Topic: The Rothschilds: Exposing the Myth
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
Much is made in populist media regarding the Rothschild family and their supposed control of global politics & monetary policy-all in collusion with Zionists.
Now, critical thinkers would be aware of the fact that the lack of global political & economic homogeneity would indicate that the concept is immediately specious, however, despite this, the belief is gaining widespread acceptance. As posited in another thread some time ago, this has become one of the many methods of expressing anti-Semitism (for the purposes of this discussion, the word is being used here in the accepted sense) in modern times. While anti-semites may gravitate to this theory in order to legitimise and express their anti-semitism without being held up as a social pariah, I have noticed that this is not a universal characteristic among exponents of this belief. No-one disputes that the Rothschild family is (as one Oxford Historian put it) 'The Richest Dynasty In History'. This being the case, is it fair or logical to ascribe crimes and evil machinations to this family? As with most historical figures, there are the facts, and then there is the mythology. Again, it is no mystery that this family supports (as do many governments) Globalist economic policies, and to be fair, in the modern world this is a logical route. There is no returning to the protectionist era of the world before WWII, for technological advances make this anachronistic. It has been stated that they made their fortune from war, and again, this is true, especially during the early nineteenth century, but again, many others have profited from war and not just arms manufacturers. In this thread I shall focus on the evidence against the populist stance, for there is an easily accessible wealth of material in favour of the theory, largely from the usual questionable sites. I'll point this out now so I don't spend an inordinate amount of time on arguing minutiae. Furthermore, I will use the best internet sources I can find, and I invite participants to do the same. |
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
THE RICHEST DYNASTY IN HISTORY?
THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD Money's Prophets, 1798-1848 By Niall Ferguson Viking 648pp How did they do it? That's the recurring question in Niall Ferguson's formidable The House of Rothschild, a history of the legendary European-Jewish banking family. ''There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild,'' said a French journalist in 1841, giving voice to the popular suspicion that the dynasty and its money held sway over the affairs of nations. In this first of a two-volume study (the second is due out next year), Ferguson confirms that often, the Rothschilds were behind the scenes, influencing policy across Europe in their own interest. However, the Oxford don also shows the clear limits to their power. With access to all extant Rothschild archives, Ferguson is well-positioned to separate myth from reality. What has to be explained is how the Rothschilds rose so high from the obscurity of Frankfurt's 18th century Jewish ghetto. Seemingly overnight, they lifted themselves from Mayer Amschel Rothschild's coin dealership to become the world's richest family, with financial operations run by his five sons in London, Paris, Vienna, and Naples, as well as Frankfurt. Ferguson calculates that in relative terms, they were richer than any dynasty today--even the Saudi royal family. That meteoric rise spawned several myths. In the first, Mayer Amschel was said to have hidden the fortune of William IX, ruler of the German principality of Hesse-Kassel, from the Napoleonic invaders and been rewarded with its long-term use. In fact, Mayer sheltered only routine papers. It was his son Nathan's leveraging of William's English investments that later helped make the Rothschilds a power in the City of London and on the Continent. The most widespread Rothschild myth was that Nathan, after receiving news by carrier pigeon of Wellington's victory at Waterloo, made a vast fortune speculating on the rise in British government securities. The reality, says Ferguson, was quite different. The Rothschilds' couriers did alert them first to Napoleon's defeat, but since they had bet big on a protracted military campaign, any quick gains in bonds after Waterloo were too small to offset the disruption to their business. Rothschild capital did soar--but over a much longer period. Nathan's