Is There Any Conspiracy Theory They Won't Believe?
I listened to Bermas' radio show from last Saturday to hear his reaction from the Food is Not Love interview. He is not a happy camper. The more I listen to these guys, the more I realize that this isn't really about 9/11 to them, it is about their Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory, involving the New World Order/Bilderbergs/Rothschilds/North American Union/Bohemian Grove/Federal Reserve etc. In this segment they take on the Clintons involvement in this:
Bermas: There is definitely some wacky information out there about her [Hillary Clinton] and her husband. I mean you don’t have to dig that deep to see a snuff list of people who knew the Clintons, were in business with the Clintons and had an early retirement per se. Eh Disco?
Avery: Uhh Yeah
Bermas: And by early retirement I mean they were mysteriously dead. That’s the early retirement when you get involved with these, you know, puppets of the elite. These power arms of the corporate interests. Basically.
Bermas actually promotes Ron Paul as the truther candidate. The show is pretty boring overall, they don't take any callers so Avery and Bermas spend most of the time talking to each other and complaining that the "haters" and "skeptics" don't call in.
Update: Bermas later proves my thesis with this statement:
A lot of good people were needlessly slaughtered in our country, in the name of globalism. And a lot of people have not gotten around to the fact that that is what this is about. This is not just about you know, money, oil, power, empire. It is really a game to come together under one cause, and bring about global government. And I really hope that this country and this world gets hip to these tricks.
To them 9/11 is just an means to an end, this is all about their paranoid fear of globalism. Seattle WTO 1999 on meth. Maybe we should just all chip in and buy him a subscription to the Financial Times?
posted by James B. @ 10:08 AM
43 comments
43 Comments:
You could ask around to numbers of people who have lost their jobs to globalism and how it has improved their lives.
Or you could watch the documentary on PBS about Wal-Mart and how globalism has helped America in that aspect.
Or I suppose you could examine the trade deficit and explain how that is good for America.
Naaa nothing to fear from globalism.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Or I could get an MBA in finance, where I study and debate these issues every day...
Naa... watching a 40 minute documentary tells you everything you ever wanted to know about the world.
This idea that 9/11 somehow benefited globalism is idiotic. It was the worst thing to happen to free trade in the last 20 years. It destroyed half of the financial center of New York, placed expensive restrictions on international travel and trade, and helped tank the stock market. Not to mention killing 3,000 people, many of whom worked for these very same international companies that are supposedly behidn it.
It was the worst thing to happen to free trade in the last 20 years.
Doesn't that depend upon what stocks you own?
Isn't the stock market at a record high?
Doesn't that depend upon what stocks you own?
Huh? The market is a portfolio, it is composed of every stock out there.
Isn't the stock market at a record high?
It has been doing OK recently, but this was hardly thanks to 9/11. It took 5 years just to break even again, as opposed to before 9/11 when it was increasing double digits just about every year.
I would say the attacks did great when it came to the following stocks...
http://www.rationalenquirer.org/
features/portfolio/
If you owned Boeing, Northrop Grumman,
Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystem, you would be up 78.01% and would be beating all the major idexes.
I won't include Halliburton or its offshoots either.
Seems to me the excuse for war did an outstanding job for the economy as a whole!
Nevermind the stock market's record highs which I'm sure you would find the hand of those Dow company's
involved in the defense sector.
Now tell me how 9/11 did not benefit the economy?
I love the fact that Bermas has to clarify what he meant by "early retirement" of the folks on that "snuff list"...
Does he really think everyone else is as stupid as he is?
You are an idiot. I live in Seattle, 9/11 decimated Boeing's Airplane division, their stock fell by 50%. They laid off thousands of people.
In fact put options on Boeing stock is one of the things you guys use as proof of a conspiracy! You idiots can promote both sides of an argument at the same time.
While certain companies may benefit, war and instability as a whole is bad for a market. Find me one serious economist who disagrees with me on this. Otherwise you are wasting my time with this stupid argument.
James,
MBA in finance.... Life should be good. Not that an MBA with any concentration from any good school isn't a bad idea, but finance... sweet.
Even if you don't take the NWO, Globalism, conspiracy ideas seriously, I'd like to think that as an American you would be concerned about about due process of law issues.
I'd like to you continue to consider the clear lack of diligence by the 9/11 Commission. Even if you think a lot of the "truthers" are kooky, you can still have questions about issues such as Able Danger, The Phoenix Memo with relation to 9/11, and wider on-going cercerns about National Security, mismanaging of Iraq / Middle East, etc.
Which Boeing sector, James, commercial or military?
If you owned Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystem, you would be up 78.01% and would be beating all the major idexes.
You are seriously the dumbest motherfucker on the planet. Of those, only Boeing is a global trade play, and even their commercial aircraft recovery isn't directly associated with globalism (having been the leader in the first place). What do you suppose RTN's export sales are to its total? Or ATK's (which I did own, so there).
