[1040] The Truth About Markets – New Zealand – 17 June 2009

Posted on June 16, 2009 by stacyherbert| 25 Comments

Stacy Summary: Our Truth About Markets for RDU 98.5 New Zealand.

Download show here

For more listening options, go to Archive dot org

This entry was posted in Max Keiser Audio and tagged copyright, tasmanian devil. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to [1040] The Truth About Markets – New Zealand – 17 June 2009

Mike2liverpool | June 17, 2009 at 1:16 am |

Morning Stacy
Morning Gang

Mike/Liverpool
Phil | June 17, 2009 at 1:17 am |

@Stacey .. nice chat .

I noticed Max talked about Queen Bees and the Hive.
Have you actually read the poem I posted earlier ?

“The Grumbling Hive” … Mandeville ca. 1702
stacyherbert | June 17, 2009 at 1:19 am |

Morning Mike!

Have a good day . . . we are out until this afternoon.

I expect to return in eight hours to a comment board filled with debate and conversation and loads and loads of interesting links.

Like this one:

http://globaleconomydoesmatter.blogspot.com/2009/06/banking-problems-in-southern-europe.html
Mike2liverpool | June 17, 2009 at 2:08 am |

More like the “Borg” of Star Trek fame……………you might get yourself a better part of the Hive, but you can never leave.

Stacy You & Max might like to Google “Max Headroom”…………There was a charcter in the show called “Red Blank”

Reg was the worlds oldest Punk, & he took the surname Blank because he wanted “Out” of the system.

Mike
Danny | June 17, 2009 at 2:18 am |

Really enjoyed today’s show mo chairde.
gonzomarx | June 17, 2009 at 2:44 am |

hello all
i think Max is a bit behind the times. They’ll tag the DNA of eggs and then start the meter. more on crop circles (it’s a beauty)

http://www.strangeattractor.co.uk/further/?p=1418

Matt Taibbi’s take on Corporate Tax Reform

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

and a night walk in Tasmania

http://speechification.com/2009/06/15/night-walks/
Freudian Slit | June 17, 2009 at 2:53 am |

Good show guys!

I don’t know about chimps, but Koko gorilla has already had web-chats: http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html

I don’t know if she has a lawyer yet, but she might be interested to find out that her species is probably copyrighted without any of her species consent. lol!
Mini US | June 17, 2009 at 3:02 am |

Hey folks.
Its true what Max says about “We are doing this to ourselves” regarding debt. Its a good point Max, and the bee analogy is good too.
The banks do prey on people easily parted with their money, but at the end of the day no one asked you to take out a huge loan/mortgage that you can’t pay back. Try doing some research into the best bank/financial institution/compare rates, charges, etc.
In Aus we are generally lazy about this stuff and just accept it as an evil of life. Rubbish!
I think its time we started taking responsibility for our own actions and stop being victims and blaming everyone else for the bad in the world. “I took out the loan because everyone else was doing it” is a bad answer.
Wake from your slumber, toss away those d’oh! nuts and think for yourselves. Do we need/crave some form of slavery as Max says? Maybe it helps us work so hard we don’t have to think. Phew! I nearly had a thought then, better get back to work.
Bye.
jo | June 17, 2009 at 3:08 am |

As Jimbo said, your all a bunch of Fu#*ing slaves!
Freudian Slit | June 17, 2009 at 3:43 am |

I agree with you Mini US.

I think that it is worth pointing out that we are already under a form of slavery: wage-slavery. There are relatively few people who live entirely of their own labour, or live in co-operative self-sufficient communities.

I agree with what Max was says about copyright and take it one step further: money is the monopoly/copyright over your labour. Who gives the banking cartel the right to have a monopoly over your labour?

Take the example of the family unit as an analogy; labour gets done within the family home (dad washes car, mum cooks food, kids dry dishes, etc…) all this gets done without the need for a medium of exchange, although it can be done to make things fairer (Skinner referred to this as the token economy). Now imagine that a family uses a token economy and over time one family member says he owns all the tokens and everybody has to pay him a levy for using them and no work is allowed to be done without them (and he gives himself the sole privilege of being able to create as many of these tokens as he wants). What do you think would end up to this family over several generations?

The joke sadly is on the the other members of the family who keep on exchanging the labour (as a commodity) for the tokens which are just a medium of exchange.

