The Power of Banks

i've not seen either of the 2 films you talk about but it's the same in every single argument/discussion/debate - statistics can be made show anything, facts can manipulated to support any argument. it's up to you to make your own mind up given the information available to you at the time.
 
i've also heard somewhere that the currency used to trade oil in the middle east was going to change or had changed from dollars to euros, obviously weakening the us position. how true this is or was i've no idea but it was said in this programme (it was Rob Newman on the radio) that it was being looked at around the time of the gulf wars.

If this was ever considered, it would have been done simply because the euro is now a dominant currency.

The US has been the dominant currency for decades, hence its ubiquity. If any other currency manages to attain the same dominance (whether it be British pounds, EU euro, the Aussie dollar or the Polish zloty) that currency will be the one we use to trade in oil.

No conspiracy here, I'm afraid.
 
One thing the banks did was offer some sort of share purchase scheme, where you pay 10% of your total purchase and the banks fund the rest, but is recallable with 24 hours notice.

When the banks were getting independant competitors and the economy was healthy, they recalled every loan - depression, recession and meant all their small bank competitors went bust

Er... when was this, exactly? Names, dates, places, proof? :confused:

Here's an excellent link to help you make sense of all the garbage flying around these days - including Zeitgeist and The Money Makers.
 
There may be questionable info in some of these subjects but it doesn't mean there are no truths in them that may still be considered fringe by many people.

Can anyone tell me what these truths are? If I ask 6 different people, will I receive the same answer 6 times?
 
The guy you were talking to is completely clueless and doesn't know the first thing about currency, let alone anything else. Give him a slap and send him on his way.

Haha ok cheers for clearing it up :D

ill still read into some stuff out of curiosity, the way he spoke made some sense, but he was probably repeating stuff he saw on these conspiracy sites.

When i say clued up, i mean to the extent hes clued up on whatever he read, he musta read a lot of the stuff lol
 
Haha ok cheers for clearing it up :D

ill still read into some stuff out of curiosity, the way he spoke made some sense, but he was probably repeating stuff he saw on these conspiracy sites.

Read it for fun - just don't take it seriously.

There's a reason why so many of these ludicrous conspiracy theories emerge from our transatlantic cousins...

When i say clued up, i mean to the extent hes clued up on whatever he read, he musta read a lot of the stuff lol

Yes, well I could read Noddy books for a week and be completely "clued up" on Toytown - but that wouldn't have much relevance to reality, would it? ;)
 
If this was ever considered, it would have been done simply because the euro is now a dominant currency.

The US has been the dominant currency for decades, hence its ubiquity. If any other currency manages to attain the same dominance (whether it be British pounds, EU euro, the Aussie dollar or the Polish zloty) that currency will be the one we use to trade in oil.

No conspiracy here, I'm afraid.

didn't suggest it was fella, just throwing in a comment :)
 
Can anyone tell me what these truths are? If I ask 6 different people, will I receive the same answer 6 times?

Well for instance there are groups that exist which do have an agenda for control and power etc, the evidence of their existence and agenda is around if you look, some is quite clearly visible and some is not, sure there's also a lot of speculation and rubbish on the subject but there's enough evidence that makes it hard to outright deny, whether they really have as much power as some believe im not so sure because the nature things is still somewhat chaotic but im sure they would like to change that.
 
Well for instance there are groups that exist which do have an agenda for control and power etc, the evidence of their existence and agenda is around if you look, some is quite clearly visible and some is not, sure there's also a lot of speculation and rubbish on the subject but there's enough evidence that makes it hard to outright deny, whether they really have as much power as some believe im not so sure because the nature things is still somewhat chaotic but im sure they would like to change that.

The most dangerous groups are the ones we know about already. Our greatest defence against these people is our prior knowledge of them.

The second most dangerous groups are the ones who try to make us believe in other groups that do not actually exist. Our greatest defence against these people is logic and reason.
 
... logic and reason.

