I rather doubt it but I was wondering what other people thought of this question. I doubt it because of how well they have done for the last several hundred years but I also think that that could be because of normalcy bias on my part. And just so we are clear, in my view there is no fate too horrible for those people.
If they have been able to hide their true wealth I'm not sure how they could hide it all, maybe decent portions of it but I don't know how they could hide significant portions. If anything they would probably have found a way to hide it in plain sight.
Thoughts please.
On the contrary, monopolizing positions of power in finance to gain control akin to 'The House' vs. gamblers is the whole point of banks organizing into cartels in the first place. That level of organization exists explicitly to rig the financial game.
For example: in it's highest form of expression, 'banking cartels' equates to the organization of the central banks-- which exists to control the power of the mint; they are 'the house' because they own the chips. If they are losing, then they can mint money until they aren't-- paid for by the public via inflation. Add in fractional reserve banking and the management/milking of every boom/bust cycle, and you wind up with a truism: The House always wins.
I was thinking in terms of the constitutional dictate on this. Which isn't to say that the government would have been a lot better but at least congress would implicitly have at least some better understanding of the importance of maintaining the value of currency rather than how it is now where most of the congress critters literally have no idea at all of how it works and instead feel that Federal Reserve cartel must surely know what they are doing and/or that they (congress) can point the finger at the cartel when things go bad.
It is also a good bet that we would not have had an endless string of wars if the cartel never got a hold of control of the US currency. Oh well, if it didn't happen here it would have happened elsewhere I suppose.
I hear you. It's a lesson from history lost on most people. The last American politicians advocating for that type of constitutionalist anti-National Bank stance with any fervor went down with the Titanic.
Every politician since has kissed the ring. Lickspittles, the lot of them.
Yep. All the destruction of war, from the bombs, to the collateral damage, to the debt, must be financed with rented money. Imagine collecting compounding interest on even a single war's worth of debt for the rest of time.
The cartels have-- and they will continue to do so.
The Congress understands all too well.