Countries with large trade relationships generally don't go to war with each other. The successful expansion of global free trade would be bad for defense companies. Not good. Bad.
U.S. Foreign Economic Policy After September 11th
Barry Eichengreen, Professor of Economics and Political Science, University of California, Berkeley
http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/
eichengreen.htm
The article points out your original concern as common sense, but goes on to argue that their will be tremendous benefits to the global market.
Enjoy the read, ya idiot!
Manny what the fuck is your point besides calling me your usual?
Globalization is just fine for defense. The international arms trade is wonderful. The defense sector has no problems selling technology and all the rest to allies, and this little war on some terrorists dating back to 9/11 has been a great benefit to the economy due in part to the increase in the defense budget. And as you know, part of that budget goes right back to some of the corporations I mentioned.
So what are you trying to say again to the DMOTP again?
There isn't a single thing in that article that says it is a benefit to globalism, all he says is that some individual industries may benefit.
Did you even bother to read it?
Your so-called argument is like saying that Los Angeles would benefit from a massive earthquake, because sales at Home Depot would increase. It is idiotic.
So what are you trying to say again to the DMOTP again?
That your examples were stupid and contrary to the point you were trying to make, which point is factually incorrect in any event.
And I wanted to gloat about my ATK. Actually, there was another reason I mentioned that company specifically, but I'm holding back that reason until you say something stupid about defense companies again. So, like, for a half hour or so.
A lot of good people were needlessly slaughtered in our country, in the name of globalism....And I really hope that this country and this world gets hip to these tricks.
I have two things to say to respond to this comment:
1. I was almost slaughtered by globalism, but luckily I stepped out of the way and let some dimwitted sap with a "9/11 was an Inside Job" t-shirt take the whole hit of the globe smacking into the crowd I was near.
2. As Huey Lewis once sang, "It's hip to be square." I agree.
Any questions?
Your so-called argument is like saying that Los Angeles would benefit from a massive earthquake, because sales at Home Depot would increase. It is idiotic.
My goal is not to insert myself into the 9/11: who was behind it, and who gained argument.
However, with respect to an economy in general, and in the hypothetical LA gaining from an Earthquake case, the macro economic argument can be argued two ways:
1) Keynesian (stimulation toward full employment / more optimal economic equilibrium).
2) Perverse effects, where predictable and insurable losses are reimbursed by Federal and State Govt Disaster subsidies. This encourages future mis-allocation of resources. However, it does often result in a higher level of economic activity than would have been measured if the disaster had not happened.
One would have to break down the measurement of what's better into at least two components:
1) Wealth based measurement
2) Economic activity based measurement
With the external funds flowing in, based on Government and NGO's, it's possible that the earthquake could be an aggregate win as measured by both components.
If you try of measure overall "utils", you'd have to place a cost on life and limb, and other hard-to -quantify aspects of the disaster.
@Swing: You list some companies (and later reveal that, in Boeing's case, you were only referring to a division of that company, not the whole) whose economic status temporarily improved as a result of 9/11... and try to claim this proves your point that 9/11 was good for globalism overall?
That's retarded.
BG wrote: "My goal is not to insert myself into the 9/11: who was behind it, and who gained argument."
Then what's with all that spam about Jewish involvement in 9/11? You're such a hypocrite...
No, he's a liar, not a hypocrite. Bit of a difference there.
BG, while I am pleasantly surprised to see you employ actual economic theory, albeit incorrectly, that is not the argument SD was making, and is not a valid analogy for 9/11.
The idea that destruction of wealth is a benefit, although it has been advanced by many people that should know better, is idiotic. The destruction of wealth is NEVER a net benefit. If this were true, then why don't we have the government randomly burn down a major US city every week for its stimulus effect? Hell, let's do two a week, twice as good!
The reimbursement effect is even more fallacious, unless there is some external benevolent entity which is somehow contributing to the global economy, a Martian NGO perhaps?
Actually what is sadder is that even that "nutjob site" did not support his argument.
"You could ask around to numbers of people who have lost their jobs to globalism and how it has improved their lives."
Globalism creates more jobs...do you people even have a basic understanding of the things you're against?
That is common truther logic. They can't understand the big picture, so they take a limited understanding of something they can grasp on an anecdotal and extrapolate it to a wider scale.
"My cousin lost his job at the plant and now has to work at WalMart, therefore globalism is bad".
"My stove did not collapse when it caught on fire, therefore the WTC was demolished with explosives"
Watching the state of the Union, Pelosi actually looks pretty good for a 60 year old broad.
