Biggest Conspiracy off them all

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.

Mahatma coat

eh Oscar I disagree with you ona multitude o points and I have no prob with ya usin me as an example'





I stilll believe I cqn formulqte q ccoherennt debate

tunaman

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?

I like many others here don't know much about money, but would be interested in your answer of just how money is created. The recent banking scams have made people question bankers, while this is obviously important. You have probably seen this quote before, as it's from a former director of the bank of england.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.

However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ."

-Josiah Stamp

How is the fractional reserve system fair, just and sustainable?

Are you suggesting that the end justifies the means?

What would you consider to be the ideal end?

rigormortis

tunaman wrote: »

I like many others here don't know much about money, but would be interested in your answer of just how money is created.

I agree Tuna, this insight by our young Trinity friend would be much appreciated.

Time Magazine

tunaman wrote: »

I like many others here don't know much about money, but would be interested in your answer of just how money is created.

Money is essentially a contract. I can barter with you, or we can use legally-enforcable contracts (i.e. cash) to make trading much easier. Money came into existence as people issued receipts for gold in what would become banks. This was a simple process. You deposited the gold, you got a receipt, you can give the receipt to whoever you want for whatever you want, production of the receipt gives the right of withdrawal of said gold plus or minus interest or charges.

Things have gotten more complicated in the world. People no longer trade gold but they trade their time and their skills. Hopefully I'll sell the government advice on competition policy this summer. How much is that 'worth'? Tomorrow I might get me a haircut. What's a haircut's intrinsic value? Yore ma sells me twenty minutes down an alleyway, and so on. As a result we require the production of money appropriate to the level of economic activity, not physical resources. Producing too much money does not affect the value of any of these. If you play Monopoly with twice the regulated money, the price of Crumlin will simply double at auction, but its value remains the same. Namely feck all .

Now things get very helpful when people realise that the economy can be nudged using these contracts. If I have money but nobody is producing anything, that money is useless to me. That money could incentivise people to produce something, though. So that bit of money can actually induce economic activity. So in Ireland's case the ECB sees the economy is about to slow down so it lowers the cost to banks of buying money from it or changes rules that have the same effect. Banks now have more money to lend and there's more money in the economy. This induces oscarBravo to stop posting and go out and work and - walah! - the economy is not falling apart anymore because oscarBravo got up off his arse \o/. This can only be used to tweak the economy, though, because it only works in small doses. You double the money supply, prices just double. You increase it by 2%, the price of the Irish Times does not change from €1.65 to €1.68. You screw with it too much and things get very bad. What's the difference between getting oscarBravo working and having Zimbabwe-like inflation? Well I'll have to point you to section 332.4 of your local library. It's far too big a topic to possibly write about. However I do think I've explained how money is generated, and the implicit assumption of managing the money supply is the reason it is done the way it is. Could it be brought under more democratic control, etc? Quite possibly, but that's another debate. And there are costs to that too: independent central banks are historically far better at curbing inflation than governmental ones.

The recent banking scams have made people question bankers, while this is obviously important. You have probably seen this quote before, as it's from a former director of the bank of england.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.

However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ."

-Josiah Stamp

This simply is not true. Money represents value, it does not hold it. I have the grand total of €6.27 in my wallet at the moment. This came, indirectly of course, from me making a website for a television production company. If money did not exist, I would not have €6.27, but I'd have a receipt for a certain fraction of a television program. (This example would have been easier to understand had I made the website for an orchard, in which case I'd have taken a few apples for my trouble. It also illustrates just how vital money is.) In about half an hour I'll head over to Dunnes and buy some food. If money did not exist, I'd trade Dunnes my fraction of a television program for some lettuce. Money is not necessary for economic value, it just makes trading it easier. Removing money does not remove the value of the website, or the television program, or the lettuce. It just means that I'm not willing to make a website for a fraction of a television program and, consequently, I'll have to make do without lettuce tomorrow.

As for the slavery of money, I think the explosion of people's disposable income (and the associated (but admittedly endogenous) health, democratic, academic and moral benefits) outweigh some fanciful, notional idea of slavery. Nobody forces you to use money or use the capital market.

How is the fractional reserve system fair, just and sustainable?

This is a topic not associated with how money is generated.

Are you suggesting that the end justifies the means?

