Do you believe in any conspiracy theories?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bohm_Bawerk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As of today, the major central banks of the world conspired. They are the hegemony of the world. They are the oligarchic plutocracy. See what happens when they work together. WOW!

Also, the PIIGS are told what to do by those that hold their debt. The PIIGS are told to increase taxes, reduce social services and cut pensions, just to mention a few things.

What do you suppose they tell USA about our $ 15,000,000,000.00 debt, that is, $ 50,000.00 per person?

It is similar to the loan from a bank for our home or car. The bankers have to tell ushow to insure our (their) cars and the conditions of the sale of a home.

The conspiracy is on the front page of the financial section every day.
 
As of today, the major central banks of the world conspired. They are the hegemony of the world. They are the oligarchic plutocracy. See what happens when they work together. WOW!

Also, the PIIGS are told what to do by those that hold their debt. The PIIGS are told to increase taxes, reduce social services and cut pensions, just to mention a few things.

What do you suppose they tell USA about our $ 15,000,000,000.00 debt, that is, $ 50,000.00 per person?

It is similar to the loan from a bank for our home or car. The bankers have to tell ushow to insure our (their) cars and the conditions of the sale of a home.

The conspiracy is on the front page of the financial section every day.
Not to derail the thread, but as a person who actually studies economics extensively, this conspiracy theory is bogus. I’ve seen this conspiracy all the time on Youtube, so it’s something I’m familiar with. Central banks are not part of the “power elite”. Yes, they hold significant power in that they can manipulate the money supply, but not in any sense conspiratorial. Their main job is to ensure price stability through monetary policy, and it is because of this function that the world has not experienced an economic depression since the 1930s.

As for the PIIGs, no one forced the respective governments to borrow beyond their means. That is what they did, and they are now paying the price. Several institutions are telling the PIIGs what to do (i.e. austerity) to balance the books again and consequently, ensuring investor confidence in their bonds.

The United States is a different situation slightly, because firstly, it is the richest nation on Earth (by nominal GDP); and secondly, in its history, it has never defaulted on its debt. It is very unlikely that the US will have to resort to the International Monetary Fund in the future, but even if they did, it would ultimately be for the greater good. And in the rare case that it does, it certainly isn’t new to the Western world. The UK once had to resort to the IMF because of the economic mismanagement of several administrations.
 
Did the central banks conspire today?

Yes. Is it a perjorative interpretation, not by me. They actually did something good for the economies of the world. I thank them.

I did not say any bank or bankers made the PIIGS borrow money.

It is clear, if they want more money then they must raise taxes and cut social services. That is what I said and nothing more.

I too have studied economics, banking, stocks, and history.

We see things differently.

I did not say that the bankers were good or bad. Actually, it is implied that they MUST do these things. NO, I actually said they MUST.

I did ask a question, what are the people that loan us money telling us? I do not know the answer to that. I only asked the question.

If I loaned a great deal of money, I would make some really tough rules, who wouldn’t?
 
Did the central banks conspire today?

Yes. Is it a perjorative interpretation, not by me.
The use of the word “conspire” has very negative connotations. It means that a small group of people (generally powerful) are secretly plotting a plan to do an evil act. So when you said central banks were conspiring, I took that as reference to the widespread belief that central banks are evil. In addition, you referred to central banks as the “oligarchic plutocracy” (which is a misnomer), and there is no such thing as a good “oligarchy” or a good “plutocracy”.
 
I have explained how I use the terms.

I am not here to argue, so please forgive me if I gave you that impression.

The central banks have untold economic powers.

The Fed loaned $ 9,000,000,000,000.00 in 2008 or 09. It was created electronically.

I am glad they did. The world economies would have been depressed beyond our imagination.

How each and every other person interpret those loans is up to them. I am not going to prejudge any human being. There would be at least 7,000,000,000 different interpretations.

I want to thank you for your ideas.

Again, I am not here to argue, but learn and maybe share an opinion now and again.
 