breakthrough was a deal to supply cash to Wellington's army in 1814. Waging a high-risk campaign of exchange-rate transactions, bond-price speculations, and commissions, the family garnered huge profits from this governmental financing. Then, from 500,000 pounds in 1818, Rothschild capital rose to 4,330,333 pounds in 1828--about 14 times the resources of their nearest competitor, Baring Brothers, which had been a close second. Their strategy: financing the postwar stabilization of Europe's conservative powers. That meant luring monarchs and ministers, such as Austrian Chancellor Metternich, into their orbit. What made the Rothschilds ''the dominant force in international finance after 1815'' was ''the sheer scale--and sophistication--of their operations.'' One key to that scale was unity, a virtue that Mayer Amschel inculcated in his sons. That unity allowed the brothers--Nathan, James, Salomon, Amschel, and Carl--to run independent operations essentially as one firm stretched across Europe. Another advantage: By issuing foreign bonds in sterling, says Ferguson, the Rothschilds did much to create the international bond market. And as they returned profits to the firm, excluded ''outsiders''--in-laws, women, even their sisters' sons--and married off their children to first cousins, they added to their capital. What these kings of the bond market craved was peace and stability, and they avoided lending to belligerent or unstable states. As Ferguson notes, however, there was an internal contradiction: The primary reason for states to borrow money was to wage war, which was what the Rothschilds worked to prevent in order to protect the bond market. One way out of this trap: moving into railway shares, which they saw as ''surrogate state bonds.'' The Rothschilds could be vulnerable. Fame brought a barrage of ugly anti-Semitic attacks. And despite their fear of instability, the Rothschilds were unprepared in 1830 and 1848, surviving the 1848 revolution only because of a timely silver shipment from their semi-independent New York agent, August Belmont. The rescue serves as a reminder of their biggest strategic error: the lack of a major U.S. operation. Ferguson's fluid, masterful synthesis of a vast amount of material tends more toward the academic than the popular. But he brings vitality to a series of compelling issues, ranging from the Rothschilds' staunch Judaism to their intrafamily marriages. He makes brilliant use of literary sources from Disraeli to Balzac, and he is insightful about the Rothschilds' friendship with such musicians as the composer Rossini. Nathan and James come across as rude, hard-driving businessmen. It's not always a pretty picture, but by revealing what the Rothschilds were really like, Ferguson is better able to explain their achievement. Were the Rothschilds pacifists, pillars of conservative monarchies, or, as the poet Heinrich Heine wrote, agents of a new revolutionary force, money? Chameleon-like, the Rothschilds were all--and none--of these things. For them, it was just business. BY JOSEPH MANDEL http://www.businessweek.com/1998/49/b3607071.htm The above is clearly a book review, but I found it useful in that it provides a brief overview of the early history of the dynasty and it does go some way to separate the myth from the reality. The book was written by an Oxford Professor and published by Viking Press. |
s1owhand
Joined Fri 05/18/07 Posts: 29311 |
Not a scholarly review?! 
You mean that Rothschild Conspiracy Theory stuff is antisemitic garbage?! Oh - it looks like it is textbook antisemitic twaddle.... ^ The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, James McConnachie, Robin Tudge Edition: 2 – 2008 ^ Levy, Richard S. (2005). Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice. ABC-CLIO. p. 624. ISBN 1-85109-439-3. ^ Poliakov, Leon (2003). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 343. ISBN 0-8122-1865-5.
|
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
QUOTE:
Not a scholarly review?!
You mean that Rothschild Conspiracy Theory stuff is antisemitic garbage?! Oh - it looks like it is textbook antisemitic twaddle.... ^ The Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories, James McConnachie, Robin Tudge Edition: 2 – 2008 ^ Levy, Richard S. (2005). Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice. ABC-CLIO. p. 624. ISBN 1-85109-439-3. ^ Poliakov, Leon (2003). The History of Anti-semitism: From Voltaire to Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 343. ISBN 0-8122-1865-5.