Which you haven't displayed much of in this thread. If you know so much, care to provide us with something other than a list of disputed subjects on wikipedia, which doesn't even have a definition for the term "mainstream academics"?

I suppose you think past presidents (Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson) are "conspiracy theorists" too then? You're happy to quote government sources when it suits you though...

Let's start with one piece of information. Show me a source that demonstrates inflation during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Should be easy if the video is incorrect...
 
The most dangerous groups are the ones we know about already. Our greatest defence against these people is our prior knowledge of them.

The second most dangerous groups are the ones who try to make us believe in other groups that do not actually exist. Our greatest defence against these people is logic and reason.

Very funny, such people even with their questionable ideas are at least good to have around because they may well uncover stuff that would otherwise be left in the dark.

No the only other dangerous groups are exactly the ones we don't know much about, the ones who do things in secrecy, some who just happen to be in positions of power...
 
Which you haven't displayed much of in this thread.

Give examples, please. In what way have I been illogical and irrational?

I've already destroyed several key planks of the conspiracy by pointing out several very basic and well known facts about the Bank of England and the mints. These are demonstrably true; they can't be denied. If that doesn't doesn't give you a hint that the conspiracy theorists are away with the pixies, what will?

If you know so much, care to provide us with something other than a list of disputed subjects on wikipedia, which doesn't even have a definition for the term "mainstream academics"?

Hell yeah, I already gave you this and this.

BTW, my dictionary (Chambers English dictionary) doesn't have a definition for the term "mainstream academics". Should I be concerned?

I suppose you think past presidents (Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson) are "conspiracy theorists" too then?You're happy to quote government sources when it suits you though...

Maybe they were conspiracy theorists, I don't know. What's this about, exactly? :confused:

Let's start with one piece of information. Show me a source that demonstrates inflation during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Should be easy if the video is incorrect...

Erm, I did not actually comment on the Jackson segment, nor did I claim that it was incorrect. So I'll simply say... click here and scroll down to 1835.

Inflation rose during the Jackson presidency because banks at that time were permitted to issue banknotes which were not supported by existing currency in the form of gold and silver. As the banks continued to print more (unsupported) notes, they became increasingly worthless. Consequently, inflation rose.

Jackson (himself a strident anti-bank activist of sorts) conducted a private vendetta against the Second Bank of the United States, which he believed to be responsible for the inflation.

In reality, it had been caused by market forces; these included an influx of foreign currency due to increased trade, and bad practice by the regular "high street" banks, who attempted to feed the growing national economy with a paper currency weakened by a lack of hard currency to maintain its value.

An identical situation arose in Germany during the 20s, and Uganda during the regime of Idi Amin. Both administrations injected vast quantities of paper currency into their respective economies, only to realise (too late) that this had resulted in galloping inflation.

Germany's failing economy was partly the fault of unnecessarily strict measures imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, while Uganda's problems were due to mismanagement by Idi Amin and the cessation of foreign aid.
 
Very funny, such people even with their questionable ideas are at least good to have around because they may well uncover stuff that would otherwise be left in the dark.

Honestly, how often does this happen? In real life, I mean.

Can you give me six examples?

No the only other dangerous groups are exactly the ones we don't know much about, the ones who do things in secrecy, some who just happen to be in positions of power...

Yes, they're the lizard-men David Icke is always warning us about. They walk among us, and they RULE THE WORLD IN SECRET. Look out! One of them might be your neighbour!!! :eek:
 
Honestly, how often does this happen? In real life, I mean.

Can you give me six examples?

Only 6 examples? why not 10 or 20?

There's plenty of stuff but whether it's good enough as evidence or what most want to believe is often the problem, i would suggest you start by watching some of the videos posted here then research this stuff yourself if you haven't already, it would be easier to discuss what is or isn't likely true then, for instance I can safely say secret societies and groups exist and some like to put their symbols in plain sight, many of their members are in positions of power.

