Audit the Fed? What would that accomplish?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No your wrong , the FED has been charging one percent of all monies printed since 1913 and their payments have been in gold, since they themselves realize the true value of the dollar. A trusted source from capitol hill confirmed this a couple of months ago, so in three years it will be 100% , you figure it out from there.

Your "trusted source" should seek out a non-Jewish mental health professional.

 

[timhau]

No your wrong , the FED has been charging one percent of all monies printed since 1913 and their payments have been in gold, since they themselves realize the true value of the dollar. A trusted source from capitol hill confirmed this a couple of months ago, so in three years it will be 100% , you figure it out from there.

Since 1913 they've been charging one percent per year, and in three years they've been at it for 100 years so they have charged 100% in total, and then they control the world because they have all the world's money, and nobody else has any.

 

[se7ensnakes]

How to beat a conspiratard in an internet forum debate:
Warning: Do not use this in real life or you will be laugh at by everyone.
If you, by occasion, find some conspiratard who is making sense and you have no logical rebuttal, use this techinique. It works everytime!
1 If the Ct (short for conspiratard) quote someone really important, go to wikipedia and study the quoted individual. Find out some negative things about him and if you cannot, then, just make up your own.
2 Pretend you have studied the individual profusely. You have to get the upper hand by pretending you know the individual that is being quoted.
3 You dont need to get into the specifics of the quote, just work on the individual. Is he fat? Is he skinny. Does he live at home with his mother? What political party does he adhere to?
4 For example, if the Conspiratard quotes Rosie O'donell, just say, “oh that woman is gay. Or if he quotes Charlie Sheen, for example, just say that Charlie Sheen wears panties. Remember it does not have to be true. That should stop the conspirard on his track.
5 Above all don't make it sound like an opinion, you need to make what you are saying sound like it is a fact. This is very important!
6 Scan any mispelled words. You get a plus if you find a mispelled pronoun (a pronoun is the proper name of a city, a person, etc.).
7 Finally, if that does not work bring out the big guns. Simply call your adversary a Conspiratard. Thats right. Call him a Conspirard. If need be you can call him a conspirard twice. Once you do you should automatically win the debate. No human being can stand up to being called a conspiratard.

Good Luck and may Frodo be with you....

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How to beat a conspiratard in an internet forum debate:
Warning: Do not use this in real life or you will be laugh at by everyone.
If you, by occasion, find some conspiratard who is making sense and you have no logical rebuttal, use this techinique. It works everytime!
1 If the Ct (short for conspiratard) quote someone really important, go to wikipedia and study the quoted individual. Find out some negative things about him and if you cannot, then, just make up your own.
2 Pretend you have studied the individual profusely. You have to get the upper hand by pretending you know the individual that is being quoted.
3 You dont need to get into the specifics of the quote, just work on the individual. Is he fat? Is he skinny. Does he live at home with his mother? What political party does he adhere to?
4 For example, if the Conspiratard quotes Rosie O'donell, just say, “oh that woman is gay. Or if he quotes Charlie Sheen, for example, just say that Charlie Sheen wears panties. Remember it does not have to be true. That should stop the conspirard on his track.
5 Above all don't make it sound like an opinion, you need to make what you are saying sound like it is a fact. This is very important!
6 Scan any mispelled words. You get a plus if you find a mispelled pronoun (a pronoun is the proper name of a city, a person, etc.).
7 Finally, if that does not work bring out the big guns. Simply call your adversary a Conspiratard. Thats right. Call him a Conspirard. If need be you can call him a conspirard twice. Once you do you should automatically win the debate. No human being can stand up to being called a conspiratard.

Good Luck and may Frodo be with you....

How to beat a conspiratard on the Internet (or on real life):

1) State facts.

My list is so much more efficient.

 

[The_Animus]

Interesting. So lets say my home is worth $100,000 in 2000. By 2010, it is worth $200,000. What do you propose the Fed do? Fine me? Force me to sell it and give them half the money? Force me to take on a roommate, so that my "half" is now back to being worth only $100,000? What? Let's have some answers.

Not surprisingly, this remains unanswered.

Probably because the scenario is nonsensical. It makes absolutely no sense that a product should double in price after being used for 10 years. That house is in worse shape than when it was new, yet somehow it is declared to now be worth the equivalent of 2 of those brand new houses. There has been no real value added to the product. Can you name other products whereby no value is added to the product but it nonetheless increases in price by 100%?

