Conspiracy Theory

[Oleg Bach]

Gold in the last long while has sky rocketed in price - there are movements to gather up all of it that is stored even in boxes on the average dresser drawer. Gold for cash! Well the price that entices all people to dump their gold will not always be so seductive - someone some where is gathering up what is left of private gold...and someone some where is storing it on mass - this reminds me of back in the 30s where people were almost forced to turn in their gold and go for that damned useless print as you wish currency - who ever stalk piles the gold is in power - paper in an instance will be worth nothing - history repeats itself.

[Michael Hardner]

I want segnosaur to come back.

[Oleg Bach]

I want segnosaur to come back.

Who is that?

[maple_leafs182]

Micheal Hardner, try and watch this movie, you don't even have to physically watch it, you can listen to it in the background while posting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261#

its an 1 1/2 hours long, just try like 5-10 minutes.

[Yesterday]

Gold in the last long while has sky rocketed in price - there are movements to gather up all of it that is stored even in boxes on the average dresser drawer. Gold for cash! Well the price that entices all people to dump their gold will not always be so seductive - someone some where is gathering up what is left of private gold...and someone some where is storing it on mass - this reminds me of back in the 30s where people were almost forced to turn in their gold and go for that damned useless print as you wish currency - who ever stalk piles the gold is in power - paper in an instance will be worth nothing - history repeats itself.

Global Finality of Settlements is a very lenghty indepth creation of a monetary system based on equal trade or gold/mineral standard. It is interesting and enlightening and built by growing number of people who feel very strongly about this. However, as you state, with the current concentration and geological placement of gold and minerals I want to read into this seemingly innocent alternative, an underlying agenda. I do not think though that it will ever happen. In reality it is not paper money based on need that is the problem. It is simply the current corruption and the much needed understanding of how to bring this fractional reserve system back to tolerable levels. There is not enough gold or other in the world to cover both the current world debt and future profit, unless something like the ST. Germain's Fund is going to jump in out of no where and bail out the world with a dollar figure that has 45 zeros behind it. Giggle. IMO, the only way to truly stabalize a country or the world is to be able to seperate private need from commercial and support it internally. Seperate from both fractional banking and interest.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Yesterday

[Oleg Bach]

Micheal Hardner, try and watch this movie, you don't even have to physically watch it, you can listen to it in the background while posting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261#

its an 1 1/2 hours long, just try like 5-10 minutes.

My pops use to say that anything that the human mind can imagine and conceive - can manifest into reality..if some one wants to conspire to do strange things in the world - they can take place - except for those little green men and the flying saucers...what I saw as far as conspiracy was 5 years 24 7 in the court system - all of them queitly communicate and all conspire to maintain power..What I witness would make your hair stand on end..If you mention this to the average person they will think you are nuts - but I saw and heard it myself. When a powerful and credible man said to me -"what do you think of the weather I sent you" - this guy does not joke.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, there are good messages there - but the solution to a lot of these problems is just for everyone, everywhere to use a little more good sense. The Venus Project, as I remember from a previous posting of yours, is a sweeping project that aims to change everything - and was started by a lone messiah type person. I don't remember much else about the proposal...

[Oleg Bach]

Yes, there are good messages there - but the solution to a lot of these problems is just for everyone, everywhere to use a little more good sense. The Venus Project, as I remember from a previous posting of yours, is a sweeping project that aims to change everything - and was started by a lone messiah type person. I don't remember much else about the proposal...

You do not tear down the temple (the body) or the institutions and build them back up in three days - revolution talks place in the mind - a higher state of awareness - and just like mafia and those that operate in the private business sphere..along with government - the oath of silence is a must...It makes no sense to attack the system like young idealistic anarchist..one must enter into the belly of the beast and quietly make the neccesary adjustments - in other words tweak the corrupt system back into good form - those that run the big machine will not mind as long as you let them believe they are still in power...It is the lowly righteous slave that eventually commands the house belonging to the master - because the master is not capable of good management.

Those that attack - will be repelled..the rich and powerful have well trained goonish criminal to protect them - and the last thing you want is a fight that you will lose.

