Extending Unemployment Benefits

[cad]

explain to me how it works. slowly, remember, i'm a con.

just use exxonmobil as an example.

show me how reockefellers foundations/trusts/llcs control exxonmobil.

explain how it works.

 

[edthecynic]

explain to me how it works. slowly, remember, i'm a con.

just use exxonmobil as an example.

show me how reockefellers foundations/trusts/llcs control exxonmobil.

explain how it works.

I refer you to post 187, try reading it this time.

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

 

[cad]

explain to me how it works. slowly, remember, i'm a con.

just use exxonmobil as an example.

show me how reockefellers foundations/trusts/llcs control exxonmobil.

explain how it works.

I refer you to post 187, try reading it this time.

Exxon Mobil - 1 company - "Last week Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president of public affairs, said the Rockefellers own .006 percent of the company's 5.4 billion shares."

give us some information about the ownership stake the rockefellers have in the other companies.

or is this some new world order, trilateralist conspiracy theory?

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

what percentage of exxonmobil/chevron/monarch stock do rockefeller charities/banks owns?

 

[edthecynic]

explain to me how it works. slowly, remember, i'm a con.

just use exxonmobil as an example.

show me how reockefellers foundations/trusts/llcs control exxonmobil.

explain how it works.

I refer you to post 187, try reading it this time.

Again the complete ignorance and gullibility of CON$ is in full display!

I did not say the Rockefeller family OWNED those companies. I said they CONTROLLED them. CON$ lack the intelligence to understand the subtle difference between "ownership" and "control."

There are several ways to control a company you don't own. For example, when J D Rockefeller was forced to divest his OWNERSHIP in Standard Oil, some stockholders tried to oust him from the board. Although he OWNED only 25% of the stock at the time, he VOTED 60% of the proxies. He STILL "controlled" Standard Oil even though he no longer "owned" a controlling interest.

So how does he do it, you might ask. One way is to "donate" stock to phony charities he controls, like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brother's Fund, etc. The "charities" OWN the stock, not the Rockefellers, they just control and vote the stock through the "charity." The Rockefeller family has over 2,000 such "charities" to own stock in theirs and their competitions' companies.

As you know after the divestiture J D Rockefeller switched his monopoly machine from the Standard Oil "holding company" to banking. Banks are immune to anti-trust laws. Banks have accounts like pension funds, for example, and the bank buys stock in the name of the pension fund, who is the owner on paper, but the bank VOTES the stock. Between the charities and the banks, the stock purchases can be spread out enough that none of them hold enough of a share in the company to have to make a report to the SEC.

Get it???

what percentage of exxonmobil/chevron/monarch stock do rockefeller charities/banks owns?

Again, the banks do not own the stock, the various funds the bank controls own the stock. And in order to vote 60% of the proxies the Rockefellers must control 60% of the stock.

 

[saveliberty]

Oil is only a part of the petrochemical industry and the petrochemical industry is only a part of the economy. Your comspiracy theory falls apart pretty quick.

Once you stripp away the folks who aren't looking for work seriously; are unwilling to accept a job at less than their prior pay; refuse to move in order to work; and haven't worked on bettering their skills, you really shouldn't have this many folks out of work. Time to trim the herd.

 

[edthecynic]

Oil is only a part of the petrochemical industry and the petrochemical industry is only a part of the economy. Your comspiracy theory falls apart pretty quick.

Once you stripp away the folks who aren't looking for work seriously; are unwilling to accept a job at less than their prior pay; refuse to move in order to work; and haven't worked on bettering their skills, you really shouldn't have this many folks out of work. Time to trim the herd.

Your rationalization falls apart even more quickly. Oil was only used to show the TECHNIQUE used for controlling a monopoly, ANY monopoly, ALL monopolies.

Again, how willfully ignorant do you have to be to think that technique is limited only to oil???

 

[saveliberty]

Oil is only a part of the petrochemical industry and the petrochemical industry is only a part of the economy. Your comspiracy theory falls apart pretty quick.

Once you stripp away the folks who aren't looking for work seriously; are unwilling to accept a job at less than their prior pay; refuse to move in order to work; and haven't worked on bettering their skills, you really shouldn't have this many folks out of work. Time to trim the herd.

Your rationalization falls apart even more quickly. Oil was only used to show the TECHNIQUE used for controlling a monopoly, ANY monopoly, ALL monopolies.