Yes, it would appear so, but this CT seems to be gaining wider acceptance owing to popular culture. Many would argue that the numbers that believe this theory sufggest it is accurate, but we both know that is a logical fallacy. Is it becoming a commonly held belief owing to the level of dissemination it receives? Good bibliography you've provided there. Kudos to you. |
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
On the Federal Reserve:
The "Rothschild" Connection "Most of the owners of the largest banks in America," wrote the late Sheldon Emry, an early leader of the racist and anti-Semitic ‘Identity" church movement, "are of Eastern European ancestry and connected with the Rothschild banks." In the literature of bigots, the name Rothschild is a trigger for the most explosive of anti-Semitic tremors, and it usually sets off a litany of other Jewish names. In his recent book Called to Serve, Col. James "Bo" Gritz, the 1992 Presidential candidate of the extremist Populist Party, charged that "eight Jewish families control the FED" (Federal Reserve System). In 1983, the charge that Rothschild banks and other international banking concerns, mostly with Jewish names, controlled the Federal Reserve was published (probably from earlier sources) in the newsletter of a local Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) — not an extremist group. The article stated that the Federal Reserve System "is not a Federal entity but a private corporation owned in part by the following: Rothschild banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers bank of Paris, Israel Moses Seif banks of Italy, Warburg bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Bros. bank of New York, Chase Manhattan bank of New York, Kuhn, Loeb bank of New York, Goldman Sachs bank of New York." In fact the Federal Reserve Bank of New York —the largest and most significant of the Fed’s 12 banks — lists the banks in the Second Federal Reserve District that are members and stockholders in the New York Federal Reserve Bank. With the exception of the Chase Manhattan Bank, the institutions cited by the NARFE newsletter as allegedly owning and controlling the Federal Reserve system ("Rothschild ...Lazard Brothers ...Israel Moses Seif ...Warburg ...Lehman Brothers ...Kuhn, Loeb ...Goldman, Sachs") were not members of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. http://www.adl.org/special_reports/control_of_fed/fed_rothschild.asp This is interesting because I've heard this information repeated on numerous occasions. Perhaps it is a case of "tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth". It is interesting to note that the Rothschild Bank Of Berlin closed in 1901. It is becoming apparent when viewing the mainstream sources, that the misinformation and disinformation goes back a long way.
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Tue 08/14/12 01:27 AM
|
Ladywind7
Joined Sun 04/08/12 Posts: 3006 |
Unhappy people who are suspicious and borderline paranoid, focus their attention on anything other than their own often miserable selves. This surprises you? Just another case of CT IMO.
|
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
QUOTE: Unhappy people who are suspicious and borderline paranoid, focus their attention on anything other than their own often miserable selves. This surprises you? Just another case of CT IMO.
No, it doesn't surprise me. I realised that it was BS from the outset, but I wanted to look into it from a perspective that is ignored in populist media. |
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
QUOTE: The above is clearly a book review, but I found it useful in that it provides a brief overview of the early history of the dynasty and it does go some way to separate the myth from the reality. The book was written by an Harvard Professor and published by Viking Press. Correction.
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Tue 08/14/12 01:48 AM
|
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
And now we turn to that master of duping gulls, David Icke. It appears that this fellow is amassing quite a fortune preying on the stupidity of the people (is it obvious I hold him in contempt?). Moreover, he is a rich man becoming richer by his libel against other rich men. Let's have a look at a critique of his theories:
Op-Ed: David Icke's Jewish history lesson is not Kosher By Alexander Baron Jan 28, 2012 The latest issue of David Icke's newsletter is devoted in large measure to the evils of “Rothschild Zionism”. Perhaps he should have read some history before he wrote it. Under what heading is an article about David Icke to be listed? Entertainment? That has some merit. Politics? That does too. In the end, Education seems the best bet, because that is what David needs most. For a brief introduction to the former goalkeeper, sports journalist and Green Party activist, click here. If you have perused his website, you might have visited the book order page where you will have found: “If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please feel free” - anyone got any suggestions? The expected response is two words, the second being “off”. And “If you are a trade/wholesale customer please contact Linda Atherton at our office address above for our trade/wholesale rates.” This begs the question, if Icke's revealed truths are so outrageous, why does he have any distribution at all, for surely the all