4 ms·

What makes it a low quality comment? Because you disagree? Seems like you lowered the bar.

by edisms 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
No, because it's a rant, and it's an off-topic rant to boot. It's like someone has an axe to grind, and takes a slightly-related topic as an excuse to try to hijack the discussion onto their pet hobby horse. That doesn't contribute to a good discussion. Also, it's borderline paranoid conspiracy theory drivel.
- arca_vorago 8y ago
  >it's an off-topic rant The article title is "How to become a bank", and it was written by the bankofengland.co.uk by a glance at the url, so the first question is: "How did they become a bank?", is it not? It's not like HN is devoid of WallStreet'rs or City'rs, among them this is just standard knowledge. I mean of course it's a bit of a stretch to say the bankers financed the Jacobin revolution which was a large precursor event (except they sorta did but it was different bankers etc), but instead of getting into the history, I have a real feeling your snide remark at the end is largely due to you viewing any mention of the name Rothschild as being done by "paranoid conspiracy theorists". The Rothschilds have been a powerhouse of interconnected banking families for a long time, and have been open about it, including for example how they aren't aristocrats in the UK for various reasons. Their strategic brilliance in business is an inspiration for the cunning businessman, and they still are doing business around the globe today, and the fact that they very largely got there by lending to governements and creating central banks is also well known as fact. So it gets very tiring when any mention of them is so tainted by ones preconcieved disdain for anything perceived to be "drivel of a conspiracy theorist" that their response becomes such an attack. The reality of banking is so much more personal and good old boys than any document could ever show. This is obviously a move to pull in the fintech and other tech startups that want to function as a non-traditional bank ala paypal, probably due to cryptocurrency and algorithms taking over the world. That said, I have heard talk that the UK has been lowering the barrier of entry to traditional banking as well. I still see, systematically, the central bank by fiat as one of the core problems we need to overcome as a species. All banks (traditional, fintech or otherwise) will be subservient to that central banking system until it changed, and I think some of the crypto-startups may have taken a poison pill by adopting into the traditional banking infrastructure so quickly (and largely due to regulatory fears, etc) instead of working on a purely internet-ized solution. (which is also why I think the big btc jump the last few years has actually been due to central fiat actors trying to see if they could execute the ~50% attack. A nice side benefit is that btc is easily traceable, which is what makes it superior in their eyes (not to users/consumers though)to cash) My point is, that in the end, the real discussion we ought to be having as a matter of fact is very much about the core fundamentals of the banking system, which I think ergo includes discussion of it's origins, that I think it's great potential discussion matter, and that I very much disagree with your flippant dismissal of my post as "paranoid conspiracy drivel".
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    That the Rothchilds exist is not paranoid conspiracy drivel. This line from your original post, however, is: "... use your network of contacts to entangle governments in wars while financing both sides and then stretch the wars out so the government has no choice but to accept your private banking control of the country?"
    - pokemongoaway 8y ago
      Looks like someone is on the side of censorship. Your argument boils down to the idea that you shouldn't be subjected to such a comment. Sounds like you're one of them ;p
      - mfringel 8y ago
        That's a novel interpretation. Can you walk us through how you got there?
        pokemongoaway 8y ago
        Looks like the parent comment was edited or something.
    - arca_vorago 8y ago
      I can see how it might seem far fetched if you hadn't done enough reading to know that history, but I would argue that's closer to to a fact than you realize.

What makes it a low quality comment? Because you disagree? Seems like you lowered the bar.

by edisms 8y ago

What makes it a low quality comment? Because you disagree? Seems like you lowered the bar.

No, because it's a rant, and it's an off-topic rant to boot. It's like someone has an axe to grind, and takes a slightly-related topic as an excuse to try to hijack the discussion onto their pet hobby horse. That doesn't contribute to a good discussion. Also, it's borderline paranoid conspiracy theory drivel.

arca_vorago 8y ago
>it's an off-topic rant The article title is "How to become a bank", and it was written by the bankofengland.co.uk by a glance at the url, so the first question is: "How did they become a bank?", is it not? It's not like HN is devoid of WallStreet'rs or City'rs, among them this is just standard knowledge. I mean of course it's a bit of a stretch to say the bankers financed the Jacobin revolution which was a large precursor event (except they sorta did but it was different bankers etc), but instead of getting into the history, I have a real feeling your snide remark at the end is largely due to you viewing any mention of the name Rothschild as being done by "paranoid conspiracy theorists". The Rothschilds have been a powerhouse of interconnected banking families for a long time, and have been open about it, including for example how they aren't aristocrats in the UK for various reasons. Their strategic brilliance in business is an inspiration for the cunning businessman, and they still are doing business around the globe today, and the fact that they very largely got there by lending to governements and creating central banks is also well known as fact. So it gets very tiring when any mention of them is so tainted by ones preconcieved disdain for anything perceived to be "drivel of a conspiracy theorist" that their response becomes such an attack. The reality of banking is so much more personal and good old boys than any document could ever show. This is obviously a move to pull in the fintech and other tech startups that want to function as a non-traditional bank ala paypal, probably due to cryptocurrency and algorithms taking over the world. That said, I have heard talk that the UK has been lowering the barrier of entry to traditional banking as well. I still see, systematically, the central bank by fiat as one of the core problems we need to overcome as a species. All banks (traditional, fintech or otherwise) will be subservient to that central banking system until it changed, and I think some of the crypto-startups may have taken a poison pill by adopting into the traditional banking infrastructure so quickly (and largely due to regulatory fears, etc) instead of working on a purely internet-ized solution. (which is also why I think the big btc jump the last few years has actually been due to central fiat actors trying to see if they could execute the ~50% attack. A nice side benefit is that btc is easily traceable, which is what makes it superior in their eyes (not to users/consumers though)to cash) My point is, that in the end, the real discussion we ought to be having as a matter of fact is very much about the core fundamentals of the banking system, which I think ergo includes discussion of it's origins, that I think it's great potential discussion matter, and that I very much disagree with your flippant dismissal of my post as "paranoid conspiracy drivel".
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  That the Rothchilds exist is not paranoid conspiracy drivel. This line from your original post, however, is: "... use your network of contacts to entangle governments in wars while financing both sides and then stretch the wars out so the government has no choice but to accept your private banking control of the country?"
  - pokemongoaway 8y ago
    Looks like someone is on the side of censorship. Your argument boils down to the idea that you shouldn't be subjected to such a comment. Sounds like you're one of them ;p
    - mfringel 8y ago
      That's a novel interpretation. Can you walk us through how you got there?
      - pokemongoaway 8y ago
        Looks like the parent comment was edited or something.
  - arca_vorago 8y ago
    I can see how it might seem far fetched if you hadn't done enough reading to know that history, but I would argue that's closer to to a fact than you realize.