It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Govt created financial crisis on purpose

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:36 PM
I hadn't intended to mention that I predicted this meltdown back in 2005, because I have no evidence to support my claim, but it slipped out on another thread, so I thought I'd present my thought process instead.
In 2001 I was studying a technical subject & attended a lecture on the financial climate we would graduate into. I was introduced to the theories of Kondratiev & others whose work demonstrated cyclical periodicity in financial markets which had accurately predicted many market events. Apparently, if these theories were correct, 3 different "waves" would soon combine to produce a serious falling market. It was however not easy to see how far along these projected curves we currently were, because the shape predicted involved a shallow dip, followed by a small rise, leading to a monster recession, but recent bank & govt policies had tinkered with the market, so it could have been that the "shallow dip" was the 80/90s downturn & we were into the "small rise" or, the 80/90s problems may have been an anomaly caused by the "tinkering" & we were yet to see the dip-rise-crash. Well, I wrote my essay & forgot all about it.
Until 2005 when I 1st heard about the "American Dream Downpayment Initiative" signed into law by Bush Jnr. December 16, 2003, which would make it easier for low-income families to buy houses. I was also aware that the $US was in trouble on the money markets & this all reminded me of a period of UK recent history: the 80s.
In 1980 the Thatcher govt brought in the "Right to Buy Scheme" which gave low-income tenants of state owned housing considerable incentive to buy their home & around about this time the £Sterling was also in trouble. The result of Thatcher's policy was a massive houseprice & consumer credit boom.
(Cont. Below)

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:54 PM
personally, i knew things would get bad, and were basically planned after reading a book my dad gave me years ago. it's very explanatory, and highly recommended. here's a link to a speach by the author, and the book is easily available.
creature from jekyll island

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Can you say set up to fail ?

Can you say planned in the back rooms of the hideaways of the NWO ?

Can you say controlled by a purchased manipulated media ?

Can you say the best election money can buy ?

Can you say the Weople have been brain washed to think government is the

answer to every need?

Can you say intentional induced bankruptcy on this Nation?

These are just a few of the can you says and how many more can you add

to this list?

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:33 PM
(Cont. From Above)
As it turned out the UK 80s boom was unsustainable & culminated in the stockmarket crash "Black Wednesday". That linked article of 4th January 2002 has this to say:

The credit boom of the late 1980s, fuelled largely by mortgage lending, was followed by a bust as rising unemployment left many new homeowners unable to repay their loans.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
These days many economists are blaming the "bubble" phenomenon where the value of the market gets artificially high based on overconfidence in the value of companies who own debt in an expanding market. It matters not. I'm interested in what was out in the public domain when Bush Jnr. signed ADDI.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. employers slashed 308,000 jobs in February [2003], the government said Friday, the worst round of job-cutting in 15 months, as the world's biggest economy nearly ground to a halt ahead of a possible war with Iraq.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
So, just as in 80s Britain where Thatcher's Union busting policy had ripped the heart out of British industry & caused massive unemployment @the same time many poor people were encouraged to get mortgages & exercise their newfound personal credit, so too did Bush Jnr. create the conditions that would allow the same thing to happen in the USA.
Now, the USA & UK are very different places, but economally not so much, especially since we're comparing times where monetarists were @the helm. Please understand, I am no economist ok, but if you put the same ingredients in the same oven, you get the same pie, right? & if I could work that out, I do not for 1sec believe that Bush Jnr's advisors couldn't. Therefore the only logical explanation is that they went ahead, knowing what would happen, on purpose.
Why though & what has this to do with Kondratiev et al.?
(Cont. Below)

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:39 PM
Hang on people, let me finish! I realise it's a bit of a long read, but to get it all down in a way that makes sense takes many words...

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:46 PM
Oh god, our government are simply pawns in a much larger game of chess. Can you please do some research on the Bilderberg group...

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:56 PM
Of course they know what they're doing. The elite know, have known what was going to happen when they started all of this.

It's just one more way to create a situation where the government can cometo the rescue to a situation that they created in the first place.


At least, before Obama they were sneekier, and weren't so #ing blatant.

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:09 PM
(Cont. from Above)
So, in January 2002 analysis of the UK stockmarket crash of '92 blamed rising unemployment; in February 2003 the USA was seriously worried about unemployment & in December 2003 Bush Jnr. signed a law which, by a slightly different means than 2 decades earlier in the UK, created a similar huge real estate & consumer credit boom, knowing it must end in disaster.
There are many theories we could get into about NWO agendas, but here I'm going to apply Occam's Razor. What did the USA have to gain from a short term booming market? With war in Iraq looming & already in massive debt, one thing the Federal Govt needed was money & the only way to get it short of massive taxation, which was never going to be a neo-con policy, was to borrow it. Thus I suspect they created this artificial boom to make the USA look more credit worthy. Simple as that. It was to rip off the rest of the world.
The reason they had to do it then was because, whether Kondratiev et al. were exactly right or even just partially, the economic future looked very bleak for the USA: they had to get control of the Iraqi oilfields & stop Saddam Hussein selling oil for €uros, driving down the international price of the $US, before the USA was too broke to mount such a military campaign.
This also explains why China, the USA's ideological enemy & competitor, was prepared to lend the USA more money to stay in Iraq. Because had they not, the value of the debt they were already holding would have continued to fall, possibly @the horrifying rate it had already in 2003 (see above).
Ok, there you go. Have @it!

