Infrastructure in Your Area?

[Fish]

When their kids were breathing in lead all day, they got rid of leaded gas.

 

 

 

I love moms, I had one. Im pretty sure it was a man(Clair Patterson) that "lead" that fight, and it was not easy. Not that it matters, just fyi.......

 

Oh...and we just got a few new bridges. One across the Ohio in Madison, and one in Louisville. They are also redoing I- 65, the local highways have mostly been repaved in the last few years. It could be better, or worse, the state is in the black I think.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Fish

[Jeff Matthews]

Jo, that was an excellent synopsis, and I mean that.

 

In addition, I want to add an observation I believe to be fact and which somewhat detracts from the "conspiracy" part of your theory.

 

The forces are exactly as you describe, except for one thing.  They are coming from all directions.  There are so many competing forces in politics that even though "money" buys policy for obvious reasons, the question being begged is whose money?  CitiGroup's?  Merill Lynch's?  You see money coming from everywhere... from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Infrastructure to Big Prisons, etc.

 

The amount of distinct forces operating on politics is bewildering.  It's not a few dozen guys pulling the strings from some darkened, heavily-guarded, sub-surface bunker with unfathomable technology.  There is no "war room" of conspirators.  The conspirators are everyone from everywhere.  Obviously, one Wal-Mart is probably equal to 150 million of you and me... maybe more.  But one Wal-Mart is not worth 150 million Microsofts.

 

You have described the ugly side of the process just fine.  How else could politics work?  People are innately who they are, whether they grow up under the guise of "communism," "socialism," etc.  All of those -ism's are not unlike "the law."  They are theories.  They are intangible.  They are matters of faith, limited by human fallacy.  Some people ascribe to the idea of "Natural Law," for example.  They believe that "man-made" laws are fallible and always remain in search of the "Natural Law."  It's a mere aspiration, just like communism and socialism.  It will never exist.

 

You will never have a government for "the people" operating under some impossible notion that "all men are created equal."  Accept it for what it is.  It's cool to point it out and talk about it, and I certainly enjoy people's thoughts on the topic because it is so complicated.

 

Sometimes, however, I am getting the impression that you think, "It's all so simple to fix if they'd just do all the things I say they should do."  If you think that way, you should practice drafting a set of laws so you can ascertain how impossible it is to come up with the right set... especially given the fact that you have things getting in the way such as "prosecutorial discretion."  Heck, if the PTB won't follow the laws (and you know they won't), there is no amount of dreaming-up of rules that will ever suffice.

 

I think the whole process is very organic.  I don't think we are so capable of engineering as you seem to believe.  I think the whole thing just kind-of happens, much like the idea of the Big Bang.  What caused it?  Who knows?  It just is.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Jeff Matthews

[Jim Naseum]

Jo, that was an excellent synopsis, and I mean that.

 

In addition, I want to add an observation I believe to be fact and which somewhat detracts from the "conspiracy" part of your theory.

 

The forces are exactly as you describe, except for one thing.  They are coming from all directions.  There are so many competing forces in politics that even though "money" buys policy for obvious reasons, the question being begged is whose money?  CitiGroup's?  Merill Lynch's?  You see money coming from everywhere... from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Infrastructure to Big Prisons, etc.

 

The amount of distinct forces operating on politics is bewildering.  It's not a few dozen guys pulling the strings from some darkened, heavily-guarded, sub-surface bunker with unfathomable technology.  There is no "war room" of conspirators.  The conspirators are everyone from everywhere.  Obviously, one Wal-Mart is probably equal to 150 million of you and me... maybe more.  But one Wal-Mart is not worth 150 million Microsofts.

 

You have described the ugly side of the process just fine.  How else could politics work?  People are innately who they are, whether they grow up under the guise of "communism," "socialism," etc.  All of those -ism's are not unlike "the law."  They are theories.  They are intangible.  They are matters of faith, limited by human fallacy.  Some people ascribe to the idea of "Natural Law," for example.  They believe that "man-made" laws are fallible and always remain in search of the "Natural Law."  It's a mere aspiration, just like communism and socialism.  It will never exist.