Again, how willfully ignorant do you have to be to think that technique is limited only to oil???

Way less ignorant then some jerk who thinks ALL industries are controlled by a single person or very small group. You believe in a monoploy in a global economy. You're either stupid or a dupe.

 

[edthecynic]

Oil is only a part of the petrochemical industry and the petrochemical industry is only a part of the economy. Your comspiracy theory falls apart pretty quick.

Once you stripp away the folks who aren't looking for work seriously; are unwilling to accept a job at less than their prior pay; refuse to move in order to work; and haven't worked on bettering their skills, you really shouldn't have this many folks out of work. Time to trim the herd.

Your rationalization falls apart even more quickly. Oil was only used to show the TECHNIQUE used for controlling a monopoly, ANY monopoly, ALL monopolies.

Again, how willfully ignorant do you have to be to think that technique is limited only to oil???

Way less ignorant then some jerk who thinks ALL industries are controlled by a single person or very small group. You believe in a monoploy in a global economy. You're either stupid or a dupe.

Anyone who doesn't know the major industries are controlled by an international banking cartel is either stupid or a dope.

 

[antagon]

this is an interesting debate guys(?). are you each qualifying 'control' the same way? big businesses are swayed by their finance capacity and some direction is also in the hands of banks. what about the equity, cash and commodity power that a lot of big industry like oil and agriculture have a handle on. the reason i buy influence but not absolute monopoly is that even big biz has the wisdom to hedge their finance options.

cynic, do you imply there's more influence than the cash alone?

 

[antagon]

this is an interesting debate guys(?). are you each qualifying 'control' the same way? big businesses are swayed by their finance capacity and some direction is also in the hands of banks. what about the equity, cash and commodity power that a lot of big industry like oil and agriculture have a handle on. the reason i buy influence but not absolute monopoly is that even big biz has the wisdom to hedge their finance options.

cynic, do you imply there's more influence than the cash alone? how do you account for the competition between banks and between private and public equity investors? there are hundreds if not thousands of entities.

 

[edthecynic]

this is an interesting debate guys(?). are you each qualifying 'control' the same way? big businesses are swayed by their finance capacity and some direction is also in the hands of banks. what about the equity, cash and commodity power that a lot of big industry like oil and agriculture have a handle on. the reason i buy influence but not absolute monopoly is that even big biz has the wisdom to hedge their finance options.

cynic, do you imply there's more influence than the cash alone? how do you account for the competition between banks and between private and public equity investors? there are hundreds if not thousands of entities.

Is there really competition among the major banks? Small local banks yes, but major banks no. Take for example, the fee if you overdraw your account that is ending by law tomorrow. Not only do all the major banks charge it, they all charge about the same amount. If there was real competition some would charge the fee and to compete some wouldn't and the fee charged would vary greatly among those who do charge it, but instead we see almost complete uniformity.

 

[antagon]

that's collusion over fees... price fixing. is that the same as monopoly?

when you've got money banking is different... but that's all consumer banking.

i presume when you are talking about a banking monopoly controlling the oil industry you might be talking about letting $700,000,000 bridge loans for state exploration and drilling lease agreements. if you are an oil cliq, 700mil can come from a loan, public equity sales, retained earnings, asset sales, joint venture, state sponsorship, private equity investors or you could pay as you go.

if banks compete with that, then, banks aiming to tie boardmember's hands with their finance would have to watch their back for their competitors.

there's less price fixing in mid-cap/big-cap funding... i think.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oil is only a part of the petrochemical industry and the petrochemical industry is only a part of the economy. Your comspiracy theory falls apart pretty quick.

Once you stripp away the folks who aren't looking for work seriously; are unwilling to accept a job at less than their prior pay; refuse to move in order to work; and haven't worked on bettering their skills, you really shouldn't have this many folks out of work. Time to trim the herd.

Your rationalization falls apart even more quickly. Oil was only used to show the TECHNIQUE used for controlling a monopoly, ANY monopoly, ALL monopolies.

Again, how willfully ignorant do you have to be to think that technique is limited only to oil???

Way less ignorant then some jerk who thinks ALL industries are controlled by a single person or very small group. You believe in a monoploy in a global economy. You're either stupid or a dupe.

He could also be a whack-job. Or a wanker. Or a Democrat.

Oh, that's redundant.