Biggest Conspiracy off them all

Sqaull20

What is it?

The entire UFO conspiracy, Aids, who killed John F. Kennedy, 9/11, Religion, moon landings, consumerism, the ones we dont know about yet...

What do you think, personally the biggest conspiracy for me, is how there are millions starving to death/disease ravaged every year when the fact is that this situation exists because someone wants it to be that way/ has let it be that way...

There is no excuse for it really..

Black Swan

Falsely claiming WMD in Iraq as a pretext for war (when "blood for oil" was the real motive), has to be in the top 10?

rigormortis

The money system.


This is beyond question. Does not everyone work for the stuff for the majority of their lives, yet people do not know the first thing about it.

meglome

Sqaull20 wrote: »

What do you think, personally the biggest conspiracy for me, is how there are millions starving to death/disease ravaged every year when the fact is that this situation exists because someone wants it to be that way/ has let it be that way...

Who exactly and why do they want to keep it this way?

Sols12

rigormortis wrote: »

The money system.


This is beyond question. Does not everyone work for the stuff for the majority of their lives, yet people do not know the first thing about it.

I agree with this comment. Ive started seeing documentaries into how banks operate and its shocking what they get away with!

rigormortis

meglome wrote: »

Who exactly and why do they want to keep it this way?

You really need to do some research. Are you aware that throughout Europe farmers are paid not to produce? That massive food silos exist for surplus food and that the North Sea is a dumping ground EU food stuff?

As for the reasons, Africa had been decemated by disease, war, resource grabs and exploitation. They do not want a stable continent and are pushing for an African Union.

oscarBravo

rigormortis wrote: »

The money system.


This is beyond question. Does not everyone work for the stuff for the majority of their lives, yet people do not know the first thing about it.

Everybody knows something about it. Some people know more than others.

What "system" do you have a problem with? Is this going to be a rehash of the argument I had with someone else that simply didn't understand economics?

rigormortis

oscarBravo wrote: »

Everybody knows something about it. Some people know more than others.

What "system" do you have a problem with? Is this going to be a rehash of the argument I had with someone else that simply didn't understand economics?

Economics? I have a PhD in international finance and I could not tell you the first thing about economics. Now I could teach you the theory for the next six months, no problem at all. The practice, now that is a different matter altogether.

oscarBravo

rigormortis wrote: »

I have a PhD in international finance...

I doubt it. Nice feint to avoid discussing the topic, though.

rigormortis

oscarBravo wrote: »

I doubt it. Nice feint to avoid discussing the topic, though.

Discuss away, hit me with your best.

oscarBravo

You could start by explaining why "the money system" is a conspiracy.

rigormortis

oscarBravo wrote: »

You could start by explaining why "the money system" is a conspiracy.

I said I did not have the answers, i do have questions.

Where does "money" come from? Is it infact created out of thin air.

oscarBravo

rigormortis wrote: »

I said I did not have the answers, i do have questions.

No, you said "the money system" is the biggest conspiracy of them all.

rigormortis wrote: »

Where does "money" come from? Is it infact created out of thin air.

Strange - you'd imagine they'd have touched on that somewhere along the course of a PhD in International Finance.

rigormortis

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, you said "the money system" is the biggest conspiracy of them all.

Yes exactly for this reason. You cannot get a straight answer and the whole process is clouded in mystery. You would think everyone could answer such a question, yet no one can. I believe you said earlier that you understood economics. Maybe you want to dispense some of that information.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Strange - you'd imagine they'd have touched on that somewhere along the course of a PhD in International Finance.

No that is overlooked altogether. I have studied in depth econometrics, economics, finance, accounting, international relations, derivatives, corporate finance and so on. Not one mention of the most basic issue. How is "money" generated?

I have questioned, probed and nothing. Interestingly on one occasion I was told by a fairly well connected banker to drop the topic.

Time Magazine

rigormortis wrote: »

No that is overlooked altogether. I have studied in depth econometrics, economics, finance, accounting, international relations, derivatives, corporate finance and so on. Not one mention of the most basic issue. How is "money" generated?

Where did you study? Who was your supervisor? What was your research topic? Was it published? What year did you defend, and against whom? You covered in-depth econometrics: does non-stationarity matter for OLS regressions? Do unit-roots matter for GMM regressions?

Did you really go through an undergraduate course without covering monetary economics? I'm currently in final year of an undergrad doing these courses and have know monetary economics is covered in first year's Introduction to Economics; second year's Intermediate Economics; third year's Economic Analysis, Monetary and Welfare Economics, The European Economy; and fourth year's Economic Theory, Monetary Thought and Policy. I imagine it's also taught in courses like International Economics but I can't swear by it.