 

You will never have a government for "the people" operating under some impossible notion that "all men are created equal."  Accept it for what it is.  It's cool to point it out and talk about it, and I certainly enjoy people's thoughts on the topic because it is so complicated.

 

Sometimes, however, I am getting the impression that you think, "It's all so simple to fix if they'd just do all the things I say they should do."  If you think that way, you should practice drafting a set of laws so you can ascertain how impossible it is to come up with the right set... especially given the fact that you have things getting in the way such as "prosecutorial discretion."  Heck, if the PTB won't follow the laws (and you know they won't), there is no amount of dreaming-up of rules that will ever suffice.

 

I think the whole process is very organic.  I don't think we are so capable of engineering as you seem to believe.  I think the whole thing just kind-of happens, much like the idea of the Big Bang.  What caused it?  Who knows?  It just is.

 

Yes, it would seem at first pass to be unorganized and sort of chaotic. I have thought long and hard about what sort of "order" can be put to it, or described for it. So, let me add a few thoughts. 

1. Conspiracy is too much of a loaded word to try to use in popular culture. It gets mixed up with "absurd conspiracy theory" and then all hope of explanation is lost. 

2. The way I arrive at an organizing hypothesis is to look really hard at the results and work back words.

3. History can be used to show that the wealthy have very similar objectives in every age. 

 

From that, I do NOT subscribe to any kind of "backroom conspiracy of men." However, I believe strongly in the "common interests of men." For example, we know that the rich want lower taxes, lower wages**, reduced government spending and breakdown of labor unions. So, when they simply pursue those interests, there will be government pressure to lower taxes, lower wages and reduce spending....etc. 

 

Furthermore, the truly dark money, that is the $35T or so that isn't on any books, is held mostly by sovereigns and banking cartels. And those interests are also in agreement, and since they are dominating the running of central banks (I don't here mean the "FED CHAIRMAN" which is a perfunctory position, I mean the guys who back the central banks with actual wealth), they are in a major policy making crux in all countries. 

 

What Are Their Fears?

 This dark money has several common fears also. 

1. They are scared to death that if people live into their 80s after retiring at 67, the medical costs will be astronomical to society. Since these people are literally the "final source" of wealth, they fear that this massive cost will fall on them, wiping out their trillions in reserves. So, they act on that fear, by forcing (persuading, if you prefer) legislators to pass laws like raise the retirement age, cap off the benefits, freeze and increases, and so on. This is called "austerity" and it is pushed onto societies from Greece to Portugal, to the UK and to some degree the USA. 

2. They are scared to death of rising populations. To a man (or woman) they are almost all misanthropists and eugenicists. 

3. They fear capital controls returning. Since 1972 or so, the world has featured free movement of all capital. Any attempt at capital controls is fought off tooth and nail.

 

USA

We see a short list of over arching policies that NEVER change, no matter the political structure in place. Those policies are:

*Neoliberal economics (e.g. Milton Friedman, Chicago School)

*militarism - massive military budgets

*Global hegemony through military force

*Constant and perpetual covert action throughout the world to fight any left leaning tendancy

*Anti unionism

*Deep internal support for fascism, including training and $$ support for hard right military leaders throughout the world

*Highly regulated  global trade agreements often running to thousands of pages, which secure US interests above all others

*Support for a massive international war on drugs

 

That list of general policies has not changed since the mid 1970s. Doesn't matter who is president or who runs congress. The reason it doesn't change is that those policies are the current consensus of the global dark money scions. Of which there are less than 100. So, to that degree, it acts a bit like a conspiracy. And,there are laws broken all the time by the instigation of one or more of these actors. The LIBOR scandal is an example, as is the manipulation of the gold market and the current manipulation of the oil markets. To that extent, there is a "conspiracy" - but it's a conspiracy by interest (not a legal term, of course.)

 

There is purpose to it all. Their purpose. 

 

Now finally, can anything be done? No. And I don't promote any ideas for changing it. In the broadest sense, it has been with us for 10 thousand years and is never going away until some future date when a new purpose, other than the materialism is discovered. 

 

Why am I interested? Because knowing how it works keeps me from wasting time on the superficial theatrical part of it, which is basically retail politics. 

