Is anyone actually buying into this load of crap?

Originally posted by My_Reality
Why can we not use a LIMITED NATURAL RESOURCE THAT HAS VALUE as a central banking system? The Lydians did it(the culture that invented monetary coins), the Romans did it, the Persians did it, The Byzantines did it, the Chinese did it. I could go on. Is it that the population of the planet exceeds said natural resource? Or is it that the people controlling FIAT CURRENCY live better lives due to said fiat currency.

The problem with using a rare commodity to fix currency value, as far as I understand, is that the volume of natural commodities is too small in regards to an ever-growing money supply.

Back in the late 19th to early 20th century the population of each nation was much smaller and rare commodities could account(back up) the money supply with any given value.

As the population increases so must the money supply or we get deflation. Not enough money chasing too many goods and services!

That does not mean we need a private central bank expotentially inflating, thus devaluating, the currency as the FED is/was doing since its inception, rather the government(s) should adjust the money supply according to population census, according to GDP and the all-around market conditions.

What the private FED has been doing all along is using various excuses to exponentially inflate the money supply, thus creating bubbles and then busting those bubbles to acquire possession of tangible assets. In other words power and wealth is accumulating into fewer and fewer hands with each boom-bust cycle. This is anything but natural and is reminiscent of a pyramid scheme.

In a pyramid scheme those that "invest" money first make the most and those that "invest" last lose everything.

Originally posted by My_Reality
A government that uses, for example, the gold standard, should have no problem adapting to another limited natural resource when the aforementioned gold standard becomes obsolete. The main problem that I see with this topic is is that the Fiat Currency is controlled globally, rather than each individual nation issuing currency based on that nation's current natural resources.

The only real solution is to first decorporatise government(by adjusting the constitution) and then nationalising all the means of production including banking.

Its called socialism, where the government regulates all forms of capitalism. Three to four decades ago, western europe was close to achieving true socialism, until governments got bribed by the illuminati to defraud the public sector. All in the name of "healthy competition" and deregulation.

We DO NEED a fiat currency, as going back to the gold standard cannot work with such a large population and large economy. There isnt enough gold, silver, platinum, etc! The only question then becomes WHO controls the monopoly money and how much faith people put into it.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist

An interest free loaning system is just unreal. Everyone would be rampant with loans and with good reason - there is not interest.

Interest free loans would only be extended to those who can demonstrate a history of repaying them.

And IF everyone can get loans, and the money supply expands, then it's because there was a lot of latent capacity and productivity that wasn't being put to use before. Meaning that the economy was stunted, but now that this interest-free credit is available to worthy borrowers, people are busy again doing things that the economy needs.

Inflation doesn't occur when productivity increased in correspondence with increase in money supply.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

When my grandfather was a kid, he could get a cheeseburger, fries, and a milkshake for 25 cents.

But he couldn't play Nintendo. What's the point? Even with inflation, we still have a much higher standard of living than your grandfather - from a purely materialistic (not spiritual or moral) perspective. So what?

So our higher standard of living is proof that banks did something good? No, I don't think so. I think it was the development of technology that made those things happen.

The fact that many places have a high standard of living ignores the fact that there are 2 billion people on earth living on less than $2 a day.

See John Perkin's book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" to see what banks do to countries.

As long as they can create money and dangle it out in front of you like a carrot, somebody is going to bite.

Even when the country the IMF was trying to extend a loan to didn't want that debt, they sent in Jackals and assassins to persuade the nation's leader. He was given a choice "accept this bribe and allow us to extend a loan to the country or we'll blow your brains out and bring in someone we've already prepared to sign the agreement"

Banks are greedy, parasitic, deceptive, and evil.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
You have no concept of risk management, credit analysis, credit investigation, etc., do you? Bankers have traditionally served as advisers to business owners, entrepreneurs --- the very job-producing engines of our economy.

So people who don't produce cars, food, or housing tell those that do what do do with the money they loaned them. Sounds like somebody has somebody else by the b&lls.

I smell manipulation.


"People who will not turn a shovel of dirt on the project, not contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply all the material and do all the work. It is a terrible situation when the Government to insure the national wealth must go into debt and submit to ruinous interest charges. Interest is the invention of Satan." - Thomas Edison


"In addition to almost unlimited usury, the bankers have another method of drawing vast amounts of wealth. The banks are able to approve or disapprove large loans to large and successful corporations to the extent that refusal of a loan will bring about a reduction in the selling price of the corporation's stock. After depressing the price, the bankers' agents buy large blocks of the company's stock. Then, if the bank suddenly approves a multi-million dollar loan to the company, the stock rises and is then sold for a profit. In this manner, billions of dollars are made with which to buy more stock. This practice is so refined today that the Federal Reserve Board need only announce to the newspapers an increase or decrease in their discount rate to send stocks soaring or crashing at their whim. Banks collect billions in interest by loaning to Government and the Corporations!" - Pastor Sheldon Emry

Originally posted by CookieMonster09Again, ask any business owner if they value a good working relationship with their bank.