You ask how money is generated. Can you answer me why this is an important question? Even if we don't know/fail to understand/actively contrive the process, do the results not matter more? Or are you more of a methodologist, but one with a PhD in economics who doesn't grasp seigneurage?

im_invisible

rigormortis wrote: »

Where does "money" come from? Is it infact created out of thin air....

How is "money" generated?

i dont have the first clue about finance/ economics, but i thought everyone knew that it comes from the old bartering system, when nearly everybody were producers of tangible goods/ services. (you give me that nice pair of running shoes with the tick on the side, that you had made in your asian sweatshop, and ill give you one of these orangybrown cotton-paper notes, and two of these blue ones) its just a whole lot easier to deal with money, when we cant all exchange part of what we do for a living for the products/ services of others

think it was invented by the greeks, btw, but then again i dont have a clue, coulda been the romans

rigormortis

Ibid wrote: »

You ask how money is generated. Can you answer me why this is an important question? Even if we don't know/fail to understand/actively contrive the process, do the results not matter more? Or are you more of a methodologist, but one with a PhD in economics who doesn't grasp seigneurage?

Your opening remarks were babble.

Give it a rest. From Rothschild himself;"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."

What is it with people throwing around a few terms? I could throw terms around all day long. Does not affect the situation. I asked a question to someone who proclaimed to know the working of the monetary system.

He could not answer a simple question, as you also cannot.

As for seigneurage, how this applies to this question I have no idea, can you explain?

I'll ask again; How is "money" produced? You say you have four years education in the area, then this should not be a difficult task, you freely throw terms around, feel free to apply them together in a meaningful manner.

rigormortis

im_invisible wrote: »

i dont have the first clue about finance/ economics,

Thats not a problem at all. This is a simple question that, if it were not a scam it could and should be understood by everyone.

We have people here who have self proclaimed knowledge of the area and they cannot answer a simple question on which is based the economic system as a whole.

Mahatma coat

Casey, dont get so hung up on the money aspect, wonder about how wealth is generated and stored these days, tis a much more interestin question

Time Magazine

rigormortis wrote: »

Your opening remarks were babble.

No they weren't. They're questions to ascertain the validity of your claims. I don't think asking what your research topic for your PhD can be considered "throwing terms around."

He could not answer a simple question, as you also cannot.

I can. I doubt you'll understand or agree with me unless you actually have that PhD you claim to have, though. It's a complicated topic that I'm not willing to broach with someone not willing to back up their claims. Unless you wish to verify your knowledge of advanced econometrics, I see no point in discussing this with you.

So I'll ask the "babble" questions again:

Where did you study?
Who was your supervisor?
What was your research topic?
Was it published?
What year did you defend, and against whom?
Does non-stationarity matter for OLS regressions?
Do unit-roots matter for GMM regressions?
Did you really go through an undergraduate course without covering monetary economics?

rigormortis

Ibid wrote: »

I can. I doubt you'll understand or agree with me unless you actually have that PhD you claim to have, though. It's a complicated topic that I'm not willing to broach with someone not willing to back up their claims. Unless you wish to verify your knowledge of advanced econometrics, I see no point in discussing this with you.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

I suggest you take the approach OscarBravo took. Go away, know when you have said something irrational, you can't back it up and no amount of schoolboy tatter will cover up that fact.

This does not come across at all well. It is a simple question, you claim to have an answer.
You have no idea where "money" comes from. That is the fact of the case, you could not possibly know.

Where does money come from?

You did not explain your mentioning of seigneurage in relation to the money creation process. Econometrics? another topic with no connection to the money making process.

As for my credentials, just you spout out a few relevant statements in relation to the topic and we will take it from there. We'll find out who knows what.

At the moment you are nothing other than a prancing, posing trinity student who thinks people will respect you based on your background. Not in this case, your bluff has been called.

Walk the Walk.

Time Magazine

rigormortis wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Wow, six smilies, you really must be scared!

I suggest you take the approach OscarBravo took. Go away, know when you have said something irrational, you can't back it up and no amount of schoolboy tatter will cover up that fact.

oscarBravo took no such approach, casey. Don't lecture me about rationality until you verify your qualifications . Also, I lawled at the "you can't back .. up" thing. PhD?

This does not come across at all well. It is a simple question, you claim to have an answer.