 

--------------------------

** Governments lower wages by negotiating global trade agreements that feature free movement of capital. This creates a persistent labor surplus which works to drive labor costs down by not letting them rise with productivity gains.

Edited January 31, 2016 by jo56steph74

[LarryC]

hey are resented because they were smart enough to take the lower salary in favor of the better benefits they were lured with.  While they were making less than their private sector counterparts, they were outside of social security, and that money was being invested in some form of pension plan for their benefit.  Most, have been able to achieve a better result than social security.

Travis, isn't that in part because SS and all federal pensions like military have had very small to no annual increases because those are limited to CPI-urban COLAs?  In recent years, the increase has been ZERO percent, which in no way keeps up with, for example, increases in property taxes.

 

I think this has been part of the game-rigging that Eliz. Warren refers to.  It has shifted wealth and income downward for those recipients.  And yet, the proponents of the "opportunity society" seem to want to cut SS.

[mungkiman]

SSA COLAs: https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/automatic-cola.htm

 

The most recent years with a 0% increase are 2010 and 2011. Otherwise, the COLAs from the SSA represent an average increase of almost 3% per year.

[oldtimer]

And yet, the proponents of the "opportunity society" seem to want to cut SS.

 

Not for them, for the younger generations.

[mungkiman]

As long as I get mine.

[Jim Naseum]

For 2016 our increase in Social Security benefit was 0%.

Rent is up, food is up, gas is down, insurance is up. Healthcare is way up.

But what is THE single most telling statistic about the future of pensions and retirement? Here it is: life expectancy has fallen for the third time since 1980. Death by financial engineering.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

The Social Security & Medicare system has been engineered to statistically drive the LE downward gradually. I would bet the unspoken target is 70 to 75 years max.

With real dollar reductions in benefits, coupled with the worst diet in the developed world, they should reach that goal very soon. Maybe five years.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[mungkiman]

But what is THE single most telling statistic about the future of pensions and retirement? Here it is: life expectancy has fallen for the third time since 1980. Death by financial engineering.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[T2K]

The larger point being why the resentment?  Usually a public sector life (Washington politicians excluded) inherently involves a lower salary than a commensurate private job.  The benefits were supposedly designed to compensate. Beyond that, corporations are sitting on billions of dollars in cash.   The ostensible reason is because they see no place for investment.  God forbid they invest in their employees.  The employees make their money for them, the shareholders, the manager bonuses.  Yet instead of being perceived as assets (as taught in business school) they are regarded as cost units.  Not people, but cost units.  So my earlier question arises.  Why not demand a decent retirement as a condition of employment?   Oh you say you can't?  newsflash, this is what unions are about.  or used to be until the laws have stripped the "normal guy" of any real collective bargaining power.

 

Thanks for that OT. There is a race to the bottom nowadays. Lets point our fingers at someone that has done better for themselves than we feel like we have done for ourselves and take 'em down a notch. People that work for a living play right into the hands of those that are responsible for their faltering standard of living rather than to unite for the betterment of everyone.

 

There is a lot that I would like to express here but I learned a long time ago that it's a waste of time.

 

Working people there their own worst enemy. Rather than to actually do something it is easier to just point fingers and say something stupid.

 

Keith

[T2K]

 

Looking at the big picture of this country it is clear that it's "rotting from the inside out" ....... not just infrastructure but the whole damn thing.....it's sad.....

 

However, even though that is perfectly true....

1. Business profits are at all time highs

2. Cash held by corporations is also at all time highs..

3. Total private wealth is at all time highs and growing fast

4. Market caps for the S&P 500 continue to rise

5. Asset prices continue to rise

 

Now, put that into the context of a rotting physical infrastructure and what is the conclusion? 

 

 

How does your list relate to the Obama statement 'you didn't build it', or whatever he said, line? 

 

Keith

[T2K]

 

 

The larger point being why the resentment?  Usually a public sector life (Washington politicians excluded) inherently involves a lower salary than a commensurate private job.  The benefits were supposedly designed to compensate. Beyond that, corporations are sitting on billions of dollars in cash.   The ostensible reason is because they see no place for investment.  God forbid they invest in their employees.  The employees make their money for them, the shareholders, the manager bonuses.  Yet instead of being perceived as assets (as taught in business school) they are regarded as cost units.  Not people, but cost units.  So my earlier question arises.  Why not demand a decent retirement as a condition of employment?   Oh you say you can't?  newsflash, this is what unions are about.  or used to be until the laws have stripped the "normal guy" of any real collective bargaining power.