powerful octopus of Rothschild Zionism would find some way to scupper it, even in the age of the Internet. If the truth be told, like his American counterpart Alex Jones, Icke is making a comfortable living out of peddling his conspiracy literature; how else could he afford to hire Wembley Arena on October 27 this year? Tickets are £55.00 with a £7.15 Service Charge. Heck, you can see Michael Chapman at the Lexington tomorrow night for £6 on the door. Now, to Rothschild Zionism. According to David Icke: “The first Rothschild Zionist Congress was in Basel, Switzerland, in August 1897, but not many realise that it was originally due to take place in Munich, Germany.” Really, David? Tell us more. “It had to be relocated because of opposition from Jewish people in Germany who did not want to be shipped off to Palestine, as per Rothschild Zionist agenda.” Actually, it was the rabbis who chased it out of the country denouncing Zionism as “fanaticism, contrary to the Jewish scriptures, and affirmed their undivided loyalty to Germany.” And a citation: Jews Against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948, by Thomas A. Kolsky, published by Temple University Press, Philadelphia, (1990), page 17. The man behind what might be called secular Zionism was Theodor Herzl, and both his inspiration and methodology have been well documented. On July 18, 1895, he met with Baron Edmond Rothschild in Paris, who rejected his proposals. Herzl died in 1904, and his vision may have died with him. Certainly, the great Jewish financiers - and there were many at that time - had no interest in Zionism. It was only with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that the movement began to make headway, but it took the rise of Nazism and the cooperation of the Zionist movement with the Nazi High Command to spur the Zionist colonisation of Palestine, and eventually the Nakba. And what were the Rothschilds doing all this time? Not a lot, not in Palestine, anyway, although according to Mr Icke, they were doing quite a lot in Germany, in particular bankrolling Hitler. If that sounds somewhat implausible, it is because Mr Icke subscribes to the Grand Conspiracy theory of history; elsewhere he writes: “the German region of Bavaria comes up again and again - the home of the infamous Bavarian Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt (who today I would be call a Rothschild Zionist).” So, the Bavarian Illuminati was based in Bavaria? If it had been based in Lancashire, there would indeed have been a mystery, but in 1776 when the Order of the Illuminati was founded, there was no such entity as Zionism, and Adam Weishaupt was an academic who had a Jesuit education, so that kind of rules out Jews completely, doesn't it? Only in the rational universe! Mr Icke also ropes in Larry Silverstein who is identified as yet another Rothschild Zionist rather than a New York landlord. Did someone mention New York? 9/11? Yes, you guessed right... http://digitaljournal.com/article/318602 No doubt Mr. Icke has a photo of a Rothschild family member of sufficiently poor quality to prove they are alien Reptilians as well. Don't forget, you can buy his books on his website PROVING his insanity.
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Tue 08/14/12 02:16 AM
|
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
For youtube fans, debunking the old 'Rothschilds funded Hitler myth'.
Much of this is supported by other texts, but this concise presentation says it all. http://youtu.be/rYZYItKZdVk |
|
Ladywind7
Joined Sun 04/08/12 Posts: 3006 |
People dont know how to think critically & believe the common consensus, irregardless of evidence to the contrary. Much of it is the IQ and the nature. (You may be an 'explorer'). It is societies nature to venerate wrong & crucify the remarkable.
|
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
QUOTE: People dont know how to think critically & believe the common consensus, irregardless of evidence to the contrary. Much of it is the IQ and the nature. (You may be an 'explorer'). It is societies nature to venerate wrong & crucify the remarkable. Well, that's true, the Tall Poppy Syndrome. Do you feel since the GFC that the need to find someone to blame has been on the rise? Understandably, there is a great mistrust of Wall St. and financiers, but is the belief in global manipulation of monetary policy justified, or is incompetence a more likely scenario? I tend to believe in the 'Oops!' factor. |
|
Ladywind7
Joined Sun 04/08/12 Posts: 3006 |
I think incompetence has occured because there are too many global factors to consider. I know people are disgusted with the stupid mistakes their national leaders make. GFM? People were ranting about other things before that. It just is what it is lol.
|
Conrad_73
Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 8053 |
Just wait until the ones with the True Facts show up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Leigh2154
Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 8452 |
QUOTE: QUOTE: Well, that's true, the Tall Poppy Syndrome. Do you feel since the GFC that the need to find someone to blame has been on the rise? Understandably, there is a great mistrust of Wall St. and financiers, but is the belief in global manipulation of monetary policy justified, or is incompetence a more likely scenario? I tend to believe in the 'Oops!' factor. Good morning Hotrod!...Great thread! 