[Yesterday]

One world government does seem to be the flavour at the moment. I have watched many a video and read more than few articles and continue to do so as really only time will tell what the reality of the statement will be. To me I just see a regrouping of most of the various groups aforementioned in this thread and is strictly geared towards commercial development of underdeveloped countries while leaving the internal infrastructure mostly to the discretion of its own government. It is apparent in the huge unrest of most European countries that are involved in the EU not to mention our own when considering the North American Union. No country wants to let go of it's sovereignty. The Soviet Union, although a special case unto itself is another example of how idividuality really does count and of how culture really is a tour du force and should never be underestimated along side of the inability to tolerate anything but self governance within each country.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Yesterday

[Oleg Bach]

DON'T blame the socialist - blame big business that control this movement. I started off on the farm listening to short wave - and am a news junky - I evaluate everything for what I truly see it to be..Not that I am part of the black helicopter set..but - I do remember a few years back out in open country - four unmarked very AMERICAN black choppers flew over heading north they were at tree top level..not to mention that these flyers were preceeded by a very large chopper with a massive tank attatched to the rear..all were unmarked..things do take place..that the average person who is very trusting and afraid will not even want to contemplate...of course all power is conducted in secrecy and politics for the most part are amuzing theatre - Political types have no power.Those in power are not high profile - they take the subway - they live modestly and the best security they have is privacy and non-existence..they do not have public egos - they have huge private egos.

[Yesterday]

DON'T blame the socialist - blame big business that control this movement. I started off on the farm listening to short wave - and am a news junky - I evaluate everything for what I truly see it to be..Not that I am part of the black helicopter set..but - I do remember a few years back out in open country - four unmarked very AMERICAN black choppers flew over heading north they were at tree top level..not to mention that these flyers were preceeded by a very large chopper with a massive tank attatched to the rear..all were unmarked..things do take place..that the average person who is very trusting and afraid will not even want to contemplate...of course all power is conducted in secrecy and politics for the most part are amuzing theatre - Political types have no power.Those in power are not high profile - they take the subway - they live modestly and the best security they have is privacy and non-existence..they do not have public egos - they have huge private egos.

No blame, perhaps shame and definately responsibility. I say all three as it is government that signed away our rights time and time again to gain the power that the money these people weild can give them. A human fallacy. Not particularly Socialist but I would say all parties, all governments and most people everywhere.

War, a preference I don't pretend to understand through foolish justification. Long since robbed of its power of conquest/defense left to wallow in pity and scorn as a tool for simple monetary gain and at its absolute worst if the perception of some were to be believed, a tool for population control.

[Pliny]

In reality it is not paper money based on need that is the problem.

If it were we could just print more, right?

Conspiracy theorists are a bit off the mark. The world has already been divided up and controlling interests mainly concern themselves with maintaining and consolidating their positions. Most of them do think it is in their interests and the interests of the world to operate from a global perspective.

Earlier than 1913 the concentration of economic power was the main interest of already existing global powers and was more or less thought to be accomplished at that particular time, recalcitrant sovereigns such as Czar Nicholas were weak and could be easily unseated.

I think that at the time of WWI there was a great push to attempt to establish the Communist goal of the international State. It met with failure of course, mostly because currencies were not entirely fiat paper tokens, it still took gold and silver to wage wars. Today we have entirely fiat paper currencies but the goal of socialism is in question. The failure of the USSR and the economic failure of socialism has given rise to looking at options. While die hard socialists still exist the big powers understand there are serious flaws in it. Dictators like Chavez for the most part are short lived and are more likely to end up like Louis XVI.

[Yesterday]

If it were we could just print more, right?

Conspiracy theorists are a bit off the mark. The world has already been divided up and controlling interests mainly concern themselves with maintaining and consolidating their positions. Most of them do think it is in their interests and the interests of the world to operate from a global perspective.

Earlier than 1913 the concentration of economic power was the main interest of already existing global powers and was more or less thought to be accomplished at that particular time, recalcitrant sovereigns such as Czar Nicholas were weak and could be easily unseated.

I think that at the time of WWI there was a great push to attempt to establish the Communist goal of the international State. It met with failure of course, mostly because currencies were not entirely fiat paper tokens, it still took gold and silver to wage wars. Today we have entirely fiat paper currencies but the goal of socialism is in question. The failure of the USSR and the economic failure of socialism has given rise to looking at options. While die hard socialists still exist the big powers understand there are serious flaws in it. Dictators like Chavez for the most part are short lived and are more likely to end up like Louis XVI.

