What is it with 9/11 kooks and the Federal Reserve?

[AlanGreenspan]

Recently i took upon the task of educating some twoofers on the loose change forums on some misconceptions they had about the Federal Reserve, among the most surprising ones were:


The Fed has the power to print money
Congress should act a Central Bank
The Fed charges interest on every dollar you hold
If you abolish The Fed you don't have to pay income taxes
There's no oversight on The Fed by neither Congress or the executive branch


... After correcting them on those issues i got banned without any warnings. That leads to my question, what is with these kooks and The Fed? Their ignorance one that subject is overwhelming and the conspiracy theories about it are just moronic ... but why is it such a sensible subject over there at Kookland?

p.s.: i would post the link to the thread but i still have less than 15 posts.

[JamesB]

Yeah, I have been following that thread, and similar ones. It is part of their overarching thesis of a bunch of powered elites secretly ruling the world. JFK, the USS Liberty, 9/11 etc. are all just a bunch of plots run by these powers that be in their minds. Nothing is as it seems. They use the same bogus factoids and idiotic logic to support their economic theories as the 9/11 ones.

[Matilda]

That leads to my question, what is with these kooks and The Fed? Their ignorance one that subject is overwhelming and the conspiracy theories about it are just moronic ... but why is it such a sensible subject over there at Kookland?


I think if you're already heavily invested in one anti-government conspiracy theory, there's no huge mental leap or rearranging of world views in order to incorporate any other anti-government CT. It's almost like some people collect them.

Why the Fed in particular? I think perhaps it's just the old CT of international bankers running the world type thingamy. And if they were likely to check the accuracy of the ideas they are buying into, they'd perhaps be less likely to believe in CTs in the first place - so they are almost selecting themselves to believe in weird things.

Did that make sense? I have no clue. I need coffee.

[Anti-sophist]

Let's not forget that once you can connect the shadow ruling elite to the Federal Reserve... that means to Banks.... which leads to the J. O. Os. That helps explain Israel.. and the Middle East... and the neocons... and Iraq... and oil.

It all fits. The key piece is connecting the shadow government to the JOOOOs. The Federal Reserve represents that "missing link" that lets them connect all the dots they know -must- be connected.

[A-Train]

The Fed has the power to print moneyIf the Fed is not printing money, what exactly is it doing when it "increases the money supply"?

Congress should act a Central BankI believe it says right in the Constitution that the Congress-- and Congress alone-- has the right to coin money.

The Fed charges interest on every dollar you holdThe Fed does not charge interest, but it is continually depreciating the money you have in your pocket when it prints money-- oops, I mean increases the money supply.

If you abolish The Fed you don't have to pay income taxes
Never heard that one before.

There's no oversight on The Fed by neither Congress or the executive branch
As in so many areas, the oversight has become a rubber stamp.


If you're wondering what the common thread is with 9/11 truth, it is this. The Fed deceives the people every day with its manipulation of money, just as the the people were deceived on Sept. 11 to believe we were attacked by 19 al-Qaeda Arabs.

[twinstead]

If you're wondering what the common thread is with 9/11 truth, it is this. The Fed deceives the people every day with its manipulation of money, just as the the people were deceived on Sept. 11 to believe we were attacked by 19 al-Qaeda Arabs.

But, there are folks just as intelligent and aware as you who disagree with you on both points. LOTS of 'em. And they understand both events enough to succinctly explain WHY they disagree.

If you want to lump conspiracies into some grand unified conspiracy theory that's fine; rational people prefer a more case-by-case approach.

[WildCat]

If the Fed is not printing money, what exactly is it doing when it "increases the money supply"?
It lowers the interest rate. This is Economics 101 A-Train.

I believe it says right in the Constitution that the Congress-- and Congress alone-- has the right to coin money.
This means that states can't print their own money. Having a single national currency is kind of convenient, don't you think?

The Fed does not charge interest, but it is continually depreciating the money you have in your pocket when it prints money-- oops, I mean increases the money supply.
Argument from ignorance, see my reply to your first question.

As in so many areas, the oversight has become a rubber stamp.
The point is to keep politicians from meddling in the money supply, see Zimbabwe today and Argentina in the 90's to understand why.


If you're wondering what the common thread is with 9/11 truth, it is this. The Fed deceives the people every day with its manipulation of money, just as the the people were deceived on Sept. 11 to believe we were attacked by 19 al-Qaeda Arabs.
100% wrong, as you usually are.

[AlanGreenspan]

If the Fed is not printing money, what exactly is it doing when it "increases the money supply"?

