You are missing the overall point. And I think it's because you don't understand a basic principle of physics which is entropy. In other words it's easier to purposefully tear something down then it is to build it up. Have you ever wondered why it takes seconds for Controlled Demolition Inc to tear down a building that it took months or even years to construct? Entropy. Sure it takes CDI a while to wire it properly, but even that is only measured in days. And it takes that long because they want to minimize the damage.
You should take the time to read the book "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins. In it he explains how he would, on behalf of international bankers, systematically destroy the economies of developing nations. Under your false theory of libertarianism that's not possible. Conspiracies can't achieve desired results. Only they do every day. That's because a desired result that is
less overall wealth for everyone is much easier to achieve than one that creates
more. Here is a practical example. Part of the derivatives bubble is that megabanks would buy credit default swaps, basically insurance against default, for other financial institutions and then turn around and squeeze credit on those same institutions in order to make a profit. Did it work? Duh! Of course it worked! Was it good for the overall economy? Most certainly not. So understanding that people can conspire together to create a result that is good for
them is not the same as saying "Well I guess Austrian economics isn't truth then".
With regard to trutherism that I was talking about, the CIA which also pretty young compared to the global elite system of truther postulates, was set up to mess around in foreign countries. The example you have cited is also an example of nefarious forces inside a government generally bungling.
Is a home invader "bungling" when he kills everyone in the house and makes off with the loot? No. And a dictator isn't bungling when he destroys his own country and gets filthy rich in the process.
The CIA has clearly had its fingers in a lot of pies for the last 60 years. The problem is that it is royally screwing up everything it touches because it can't account for all the variables. It necessarily will always bugger things up because it is to big and too broad.
The 'Truther' school as I am using the term believes that the organising entitiy[ies] are accounting for all the variables. The consider that what economists like those cited study and call market forces are simply charades of puppet masters creating economic theatre.
You do not have to "control all of the variables" to get a desired result. Let's take the 1993 WTC bombing. We know the basic facts of what happened. An FBI informant was inside a cell of radical Muslims. He informed his handler that they wanted to blow up the WTC and he was the bomb maker. He asked to swap the explosives with harmless powder. The handlers said no, use real explosives. Seven people died in that attack. It was "bungled" to the extent that the entire building didn't collapse, but it was a successful terrorist attack. Now, using your warped logic, only the terrorists themselves could have wanted the bombing to happen because only olactors outside of government are able to achieve a nefarious purpose. There are two possibilities for those inside the FBI who made the decision to use real explosives. One is that such a person is
incredibly stupid. The other is that such
uncomfortably evil. So, we must believe that a government that is able to recruit the best and brightest to do moon landings is only able to get absolute idiots to work in its intelligence service, because otherwise libertarianism is false? Sorry, but that makes no sense. And someone inside the FBI that desired a nefarious result didn't need to "control all of the variables." He only needed to control one which is whether or not the informant used real explosives.
Fast forward to the most recent underwear bomber. The CIA admits it was controlling the bomber the whole time. Was it to "foil a plot" or was it to scare the public into giving up more rights? Who knows. What is known is that they were controlling all of the variables and they achieved the desired result whichever it was. If it was a real plot then good for them! They foiled it! If it was a stunt to scare the public...well it worked. Either way it smacks down your "They can't control a conspiracy" thesis.
There is plenty of room to believe that governments act covertly and nefariously without having to buy into extreme levels of efficiency.
Again that's a straw man argument. It doesn't require "extreme levels of efficiency" to benefit a few.