Yes, they're the lizard-men David Icke is always warning us about. They walk among us, and they RULE THE WORLD IN SECRET. Look out! One of them might be your neighbour!!! :eek:

Oh look what a surprise, someone going to an extreme in an attempt to make the whole subject seem as ridiculous, how clever, i've never seen that before...

Being serious now, I forget but what's the definition for that sort of comment?

Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge there are groups who want power and that conspiracies can exist? I think its the secrecy and unknown aspect that really makes the subject so dodgy and unthinkable, like it can never happen even though history says otherwise.
 
Give examples, please. In what way have I been illogical and irrational?

Name-calling, for one. Half your posts accuse anyone that disagrees of being "away with the pixies" or some such wording - you've even done it again later in this post. It is self-evident, people can view the posts in this thread easily enough..

I've already destroyed several key planks of the conspiracy by pointing out several very basic and well known facts about the Bank of England and the mints. These are demonstrably true; they can't be denied.

You've confused issuance of currency with printing. Also, the wikipedia article states:

In May 1997 the The Governor and Company of the Bank of England regained their independence from Nationalisation and operate within the United Kingdom with autonomy from Government but under charter to it. The 1998 Bank of England Act made changes to the Bank's governing body. The Court of Directors, as it's known, is now made up of the Bank's Governor and 2 Deputy Governors, and 16 Non-Executive Directors.

That clearly states autonomy.

BTW, my dictionary (Chambers English dictionary) doesn't have a definition for the term "mainstream academics". Should I be concerned?

Yes, since you linked to the article in the first place to back up your argument...

Maybe they were conspiracy theorists, I don't know. What's this about, exactly? :confused:

The private bankers and establishment of the Federal Reserve...

Erm, I did not actually comment on the Jackson segment, nor did I claim that it was incorrect.

You stated earlier that it is "ludicrous conspiracy theory" in reference to the entire content of videos such as "The Money Masters". A stronger phrase than incorrect, in fact.

by the regular "high street" banks, who attempted to feed the growing national economy with a paper currency weakened by a lack of hard currency to maintain its value.

Which is exactly the point of the video I mentioned...
 
Only 6 examples? why not 10 or 20?

Because I think you'll be struggling to produce 6.

There's plenty of stuff but whether it's good enough as evidence or what most want to believe is often the problem, i would suggest you start by watching some of the videos posted here then research this stuff yourself if you haven't already, it would be easier to discuss what is or isn't likely true then, for instance I can safely say secret societies and groups exist and some like to put their symbols in plain sight, many of their members are in positions of power.

I agree 100% with this:

secret societies and groups exist and some like to put their symbols in plain sight, many of their members are in positions of power.

Such societies do exist; look at the Bilderberg group, for example. What we disagree on, are the implications of their existence.

Oh look what a surprise, someone going to an extreme in an attempt to make the whole subject seem as ridiculous, how clever, i've never seen that before...

Being serious now, I forget but what's the definition for that sort of comment?

Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge there are groups who want power and that conspiracies can exist?

I have no trouble believing that this may be true. It's the specifics that I can't accept. The specifics just don't add up.

I think its the secrecy and unknown aspect that really makes the subject so dodgy and unthinkable, like it can never happen even though history says otherwise.

I would find it very easy to believe if I could be shown some proof. It's not the "secret and unknown aspect" that makes it unthinkable; it's the clear detachment from logic, reason and reality that the conspiracy demands.

Look at The Money Makers, for example. It's simply a regurgitated version of the old "Rothschild conspiracy", which has been doing the rounds ever since anti-Semitism became fashionable in the 1930s. So in that sense, it's just another form of the old "Jews are running the world" story.

Interestingly, The Money Masters presents dire predictions of an imminent economic meltdown which stubbornly refuses to occur. But The Money Masters was first released in 1998... ten years ago. And yet, the prophecies of doom remain unfulfilled.

Some quotes from the movie:


I can tell you right naw that there is going to be a crash of unprecedented proportions. A crash like we have never seen before in this country. The greatest shock of this decade is that more people are about to loose more money then at any time before in history, but the second greatest shock will be the incredible amount of money a relatively small group of people will make at the same time.