It conducts open market operations, like buying certificates and/or securities. It can also lower the amount that a bank is required to hold in reserves. Or it can also lower the interest rates at which it loans money to the banks.

When you don't understand how something is achieved i suggest you visit your local library instead of a conspiracy theories website.

I believe it says right in the Constitution that the Congress-- and Congress alone-- has the right to coin money.


First of all, the Fed does not "coin money". Second, Congress' main function is to legislate so that's why it delegates its powers to other federal agencies.

And third, the constitution does not say that Congress alone has the right to "coin money".

Local library > conspiracy websites.

The Fed does not charge interest, but it is continually depreciating the money you have in your pocket when it prints money-- oops, I mean increases the money supply.

Can you back up that assertion with actual data? Seeing how you were mistaken in your previous assertions i don't feel i can trust your word alone on this subject.

As in so many areas, the oversight has become a rubber stamp.

The chairman of the Fed is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate; the board of governors have to present an annual report to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Again, you are mistaken.

If you're wondering what the common thread is with 9/11 truth, it is this. The Fed deceives the people every day with its manipulation of money, just as the the people were deceived on Sept. 11 to believe we were attacked by 19 al-Qaeda Arabs.

Thanks for giving us a living example of what Matilda meant in her post.

[firecoins]

The US treasury prints money. The FED is in charge of interest rates. It lends money to banks. It tells bank how much cash are held in reserve. Congress does have some oversite as does the President.

[WildCat]

BTW, I am honored that the great Alan Greenspan has chosen to post here at the JREF. Welcome Alan! :D

[T.A.M.]

% of truthers that know WHAT a library is = 10%
% of truthers that know WHAT a library is AND where to find one = 0.01%

TAM:)

[AlanGreenspan]

... perhaps i should change my alias. I do wish i could occupy Greenspan's position here in the D.R. and achieve half the results he did.

[JimBenArm]

Oh, my god! Oh, my god! No, don't look. It's Alan Greenspan. I said don't look! Just act like he's not here. Do I have something in my teeth? Quit looking, he'll see you!
Oh, I hope I can get his autograph...

[Elizabeth I]

What is it with 9/11 kooks and the Federal Reserve?


You mean YOU don't know? :p

[beachnut]

If the Fed is not printing money, what exactly is it doing when it "increases the money supply"?

I believe it says right in the Constitution that the Congress-- and Congress alone-- has the right to coin money.

The Fed does not charge interest, but it is continually depreciating the money you have in your pocket when it prints money-- oops, I mean increases the money supply.

Never heard that one before.

As in so many areas, the oversight has become a rubber stamp.


If you're wondering what the common thread is with 9/11 truth, it is this. The Fed deceives the people every day with its manipulation of money, just as the the people were deceived on Sept. 11 to believe we were attacked by 19 al-Qaeda Arabs.
You should post only at LC.

[beachnut]

... perhaps i should change my alias. I do wish i could occupy Greenspan's position here in the D.R. and achieve half the results he did.... After correcting them on those issues i got banned without any warnings.
Remember, when at a truth site, do not post the truth. You have to post lies and fantasy, or you are banned it is rule 1,000,083. (rule books are 19.95, paypal accepted.)

[CurtC]

If the Fed is not printing money, what exactly is it doing when it "increases the money supply"?
The Fed doesn't increase the money supply, at least not directly. The Fed keeps tabs on the growth of the money supply and inflation, and tries to keep them both at a somewhat low rate.

So who increases the money supply? You and I do, every time we take out a loan. The money supply is a measure of all the cash available to people, and it's way way way bigger than the total amount of currency in circulation.

[stilicho]

... perhaps i should change my alias. I do wish i could occupy Greenspan's position here in the D.R. and achieve half the results he did.

Welcome Alan!!

Conspiracy kooks, of course, go way back to the gold-standard fanatics why throw around the word "Keynesian" as if they've ever read or understood Keynes. Most of them are right-wing gun nuts who think that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy.

The thing is, they don't realise that Keynes--a supporter of Bretton Woods, some version of the IMF and the World Bank, and central banking--made his name at first by explaining (1923 I think) that the political harm caused by reparations would not only worsen Germany's economy but also infect the rest of the world's as well.

He was right!

Probably no intellectual except, perhaps, Nietschze, Aristotle, or Aquinas, was ever as misunderstood or misquoted as much as Keynes.