 

They are resented because they were smart enough to take the lower salary in favor of the better benefits they were lured with.  While they were making less than their private sector counterparts, they were outside of social security, and that money was being invested in some form of pension plan for their benefit.  Most, have been able to achieve a better result than social security.

 

Railroad retirement, military retirement, teacher retirement and on and on. 

 

Cities, Counties (Parish) and States can hire outside  contractors for any, or all of road needs.  Construction, maintenance whatever.  In a growing area it is typically cheaper to do that in house.   

 

To partially answer the rhetorical question, the resentment stems from that was then this is now.  These opportunities don't exist for the post boomers.  Yes Mallette, it's the generational warfare you disdain, but it exists all the same.

 

 

My Dad never drove a Toyota.

 

Keith

[Jim Naseum]

I don't follow retail politics at all. Whatever it was he said, is of no importance to anything that matters.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[T2K]

I don't follow retail politics at all. Whatever it was he said, is of no importance to anything that matters.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

Like 'inversions' huh?

 

Keith

[LarryC]

Not for them, for the younger generations.

No.  A change like chained CPI affects everyone.  The effect is gradual and becomes noticeable after only a few years and beyond.  Compare this gradual chiseling with the dramatic income increases for top income earners.  The net would be a widening gap between the rich and middle incomes and the poor.  How we got into our decline to begin with.  A rigged system made worse.

Edited January 31, 2016 by LarryC

[JJkizak]

 

Jo, that was an excellent synopsis, and I mean that.

 

In addition, I want to add an observation I believe to be fact and which somewhat detracts from the "conspiracy" part of your theory.

 

The forces are exactly as you describe, except for one thing.  They are coming from all directions.  There are so many competing forces in politics that even though "money" buys policy for obvious reasons, the question being begged is whose money?  CitiGroup's?  Merill Lynch's?  You see money coming from everywhere... from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Infrastructure to Big Prisons, etc.

 

The amount of distinct forces operating on politics is bewildering.  It's not a few dozen guys pulling the strings from some darkened, heavily-guarded, sub-surface bunker with unfathomable technology.  There is no "war room" of conspirators.  The conspirators are everyone from everywhere.  Obviously, one Wal-Mart is probably equal to 150 million of you and me... maybe more.  But one Wal-Mart is not worth 150 million Microsofts.

 

You have described the ugly side of the process just fine.  How else could politics work?  People are innately who they are, whether they grow up under the guise of "communism," "socialism," etc.  All of those -ism's are not unlike "the law."  They are theories.  They are intangible.  They are matters of faith, limited by human fallacy.  Some people ascribe to the idea of "Natural Law," for example.  They believe that "man-made" laws are fallible and always remain in search of the "Natural Law."  It's a mere aspiration, just like communism and socialism.  It will never exist.

 

You will never have a government for "the people" operating under some impossible notion that "all men are created equal."  Accept it for what it is.  It's cool to point it out and talk about it, and I certainly enjoy people's thoughts on the topic because it is so complicated.

 

Sometimes, however, I am getting the impression that you think, "It's all so simple to fix if they'd just do all the things I say they should do."  If you think that way, you should practice drafting a set of laws so you can ascertain how impossible it is to come up with the right set... especially given the fact that you have things getting in the way such as "prosecutorial discretion."  Heck, if the PTB won't follow the laws (and you know they won't), there is no amount of dreaming-up of rules that will ever suffice.

 

I think the whole process is very organic.  I don't think we are so capable of engineering as you seem to believe.  I think the whole thing just kind-of happens, much like the idea of the Big Bang.  What caused it?  Who knows?  It just is.

 

Yes, it would seem at first pass to be unorganized and sort of chaotic. I have thought long and hard about what sort of "order" can be put to it, or described for it. So, let me add a few thoughts. 

