Soros Warns of ‘Riots,‘ ’Brutal’ Clampdowns & Total Economic Collapse

I stopped reading immediately after "the day in 1992 where he helped crash England's economy." Anyone that understands what happened with the collapse in their curency, and the years of warnings that he issued previously to law makers just highlights the garbage that you read - He was betting that they were going to fail because of the indicators and outlined why many times over, both before and after the implosion. Man, some of you wing nuts wouldn't know what "news" is versus "opinion" if it was beating you to death. Come the F*@$ on!

I'm busy building my bomb shelter and stocking up on canned food and practising my shooting.

I don't need distractions like this to make me feel paranoid ... my Doctor told me to stop reading the blaze.

Then you just uninformed lOckdown. I consider you a smart dude too.

“THE MAN WHO BROKE THE BANK OF ENGLAND”

- “As September 15 wore on, George Soros’s confidence that Britain would pull the pound out of the ERM was growing. It had been Stanley Druckenmiller who had thought the time ripe for making a bet against the sterling. He talked to Soros about doing something. Soros gave him the green light but urged his head trader to bet an even larger sum than Druckenmiller had in mind. And so Druckenmiller, acting for Soros, sold $10 billion worth of sterling… The next morning at 7:00, the phone rang at Soros’s home. It was Stan Druckenmiller with news… While George Soros had slept, he racked a profit $958 million. When Soros’s gains from other positions he took during the ERM crisis were tallied, he racked up close to $2 billion… It was this bet, this single act of placing $10 billion on the fact that Britain would have to devalue the pound, that made George Soros world famous,” (SOROS THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY, pgs 5-6).

- “He famously shorted the British pound in 1992, wagering $10 billion on a drop in its value. In a desperate bid to keep its currency afloat, the Bank of England tried to buy up pounds as fast as Soros could dump them. However, as more and more investors followed Soros’ lead and joined his efforts, the Bank of England eventually gave up. The British pound was devalued, launching a tsunami of financial turmoil from Tokyo to Rome. When it was over, millions of hardworking Britons confronted their diminished savings, while Soros counted his gains. He had personally made nearly $2 billion on the catastrophe,” (The Shadow Party, pg. 4).

- Soros has said of this event: “I had no platform, so I deliberately [did] the sterling thing to create a platform. Obviously people care about the man who made a lot of money…my influence has continued to grow and I do have access to,” (Time Magazine, Sept 1, 1997) http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,986919,00.html

- In 1997, during the Asian financial crisis, the then Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad, accused him of bringing down the Malaysian currency, the ringgit, through his trading activities. In Thailand he was branded an “economic war criminal” who “sucks the blood from the people”. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/movers_a...


Sure, and the fact he walked away with billions in that deal is of no consequence i'm sure.  

That's not the point of the article anyway. As I said in my post, is he trying to audtion for a spot on Beck's TV program? Beck has been saying this stuff since 2009 and has been labeled with every crazy title on the planet. But, Soros speaks up, says the same things and suddenly the media listens and gives creedence to these same claims?! Please!

Soros had enough money to assist in enough of a rift to cause the bank to act to maintain their stance.

He did nothing illegal in his actions.

George Soros is rich. George Soros is a Democrat with many, many liberal ties. He is praised by the left by wanting to increase taxes, mainly on the rich.

Now, consider this. The Bank of London borrowed money - that money pretty much went directly to George Soros based on his actions. Fine, again, not illegal. He took advantage of a minor change in the market fluctuation. No big deal again. I praise the guy for making money and being a capitalist at a high level.

Where did the money come from? Who is paying that borrowed money back? The tax payers, the people of Britain...

What do you have now? A rich guy who wants higher taxes on the wealthy because it would provide the government more money. The government having more money would allow him to take actions to make even greater sums of money. All of this on the backs of the tax payers.

He didn't do anything great. He essentially caused a higher per debt per tax payer. I would sum it up as if he had intentionally stole money from the people themselves.

This isn't investing to help produce something. His actions did absolutely nothing except to make him massive profits. This man is greedy and wants other people's money.

I would assume he views it this way: Increasing taxes on the rich will provide the highest increase in revenue for the government. This therefore would allow him to position himself in the market for the greatest return on his investment - since more money is available (His wealth went up, providing a larger table to play at with more money). The rich are providing the money.. he is a modern day Robin Hood and stealing from the rich. The problem is everyone, poor and rich, all have to pay back that debt.

Oh please, rich people calling for higher taxes on the rich is so they get a pass in the media. That's why Buffett does it, Gates does it, hollywood, the list goes on.

Hell, I bet if the Koch brothers came out calling for higher taxes on the wealthy even they would get a pass!

I want to add another part into this.

Warren Buffett and George Soros both profited from the housing market collapse. In fact, they both work with some of the biggest offenders who issued many of the loans. Betting against it and knowing it would fail resulted in them making even more money on it and from US gov't bailouts. They stole more money from it.

