The Rothschild/Rockefeller Conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by Joaquin, Jul 4, 2015.

  1. Joaquin Sleuth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    I watched some video on youtube the other day with some commentator proclaiming the Rothschilds have amassed a fortune of ''500 trillion'', lol.

    I wonder how they pilled that number out of a hat.


    Anyways, I think many conspiracy theorists believe these two families, or a combinations of a shared bloodline between the Royal Family/ Rothschild family actually are secretly ruling the world and have Bilderberg meetings.


    It may be partly treue they have a certain bearing on how things work currently. The Banking System, yes. The Fed Reserve i'm not sure.

    Also, i know a lot of the companies linked to the Rothschilds have caused many problems but people forget the fact that a lot of it may be unpreventable due to progession. Some of it obviously is preventable.


    I doubt they are secretly ruling the world, though. They have had their claws on many plots throughout history however.


    Either way i doubt it's possible to gain ''500 triillion'' through inflation or by any other means. The number just doesn't seem feasible in financial terms. Just seems so preposterous but it seems a lot of people actually believe this.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    The Rothschilds were indeed incredibly powerful and influential throughout a lot of history and some claims to them controlling world events to their advantage may have been true. However, most of their influence was in the first half of the 19th Century and I don't believe it remains today to anywhere near the same extent. Also the 500 trillion claim seems a bit preposterous.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. FatFreddy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    I've seen some stuff about this on the inernet but I'm not in any position to verify anything. It all seem plausible though and I wouldn't just rule it out.


    THE AMERICAN DREAM by The Provocateur Network

    Here's a thread I started on the subject.
    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246944
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    It seems to me that the only things that you do rule out are the plausible...
     
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,086
    I don't think that name-calling helps to understand what happens in the world. To speculate about the names of particular really rich people as well as about their fortunes may be interesting for those who envy those extremely rich, but why should people without extremal envy care?

    What is much more interesting and important is to understand how the actual society allows these already extremely rich people to become even richer.

    So, let's not care about what's the name of the richest familiy, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Gates or Putin, and how much does this family own. It makes more sense to care what allows these families to make even more money.

    And this is what it known as regulation of the market. First of all, whatever the regulation, even the (for whatever reasons) useful one, it gives an advantage to the big firms. Why? Because everybody has to follow it. But to follow it, you have to know it. To know it, common sense about what is just is not sufficient. At least not if there is a lot of regulation. Thus, you need a lawyer. How much costs the lawyer? Roughly, he has to know all the regulation which is relevant for a given firm. This depends on what the firm produces. But not on how much, because the regulation is the same. Thus, we have a fixed cost - a lawyer who checks that whatever the firm is doing is really legal - which all firms have, and which is almost independent of their size. The small firm which produces X needs the same costs for the lawyer to find out if producing X is legal as the big one, even if the big one produces much more X than the small one. Thus, per piece of X, the big firm has smaller legal costs than the small firm.

    There are more things how regulation favours established firms. Most of all, regulation is what established firms want - because established firms usually have enough influence on legislature to prevent regulation which forbids them to continue what they do now. But, instead, it forces all competitors, less influential ones who already exists as well as not yet existing ones, to follow rules which essentially describe what the major established firm is doing now.

    Then there are patent rights. Artificial monopolies, most useful for big established firms. And a lot more.
     

Share This Page