I do. It's a complicated topic that will take a good fifteen minutes to type that most people won't understand, just as most people wouldn't understand the answer to 'where do lasers come from?' I'm a busy man. Verify that you've a basic knowledge of lasers before I answer. You made a claim: back it up. This is the Conspiracy Theories forum, after all. If you fail to back it - and this is the third time I've asked you to now - I'm just going to assume you're bullshitting and won't waste my time.

You have no idea where "money" comes from. That is the fact of the case, you could not possibly know.

It's a "fact" eh? Back that up, CT boy.

As for my credentials, just you spout out a few relevant statements in relation to the topic and we will take it from there. We'll find out who knows what.

Well I asked you what the relevant topic was when I asked what your research topic was. Feel free to spin my questions on non-stationarity and GMM into statements. In fact I'll do it for you: "Non-stationary data isn't very important for OLS regressions"
"Generalized Methods of Moments regressions have nothing to do with unit roots"

Discuss. If that's not relevant to your topic, despite it being basic econometrics which you claim to have covered to an advanced level, I'm going to ask what your research topic was. Again.

You asserted you had a PhD before I asserted anything about knowledge of money. The ball is firmly in your court. I'm not going to answer anything because you've shown a deft ability to fail to answer questions when put to you, twice. I'm concerned you'll do this to this very post (prove me wrong, please) and particularly concerned you'll all but ignore the questions if I speak at length about monetary matters. Verify your claims and I promise I'll provide you with a fine and detailed account.

Now, I've left with you with some simple questions to answer. I give you my word that if you can answer them adequately (they're all very simple), I'll come back with an economic account money creation. Until then, I'm done with this thread.

rigormortis

Listen, I said to stop digging. If you look at this thread it is to do with the biggest conspiracy. I cited the money system, this was debated, I then proposed a question. Where does money come from?

Next thing we have you running your mouth off. I said I had no idea where money comes form. I don't.

You claim to know. As for this being a complicated topic. I can't see how that would be the case.

As for that being your last post on this thread, good idea. Cut your losses.

What a joke.

Time Magazine

rigormortis wrote: »

Economics? I have a PhD in international finance and I could not tell you the first thing about economics.

Ibid wrote: »

Where did you study? Who was your supervisor? What was your research topic? Was it published? What year did you defend, and against whom? You covered in-depth econometrics: does non-stationarity matter for OLS regressions? Do unit-roots matter for GMM regressions?

Ibid wrote: »

Where did you study?
Who was your supervisor?
What was your research topic?
Was it published?
What year did you defend, and against whom?
Does non-stationarity matter for OLS regressions?
Do unit-roots matter for GMM regressions?
Did you really go through an undergraduate course without covering monetary economics?

Ibid wrote: »

I've left with you with some simple questions to answer. I give you my word that if you can answer them adequately (they're all very simple), I'll come back with an economic account money creation. Until then, I'm done with this thread.

rigormortis wrote:

As for this being a complicated topic. I can't see how that would be the case.

I can't see why you're failing to answer my questions.

Hellm0

Why are economics students allways so bloody arrogant. I swear from talking to those that I know that its become something of a religion.

That said rigormortis you are being quite evasive.

On a more topic related note I think that the global "conspiracy" you speak of is really just plain old laissez faire capitalism. In any competition based economic model there are winners and there are losers. The degree to which a society allows the gap between the two to widen is a judgement of its character and, from what I have seen/read/experianced we're all a part of it.
We all consume the products of sweat shops, we all conveiniently ignore the blatent criminality of the governments in power today(complain though we may) and I dont see that changing any time soon.

Diogenes

rigormortis wrote: »

Next thing we have you running your mouth off. I said I had no idea where money comes form. I don't.

Ah now casey that simple isn't true, you stated that you have no idea where money comes from, despite having a "PhD in economics". Which is essentially an appeal to authority. You're going "Hey I've studied this and even I don't know where money comes from!". Ibid then asked you some simple questions which anyone with a PhD in economics should be able to answer, at which point you went into a tremendous huff.

What a joke.

Yes, yes you are.

Kernel

Why is rigormortis banned?

For me, capitalism is the biggest conspiracy. The whole system of control. It rules everything.

humanji

Not sure why he was banned. Can't see anything he said that would warrant it, really.

meglome

humanji wrote: »

Not sure why he was banned. Can't see anything he said that would warrant it, really.