This is a nice post. I wonder if the flaws are mostly related to fractional reserve banking and interest. I really do wonder if that is the problem. Creating money itself is not an issue in other settings like ( I can't remeber if it was north or south ) Carolina's. I'm so hazy on my history facts but I do remember friction with England over the success of the program and its eventual demise because of this friction. I wish I could understand whether or not a simple system of creation/tax removed from fractional reserve with minimal interest to help regulate flow would work. It boggles my mind how complicated this whole system is and I wonder how many important global decisions are being made with tied hands because of this failure. In my mind making money off of money would have to be a big part of the problem. You make money from service. I suppose that one could argue that the banks are providing a service of providing credit but this argument only wins because of the fact that there is no where else go and when applied to this lop sided system you need interest to create money.

[Pliny]

This is a nice post. I wonder if the flaws are mostly related to fractional reserve banking and interest. I really do wonder if that is the problem.

It is a big part of our problems in the world.

The flaws in socialism are not just economic, and it's economics are primarily it's failure, but in understanding human behavior as well. People will always act to improve themselves or improve their lives or improve whatever they perceive their importances are, others are not privy to what is important to an individual but it becomes apparent in his actions.

Governments have slowly removed barriers to their ability to act. They have granted to themselves the ability to spend without regard to any limitations. They used tt not be able to go beyond what hey could extract from the economy in taxation. Then with the creation of the central bank they were able to borrow and then with the elimination of the gold standard were finally able to create money virtually at will - of course they had to justify it and many crises presented themselves that bade them to do so and to also commit to future liabilities in the form of social entitlements that they now find are draining the economy.

Removal of the dollar from the gold standard was the final natural limiting factor on government's ability to spend. The people are left to be the only watchdog of government spending but they demand their entitlements and are too easy to convince that a crisis makes spending necessary.

[jbg]

The war on terrorism, that is like declaring a war on wars. It can't be won, it is a perpetual war.

Especially when we fight with both hands tied behind our backs.

[maple_leafs182]

Especially when we fight with both hands tied behind our backs.

and our eyes closed.

[Oleg Bach]

No blame, perhaps shame and definately responsibility. I say all three as it is government that signed away our rights time and time again to gain the power that the money these people weild can give them. A human fallacy. Not particularly Socialist but I would say all parties, all governments and most people everywhere.

War, a preference I don't pretend to understand through foolish justification. Long since robbed of its power of conquest/defense left to wallow in pity and scorn as a tool for simple monetary gain and at its absolute worst if the perception of some were to be believed, a tool for population control.

My old mother inlaw likes to watch war movies - she said that war is good because it is population control..what a nut! Those that believe that would like to kill anyone in their path that irritated them if they could get away with it - war kills a tiny amount of people in comparison to disease and old age..it is just plain silly to say that war is of any good positive use - it is adventurism with profit incentives... so off we go to the Highway Of Heros - and we salute those that "sacrificed" them selves so we "could be free" - what a crock of shit...

I will tell you what war is all about - PRIMITIVE HUMAN SACRIFICE - where the rich and powerful want to feel relevant and have power over life and death....the ultimate success for some is to be able to give the call on who is to live and who is to die - This is a the mind of a human monster - and these freaks are in our midst..much like the priest that rapes a boy - who is like some occultish vampire that believes they are sucking up the power of the child and it will grant eternal youth....

Those that wage war indirectly and cause death take great glee in killing and in the thought that no one knows that they are mass murdering jerks.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Those that wage war indirectly and cause death take great glee in killing and in the thought that no one knows that they are mass murdering jerks.

Lighten up Francis....we kill more people today with motor vehicle "accidents". Next you'll be claiming that the insurance companies are in on it as indirect profiteers of "mass murder".

[ToadBrother]

Removal of the dollar from the gold standard was the final natural limiting factor on government's ability to spend. The people are left to be the only watchdog of government spending but they demand their entitlements and are too easy to convince that a crisis makes spending necessary.

