Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Someone

Pages: [1] 2 ... 4
1
Forum Suggestions / Facebook share button
« on: September 20, 2017, 06:53:14 PM »
Peace all,

I think it would be useful to add Facebook share button on the website as well as the forum. It will be easier to share articles and posts.


2
Economics Forum / Maximum Assets per Person
« on: March 31, 2017, 07:56:39 AM »
Peace all,

When looking at the immense gap of wealth between 1% of world population and the rest of 99%, it is no surprise that the world would be full of misery and distress, even with all the abundant resources that the god has made available for everybody on this earth. Evenmore, this gap is getting wider and wider with time, as per some recent studies suggesting that the situation is worse compared to the time of pharaoh against his slaves in ancient egypt.   

Some economists are saying that 1% of the world population owns 50% of the world's total assets, while the other 99% of world population have to share (or fight for) the other half. In simpler terms, let's say we have a 100 person and a 100$: we give to 1 person 50$ (half the amount), and we split the remaining 50$ between the 99 remaining persons, so each one of them will get 50$/99 which is less than 50 cents per person, except the 1 that had 50$. Such a difference can hardly be justified or accepted.



To overcome this situation, I would like to propose a certain basic principle for the economic system, as a case study for the well-versed in economics and finance. Also, Everybody is welcome to show any downfalls or advantages of such from his own point of view.

Maximum Assets per Person - MAP:

The maximum amount of the total assets owned by a person at any given time cannot exceed 5 Million$ (this level can be adjusted depending on the study). Any excess should be redistributed by the owner to his relatives or any other persons of his choice, else the excess will be redistributed by the state to those in need.

Aims of the MAP principle

- The MAP should be high enough to preserve the quality of living of the most wealthy, because we want to take people out of misery, not to bring them in. (I think that 5 Million$ as MAP is more that enough to live a decent life)   

- It will force distribution of wealth, and by implication, distribution of power and authority.

- As there would be no benefit in earning more for a person who has reached the MAP, this person will leave more business chances and opportunities for the other poorer people.

- The MAP level may be adjusted to each country depending on its situation.

- An equivalent MAP principal should be outlined for the corporations/companies.

......

I am not an economic or finance guy, nor a communist or a socialist, these are only my thoughts for your appreciation. Any comments or feedback will be appreciated.
 

3
General Issues / Questions / Allahu Akbar!
« on: June 25, 2016, 10:35:38 AM »
Peace,

Although this subject was discussed previously on this forum, I feel that it didn't have enough attention.The origin of the sentence "Allahu Akbar!" is not from al-quran, but it is the most used sentence by Muslims today, despite that it is grammatically wrong and that it has no foundation from al-quran. This sentence is used by Muslims in:
- The call for prayer
- prayers (daily prayers, aid prayers... All prayers)
- when happy
- when sad
- To celebrate a victory
- in Hajj
...

But still, this sentence is nowhere to be found in al-quran.

I think that if the fabricators of the past could attach this (wrong) sentence to Islam, even with no basis or proof, then certainly they had the power to inject what ever ideas or practices they wanted into the religion or even create a new one with the pass code "Allahu Akbar!", so they could identify those who are with them in the same team. They created a Slogan, a brand name.

Please think about all the practices done by Muslims today where this sentence "Allahu Akbar!" is used; Is it that only this sentence that is injected into the practice? or is it that all the practice is invented?

What do you think?   

4
This is an arabic article about the relation between Power and Religious elites in the "Islamic History".

Written by: لحسن عدنــان

adnan.lah@gmail.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


سقط الرؤساءُ... رسب الفقهاءُ



 سقوط مُـــــدَوِّ بلغ صداه عنان السماء....

ورسوب إلى القاع السحيق ، وبئس المصير....

ومابين السقوط والرسوب مسافة قصيرة،لكنها مسافة توفر المغانم والمناصب والسلطة والجاه.وعلى طول التاريخ،ركام من الفتاوى الزائفة،يستند إليها فقهاء باعوا أنفسهم للشيطان،ويكافئهم على غيهم سلاطين وحكام أرادوا لأنفسهم الحصانة من الأرض والمباركة من السماء.فكان أن رسفت الأمة في أغلالها،ورزحت تحت نير طغاتها. وفي كل مرة تُحدث نفسها بالانعتاق، يتسلط عليها فقهاء السوء كي يبثوا في خلدها أن طاعة الطغاة من طاعة الله ورسوله.وأن الجنة مصير من صبر على جلد الحاكم وأدار له الخد الأيسر،إذا آلمه الخد الأيمن.

وفي انتظار الجنان،تطاول أولو الصولة والصولجان.وزين لهم تطاولهم فقهاء السوء والطغيان.

