The Secret Societies Debunking thread

[gopher65]

I understand that certain hospitals in the US have gone bankrupt because of a 'flood' of illegal aliens into their emergency rooms (that's what you get for having private healthcare by the way. Private Health care costs the economy twice as much, leaves the poor without proper care, and leaves your critical care areas open to market forces [-X ).

However, as was already stated, if you didn't treat that bad case of TB that some Mexican immigrant (legal or otherwise) brought into the country, you could potentially lose 10's of thousands, or even millions to an epidemic.

TB may not be the best example, but there are highly infectious diseases that would cause massive economic damage if left unchecked.

[Dan The Mediocre]

Originally Posted by philojones

1.) If congress has the power to coin money and the issue thereof, just who the hell do we owe the national debt to? If we owe it to ourselves as some would have us believe, then why are we charging ourselves interest?

2.) Where the hell is all the silver that was pulled out of circulation in the past 50 years for cheaper coin materials?

1) Currency is based ultimatly on gold. If we print more currency but keep the same amount of gold, our currency loses value. Germany tried this after WWI, and it ruined their economy because the currency became virtually worthless. I'm not even sure that it was worth the paper it was printed on.

And the US government owes private institutions money, as well as certain funds like Social Security. If we default on our loans, it hurts the entire world economy, as well as making the US less likely to be given loans in the future. And we can't default on Social Security unless we eliminate it.

2) Silver was pulled from circulation because it became worth more than the coins themselve. A 10 cent coin takes 30 cents of silver? Then you gain 20 cents simply by melting the silver.

[Morrolan]

Originally Posted by Dan The Mediocre

1) Currency is based ultimatly on gold. If we print more currency but keep the same amount of gold, our currency loses value. Germany tried this after WWI, and it ruined their economy because the currency became virtually worthless. I'm not even sure that it was worth the paper it was printed on.

not exactly true since. not since the collapse of Bretton-Woods in 1971. there currently is no direct gold standard.

[teddyv]

Originally Posted by Morrolan

not exactly true since. not since the collapse of Bretton-Woods in 1971. there currently is no direct gold standard.

I would say not even close to true. The US alone has printed billions, if not over a trillion dollars, with no tangible backstop to it in the last few years to fight deflation.

[Dan The Mediocre]

Originally Posted by teddyv

I would say not even close to true. The US alone has printed billions, if not over a trillion dollars, with no tangible backstop to it in the last few years to fight deflation.

Except that the above scenario would actually cause a massive devaluation of the Dollar. On top of that, 95% of currency is used to replace old currency.. So even then, the amount of new currency won't reach trillions.

On top of that, the amount of US currency in circulation is held at $380 billion by the IMF.[/url]

[Morrolan]

Originally Posted by Dan The Mediocre

Except that the above scenario would actually cause a massive devaluation of the Dollar. On top of that, 95% of currency is used to replace old currency.. So even then, the amount of new currency won't reach trillions.

On top of that, the amount of US currency in circulation is held at $380 billion by the IMF.

which still isn't proof of a gold standard. the only thing that proves is that the USD has become an internationally accepted standard all by itself since it is the international trading and investing currency. it has become a backstop for other currencies even in some cases.

[Dan The Mediocre]

Originally Posted by Morrolan

which still isn't proof of a gold standard. the only thing that proves is that the USD has become an internationally accepted standard all by itself since it is the international trading and investing currency. it has become a backstop for other currencies even in some cases.

I concede that it isn't a gold standard anymore. I looked it up, and you were correct.

[Morrolan]

Originally Posted by Dan The Mediocre

I concede that it isn't a gold standard anymore. I looked it up, and you were correct.

that's ok, as an international banker and Illuminatus i'm supposed to know these things... :^o

[Heid the Ba']

Having read some of the websites I'm starting to think that the "secret knowledge" is knowing the difference between a debit and a credit.

[Floyd_the_astronomer]

Money printing is a conspiracy in it's own right. Fiat currency is backed by nothing other than confidence in said economy. Most of the world's currencies are considered fiat. It doesn't take a garbage collector to see the potential abuses. Inflation and deflation are much more severe under fiat systems.

[Kesh]

And how is that a conspiracy?

[Floyd_the_astronomer]

Originally Posted by Kesh

And how is that a conspiracy?