[stilicho]

So who increases the money supply? You and I do, every time we take out a loan. The money supply is a measure of all the cash available to people, and it's way way way bigger than the total amount of currency in circulation.
We also do when we create an invoice, a payable and/or a receivable. And it's all on paper.

Took a long time for Bills Of Exchange to be recognised properly as money.

[AlanGreenspan]

Remember, when at a truth site, do not post the truth. You have to post lies and fantasy, or you are banned it is rule 1,000,083. (rule books are 19.95, paypal accepted.)

Yep; that's one of the funniest aspects of the "truth movement", it is based on lies.

[Lurker]

The Fed does not charge interest, but it is continually depreciating the money you have in your pocket when it prints money-- oops, I mean increases the money supply.

Um, you are aware that the banks and govt continually collect money and destroy it, right? Does that mean since they are decreasing the money supply that they are increasing the value of money? :o

[A-Train]

So who increases the money supply? You and I do, every time we take out a loan.

Wow. What a concept. So I guess when we go to a car dealership and purchase a new vehicle, it wasn't some assembly line workers in Japan or Detroit who created it, it was actually us!

Thank you for that. Now I'm really impressed with myself!

[Nim Chimpsky]

I saw a link to the Jekyll Island Monster in a rant from a twoofer:


This seems to be part of the whole Cabal.

As for the money supply,

So who increases the money supply? You and I do, every time we take out a loan. The money supply is a measure of all the cash available to people, and it's way way way bigger than the total amount of currency in circulation.

He's exactly right.

Wow. What a concept. So I guess when we go to a car dealership and purchase a new vehicle, it wasn't some assembly line workers in Japan or Detroit who created it, it was actually us!

Your understanding of money supply is infantile. There are 4 measures of money supply:

M0: The total of all physical currency, plus accounts at the central bank that can be exchanged for physical currency.
M1: M0 - those portions of M0 held as reserves or vault cash + the amount in demand accounts ("checking" or "current" accounts).
M2: M1 + most savings accounts, money market accounts, small denomination time deposits and certificate of deposit accounts (CDs) of under $100,000.
M3: M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase

agreements.


As of December, 2006 in the US, M1 was about $1.37 trillion and M2 was about $7.02 trillion.

Can your tiny brain comprehend this?

I'll try to pretend that I'm speaking to a 4th grader.

The government prints $1.00 (and backs up the value)
You take the dollar and deposit it in a checking (demand deposit) account.
Banks take deposits and make loans.
A bank is required to have a certain amount of money "in reserve". Meaning that you gave them $1.00 and through the use of your DD account can "demand" that dollar whenever you want.
The bank can then loan a certain portion of that dollar to other customers.
Your friend Tommy goes to the bank and borrows $.50.
You still have $1.00 in your account.
Tommy now has $.50 in his account.
How much "money" has been created? Did Detroit "manufacture" that $.50?

You guys should really read a little more than the prison planet web site.

[CurtC]

Wow. What a concept.
Dude, if you are unfamiliar with the concept that money is created when you take out a loan, then maybe you should sign up for a elementary macroeconomics course at the local community college. This is basic stuff.

You may even want to start with a Straight Dope article:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_163.html:Nobody is in charge of deciding how much currency to issue. The Treasury Department prints it, but the amount actually distributed to the public is purely a function of consumer demand. If people want more greenbacks, they draw down their checking accounts and get them. The government prints as much as people want.

The government doesn't create money, private banks do. Banks create money by making loans. Suppose I put $100 in my checking account. The bank bets I won't draw it out for a while and lends $85 of my $100 to legendary cartoonist Slug Signorino. Slug blows the $85 on Captain Morgan and lottery tickets at McGinty's. Now McGinty's has $85 in folding green and I've got $100 in checking that theoretically I can draw out at any time. Behold, the local money supply has bloomed from $100 to $185.

It doesn't stop there. If McGinty's puts the $85 in its checking account, its bank will lend out most of it, increasing the money supply even more. That's how the banks find the cash to lend to Uncle Sam. They lend it out, the government spends it, the recipients put the money in the bank, and the banks lend out that. The total amount of money that banks can create is regulated by the Federal Reserve. Too much money (not too much currency) = inflation.

The whole financial system is a house of cards. Probably during that last example you were thinking, jeez, what if Uncle Cecil drew out his $100, as he was legally entitled to do? It wouldn't be there! Righto. If everybody decided to take what they had coming out of their accounts and bury it in the garden, the financial system would collapse, civilization would end, and we'd all go back to being hunter-gatherers. The modern world is made possible by the trust and sheeplike predictability of millions of depositors. (Deposit insurance makes it less of a crapshoot than it once was.)