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by rubbertramp
Oh yeah, there's no doubt that the Federal Reserve system is a racket operated by crooks. My hypothesis here tho is that they'd already fleeced America for as much as they could get & the only way to keep the system afloat was to seriously fleece the rest of the world too.
It's a bit like the "too big to fail" attitude to big business. Even as far back as Reagan, the early neo-cons knew they could borrow far more than the USA could ever hope to repay, because even if it did all go horribly wrong, the world holds too many US$s to allow a complete collapse of the US economy. We have to keep lending you more, to keep our own economies afloat.

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:37 PM
reply to post by amari
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. Please elucidate.

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by iamjesusphish
I'd be interested to hear what you've got to say about the Bilderberg Group in relation to my theory.

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by mikerussellus

It's just one more way to create a situation where the government can cometo the rescue to a situation that they created in the first place.
TBH, I think that if that was a consideration, it was an added bonus. 1 thing we can definitely count on the rich to do tho is absolutely anything to keep the value of their money. I'm saying that with recession looming, they had to act in Iraq to stop the $US losing even more value, knowing the USA is "too big to fail", so that when the recession really starts to bite the World Bank/IMF will bail the USA out.

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:52 PM
I am new so I cannot begin a subject, but would someone post a new thread on creating a new democracy elsewhere? Where could we all migrate and create a new world? Is there no where to go? I don't believe we all should die to fight a worthless and unjust would benefit us all to create a new United Republic. Any ideas?

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:00 AM
Damn! I forgot to put this link in the 3rd conspiracy post & edit only works for short posts on my phone.
Iraq began selling oil for €uros in 2000
Remember how the $US plummetted against the €uro from then until the invasion?
Oh yeah, WMD/terrorism alright - my arse.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 02:25 AM
The failure wasn't planned, but there's not much doubt that sometime during the Clinton years the collapse became predictable. That's why the GOP (read: the Bush family and their investment banker comrades) pulled out absolutely all stops to take control in 2000, and it's why the Bush regime was run like a straight-up kleptocracy. People "in the know" were waiting for the end of the world, and the closer the collapse became the more flamboyantly orgiastic became the grab for the remaining wealth. "Recovery" is still a fond, distant dream, and, predictably, the kleptocrats (posing as meritocrats) grabbed all the capital for the plutocracy, who will either gate themselves in with private security forces or just leave the country as things continue to fall apart.

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by LeoLoeb

The failure wasn't planned, but there's not much doubt that sometime during the Clinton years the collapse became predictable.
I agree with everything else you wrote, but not this ^^. How could they have not known exactly what would happen? Seriously, they have people studying economics all their lives advising them. Bush Jnr. himself has an MBA. Seriously, there are times when I need to rely on managers to remind me when to eat! If I could work it out just from info in the public domain, how can we possibly believe they couldn't?
There's only 1 explanation: they did know, so it was planned.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by lostviking
I am new so I cannot begin a subject, but would someone post a new thread on creating a new democracy elsewhere? Where could we all migrate and create a new world? Is there no where to go? I don't believe we all should die to fight a worthless and unjust would benefit us all to create a new United Republic. Any ideas?

You know...I have this thought all the time. How do I get off this planet? How do I start over? I hate that the earth is so small. I hate technology. It's a worse drug than heroin. You become so addicted that you can't live without it. Most people are so mesmerized by their technology gadgets that they don't care what's going on out there.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by A Fortiori

My suggestion is, and I have been contemplating this for myself as well would be to move to an Indian reservation. They still have some measure of autonomy left. Hey, any natives out there want to adopt a white boy?

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals
Ok, this whole 'alternatives to where we are' thing is way OT, but its interesting, so why not?
A while back I almost started a thread about your idea, but just couldn't be bothered to do the law research. It seemed so obvious: whether the Federal Govt. really are attempting to implement widespread gun control stealthily or not, there's a definite perception among Americans that they are, so perhaps moving to or even simply keeping your guns'n'ammo on a Reservation would seem like viable plans. Can anyone enlighten us on the laws involved? Also, how much autonomy do Reservations have & in what areas of law?
If there are any 1st Nations ATSers out there, I'd also be interested to read your perspective on this. From my POV, it sounds like a nightmare: gun toting mainly white folks, brave enough to quit their former lives to move onto your land, ie a horribly familiar scenario...

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:55 AM
So, having got this thread moved to it's proper forum...
Here I am shamelessly bumping it

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in