I wonder if anybody has copyrighted this idea for a reality tv-show yet? Maybe a tv show could be made where one of the Rothschild family could be lumped into a house with 98 Chinese sweat shop labourers and a handful of thugs with batons to keep them in place. That is a tv show I could be bothered watching!
anything but green | June 17, 2009 at 5:15 am |

Negative feedback making things worse? Sounds like the latest howler from the very unscientific banker-controlled global warming hoaxers.
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=804
Marvin Cooley | June 17, 2009 at 6:00 am |

Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists
By Ron Paul
Published 06/15/09

Before the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2009

Madam Speaker, before voting on the “cap-and-trade” legislation, my colleagues should consider the views expressed in the following petition that has been signed by 31,478 American scientists:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Circulated through the mail by a distinguished group of American physical scientists and supported by a definitive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, this may be the strongest and most widely supported statement on this subject that has been made by the scientific community. A state-by-state listing of the signers, which include 9,029 men and women with PhD degrees, a listing of their academic specialties, and a peer-reviewed summary of the science on this subject are available at http://www.petitionproject.org.

The peer-reviewed summary, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

Signers of this petition include 3,803 with specific training in atmospheric, earth, and environmental sciences. All 31,478 of the signers have the necessary training in physics, chemistry, and mathematics to understand and evaluate the scientific data relevant to the human-caused global warming hypothesis and to the effects of human activities upon environmental quality.

In a letter circulated with this petition, Frederick Seitz — past President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, and recipient of honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities throughout the world — wrote:

“The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

“This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

“The proposed agreement we have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world; especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

“It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

“We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.”

Madam Speaker, at a time when our nation is faced with a severe shortage of domestically produced energy and a serious economic contraction; we should be reducing the taxation and regulation that plagues our energy-producing industries.

Yet, we will soon be considering so-called “cap and trade” legislation that would increase the taxation and regulation of our energy industries. “Cap-and-trade” will do at least as much, if not more, damage to the economy as the treaty referred by Professor Seitz! This legislation is being supported by the claims of “global warming” and “climate change” advocates — claims that, as demonstrated by the 31,478 signatures to Professor Seitz’ petition, many American scientists believe is disproved by extensive experimental and observational work.

It is time that we look beyond those few who seek increased taxation and increased regulation and control of the American people. Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth — not fictional movies or self-interested international agendas. They should be based upon the accomplishments of technological free enterprise that have provided our modern civilization, including our energy industries. That free enterprise must not be hindered by bogus claims about imaginary disasters.

Above all, we must never forget our contract with the American people — the Constitution that provides the sole source of legitimacy of our government. That Constitution requires that we preserve the basic human rights of our people — including the right to freely manufacture, use, and sell energy produced by any means they devise — including nuclear, hydrocarbon, solar, wind, or even bicycle generators.

While it is evident that the human right to produce and use energy does not extend to activities that actually endanger the climate of the Earth upon which we all depend, bogus claims about climate dangers should not be used as a justification to further limit the American people’s freedom.

In conclusion, I once again urge my colleagues to carefully consider the arguments made by the 31,478 American scientists who have signed this petition before voting on any legislation imposing new regulations or taxes on the American people in the name of halting climate change.
gb | June 17, 2009 at 8:01 am |

celente! cool.
Photoception | June 17, 2009 at 8:24 am |

Lobotomy actually makes you overweight too.

In the 1950′s it was seen as a breakthrough. They basically jam an ice pick through your eyebrow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Freeman_(surgeon)
Mr Supergeek | June 17, 2009 at 10:53 am |

Hi Y’all
just downloaded show………cheers.

I first downloaded the show via the blue download show here link and the show was only 13 mins long(half Show?). So I went to archive dot org and the version of the show they had was complete(28 mins)

Cheers Again Y’all…..
Tom | June 17, 2009 at 12:36 pm |

Marvin – great piece on the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’. BTW – ever see the Channel 4 programme of this name – check it out …
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

…But, your efforts are wasted with Max and Stacey – they don’t buy it. Their arguement on a previous show – “if the poles are melting then how can Global Warming be a fraud?”

Point is – globe did get hotter from ’74 to ’98 – but not since then. AND there is no scientific evidence to suggest that humans burning fossil fuels cause that warming.

So, Max and Stacey, how do you explain the ‘bogus’ views of these 31,478 scientists??
solomio | June 17, 2009 at 12:37 pm |

I watched, together with my 10 years old son, the new star-trek movie The good, white guys of the federation fight the independent (there spaceships look like enlarged virus images) tatuated black guys.
Max you still want believe that there is no a conspiracy of a banking elite!
Daniel S | June 17, 2009 at 2:11 pm |

If you cannot benefit from expression, you’ll stop thinking the thoughts that precede it. You can prove this by simply not expressing certain thoughts. For example, stop complaining, and in time the complaints will stop forming in your mind.

The global lobotomy courtesy of perpetual copyright law is similar to the lobotomy of Chinese regarding political thought and expression. Decades of persecution have resulted in a people who, upon being asked about politics, seem incapable of registering the meaning of the word let alone discussing views or issues. Who needs propaganda to control slaves when you can kill the political thought process itself? It is no surprise to me that power is shifting to China. It is a more “efficient” slavery model.

