Brendan:

oxnsox:

Brendan:
Assuming a competently run conspiracy    ...(edit).... 

I think this statement requires some clarification. 

No, I didn't think so. i thought it was clear enough.

But I'll explain it further. A well run conspiracy is a conspiracy that is both difficult to detect, it's members are motivated (by self interest or religion say) to keep it secret, and the conspiracy is acheiving it's ends.


For example, a few years ago we were all told here in New Zealand by the banking experts of the time that there was no room for another bank; that it was a foolish waste of money.
When one was established anyway, they then said it would not survive, and that the fee's the older banks were charging was rock bottom, cant go any lower, financial suicide to attempt it.
When THAT was also done by the new bank, it was again asserted by the old banks that it would fail, and again they also asserted it was a a foolish waste of taxpayer money. I may also recall them trying to claim that the NZ public didn't want it.
When the new bank went on to gain more and more customers, charging less and less, it became clear that not only could it work, but it WAS working. Now, the old banks are dropping charges to compete.

Now: does this constitute a conspiracy (before it 'failed')? Remember, we had various supposedly unconnected banks all saying the same thing. They were motivated (by money) to conceal the truth (the new bank could work, and they were ripping us off). And it was difficult to detect at the time (they were the 'experts" and beyond questions almost).


Now, if this is deemed a conspiracy (of market manipulation), why is it difficult to assume there are other, less obvious conspiracies we did NOT get evidence for?