Littleton, CO Sheriff Stone says there were more than two shooters at Columbine. News crews on the scene identified NATO and foreign military personnel at the site. The history of mind control and young males is well documented. Dr. Ewen Cameron brainwashing young Canadian males for the CIA created a huge scandal years ago, as is mentioned in the text regarding Columbine:

rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/17174

Here’s a Dr. Ewen Cameron piece on his spy connections and brainwashing research:

spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcameronDE.htm

This ties in to Johnny Gosch, kidnapped doing his West Des Moines Iowa paper route and surfacing as a male prostitute and bogus reporter who received a White House press clearance when Maureen Dowd couldn’t get one…Lots of pics with Bush Sr. & Jr.

rense.com/general63/hey.htm

There’s no particular mystery as to why young males would be targeted for brainwashing research. Males think less than females because of a larger brain that thinks more efficiently; and males have fewer connections between the two lobes of the brain. So males are more focused than females; yet when the male brain is “broken” it is more easily entrained to an obsession. The SRA/Satanic Ritual Abuse is just a terror technique to trigger the dissociation. How’s that for an oversimplification? Even so, Colin Wilson reports a core 5% of males are absolutely immune to brainwashing, even under torture. “A few good men” is a truism, the remnant that survives. So how about them apples?
 
I love people who believe in them. You can try reasoning with them, but it’s sort of like reasoning with potato chips. They come up with “facts” that are so widely out of context that, if you look at it for 3 minutes, you’ll realize it’s rubbish. Ever seen a conspiracy theorist who reluctantly came to that conclusion? Nope, it’s always people who really want to believe in that rubbish.

People who believe in them are the equivalent to that homeless man in downtown who stinks of bodily fluids and is constantly yelling at planet neutron to zap him back up.
 
Look, Rascalking, I posted this information and two minutes later your comments that imply this data, this information that you couldn’t have had time to read, is irrational. Kindly give it a look-see because you can’t reason your way in or out of facts; you just need an appetite for truth. May the Most High grant us all hearty appetites for truth.
 
Look, Rascalking, I posted this information and two minutes later your comments that imply this data, this information that you couldn’t have had time to read, is irrational. Kindly give it a look-see because you can’t reason your way in or out of facts; you just need an appetite for truth. May the Most High grant us all hearty appetites for truth.
No, I didn’t read it. I don’t intend to either. I’m not going to read everything I come across on the internet, it’s just of no interest to me. Consider me gleefully skeptical of things like that.

Try to remember the damage that conspiracy theories do. I have a good friend whose family was involved in a huge disaster. She lost her father in it. When she hears about people who believe in other weird conspiracies about it, it breaks her heart.

You can call conspiracy theories the “truth”, but I can also firmly believe that my Alpha-Bit cereal tells me what to do. It’s the “truth” only because you want it to be.
 
Those who won’t read are equally as ignorant as those who can’t read. Gleefully.
 
Those who won’t read are equally as ignorant as those who can’t read. Gleefully.
Yes, me "not reading’ is really detrimental to getting that Ph.D I’m working for. 😃

But thanks Mr. Twain!

(and no, that’s not being “uncharitable” but Mark Twain is the one who said the "ignorant/man choosing not to read quote!)
 
Very interesting that it is now a 50/50 split, given the enormous gap between the “No” and “Yes” option previously.
 
Interesting subject. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, per se, but the world is certainly big enough for some behind-the-scenes intrigue. I’m sure there is a lot of which we’re unaware.

I have a couple of friends who make the Dr. Strangelove character General Jack Ripper (the fluoridation guy) look sane. They’ve tied in everyone from the “Communist News Network” to National “Pornographic” Magazine into a huge Jesuit conspiracy and New World Order. They also believe there were no dinosaurs (God planted the bones to test the faith of men) and are avid cryptozoologists (they go looking for Big Foot and such).
 
I hope that you forgive me if some other person has mentioned these kind of things.

The world is replete with conspiracies. I will list just a few.