I believe it is human nature, a natural instinct, to want to find a cause and apply blame when something bad happens...Especially for those negatively affected who feel they had no part in creating the problem...Since CT'ers do not use logic, they accept and sell the" easy to muddle" theories...It's called "Conspiracy Theories For Dummies" and there is a whole series... Who is to blame for the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the person with the most money! ..Who is to blame for wars, every war, the people making the most money!... Seems no one wants to say this, so I will....For years I have noticed a distinctive common denominator among rookie CT'ers....It's the age old battle between the haves and have nots but at a "normal" guy next door level....If you have a comfortable lifestyle, higher education, a high paying job, a nice home, a new car, etc...etc...etc...you are the bad guy...Take that envy and hatred to the highest level, Rothschild , and it gets magnified x a 1,000.... Also, it occurred to me that some people reading the HISTORICAL FACTS in your first two posts might not know what financial leveraging is so I am posting the definition ...In the early years of building their extraordinary wealth, the Rothschild's were way ahead of their time and they were financial geniuses ...Simple as that... Definition of 'Leverage' 1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment. Investopedia explains 'Leverage' 1. Leverage can be created through options, futures, margin and other financial instruments. For example, say you have $1,000 to invest. This amount could be invested in 10 shares of Microsoft stock, but to increase leverage, you could invest the $1,000 in five options contracts. You would then control 500 shares instead of just 10. 2. Most companies use debt to finance operations. By doing so, a company increases its leverage because it can invest in business operations without increasing its equity. For example, if a company formed with an investment of $5 million from investors, the equity in the company is $5 million - this is the money the company uses to operate. If the company uses debt financing by borrowing $20 million, the company now has $25 million to invest in business operations and more opportunity to increase value for shareholders. Leverage helps both the investor and the firm to invest or operate. However, it comes with greater risk. If an investor uses leverage to make an investment and the investment moves against the investor, his or her loss is much greater than it would've been if the investment had not been leveraged - leverage magnifies both gains and losses. In the business world, a company can use leverage to try to generate shareholder wealth, but if it fails to do so, the interest expense and credit risk of default destroys shareholder value. |
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
QUOTE: Good morning Hotrod!...Great thread!
I believe it is human nature, a natural instinct, to want to find a cause and apply blame when something bad happens...Especially for those negatively affected who feel they had no part in creating the problem...Since CT'ers do not use logic, they accept and sell the" easy to muddle" theories...It's called "Conspiracy Theories For Dummies" and there is a whole series... Who is to blame for the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the person with the most money! ..Who is to blame for wars, every war, the people making the most money!... Good morning Gorgeous. I'm flattered that this thread is attracting such beautiful ladies. The 'Scapegoat'-a focus for mob hysteria and the target for vengeance. I agree with your thoughts on this. Not only do these wealthy individuals become the blame for these negative situations, I've noticed that a leap of logic is taken and they become the cause. QUOTE: Seems no one wants to say this, so I will....For years I have noticed a distinctive common denominator among rookie CT'ers....It's the age old battle between the haves and have nots but at a "normal" guy next door level....If you have a comfortable lifestyle, higher education, a high paying job, a nice home, a new car, etc...etc...etc...you are the bad guy...Take that envy and hatred to the highest level, Rothschild , and it gets magnified x a 1,000....
Well, I suspected this emotion was behind the 'Occupy' movement. I know this thought will be unpopular, but the lack of focus and any real agenda within the movement just denoted a base hatred toward those who have wealth. The old emotion of 'my lot in life is someone else's fault-and in some cases that is, of course, true, but not universally. QUOTE: Also, it occurred to me that some people reading the HISTORICAL FACTS in your first two posts might not know what financial leveraging is so I am posting the definition ...In the early years of building their extraordinary wealth, the Rothschild's were way ahead of their time and they were financial geniuses ...Simple as that...