دعونا نبدأ الحكاية من أولها...

فقهاء الحَجــُّــــــــاج


ليس من قبيل البكاء على الأطلال أن نقول أن من مكر التاريخ بهذه الأمة أن الطغيان تسرب إلى مواقع القرار مبكرا.فبعد خلافة راشدة ، تولى الأمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان الذي أحكم سيفه في رقاب معارضيه،وأعطى للظلم مشروعية بعده.وأصبح بإمكان كل خليفة أموي،وبعدهم العباسيون وحتى زمان سلاطين بني عثمان،أن يرتكب الجرائم ويُعمِلَ السيف في الرقاب ويُزهق ما شاء من الأنفس والأرواح،وبيده صكُّ براءة من الفقهاء الذين كانوا أقرب إلى الكهنة والمشعوذين منهم إلى الفقهاء بالمعنى النبيل للكلمة.

يُــــذْكَــر الأمويون فيـُـذكر الحجاج بين يوسف الثقفي ، ذلك الرجل الذي كان واحدا من عموم الناس،يقرئ الأطفال القرآن في الكتاب،ثم بدأ رحلته التي انتهت به إلى والٍ من أولياء بني أمية بل هو أشهرُ والٍ في الفترة الأموية.ولعل تعيينه على العراق،المعروف بالثورات والقلاقل السياسية،مرده إلى دموية الرجل وقدرته على سفك الدماء والتنكيل بالخصوم،حتى لو تحصنوا ببيت الله الحرام.وبالفعل لم يُخلف الوالي أمرَ من ولاه.وكتب في التاريخ العربي القديم صفحة حمراء قانية،لا أظنني مبالغا إذا قلت أن أثر تلك السياسة الجهنمية باق إلى الآن. فنحن في نهاية المطاف كائنات تاريخية،نعيش تاريخنا ثقافة يومية وخبزا وملحا لكل المراحل.ولا عجب أن ترانا إلى اليوم نتغنى بشعر عنترة العبسي، ذلك العبد الذي انعتق من أغلاله بشعره وسيفه.ونردد مع أمريء القيس حينَ العجز : اليوم خمر وغدا أمر، ونتغنى مع المتنبيء : السيف قبل شجاعة الشجعان. فإذا عجزنا عن القتال،قلنا على لسان المتنبئ نفسه : الرأي قبل شجاعة الشجعان .ومازال الحاكم العربي ، يقول على لسان الحجاج : إن رؤوسا أينعت وحان قطافها ، وإني والله لصاحبها.وكل ذلك لإرهاب الخصوم والانفراد بالسلطة مدى الدهر.

لكن المؤسف حقا أن يجعل كثير من الفقهاء والوعاظ ورجال الدين من الحجَّاج واعظا،فكثيرا ما سمعنا من فوق المنابر ومن مجالس الوعظ وعلى صفحات الكتب والجرائد، أن هذا الطاغية لما حضرته الوفاة ،قال قولة قد تُغْـفـــر بها ذنوبه (هكذا يقولون بعظمة لسانهم ) ومضمون قولته: ?اللهم إنهم يقولون إنك لن تغفر لي , فاغفر لي ?. ومن يرددون مثل هذه الأقوال يريدون شرعنة الظلم من داخل الإسلام .وأن المرء مهما فعل من موبقات، ومهما قتل من أبرياء واعتدى على أعراض الناس، ومهما أعدم من معارضين أو خصوم وتمادى في غيه ،قد يَغفِــرُ له الله كل ذلك إذا اختار كلمات جميلة في دعائه، ورصها بحيث يكون مفعولها قويا.وهذا ،برأيهم،ليس مستغربا.فالله قادر أن يفعل كل شيء.ثم يسوقون الحديث المشهور والذي يتحدث عن رجل من بني إسرائيل قتل تسعا وتسعين نفسا،وأتم المائة برجل كان جوابه مُزعجا... ومع ذلك غفر الله له لأنه أحسن النية ثم تاب.ومنطوق مثل هذه الاستشهادات،أنه يكفي أن يتوب ( قولا لا فعلا ) منْ تلطخت يده بالدماء ليجد الله توابا رحيما.وفي هذا إساءة لدين الإسلام،وفيه إساءة  للذات الإلهية أيضا.ففي دعاء الحجاج،نلاحظ أن طلب مغفرته من الله فقط لأن الآخرين يقولون إن الله لن يغفر له.بعبارة أخرى ، هو يريد من الله ، نكاية في الآخرين، وتكذيبا لادعاءاتهم وتسفيها لآمالهم،أن يغفر له.وليس إيمانا أو طاعة أو إقرارا بالذنب أو تصحيحا للمسار.تعالى الله عن ذلك علوا كبيرا.

