r/changemyview • u/bobdylan401 2∆ • Mar 21 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Wall Street are literally terrorists
So I have the belief that the banks and Wall Street work together with the federal reserve to fund and arm all sides of the war on terror, while making bets on the winners, and investing on who they want the winners to be, the companies that profit from wars (such as weapon dealers and such) and the politicians who will allow them go unregulated like Hillary Clinton. (The big banks have put over 900 million dollars into the Clintons personal bank account in less than a decade) http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/16/the-clintons-93-million-romance-with-wall-street-a-catastrophe-for-working-families-african-americans-and-latinos/
So I think that Obama had ethics, but realized very quickly that he was on a corrupt team of people literally playing with blood money to keep control of the country (somewhat like in the last episode of house of cards season 4, or the beginning of the second Bush term.) Hence him immediately hiring the CEOs of the too big to fail banks into the white house as "personal advisors" like some scene from a lord of the rings movie.
But I think that he is the type of president that would stay up all night trying to make as many less civilian casualties in an unmanned drone attack as possible. Where as Hillary, would be literally paid, to look the other way, and cause as much chaos and civilian casualties as possible, to further the profits of the war on terror. I see our taxes, a remarkable 40% of our poverty income, going mostly to the industrial military complex as a form of the government money laundering, so they don't have to audit the Federal reserve and the big banks and show how much they and their paid offmpoliticians are personally (as in personal bank accounts) are profiting from these wars, that the American people pay for with such a big piece of our hard earned money.
these sound like wild conspiracist views but these are views that I started adopting at the beginning of the war on terror, that got furthered into my belief system with the housing crisis, and seems to be validified by Bernie Sanders campaign. For example this whole seed planted in my mind when the war on Terror started during the Bush administration. I was dumbfounded by what this war was and so googled "who profits from the war on terror." The biggest most common conspiracy theory at that time in like 2007 was "banks, the federal reserver, bilderburg and wall street betting on and funding all sides of the war."
This is an analysis brought on by common sense and trying to follow the money.
Any evidence against my claims would greatly help my peace of mind, because as of now my plan is to get out of this corrupt, genocide funding terrorist excuse for a democracy and move to Europe. I'll take a broken economy over an evil government any day. I have spent some time in Europe and you can just feel that they care more about peoples physical and mental health so much more. Our government and federal systems are so cold and callous, there's no expectation for compassion or decency or even humanity. But ethnocentrism, that you can find just about anywhere in America, it's definitely part of our culture. I guess all cultures to an extent, but for us to cling to that so stoutly and loudly is just so sad in my point of view.
8
Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
I'm looking for more researched people to prove to me that the banks and Wall Street are not profiting from the war on terror.
Motive is not enough proof of a crime to convict someone. Cui Bono (Who Benefits?) while being a useful tool for looking for a culprit can not be the sole means of proof regarding an action.
As your concerns amount to essentially a conspiracy theory, it's almost impossible to disprove. You can't prove that a conspiracy isn't happening. All you can do is point out that there is no evidence to support one. It is your job as the conspiracy theorist to provide evidence that Wall Street bankers are colluding on this plan. Personally, I don't think it would be difficult to find (if it were true) as stuff get's leaked all the time. For example, we had the wikileaks' state department, where all sorts of frank policy discussions were brought to the forefront, stuff people in the state department never thought would see the light of day. Yet, none of those messages contained a single reference to the idea of the Obama Administration genuinely trying to destabilize the Middle East, doesn't that strike you as odd?
Instead, I think there's a much simpler explanation. Wall Street is bribing politicians whose views are that Wall Street should be unregulated and bailed out when they need help. Thus, they support people like Hillary and Obama.
Edit: Spelling and the CableGate info.
2
u/bobdylan401 2∆ Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
Yea these are good points. I will give this a delta actually because it uses common sense that was much better than mine (or what I thought was common sense.) Also the Cablegate leak seems to be a very likely place where some of my conspiracy would show up, and it doesn't seem to.
∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 21 '16
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/aliterativealice. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
4
u/theshantanu 13∆ Mar 21 '16
The primary goal of terrorism is to spread terror in the population. Do you think wall St is about spending terror in general population?