Definition of 'Leverage' 1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment. Investopedia explains 'Leverage' 1. Leverage can be created through options, futures, margin and other financial instruments. For example, say you have $1,000 to invest. This amount could be invested in 10 shares of Microsoft stock, but to increase leverage, you could invest the $1,000 in five options contracts. You would then control 500 shares instead of just 10. 2. Most companies use debt to finance operations. By doing so, a company increases its leverage because it can invest in business operations without increasing its equity. For example, if a company formed with an investment of $5 million from investors, the equity in the company is $5 million - this is the money the company uses to operate. If the company uses debt financing by borrowing $20 million, the company now has $25 million to invest in business operations and more opportunity to increase value for shareholders. Leverage helps both the investor and the firm to invest or operate. However, it comes with greater risk. If an investor uses leverage to make an investment and the investment moves against the investor, his or her loss is much greater than it would've been if the investment had not been leveraged - leverage magnifies both gains and losses. In the business world, a company can use leverage to try to generate shareholder wealth, but if it fails to do so, the interest expense and credit risk of default destroys shareholder value. Thank you for your erudite explanation. The concept is clearer for me as a result. So, employing this concept, the Rothschild family amassed a large fortune. This is not evidence of them being guilty of crimes etc. Moreover, one can view this family as being influential in shaping modern Europe. I know that comment will invite irrational charges of them being in collusion with Nazis, but that is not my intent. Rather, this family contributed to shaping modern Europe in an economic sense as the nations struggled against Absolutism through the Age of Revolution and the rise of Nationalism, finally ending in 1945. Although the foundation of the EU cannot be directly attributed to the family, the spirit of economic co-operation was clearly a goal. In addition, one can only speculate as to the extent this family created employment opportunities and raised the standard of living as an indirect result.
Edited by HotRodDeluxe on Tue 08/14/12 04:19 PM
|
|
Leigh2154
Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 8452 |
QUOTE: QUOTE: Good morning Hotrod!...Great thread!
I believe it is human nature, a natural instinct, to want to find a cause and apply blame when something bad happens...Especially for those negatively affected who feel they had no part in creating the problem...Since CT'ers do not use logic, they accept and sell the" easy to muddle" theories...It's called "Conspiracy Theories For Dummies" and there is a whole series... Who is to blame for the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the person with the most money! ..Who is to blame for wars, every war, the people making the most money!... Good morning Gorgeous. I'm flattered that this thread is attracting such beautiful ladies. The 'Scapegoat'-a focus for mob hysteria and the target for vengeance. I agree with your thoughts on this. Not only do these wealthy individuals become the blame for these negative situations, I've noticed that a leap of logic is taken and they become the cause. QUOTE: Seems no one wants to say this, so I will....For years I have noticed a distinctive common denominator among rookie CT'ers....It's the age old battle between the haves and have nots but at a "normal" guy next door level....If you have a comfortable lifestyle, higher education, a high paying job, a nice home, a new car, etc...etc...etc...you are the bad guy...Take that envy and hatred to the highest level, Rothschild , and it gets magnified x a 1,000....
Well, I suspected this emotion was behind the 'Occupy' movement. I know this thought will be unpopular, but the lack of focus and any real agenda within the movement just denoted a base hatred toward those who have wealth. The old emotion of 'my lot in life is someone else's fault-and in some cases that is, of course, true, but not universally. QUOTE: Also, it occurred to me that some people reading the HISTORICAL FACTS in your first two posts might not know what financial leveraging is so I am posting the definition ...In the early years of building their extraordinary wealth, the Rothschild's were way ahead of their time and they were financial geniuses ...Simple as that...