The Federal Reserve System is not part of the government and is answerable to no one. (I know you didn't ask, but lots of other people have.) By "government" I mean the executive branch. The President does appoint the Fed's governing board but the members serve for long terms and can do as they please, free of political interference (in theory). The Fed is a quasi-public agency created by Congress and as a practical matter does not lightly defy the President.

[JonnyFive]

I like this topic. You should all join us in the "Monopoly Men (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84043)" thread, we're talking about the Reserve right now. :)

There is a lot of confusion about the paper currency, I'm not sure why. The Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints it, and if the Federal Reserve wants to issue new currency into circulation, they must offer up some collateral. Yes, government securities can be offered as security.

Yes, that rests on the strength of the US government... but, then again, all economic systems are largely built on fairly fragile rules and mutual good faith.

If you don't like it, you're free to us the barter system. :)

As several have mentioned, the money supply isn't just adjusted by physically adding currency. One of the main ways it increases, and one of the big engines of inflation (or against inflation), are the changes in the required reserve ratios by the Fed. If they decrease the required reserves, then banks can loan more money into the market, which both increases economic development (generally), and tends to increase inflation (this is a trade-off that the Fed tries to balance). Similarly, if they increase the required reserves, banks must call in loans (or not issue new ones), which tends to contract the economy and reduce inflation.

The other ways of adjusting the money supply by the Fed are even less direct. They don't just print lots of currency and toss it out a window, or give it to the banks.

As to why the CTist like these Federal Reserve conspiracies, I would imagine a lot of it has to do with the abundance of misconceptions combined with the technical complexity of the subject matter. If you don't know how the Reserve, or the money system, or whatever actually works but you think you do (because, say, you read some lies on Prison Planet), then a lot of these theories are compelling.

They also seem to play a lot on the idea of the valiant "common man" versus the evil, greedy bankers out to control the world. These theories take very complicated situations and distill them into simplistic morality tales filled with comical archetypes.

In many ways, the Federal Reserve conspiracies make a perfect fit with all the other "evil government" conspiracies. There's something poignant about the image of the evil bankers stealing our real wealth and moving away from the totally awesome gold standard to screw the working class, etc. etc. It has much more popular appeal than the often dry popular image of the study of economics.

I've seen tinges of the Fed conspiracy theories in a lot of areas. It's like the tasty beverage that goes with any conspiratorial main dish.

[AlanGreenspan]

A-train: if you choose to be ignorant, that's ok ... but when you mix your ignorance with arrogance, the results won't be any good. You obviously know very little about this subject so why don't you read what the people here are telling you instead of trying to come up with smart-ass replies?

[twinstead]

A-train: if you choose to be ignorant, that's ok ... but when you mix your ignorance with arrogance, the results won't be any good. You obviously know very little about this subject so why don't you read what the people here are telling you instead of trying to come up with smart-ass replies?

Ignorance coupled with arrogance tends to be a common CT trait.

[WildCat]

Ignorance coupled with arrogance tends to be a common CT trait.
It's actually a defining CT trait.

[twinstead]

It's actually a defining CT trait.

I stand corrected

[pomeroo]

A-train: if you choose to be ignorant, that's ok ... but when you mix your ignorance with arrogance, the results won't be any good. You obviously know very little about this subject so why don't you read what the people here are telling you instead of trying to come up with smart-ass replies?



Uh, you are asking him to stop being a twoofer !?!?

[Civilized Worm]

Could someone give a brief description of what the Federal Reserve is and what the moonbats think it is for an economically ignorant scot? Ta.


If you're wondering what the common thread is with 9/11 truth, it is this. The Fed deceives the people every day with its manipulation of money, just as the the people were deceived on Sept. 11 to believe we were attacked by 19 al-Qaeda Arabs.


What, like this? http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

[twinstead]

What, like this? http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml

I like this listener comment:

Even worse than the $20, fold a new dollar coin in half, and it turns into a black helicopter

As soon as I get another dollar coin, I'm going to try this one!