Why do people continually declare the superiority of the gold standard. The gold standard did not prevent the Depression, and to some degree probably made it deeper. It isn't an economic panacea, and it never particularly stopped governments from going into debt.

[segnosaur]

They are conspiring together to achieve there goal of world government and they are getting them.

WTO, WHO, UN, EU...

Each of these organizations is composed of individual countries who maintain their own political independence. Each member country has the option of withdrawing, or of limiting its involvement. (The exception to this might be military action to prevent genocides and other extreme situations, but such actions are typically short-lived.)

It should also be pointed out that for most of these organizations are also limited in scope... the WTO deals only with issues of international trade. The WHO deals only with health issues.

... there has been money spent on plans for building a NAFTA super highway from mexico to Canada.

Ummm... they're called "roads". Perhaps you might have heard of them? We had various transportation connections for decades.

Believe it or not, the ability for countries to engage in trade with each other is usually something viewed as favorable, and something that isn't indicative of an attempt to 'control' anybody.

There was almost the first world tax in Copenhagen.

I could simply point out the fact that 'almost' only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and that that particular proposal basically went nowhere.

I could also point out that such tax would still be a voluntary thing for each country.

They can take certain actions (change interest rates, print more currency, etc.) that will have some effect, but their overall ability to 'control' the economy is very limited.

They cannot control prices (products or wages).

They cannot control radical politicians (e.g. Chavez)

They cannot control the environment.

They cannot control product demand and/or trends.

Furthermore, the 'fed' (and other currency controllers) are not some monolithic group. In the U.S., the chair is appointed by the government (which is democratically elected), and the banks that are just as much competitors as co-conspirators.

The chair is appointed by the government, sweet the front man is appointed by the government, you think Ben Bernake makes the decisions.

Actually, as chair he is very influential in the decisions made by the fed.

I could also point out that other members of the fed are also appointed by the government.

Controlling interest rates and the money supply is a big thing when your talking about the economy.

Yeah but for the most part control of interest rates and the money supply is more reactionary than anything else.

Right now the Fed is purposely destroying the U.S. economy by having interest rates this low...

Just the opposite... you put interest rates low when the economy is under performing to encourage people to spend and allow business to afford capital purchases. You raise interest rates when the economy is performing strongly, as a measure to slow down growth and reduce the impact of any boom/bust cycles.

If they really wanted to destroy the economy, they'd immediately hike interest rates.

...it is just another bubble in the economy, artificial spending encouraged by cheap money. Along with the stimulus bubble, the U.S. is just one big bubble economy waiting to burst.

The use of government 'stimulus' funds to get the economy going again is a cornerstone of Keynsian economic theory.

Whether it will work or not in the long term is debatable, but the fact is, the use of stimulus spending is more a symptom of democratically-elected politicians trying to save their own jobs than it is some sort of shadowy puppet government. (The issue of stimulus spending has been hotly debated amongst politicians and citizens, so its not like its some sort of secret plan.)

Not to mention the Federal government is running a 1.5 trillion dollar and growing deficit that they will never be able to afford. The only way they will be able to continue operating at this size is by getting the Federal Reserve to buy bonds and that would inflate the currency.

I agree that the government is running a significant debt and may have some trouble handling its obligations in the future. But that's more a sign of politicians and voters being short sighted than anything else.

Remember, at one point, Canada had a much higher per-capita deficit than the U.S., yet we managed to eliminate our deficit (at least for a period of time).

Not sure why you're claiming that the "federal reserve has to buy bonds". The federal reserve does not have that sort of equity available to cover the U.S. debt.

Wall Street Hijacked Washington. There is fascism in America.

You know, there may be small flaws in the democracies of the western world, but to label it "fascism" is to distort the term and make it totally meaningless.

You can't have a democracy when the only way you can win is by having millions of dollars.

In a true democracy everyone should be given a fair chance at winning.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the fact that there is a requirement for some spending in order to get elected is useful in order to prevent elections from turning into a farce. (Remember the 2003 California recall election, that saw such noted political heavyweights as Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman as candidates.)

The fact that worldwide we see political shifts across the political spectrum (countries regularly elect right and left wing parties) show that, while having financial backing has some importance, its not the only thing necessary to gain power.