Definition of 'Leverage' 1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment. Investopedia explains 'Leverage' 1. Leverage can be created through options, futures, margin and other financial instruments. For example, say you have $1,000 to invest. This amount could be invested in 10 shares of Microsoft stock, but to increase leverage, you could invest the $1,000 in five options contracts. You would then control 500 shares instead of just 10. 2. Most companies use debt to finance operations. By doing so, a company increases its leverage because it can invest in business operations without increasing its equity. For example, if a company formed with an investment of $5 million from investors, the equity in the company is $5 million - this is the money the company uses to operate. If the company uses debt financing by borrowing $20 million, the company now has $25 million to invest in business operations and more opportunity to increase value for shareholders. Leverage helps both the investor and the firm to invest or operate. However, it comes with greater risk. If an investor uses leverage to make an investment and the investment moves against the investor, his or her loss is much greater than it would've been if the investment had not been leveraged - leverage magnifies both gains and losses. In the business world, a company can use leverage to try to generate shareholder wealth, but if it fails to do so, the interest expense and credit risk of default destroys shareholder value. Thank you for your erudite explanation. The concept is clearer for me as a result. So, employing this concept, the Rothschild family amassed a large fortune. This is not evidence of them being guilty of crimes etc. Moreover, one can view this family as being influential in shaping modern Europe. I know that comment will invite irrational charges of them being in collusion with Nazis, but that is not my intent. Rather, this family contributed to shaping modern Europe in an economic sense as the nations struggled against Absolutism through the Age of Revolution and the rise of Nationalism, finally ending in 1945. Although the foundation of the EU cannot be directly attributed to the family, the spirit of economic co-operation was clearly a goal. In addition, one can only speculate as to the extent this family created employment opportunities and raised the standard of living as an indirect result. Yes, agree...Blame (eventually) = cause... Occupy Wall Street is a perfect example of the have nots "rioting" against the haves so it shouldn't anger anyone...When a vision becomes a reality the "reason" for the reality does not matter to those who lack vision because all they see is the widening gap... Lastly, the Rothschild heritage...Yes, they were not only influential in shaping modern Europe they set the standard...Also, I think it should be mentioned that this family is KNOWN for the enormous amount philanthropic work they do, not just for Jews, but world wide and for many..... |
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: Good morning Hotrod!...Great thread!
I believe it is human nature, a natural instinct, to want to find a cause and apply blame when something bad happens...Especially for those negatively affected who feel they had no part in creating the problem...Since CT'ers do not use logic, they accept and sell the" easy to muddle" theories...It's called "Conspiracy Theories For Dummies" and there is a whole series... Who is to blame for the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the person with the most money! ..Who is to blame for wars, every war, the people making the most money!... Good morning Gorgeous. I'm flattered that this thread is attracting such beautiful ladies. The 'Scapegoat'-a focus for mob hysteria and the target for vengeance. I agree with your thoughts on this. Not only do these wealthy individuals become the blame for these negative situations, I've noticed that a leap of logic is taken and they become the cause. QUOTE: Seems no one wants to say this, so I will....For years I have noticed a distinctive common denominator among rookie CT'ers....It's the age old battle between the haves and have nots but at a "normal" guy next door level....If you have a comfortable lifestyle, higher education, a high paying job, a nice home, a new car, etc...etc...etc...you are the bad guy...Take that envy and hatred to the highest level, Rothschild , and it gets magnified x a 1,000....
Well, I suspected this emotion was behind the 'Occupy' movement. I know this thought will be unpopular, but the lack of focus and any real agenda within the movement just denoted a base hatred toward those who have wealth. The old emotion of 'my lot in life is someone else's fault-and in some cases that is, of course, true, but not universally. QUOTE: Also, it occurred to me that some people reading the HISTORICAL FACTS in your first two posts might not know what financial leveraging is so I am posting the definition ...In the early years of building their extraordinary wealth, the Rothschild's were way ahead of their time and they were financial geniuses ...Simple as that...