[Billdave2]

I think the people who already were crazy about the federal reserve saw 9/11 as just more proof of their beliefs that the secret organizations exist and create havoc and despair to satisify their nefarious schemes. I met my first Federal Reserve CTer in early 2002. I had gone back to school at night to finish my degree in one of those college programs where you go one night a week for 4 hours, meet with a study group for 4 hours(on the honor system) and take one class at a time for 4-5 weeks. This guy was our Financial Management instructor. We were his first class (and last after our evaluations were turned in). We spent the entire time listening to him tell us all the same crazy stuff about Bildaburg, Illuminati, the Federal Reserve and how we weren't really required by law to pay taxs if we bought this special kit from him. The kit was $800.00, but he explained how it was really free, since we could put it on our credit cards and the kit would also eliminate our credit card debt at the same time it got us "out of the system". He was the first person I ever heard spout the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. The nighthe did that he ended up having to let us go early because of several of took exception and started to get really angry. The ironic thing is I probably learned more in that class than all the rest I took that way, simply because I would go home and research the real truth after listening to his stupid ideas.

[sesshin]

I can't believe that guy was a teacher.

[stilicho]

...We spent the entire time listening to him tell us all the same crazy stuff about Bildaburg, Illuminati, the Federal Reserve and how we weren't really required by law to pay taxs if we bought this special kit from him. The kit was $800.00, but he explained how it was really free, since we could put it on our credit cards and the kit would also eliminate our credit card debt at the same time it got us "out of the system"...
Welcome, billdave2.

The standard objection to the Fed is that it exchanges 'real money' with 'fiat currency' as though that wasn't happening prior to its institution. Then there's the lunatic stuff about 'voluntary' income tax, blaming government overspending on the Fed, and explaining that somehow the British Crown 'owns' the US money supply. Illuminati, Freemasons, and 12-foot invisible lizards follow shortly on their heels.

The one person who explained the Federal Reserve (or fiat money) above basically introduced us (or A-Train, anyhow) to what you'd find in a standard Economics 101 course. There is more to it, naturally. I can't provide an entire bibliography here, but there are plenty of good economic histories of both the USA and capitalism in general.

I read a paper about the problems in the money supply that contributed to the depression in the American economy lasting roughly from 1837 to 1844. Among the problems was liquidity in the financial system, something that's hard to manage without something like the Fed. The paper talked about the difficulty of converting commercial paper based on canal stocks, many of which dangerously overextended New York state banks to the point where nobody would accept their bills of exchange any more. As much as I like the idea of free enterprise and reduction of government (or legislative) interference in the marketplace, it was exactly that approach that led to bank failures, loss of confidence in the money supply, and eventually a (probably unnecessary) economic collapse.

There are other studies I've read that indicate that certain districts within the USA suffered less during the Great Depression because of the policies of their regional banks that tied into the Federal Reserve. (It was either the Missouri or the Georgia bank that fared better--I can't recall right now). So, even under a central banking system, there are peculiarities and local variations in monetary policy (or there were in the Thirties) that may affect liquidity and general economic health.

To conclude, anyone who really wants to return to a pre-central bank era honestly doesn't understand that capitalism and industrialisation just about require such institutions to avoid the frequent chaos of the nineteenth century.

[Billdave2]

I can't believe that guy was a teacher.

Oh he wasn't for long. Several of us put exactly what he was "teaching" in our instructor evaluations. There were several people who didn't want to rock the boat for fear that we would have to take the class again. The only reason we waited to complain at the end of the class was fear of grade retaliation (every one got an A for what it is worth). There was actually one guy who was thinking about buying the kit. After several of us laughed becuase we thought he was joking he didn't mention it again (I hope he didn't buyit).

[Billdave2]

Welcome, billdave2.

The standard objection to the Fed is that it exchanges 'real money' with 'fiat currency' as though that wasn't happening prior to its institution. Then there's the lunatic stuff about 'voluntary' income tax, blaming government overspending on the Fed, and explaining that somehow the British Crown 'owns' the US money supply. Illuminati, Freemasons, and 12-foot invisible lizards follow shortly on their heels.



Oh we heard all of these "theories" too! My favorite was that the legal definition of "Closed Account" was "an account closed for all transactions, but still allowed to post debits and credits" (not the exact quote). He told us that meant that a closed checking account could still be used if you were a corporation, because corporations can use credits and debits in exchanges with other corporations. He gave us an example of a "guy he knew" who used this to buy a brand new truck from a dealership that was a corporation with a check from a closed acount, and there was nothing they could do about it because it was completly legal . When someone asked why it wasn't wrong to get a truck without actually paying for it, even if it was legal, he rationalized it by saying the "guy he knew" gave his old truck to a "needy family" who didn't have a car and that made it all right. I made him mad when I asked why the "guy he knew" didn't just buy two brand new trucks so the "needy family" could have a new truck instead of a used one that wouldn't be as reliable.