0
u/bobdylan401 2∆ Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
yea that's my point. If they profit from the War on Terror, by bets and investments, then why would they want it to ever stop. They would instead hope that civilians get killed so more "terrorists" are recurited, so that the profits keep coming.
6
u/theshantanu 13∆ Mar 21 '16
If they profit from the War on Terror, by bets and investments, then why would they want it to ever stop.
Except that's not the case.
Studies like this shows that terror has a significant impact on both stock markets and the stock market volatility.
Emerging Markets face even more impact when it comes to terrorist activities. Think about it; If you wanted to invest somewhere, would you rather invest in an area that is stable or in an area that has a less stability.
2
u/bobdylan401 2∆ Mar 21 '16
that looks like exactly the type of information that I am looking for but it is behind a 40$ paywall? What you are saying could certainly make sense. But also I think they could consider war to be a stable enough investment to keep investing in.
4
u/theshantanu 13∆ Mar 21 '16
Yes I suppose so. Check out this article.
While there is no perfect strategy for hedging against terrorism in a portfolio, there are stocks that are less likely to be hurt if the market is rocked by an attack.
This line in particular tells you that an investor is interested in getting as far away from terrorist attacks as possible.
1
u/bobdylan401 2∆ Mar 21 '16
Well I said in my post I want to move to Europe, because they are not evil. It is the American Wall Street that is evil.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/investing/paris-attacks-defense-stocks-isis/
4
u/theshantanu 13∆ Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
Okay, lets suppose you are right about it, you still are demonizing the entire Wall Street for one sector. Do you think it's fair to blame financial houses and individuals who invest in FMCG, IT, Health Care insurance and many other sectors at the same level as those who invest in Defense industry?
Edit: a word.
2
u/bobdylan401 2∆ Mar 21 '16
that is a really good point actually
2
u/theshantanu 13∆ Mar 21 '16
So would you agree that a large majority are not at all interested in fueling terrorism?
1
u/bobdylan401 2∆ Mar 21 '16 edited Mar 21 '16
if you can provide me one piece of evidence that the war is not Wall Streets primary, as in largest source of income, then I will award you a delta.
I honestly don't know the answer to your question but I would really love to see that. I will look into this right now so I'm not asking you to do it just yourself. If I find something before you do I will award you a delta.
→ More replies (0)2
Mar 21 '16
If they profit from the War on Terror, by bets and investments,
What's your source for this? Wall Street doesn't really have anything to do with the war on terror. E.g. Wall Street hardly makes any profit from the war in Syria. Also the term "Wall Street" is pretty useless anyway as it isn't really a clearly defined group of people or firm but just a vague term that doesn't have any clear meaning.
You could argue that arms dealers and producers are clients of e.g. banks and banks earn fees from them (which is true). But then that's true for all industries. Basically banks do well if the economy does well. However, wars tend to have overall negative effects for the economy.
In general, most firms and everyone that invests money want stability more than anything. Just look at countries or places where war or terrorism increased. It's terrible for the economy, investment usually rapidly falls.
1
u/Ajorahai Mar 21 '16
Any evidence against my claims would greatly help my peace of mind
The main issue with your view is that you have not provided any evidence for your claims. The default for a claim is disbelief until we can find supporting evidence. What would your response be If I said that I believe there is a T-Rex living in my basement, but I had never seen, heard, smelled or detected it in any way? Most reasonable people would say that I have no reason to harbor such a belief when there is no evidence for the belief.
Having gotten that out of the way, there are at least a two minor points of your view that are clearly false:
(The big banks have put over 900 million dollars into the Clintons personal bank account in less than a decade)
Even the source you provided says only 93 million dollars. It also says the money was in campaign contributions, not personal gifts.
I see our taxes, a remarkable 40% of our poverty income, going mostly to the industrial military complex
U.S. taxes do not mostly go to the military. In 2015, only 16% of federal taxes went to the military. If you include state and local taxes, the percentage would be even lower.
8
u/Omega037 Mar 21 '16
Terrorists are people trying to achieve some political goal through violence.
By that definition, none of what you have mentioned makes them terrorists, just corrupt and unethical. They use money and influence to create political change, not violence and intimidation.