1. Conspiracy is too much of a loaded word to try to use in popular culture. It gets mixed up with "absurd conspiracy theory" and then all hope of explanation is lost. 

2. The way I arrive at an organizing hypothesis is to look really hard at the results and work back words.

3. History can be used to show that the wealthy have very similar objectives in every age. 

 

From that, I do NOT subscribe to any kind of "backroom conspiracy of men." However, I believe strongly in the "common interests of men." For example, we know that the rich want lower taxes, lower wages**, reduced government spending and breakdown of labor unions. So, when they simply pursue those interests, there will be government pressure to lower taxes, lower wages and reduce spending....etc. 

 

Furthermore, the truly dark money, that is the $35T or so that isn't on any books, is held mostly by sovereigns and banking cartels. And those interests are also in agreement, and since they are dominating the running of central banks (I don't here mean the "FED CHAIRMAN" which is a perfunctory position, I mean the guys who back the central banks with actual wealth), they are in a major policy making crux in all countries. 

 

What Are Their Fears?

 This dark money has several common fears also. 

1. They are scared to death that if people live into their 80s after retiring at 67, the medical costs will be astronomical to society. Since these people are literally the "final source" of wealth, they fear that this massive cost will fall on them, wiping out their trillions in reserves. So, they act on that fear, by forcing (persuading, if you prefer) legislators to pass laws like raise the retirement age, cap off the benefits, freeze and increases, and so on. This is called "austerity" and it is pushed onto societies from Greece to Portugal, to the UK and to some degree the USA. 

2. They are scared to death of rising populations. To a man (or woman) they are almost all misanthropists and eugenicists. 

3. They fear capital controls returning. Since 1972 or so, the world has featured free movement of all capital. Any attempt at capital controls is fought off tooth and nail.

 

USA

We see a short list of over arching policies that NEVER change, no matter the political structure in place. Those policies are:

*Neoliberal economics (e.g. Milton Friedman, Chicago School)

*militarism - massive military budgets

*Global hegemony through military force

*Constant and perpetual covert action throughout the world to fight any left leaning tendancy

*Anti unionism

*Deep internal support for fascism, including training and $$ support for hard right military leaders throughout the world

*Highly regulated  global trade agreements often running to thousands of pages, which secure US interests above all others

*Support for a massive international war on drugs

 

That list of general policies has not changed since the mid 1970s. Doesn't matter who is president or who runs congress. The reason it doesn't change is that those policies are the current consensus of the global dark money scions. Of which there are less than 100. So, to that degree, it acts a bit like a conspiracy. And,there are laws broken all the time by the instigation of one or more of these actors. The LIBOR scandal is an example, as is the manipulation of the gold market and the current manipulation of the oil markets. To that extent, there is a "conspiracy" - but it's a conspiracy by interest (not a legal term, of course.)

 

There is purpose to it all. Their purpose. 

 

Now finally, can anything be done? No. And I don't promote any ideas for changing it. In the broadest sense, it has been with us for 10 thousand years and is never going away until some future date when a new purpose, other than the materialism is discovered. 

 

Why am I interested? Because knowing how it works keeps me from wasting time on the superficial theatrical part of it, which is basically retail politics. 

 

--------------------------

** Governments lower wages by negotiating global trade agreements that feature free movement of capital. This creates a persistent labor surplus which works to drive labor costs down by not letting them rise with productivity gains.

 

You forgot to mention the diamond market which if England released all of the stored diamonds to the market a diamond ring would be worth 10 cents.

JJK

[Jim Naseum]

Or less.

My favorite laughable diamond story is the marketing of "chocolate" diamonds. These are brown diamonds that formerly had zero value as jewelry because they are by nature defective.

But, a clever campaign turned these worthless dirt diamonds into gemstones by waving the advertising wand!

Diamonds and diet pills the two biggest scams there are.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation.

 

Mainstream? There it is in a nutshell - why people take the superficially visible, over a deeper look behind the curtains. History is written by the Establishment. And, it is written to serve their interest. To make them look good and to further their rule. That interest is the maintaining of the status quo aristocracy in every nation. The class system, where one class rules, and the other class serves.

