Communist charities

Baron von Lotsov · 21-06-2008, 02:27 PM

Now what is going on here?

Quote:

One of the City's most controversial financiers has given almost half a billion pounds to charity in the largest single donation made by a Briton.

The hedge fund manager Chris Hohn, who runs The Children's Investment Fund (TCI), has donated £466 million to the foundation run by his wife, Jamie Cooper-Hohn, that benefits projects across Africa and the developing world

Mr Hohn, 41, who has a reputation for being aggressive and ruthless with the management of the companies he invests in, set up TCI in 2003.

The Hohns, who avoid publicity and about whom little is known

Britain's richest people are involved in unprecedented levels of charitable giving

Financier Chris Hohn's £460 million giveaway is biggest ever charity donation - Telegraph

Incredibly generous and ruthless are not exactly complimentary traits. So first, why has this man made so much money, and second, why is he giving it all away? Do you suspect he might be a 'conduit' of some sort, where he is used as a front to provide massive funding to communist charities? Well we would never know because he doesn't reveal anything about himself.

Remember communism is not a one class system, it is a two class system. It consists of proletariat and elite. Marx lied to the masses, this was not a mistake, it was deliberate!

david H · 21-06-2008, 07:39 PM

This is an excellent idea for a thread and I compliment the Baron. What I would add is the way The Charities Commission cover for them. Charities, like doctors and hospitals, enjoy a privileged status and an unreasonable high esteem is attached to them so that if you have trouble everyone you turn to from ICAS to solicitors and watchdogs, give more weight to their views than that of the member of the public complaining.
This is similar to the post on the Common Purpose thread and I think is part of the post-democratic state our authorities following the EU bureaucrats are creating. It is replacing the liberal-democraxy and bringing us under a tyranny. What Paul Gottfried calls the "Managerial-Therapuetic State." We have watchdogs staffed by bureaucrats thwarting complaints from the public. Solicitors are far more help than the bureaucrats but people usually can not afford them.

david H · 21-06-2008, 07:44 PM

I found something similar recently where a charity with the usual array of celebs was donating to India. But, wait! India's economy is overtaking ours so why give to them? I think it is how our elites transfer funding to third world elites because the poor of the third world only receive a fraction and there is little effort made to improve distibution..

david H · 21-06-2008, 08:13 PM

jgrabham, The quote is from P.T.Baur (later Lord). A famous economist who wrote of African dictatorships as "Kleptocracies" and decribed charity as being taken of the poor in the first world and given to the rich in the third world. He won all the econiomic arguments but the elites including Thatcher ignored him.

Baron von Lotsov · 21-06-2008, 08:14 PM

Yes and the numbers add up when you hold a monopoly in raw materials. The interesting thing about raw materials is that they don't usually tend to be equally distributed geographically, and so if a certain mineral has most of its deposits underneath a piece of Africa then who controls the mining controls the price. Most of these are not optional; they are essential to manufacturing and something people can't do without. Oil is the most visible of these because it is relating to energy, but there are lots of others that are also important. India is a large landmass, as is Africa and it has quite a bit in common. The politics seem to be highly unstable, lots of bloody coups and that sort of thing. So keeping people's attention away from the other operations going on.

People don't just get lucky and make billions on the financial markets just because they are clever. This man must have connections to something more than that.

Ea of Dune · 23-06-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

People don't just get lucky and make billions on the financial markets just because they are clever. This man must have connections to something more than that.

Oh really, do you actually know anything about Trend Following for example?

You can make billions on the stock market if you have a lot of capital to invest and you understand statistics. You can be wrong 60% of the time as long as you go into the market with a systematic way of pulling out and be right 40% of the time if you go for the big hits.

I.e. Lots of small losses and a few big hits.

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a bit of a ******* at work. A lot of the best Hedge Fund managers are pretty ruthless when it comes to making money, just as a boxer gets in the ring with the aim to beat the hell out of his opponent. However once outside of the office/ring there is nothing stopping people following their philanthropist urges.

Read the book Hedge Hunters for example for a very good example of the above.

If you have evidence this guy has been taking bungs let's see them?