Ask any business that ever paid dues to the bosses of organized crime if they wanted to ensure they had a good working relationship with them.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Have you ever lent money to anyone? Ever? What kind of due diligence and research did you do? How did you make the decision to lend to them?

I wouldn't be nearly as concerned with being paid back money I lent if I could leverage it 10-to-1 against money I already had. It would be nice to be able to loan someone $1000 if I only had a hundred. Then, I would be more interested in the value of their collateral.


Cookiemonster, why do you ignore what ivy-league economists, former central bankers, bank governors, and the Federal Reserve banks themselves have to say about the creation of money:

???


"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money. - Putting it Simply, Published by The Boston Federal Reserve Bank


"Banks create money. That is what they are for. The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry into a book. That is all. Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created – brand new money." - Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada


"When a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower." - Robert B. Anderson, former U.S. Secretary of Treasury


"Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend – not money – but promises to supply money they do not possess." - Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University




[edit on 22-5-2010 by 30_seconds]

So our higher standard of living is proof that banks did something good? No, I don't think so. I think it was the development of technology that made those things happen.

A growing business that hires new workers needs capital to purchase technology, software, equipment, office furniture, office space, and land.

Who do you think supplies the capital to your typical small business owner to acquire these items? Banks.

Banks work hand-in-hand in partnership with small business owners to provide capital for expansion and growth.

Just ask the CEO of any entrepreneurial company how important a good banking relationship is to their bottom line.

The fact that many places have a high standard of living ignores the fact that there are 2 billion people on earth living on less than $2 a day.

The reasons why there is such a low standard of living in these Third World countries has more to do with political corruption than banking, my friend.

All banks supply is capital. Bankers aren't the political leaders of these Third World countries. You can blame banks for many things, but political leadership in the Third World is not one of them.

See John Perkin's book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" to see what banks do to countries.

The World Bank is an international financial institution, and USAID (United States Agency for International Development) is a U.S. government agency.

Neither of which are your traditional, brick and mortar retail banks.

Don't confuse the two. I've never once made mention in this discussion of either the World Bank nor USAID.

Banks are greedy, parasitic, deceptive, and evil.

No bias there, right?

So people who don't produce cars, food, or housing tell those that do what do do with the money they loaned them. Sounds like somebody has somebody else by the b&lls.

To most corporations, and to most CEO's, their banker is a trusted adviser that works in partnership with the corporation, not as an adversary. Banks make more money from profitable, ongoing relationships, not unprofitable, short-term relationships.

Corporations decide the purpose of the loan, not the banks. When a corporation wants to purchase land, and needs a loan to make the purchase of said land, they approach their banker. Not the other way around. You act as if the banker is some petty tin-pot dictator telling the corporation to buy the land!!

Cookiemonster, why do you ignore what ivy-league economists, former central bankers, bank governors, and the Federal Reserve banks themselves have to say about the creation of money

Because the quotes you post from dead presidents, senators, and the like cannot be authenticated except from goofy conspiracy web sites on the Internet.

When you actually have a relevant quote, or story for that matter, from a reputable source (such as a recent Wall Street Journal article, for example), I might actually take you somewhat seriously.

Until then, you can continue to live in your fairy land of make believe, thinking that banks operate in some magical, mystical world where -- according to you and your conspiracy theorists - money "magically grows on trees".

The banks are able to approve or disapprove large loans to large and successful corporations to the extent that refusal of a loan will bring about a reduction in the selling price of the corporation's stock. After depressing the price, the bankers' agents buy large blocks of the company's stock. Then, if the bank suddenly approves a multi-million dollar loan to the company, the stock rises and is then sold for a profit.

Haha. Too funny. If only things were this simple.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Because the quotes you post from dead presidents, senators, and the like cannot be authenticated except from goofy conspiracy web sites on the Internet.

Nice try. I actually wanted to see if these words originated as fiction on the internet, so I actually went to the university library to see if I could find the books they referenced.

I did.

I even scanned the pages so I'd have copies.

Stuff published as much as 80 years ago described the parasitic nature of banks, their inner workings, and their deceptions.

