Friday, 24 July 2009
Poor De Beers losing profits (sob)
BBC - De Beers profits lose their gleam
Why am I picking on De Beers? 'Cause they are a Rothschild-connected company operating an aggressive monopoly on the diamond industry, and driving the price of diamonds far above their free market value by creating artificial scarcity. Not to mention that this controlled industry is a major factor behind many African wars (hence the term 'conflict diamonds' or 'blood diamonds').
This can be (fairly) easily found on a couple of Wikipedia articles, though only by implication. See what I mean:
After a brief stay with the Surveyor-General of Natal, Dr. P.C. Sutherland, in Pietermaritzburg, Rhodes took an interest in agriculture and joined his brother Herbert on his cotton farm in the Umkomaas valley in Natal. In the colony, he established the Rhodes Fruit Farms in the Stellenbosch district. In October 1871, Rhodes left the colony for the diamond fields of Kimberley. Financed by N M Rothschild & Sons, Rhodes achieved a virtual monopoly in the diamond mining industry, Rothschild also profiting on the yield from the future exploitation. He supervised the working of his brother's claim and speculated on his behalf. Among his associates in the early days were John X. Merriman and Charles Rudd, who later became his partner in the De Beers Mining Company and Niger Oil Company. After he first came to Africa, Rhodes supported himself with money lent by his aunt Sophia. 
Cecil Rhodes, who fraudulently purchased De Beers from the De Beer brothers, got his start by renting water pumps to miners during the diamond rush that started in 1871, when a 83.5 carat diamond was found on Colesburg Kopje (present day Kimberley), South Africa. He invested the profits of this operation into buying up claims of small mining operators, with his operations soon expanding into a separate mining company. De Beers Consolidated Mines was formed in 1888 by the merger of the companies of Barney Barnato and Cecil Rhodes, by which time the company was the sole owner of all diamond mining operations in the country. In 1889, Rhodes negotiated a strategic agreement with the London-based Diamond Syndicate, which agreed to purchase a fixed quantity of diamonds at an agreed price, thereby regulating output and maintaining prices. The agreement soon proved to be very successful - for example during the trade slump of 1891-1892, supply was simply curtailed to maintain the price. Rhodes was concerned about the break up of the new monopoly, stating to shareholders in 1896 that:
"Our only risk is the sudden discovery of new mines, which human nature will work recklessly to the detriment of us all." (What 'anti-capitalists' don't understand is that the free market would often destroy unethical corporations like De Beers; in fact, their very existence depends on restraining market forces.)
In 1902, a competitive mine named the Cullinan Mine was discovered, however its owner refused to join the De Beers cartel. Instead, the mine started selling to a pair of independent dealers named Bernard and Ernest Oppenheimer. Production soon equalled all of the De Beers mines combined, as well as yielding the largest diamond ever discovered—the Cullinan Diamond. Ernest Oppenheimer was appointed the local agent for the powerful London Syndicate, rising to the position of mayor of Kimberley within 10 years. He understood the core principle that underpinned De Beer's success, stating in 1910 that:
"Common sense tells us that the only way to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce, that is to reduce production"
In World War I, the Cullinan Mine was finally absorbed into De Beers.
Oppenheimer was very concerned about the discovery of diamonds in 1908 in German South West Africa, fearing that the increased supply would swamp the market and force prices down.
(Just read this section, the last line is GOLDEN...)
De Beers policy in the 1990s, which applied to all of Africa, was only to buy those diamonds that were legitimately traded and that it believed were not used to fund rebel groups, although as a leader in the industry they came under scrutiny and were widely believed to be a prominent dealer of conflict diamonds. In 1999, in line with a zero-tolerance policy, De Beers stopped all outside buying of diamonds in order to guarantee categorically the conflict-free status of De Beers diamonds.
In December 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. By November 2002, negotiations between governments, the international diamond industry and civil society organisations resulted in the creation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS). The KPCS sets out the requirements for controlling rough diamond production and trade. The KPCS became effective in 2003.
De Beers states that 100% of the diamonds it now sells are conflict-free and that all De Beers diamonds are purchased in compliance with national law, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme and its own Diamond Best Practice Principles. The Kimberley process has helped restore the reputation of the industry, as well as eliminating sources of excess supply.
Yep, that's right, the propaganda film Blood Diamond was just that - propaganda (mixed in with what was overall a really good film about, well, a blood diamond). The Kimberley Process wasn't about stopping the trade of 'conflict diamonds', it was about shutting down De Beers' competition and maintaining their stranglehold over the diamond industry.
"Excess supply" is their way of describing the free market output of diamonds, which seemingly would lead to massive reductions in diamond prices to their natural level - in other words, diamonds aren't as precious or rare as we are told. They are as rare and precious as De Beers can make them seem to be!
De Beers - Creating Artificial Diamond Scarcity
Now go out and buy that big rock. Go on. It's really rare and valuable, just like the seller says, honest...
- ► 2010 (647)
- National ID card a 'no brainer' says home secretar...
- World Food Programme short on funds
- Give pregnant women a swine flu shot
- Federal Reserve approval falling: new poll
- H1N1 vaccine: 10 things you're not supposed to kno...
- 1993 Cartoon Depicts Chip Implantation
- People scavenging meat from wild lions...poor lion...
- Poor De Beers losing profits (sob)
- Gerald Celente: Gold, Frankenfoods, Obamageddon
- Pro-Gun in UK: Dying Breed or Silent Masses?
- Jane Burgermeister
- Conservatives will 'save' economy by licking BoE b...
- How would you like a world war?
- The People shoot down pro-Fed economists
- More on the Times removing Flu article comments
- Metallica - Don't Tread On Me
- Inoculation Squads at your door!
- Swine Flu "Cultured in a Laboratory"
- Israeli Govt hires pro-Israel Talkbackers
- Times scrubs comments from Flu Vaccine article
- The Day It Rained Jelly
- Let CATO settle the healthcare debate
- Stuff to read
- Corporate Environmentalists Defacing our Flag
- Liberty Activist pays property taxes in $1 bills
- But we don't hear about China
- Beating the Drums
- Vaccinating Children While They Sleep
- Blame America First
- Forced Vaccinations in Norway
- Illuminati, Nazis, hidden history
- Educate Before You Vaccinate
- US paid Afghan militants to destabilise Iraq...
- ▼ Jul 2009 (33)
And You Tell Me There's No Suppressed Technology?
It's another of those 'conspiracy theories' that good citizens don't notice. Imagine the standard of living if all the secret technology was released to the public...we'd be "free and independent" as JFK said! No more poverty anywhere! Can you imagine being sick enough to withhold such technology from society just to maintain your position of control? (Bearing in mind that we don't know just how much technological capability is being withheld, because, duh, it's secret.) What did Nikola Tesla really develop?
Individual Liberty? But that's "selfish"!
No, we need to look after each other voluntarily without having a government do all that at gunpoint. Sounds absurd at first but soon you realise that the reason it sounds so is because of the very unfree nature of our current existence. Envision greater possibilities! Ok, some kind of massive wake-up would be needed before this kind of free, responsible, uncontrollable society could emerge. And that's what we are seeing day by day in the world - a massive waking up of the previously enslaved masses (including myself I must add!)