Definition of 'Leverage' 1. The use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital, such as margin, to increase the potential return of an investment. Investopedia explains 'Leverage' 1. Leverage can be created through options, futures, margin and other financial instruments. For example, say you have $1,000 to invest. This amount could be invested in 10 shares of Microsoft stock, but to increase leverage, you could invest the $1,000 in five options contracts. You would then control 500 shares instead of just 10. 2. Most companies use debt to finance operations. By doing so, a company increases its leverage because it can invest in business operations without increasing its equity. For example, if a company formed with an investment of $5 million from investors, the equity in the company is $5 million - this is the money the company uses to operate. If the company uses debt financing by borrowing $20 million, the company now has $25 million to invest in business operations and more opportunity to increase value for shareholders. Leverage helps both the investor and the firm to invest or operate. However, it comes with greater risk. If an investor uses leverage to make an investment and the investment moves against the investor, his or her loss is much greater than it would've been if the investment had not been leveraged - leverage magnifies both gains and losses. In the business world, a company can use leverage to try to generate shareholder wealth, but if it fails to do so, the interest expense and credit risk of default destroys shareholder value. Thank you for your erudite explanation. The concept is clearer for me as a result. So, employing this concept, the Rothschild family amassed a large fortune. This is not evidence of them being guilty of crimes etc. Moreover, one can view this family as being influential in shaping modern Europe. I know that comment will invite irrational charges of them being in collusion with Nazis, but that is not my intent. Rather, this family contributed to shaping modern Europe in an economic sense as the nations struggled against Absolutism through the Age of Revolution and the rise of Nationalism, finally ending in 1945. Although the foundation of the EU cannot be directly attributed to the family, the spirit of economic co-operation was clearly a goal. In addition, one can only speculate as to the extent this family created employment opportunities and raised the standard of living as an indirect result. Yes, agree...Blame (eventually) = cause... Occupy Wall Street is a perfect example of the have nots "rioting" against the haves so it shouldn't anger anyone...When a vision becomes a reality the "reason" for the reality does not matter to those who lack vision because all they see is the widening gap... Lastly, the Rothschild heritage...Yes, they were not only influential in shaping modern Europe they set the standard...Also, I think it should be mentioned that this family is KNOWN for the enormous amount philanthropic work they do, not just for Jews, but world wide and for many..... Good point! I overlooked the philanthropic aspect. |
|
HotRodDeluxe
Joined Sun 05/06/12 Posts: 2495 |
The English Rothschilds and members of the other branches in Europe were all major contributors to causes in aid of the Jewish people. However, many of their philanthropic efforts extended far beyond Jewish ethnic or religious communities. They built hospitals and shelters for the needy, supported cultural institutions and were patrons of individual artists. Their donation of works of art to various galleries has been the largest of any family in history. At present, a research project is underway by The Rothschild Archive in London to document the family's philanthropic involvements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_banking_family_of_England Yes, quite evil (note: sarcasm) |
|
Leigh2154
Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 8452 |
QUOTE: The English Rothschilds and members of the other branches in Europe were all major contributors to causes in aid of the Jewish people. However, many of their philanthropic efforts extended far beyond Jewish ethnic or religious communities. They built hospitals and shelters for the needy, supported cultural institutions and were patrons of individual artists. Their donation of works of art to various galleries has been the largest of any family in history. At present, a research project is underway by The Rothschild Archive in London to document the family's philanthropic involvements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_banking_family_of_England Yes, quite evil (note: sarcasm) So noted... 
RESUMÉ Lord Jacob Rothschild Lord Jacob Rothschild is the Fourth Baron and current patriarch of the British branch of the House of Rothschild. For nearly 250 years, the Rothschilds have been offering discreet advice to many of Europe’s wealthiest industrialists, kings, queens, and emperors. They have cultivated a legendary reputation for good citizenship and generous philanthropy that has historically supported the arts, the poor, medical care, education, and Jewish causes. The London branch of the family helped fund the Napoleonic Wars; helped England avert a liquidity crisis in 1825 using their own money; and financed the purchase of the Suez Canal. Jacob Rothschild attended Eton and Oxford, and got his start in banking at Morgan Stanley and his family’s bank, NM Rothschild. He further proved his investment mettle by establishing his own successful investment firm RIT. Rothschild is a pro-minent patron of the arts in Britain, serving as chairman of the Trustees of the National Gallery, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and the British National Heritage Lottery Fund. He also oversees Waddeson, his family’s restored chateau in Buckinghamshire, which is run by himself and the National Trust as a museum. This is a great article... “Philanthropy is part of our family tradition, part of the family’s DNA.” The patriarch of the British branch of the Rothschild family on the importance of philanthropy http://www.egonzehnder.com/us/focus/topics/article/id/85700229 |