لا أريد أن أخوض في جدال بعيد كل البعد عن مرادنا.ومن حسن الأدب مع الله أن نؤمن بما جاء في كتابه الكريم.وكلنا يعرف مآل الظالمين والطغاة والمتسلطين.ومع ذلك نقول: دعـُـوا يومَ الدين لمالك يوم الدين.نحن مطالبون أن نقوم السلوك البشري في دنيا الناس.فلو أن رجلا قتل نفسا واحدة ظلما وعدوانا ، لكان حكم أي قاض ،مبتديء في مهنة القضاء ،على هذا القاتل متراوحا بين السجن المؤبد والإعدام جزاء وفاقا.لأننا إذا آمنا بما يقوله وعاظ السلاطين وفقهاء القصور وسدنة المعبد وكهنة الحاكم،سيكون بإمكان كل طاغية أن يقتل ما شاء متى شاء وكيف شاء،ومع ذلك يُمضون على صك براءته لأن فعله كان درءاًٌ للفتنة وبإمكانه في كل الأحوال أن يستغفر الله فيجد الله توابا غفورا.وهو أسلوب غريب في فهم الدين.لأن هؤلاء الفقهاء والوعاظ أنفسهم يحدثونك عن الكليات الخمس للدين، وعلى رأسها طبعا حفظ النفس. ومع ذلك ، وبقفزة بهلوان،هم مستعدون أن يبرروا للحاكم أن يفعل كل شيء. إنَّ قَـــتْــلَ النفسِ التي يعتبر حفظها من كليات الدين،هو في نهاية الأمر ممكن، حين الترجيح بين الفتنة وبين فعل القتل الذميم.

فقهاء ضد ثورات الشعوب

نفس الحكاية تتكرر ،ونفس المبررات تساق لتأبيد الخنوع والخضوع لظلم الظالمين وتسلط المستبدين.فدرءاً للفتنة،سواء منها النائمة أو المستيقظة،ينبغي الإقرار بالظلم على أنه واقع ليس منه مفــر.ودائما يريد هؤلاء الفقهاء إسكات صوت الحرية و الانعتاق باسم الدين، أي بعبارة أوضح، استسلاما وتنفيذا لإرادة الله.لقد طوعوا مفردات الفقه ومنظومة الوعظ كي تسعفهم في تشريع كل أنواع الظلم والتسلط .ففي جيوبهم أحاديث تحض على طاعة الحاكم وإن أخذ مالك وجلد ظهرك،وآثارٌ تعلي من مقام السلطان مهما كان ظالما ففي نهاية الأمر :سلطان غشوم ظلوم خير من فتنة تدوم.

إن هؤلاء الفقهاء الذين لا يرون في الأمة إلا كتلة من الجماهير السلبية،من أجل فرد واحد أو من أجل نظام مهما كثر عدد أركانه فإنهم أقلية أمام الشعب أو الأمة ، ومع ذلك يطوعون نصوص الدين ويلوون أعناقها لتخدم في نهاية الأمر مصلحة فرد أو أفراد معدودين.وهو نوع من النظر الضيق ،فكأن الأمة مخيرة بين أمرين اثنين لا ثالث لهما ، الظلم أو الفتنة.الطغيان أو الطوفان. بالمعنى السلبي للكلمة.ودائما ترجح كفة الظالم على حساب المجموع،وتساق الأحاديث الموضوعة والنصوص المنتزعة من سياقها،كي تشرعن للفرعون جبروته،وتعبد للظالم طريقه.وهو قصور في النظر وخواء في القلب وعماء في البصيرة.

ففي عز الثورة المصرية،هب فقهاء للدفاع عن بقاء النظام جاثما على الصدور رغم كل ما ألحقه من دمار وخراب بمصر،و ما جلبه من إساءات ومواقف مخزية للشعب المصري.كان بإمكانهم أن يقرؤوا الواقع المصري كما هو أمام أعينهم، لا أن يغوصوا في المتون والحواشي بحثا عن فتاوى محنطة لتبرير بقاء النظام المتهالك.وهكذا رأينا الشيخ خالد الجندي يدعو إلى ملازمة البيوت في عز الثورة ، لأن ما يحدث فتنة ، والحديث المنسوب إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : (  ألا إنها ستكون فتن، القاعد فيها خير من الواقف، و الواقف فيها خير من الماشي، و المضطجع فيها خير من القاعد). وقريبٌ منه موقف الشيخ محمد حسن يعقوب،الذي دعا إلى لزوم المساجد وتجنب الفتن  وهيشاء الأسواق ( الهرج والضوضاء ) وأن يُعنى كل واحد بخاصة نفسه.ولعل سؤالا يُطرح: هل مصير الوطن أهون من مصير المواطن مهما كانت قيمة المواطن ؟. ولم يبتعد عن هذا الموقف الشيخ محمود المصري الذي دعا الشباب إلى العودة إلى بيوتهم.