I dunno either but it's quite likely that's not the only login he's using to back-up his own posts. He was driving me crazy as he never answers anything directly and he's walking misdirection but that's not reason for banning - maybe it should be

oscarBravo

I banned him because he's a liar and a troll, and not even a particularly entertaining one. Also because he appealed to the admins for a second chance, was given it, squandered it, and DeVore instructed that he be banned on sight.

I gave him several more days after that, and all he could come up with was a fictional PhD.

Eero New

oscarBravo wrote: »

I banned him because he's a liar and a troll, and not even a particularly entertaining one. Also because he appealed to the admins for a second chance, was given it, squandered it, and DeVore instructed that he be banned on sight.

I gave him several more days after that, and all he could come up with was a fictional PhD.

He was more entertaining than you anyway oscar.

Sure when he was really entertaining he didnt last a crack, banned straight away, I believe he was playing it straight down the line the last time but still got banned.

Oh, and this is conspiracy theories, which reflects the nature of hard evidence which is available out there to convince the unconvincable.

But whatever keeps little people like you satisfied with your 'authority' position. Its a bit like the cops, if you didnt ban the odd person you couldnt justify your being here.

minidazzler

To get back to the Topic.

I think the whole New World Order thing is the Biggest (widely known) Conspiracy.

I do think that "They" (whoever "THEY" are) are trying to keep the world in the so called "balance" we are currently in. I think they are already in charge and not rising as some people think.

THe countries involved at the top are (in my opinion); America, England, Germany, Russia , Japan and China.

I realise there is a lack of full logic here and I am not sticking to Ockhams Razor, in that I make alot of assumptions. But it just fits for me at least.


but, I think the Biggest Conspiracy is one we know nothing about because whoever is a part of it doesn't want us to know.
They leak fake conspiracies so that we dont think about the one that is the Biggest. (IF that makes sense.)

Dirty Dave

Eero New wrote: »

He was more entertaining than you anyway oscar.

Sure when he was really entertaining he didnt last a crack, banned straight away, I believe he was playing it straight down the line the last time but still got banned.

Oh, and this is conspiracy theories, which reflects the nature of hard evidence which is available out there to convince the unconvincable.

But whatever keeps little people like you satisfied with your 'authority' position. Its a bit like the cops, if you didnt ban the odd person you couldnt justify your being here.

HA!

He was Casey212. And he was about 5 other posters too. Go to the feedback board and see. The rules of boards state that you get a ban if you create a new account to circumvent another ban. Simple. He did that about 5 times. Not only that, but he went into threads he started with one username and agreed with himself by another username.

In my opinion, the guy is a troll and a cheat. He never backed up anything he said. Serves him right, though I am sure he will be back again and again.

humanji

Eero New wrote: »

He was more entertaining than you anyway oscar.

Sure when he was really entertaining he didnt last a crack, banned straight away, I believe he was playing it straight down the line the last time but still got banned.

Oh, and this is conspiracy theories, which reflects the nature of hard evidence which is available out there to convince the unconvincable.

But whatever keeps little people like you satisfied with your 'authority' position. Its a bit like the cops, if you didnt ban the odd person you couldnt justify your being here.

Aren't you a re-reg of a banned user? The "fight the power" attitude would seem to point towards this, as would this thread.

Eero New

humanji wrote: »

Aren't you a re-reg of a banned user? The "fight the power" attitude would seem to point towards this, as would this thread.

Quite correct. However I am not rigormortis/other names he had.

humanji

That may be, but re-reging to get around a ban is a site-bannable offence.

Eero New

Dirty Dave wrote: »

HA!



In my opinion, the guy is a troll and a cheat.

Good to see you have such strong views on irrelevant matters such as this, maybe you should look at bertie ahern and used the word CHEAT in an approptiate manner. Same old stuff here im afraid, everyone ganging up on one person.

Eero New

minidazzler wrote: »

To get back to the Topic.

I think the whole New World Order thing is the Biggest (widely known) Conspiracy.

I do think that "They" (whoever "THEY" are) are trying to keep the world in the so called "balance" we are currently in. I think they are already in charge and not rising as some people think.

THe countries involved at the top are (in my opinion); America, England, Germany, Russia , Japan and China.

I realise there is a lack of full logic here and I am not sticking to Ockhams Razor, in that I make alot of assumptions. But it just fits for me at least.


but, I think the Biggest Conspiracy is one we know nothing about because whoever is a part of it doesn't want us to know.
They leak fake conspiracies so that we dont think about the one that is the Biggest. (IF that makes sense.)

Yeah, well done on getting this back on topic.

However when one reads the correct books, they will realise it is not a conspiracy at all, the facts are out there, albeit not on the shelves of easons.