[stilicho]

Oh we heard all of these "theories" too! My favorite was that the legal definition of "Closed Account" was "an account closed for all transactions, but still allowed to post debits and credits" (not the exact quote). He told us that meant that a closed checking account could still be used if you were a corporation, because corporations can use credits and debits in exchanges with other corporations.
Exchange debits and credits with other corporations, huh? Strange. Maybe he's talking about factoring or something. He could also be talking about unreconciled accounts showing debit balances on the books while the bank side shows a zero. I did once witness a new bank account we opened for our company that started out with a returned item in it. It was just a keying error by the cheque clearing house but it does/did happen occasionally.

But writing a cheque on a closed account is contrary to the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act--not sure about other countries. Doesn't matter if it's a corporate or personal account. I can't locate the exact statute or paragraph but any bank rep would be able to set your ex-teacher straight.

[Billdave2]

I think what he was confused about was if you write a check against a closed account/ a deposit clears a closed account would show a debit or credit. It is definatly against the law in the US to write a check on a closed account. It is considered Bank Fraud. He was only seeing what he wanted to see in the definition.

[LashL]

<snip>But writing a cheque on a closed account is contrary to the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act--not sure about other countries. Doesn't matter if it's a corporate or personal account. I can't locate the exact statute or paragraph but any bank rep would be able to set your ex-teacher straight.

I'm not sure that it would actually be contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act, as that is not a punitive Act, although certainly that Act would be determinative of the right of the bank to dishonour the cheque and the right of the holder of the cheque to recover the money from the person who wrote the cheque in bad faith, knowing that the account was closed. The Bills of Exchange Act is located here (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/B-4/bo-ga:l_I::bo-ga:l_II?page=1).

It would most certainly, though, constitute the criminal offence of False Pretences, contrary to section 362 of the Criminal Code (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_IX-gb:s_361//en#anchorbo-ga:l_IX-gb:s_361) of Canada.

[gnome]

Is the common coincidence of conspiracy theory kooks and anti-Fed gold standard hawks related in any way to the fact that the Coast to Coast (Art Bell/George Noory) is apparently sponsored by gold dealers?

Or is it the other way around?

[stilicho]

I'm not sure that it would actually be contrary to the Bills of Exchange Act, as that is not a punitive Act....
You may be correct there. I only have worked with pieces of the Bills Of Exchange Act. We have used it several times in court cases. And that has covered both closed accounts and stop payments. I am not personally involved with the cases but know those who are.

Regardless, you can't write a cheque on a closed account. Not to me anyhow! :D

[Billdave2]

You may be correct there. I only have worked with pieces of the Bills Of Exchange Act. We have used it several times in court cases. And that has covered both closed accounts and stop payments. I am not personally involved with the cases but know those who are.

Regardless, you can't write a cheque on a closed account. Not to me anyhow! :D

But my former teacher would say "you are not a corporation"!;)

[JonnyFive]

Oh we heard all of these "theories" too! My favorite was that the legal definition of "Closed Account" was "an account closed for all transactions, but still allowed to post debits and credits" (not the exact quote). He told us that meant that a closed checking account could still be used if you were a corporation, because corporations can use credits and debits in exchanges with other corporations.

His definition of "closed account" is substantially different from the one used in the banking and financial services industry.

Nobody tell our policyholders, they can actually make claims on a "cancelled policy" because it's still allowed to something something some lie.

Oh wait, it's not, because working with money doesn't automatically turn you into a raging dumbass.

ETA: Even though most of our policyholders are corporations. Oh, damn, guess that doesn't work either. :) I hope no one took that guy's advice.

[Billdave2]

Well you have to realize this guy actually thought that by spelling his name with a : between his first and middle names meant that legal documents that did not contain the : were not valid. He wasn't exactly a mental giant.

[JonnyFive]

Could someone give a brief description of what the Federal Reserve is and what the moonbats think it is for an economically ignorant scot? Ta.

What the Fed really is:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/general.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

Addresses Fed conspiracy theories:
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

What the moonbats think it is:
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=114
http://www.freedomdomain.com/bankfed.htm
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/aier_on_conspiracy_04.html

[JonnyFive]

Well you have to realize this guy actually thought that by spelling his name with a : between his first and middle names meant that legal documents that did not contain the : were not valid. He wasn't exactly a mental giant.

