This style of writing is plainly not objective. It's clearly meant to inflame emotions as opposed to engaging intellects. I don't like it. I don't know enough about international politics and macroeconomics to propose arguments for or against his conclusions. He himself doesn't present any arguments with premises that I can investigate or inferential links I can question the logic of. Overall this is a terrible article even if everything he says is true. It's an article written for a very particular audience that already agrees with the author 100% and so he has no need or motivation to defend his claims.
Glad you liked it ;p The article presents a different narrative. You are right, there is not a lot of substantiation going on. I'd make that same criticism about most articles outside academic papers, though. We're just more used to accepting the assumptions those "Forbes", "Business Insider" and NYT articles make, because they're repeated a lot. That's why I got into the habit of doing the fact-checking myself if an article's proposition strikes me as remarkable / plausible but insufficiently documented. Maybe you think it's neither - and that's fine, too.
Fact is, I don't consider the "official" narrative about what's going on with our economies terribly plausible. It'd be nice if we were able to somehow show a message before someone is sent to a link. It'd be good to let people know what one thinks is interesting about a site, offer additional information or caveats.
I do appreciate the alternative narrative, and I find most articles on economics and international politics from most places equally poor for the same reasons. Definitely no debating that. I don't know much about economics but I do know that something isn't right just because it sounds plausible. This goes for economics, it goes for physics, it goes for chemistry, it goes for biology, it goes for psychology, it goes for anything. There's usually more than one equally plausible explanation for any given occurrence, and I'd say this applies here. This narrative doesn't strike me as any more plausible than the typical narrative presented by most mainstream sources. Humans failing to accurately predict human behavior and set up appropriate monetary systems and safeguards to account for human behavior seems just as plausible to me as "an elaborate Kabuki theater run by international financiers and globalists" in order to trick the global public into supporting their end goals. The only way to decide which is more likely to be true to reality is, as you said, to check the facts presented and to question the logic of the arguments presented. I just wish this article presented more facts and more arguments. The ideas are interesting and compelling, but so is the idea that aliens helped ancient Egyptians construct the pyramids.
You know what, I agree. I'll try to find an article which offers more in the way of debatable arguments and verifiable facts next time. Guess I still have to get used to people actually reading things instead of just using them as an excuse to get their oppinion out there :)I just wish this article presented more facts and more arguments. The ideas are interesting and compelling, but so is the idea that aliens helped ancient Egyptians construct the pyramids.
The term "conspiracy" has quite successfully been converted into code for "insane people making ridiculous claims which no sane person should even consider, lest the instanity stare back into them." Which is interesting, given that of course people conspire with each other all the time. Usually there's nothing actually wrong with that. Of course, from Mkultra ("The government is doing illegal human experiments! They're drugging, torturing and sexually abusing people!") to Project TP-Ajax ("Hay, let's blow up some mosques but blame it on the communists!") to the Tuskegee syphilis experiment ("You know, Bob, sometimes I wonder if they aren't actually treating us just to see how we die.") to, say, the government spying extensively on people domestic and abroad... People in actual power conspiring to commit what can only be called manipulation and crimes against humanity has been proven to actually happen time and time again. I just picked some examples at random, the list of known and proven instances of this stuff actually taking place is huge. So, you know, I'll gladly take put on my tinfoil hat to make sure the alien mind rays don't get through... if in return, everyone stops demanding that every significant diversion from the official narrative be instantly flagged "Please disregard this and returned to your scheduled programming." The term "conspiracy theory" is used liberally for any narrative which significantly deviates from whatever is considered mainstream consensus. See "Manufacturing consent" by Chomski for how much that is often worth. Is there plenty of bullshit theories and claims going around? So many that it becomes almost impossible not to get lost in the storm of lunatic claims? Yes, absolutely. But that goes for both sides of the fence. I'll certainly not put alternative narratives into the "conspiracy" universe unless I regard them more or less purely speculative or merely entertaining. Should I want to discuss how the queen of England is a lizzard, I'll consider using the tag. I think both politics and economics are relevant to the question at hand. The governments of the world are doing a lot to make sure our oppinions stay on the right track. They don't need your help.
You know, all the globalist dealings are predicated on the existence of political power. If the masses weren't ruled over, brainwashed and propagandized at full blast, we wouldn't be walking into the slaughterhouse. A large part of the solution is getting people to see that we shouldn't have rulers, and encouraging self-reliance and de-centralization in people's lives.
Well, to be literal, yes, the U.S. and EU will collapse eventually. Nothing is permanent, the only constant is change itself. Just a matter of how long into the future it'll happen, either by growth, integration, transformation, decay or who knows what else. I love how chaos is intertwined with all of existence, the upheaval of it all, and only wish I had a more objective viewpoint, one that can see millennia at a time, universes within universes.
Eh, I skimmed through this article. Admittedly, I do not know enough about macroeconomics and international affairs to suppose if the Greek debt crisis is part of an orchestrated plan by international banking firms for the goal...what? World domination? I do, however, agree with his point at the end that a universal currency would be terrifying. I do not think that would be good for a labor force.
World Domination is so 1930s. Like you, I do not know enough about what's really going on at top levels to comment on what the endgame is, if there is an endgame. Actually, I don't know what's worse - the idea of wealthy globalists planning economic world domination or the idea that actually, nobody really knows what the fuck is going on and how to deal with it. There are wealthy (as in, doubleplus rich) people who own important pieces of the economic infrastructure and who influence economic and political policy through various forms of [lobbying] or [corruption] or [deciding the next president at Bilderberg's]. I'm quite sure the former two are true and I suspect the third may at least have some truth to it. Are those people working towards a common goal? Are they at each other's throats, just like everyone else? No idea. Was the Greek crisis orchestrated? Dunno. Is it being handled in the most counter-productive way possible? I think so. I don't neccessarily post an article because I am sure that every conclusion is true. It is a different (and, just imo, more plausible) analysis to the ones you'll find in mainstream media, somthing to think about, maybe something to talk about.
Oh, no I'm stoked you posted it. It's thought provoking. Sometimes I wonder if it's a game where the ultra wealthy elite such as media moguls make plans for example who will be the next president, and then basically battle the public with their agenda. Like a strategy game, media influence and resources vs will of the people and individuality. That's probably more of a post-modern 1984 fiction than the more mundane truth. I tend to think nobody really knows what's going on. Everyone is just working from their vantage point sometimes at odds with each other sometimes together. All of the actors constantly subverting everyone creating an almost absurdist plot.