[...]

The problem is we have one of the worst monetary systems ever devised - a central bank that operates independently of our government, which, with other private banks, creates all of our money with a parallel amount of interest-bearing debt.

That's why we can never get out of debt. And that's why a deep depression is a certainty, for most of our citizens, whether caused suddenly in a severe economic crash, or gradually through continued relentless inflation.

The Fed is creating it to enrich its private stockholders, just like it deliberately created the Great Depression the 1930s.

Source.

So according to the film, this vast economic calamity was supposed to occur "within our decade" (that's from 1998-2008). Well... did I miss it? :confused:

And according to the film, the Great Depression was deliberately orchestrated by America's Federal Reserve Bank for the purpose of enriching its owners. Er... reality check, please? :confused:

Surely you can see why I remain incredulous.
 
Last edited:
Name-calling, for one. Half your posts accuse anyone that disagrees of being "away with the pixies" or some such wording - you've even done it again later in this post. It is self-evident, people can view the posts in this thread easily enough..

That is not the same as being illogical or irrational. And if someone wants to be illogical and irrational, I reserve the right to say that they're away with the pixies. And it's a term I have used only once; not in "half of my posts".

You've confused issuance of currency with printing. Also, the wikipedia article states:

That clearly states autonomy.

I did not deny that it has autonomy. But the fact remains that it is a government-owned institution:


During the governorship of Montagu Norman, which lasted from 1920 to 1944, the Bank made deliberate efforts to move away from commercial banking and become a central bank. In 1946, shortly after the end of Norman's tenure, the bank was nationalised (and remains to this day government owned).

Wiki.

Autonomy does not preclude government ownership.

Yes, since you linked to the article in the first place to back up your argument...

Again, what is the problem here?

The private bankers and establishment of the Federal Reserve...

OK, so it's the old "secret bank societies rule the world, and most of them are probably Jews" thing. Yes?

You stated earlier that it is "ludicrous conspiracy theory" in reference to the entire content of videos such as "The Money Masters". A stronger phrase than incorrect, in fact.

I did not refer to the Jackson segment as a "ludicrous conspiracy theory". I referred to the film as a "ludicrous conspiracy theory", because the film itself comprises a conspiracy theory and that theory is ludicrous. Nevertheless, I do not deny (and never have denied) that it does contain certain demonstrable facts.

This is the danger of conspiracy theories; they lure people with a cunning mixture of facts and lies.

Which is exactly the point of the video I mentioned...

So you're saying that my analysis of the Jackson inflation scenario (as presented in my previous post) was correct, yes? Thankyou. :)
 
"Rothschild conspiracy", which has been doing the rounds ever since anti-Semitism became fashionable in the 1930s. So in that sense, it's just another form of the old "Jews are running the world" story.

What does this have to do with Judaism exactly? You're the one who brought that into the argument.

RE: the Depression, even the wikipedia article has a large section relating to debt..

Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Arthur Cecil Pigou and Irving Fisher: in the 1920s, American consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture and the latter for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged.

Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in unemployment rates of over 25%. (US) Banks which had financed this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and depositors became worried about their deposits and began massive withdrawals. Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent these types of panics were ineffective or not used. Bank failures led to the loss of billions of dollars in assets.

The debt became heavier, because prices and incomes fell 20–50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. After the panic of 1929, and during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed. (In all, 9,000 banks failed during the 1930s). By 1933, depositors had lost $140 billion in deposits.[7]

Bank failures snowballed as desperate bankers called in loans which the borrowers did not have time or money to repay. With future profits looking poor, capital investment and construction slowed or completely ceased. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, the surviving banks became even more conservative in their lending.[7] Banks built up their capital reserves and made fewer loans, which intensified deflationary pressures. A vicious cycle developed and the downward spiral accelerated. This kind of self-aggravating process may have turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 great depression.
 
Back
Top Bottom