أما بعض علماء السعودية ،وفي مقدمتهم المفتي الشيخ عبد العزيز آل الشيخ، فقد ذهبوا في فتاواهم إلى حد تحريم التظاهر. لقد اجتهدوا أكثر لصيانة كراسي الحكام.فالتظاهرات هي تنفيــذٌ لمؤامرات تُحاك في الظلام ضد الأمة لتقويض بنيانها وإضعاف موقفها.وحتى تلك التظاهرات لنصرة الفلسطينيين تبقى مجرد غوغاء وضوضاء لا خير منها.

هذه بعض المواقف المعلن عنها في وسائل الإعلام، وقد تكون مواقف أخرى أكثر راديكالية لم تصلنا.وكلها تتوسل لغة الوعيد والتهديد والتحذير من الفتن .ولست أدري ماذا يقول بعض هؤلاء بعد نجاح الثورة في مصر.ولعل من بين المستفيدين من بركات هذه الثورات هم الفقهاء،لأنها سترفع من سقف حريتهم،وتضع عنهم أغلال الأنظمة.وتعيد لهم هيبتهم. فللعالم المؤمن بالله ،الصادح بقول الحقيقة، هيبةٌ في نفوس الناس واحترام وتقدير.

لقد نشرت بعض المواقع أخبارا مفادها أن أبناء القدافي اتصلوا ببعض الشيوخ من السعودية لاستصدار فتاوى تدعو إلى تحريم التظاهر في ليبيا .صرح بذلك كل من الشيخ سلمان العودة والشيخ عائض القرني.لقد أراد أبناء القدافي فتوى سعودية تنص على التحريم القطعي، وليس مجرد التشكيك أو الدعوة إلى لزوم البيت والمسجد ... وهلم جرا على طريقة بعض المشايخ المصريين.ولئن كان رفض هؤلاء الشيوخ يُحْسب لهم ويَــنِمُّ عن احترام للنفس ولاختيارات الشعوب،فإنه يدل على مدى الاستهتار بالفقهاء والشعوب على حد سواء من قبل الحكام وبطاناتهم.لأن التجرؤ على المشايخ والعلماء وإقحامهم في أتون المعارك الخاسرة ضد الشعوب،يدل على مدى الاستخفاف بهؤلاء المشايخ والنظرة الدونية للشعوب.فدمها حلال ومستباح،كل ما في الأمر ،ولتكتمل المسرحية،لا بد من استصدار فتوى بذلك.هل بعد هذا الإسفاف إسفاف ؟

لقد سقط الرؤساء ،لأن رياح الثورات اجتثت كراسيهم من أسسها الواهية.وفي ذلك عبرة لمن بقي على كرسيه لم يتزحزح.فإن كان له بقية من شهية في الحكم والسلطة، فلا بد من أساسات جديدة،أولها العدل ،وثانيها الإيمان بحرية الشعوب،ولن يكون الخبز ثالثها ولا حتى عاشرها.فالشعوب حين تسترجع حريتها وتنعم بكرامتها،قد تصبر على الحاجة والجوع ولو إلى حين.وكل الفقهاء الذين ربطوا مصيرهم بالحكام،جرفتهم رياح الثورة،فتناثرت أوراقهم،وانفرطت سبحاتهم.رفعت الأقلام وجفت الصحف.لكن للطغيان منافذَ إلى القلوب، وللفقهاء دائما أساليبهم لدغدغة المشاعر واستمالة الجمهور.فلابد من ثورات ثقافية وفكرية وعلمية.باختصار لا بد من ثورة في الوعي الجمعي،كي يسقط الطغيان ويرسب الفقه المزيف.مرة وإلى الأبد.

5
Economics Forum / Towards a sound economy - By Rudo de Ruijter
« on: June 11, 2009, 04:32:26 AM »
Sometimes money is compared with the blood of the economy. The credit crisis painfully demonstrated, that the economy depends on a permanent infusion of credits. As soon as the banks deliver a bit less credit, enterprises fail and the mass dismissals succeed each other.

We are made to believe, that the problems with the subprime mortgages were an incident. With a giga-capital injection, a bit more rules and better supervision the banking system would function correctly again. And oh yes, we must trust the banks again.

