I always keep an ear cocked for the possibility of conspiracy. Probably I read too many spy novels, but it is what it is.
Most of the time, after I've caught the scent (I guess I'm sniffing as well as listening) of a possible conspiracy, I decide that it's probably not so.
But sometimes ... sometimes ...
Conspiracy theories needn't be wacky. Really, there are quite reasonable ways of considering conspiracy theories. To wit:
Rule One: Null Hypothesis. Any conspiracy theory must be weighed against the null hypothesis that whatever has been happening was just the organic result of people going about their business. Lots of strange and unexpected things happen without anyone planning them. Responsible conspiracy theory requires that you continually ask yourself, what's the likelihood that all of this could just have occurred in the normal course of human events? Until a few people break ranks and admit to participating in a conspiracy, corroborating each others' accounts, there is always some possibility that it is all, indeed, coincidence. Often part of the "organic" hypothesis includes how people would be expected to act: people often react differently to events when they are responsible for them as opposed to when they are as surprised by them as everyone else. In fact, an inappropriate reaction is often the first suggestion of conspiracy.
Rule Two: Who? A conspiracy by definition is plotted by a group of people. To hypothesize a conspiracy, you should be able to identify who this group would be, and equally importantly, they should be able to identify each other: there can be no conspiracy if the potential parties to it cannot find and communicate with each other.
Rule Three: Why? A group of conspirators must generally have a shared and compelling motive. They do what they do because of some commonly desired result. Note that this does not preclude the possibility that they are wrong about what the result of their efforts will be, but there must be a reason behind their actions.
Rule Four: How? Conspirators must have the means to accomplish whatever actions are ascribed to them. The means must also be weighed against the motive: no one should be expected, even if they are able, to expend a pound of effort for an ounce of gain.
Anyway, with that out of the way, there are a couple potential conspiracies that I haven't been able to dismiss as completely improbable.
The first involves oil prices. As you may be aware, the price of oil has risen quite a bit over the last couple of years, and particularly over the last year, up until a month or two ago. A lot of this has clearly been organic: China and India, as they have become more wealthy, have increased their demand for oil markedly. Also, the dollar's decline is responsible for a good chunk of the rise.
But there have been suggestions that the price of oil has risen even more than can be explained by increased demand; typically, "speculation" has been blamed. But speculators are just out for profit: they would only drive up the price of something if they expected it to rise even more, so "speculation" would just be an organic cause.
It might, however, be something else. Notably, many in the current Fuckedupagain Administration have ties with the oil industry; might they not have suggested to friends in the industry that it would be useful for the Fuckedupagain Party, and by implication for the oil industry, if oil and gasoline prices dropped not too long before the November elections?
And so I wondered, will oil prices drop late this summer? And they did:
(I meant to have a chart of oil prices here.)
This doesn't prove anything, of course, and indeed oil prices jumped back up quite a bit on Monday. But still it sits in the back of my mind, in a dark place, murmuring, "Could be ... Could be ..."
The second potential conspiracy has to do with the recent financial crisis. This is much less fleshed-out in my thinking, but the strangeness of how the crisis underwent its denouement, particularly with Treasury Secretary Paulson's abrupt insistence that $700 billion must be ponied up within a week, all within fifty days of the election and ten days of (the scheduled date of) the first debate: just ... odd.
Of course, there were events leading up to this: the real estate economy has been seriously in the crapper for over a year now; Bear Stearns underwent a forced takeover this past spring; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over earlier this month, as was AIG. And Secretary Paulson spent the weekend before last wheeling and dealing, hooking Merril Lynch up with Bank of America, allowing Lehman Brothers to fall into bankruptcy after failing to find a rescuer, and having Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to Federal Reserve-backed bank holding companies. Indeed, it was only after the stock market continued to drop precipitously after all of this that Paulson, along with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, stepped forward with what was probably no better than a distant "Plan B" when all of this started.
Anyway, there is a lot to suggest that no one planned any significant part of this. Also, who would have planned it? If an underlying conspiracy intended to influence the election, it would seem that they must have wanted to throw it the Democrats' way ... and I don't think the wheelers-and-dealers of Wall Street have any strong Democratic bent.
But if you're inclined to look for conspiracies, you're inclined to look for conspiracies. So eventually another motive, more fitting with the group with the means to pull off such a stunt, suggested itself to me: might not the Masters of the Universe have already given up on the election, and they were only hoping to put the government so deeply into hock that the long-standing Fuckedupagain dream of knifing entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, might be realized? Could be ... Could be ...
At this point, I don't think it's true. The cost is too great, and the ability to influence events effectively too uncertain. I'd call the oil price conspiracy a "strong maybe," but the financial crisis conspiracy "very unlikely."
And of course there's a poll for you to give your own joint opinion.