Biggest Con-Job in History

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have to admit that, even though I have gotten used to the lack of respect and sheer brutality that I have seen happening over the year, I really think the people who have thought this up have really big balls made out of steel. It took me a day or two, but I think the coin has dropped now.

I think what tipped me off were two things: a threat and a 'ransom'. Every con-job has these two ingredients you see. The trick of the con-artist is to make people want to give whatever it is that the con-artist wants to the conartist. This is most easily doen by giving people a choice between two hypothetical outcomes i which the one is more desirable than the other and then ask for something of which it is hoped that the victim will hand it over willingly.

An example of this might be an email my mother recieved the other day. It concerned a matter of internet crimes and the email stated that the internet access would be terminated if nothing was done about the behavior. If one wanted to stop the internet access from being terminated all one needed to do was open a zipped attachment containing a number of facts. The unsuspecting recipient would therefore want to click te content of the zipfile and this install some unwanted software (virus, trojan or other) on the computer. So, by a clever story and dubious facts one is lured into installing the unwanted software oneself, which was just what the conartist was after.

The case I have in mind is much more daring though. The object is to make every inhabitant of a certain country pay a certain amount of money, by their own free will I might add, and not let them know they were conned. The means to get this done is the illusion of future poverty by means of the stated lie that when banks go bankrupt a crises will emerge. And with that a ransom of $500.000.000.000,- is demanded from the American people by the bankers, who have managed the money given to them by the people of America in so terrible a manner that now they actually need that money to able to give the American people their money back.

This is the most amazing case of conning I have ever witnessed. The bankers are asking money to make good for the money they have already 'magically whisked away' to foreign bank accounts from the same people whom they have doublecrossed in the first place. Because if the people do not pay, their life savings, their jobs and their future's disappear before their eyes.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,202 • Replies: 21

No top replies

@Arjen,

Arjen, the basic problem behind the American financial crisis is a lack of liquidity, not money that has been "'magically whisked away' to foreign bank accounts". Global economic systems (but especially New York and London) are too connected for deception on such a grand scale to pass by unnoticed.

You live in Europe. Go ask a local banker if the financial crisis is real. Economic systems are vastly more complex and difficult to control than is commonly understood.

My favorite con job is Victor Lustig's sale of the Eiffel Tower.

2 Replies

@Grimlock,

Grimlock, please do enlighten me with your understanding of economic workings. After that I will enlighten you with mine. Then you can go to any banker anywhere in the world and realise when you are being lied to or when the banker simply doesn't know any better.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

If I could condense my education in economics into a single post, I'd be writing for the Economist and not arguing on a message board, but that still wouldn't do justice to my understanding of the system, or lack thereof.

The basic problem here is that many people see much more design than is actually present in the financial system. Even the people working within the system can only roughly grasp the process. No doubt the rats try to save themselves once they realize the ship is sinking, but that doesn't mean they sunk it.

Seeing conspiracy behind an immensely complex system is a little bit like arguing for a literal translation of the book of Genesis - little more than superstitious oversimplification. Micro conspiracies like Enron...sure, but not old men rubbing their hands together cackling "Muhaha".

2 Replies

@Grimlock,

I think that the economic system is overly simplistic and I do not understand where you see the complexities. The economic system consists of values given to things and an agreed upon currency used to bartering with. When currency goes from A to B, then goods go from B to A. The funny thing is that in that sense goods flow away from scarsity.

Anyway, since today currency is mostly changing hands in a digital manner the currency no longer needs to be physically present. This more or less happened thanks to the golden standard (and even before that, but that is not really relevant at this point in the discussion), when documents promising a certain amount of gold upon delivery of the document became common practice. Today the paper standard is used, which no longer needs gold as backing, but relies on the trust of the public in the banking system. Money is printed without any form of backing, so money can appear out of thin air, as long as the promise that a certain value of goods can be baught for it. People can even get a credit as long as they promise to make good on the money owed by working for it, thus creating the situation that money can be printed as long as the trust exists that the actual 'money' according to the paper standard is made good on.

So, the $500.000.000.000,- has left American hbanks long ago and now that the american banks are asked to make good on the promise implied by the digital money they turn to outside sources to make good on the money they have spent (the banks I mean): the people. The 'big secret' is that the American people have, in a sense, already paid this amount because that amount was 'paid' by American banks already. The only question that remains is in what way the amrican people are going to make good on the promise of their bankers: by losing their money on their bank accounts in the bankruption of the banks in question or by the new taxes with which they will pay for the $500.000.000.000,- gap in the government budget.