According to some guy named Mises, it's a conspiracy to overspend tax dollars among other things:

"Inflation is a policy of increasing the quantity of money in order to make it possible for the government to spend more than it collects in taxes or borrows from the public. It is first of all a way to avoid the necessity of explaining to the people why higher taxes are necessary. The government wants to spend more than the duly elected representatives of the nation are ready to permit it to collect in taxes. Out of nothing, the government creates money by fiat, and then spends it. The government's action does not add anything to the available supply of useful goods and services. It merely provides more money and thus brings about a tendency to make prices soar. Those groups of the population to whom the government gives some of this increased quantity of money are now in a position to buy more than they used to buy before. Their appearance on the market leaves a smaller share of the previously available commodities for those persons to whom the government did not give any of the increased money. Faced with higher prices, these people with no additional money are forced to restrict their purchases. Thus every inflationary action on the part of the government—and no other group or institution is able to resort to inflationary measures—results in a boon for some people and necessarily a disaster for the rest of the nation."

He has a lot more to say: http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch43.asp

I really don't know if it's true. Comments?

[Dan The Mediocre]

Considering that interest on loans to governments is often tied the current inflation rate, if that's how the government gets out of paying back their loans for the real value, they're doing a fairly bad job of it.

[Heid the Ba']

The guy is called Ludwig von Mises and he is one of the founders of one of the strands of the "Austrian School" of economic theory. This is not woowoo but it is definitely not mainstream. The definition of inflation which is quoted is fairly narrow and geared to his theory. The theory makes little sense with other definitions of inflation.

He died in the early 1970s and the inflation of the late 70s did a lot to weaken his writing. In broad terms he is the antithesis of Keynes.

I didn't read the site linked to so wouldn't like to comment in detail on the theory, but he wrote much of his work while living in Central Europe during and after the hyperinflation of the thirties and during postwar reconstruction.

I can't provide links but wikipedia searches for any of the above terms provide good background.

[Sleuter]

Originally Posted by Kesh

It's always easier when you can just make statements without having to prove them. "Preaching to the choir," so to say.

I do think for myself, philo. You've provided nothing of substance to back up the existence of these "cabals."

Philo may not have conclusive proof, but what can be conclusively proven? He has some circumstantial evidence that merits consideration. To hear you "skeptics" tell it, there is no such thing as cause and effect other than what you hear on the news. So in other words, you aren't really skeptics just the amen corner for the Associated Press. A real skeptic even evaluates objectively. So while you are demanding proof from Philo, why don't you prove that we are in Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction? You can't prove or disprove it.

Do I know whether or not secret societies are setting our course as a nation and maybe even the world? No. Is there evidence that certain forces are in play? Yes. Can I prove it? No. Is there evidence that such forces don't exist? You tell me.

[Wolverine]

Welcome to BAUT, Sleuter.

This thread was originally started on the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board; after last year's forum merge, we now have a section dedicated to Conspiaracy Theories, where discussion of this topic would be better served.

Moved from Against the Mainstream.

[PhantomWolf]

So while you are demanding proof from Philo, why don't you prove that we are in Iraq due to weapons of mass destruction? You can't prove or disprove it.

Oh, I'm totally convinced that the US (not we cause we aren't involved )isn't in there due to WMD. It's all to do with GWB having a personal vendetta again Saddam cause he tried to blow up his Mummy and Daddy while they were visiting Kuwait, he just wanted an excuse to go after him and 9/11 was that excuse. It's obvious from the way he tried to shoehorn Iraq into 9/11 that he wanted Saddam from the outset. Now he's got Saddam, but he made such a mess of things he can't get out. Persoanlly I feel sorry for the families of all the people that ended up paying for GWB and Saddam's spat.

[Gillianren]

Tell me about it. (The boyfriend goes overseas any day now.)

[Wolverine]

Apologies for not having posted a caveat earlier, but please don't stray into politics here.

In terms of posting political content, I would contend it's acceptable in the Conspiracy Theories section of the forum to do so only if the focus is upon verifiable facts directly relevant to a conpiracy claim being discussed. Deviating from that into politically-fueled commentaries, rants, or engaging in forms of political advocacy isn't allowed under our ruleset.