There would be evidence. The chart helpfully points out a specific kind of evidence that is more or less impossible to conceal with any kind of conspiracy.
A flipside example: Financial world could instead be used by individuals on casinos, betting, stock markets, etc. and they'd have incentive to keep it secret so they keep winning.
It might be plausible to assume that someone exploiting ESP or whatever to beat the house could keep the secret of how they're winning. But it's a lot less plausible to postulate that they could keep secret the fact that they are beating the house or beating the market, unless the effect size is too small to be of much interest in the first place (ie. you have to largely abandon part of the original hypothesis: that the crazy phenomenon actually works).
This argument has the structure of a conspiracy theory: "A small group of people being able to keep an enormous secret, in order to manipulate the rest of us."
The more enormous the secret and the larger the group of people who supposedly are in on it, the more the probability of the secret not being a secret very long approaches one.
I find it very unlikely that a shortcut to making a lot of money would be secret for very long.
In particular, as the scope of the conspiracy grows, the cost of keeping that secret very quickly outstrips any potential profit from exploiting the secret. Eg. if oil companies could use ESP to know where to drill, then they would still need to be spending large sums of money on computers and software to analyze seismic data, or else the collapse of demand for those products would expose the conspiracy.
no planned obsolescence took place for a number of consumer products.
multiple and costly military invasions were to offer democracy as goodwill and for world safety.
a certain vaccine I can't dare to name is a vaccine as it does provide immunity.
the institutions of most democracies surely can't be so corrupted.
worldwide cocoa isn't mostly harvested by enslaved workers.
HIV is so far more prevalent in Africa because they can't afford treatment and understand prevention measures there.
JFK.
I could go on and on but not sure how many examples you would need to accept that the chances for enormous secrets known by even a significantly large group to not take a freaking long time before blowing up is rather close to zero. thus reconsidering your opinion on the existence of conspiracies.
and, about shortcuts to making a lot of money being kept rather well secrets: dark budgets, secret and hidden inflation, supply fudging
A critique of conspiracy theories is not a denial that conspiracies exist. It just means that the concept of a "conspiracy theory" as basis of trying to understand reality is flawed, because it relies on no or bad evidence, and very often seeks to simplify a very complex reality in a way that doesn't do that reality justice.
But I am not sure if we both mean the same things when we use the word "conspiracy". It's not a secret, for example. that cocolate has a slave labor problem. Planned obsolescence is not a secret (but it's more complex than just someone trying to screw you over). I don't think I understand the conspiracy aspect of the rest of your examples, save for the obvious JFK conspiracy theories.
> about shortcuts to making a lot of money being kept rather well secrets: dark budgets, secret and hidden inflation, supply fudging
I would put to you: If the chances of this blowing up is rather close to zero, how do you know about it ?
definist fallacy or persuasive definition, not sure which argumentative trickery you are using right there with your selected definition of conspiracy theory critique.
what is more straight to see is that you've just made a false attribution by distorting what I wrote about close to zero chances of a blow up. I don't question your intention and honesty, but read my comment more carefully, or quote verbatim without distortion, and resist the use of fallacies in general if you would like to engage in honest and fair argumentative discution.
planned obsolescence was a well kept from public industrial scheme, decided by a small group, screwing billions of consumers. it isn't a secret anymore, it blew up, it took several decades to blow up, kept being refuted by some who haven't caught up with the evidences.
and if you accept the JFK case then I suppose you are admitting to beleive in some conspiracies, while at the same time refuting the concept while it's enduring its long process of battle against deniers, during the inevitable period of evidences remaining arguably to few or too weak, simplifications of reality.
consider at least accepting there is some contradiction this logic.
edit: had pressed send before finishing the comment.
