Bit Coins represent trade in an Economy independent of the Rot Schild banks.
There is no proof that the 2007 financial crises was not orchestrated on purpose. There is also no proof that that 2007 financial crises was orchestrated on purpose.
But we do know that Goldman Sachs sold financial instruments to their clients which they betted against. When the clients lost that money the profiteers was Goldman Sachs.
1. If you assume that the Rot Schild banks owned the entire English economy since June, 1815 and, If you assume that the Rot Schild bank had a value of USD 1,000,000 at that time, growing at 5% per annum for 200 years it's value would be USD 17.2 Trillion.
If you also consider that the Federal Reserve has been leaking money into the shareholders of the FED at 6% of interest on bonds raised since 1913, and if Rot Schild banks were all part share holders in the founding banks of the Federal reserve this profit has been going to them.
If the Rot Schild banks were the major investors in Goldman Sachs, it would make sense for Goldman to loose their investors money and transfer it to their biggest investors directly through dividend.
We know from 1. above that the Rot Schild holdings should easily be USD 17 trillion + and that the valuations of the banks that went under was about USD 800 billion. Hence it is highly possible that the biggest investor in Goldman is bigger than all the rest combined.
The bitcoins are there for a reason much much more important I think.
I cannot completely follow you, but your number of 17.2 Trillion is off by the factor 1.000, and the fortune of the Rothschild family spread and resolved from generation to generation, as large family fortunes always do.
In 1816, the GDP was 0.32 billion pounds. If you assume from 1816 the lending to UK govt bonds was the Rot Schild bank, the starting point of the Rot Schild base moeny that I took will be far more than USD 1 million. So I think you will arrive at a trillion any which ways.
The reason for this is that from that year going forward, the Rot Schild would have bought bonds from the govt (effectively lending them money) every year going ahead, giving them (the Rot Schilds) a passive income stream from then to now.
Each year a new income stream would have been added by loaning additional bonds, which was independent of the previous years income.
I don't know what numbers to plug in, perhaps that is left to someone more knowledgeable than me.
Your thought exercise of $1 million turning into $17.2 trillion via 5% over 200 years only works if none of the money (including any of the interest) is ever touched or spent. It is an unrealistic assumption that ignores the complexities of reality.
There is no proof that the 2007 financial crises was not orchestrated on purpose. There is also no proof that that 2007 financial crises was orchestrated on purpose.
But we do know that Goldman Sachs sold financial instruments to their clients which they betted against. When the clients lost that money the profiteers was Goldman Sachs.
1. If you assume that the Rot Schild banks owned the entire English economy since June, 1815 and, If you assume that the Rot Schild bank had a value of USD 1,000,000 at that time, growing at 5% per annum for 200 years it's value would be USD 17.2 Trillion.
If you also consider that the Federal Reserve has been leaking money into the shareholders of the FED at 6% of interest on bonds raised since 1913, and if Rot Schild banks were all part share holders in the founding banks of the Federal reserve this profit has been going to them.
If the Rot Schild banks were the major investors in Goldman Sachs, it would make sense for Goldman to loose their investors money and transfer it to their biggest investors directly through dividend.
We know from 1. above that the Rot Schild holdings should easily be USD 17 trillion + and that the valuations of the banks that went under was about USD 800 billion. Hence it is highly possible that the biggest investor in Goldman is bigger than all the rest combined.
The bitcoins are there for a reason much much more important I think.