This isn't a fantasy us "conspiracy theorists" made up. Those quotes are actual words on record in books that were really published.


By the way, if anyone wants this proof, send me a private message with your email address and I'll email the documents to you.


[edit on 22-5-2010 by 30_seconds]

Well, then, at least you could publish your bibliography of these alleged books, then, right? At least, then, we could authenticate your "research".

Did you read Henry Ford's, "The International Jew", as part of your "objective" investigative research? As you know, anti-semite Henry Ford was notorious for lambasting the banks. (He later, after the horrors of the Holocaust, retracted his statements.) I am surprised that the Jewish conspiracy banker theory hasn't been proposed by anyone in this thread, yet. What's next? The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?

Listen, perhaps you believe all the clap-trap that comes from dead politicians, but, please, some of us don't buy it. Dead politicians are not exactly your most reputable source to be deriving quotations.

Stuff published as much as 80 years ago described the parasitic nature of banks, their inner workings, and their deceptions.

And I am 100% positive that you are taking these quotes into historical context, then, right? I mean, after all, banking has changed just a little bit in 80 years, or hasn't it?

[edit on 22-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]

Cookie, you remind me of a woman I saw on a 20/20 special probably 20 years ago. She was employed by the government of India, and it was her job to decide whether or not to grant a license to operate a business to applicants in that country.

At the time, the bureaucracy of the nation believed that economic prosperity could only be ensured if an authority decided that someone's business plan proposal was merited.

They would not allow you to just go into business and see if it worked, even if it was your own money and labor that was at risk.

...Better to let the authorities decide before-hand if you were going to be wasting your time.

This women defended her job fiercely to the interviewer, and truly believed that what she was doing was good for the country.

But from the perspective of the United States, it was absurd, and it was obvious. No authority can predict what businesses will be needed, how many, and where, or how they should be run. Only individual entrepreneurship is capable of adjusting fluidly to meed the needs of the economy.

As passionately as she defended her position you are defending yours with the banks. And you are both wrong.

And I suspect it's because the banking system butters your bread.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by 30_seconds]

Cookie, you remind me of a woman I saw on a 20/20 special probably 20 years ago. She was employed by the government of India, and it was her job to decide whether or not to grant a license to operate a business to applicants in that country.

Well, fair enough. You remind me of a nut job in a mental hospital that believes any goofy conspiracy theory about banking. Fair enough?

I guess we'll never see that bibliography, then. I thought so.

When you have a cogent, logical, rational argument backed with substantiated evidence from an authoritative source (i.e., not some goofy conspiracy web site, and not some alleged "research" you did at the local library), we can then perhaps have a mature and spirited debate and discussion on these matters.

Resorting to personal attacks does not make your case. Sorry.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

I guess we'll never see that bibliography, then. I thought so.

When you have a cogent, logical, rational argument backed with substantiated evidence from an authoritative source (i.e., not some goofy conspiracy web site, and not some alleged "research" you did at the local library), we can then perhaps have a mature and spirited debate and discussion on these matters.

A major university library isn't a source?

I can't post a doc with images inside this window. How about sending me your email address?

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
To most corporations, and to most CEO's, their banker is a trusted adviser that works in partnership with the corporation, not as an adversary.

Banks make more money from profitable, ongoing relationships, not unprofitable, short-term relationships.

Exactly! Suck 'em in and suck 'em dry!

I can't post a doc with images inside this window

I am not asking you to post documents on this forum. I am asking you to cite your sources in bibliographical form. How about just the name of the author, the name of the book, the year the book was published?

Exactly! Suck 'em in and suck 'em dry!

Actually, my experience has been the exact opposite. Most smart small business owners are debt averse. When they do take out debt, it's typically for a legitimate and specific business purpose - such as acquiring a much needed piece of equipment that will improve efficiencies or allow the business owner to hire more workers.

Business owners tend to pay their debt obligations before they mature, and always on time. They also highly value a strong, long-term working relationship with their local banker. It's not uncommon for a business owner to work with the same banker for 20 years or more.

In business banking, it's hardly a one-way street. Banks have plenty of competition, and entrepreneurs have plenty of choices. In fact, entrepreneurs, if they are unhappy with their bank, can typically find another bank without much of a challenge. Banks compete on rates, service, breadth of products, and the long-term relationship. Many businesses have business bankers soliciting them for their business on a weekly or monthly basis.

reply to post by FortAnthem



I watched the video again, and am just awed.

Nowhere in the constitution does it mention banking. It DOES however, say that no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender for the payment of debts.


Thomas Jefferson had these things to say:


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."


"The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe, with you...that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."