Ea of dune

Baron von Lotsov · 28-06-2008, 05:47 PM

Yes but its like gambling where you have a roulette wheel. The casino always wins eventually because the ball is going to land on the green section sooner or later. The financial markets are based on information and some people have more of it than the others, and so without having equal information you are going to loose your money eventually. The best you can hope for is the average rise in the index you are playing on where you are in effect just receiving interest on your money invested, at a higher rate than the bank but then it all works out because a bank zeros your risk whereas the index can go down as well as up.

So since this is not quite the state of affairs observed and some make billions, what do you suppose the reason for this is. Some of it might be luck, as in picking the winning lottery ticket, but I think there is much more than luck involved. Some own the green squares! They have information that others don't have.

Baron von Lotsov · 28-06-2008, 06:00 PM

Oh yes and another thing about the markets. They want more players and especially the amateur ones. Apart from the small percentage rise in some indexes they are essentially a zero-sum game, the Forex is a perfect example of this. So what this means is the gains have to balance the losses and since it is based on information then the amateurs are going to foot the losses. Just like when the scam was played around 2000 on Internet stocks, just before the bubble burst there was lots of hype on how people can and have made a lot of money out of things like telecom stocks. Why? Well the reason in retrospect is obvious, the professionals knew it was about to go tits up and had to offload their investments before it did so. They enlisted the help of the newspapers and a lot of people lost a lot of money. It's about to happen again but in a much more general way as oil supplies and general recession/house prices all take their toll.

Baron von Lotsov · 28-06-2008, 10:44 PM

Another example of a communist charity revealed here:

Quote:

Despite the fact that cases of child abduction in the UK have steadily dropped since the 1970’s, government fearmongering and media scare campaigns have created the illusion that pedophiles are roaming around everywhere preying on children. Child abuse numbers are also being artificially inflated by charities like the NSPCC - who were caught faking abuse cases to generate cash donations.

Leading to...

Quote:

In a think tank report, Professor Furedi highlighted cases where government checks were already being required by schools and other organizations for parents to merely interact with their own children in public.

In one example, a woman could not kiss her daughter goodbye on a school trip because she had not been vetted.

In another, a mother was surprised to be told by another parent that she and her husband were "CRB checked" when their children played together.

In a third example, a father was given "filthy looks" by a group of mothers when he took his child swimming on his own in "a scene from a Western when the room goes silent and tumbleweed blows across the foreground".

As a result ordinary parents - many of whom are volunteers at sports and social clubs - now find themselves regarded "potential child abusers".

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Like I was saying earlier, with communism the state owns your children.

Ea of Dune · 30-06-2008, 11:39 AM

Baron> I think you are mising the point. Whilst undoubtably people inside trade (hence the extra information you spoke of) this does not take away the fact that those with a trend based system can play the market and win more then those who base their information on "tips" and the business news etc.
Nobody can predict where the market will go at the end of the day, will oil prices rise forever or will they eventually dip? Who knows we have no way of seeing the future.

I disagree with you on the green square analogy. There is no "bank" in this instance. Even those who play at the game of insider trading for example are still placing their money on the red and black.

A lot of the investment firms like Dunn Management and Turtle Traders make huge sums of money when things like Enron go tits up and Bearings bank, because they go short on the stocks, they follow the downward trend.

Yes there are certainly those who play the game and have a way of manipulating parts of the market, but you are probably better looking towards the big banks rather then Hedge Fund Managers.

As for the dot.com bubble. I have some charts here somewhere which show a number of Trend Funds making huge sums when the market burst, they discuss and explain how and why they where able to make a fortune off it.

Ea of dune

21-06-2008, 08:13 PM	#94 (permalink)
david H Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,385	Kleptocracies jgrabham, The quote is from P.T.Baur (later Lord). A famous economist who wrote of African dictatorships as "Kleptocracies" and decribed charity as being taken of the poor in the first world and given to the rich in the third world. He won all the econiomic arguments but the elites including Thatcher ignored him. Last edited by david H; 21-06-2008 at 08:14 PM. Reason: spelling

