Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

my opinion is that financial sector must be controlled by public.

Because state companies are in general a success. Oh wait.

Because state companies are in general a success. Oh wait.

because private companies are a lot better?
Ideology blinds people.

Werent Italians invent private banks? You would lose part of your cultural heritage:(

because private companies are a lot better?

In general, yes.

ideology blinds people.

Werent Italians invent private banks? You would lose part of your cultural heritage:(

italians invented mafia too..

It does indeed.

I think that banks, as police or military can't be a private business but it must be owned by public,


this is typical socialist bullshit :-). So if some people have enough money they can not set up their own bank ? And did you ever hear about freedom and right to make own business?

1) If they got enough money they can make an investman in real economy and not in the interest and usury

2) if they want to be bankers the loses of the banking system its not fair to be payed by the the states

their own profits and the losses to the states and to tax payers?
i dont think so...

no need for corruption or buying people..
having economic strength is having the chance to create a situation that FORCE politicians (or people) to do what you prefer.

That is completely the same thing. You believe in this only so that you can later say that you were "forced to be corrupted and so it isn't corruption". Claiming this only means that you are already corrupted. It only depends on opportunities that you get in life, how much exactly corrupted you will actually be in the end.

You believe in this only so that you can later say that you were "forced to be corrupted and so it isn't corruption".

you really have to forget about corruption. I didn't mention it, it does not have any role in what I say.
I can't continue to answer always the same things...

If I close you in a box, you probably will desire to get out from there. Well that desire is truly your, I din't pay you to desire so, I didn't corrupt you!!
but who can say it is not a desire produced by me?
(That is an example, don't mess with it, its only use is to better explain my ideas.)

you really have to forget about corruption. I didn't mention it, it does not have any role in what I say.

That's not true. You used it as an argument that banks are able to influence politicians with money.

By saying all this:

because its politicians are often controlled or blackmailed by banks.

This is not corruption cases, its how a democracy works..

there's no conspiration or corruption needed to use money to influence politicians.

you are actually claiming that all politicians are corrupted or that at least vast majority of them are corrupted. Even if the majority of politicians are corrupted, that only means that most people are corrupted. Politicians come from the people. And if most people are corrupted, they deserve to have a corrupted government as well. There is no help to the society where most people are corrupted.

You used it as an argument that banks are able to influence politicians with money.

yes, but not paying them (well, not only ..)

By saying all this:

because its politicians are often controlled or blackmailed by banks.

This is not corruption cases, its how a democracy works..

there's no conspiration or corruption needed to use money to influence politicians.

you are actually claiming that all politicians are corrupted

NO, please read what I wrote.
Look at the examples..

Anyway, it's really funny the story that tells that politicians come from the people..
at least in our democracies i think its quite false.

My opinion is that is impossible, because of the fact that the economical concentration of power, ends always in controlling politicians, and never the opposite.

Politicians are voted in election mostly by plebs. If TV and newspaper can easily control plebs for purposes of rich people, it is ok, it is democracy. If people want to be cheated, they deserve it.

I dont like democracy, but freedom and right to make own business is important for me because this can create new jobs. So as I said, we can make it by laws and control if people really want it, they can vote such a political party.

but democracy is crap...

Well.
That's how it works now..
Are you happy with results?


No, I would take away right to vote for plebs :-DD
It is just hard to choose who is in that group called plebs :-D. Maybe me too :-)

2. banks can do a lot of damages to democracies and to people if they are left free and private.

Not banks, laws! I am against some "modern" financial methods which banks are using for "fictive" trading with "money from future" to make a business. But it is just about laws and of course it depends on political party, interests and plebs who is the only one who can change this.

Plebs should not vote and solve this, because plebs dont understand anything about this. Look in Greece case, plebs was voting parties which promised them better pensions, better wages in state sector and people love them :-).

democracy is crap...

if people care about them (which they should), they should voluntarily pay to an organization that helps poor people in court. So a private organization that is voluntarily funded can do what the government does now.

Levitate's Utopia ..... :/

Interesting new docu about charity can't handle the hunger problem in the US: www.hungerisunacceptable.com (incl interview with the makers)

This is the reality, not some unrealistic idea how it should be but never will be.