If anyone tells you that the bankers in high positions have not seen this coming then they should have been fired long ago. This proves that they either were in on it or were hired by people who needed unwitting puppets and, in fact, must have been n on it.
On top of that this situation is maintained by the government because any minister of finance should have stopped this and if that person did not see it coming that person should not have been in that position, leading to the same conclusion as presented above.
On top of that the government is making matters worse by placing the gap in budget not with the bankers, but with the government, thus making sure that the people will pay for it in the future because the government actually represents the people, as is promised by the elections, instead of leaving the gap with certain enterprises and letting them be taken over by foreign enterprises who would in fact simply take over the interests of the enterprises in question and thus leaving the peoples money as is.

The con is till in progress people, just keep your eyes open for when the curtain falls: the moment when the american government will be extorted publicly to undertake certain acts because of the fact that if they do not they will be held to make good on their promise the payment of goods in the value of the state debt....or do you think this con has been going on for years and years and that that is the reason why American citizens are fighting wars for oil, which helps in the speedy production of goods I might add, all over the Middle-East.....but that took place behind closed doors, didn't it?

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

If I could condense my education in economics into a single post, I'd be writing for the Economist and not arguing on a message board, but that still wouldn't do justice to my understanding of the system, or lack thereof.

The basic problem here is that many people see much more design than is actually present in the financial system. Even the people working within the system can only roughly grasp the process. No doubt the rats try to save themselves once they realize the ship is sinking, but that doesn't mean they sunk it.

Seeing conspiracy behind an immensely complex system is a little bit like arguing for a literal translation of the book of Genesis - little more than superstitious oversimplification. Micro conspiracies like Enron...sure, but not old men rubbing their hands together cackling "Muhaha".

Here in the UK we have suffered our own economical difficulties which kicked off a bit before the USA's- starting with the bank Northern Rock. Here the columnists and journalists have told us how our over-borrowing of money without consideration for how to pay it back is the main ingredient. The rats really did sink the ship here, and the money is really gone, loaned out years ago to Mr. X.

And Arjen, I agree that digital banking and money exchange has been a big factor here in desensitising us into borrowing more money than we could pay back.

Dan.

1 Reply

@de budding,

This isn't a matter of puppets and con-jobs. It's simply the people at the top racing to grab as much money as they can without caring a wit about the way their actions will affect the rest of us. Pure greed, no conspiracy.

Politicians are run by the same greed, same simple minded desire for power.

The con job was run by the people on the people. We (at large) are dumb enough to pour money into large companies and vote for the same old political team.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

With enough power given to a random person, is it humanly inevitable that greed would take over?

I mean, in the end the only reason why a person doesn't rob a bank is because they can't. And say, for example, the effect of the mob. One feels more secure about their success of an immoral action if he/she is not the only one doing it.

Though I have to say I don't think I'd rob a bank. But lets say the whole world is corrupt and everybody was robbing and looting all of a sudden. The normal person would join in trying to get as much to survive and maintain him/her self as possible.

People are not mentally equipped not to try and be at the advantage. I think it is instinctual, or perhaps intuitive, that a human being feel the need to be superior to somebody else. And that is intrinsically, where all this corruption comes from.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

With enough power given to a random person, is it humanly inevitable that greed would take over?

The same thing happens when power is given to a group of people.

Quote:

I mean, in the end the only reason why a person doesn't rob a bank is because they can't. And say, for example, the effect of the mob. One feels more secure about their success of an immoral action if he/she is not the only one doing it.

Although I agree on the psychoanalyses, the trick for the people in power is to make sure that they are following a different set of rules than the ruled because that is how they fill their pockets.

Quote:

Though I have to say I don't think I'd rob a bank. But lets say the whole world is corrupt and everybody was robbing and looting all of a sudden. The normal person would join in trying to get as much to survive and maintain him/her self as possible.

No, the normal person would be arrested. The people in power will not be because of the different ruleset. A puppet may be placed in the plan to take the fall though...the person hiring the bankers for instance.

Quote:

People are not mentally equipped not to try and be at the advantage. I think it is instinctual, or perhaps intuitive, that a human being feel the need to be superior to somebody else. And that is intrinsically, where all this corruption comes from.

0 Replies

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

If anyone tells you that the bankers in high positions have not seen this coming then they should have been fired long ago. This proves that they either were in on it or were hired by people who needed unwitting puppets and, in fact, must have been n on it.

I'm sorry...did you say that something is proven here? For someone who seems to attach so much significance to symbolic logic, I'm just not seeing how you make conspiratorial leap of faith.

Quote:

On top of that this situation is maintained by the government because any minister of finance should have stopped this and if that person did not see it coming that person should not have been in that position, leading to the same conclusion as presented above.

No offense, but you clearly do not understand the complexity of modern macroeconomics, and I'm not going to bang my head into a wall explaining it to you because I don't even know where to start.

3 Replies

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

I'm sorry...did you say that something is proven here? For someone who seems to attach so much significance to symbolic logic, I'm just not seeing how you make conspiratorial leap of faith.

What is so hard about understanding that there has got to be a reason for people to look the other way?