"I am convinced that those societies (such as the Native American peoples) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate."


"The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating."


"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the Federal government their power of borrowing."

Of course, we cannot leave out a quote from Thomas Jefferson, now can we? I mean, after all, he did own over 600 slaves during his lifetime on his plantation in Monticello. What a splendid, chap. Well worth quoting if you ask me.

You'll enjoy this little tidbit from Wikipedia about Jefferson, perhaps one of the nation's most reckless borrowers ever:

"Although he was born into one of the wealthiest families in North America, Thomas Jefferson was deeply in debt when he died.

Jefferson's trouble began when his father-in-law died, and he and his brothers-in-law quickly divided the estate before its debts were settled. It made each of them liable for the whole amount due – which turned out to be more than they expected.

Jefferson sold land before the American Revolution to pay off the debts, but by the time he received payment, the paper money was worthless amid the skyrocketing inflation of the war years. Cornwallis ravaged Jefferson's plantation during the war, and British creditors resumed their collection efforts when the conflict ended. Jefferson suffered another financial setback when he co-signed notes for a relative who reneged on debts in the financial Panic of 1819. Only Jefferson's public stature prevented creditors from seizing Monticello and selling it out from under him during his lifetime."

Not too smart, Thomas. All could have been avoided if he simply read the loan contract, and understood his obligations. He should never have co-signed for a relative, either. Sounds like he has a lot in common with today's sub-prime borrower, don't you think? With a track record like this, I can understand why he disliked banks and creditors!

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
I am not asking you to post documents on this forum. I am asking you to cite your sources in bibliographical form. How about just the name of the author, the name of the book, the year the book was published?

100% Money
Irving Fisher
ISBN: 978-1851962365

Page 43:

“The customer thinks he has obtained a loan of pre-existing money of the bank and then deposited that money. He does not see that the “money” he deposited was, in effect, created by the bank out of his loan itself – his own debt.”



Essentials of Banking
Deborah K. Dilley
ISBN: 978-0470170885

Page 5:

“Banking plays the most critical role in the creation of money – no, not by cranking up the presses and printing money. Banks do not print currency. What we mean by the “creation of money” is this: The financial system creates money by expanding the supply of money through deposit and loan transactions.”



Federal Reserve System
George B. Grey
ISBN: 978-1590330531

Page 78:

“The practice of keeping only a fraction of deposits on hand has a cumulative effect for the banking system as a whole. Effectively, it permits the banking system to “create” money. If a given sum of cash is deposited in bank A, and half of it is lent out, whoever borrows it spends it, and the money becomes the deposit of bank B for someone else. Half of that sum is then lent out, spent and deposited. The process continues until the total amount of deposits is a multiple of the initial amount of cash. In this example, the cumulative total is ultimately twice the initial amount. In practice, the multiple depends on waht fraction is kept on hand as reserves by the bank and what fraction is kept as “pocket cash” outside the banking system.

Thus, “fractional reserve banking” effectively permits the creation of money by the banking system to a multiple of the “base” money (typically created by the government).”



The Bankers
Martin Mayer
ISBN: 978-0345295699

Pages 68-69:

“When the bank instead of issuing banknotes gives the borrower a deposit he can withdraw at will by writing checks against it, the fact that the bank has created money is not quite so obvious – and, indeed, sober bankers will solemnly deny that they “create money” when they lend, because they can’t lend anybody more than depositors have left with them, or that they can borrow in the market. But the essence of a demand deposit is that it can be withdrawn by the depositor at will, so the original depositor has not in any sense lost the use of his money. Because the borrower now has the use of that same money through the deposit created in his name, the bank has in fact created new money.”



Tragedy and Hope
Carroll Quigley
ISBN: 978-0945001102

Page 54:

“In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. Such created deposits also were a creation of money out of nothing, although bankers usually refused to express their actions, either note issuing or deposit lending, in these terms. William Paterson, however, on obtaining the charter of the Bank of England in 1694, to use the moneys he had won in privateering, said, "The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." This was repeated by Sir Edward Holden, founder of the Midland Bank, on December 18, 1907, and is, of course, generally admitted today.”



Success in Economics
Derek Lobley B.A.
ISBN: 978-0719572074

Pages 205-206

“The most cash the bank needs to meet demands from its customers with deposits of £10,000 is actually only £1,000. Alternatively, we may take the view that with cash in hand of £10,000 the bank can afford liabilities of £100,000. Thus in creating credit the banks have added to the money supply.”

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
With a track record like this, I can understand why he disliked banks and creditors!

Everyone who borrows does.

The only people who like banks are those who profit from them.