James, notice the words they use. “Globalization” is commonly the pejorative from the left, “Globalism” is the common pejorative of the right. From the left they object to trade and immigration that isn’t heavily regulated by government (on the assumption government can and should manage or block it in our interest). For the right-wingers, “globalism” is a code word for world government. Most twoofers can’t figure what they believe in because they explain everything away with conspiracy theories, so they freely use rhetoric from all sides and in the end, say little of anything.
The "story" they are peddling about the Clintons was first shopped around by Jerry Falwell in the mid-1990s. Maybe these two imbeciles have become members of the Moral Majority.
Swing, for once you bring up a topic that can actually be debated with facts. The choice is not between job killing trade and some utopia for the wonderful government (this same government you clowns claim 3K of its own citizens) regulates and controls the economy in such away that it creates universal prosperity by fiat. Rather the choice is between free trade and protectionism. While protectionism can protect jobs in select industries for a period of time, in the aggregate the comparison isn’t even close, free trade wins hands down when it comes to generating broad based prosperity. Since NAFTA and WTO were enacted in 1994, the working age population has grown 15%, the number of jobs has grown 20%. At the same time, the inflation adjusted median hourly wage has grown from $13 to $14.30. Those are positive trends. At the same time, where is the protectionist utopia?
Wow, cons, thanks for catching me being an idiot. He wrote globalism and for some reason I read it as "globalization" (which is what he meant) and even copied the word incorrectly.
Man, I feel dumb.
Shawn, no biggie, I goofed associating immigration controls with the left, they are more commonly promoted by the right.
About the Clinton body count list...
I am not a fan of Clinton, I just hate lies.
And the idea that blowing up buildings is good for the economy is a fallacy. In fact economists call it the broken window fallacy.
Hey, thanks for the link. I didn't know this fallacy had a name.
This is who I was referring to when I mentioned "People who should know better".
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, some economists, such as Paul Krugman, suggested that the rebuilding in New York would stimulate billions of dollars of economic activity, which would provide a net benefit to the United States economy, which was in recession at the time
Swing,
There is no logical link between "globalisation" and "Halliburton did well from 9/11". These are two entirely different things. Some companies will do better under a protectionist environment, some companies will do better under a free trade environment. The fact that one individual company benefits from government spending has nothing at all to do with gloablisation. Please don't use terms you don't understand.
"great benefit to the economy due in part to the increase in the defense budget."
This is moronic. Government spending is government spending. Military spending doesn't have some magical beneficial impact lacking in other kinds of government spending.
Look around the world - there are countries with government spending far higher than the US, defense included. North Korea probably spends as much on defense alone (as a % of GDP) as the US does on total state and federal spending. Is this benefitting the North Korean economy? Is the US being left in the dust by high spending European countries? No.
So thanks for demonstrating yet another aspect of your ignorance.
James, First off, stop the elementary analogies to support your position and the name calling should end, after all it was you and Pat that asked for that type of behavior
War, diplomacy help economy, but uncertainty never does
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Oct 27, 2002 by EILEEN AMBROSE
War, diplomacy help economy, but uncertainty never does
Past wars show healthy annual gains in the S&P 500
By EILEEN AMBROSE Baltimore Sun
Broken Window Fallacy:
This fallacy places the payment for war into 3 categories.
1. Raise Taxes
2. Cut spending
3. Raise Debt
From what I read, raising the debt only postpones the cost and incrues interest. The arguement goes on to state that the only way to pay for that increased debt is to increase taxes or cut spending. I do not know if the traditional broken window allows for this debt repayment plan but the one I have examined does.
But to pay back that debt, you don't need to increase taxes or cut spending. You stimulate economic growth while balancing the budget.
If what you care about is a prosperous economy, why wouldn't it make sense to spend hundreds of billions on huge industrial products like military planes and tanks thinking like a true Reganite as the trickle down theory takes form? Why not employ hundreds of thousands in a great public-works program like war? Why not destroy a country so that money can funnel to American companies in charge of rebuilding it? Doesn't all of this help us out of the recession?
All these questions somehow come back to Bastiat's "Broken Window" fallacy. In the story, a boy throws a rock through a window. Regrets for this act of destruction are all around. But then a confused intellectual pops up to explain that this is a good thing after all. The window will have to be fixed, which gives business to the glazier, who will use it to buy a suit, helping the tailor, and so on.
Were we not in a recession prior to 9/11? Are we in a recession now?
Many of you are confusing my stance on globalism and 9/11 versus just th e American economy and 9/11. Sorry for the confusion.
Dictionary.com-the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.
This is why I have a problem with globalism. Why should the world come before my country? If my country cares more about the world and does more for the world than it does for itself, isn't that one step closer to communism? Placing the whole above the individual?