Quote:

No offense, but you clearly do not understand the complexity of modern macroeconomics, and I'm not going to bang my head into a wall explaining it to you because I don't even know where to start.

I think that it is you who does not understand these 'complexities'. At the very least I have, in all posts of yours, never seen you back up your insinuations with fact, nor with reason. I have presented ample proof that something is amiss and pinpointed what has happened. If you wish to refute it, please back up your insinuations.

1 Reply

@Arjen,

Complexities?! I have the flu and I haven't got a head ache from your babbling.

Edit: the next piece of info I provide thats meaningful to this thread will be inserted here.

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

The signs of a highly inflationary trend were there (and I certainly wasn't the only one to notice!) but unfortunately a lot of institutions like banks and brokerage houses work on commission for sales. This does tend to foster a culture of "selling" mortgages to risky clients, short term speculation and prices for shares and commodities being based on hot air rather than real value and long term yields. When the bust comes (and yes, they do follow booms!) everyone seems surprised. Look at the dot.com bust a few years ago - same thing but on a slightly smaller scale.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Arjen, the mortgage backed securitues nonsense and the issuing of bad credit are certainly the fault of the individuals and organizations involved. Also not up for debate is the fact that the American government's proposed purchase of $700 billion in bad loans is a substantial bail out of the exact people and institutions who got us into this mess. The real issue here is that you're seeing more design in the chaos than there really is.

The problem with lay assumptions about the economy is that laymen assume first that the whole economic picture is easy to take in, in all of its particulars (it is not), then they assume that when a problem is identified it can be quickly and neatly fixed (it cannot). Altering the course of the modern economy is like trying to change the course of a river, not slamming on the breaks of a car.

I don't wish to antagonize you, but your explanation of this crisis has a certain cartoonishness about it that I find frustrating. I have a degree in economics - not a PhD, just a bachelors BS - but enough to understand just how little I understand about the entire system. You seem to be assuming a level of simplicity in all of this that is simply not present. The problem is that explaining the full complexity of the system (to the best of my knowledge) would take far too long and you wouldn't read it, anyway.

2 Replies

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

Arjen, the mortgage backed securitues nonsense and the issuing of bad credit are certainly the fault of the individuals and organizations involved. Also not up for debate is the fact that the American government's proposed purchase of $700 billion in bad loans is a substantial bail out of the exact people and institutions who got us into this mess. The real issue here is that you're seeing more design in the chaos than there really is.

In my opinion chaos only exists where human 'order' is placed. Order can only exist without interference. Therefore the chaos always is 'structured' by human reasoning. From that realisation it is really silly to deny human planning in the grand scheme of economics.

Quote:

The problem with lay assumptions about the economy is that laymen assume first that the whole economic picture is easy to take in, in all of its particulars (it is not), then they assume that when a problem is identified it can be quickly and neatly fixed (it cannot). Altering the course of the modern economy is like trying to change the course of a river, not slamming on the breaks of a car.

The thing of it is that balance can only exist by the absence of human involvement and the existence of human involvement can only further the imbalance. So, removing all interference from the economic balance (removing the system) will have balance restore itself. That is kind of funny when you realise that the biggest government involvement in economics in American History is about to take place, don't you think?

Quote:

I don't wish to antagonize you, but your explanation of this crisis has a certain cartoonishness about it that I find frustrating. I have a degree in economics - not a PhD, just a bachelors BS - but enough to understand just how little I understand about the entire system. You seem to be assuming a level of simplicity in all of this that is simply not present. The problem is that explaining the full complexity of the system (to the best of my knowledge) would take far too long and you wouldn't read it, anyway.

Now, I am not saying I know the particulars (which person did what), but my eyes are open enough to see the grand total. You know as well as I do that there are different levels of understanding in economics (just as in everything else). The higher the level one looks at the more abstract it becomes. Denying that existance does not look good for someone with a bachelor in economics.

However, if you would start a topic on the economic workings of this situation, I would read it with interest. I am ready to admit it if I have made a mistake. I just hope you can accept that as readily as I can because my hunch from your last post is that your refutal of my words will only prove them.

0 Replies

@Grimlock,

I agree,

one corralation i saw was the banking system profiting of ww2 supported nazi,

the presdinet was pres scout bush

Zionist neo cons control

0 Replies

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

Arjen, the basic problem behind the American financial crisis is a lack of liquidity, not money that has been "'magically whisked away' to foreign bank accounts". Global economic systems (but especially New York and London) are too connected for deception on such a grand scale to pass by unnoticed.

You live in Europe. Go ask a local banker if the financial crisis is real. Economic systems are vastly more complex and difficult to control than is commonly understood.

My favorite con job is Victor Lustig's sale of the Eiffel Tower.

While it is complex, it is not hard to trace the principle cause to the horrible risk management taken on by lenders which has caused balance sheets across the board to severely limit further lending. This has put a strangle hold on money movement and led to the recession we may or may not be experiencing.