Nope, people put themselves into debt. Its a choice people make. Often people choose wrong, but it still a personal decision.

I'm talking country.

A country goes into debt when its citizens vote for politicians that want to spend more than the government receives in revenue. If people didn't want the country in debt, they'd vote for parties that want to cut spending.

Where does money come from.

Partly by money being printed, partly by the governments allowing banks to lend more than they have in assets (or similar mechanism).

The central Bank must buy bonds from the government in order for money to come into existence.

Uhhh.. no they don't.

[Yesterday]

Why do people continually declare the superiority of the gold standard. The gold standard did not prevent the Depression, and to some degree probably made it deeper. It isn't an economic panacea, and it never particularly stopped governments from going into debt.

I have wondered this too, the stability would come from an asset based dollar not the gold so referred to. It is the desire more than anything to remove fractional reserve. Dollar = asset or no deal. "Gold standard" seems to be a catch phrase.

[maple_leafs182]

Each of these organizations is composed of individual countries who maintain their own political independence. Each member country has the option of withdrawing, or of limiting its involvement. (The exception to this might be military action to prevent genocides and other extreme situations, but such actions are typically short-lived.)

It should also be pointed out that for most of these organizations are also limited in scope... the WTO deals only with issues of international trade. The WHO deals only with health issues.

Only health, only trade, those aren't small things.

The WHO and WTO are gaining more and more power with their "regulations".

I don't like the consolidation of power.

Ummm... they're called "roads". Perhaps you might have heard of them? We had various transportation connections for decades.

Thanks, I'm just saying that that 'they' are working towards integrating North America into one community or state if you will.

I could simply point out the fact that 'almost' only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and that that particular proposal basically went nowhere.

I could also point out that such tax would still be a voluntary thing for each country.

I'll agree with the 'almost' part but I doubt we've heard the last of the carbon tax. Chances are we will be in on it too.

Actually, as chair he is very influential in the decisions made by the fed.

I could also point out that other members of the fed are also appointed by the government.

It doesn't matter who they appoint, the practice of the fractional reserve system is the corruption.

Yeah but for the most part control of interest rates and the money supply is more reactionary than anything else.

Maybe on the surface.

I have a different view.

Slavery is but the owning of labor.

How do you own labor, you would have to somehow control the economy. How do you control the economy, the economy runs off money. Having a monopoly over money is a great way to control the economy.

I'm pretty sure America knew the threat of banks when it fought the first American revolutionary war.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."-Thomas Jefferson

Just the opposite... you put interest rates low when the economy is under performing to encourage people to spend and allow business to afford capital purchases. You raise interest rates when the economy is performing strongly, as a measure to slow down growth and reduce the impact of any boom/bust cycles.

If they really wanted to destroy the economy, they'd immediately hike interest rates.

I understand why they put interest rates so low but all that does is create a bubble in the economy. The fed may be helping the economy short term but they are destroying the economy in the long term. This cheap money can't last forever, once people come to the realization that everyone is broke, they will have to raise interest rates to discourage borrowing, then all that artificial spending that went into the economy from having low interests rates goes away. Crash.

The economy is only running off stimulus and low interest rates, that isn't the real economy.

It will come crashing down.

The use of government 'stimulus' funds to get the economy going again is a cornerstone of Keynsian economic theory.

Keynsian economics is very flawed.

Austrian economics is far superior.

Whether it will work or not in the long term is debatable, but the fact is, the use of stimulus spending is more a symptom of democratically-elected politicians trying to save their own jobs than it is some sort of shadowy puppet government. (The issue of stimulus spending has been hotly debated amongst politicians and citizens, so its not like its some sort of secret plan.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFstmclOQG8

I can garentee it won't work.

I agree that the government is running a significant debt and may have some trouble handling its obligations in the future. But that's more a sign of politicians and voters being short sighted than anything else.

They will have trouble handling in the near future.

Remember, at one point, Canada had a much higher per-capita deficit than the U.S., yet we managed to eliminate our deficit (at least for a period of time).

The US owes 12 trillion right now and growing.

What happens when the fed raises interest rates because they realize everyone is broke. Say they raise it to 10%, that is 1 trillion dollars they would have to pay for just the interest on the debt they owe.