I did not suggest that, nor did I suggest it didn't. I wanted to know whether rigormortis cared about the process or the result. If he cared primarily about the process, he could not come back and reasonably say "Yeah but look at how only the rich benefit!" This sort of thing has happened to me on the forum before, by a user who I have an inclination shared corporeal form with rigormortis (despite his torbidity). Of course they have a point, the inequality in the world is shocking, but it completely avoided the point. It was shifting of the goalposts, which I really hate.

What would you consider to be the ideal end?

This is off-topic about the process. I'm not avoiding this issue for a big CT reason, the topic of optimal monetary policy is just too freaking big to discuss without either a) a lot of time, or b) calculus and people who can understand it. I use Boards as a recreational tool: If I'm going to be doing calculus I really should be doing it in the library and not here.

Anyway I'm off to Dunnes to buy some lettuce and then back to the calculus of the Consumption-based CAPM. Stupid excess return.

If you have any queries that relate to technical details rather than normative ones, fire away, I'll try get back to answer them.

rigormortis wrote: »

I agree Tuna, this insight by our young Trinity friend would be much appreciated.

'Tis a pity you're gone. I'm still wondering where you got that PhD.

kippy

Dont know much about money or where it comes from but this helped:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/moneyecology/chapterone.htm
as did this:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/moneyecology/chapterthree.htm
And of course the last post.


The money/barter system is the only way we know of living the way we do. Whether or not it started out as a conspiracy in the exact sense of the word is probably debatable but in my opinion I dont think theres anything dodgy about it now.
I dont really know what the biggest conspiracy of them all is but as you'll know from a large amount of my posts I questions most of the more "out there" theories fairly often.
I do however believe that the invasion of Iraq, while not a conspiracy in the strictest sense of the word, is the most recent lie to have been told to us by the superpowers.
HOWEVER - We must realise that we all have a part to play in the "Oil Wars". If we want to keep our quality of life for a while longer, the invasion of Iraq, whether vilified or not, has actually helped us achieve that goal.

Mahatma coat

I agree Kippy,

I'd like ta ask IBid to give us a definitoin of the fractional reserve system tho,I was under te belief taht the Cash/Barter worked perefctly fine for the last few thousand years and we were still usin it on a DaytoDaybasis, but he corrected me a few weks ago espousin the merits of the fractional reserve

VivatRex

Ibid wrote: »

You deposited the gold, you got a receipt, you can give the receipt to whoever you want for whatever you want, production of the receipt gives the right of withdrawal of said gold plus or minus interest or charges.
Things have gotten more complicated in the world.

True until the bankers started issuing receipts for non existent gold, along with usury.

Ibid wrote: »

As a result we require the production of money appropriate to the level of economic activity, not physical resources.

Does not happen, hence the rampant inflation we see today. Inflation is essentially the result of excess government spending. This inflation is in effect a stealth tax. "Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation."Milton Friedman

Ibid wrote: »

So in Ireland's case the ECB sees the economy is about to slow down so it lowers the cost to banks of buying money from it or changes rules that have the same effect. Banks now have more money to lend and there's more money in the economy.

Got that the wrong way around. The government borrows from the bank. To prove the point, how can a government have a national debt if they produce the money in the first place? As an aside, I think this was the question asked of you. How is money created? Not why, when or if.

Ibid wrote: »

You screw with it too much and things get very bad.

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1913.
See Asia 97, Argentina, USA 1929, USA late 19th century.
Even recently look at Northern Rock. They lost billions. Did that money disappear, no someone profited. Look at the crash of the pound engineered by Soros in the early 90's.

Ibid wrote: »

However I do think I've explained how money is generated,

No you have not.

Ibid wrote: »

Could it be brought under more democratic control, etc? Quite possibly, but that's another debate.

Just ask John F Kennedy about this.

Ibid wrote: »

And there are costs to that too: independent central banks are historically far better at curbing inflation than governmental ones.

Rubbish, the US was full of small independent banks before the 1913 creation of the federal reserve, the system worked very well. You see it was not a monopoly. As old John D. Rockefeller said "competition is a sin"

Ibid wrote: »

This simply is not true.

The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..." -- Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

Ibid wrote: »

As for the slavery of money, I think the explosion of people's disposable income

Explosion of debt

Ibid wrote: »

This is a topic not associated with how money is generated

(Referring to Fractional Reserve System).
What? This is how the vast majority of funds are created. I give a banker €100 and he can lend out €900. If this is not money creation, I don't know what is. And another thing you might want to look into the "Lien" process, it is the basis of the mortgage system.