Main cause of the credit crisis

The main cause of the credit crisis lies in the bank/money system itself. The principle of the money system is, that money is brought into circulation by supplying credit and vanishes again at the moment the credit is paid back. Western banks use two game rules: 1. in comparison with the lent-out amounts, they have to dispose of only 8% of their own capital. [1]; 2. they have to keep a small percentage of reserves in their pay-desk to perform payments for their customers and to hand out cash money.

With these two rules the major part of the money, that customers have in their checking and savings accounts, is lent out (at Triodos bank this is 65% [2], at most other banks much more.) The lent out money is spent by the borrower and subsequently arrives in accounts at other banks. Now, the customers of the first bank can still dispose of their bank balance, while new bank balances have been created at the receiving banks . These new bank balances are the pretext for supplying new credits. This goes on and on. The bank balances are multiplied each time.

This system is called "fractional reserve banking". [3] The banks can fulfil only a fraction of their commitments. They have lent out their customers? money, although this money can be claimed immediately. They just gamble, that customers will never claim more than they have reserves in their pay-desk and that, if needed, the central bank will come to their rescue. The percentage that banks are not allowed to lend out (the so-called cash reserve) can be determined by law (in the US it was 1:9). In many other countries the central bank dictates the minimum percentage. (Before the crisis, for the Netherlands, I read there was a cash reserve percentage of only 3%.)

Each time a borrower spends money of his loan, the money moves to a following bank, that takes advantage of it to lend out most of it. So, the same money is lent out over and over again. In a 1:9 system the same money can be lent out 9 times. With a cash reserve of 3% it can be lent out 32 times. And each time when it is lent out, a bank collects interest.

The classical risk for banks is, that loans may not be paid back. That risk increases, when fewer new loans are put into circulation than those that are paid back. Then the available money in the country decreases. For the banking industry an environment in which the money supply permanently grows has fewer risks. The central bank sees to it, that the money supply keeps growing (the so called 2% inflation.) When needed, banks can borrow from the central bank, with stocks or bonds as collateral.

When the government borrows money, the amount of money in the country increases, too. Of course, the biggest increase is caused by the multiplier factor, that banks realize themselves. When the multiplier factor rises, loans can be paid back more easily. The income of the bank rises, too. So there is a natural tendancy to lend out higher percentages each time. The banks can also impose more and more requirements on the borrowers to lower the risks. However, the consequences of this dynamic is that the cash reserves decrease.

The purpose of the cash reserves is to supply cash money to the customers and, mainly, to perform payments between the accounts at different banks. When a customer of bank A makes a payment to an accountholder at bank B, a bit of the cash reserve of bank A moves to bank B. And as soon as a customer of another bank makes a payment to a customer at bank A, it increases its cash reserve again. So, the money goes forward and backward between the banks. In the past, it could take three days to make a payment to a customer at another bank. Banks then needed quite a lot of cash reserves. Since then, the payment system has been modernized. Payments go to the destination bank the same day, and the same money can be used for thousands of payments between banks the same day. For mutual clearance of payment orders only a little cash reserve is needed.

The banks have also taken care, that their customers hardly need bank notes (cash) anymore. At first, employers were obliged to pay wages in bank accounts. Everybody at one time got checks or forms for payment orders, which have been followed by plastic payment cards and internet banking. In the Netherlands, for a few years now, the debit card is more and more imposed for all small expenses. For each euro we don?t keep in our pocket, the banks can lend out a multiple amount...

Although a growing money supply is needed to lower the risk of system crashes by failing loans, the multiplier factor ends up causing more and more instability in the money supply and causing smaller cash reserves. As soon as a bank has to book a loss, this not only decreases its capital, but often also its cash reserve. When a bank has less than the 8% required capital (compared to the outstanding loans), or too little cash reserve left, then, according to the rules, the bank has lost the game. The subprime mortgages caused the system to get stuck in 2007, but, in fact, any somewhat bigger losses, like for instance on Third World loans, could have triggered the crisis. The banks simply had too few reserves left to take losses. And once one bank gets in trouble, it can easily spread to other banks, because banks borrow money and buy securities from each other to optimize their balance sheets. The fact that the subprime mortgages were wrapped up as a complex financial product only made the effect bigger. But the main cause of the crisis is not the loss on the subprime mortgages, but the structurally decreased capacity of banks to take losses. And that is the consequence of the natural dynamic within the "fractional reserve banking" system.

Taken hostage

In many countries the governments were called on for help to save the banks. This is remarkable, for the banking system functions outside any democratic control. The directors of central banks took the ministers of finance to international meetings (or took them in) and extracted inconceivably high loans for the banks. All of us, we are guarantors with our future tax money. However, the banks would pay a market conform interest on these loans. To put it otherwise, they will charge their customers for it: you and me. In fact the ministers of finance were put against the wall. The banks were not allowed to fail; they were too important.