Where will they get that money from.

Not sure why you're claiming that the "federal reserve has to buy bonds". The federal reserve does not have that sort of equity available to cover the U.S. debt.

Who will buy the bonds to pay for America's deficit, the world is broke. They can try raising taxes but that can only go so far before the people revolt.

They don't have the equity, can they not print money out of thin air.

You know, there may be small flaws in the democracies of the western world, but to label it "fascism" is to distort the term and make it totally meaningless.

Mussolini said fascism is the merger of corporate and political interests, that is America... at least in my eyes.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the fact that there is a requirement for some spending in order to get elected is useful in order to prevent elections from turning into a farce. (Remember the 2003 California recall election, that saw such noted political heavyweights as Larry Flynt and Gary Coleman as candidates.)

The US election campaign, already breaking all records for fundraising and spending, is set to breach the $1bn (£614m) mark this month, making it the costliest by far in American history.

The two candidates had raised a combined total of $961m by the end of September, according to figures released this week. But Barack Obama alone will almost certainly push that over the $1bn mark before the November 4 election.

Elections are a farce now. How does Joe the plummer compete with that.

Corporations choose who is elected way before the public does.

The fact that worldwide we see political shifts across the political spectrum (countries regularly elect right and left wing parties) show that, while having financial backing has some importance, its not the only thing necessary to gain power.

I'll agree with you somewhat, I still think financial backing has far more importance then just some importance.

Not to mention the mainstream media only covers the 2 parties.

A country goes into debt when its citizens vote for politicians that want to spend more than the government receives in revenue. If people didn't want the country in debt, they'd vote for parties that want to cut spending.

Countries go into debt as soon as the central bank loans the government money in order for money to come into existence.

Partly by money being printed, partly by the governments allowing banks to lend more than they have in assets (or similar mechanism).

Money that is printed by the Fed.

Money is created out of debt.

Uhhh.. no they don't.

Ya they do.

[Jack Weber]

This is a nice post. I wonder if the flaws are mostly related to fractional reserve banking and interest. I really do wonder if that is the problem. Creating money itself is not an issue in other settings like ( I can't remeber if it was north or south ) Carolina's. I'm so hazy on my history facts but I do remember friction with England over the success of the program and its eventual demise because of this friction. I wish I could understand whether or not a simple system of creation/tax removed from fractional reserve with minimal interest to help regulate flow would work. It boggles my mind how complicated this whole system is and I wonder how many important global decisions are being made with tied hands because of this failure. In my mind making money off of money would have to be a big part of the problem. You make money from service. I suppose that one could argue that the banks are providing a service of providing credit but this argument only wins because of the fact that there is no where else go and when applied to this lop sided system you need interest to create money.

The Confederacy printed it's own money,but it was state by state.It was essentially worthless because it was'nt backed by any appreciable gold reserve.

If you ever get your hands on Confederate bills,check out the prices....Some of them are worth a fortune now!

Edited June 15, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bloodyminded]

And the attendees of the Bilderberg meetings are very diverse... some are representatives of left-leaning socialist groups/parties, quite at odds with the corporate leaders that show up. With the diversity of people who are invited, how come not one has said "Hey I attended the Bilderberg meeting and they're planing to enslave humanity"?

It's something of a deal-clincher for me as well. There is not a secretive organization anywhere--right up to the CIA and the Executive White House--that has not had many whistle-blowers, either through disaffection, disillusion, or gneral principles of honesty and accountability. Fortunatley, human beings are always involved in organizations; so even though there can be (and is) a massive amount of secrecy, it can never be even close to 100%.

This is the problem with the 9/11 conspiracists as well. Never mind the reams of counter-evidence...the very fact of the imnpossibility of such massive secrecy is impossible to maintain. True conspiracies of this nature (and they no doubt genuinely exist) must remain very small, or fail.

[bloodyminded]

Conspiracy theorists are a bit off the mark. The world has already been divided up and controlling interests mainly concern themselves with maintaining and consolidating their positions. Most of them do think it is in their interests and the interests of the world to operate from a global perspective.

Just so. It is no conspiracy as such; it is the predictable consolidation and retention of Power on an institutional level.