Ibid wrote: »

Nobody forces you to use money or use the capital market.

De Facto.

Ibid wrote: »

I wanted to know whether rigormortis cared about the process or the result. If he cared primarily about the process, he could not come back and reasonably say "Yeah but look at how only the rich benefit!"

He cares about the process and the result. The divide between rich and poor has never been greater in this country.

Ibid wrote: »

This is off-topic about the process.

The process was never mentioned.

Ibid wrote: »

optimal monetary policy, calculus Consumption-based CAPM,excess return technical details rather than normative ones,

Assume the appearance of knowledge and people will give it to you, No?

So we have a text book definition of certain parts of the economic system, causes and effects and so on.

Back to square 1. How is money created?

Diogenes

Is casey going for the Guinness book of records of most bans in a month?

DeVore

And he's wrong.

I've worked in the banking system for about 10 years in the IT side of things. As chief programmer/analyst I learned Kung Fu about the banking system.

The point he makes above starting "Got that the wrong way around. The government borrows from the bank." shows that he seems to be mistaking the ECB with some government. Ibid didnt mention anything about Governments, he talked about interbank lending (Banks loan each other money at varying rates, but always far lower then you or I would get. Google Libor (london interbank offered rate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIBOR and its equivalent, DIBOR for dublin).

Money is created by the Central Banks, which despite the name, has nothing to do with governments, or "banks" as most people would know them. They are privately owned financial institutions who control the production and flow of money.

I'm sure most of you have seen www.zeitgeist.com (if not, you can watch the entire thing on that website for free). The 9/11 stuff is a little dodgy but the banking section is very much on target.

By the way, Casey is a nutjob who is more trouble then he's worth. I gave him several chances on the grounds that he stayed away from his bugbear topics but he went straight back to his old self.

DeV.

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'd like ta ask IBid to give us a definitoin of the fractional reserve system tho,I was under te belief taht the Cash/Barter worked perefctly fine for the last few thousand years and we were still usin it on a DaytoDaybasis, but he corrected me a few weks ago espousin the merits of the fractional reserve

It's a little bit like insurance markets. If everyone who owned a car in Ireland crashed tomorrow, every insurance market would go broke. The chance of everyone having an accident is ridiculously small, though. If you think how unlikely it is that half of drivers crash tomorrow, it's several millions times less likely that all of them will claim. You might get the odd period where ten times the usual number of claims occur, but realisitically insurance firms can get by with fractional cover. This is not just for them to make money: the greater the pool of reserves, the greater diversified the risk, the lower premium to everyone.

Money operates a similar way. Yeah, if every person in the country went to AIB tomorrow and withdrew all their cash, AIB would be f*cked. But you weigh up the risks of this vs the benefits of cheaper insurance/more available loans etc etc and you make a judgement call. Contrary to the bad stories about Northern Rock etc., nobody (but shareholders) lost money. Every depositer got every penny they were owed. Seriously, can any of you name anyone whose had a bank default on their deposits ever? This risk is the "cost" of fractional reserves. If banks mis-calculate the risk, they lose a lot of money, as has happened over the past six months.

As for casey's point, I think it would be pretty poor form (not to mention a waste of time) to answer somebody whose access has been removed from this site. And he still hasn't answered my questions about where he got that PhD. But seriously, these made me lol, and just in case any of you have concerns he's talking sense:

VivatRex wrote: »

True until the bankers started issuing receipts for non existent gold, along with usury.

Fractional reserves provide lower interest rates, not usury.

Does not happen, hence the rampant inflation we see today. Inflation is essentially the result of excess government spending. This inflation is in effect a stealth tax. "Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation."Milton Friedman

Lulz. He doesn't include Friedman's Nobel Prize acceptance speech where he speaks of the trade-offs between "rampant" (lol, compare ECB inflation rates to Zimbabwean or Weimarian rates...) inflation and unemployment. You want low inflation? No problem, lay off people and make them poor.

Got that the wrong way around. The government borrows from the bank.

He thinks I'm talking about governments even after I state:

Could it be brought under more democratic control, etc? Quite possibly, but that's another debate. And there are costs to that too: independent central banks are historically far better at curbing inflation than governmental ones.

Come on man, read my post.