You've only been here for a few days, and already you're gunning for the coveted "understatement of the year" award. How am I supposed to compete with talent like that? :)

Did he honestly not think that if such a loophole existed, corporate lawyers wouldn't be scrambling to close it at top speed? It's not like everyone that agrees with the crazies is a genius and everyone else is a mindless "corporate drone" that can't think. I think one of the primary fallacies that the moonbats commit when it comes to these financial conspiracy theories is assuming that everyone else is either a sheep, a moron, or some kind of greedy repitillian/Joooooo/reptillian Joo that's in on the conspiracy.

[Billdave2]

I think he pretty much believed whatever he wanted to believe. I used to google his email/name every once in awhile becuase it usually led to crazy stuff. The last thing I could find was a couple of years ago where his wife posted using his email to a prayer board asking people to pray for him since his trial was the next day. He believed that being a christian was the key to all the loopholes. That God "put" them there for the rightous. The maddest he ever got in class was when we pointed out some point of law he was stating incorrectly. He asked where we got our information from and when we told him we had learned it in our business law class, he said "well I am sure the guy teaching it was a lawer and they all lie". We pointed out that our instructor was a lawer, but was also an ordained minister and seemed pretty knowledgable. He started yelling (fairly loudly) that "you can't serve both God and mamon" and that he was a toll of the devil.

I don't know if you guys have figured this out but finding this board has provided me with a place to vent about this guy to people who can understand what it was like. I have told this story to people before but unless you have dealt with it first hand you just don't appreciate it. This is better than therapy! Thanks!

[JonnyFive]

I think he pretty much believed whatever he wanted to believe. I used to google his email/name every once in awhile becuase it usually led to crazy stuff. The last thing I could find was a couple of years ago where his wife posted using his email to a prayer board asking people to pray for him since his trial was the next day. He believed that being a christian was the key to all the loopholes. That God "put" them there for the rightous.

Out of curiosity, what was he on trial for? Fifty TruthBuckstm says it's something to do with tax evasion or non-payment of something. :)

The maddest he ever got in class was when we pointed out some point of law he was stating incorrectly. He asked where we got our information from and when we told him we had learned it in our business law class, he said "well I am sure the guy teaching it was a lawer and they all lie". We pointed out that our instructor was a lawer, but was also an ordained minister and seemed pretty knowledgable. He started yelling (fairly loudly) that "you can't serve both God and mamon" and that he was a toll of the devil.

...said the man teaching financial management. :confused:

Nothing like flatly denying stuff without any evidence or reasoning. That's a good skill for a teacher to have.

I don't know if you guys have figured this out but finding this board has provided me with a place to vent about this guy to people who can understand what it was like. I have told this story to people before but unless you have dealt with it first hand you just don't appreciate it. This is better than therapy! Thanks!

Personally, I find it frustrating to spend time preparing evidence as to why someone is incorrect about something, only to have them simply ignore all that, or dismiss it in some trivial way. That's kind of the essence of debating conspiracy theorists, it seems, so I'm kind of getting used to it.

By the way, welcome to the forum.

[Billdave2]

He had so many schemes he claimed he was using there is no telling. The post I saw din't say what the trial was for, but since he wasn't the one posting and it was his account I am guessing (hoping) he was already in jail and had no internet access.

At least in this case I did learn a lot about tax laws and the Federal Reserve. It is ironic that I learned more in that class than all the other classes I took in that program put together.

[Nim Chimpsky]

The last thing I could find was a couple of years ago where his wife posted using his email to a prayer board asking people to pray for him since his trial was the next day. He believed that being a christian was the key to all the loopholes. That God "put" them there for the rightous.

That brings up an interesting point: Does anyone ever see any connection between CT behavior and religion? I don't have any big sample to analyze, but most of the ones I have been arguing with over 9/11 seem to be anti-religion.

Yet, there seems to be a faction, like the dude mentioned above, that can make themselves believe anything.

Full disclosure: The biggest reason that I'm here and a skeptic is religion. My ex-wife went full scale batty for catholicism. I'm now an atheist with agnostic tendencies....or maybe an agnostic with atheistic tendencies?

Either way, religion is much-woo to me.

[JamesB]

Yeah, if you go to the paranoid Internet radio stations like the Republic Broadcasting Network you will find that selling gold to paranoids is their primary business, so they are essentially promoting their product through their politics.

[twinstead]

That brings up an interesting point: Does anyone ever see any connection between CT behavior and religion? I don't have any big sample to analyze, but most of the ones I have been arguing with over 9/11 seem to be anti-religion.


CTs are generally in my experience anti-religion, but I've always found it ironic that their beliefs are very religion-like in nature.