Government spending is government spending. Military spending doesn't have some magical beneficial impact lacking in other kinds of government spending. Yes, true, but the end result is the issue. Do you end up with nothing as in social service spending (no revenue generated to contribute back to the tax base), or do you end up with a product, such as a bomb or plane. In the first case, the wealth disappears into a service. In the second case, that spending is simply a transference of wealth from the taxpayer to the bomb maker. The bomb maker is in business to make a profit, the social service industry in most cases is not for profit. Which industry contributes more to the economy?
As far as defense spending goes, I'm not sure Pepik where you get your numbers, but the US accounts for 47% of the world expenditure on defense.
Source:http://borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html
Granted that figure is from 2004.
The World's Largest
Military Spenders
(billions)
United States $420
Russia $65
China $56
United Kingdom $49
Japan $45
France $40
Germany $30
Saudi Arabia $19
India $19
Italy $18
South Korea $16
Australia $12
Turkey $12
Israel $12
Canada $10
Spain $10
Brazil $9
Netherlands $8
Taiwan $8
Greece $7
Indonesia $6
Sweden $6
North Korea $56
Ukraine $6
Singapore $5
Poland $4
Norway $4
Kuwait $4
Iran $4
Belgium $3
Pakistan $3
Colombia $3
Portugal $3
Vietnam $3
Denmark $3
Mexico $3
Egypt $3
Czech Republic $2
Hungary $2
Syria $2
Argentina $2
Romania $2
Cuba $1
Source Center for Arms
Control and
Non-Proliferation
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cost per person to defend for Countries:
USA = 420B/300M = $1400/person
UK = 49B/60M = $816/person
Russia = 65B/141M = $460/person
France = 40B/61M = $655/person
Germany = 30B/82M= $366/person
Canada = 10B/30M = $333/person
So while clearly, the USA spends more than anyone else, even per capita, the numers you quote, and the manner in which they are quoted make it look much worse than it is.
TAM
The only useful measure is as a % of GDP. The US has the largest economy, so all else being equal of course it has the largest defense budget. That proves nothing.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
Look at this chart. Military spending has been decreasing for decades. During the Clinton boom years, military spending slid continuously, i.e. exactly the opposite to what you are saying should happen.
Look at this chart.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf
Again, US defense spending is not high as a proportion of GDP compared to other countries. We don't even rank in the top 25.
Also, does anyone remember the boom years of the 1970's, when the Vietnam war was at its peak? If you do, you have a bad memory because the economy was crap. Once again, the link just isn't there.
"Do you end up with nothing as in social service spending (no revenue generated to contribute back to the tax base), or do you end up with a product, such as a bomb or plane. In the first case, the wealth disappears into a service. In the second case, that spending is simply a transference of wealth from the taxpayer to the bomb maker. The bomb maker is in business to make a profit, the social service industry in most cases is not for profit. Which industry contributes more to the economy?"
Completely wrong. One, a tank has no economic value. It is not a factory or a useful capital good. Investing in tanks is not investing in your economy the way a bridge or a highway would be.
Two, not all spending goes on jets and technology. How many aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and stealth fighters have been built for Iraq? Zero. A lot of the spending there is going into things which have no residual value at all.
Three, you think spending on services is useless but spending on physical goods is useful? Then you don't understand economics. GDP makes no distinction between the two, nor should it. If you eat at a restaurant, the ingredients are GDP but the services that prepare and serve the food are not GDP? Think about it.
Fourth, all government money has to go somewhere. Whether it is welfare programs employing social workers or providing cash benefits, the money enters the economy, it doesn't disappear into nowhere.
Ultimately, you are forgetting the broken window. Spending government money does not create new money, it is taxpayer money that could have been spent on something else.
Find your countrys GDP.
So the real question becomes, does Canada spend more or less on the military than Texas :)
From what I read, raising the debt only postpones the cost and incrues interest. The arguement goes on to state that the only way to pay for that increased debt is to increase taxes or cut spending.
Dude, "incrue" is not a word. Start making arguments that actually make sense and I will stop making fun of you. I don't care if you agree with me or not, but quit wasting our time with illogical idiocy.
It's always hilarious when people take absolute values and don't use percentages when trying to make points. It makes perfect sense that the country with the number one economy would have the number one defense budget.
Re: Bohemian Grove
"A fellow British journalist, Jon Ronson of Channel 4, documented his view of the ritual in his book, Them: Adventures With Extremists. Ronson's interpretation of the ritual was more sanguine; he felt it was a startlingly immature and weird way for world leaders to behave on their summer vacation, but did not see evidence of covert Satanism." (Source: Wikipedia: Bohemian Grove)
Jon posted to the JREF forums a rather lengthy excerpt from his book regarding Bohemian Grove. As soon as the forum comes back up, I'll dig up the link...
The only article you need to read about Bohemiam Grove.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/01/24/MN115878.DTL
The last paragraph sums it up nicely. It's just too bad Alex Jones isn't getting the same treatment.
Post a Comment
<< Home