At best the land on which the home resides may increase in price because the location has gained value.

 

[Dunstan]

6 Scan any mispelled words. You get a plus if you find a mispelled pronoun (a pronoun is the proper name of a city, a person, etc.).

6.5 Point out any misused words or incorrect definitions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Probably because the scenario is nonsensical. It makes absolutely no sense that a product should double in price after being used for 10 years. That house is in worse shape than when it was new, yet somehow it is declared to now be worth the equivalent of 2 of those brand new houses. There has been no real value added to the product. Can you name other products whereby no value is added to the product but it nonetheless increases in price by 100%?

At best the land on which the home resides may increase in price because the location has gained value.

Wow. Seriously? Did you miss the whole real estate bubble? It just popped a few years ago. I'm pretty sure it was in all the papers.

ETA: The question remains unanswered.

 

[The_Animus]

Wow. Seriously? Did you miss the whole real estate bubble? It just popped a few years ago. I'm pretty sure it was in all the papers.

ETA: The question remains unanswered.

I'm well aware that the scenario you suggested happened. The point was that the increased value estimates are complete BS. What logically follows from this understanding is that if an institution takes your $100,000 house and declares a fabricated value of $200,000 the obvious answer would be to have the FED force the institution pulling $100,000 of value out of it's ass to stop that practice.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm well aware that the scenario you suggested happened. The point was that the increased value estimates are complete BS. What logically follows from this understanding is that if an institution takes your $100,000 house and declares a fabricated value of $200,000 the obvious answer would be to have the FED force the institution pulling $100,000 of value out of it's ass to stop that practice.

What on earth are you talking about?

The question remains unanswered.

 

[The_Animus]

No. It was answered. You asked what the Fed should do and I told you. They should force correct and accurate valuation of the home. It is not worth $200,000 it is worth $100,000 and once that is accurately reflected there is no longer a problem.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No. It was answered. You asked what the Fed should do and I told you. They should force correct and accurate valuation of the home. It is not worth $200,000 it is worth $100,000 and once that is accurately reflected there is no longer a problem.

How do you know it's not worth $200,000? Or $300,000? Or $9,000?

 

[The_Animus]

How do you know it's not worth $200,000? Or $300,000? Or $9,000?

I already answered this. I also posed a question to you. Not surprisingly, this remains unanswered.

Can you name other products whereby after years of use no value is added to the product but it nonetheless increases in price by 100%?

Now before you go and take that out of context and say something like a autographed baseball card or gold, those are not the same for reasons I would hope are obvious to you.

If not then let me phrase the question another way. What reason is there that the house should now be worth $200,000? What is it exactly that gives the house, not the land, this added $100,000 of worth?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If not then let me phrase the question another way. What reason is there that the house should now be worth $200,000? What is it exactly that gives the house, not the land, this added $100,000 of worth?

Would you say Monticello is not worth more than when Thomas Jefferson built it? Seriously?

 

[The_Animus]

Would you say Monticello is not worth more than when Thomas Jefferson built it? Seriously?

That is different for the same reason as the signed baseball card.

Your statement was regarding a normal $100,000 house that after 10 years is now priced at $200,000. Do not change the situation.

I'll ask again. What reason is there that the house should now be worth $200,000? What is it exactly that gives the house, not the land, this added $100,000 of worth?

 

[Travis]

How to beat a conspiratard in an internet forum debate:
Warning: Do not use this in real life or you will be laugh at by everyone.
If you, by occasion, find some conspiratard who is making sense and you have no logical rebuttal, use this techinique. It works everytime!
1 If the Ct (short for conspiratard) quote someone really important, go to wikipedia and study the quoted individual. Find out some negative things about him and if you cannot, then, just make up your own.
2 Pretend you have studied the individual profusely. You have to get the upper hand by pretending you know the individual that is being quoted.
3 You dont need to get into the specifics of the quote, just work on the individual. Is he fat? Is he skinny. Does he live at home with his mother? What political party does he adhere to?
4 For example, if the Conspiratard quotes Rosie O'donell, just say, “oh that woman is gay. Or if he quotes Charlie Sheen, for example, just say that Charlie Sheen wears panties. Remember it does not have to be true. That should stop the conspirard on his track.
5 Above all don't make it sound like an opinion, you need to make what you are saying sound like it is a fact. This is very important!
6 Scan any mispelled words. You get a plus if you find a mispelled pronoun (a pronoun is the proper name of a city, a person, etc.).
7 Finally, if that does not work bring out the big guns. Simply call your adversary a Conspiratard. Thats right. Call him a Conspirard. If need be you can call him a conspirard twice. Once you do you should automatically win the debate. No human being can stand up to being called a conspiratard.