Dirty Dave

Eero New wrote: »

Good to see you have such strong views on irrelevant matters such as this, maybe you should look at bertie ahern and used the word CHEAT in an approptiate manner. Same old stuff here im afraid, everyone ganging up on one person.

I know you say you aren't Casey/Zippy/Rigormortis, but you know, you really have a very similar style of writing.

I dont suppose you have a Phd in Intra-Dimensional Meganomics do you?

As for Bertie, this is a CT forum, not politics. No need for me to talk about him here.

Mahatma coat

when did you become a mod of the CT forum Oscar?

humanji

Eero New wrote: »

Yeah, well done on getting this back on topic.

However when one reads the correct books, they will realise it is not a conspiracy at all, the facts are out there, albeit not on the shelves of easons.

And how do you know what the right books are? Who's to say they're not propaganda like the books you say are wrong?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

when did you become a mod of the CT forum Oscar?

He's a category mod.

minidazzler

Eero New wrote: »

Yeah, well done on getting this back on topic.

However when one reads the correct books, they will realise it is not a conspiracy at all, the facts are out there, albeit not on the shelves of easons.

Are you saying that this is Fact not Conspiracy? If so then you are confusing Conspiracy with Conspiracy Theory.

This thread was asking what the biggest Conspiracy is not what the Biggest Conspiracy theory is.

While we are using our theories, We are not saying what the biggest Theory is.
We are saying what we believe the Widest Spread Conspiracy is.

MeatProduct

This theory doesn't sound as exciting as the usual kind of theory that everyone is out to get me kind of but I believe all CT's come down to the one source. The individual, you and me. All that is happening on the macro scale, war etc., can be observed in each and every individual, the micro scale. Sort that out and the rest will fall into place.

So, my suggestion is to spend a little more time sorting out our own crap, our petty hates, unresolved emotional issues from childhood and that sort of stuff. Until that's sorted we'll only just carry on repeating ourselves and acting out until the world destroys itself. Personal responsibility is what it comes down to.

I enjoy a good CT as much as the next person but it does get a bit annoying and fruitless after a while. And one of the last things anyone likes doing is admitting their faults and even worse is to resolve them especially in these fast-paced time of entertainment of quick-fixes. But we will all need to face up to reality at some stage in our lives, hopefully

Nick

Mahatma coat

humanji wrote: »

He's a category mod.

AH, fair enuf so

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

when did you become a mod of the CT forum Oscar?

humanji wrote: »

He's a category mod.

I am, but not of this category (this is a Hosted board).

I didn't ban him from here, I site-banned him. He has contributed nothing whatsoever of value to the site.

humanji

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am, but not of this category (this is a Hosted board).

I didn't ban him from here, I site-banned him. He has contributed nothing whatsoever of value to the site.

So you're saying you magic powers then?

Diogenes

Eero New wrote: »

He was more entertaining than you anyway oscar.

Sure when he was really entertaining he didnt last a crack, banned straight away, I believe he was playing it straight down the line the last time but still got banned.

Oh, and this is conspiracy theories, which reflects the nature of hard evidence which is available out there to convince the unconvincable.

But whatever keeps little people like you satisfied with your 'authority' position. Its a bit like the cops, if you didnt ban the odd person you couldnt justify your being here.

I think this is the greatest injustice in the history of humanity! What about casey's right to free speech.

Police state! Facists! 911 OMG inszid JEW!

Eero New

oscarBravo wrote: »

He has contributed nothing whatsoever of value to the site.

In other words he didnt agree with you

oscarBravo

Eero New wrote: »

In other words he didnt agree with you

This was probably intended to be an incredibly witty crack that would show me up for the evil dictator I apparently am.

What's interesting about it is that it demonstrates the classical Truther's approach to a theory: it lacks a coherent hypothesis.

Hypothesis: I ban people who disagree with me.

Test 1: Is there anyone I disagree with who isn't banned?

Test 2: Have I ever banned anyone I agree with?

Answers on a postcard.

Eero New

oscarBravo wrote: »

This was probably intended to be an incredibly witty crack that would show me up for the evil dictator I apparently am.

What's interesting about it is that it demonstrates the classical Truther's approach to a theory: it lacks a coherent hypothesis.

Hypothesis: I ban people who disagree with me.

Test 1: Is there anyone I disagree with who isn't banned?

Test 2: Have I ever banned anyone I agree with?

Answers on a postcard.

Lets get this back on topic please.

oscarBravo

Question asked, question answered.