Their actions created nothing more than additional income for them. It caused everyone pain but the few got richer. Yet, they're both left leaning people who are doing this? You don't see right leaning people with money doing this. Yet, the left is championing the cause to raise taxes on the rich, calling on class warfare, etc. They want the goverment to do more because they make more money off the government's poor practices and basic stupidity.

There are more Democrat millionaires than Republican millionaires. When you into the working class, sub $1 million dollar incomes, you have far more Republicans than Democrats. When you get into the working poor and poverty, you have far more Democrats than Republicans.

Given that information, I do not see how someone can fully support a leftist agenda. I can understand some areas, but to fully support it, I am unable to understand it.

Yeah, they get a pass. They also get attention. They get invited to lavish parties and get sweet deals. They make more money by supporting higher taxes than what they would lose in having higher taxes. Instead of being forced into paying a higher tax, why not donate more money to the very people they claim will be supported by higher taxes? Their wealth alone, according to their philosophy, could 'fix' the issue of poverty in many areas of the US and world. But it doesn't happen because they know their blowing smoke and money is only a small factor in a bigger issue.

I dont understand why people give Bill Gates such grief. The man has spent more than 10 billion $ through his charity the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

You interpreted that as grief? Really?

I merely stated they get a pass in the media and society in general if they engage is class warfare, that's all. That says nothing about his charitable ventures.

Bill Gates says the only reason a higher tax on the wealthy should be imposed is to help pay down the deficit. The problem is that spending needs to be cut in direct response to a higher tax in order for it to be effective. Without reduction in government spending the tax accomplishes nothing, therefore is unnecessary. If the government truly cut spending in real time while imposing such a tax only for the duration of paying off the deficit, then it would probably hold more water. The government though is unable to do that and thererfore the super rich are only providing lip service to appear in a better light.

I fully support what Bill Gates is doing. Buffet and Soros on the other hand, not so much. It speaks volumes that all three will not give up their money until after they're dead - granted, Gates is using his money in a far more philanthropic way and championin a cause.

Hey look, if you guys keep this up, someone may actually toy with the idea that:
Since I was a kid, and Im no spring pulius, its a well known fact, the repubs and conservatives are evil and greedy, and the dems and libs are for the lil guy, theres no millionaire leftys
The conservatives only care about business, which does nothing to help people, while the libs care about all us lil guys, and wants government to straighten out those greedy businesses, as the people should have revenge

The liberals are the only ones that care about the ecology
The greedy tree cutters, who are currently on gen 4 of cutting their trees, dont care about the trees, they just want their money
Ask anyone, the libs have always championed eguality, just dont ask or look around for its (equalities) too much, as its mostly lies, especially regarding the past

OK, sarcasm done.

TY both riser and OMG, but facts have never made a difference in these areas, and doubt they will here either

Thanks for such a backhanded compliment. Now, if he did something to cheat the system, please elaborate. However, as riser illustrated, he played the market like so many do and won, he's guilty of gambling and winning, nothing more. He ran a hedge fund, just like all the hedge funds that crushed our economy in the 2007 financial crisis. It's not that they are bad people, they just bet against a system that was destined to fail. You want to ride him because he's liberal, plain and simple.


End of story.

Now, instead of spending and redistributing, cut
Instead of stopping coal, oil, nuke etc, do more.
Now, instead of chamioning OWS theology, and making it harder for average Joe businessman to do business, thru regulation, taxation etc, go after the ability of Soros types, doom them, make it impossible, dont let them slide by, make it harder for everyone else, delude the many, even pay them to aim for his aims, all the while twisting it all, get him and his ilk

I have no love for coal or oil, but we need more nuclear plants, plain and simple. We also need to keep pouring money into fusion research, it is the true step forward.

I also agree with the rest of what you said, but unfortunately money isn't red or blue, it's green and green is what makes the world go round. Just as Soros has made his billions, so have so many others in the finance industry using the same techniques. But, nothing is going to change because they always give some of that money to congress to influence the policies they put in place, or more importantly, the policies they don't put in place. Nothing is going to change until we have a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not persons and don't share the same rights as a person.

Not sure how one gets from a to b there tho
We create laws, we put up barriers
We champion those that recognize the finality of such things. and vote for those that would actually carry them out.
Just like some were maligned because they has a job to do, as thats what they were elected for, and compromise wasnt a portion of that agenda, and reelection wasnt an option, as again, that wasnt why they were elected to begin with, types like these were maligned on both sides, yet it is these that where such persons would come and deliver such things

I think congressional term limits would also contribute to a more balanced congress, having them only be able to server 2 terms in each chamber. No more would life long politicians exist, and I think that is one of the greater qualities of Mitt Romney vs his peers, except that of Paul. Ron has always been a consideration if he were the Presidential candidate.