The power over the money has been given away by members of parliament in the past. They had no idea about what money was and how the system worked. Now the banks determine how much money there is in circulation and how much the population must pay for this service. The multiplier factor of money also leads to a shift in power within the country: banks make more and more investment decisions, while the government makes fewer. And because there is more and more money available, more and more things become buyable. This has led, for instance, to the dismantling of many state tasks. Services, that are important for the functioning of society, like public transport, post, telephone, water and energy supply have been thrown in the hands of the financial benefit seekers. Private companies would perform better. But in fact, it hides a shift in power due to the "fractional reserve banking".

We still pretend, that we live in a democracy, but the parliament has no say anymore over money, one of the most important factors in society. To get the power over money back inside the democracy only small law changes are needed. Unfortunately, today?s parliamentarians, except a very little number of them, still don?t understand anything about the money system. That is a pity, because by taking back the power over money and with an adequate bank reform, they would be able to stop the credit crisis almost immediately. [4]

Bank reform

Described in short, this bank reform could look like this: the central bank becomes a state bank, part of the ministry of finance. The state bank is the only bank that creates money for loans. The parliament decides which sort of loans must get priority in the interest of society. These loans can be supplied at favorable conditions. This way, the parliament gets much more influence over the shaping of society.

Todays? commercial banks become server counters for the loans from the state to the public. They manage the checking and savings accounts of their customers on behalf of the state bank. They cannot dispose freely anymore of this money and cannot multiply the balances. However, they will be allowed to collect funds to lend out.

Ethics

If the treasurer of the local sports club would use the money unseen to invest it and enrich himself this way, he takes the risk to be condemned. But when bankers manage the money in our checking accounts in this way, they go free.

The corrupt rules for banks have originated long ago, when gold smiths, and later bankers, were bent upon fooling their customers. [5] The only difference between what happened then and what goes on now is, that the system has become official and the law allows it. Of course, this practice is kept secret as much as possible. You will not find any website of a bank or of a central bank, that clearly explains how a bank works and how the system functions. At schools - except for a few very rare exceptions - the subject is not covered, and even in most economics studies it is not part of the curriculum.

In particular from 1913, after the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in the US, the bankers have succeeded in obtaining their own legal framework in many countries and have seized the power over the local money. In each of these countries one bank has been given the role of the central bank. The names of these central banks keep up the appearance, that they are governmental entities, whereas, on the contrary, they became independent from the local parliament and government, be it step by step in some cases: De Nederlandse Bank N.V. (1914), Bank of Canada (1935), National Bank of Danmark (1936), Deutsche Bundesbank (1957), Banque de France (1993), Bank of Japan (1997) and so on. On their bank notes, there were often portraits of kings and statesmen. In many cases the appearance that money would be of the state was corrobated by the fact that the state kept the responsibility to mint coins. On the coins too, there were often trustworthy portraits. When necessary, even religion was invoked. The Dutch guilder coin had the inscription "God be with you" in the side. (Note of Alice Cherbonnier: US money says, "In God we trust.")

Eternal economic growth

It is thanks to the potential for economic growth and the increasing availability of raw materials and energy during the last century, that the money multiplier did not lead to problems, but even pushed the economic growth.

My thesis is, that today?s bank system is a danger to the future of humanity. The permanent inflation, that is inherent to this system, forms an impulse for ever more economic activity in order to compensate for the loss of value of the money unit and to obtain a bit of the additional money put in circulation. In my opinion, this is also where the stubborn believe comes from, that an economy must grow to be healthy (and not, for instance, from a spontaneous desire of the working class to work harder all the time.)

Sustainability, on the contrary, supposes an equilibrium with our environment. Our environment does not grow along with the increase of our economic activity and population. It is destroyed by it. [6]

We need to get rid of our inflationary banking system as soon as possible and put the power over money back where it belongs in a democracy: in the parliament.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Rudo De Ruijter is an independent researcher based in the Netherlands. For reactions and reply you can contact the author via www.courtfool.info

If you wish, you may copy this article and forward it or publish it in newspapers and on websites.