21-06-2008, 08:14 PM	#95 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 972	Yes and the numbers add up when you hold a monopoly in raw materials. The interesting thing about raw materials is that they don't usually tend to be equally distributed geographically, and so if a certain mineral has most of its deposits underneath a piece of Africa then who controls the mining controls the price. Most of these are not optional; they are essential to manufacturing and something people can't do without. Oil is the most visible of these because it is relating to energy, but there are lots of others that are also important. India is a large landmass, as is Africa and it has quite a bit in common. The politics seem to be highly unstable, lots of bloody coups and that sort of thing. So keeping people's attention away from the other operations going on. People don't just get lucky and make billions on the financial markets just because they are clever. This man must have connections to something more than that. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

28-06-2008, 05:47 PM	#97 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 972	Yes but its like gambling where you have a roulette wheel. The casino always wins eventually because the ball is going to land on the green section sooner or later. The financial markets are based on information and some people have more of it than the others, and so without having equal information you are going to loose your money eventually. The best you can hope for is the average rise in the index you are playing on where you are in effect just receiving interest on your money invested, at a higher rate than the bank but then it all works out because a bank zeros your risk whereas the index can go down as well as up. So since this is not quite the state of affairs observed and some make billions, what do you suppose the reason for this is. Some of it might be luck, as in picking the winning lottery ticket, but I think there is much more than luck involved. Some own the green squares! They have information that others don't have. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

28-06-2008, 06:00 PM	#98 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 972	Oh yes and another thing about the markets. They want more players and especially the amateur ones. Apart from the small percentage rise in some indexes they are essentially a zero-sum game, the Forex is a perfect example of this. So what this means is the gains have to balance the losses and since it is based on information then the amateurs are going to foot the losses. Just like when the scam was played around 2000 on Internet stocks, just before the bubble burst there was lots of hype on how people can and have made a lot of money out of things like telecom stocks. Why? Well the reason in retrospect is obvious, the professionals knew it was about to go tits up and had to offload their investments before it did so. They enlisted the help of the newspapers and a lot of people lost a lot of money. It's about to happen again but in a much more general way as oil supplies and general recession/house prices all take their toll. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

30-06-2008, 11:39 AM	#100 (permalink)
Ea of Dune Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Hell Posts: 1,049	Banking Baron> I think you are mising the point. Whilst undoubtably people inside trade (hence the extra information you spoke of) this does not take away the fact that those with a trend based system can play the market and win more then those who base their information on "tips" and the business news etc. Nobody can predict where the market will go at the end of the day, will oil prices rise forever or will they eventually dip? Who knows we have no way of seeing the future. I disagree with you on the green square analogy. There is no "bank" in this instance. Even those who play at the game of insider trading for example are still placing their money on the red and black. A lot of the investment firms like Dunn Management and Turtle Traders make huge sums of money when things like Enron go tits up and Bearings bank, because they go short on the stocks, they follow the downward trend. Yes there are certainly those who play the game and have a way of manipulating parts of the market, but you are probably better looking towards the big banks rather then Hedge Fund Managers. As for the dot.com bubble. I have some charts here somewhere which show a number of Trend Funds making huge sums when the market burst, they discuss and explain how and why they where able to make a fortune off it. Ea of dune

21-06-2008, 07:39 PM	#92 (permalink)
david H Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,385	This is an excellent idea for a thread and I compliment the Baron. What I would add is the way The Charities Commission cover for them. Charities, like doctors and hospitals, enjoy a privileged status and an unreasonable high esteem is attached to them so that if you have trouble everyone you turn to from ICAS to solicitors and watchdogs, give more weight to their views than that of the member of the public complaining. This is similar to the post on the Common Purpose thread and I think is part of the post-democratic state our authorities following the EU bureaucrats are creating. It is replacing the liberal-democraxy and bringing us under a tyranny. What Paul Gottfried calls the "Managerial-Therapuetic State." We have watchdogs staffed by bureaucrats thwarting complaints from the public. Solicitors are far more help than the bureaucrats but people usually can not afford them.

21-06-2008, 07:44 PM	#93 (permalink)
david H Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,385	I found something similar recently where a charity with the usual array of celebs was donating to India. But, wait! India's economy is overtaking ours so why give to them? I think it is how our elites transfer funding to third world elites because the poor of the third world only receive a fraction and there is little effort made to improve distibution..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode