Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
A cabal runs the world. Every market becomes a monopoly or a cartel in the absence of regulatory forces. There’s no world police, therefore the Rothschilds, Carnegies, Mellons, etc. would have coordinated to divvy up territory and install puppet rulers. They’re not going to waste resources competing when they can cooperate. They stay out of the public eye so they don’t get targeted and don’t have to suffer the burdens of being famous.
The issue with this type of conspiracy is that it seems a little too optimistic. If there was a secret organisation with the power and cunning to control the entire world in secret, then you'd expect they'd do a better job of running the place. Right now, the economy is in shambles, there's wars just about everywhere, and the planet is on fire. I doubt anyone who can put the world in a condition this bad could keep a secret from literally everyone.
When the economy is in shambles they buy-up assets at a steep discount. Wars are big money-makers too. It looks like things are going great for them.
I'm not denying there are rich assholes who profit from disasters, but there's no master plan. There's no group with total control over the world. The vultures are pecking at the same carcass, but they definitely didn't kill the beast. If they were strong enough to kill it, then why are they fighting each other over the scraps?
The conspiracy is a pipe-dream that there's someone in control of a world constantly thrown into chaos. It's a belief that the pilot is in control of the plane and this turbulence is just them having a bit of fun, even as the engines catch on fire. I'd love to be idealistic enough to believe this could be true, but I can feel the heat coming off of the engines and I can hear the pilot yelling at his co-pilot about who gets to fly.
That may be, I'm just dismissing that "assets are cheap" is evidence that there is no cabal. I'm not sure who is fighting over the scraps- Rothschilds and Carnegies? I haven't heard of that.
I don't know about "pipe-dream". There are organizations we're aware of that literally control economic conditions of the world such as the Federal Reserve. Do you remember voting for anyone on the Fed board? They are appointed by presidents. We vote for a president in America- but we can decide between the rep-party backed candidate or the dem-party backed candidate. If you can't convince one party to support you there is literally 0 chance to win in a "first-past-the-post" electoral system. I see a system of "checks and balances" but not one that benefits us.
I think that your scenario is more likely (which to me, is that what we're seeing is just the outcome of deregulated capitalism) but I wouldn't fall out of my chair to find that strings are being intentionally pulled by the people who control the world to benefit themselves.
They’re living high on the hog and don’t care how the sheep are doing. In fact it’s better for them if the sheep are in disarray so they don’t have the energy to revolt. And as another commenter said, constant war and economic turmoil is good for them because they can buy up assets and war profiteer to stay in control of the lions share of the wealth. They could totally run the world so it’s a better place for everyone but then they wouldn’t get to stay in power and live on mega yachts. Or in their private bunkers if it comes to that.
The pentaverate. Don't forget the Colonel.
Rothschilds are actually a fascinating family, almost none of the accusations thrown at them are born out in real history and a huge part of the stories are opposites - Alex Jones was yelling about them doing all the intentional slave trade, actually they lent the money to the British government to end it when all the other bankers refuse because they were outspoken campaigners against slavery.
Of course he's an idiot even for right wing conspiracy theorists but the more reasonable anti Rothschild taking points all stem from the same pedigree, it's like a snowball that's kept rolling. I'm sure they've got plenty of corruption in their past and present but the idea of them as this super powerful evil elite just doesn't really hold water.
Oh and I agree with your concept but rich people are too greedy to cooperate, they work together to fuck us over but they'd fuck each other over in a heartbeat
That’s interesting and good to know. Is there a good biography or show you’d recommend to read up on them?
I get your point about selfishness, but we still got the 5 Families mafia, and the cartels in Mexico. And the robber barons had to be taken down by the Sherman anti-trust act. Are the super rich above them somehow at a different level of selfishness? It may be true, that you have to be a sociopath at a higher level to be at the true top of the totem pole, that’s an interesting question. Unfortunately not something that’s easy to research for obvious reasons.
Yeah it's a sorting problem, in capitalism every decision where it's morality Vs profits the worst person gains more power. Take Microsoft as an example, they used immoral business practices because they were obsessed with creating monopolies while many of the company's they famously destroyed were run by people who were tech obsessives and cared about making a better world.
I absolutely agree the super rich are conspiring to fuck over regular people, I also think being super rich is horrible for your mental health. Elon as a great example, so many of them end up lonely and isolated but also in the spotlight so they feel they have something to prove and the only thing they have is money so they use the to try and get the respect they're desperate for - I think that's why a lot of them turn heavily towards people that do worship their money.