[Billdave2]

Well in my case, the teacher I had was very religous and tried to base as much of his anti-government/anti-tax rheotoric in religous teaching. He had some weird translation of the bible and could argue that "render unto caesar" actually meant DON'T pay taxes. I on the other hand consider myself a christian. I am that weird combination of conservative politically but liberal religously (the Babtist church I belong to has been kicked out of the Southern Babtist Convention because we are so liberal). I will say that most of the CTers I have come in contact with though (other than my infamous teacher) tend top be very anti-authority and that may explain a distaste for religion as well as government.

[JamesB]

Wow, there is an entire industry around making videos and books on this stuff, just like the JFK and 9/11 nuts.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531&q=FIAT+EMPIRE&hl=en

I am almost tempted to start another blog...

:D

[Nim Chimpsky]

their beliefs are very religion-like in nature

yep, put blind faith in something and ignore everything else.

[JonnyFive]

Well in my case, the teacher I had was very religous and tried to base as much of his anti-government/anti-tax rheotoric in religous teaching. He had some weird translation of the bible and could argue that "render unto caesar" actually meant DON'T pay taxes.

Your teacher was really Kent Hovind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Federal_criminal_tax-related_trial_and_convictions_in_2006), wasn't he? :)

Remember, if you claim your money really belongs to God, they can't send you to jail!

Oh... wait a minute.

Yeah, if you go to the paranoid Internet radio stations like the Republic Broadcasting Network you will find that selling gold to paranoids is their primary business, so they are essentially promoting their product through their politics.

The streak of gold nuttery seems to run wide and deep in many circles. If you listen to conservative radio for long enough, you'll eventually hear some advertisement for gold as being the ultimate market-beating investment or something.

Advice: Never trust what someone trying to sell you an investment product tells you without outside verification. They are all filthy liars that lie and will lie doubly hard to get you to purchase what they sell.

[Billdave2]

What always kills me about the whole "only gold is real currency" crowd, is they say "paper money is only worth what someone will give you for it", but really how much real intrinsic value does gold have. It has some industrial uses, but really I can't eat it, or live in it (unless I have tons of it) or ride it, or even make tools out of it (not good ones anyway). They like to talk about how if society crashed paper money would be worthless, but you don't have enough gold to buy the last snickers bar on earth if it came right down to it.

[JonnyFive]

What always kills me about the whole "only gold is real currency" crowd, is they say "paper money is only worth what someone will give you for it", but really how much real intrinsic value does gold have. It has some industrial uses, but really I can't eat it, or live in it (unless I have tons of it) or ride it, or even make tools out of it (not good ones anyway). They like to talk about how if society crashed paper money would be worthless, but you don't have enough gold to buy the last snickers bar on earth if it came right down to it.

That opinion bothers me, because it encapsulates a number of stupid misunderstandings about economics in general. At the heart of it, modern economic systems are all built on the shaky foundations of mutual agreement. To say that gold has more "inherent value" than paper currency is silly. Gold has the value people are willing to offer for it. If it happens to be more valuable than a given amount of currency, so be it, but that doesn't make gold any more "real" as a means of exchange.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Modern economics is based on little more than the mutual agreement to not crack each other's skulls open and feast on the goo inside.

[Nim Chimpsky]

To say that gold has more "inherent value" than paper currency is silly. Gold has the value people are willing to offer for it. If it happens to be more valuable than a given amount of currency, so be it, but that doesn't make gold any more "real" as a means of exchange.

When the end of the world takes place, the NWO chumps will be giving all their gold to the "end-timers" and the survivalists who will have things that will be valuable at that time: MRE's, water, fuel etc...

What's more valuable to a guy dying of thirst?

a gallon of water
or a gallon of gold...

see it's a trick question.....:D

[Mongrel]

Personally, I find it frustrating to spend time preparing evidence as to why someone is incorrect about something, only to have them simply ignore all that, or dismiss it in some trivial way. That's kind of the essence of debating conspiracy theorists, it seems, so I'm kind of getting used to it.

Take comfort in the fact that there are many observers who will read your point, understand it and stash it for future reference. Mostly whilst thinking how the twoofer has never had to deal with 'real life' in any deep or meaningful way.

[JonnyFive]

Take comfort in the fact that there are many observers who will read your point, understand it and stash it for future reference. Mostly whilst thinking how the twoofer has never had to deal with 'real life' in any deep or meaningful way.

That is somewhat comforting, thank you. :)

I'm going to go buy some gold so when the end of the world comes, I can build a big fort out of it and laugh at everyone else.

I'll die of thirst in a couple days, but it'll be totally worth it. ;)