[1] The 8% capital requirement is the standard from the Basel Accords of 1988, on which all kinds of exceptions apply. This way, for loans with mortgages on housing, banks only need to have a counterpart of capital equal to 4% of the outstanding loans. For loans to other banks the requirement is still lower most of the times and for loans with a state guarantee it is 0% (http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs04a.htm & http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs04a.pdf?noframes=1). In 2004 the European Commission proposed to lower the 8% to 6% and the 4% to 2.8% (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/04/178&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en). The Basel II Accords of 2006 offer more possibilities to (big) banks to choose the most favorable method to determine their risks (http://www.bis.org/list/bcbs/tid_22/index.htm)

[2] At Triodos Bank 65% is lent out (http://www.triodos.com/com/whats_new/latest_news/general/response_fin_crisis)

[3] http://www.mises.org/story/2882#3 : see chapters Fractional Reserve Banking, Central Banking, Deposit Insurance. Note, that Murray N. Rothbard (1926?1995) was a defender of the return of the gold standard, like, for instance, US Congressman Ron Paul still is. Although understandable, seen from a historical US? perspective, a money system based on gold has many disadvantages. Countries without gold mines would have to buy gold (which means deliver goods and services to the gold mining countries) for the only purpose of disposing of a national means of payment. Each time when more gold comes on the market, they will be obliged to buy more of it, to prevent their currency to devaluate against currencies of countries with increasing gold stocks. The gold mining industries would, in many aspects, get supra-national power, even more than the Fed today. Gold has no stable value. Its pricing can be influenced by holders of big stocks, like the gold mining industries and central banks. Even big numbers of small buyers and sellers, when triggered by fear or greed, can influence its price. All these price fluctuations can form a danger for any economy that has its money pegged to gold. Still more than today, gold would trigger conflicts, oppression and wars.

[4] Bank crisis? Reform! (http://www.courtfool.info/en_Bank_crisis_Reform.htm)

[5] Secrets of money, interest and inflation (http://www.courtfool.info/en_Secrets_of_Money_Interest_and_Inflation.htm)

[6] Energy crisis: turning-point of humanity (http://www.courtfool.info/en_Turning_point_of_humanity.htm)

6
Franck Biancheri Director of studies of LEAP/E2020, www.leap2020.eu President of Newropeans, www.newropeans.eu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Your next summit takes place in a few days in London; but are you aware that you have less than a semester to prevent the world from plunging into a crisis that will take at least a decade to resolve, accompanied by a whole series of tragedies and ferment? Therefore, this open letter by LEAP/E2020, who saw the arrival of a ? global systemic crisis ? as early as three years ago, intends to briefly explain why it happened and how to limit further damage.

If indeed you began to suspect the onset of a sizeable crisis less than a year ago, LEAP/E2020, in the second issue of their ? Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin ? (GEAB N?2), anticipated that the world was about to enter into the ? trigger phase ? of a crisis of historic proportions. Since then, month after month, LEAP/E2020 has relentlessly continued to produce highly accurate forecasts of the development of this crisis with which the world is now struggling. For this reason, we feel entitled to write you this open letter which we hope will aid you on the choices you will have to make in a few days.

This crisis is getting more and more dangerous. Recently, in the 32nd edition of its Bulletin, LEAP/E2020 raised an alarm of direct concern to you, the leaders of the G20. If, when gathered in London next April 2nd, you are not able to adopt a number of bold and innovative decisions, focused on the essential issues and problems, and to initiate them by summer 2009, then the crisis will entail a ? general geopolitical dislocation ? by the end of the year, affecting the international system as well as the very structure of large political entities such as the United States, Russia, China or the EU. Any chance for you to control the fate of the 6 billion inhabitants of the world will then be over.

Your choice: a 3- to 5-year crisis or a decade-at-least long crisis?

Until now you have merely been concerned with the symptoms and secondary effects of this crisis because, unfortunately, nothing prepared you to face a crisis of such an historic scale. You thought that adding more oil to the global engine would be enough, unaware of the fact that the engine was broken, with no hope of repair. In fact, a new engine must be built, and time is running out, as the international system deteriorates further each month.

In the case of a major crisis, one must get to the heart of the matter. The only choice is between undertaking a number of radical changes, thus greatly shortening the duration of the crisis and diminishing its tragic outcome or, on the contrary, refusing to make any such changes in an attempt to save what is left of the present system, thus extending the crisis? duration and increasing all the negative consequences. In London, next April 2nd, you can either pave the way for the crisis to be solved in an organised manner in 3 to 5 years, or drag the world through a terrible decade.

We will content ourselves with giving you three recommendations that we consider strategic ones in the sense that, according to LEAP/E2020, if they have not been initiated by this summer 2009, global geopolitical dislocation will become inevitable from the end of this year onward.

LEAP?S THREE STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The key to solving the crisis lies in creating a new international reserve currency!

