making it? Cluck if I know, what I don't like is societies telling you that you chose your situation, while keeping 9 of 10 choices off the table. If people CHOOSE to be poor then they have the right to CHOOSE to be rich. Yet, the stampede to stop you bottom feeders from taking the elevator to the penthouse is incredible. I unlike most of you didn't need aid4families to become a millionaire but instead of creating another rich firm enriching rich people, I went and started a private safety net. Now, I can't stand near windows and have hired a royal food taster, nobody assassinates like banks :)