In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> What they have done many times in the past. When there is a situation where banks are likely to lose an uncomfortable amount of money they will do their utmost to persuade government / central banks to fix it for them.
It is a hell of a lot safer for a government to take advice from say a biochemist on biochemistry than to take advice from a billionaire banker on central bank policy.
>
But ask a former general for advice on the military, or a head of the NHS about healthcare, or an ex head teacher about education funding, or the head of an NGO about charities and you will likely find somebody with an axe to grind. But if you don't ask those people you will be ignorant not only of their interests but of the detailed mechanics of the activity.
That is why the Board of directors of the BOE, for example, is always of mixture of (ex)financiers and other, independent, people. Frankly it would be irresponsible not to allow such experts in their relevant fields to advise on public policy.
Anyway, can we agree that singling out the Rothschilds, as opposed to any other wealthy person or banker, as especially dangerous people in such a context has no evidential base at all?