 

Suppose you read the history of the "Glorious Revolution" where the Dutch Prince, William of Orange unseats King James. The history says it is about the mistrust of the Catholic regime, and a desire to bring Protestantism back to England. But, that's all on the surface, the nominal story. What is underneath and driving the events is a banking story. A banking revolution even. Maybe the most significant banking revolution ever (beginning of modern capitalism). And, that revolution was the change needed to make the English Empire, the largest in history. In short, the English and Dutch East India companies both had state monopolies for trade in India, but the Dutch were kicking the butts of the English. Why? Because the Dutch had invented a far better banking system. In simple terms - the first "central bank", which allowed the Dutch government to borrow at far lower rates than the English crown, giving a massive advantage to the Dutch trading system. This change in banking was the absolute cornerstone of colonialism. Changing the world dramatically for 250 years.

 

I suppose there are a couple reasons the masses disavow and deny the power of money to drive all the events they see. Money might be a crass subject. Money is a complicated subject involving lots of jargon, lots of math, and most of it boring. And, the Bankers themselves always reject the public spotlight in favor of working behind the curtain. The Banker is the exact personality opposite of the General, who adores the public limelight and praise and admiration. The General lives for glory and the Banker lives for money. In the last 10,000 years or so, Greed has been considered ugly, rude, declasse and immoral, whereas glory is a product of sacrifice, and considered very virtuous. Generals are therefore revered, and Bankers despised. That's a universal moral constant.

 

Therefore, when history is written by the establishment scholars, the Generals and Rulers prominently provide nearly all the motivation and cause behind events. If written that way, history looks political, when in fact, it is always financial. But who is going to write great volumes about greedy Bankers? Who would read it? How many inspirational stories will arise from greed?

 

There's no one in America who isn't familiar with the term, "follow the money," from "All the President's Men." But it has become too common, and clearly it gets ignored. People don't want to follow the money. it's too boring compared to say, follow the glory. 

 

Every aspect of life for the past 10,000 years has it's ultimate motivation in money generally, and in the last 500 years, banking specifically. You will never discover this by reading establishment history. Bankers are the ultimate puppet masters holding the strings. It's not "absurd", it's reality.

[Travis In Austin]

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.

No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.

That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.

If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it.

That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things.

Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news.

The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd.

Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US.

But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.

First off, your response is exceptionally rude. When people's long standing beliefs are challenged, this kind of reaction of outrage is typical, but none the less unpleasant.

What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open.

And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface.

1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more.

2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world.

3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture.

Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired.

But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands:

Assumptions:

1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions.

2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all.

3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds.

4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery.

Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board.

How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that.

1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy.

2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions.

3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world.

4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy.

Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers?

If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going.

Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes?

Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes?

Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending?

Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending?

Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves.

Summary

The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure.

This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there.

It is all out there, and I am happy to post all of the whacko websites that espouse this drivel.

From a dozen bankers who control the world and what type of infrastructure they will allow us to have in the US in the posts up above to the massive retreat just above is pretty astounding. You are extrapolating real problems/issues in this Country into conspiracy theories.

It is out there, way out there. For example, you left out the most important part, those dozen or so bankers are controled by aliens.

"Goode’s description makes it almost certain that the person is Dr Henry Kissinger, who has long been rumored to be a key figure in classified extraterrestrial related projects. Most recently, Kissinger attended the Bilderberg Group meeting which occurred only two days after Goode and Gonzales had met approximately 200 human elites that offered a limited disclosure program to begin in November 2015. This would be followed by a 50 year moratorium in prosecuting elites involved in crimes against humanity."

The quote just above from a random search for "World bankers and aliens." Hundreds of articles back this theory up with good solid evidence.

Besides, everyone knows that the Trilateral Commission is run by aliens.

Another snipet:

"The name of the Trilateral Commission was taken from the alien flag/symbol called a "Trilateral Insignia" (Triade)

The Trilateral Insignia is found on the ships of recovered UFO's."

I am not really too concerned about the alien controlled bankers, because the people are in control of what the aliens really want, and there is a negoiation that goes on thats keeps that all in check.

What I am really woried about is the Illuminati, because they have the real power, and they only answer to Clarence.