Youth are also dumbed-down because creativity is punished in school. Their teachers were students who embraced institutional conformity over creativity, and those teachers demand the same. You can find the same thing in the youth of North Korea. People elsewhere arrogantly believe North Korea is an exception. That such mass mind control can’t happen to them. It has, and is.
Daniel S | June 17, 2009 at 2:22 pm |

Those considering global warming might consider that corporate america holds your scientists hostage through student loans, research funding both in and out of education centers, employment, and even certification of scientists and the tenure of their professors. People who survived the heavily corporate-influenced when not outright controlled selection, schooling, and borrowing processes to eventually be heavily indebted and get work doing research for Greenhouse Gas Inc. might not be your best choice for an objective opinion.
Hawk of Terror | June 17, 2009 at 4:00 pm |

Meanwhile, down in the rabbit hole:

New housing boom set to go through the roof

“However, the housing industry believes this week’s budget will help deliver a long-awaited turnaround. “There will be a boom,” said Stephen Albin, chief executive of the Urban Development Institute of Australia.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-housing-boom-set-to-go-through-the-roof-20090617-chxl.html
Veritas | June 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm |

Isn’t India already like the unending-debt-based society like you mention, sans fetal credit cards?
anything but green | June 17, 2009 at 6:40 pm |

From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” (note “First”):
“”In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
Recognize the international bankers’ permanent revolution? Create the problem, stir up the reaction, supply the solution. Can’t you hear their call to action? “Rise up! We’ll lead you into Utopia!”

Kiddies, don’t get sucked into David de Rothschild’s Adventure Ecology crusade. The poles aren’t melting. Quite the opposite.
Nice list of articles here:
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?cat=21

1974 Time Magazine Article on Global Cooling and More
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=803

And in the hilarious Media Fakery category:
The Polar Bear Pic They Won’t Show You
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/02/the_polar_bear_.html
Mike | June 18, 2009 at 12:40 pm |

meant to put this comment here but put it under the federal reserve to gain new powers instead. anyway, peace!

@max&stacy
about debt, i.e., paying to be alive – please consider that the idea of climate change, (of course climate changes!) leading to a carbon tax, could conceivably be a part of the whole “live to pay your debt” plan, and that the idea of pollution damaging the environment has been mixed up with the idea of global warming so as to divert the public’s attention away from the truly lethal substances being produced by big business (of course if you have the money to pay any future carbon tax, then you can just go right ahead and produce CO2 – so maybe it’s not really so deadly?)
Thousands of scientists are not convinced about this question., while many people hypothesize that the fear being stirred up in the population is simply another instrument to be used in the creation of more social control.

see Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.109.3
Joe | June 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm |

Max, you know I like what you and Stacy have to say on issues, but this time you lost me. Your comments on musicians were pure and utter bullshit. Are you a frustrated, failed musician perhaps?

I’ve been playing guitar for 35 years. I know quite a bit about the music industry. The average musician makes around $35k. Max, is that too much? Give me a fucking break. Who the fuck wants to live on $35k a year? Apparently you aren’t aware of how poor the average musician is. It’s only top 7% that make all that money.

And no, Max, musicians aren’t as dumb as you try to make them out to be. Most musicians are aware that when they pluck a string, causing it to vibrate, creating a sound which then combines with other sounds to create chords and melodies, and do this respectively along with others in a group, they are not actually making something completely original. Musicians aren’t dumb. They are aware that they are building on an art form that has a history longer than mankind itself. The key that you are missing is that when they do it, they do it WELL.

The difference between a good musician and an average on is absolutely monstrous. A musician truly reaches the pinnacle of their art form by invoking new and very stylish musical FORMS, taking into account the nuances of social, political and fashion issues of the times. Good musicians also need to be VERY creative in order to stand out, not just a little. They need to figure out how to project their ideas while making it accessible by their audience. They need to be proficient in their instruments, and the technology that helps them make their music. They need to have presence and personality, skill and expression. None of those things are new either, but without them the musician won’t succeed. They deserve every penny they get for making all of this happen for their fans.

Of course there are rock stars that are extremely egotistical! That’s part of the reason why they become famous! That’s part of the concept of rock music! Buddy Holly had balls. Mick Jagger has balls. It’s a normal aspect of most successful music that the artist has a strong sense of expression. Artists like to get up on stage and act up, and audiences – in turn – enjoy watching that lack of inhibition. It’s part of the entertainment. Musicians get paid for it. Simple.

As far as nothing being new in music, well try a world where no new groups are coming out. It’s been getting that way more and more over time, partly because musicians have been getting screwed more and more over time. Your stupid diatribe about copyright and greedy musicians ain’t helping.
stacyherbert | June 22, 2009 at 3:53 am |

@Joe – You said, “Apparently you aren’t aware of how poor the average musician is. It’s only top 7% that make all that money.”

Perhaps this is because of the current copyright system? If it were improved, maybe the average musician would be making a whole lot more?