In the post I link to he makes his case by arguing facts.
He may even be right, and the Paul Rosenberg article is lightweight and appears on what looks like a kook web site. But it seems to me that there’s no real difference between their respective conclusions.
So, when they say, “No one saw this crisis coming,” they may be telling the truth, at least as far as they know it. Neither they nor anyone in their circles would entertain such thoughts. Likewise, they may not see the next crisis until it hits them.
Plenty of big banks did make money by betting on the crisis. There were a lot of cases where banks sold their clients products the banks knew that the products would go south.
Realising that there are important political things that don’t happen in the open is a meaningful conclusion.
Matt isn’t in a position where he can make claims for which he doesn’t have to provide evidence.
In 2011 Julian Assange told the press that the US government has an API with the can use to query the data that they like from facebook.
On the skeptics stackexchange website there a question whether their’s evidence for Assange claim or whether he makes it up. It doesn’t mention the possibility that Assange just refers to nonpublic information.
The orthodox skeptic just rejects claims without public proof.
Two years later we know have decent evidence that the US has that capability via PRISM. In 2011 Julian had the knowledge that it happens because Julian has the kind of connection that you need to get the knowledge but had no way of proving it.
If you know Italian or German Leoluca Orlando racconta la mafia / Leoluca Orlando erzählt die Mafia is a great book that provides a paradigm of how to operate in a political system with conspiracies.
Leoluca Orlando was major in Palermo with is the capital of Sicily and fought there against the Mafia. That means he has good credentials about telling something about how to deal with it.
He starts his book with the sentence:
I know it. But I don’t have evidence.
Throughout the book he says things about the Sicilian Mafia that he can’t prove but that he knows.
In his world in which he had to take care to avoid getting murdered by the Mafia and at the same time
fight it, that’s just how the game works.
He also makes the point that it’s very important to have politicians who follow a moral codex.
The book end by saying that the new Mafia now consists of people in high finance.
He may even be right, and the Paul Rosenberg article is lightweight and appears on what looks like a kook web site. But it seems to me that there’s no real difference between their respective conclusions.
Rosenberg writes:
Plenty of big banks did make money by betting on the crisis. There were a lot of cases where banks sold their clients products the banks knew that the products would go south.
Realising that there are important political things that don’t happen in the open is a meaningful conclusion. Matt isn’t in a position where he can make claims for which he doesn’t have to provide evidence.
In 2011 Julian Assange told the press that the US government has an API with the can use to query the data that they like from facebook. On the skeptics stackexchange website there a question whether their’s evidence for Assange claim or whether he makes it up. It doesn’t mention the possibility that Assange just refers to nonpublic information. The orthodox skeptic just rejects claims without public proof.
Two years later we know have decent evidence that the US has that capability via PRISM. In 2011 Julian had the knowledge that it happens because Julian has the kind of connection that you need to get the knowledge but had no way of proving it.
If you know Italian or German Leoluca Orlando racconta la mafia / Leoluca Orlando erzählt die Mafia is a great book that provides a paradigm of how to operate in a political system with conspiracies.
Leoluca Orlando was major in Palermo with is the capital of Sicily and fought there against the Mafia. That means he has good credentials about telling something about how to deal with it.
He starts his book with the sentence:
Throughout the book he says things about the Sicilian Mafia that he can’t prove but that he knows. In his world in which he had to take care to avoid getting murdered by the Mafia and at the same time fight it, that’s just how the game works.
He also makes the point that it’s very important to have politicians who follow a moral codex.
The book end by saying that the new Mafia now consists of people in high finance.
On this site, it’s probably worth clarifying that “evidence” here refers to legally admissible evidence, lest we go down an unnecessary rabbit hole.