My little conspiracy theory -- am I crazy?

[Capitalocracy]

So I have a little conspiracy theory here. Perhaps I'm crazy, I don't know. I'll let you be the judge.

QE, Quantitative Easing... essentially, handing over billions of dollars to the bank at near-zero interest rates.

What did the banks do with that money? Well, much of it was invested in government bonds. This is widely recognized among progressives as a backdoor bailout... low-interest loans invested back into the government at higher interest is just free money.

But take it a step further. S&P famously publicly questioned the stability of investing in the U.S., calling into question our ability to pay back our loans. A lot of people have come up with interesting theories like they're trying to undermine Obama, they're trying to affect the economic recovery, they're trying to influence Congress to go ahead with the shock doctrine-esque budget cuts, etc.

But I have another theory. How can you increase the interest rates on government bonds without increasing the Fed interest rate at which banks borrow? You question the ability of the U.S. government to pay back its loans and hope this raises the interest rates they offer to attract investors. I think what S&P did was a manipulation meant to inflate the size of this backdoor bailout, shoveling more taxpayer funds into the hands of the bankers by increasing the interest rate on government bonds purchased by banks without increasing the interest rate at which those banks borrow the money to buy them from the government. We know S&P has a history of manipulating markets through their biased ratings, helping create the financial collapse.

I know I'm late to the game talking about the S&P story and nobody's talking about it and it's not in the news anymore and all anyone is talking about now is a wedding and a birth certificate, and maybe some tornadoes, but I thought I'd post my little conspiracy theory and see what you guys think. Am I Glenn Beck crazy?

[Coyote_Bandit]

1. I think what S&P did was

to publicly acknowledge that our economy is badly if not irreparably BROKEN.

It is criminal that the dumbshits in Washington can't manage to acknowledge and address that. They are trying to stimulate and reinvigorate a consumer economy which is ultimately unsustainable.

Meanwhile, we are a nation of lazy ass white collar workers who don't want to break a sweat or get our hands dirty. We like being consumers. But we don't like working in a service economy.

As a nation, we lack the leadership, the skills, the infrastructure, the creativity and both the personal and political will to rebuild an economy built on real productivity.

Our government embraces globalization - and seems to be ignorant that the ultimate end of globalization is a single worldwide standard of living. A standard that will result in increased prosperity among poorer nations - and a declining standard of living in wealthier nations.

This should be a wake-up call. But we'll snore right through it.

[Solomon]

2. Unfortunately any threads about banks and banking policy

drops like a rock. Clearly something's not right with our banking system, but nobody really wants to talk about it. Gossip and politics are a lot easier.

I've been studying the federal reserve bank. Lots of people act like you're a "grassy knoll" person when you mention it, but I still feel in my gut, something's not quite right about it. You hear people saying things like the president picks the chairman, and the families who own the banks involved have to purchase subscriptions. But if the damn thing is non-profit to the banks involved, why the hell do they crawl over each other to be part of it? If the bank picks the president (no proof this is the case) what difference would it make that the prseident picks the Chairman?

I don't know. After studying it for a while I may just find that it's perfectly altruistic. Right now my gut still tells me, something is going on.

Pardon me while I put my flak jacket back on. :hide:

[Capitalocracy]

3. Oh, the Fed is obviously corrupt.

And I'm not one of those conspiracy guys that thinks we need to be using gold. Gold is a commodity just like any other, subject to manipulation and bubbles (one of which might be happening right now), and the best you can do basing currency on gold is create false scarcity. It would be better if currency were more based on how much money is needed to pay workers, expanding with the population, etc. But I think there's something fundamentally flawed with the idea of currency distribution being solely in the hands of the banks. I mean, what do you know, banks are in charge of our currency policy, and coincidentally, the banks have all the money, their CEOs are the richest group of people on the planet, and they get to decide who does or does not have access to funds to start businesses. It's kind of a disaster.

I think you can be against the Fed as it exists today without wearing one of these. :tinfoilhat:

[Solomon]

4. What I hate about it is that it seems that the same banks that are

a part of it are the banks that fund all wars including both sides. They loan us money to make weapons and war and our taxes are the security for the debt. Something is just not right about that.

It was documented that somebody made a killing on the stock market regarding the 9-11 incident. I thought to myself, well they can easily trace who made the money. Later they quietly reported that Lehamn Brothers, Merill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, etc. made billions off of that but then the very same banks got billions in bail-out money. Where did the money go? Directly into individual's pockets, that's where, without so much as getting near a teller's booth.

Something is definitely amiss.