100% Money Irving Fisher ISBN: 978-1851962365

Hmmmm....An economist from Yale, and he writes a book dated...1936.

Fisher was a well-known eugenicist, and was even secretary to the American Eugenics Society.

But, hey, I wouldn't want to knock your source. He was a fine chap, I'm sure.

Essentials of Banking Deborah K. Dilley ISBN: 978-0470170885

My favorite review on Amazon for this book:

"This book is an ideal introduction to banking for those schools that give you a degree really fast (and leave you with a lot of debt and/ a questionable degree). This is also ideal for vocational high schools as well. If you're looking for a book w/ a solid introduction to banking pass this and get ABA's "Principles of Banking" ISBN: 0899826024...."

And only 2 out of 5 stars. Too bad.

Federal Reserve System George B. Grey ISBN: 978-1590330531 Page 78: “The practice of keeping only a fraction of deposits on hand has a cumulative effect for the banking system as a whole. Effectively, it permits the banking system to “create” money. If a given sum of cash is deposited in bank A, and half of it is lent out, whoever borrows it spends it, and the money becomes the deposit of bank B for someone else. Half of that sum is then lent out, spent and deposited. The process continues until the total amount of deposits is a multiple of the initial amount of cash. In this example, the cumulative total is ultimately twice the initial amount. In practice, the multiple depends on what fraction is kept on hand as reserves by the bank and what fraction is kept as “pocket cash” outside the banking system. Thus, “fractional reserve banking” effectively permits the creation of money by the banking system to a multiple of the “base” money (typically created by the government).”

But, let's go back to square one. When I deposit a $1.00, that deposit is technically a liability of the bank because I can withdraw that $1.00 at any time. It is not an asset - Deposits are liabilities.

If the bank lends out 50 cents from my $1.00 deposit, I don't have $1.00 on deposit in the bank anymore, now do I? I now have 50 cents on deposit, and 50 cents out on loan.

The author is not accurately describing how the bank is accounting for the deposit money lent out.

The bank has to account for the deposits that are utilized for the loan. It can't simply give away deposit money for free without accounting for it.

Funny enough, the author fails to mention that the bank actually has its OWN cash. Yesssirreee, Bob. It actually has cash that it owns. What a concept.

The Bankers Martin Mayer ISBN: 978-0345295699

Written in the 70's. A bit out of touch.

Mayer updated the book, The Bankers: The Next Generation.

The Library's Journal had this to say:

"Mayer, a noted financial journalist, revisits the banking industry, which he covered over 20 years ago in a seminal book that was also called The Bankers (LJ 2/1/75). The world has changed since then, and Mayer acknowledges that the role of banks has likewise altered. Now banks offer myriad non-banking services ranging from insurance to mutual funds. Technology has dramatically affected banks, so much so that Mayer questions why we even need them, when an automated teller machine (ATM) can dispense cash and even loans, and a computer allows for transactions in cybercash over the Internet. Still, Mayer cogently argues for the need for banks and their role as an intermediary that can help Americans with simple or complex financial transactions as we enter the 21st century."

Wow, Mayer cogently argues the need for banks. Hmmm...

Tragedy and Hope Carroll Quigley ISBN: 978-0945001102

Carroll Quigley? The arrogant socialist? A book written in 1975? You mean Bill Clinton's college professor, right? I'll stop laughing in a few minutes.

Success in Economics Derek Lobley B.A. ISBN: 978-0719572074

Another book written in the 70's, revised in the 80's. I think you need to read some more current economic literature. Why not try Nouriel Roubini?

All my sources are wrong because the characters who wrote them are incompetent, or because they were written too long ago.

I give up.

You win.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


So now you're responding with ad hominem attacks against 30_seconds' sources in order to refute the validity of the quoted materials?

Personal Attack (Argumentum Ad Hominem, literally, "argument toward the man." Also called "Poisoning the Well"): Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. There are two subcategories:

(1) Abusive: To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, Christians, Communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics, anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual would argue otherwise.

Logical Fallacies Handlist

So I guess that if I were to provide a quote from Hitler in which he stated that "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west", you would then be able to prove that the sun really rises in the north and sets in the south because Hitler was an evil man who killed millions of Jews?
[size=0](classic straw man argument on my part but, one bad fallacy deserves another)


You've actually done quite an impressive job of defending the banks in this thread. I've even given your posts stars whenever you make good logial arguments and bring up interesting information.

I'm disappointed that you felt the need to resort to logical fallicies in order to bolster your positions. I expected more from you.




[edit on 5/23/10 by FortAnthem]