Good Luck and may Frodo be with you....

Translation: this person once tried to use Charlie Sheen as an expert source for something not related to drugs or hookers and got burned for it. Also they probably misspelled a common pronoun.

 

[jhunter1163]

A house (or anything else, for that matter) is worth whatever someone will pay for it. The bank is not making the judgment that Scrut's house is worth $200,000; the person buying it is. The bank didn't create the extra $100,000 in value for Scrut; the buyer did.

Now, the bank certainly will send an appraiser out to look at Scrut's house to judge whether, in the event of a default, there's a snowball's chance in hell the bank can sell the house to someone else for $200,000. But banks exist to lend money; I've never heard of a bank having a loan prevention department. So, as long as the house is in reasonably good shape the appraiser will likely say "OK", the buyer will get his loan, Scrut gets his $200K, and everyone's happy.

 

[Mashuna]

How to beat a conspiratard in an internet forum debate:
Warning: Do not use this in real life or you will be laugh at by everyone.
If you, by occasion, find some conspiratard who is making sense and you have no logical rebuttal, use this techinique. It works everytime!
1 If the Ct (short for conspiratard) quote someone really important, go to wikipedia and study the quoted individual. Find out some negative things about him and if you cannot, then, just make up your own.
2 Pretend you have studied the individual profusely. You have to get the upper hand by pretending you know the individual that is being quoted.
3 You dont need to get into the specifics of the quote, just work on the individual. Is he fat? Is he skinny. Does he live at home with his mother? What political party does he adhere to?
4 For example, if the Conspiratard quotes Rosie O'donell, just say, “oh that woman is gay. Or if he quotes Charlie Sheen, for example, just say that Charlie Sheen wears panties. Remember it does not have to be true. That should stop the conspirard on his track.
5 Above all don't make it sound like an opinion, you need to make what you are saying sound like it is a fact. This is very important!
6 Scan any mispelled words. You get a plus if you find a mispelled pronoun (a pronoun is the proper name of a city, a person, etc.).
7 Finally, if that does not work bring out the big guns. Simply call your adversary a Conspiratard. Thats right. Call him a Conspirard. If need be you can call him a conspirard twice. Once you do you should automatically win the debate. No human being can stand up to being called a conspiratard.

Good Luck and may Frodo be with you....

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions. However, it's all moot really, as I've never had occasion to get beyond the highlighted portion above.

 

[lomiller]

I'll ask again. What reason is there that the house should now be worth $200,000? What is it exactly that gives the house, not the land, this added $100,000 of worth?

The fact that someone is willing to pay another $100K for it gives it $100K worth. Are you suggesting we abandon the free market and have the government dictate what the house can sell for?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That is different for the same reason as the signed baseball card.

Your statement was regarding a normal $100,000 house that after 10 years is now priced at $200,000. Do not change the situation.

Ah, I see. I'm supposed to name all the things that can go up in value without improvements, except for those things that don't fit the point you're trying to make.

I'll ask again. What reason is there that the house should now be worth $200,000? What is it exactly that gives the house, not the land, this added $100,000 of worth?

You would have to ask the person willing to pay the $200,000 for the house. I'm not the one buying it.

 

[The_Animus]

The fact that someone is willing to pay another $100K for it gives it $100K worth. Are you suggesting we abandon the free market and have the government dictate what the house can sell for?

In a free market a company does not profit for years upon years on end. If there was profit and no barriers to entry then competition would join the market until profit reached zero or nearly zero. Free market tends to work the way communism does, practice seems to always deviate from theory. But I'm not really interested in debating the 'free market'.

If I take a small normal rock and convince someone to buy it from me for $1000 because I tell them it's a rare meteorite, it is not worth $1000. The person was only willing to buy it based upon lies of inflated worth. This is generally constituted as fraud. This is the same with housing prices. There is no increased value to them ten years after they were made but all across the country home worth was inflated based upon nothing. As a result what is considered fair market value is artificially raised and that is why people are willing to pay it.

I asked what makes the home worth $100,000 more after ten years. You said because someone is willing to pay it. But as the rock example shows above, someone willing to pay it doesn't make it actually worth that.

If you'd like I can rephrase the question again. What value has been added to the home such that a person is willing to pay $100.000 more for it?