There are mutual conspiracies at the city, county, state, and federal level between democrates and republicans. In fact there are conspiracies in the same parties, and between the cities vs. state governments.

GM conspires against Ford. Ford and GM conspire againt Fiat. Fiat, Ford and GM conspire together against the UAW, and it is mutual.

Israel vs. Iran.

Germany vs. France.

France and Germany against the dollar.

Et tu Brutus.
 
In some instances, all it takes to be labelled a conspiracy theorist, is to dispute the findings of a government report or those of a major newspaper. If that’s the definition of a conspiracy theorist, then I say, better to be a tin foil head, then to be someone who’s ready to be an extra in Hollywood’s next Zombie flick.
 
well Jesus really is letting the nWo happen for the anti-christ to rule the world, as he allowed Sept, 11th, Christ wont come back until the book of revelation begins to physically happen.and then for him to get rid of Satan, its all written in the back of the bible. and if God says it you’d better believe it.

God is NOT FUCCING around with people anymore!

God bless.
 
the book of revalation=NWO

Jesus needs it to put an end to the devil.
 
I do not know if this is the kind of news fits with conspiracy or not, and I mean it. I have trouble understanding most of the post on this site.

I posted earlier that the Fed lent 9 trillion dollars in 2008 or 2009. I was incorrect.

The Fed lent 16 trillion dollars.

Here is an article from Forbes forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

$ 16,000,000,000.00 is a lot of money.

Also the articles says that that is the first time that the Fed has been audited. They have existed since 1913.

If the article does not come up, google it.

Thanks!
 
finance.yahoo.com/news/secrets-bailout-now-told-122008831.html

Secrets of the Bailout, Now Told

From the New York Times

A  FRESH account emerged last week about the magnitude of financial aid that the Federal Reserve bestowed on big banks during the 2008-09 credit crisis. The report came from Bloomberg News, which had to mount a lengthy legal fight to wrest documents from the Fed that detailed its rescue efforts.
It is dispiriting, of course, that we are still learning about the billions provided to various financial firms during the crisis. Another sad element to this mess is that getting the truth requires the legal firepower of an organization as rich as Bloomberg.
But that’s the way our world works. Billions are secretly showered on troubled financial institutions to stave off disaster. Individuals get little or no help.
Here are some of the new figures:
Among all the rescue programs set up by the Fed, $7.77 trillion in commitments were outstanding as of March 2009, Bloomberg said. The nation’s six largest banks — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — borrowed almost half a trillion dollars from the Fed at peak periods, Bloomberg calculated, using the central bank’s data.
Those six institutions accounted for 63 percent of the average daily borrowings from the Fed by all publicly traded United States banks, money management and investment firms, Bloomberg said.
Numbers for individual companies were equally astonishing. For example, the Fed provided Bear Stearns with $30 billion to see it through its 2008 shotgun marriage with JPMorgan. This was in addition to the $29.5 billion in assets purchased by the Fed from Bear to assist in the buyout by JPMorgan. Citigroup, meanwhile, tapped the Fed for almost $100 billion in January 2009 — its peak during the crisis — and Morgan Stanley received $107 billion in Fed loans in September 2008.
Some may see all this as ancient history or as ho-hum disclosures that confirm what everybody already knew — that our banks were on the precipice and that only hundreds of billions of dollars could save them. The Fed says that the money it lent in these programs was paid back without generating any losses.
But the information is revealing nonetheless. The fact is, investors didn’t know how dire the situation was at these institutions. At the same time that these banks were privately thronging the teller windows at the Fed, some of their executives were publicly espousing their firms’ financial solidity.
During the first three months of 2009, for example, when Citigroup’s Fed borrowing apparently peaked, Vikram Pandit, its chief executive, hailed the company’s performance. Calling that first quarter the best over all since 2007, Mr. Pandit said the results showed “the strength of Citi’s franchise.”
Citi’s earnings release didn’t detail its large Fed borrowings; neither did its filing for the first quarter of 2009 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Other banks kept silent on these activities or mentioned them in passing with few specifics…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top