This poor risk management can be directly attributed to the grossly expansionary money policy of the Fed, and that may actually be the greatest con-job perpetrated in history. In our abstracted view of what a healthy economy is, we have formed this idea that our economy is only healthy if we keep those in power wealthy so they can keep paying us (as if that were the only way we could be valuable economic entities).

So not only are we content to live in a position of subservience, but because of the inflationary nature of this monetary policy and the supposed need to bail out these institutions, we are paying for the (dis)pleasure.

0 Replies

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

Arjen, the mortgage backed securitues nonsense and the issuing of bad credit are certainly the fault of the individuals and organizations involved.

Anytime money is pumped into the economy at a ridiculous rate (as it was from 2001 to 2004), it will doubtless change the values of the actors within the economy and spur wasteful and unproductive spending. These bubbles are never sustainable, and once the government reversed this trend, banks are forced to clinch up on the lending.

While individual actors within the economy are at blame, there is no doubt that their actions were enabled and fed by irresponsible management of the money supply.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mister Fight - you are implying that the monetary policies of the Fed are broadly designed to benefit the rich, first and foremost? I cannot disagree with that statement. It is a basic assumption of the current capitalist model that without a relatively free flow of capital, the system cannot function. Perhaps there are other models of economic behavior that might work better (or at least differently), but the current system naturally favors the rich because it depends on institutions owned by the rich (banks and investment banks) like an engine depends on its pistons.

The problem here is not that there was an active conspiracy to bilk the federal government (and thus the taxpayer) out of 700 billion dollars (or whatever the total loss will be after the dust settles). The problem is that in spite of the fact that irresponsible bankers caused this crisis we have no option but to get capital flowing again, and that means helping those very same idiot bankers. Of course, we could completely scrap the system and form soviets or something, but I'm not really in the mood for that discussion right now.

The economy was in complete vapor lock. The banks weren't even lending each other money, which is the economic equivalent of a husband and wife sleeping regularly in seperate beds. Real doom was just around the corner. I can't blame the feds for offering up the bailout, as it was the only sensible thing to do. The fact that the federal government is anteing up taxpayer money to solve this problem is not evidence of conspiracy. Given the circumstances, the feds had to do it.

Whether the feds intentionally or unwittingly created the circumstances that led to this crisis is a good question, but it's certainly not self-evident that because the feds have offered up cash to solve this problem that they were the invisible, conspiratorial hand behind the whole thing. Let's not forget just how much the rich people have suffered through this process. They screwed themselves harder than they're screwing the American people. Anyone who thinks they're secretly partying on Wall Street this week has watched the X Files too many times.

The best argument in favor of government corruption in this whole mess is probably the lack of transparency in portfolio declarations - the legal product of years of special interest handouts to Congressmen and bureaucrats. At any rate, without considerably more evidence, I can't accept that the monetary policies of the fed (and the government as a whole) constitute conspiracy on a vast scale. Politics always involves a certain element of oligarchical conspiracy, but this looks like the garden variety kind, and nothing more.

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Grimlock,

Anyone who knows economics knows that trends and properties of any market can emerge without conscious direction. As such I would not call this a "conspiracy". Rather, all it takes is for those in power to have the ability to act in their own interest and the occasional intellectual authority to propose an idea that legitimizes their actions.

I also believe that the basic assumption is not towards free capital flow, but towards massive capital accumulation through a kind of Keynesian directed capital flow. After all, free capital flow can result in no flow at all, but we can be rest assured that our governing bodies would not willingly allow this to happen.

I don't consider the recent bailouts to be signs of conspiracy, either, rather a sign of the dominant trend of central money management: attempting to generate artificially high growth by robbing from taxpayers with the hopes that it will generate future wealth for these taxpayers. Now while it may generate some future wealth, it will generate much greater wealth for the original holders and movers of the money and will only further increase the risk of market failure in the event of an inevitable downswing in the business cycle. This trend is self-perpetuating as it maintains the status quo of social and economic hierarchy.

I am not saying that businessmen and politicians are sitting around a big table scheming ways to enslave the population. I am only saying that AIG and its ilk has been subsidized in an attempt to generate growth giving them a dominant position. Now, because of this dominant position, it is argued that it is necessary to support them to stop a recession. Even if we can assume that a recession is avoidable (and not just pushed back and eventually exacerbated, after all the current crisis is a result of the attempt to avoid the crisis following 9/11) by artificially increasing the money supply, our current economic planners will undoubtedly try to funnel money through these businesses to create growth again. I am sure AIG will never refuse.

At least when these mega-businesses were attempting to secure market dominance 125 years ago, they were slowly failing. Under current conditions, failing isn't possible for these companies.

1 Reply

Biggest Con-Job in History

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know