The first recommendation is a very simple idea: reform the international monetary system inherited post-wwii and create a new international reserve currency. The US Dollar and economy are no longer capable of supporting the current global economic, financial and monetary order. As long as this strategic problem is not directly addressed and solved, the crisis will grow. Indeed it is at the heart of the crises of derivative financial products, banks, energy prices... and of their consequences in terms of mass unemployment and collapsing living standards. It is therefore of vital importance that this issue should be the main subject of the G20 summit, and that the first steps towards a solution are initiated. In fact, the solution to this problem is well-known, it is about creating an international reserve currency (which could be called the ? Global ?) based on a basket of currencies corresponding to the world?s largest economies, i.e. US dollar, Euro, Yen, Yuan, Khaleeji (common currency of oil-producing Gulf states, to be launched in January 2010), Ruble, Real..., managed by a ? World Monetary Institute ? whose Board will reflect the respective weight of the economies whose currencies comprise the ? Global ?. You must ask the imf and concerned central banks to prepare this plan for June 2009, with an implementation date of January 1st, 2010. This is the only way for you to regain some control over currently unwinding events, and this is the only way for you to bring about shared global management, based on a shared currency located at the centre of economic and financial activity. According to LEAP/E2020, if this alternative to the currently collapsing system has not been initiated by this summer 2009, proving that there is another solution than the ? every man for himself ? approach, today?s international system will not survive this summer.

If some of the G20 states think that it is better to maintain the privileges related to the ? status quo ? as long as possible, they should meditate the fact that, if today they can still significantly influence the future shape of this new global monetary system, once the phase of global geopolitical dislocation has started they will lose any capacity to do so.

2. Set up bank control schemes as soon as possible!

The second recommendation has already been mentioned many times in the preliminary debates to your upcoming summit. It should therefore be easy to adopt. It is about creating, before the end of this year, a scheme of bank control on a global scale, suppressing all the system?s ? black holes ?. A number of options have already been suggested by your experts. Make up your mind now: nationalize financial institutions as soon as is necessary! It is the only way to prevent a new episode of massive indebtment by them (the kind of episode which significantly contributed to the current crisis), and to show to the general public that you have some credibility to deal with bankers.

3. Get the IMF to assess the US, UK and Swiss financial systems!

The third recommendation relates to a politically sensitive issue, which cannot be ignored. It is essential that, no later than July 2009, the imf presents to the G20 an independent assessment of the three national financial systems at the heart of the current financial crisis: US, UK and Switzerland. No sustainable recommendation can be efficiently implemented as long as no one has any clear understanding of the damage caused by the crisis inside these three pillars of the global financial system. It is no longer time to be polite with the countries located at the centre of the current financial chaos.

Write a simple and short statement!

Finally, please allow us to remind you that your task is to restore confidence among 6 billion people and among millions of public and private organisations. Therefore do not forget to write a short statement ? no more than 2 pages, presenting a maximum of 3 to 4 key ideas that non-experts can read and understand. If you fail to do so, no one will read what you have to say apart from a narrow circle of specialists, therefore you will not revive confidence among the general public and the crisis will be doomed to get worse.

If this open letter helps you to feel that History will judge you according to the success or failure of this Summit, then it has been useful. According to LEAP/E2020, your citizens will not wait any longer than a year before they judge you. This time at least, you will not be able to say no one warned you!

Franck Biancheri Director of studies of LEAP/E2020, www.leap2020.eu President of Newropeans, www.newropeans.eu

7
Peace,

Any thoughts would be welcome...

---

8
Peace,

I just wanted to share this similarity between these 2 words that might be etymologically related, while at a first glance, one will consider them not really related.

Please share any ideas on similarities and differences on these words. A Dictionnary definition is provided for each one:

con?science 
Pronunciation: \ˈk?n(t)-shən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin conscientia, from conscient-, consciens, present participle of conscire to be conscious, be conscious of guilt, from com- + scire to know ? more at science
Date: 13th century
1 a: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b: a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c: the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego
2archaic : consciousness
3: conformity to the dictates of conscience : conscientiousness
4: sensitive regard for fairness or justice : scruple


sci?ence 
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split ? more at shed
Date: 14th century
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>


---

9
Peace be upon you,

For those who still consider that العلمين in verse 1:2 means "worlds", please ponder on this verse 29:43 where العلمون is given a definition and is refering to those of use their mind to understand (يعقل).

1:2
الحمد لله رب العلمين

29:49
وتلك الأمثل نضربها للناس وما يعقلها إلا العلمون

Note also that the difference in the fifth lettre ( ي and و )of both words is due to the fact that in 1:2 the word is in the position of the object, while in 29:49 it is in the position of the subject.


10
General Issues / Questions / Re: Symmetry and Equality in the Quran
« on: May 12, 2006, 03:37:00 PM »
Just bringing it up!!

--

Pages: [1] 2 ... 4