2005 Petrocollapse Conference in New York City

[fluffy]

http://carolynbaker.org/archives/the-valley-of-the-shadow-of-debt

"At the October, 2005 Petrocollapse Conference in New York City, Mike Ruppert enumerated the government’s responses to Peak Oil which protect the financial elites and major corporations:

Rich people looking out for one another is a pretty standard state of affairs. However, this only goes so far; these people can also be rivals. But an interesting list..

1.Rationing

This seems a reasonable answer to short term physical shortages. Why would it protect the elites and cooporations any more than joe average? After all rationing by price hits 'normal' people much harder than the rich.

2. More Coal and Nuclear – Emphasis on Fisher-Tropsch Coal-to-Liquids Conversion.

Again it extremely hard to see why the only proven and scalable solution is a big conspiriacy.

3. Suspended Environmental and Drilling Restrictions.

In terms of drilling, I really don't have a probmel with OCS drilling, and in the case of Alaska we need to se if there is any oil actually there first.

4. Protection of Critical Infrastructure.

Protecting what from what?

5. Strengthening and Reinforcing Domestic Military Operations – Suspension of Posse Comitatus.

Haven't heard about that.

6. Suspension and Relaxation of Labor and Minimum Wage Laws.

And the change from Standard Right-Wing policy is..?

7. Changing and Tightening the Bankruptcy Laws, Allowing Fewer Distressed Consumers to Discharge Debts.

And the change from Standard Right-Wing policy is..?

8. Allowing and Facilitating Population Reduction through Famine and Disease.

Now, we appear to have gone from fairly standard and minor responses as above to a sudden mass genocide response.. even dictatorships get into trouble when people start starving on the streets.

Starving mobs are BAD news for 'elites'.

9. Strengthening and Giving More Power to FEMA.

Actually it's been completely undermined and demoralised, hence the pathetic response to Katrina.

10. Destroying Demand Through Economic Collapse and Allocating Scarce Resources – by Force if Necessary – to Protect the Interests of the Wealthiest Communities and Interests in the Country.

Could just be green and incompetence, of course.

Clearly, our government doesn't give a sh*t about us.

Well, would you give a sh*t about people who contnued to support you no matter how much you lied to them, picked their pockets and ignored them when they needed you?

[dr_doom]

Mostly because having $1 Billion in the bank doesn't make you feel good about yourself if you see a whole lot of problems in the world.
Warren Buffett's giving everything away. You'd think that maybe one or two out of the Rothschilds,
who supposedly control a combined $7 Trillion of wealth, would do so.

Far from giving it away, they are moving their wealth into tax-free trusts which they control.
Buffett and Gates obviously copied each others' PR strategy.

I see a whole lot of evidence to suggest the London branch of the family is worth closer to $1 Billion- that's the market cap of their investment bank. They mostly do M&A, IIRC.

I've had this discussion many times before, with people who don't buy the idea that
Rothschild have a hidden fortune which dwarves anything else out there.
It quite often descends to the other person bringing up 20-foot tall lizards to
discredit my argument.

In the nineteenth century it was estimated that the fortune was worth somewhere in
the region of 400million/6billion pounds. Which was roughly equivalent to controlling
half the world's wealth.

There is nothing to indicate that their influence and standing has diminished since then,
it is more likely that they have consolidated their position.

All of this is in that film, which you have dismissed for historic revisionism.
It would be nice if you could point out what exactly has been revised, for me it
answered questions I already had. Everything there is verifiable.

In school, the names Rothschild or Rockefeller were never mentioned once in all
the history or economics I was taught. On the face of it this seems to me incredibly
conspicuous considering it is a matter of historical record that the Rothschild
were at least in the 19th century the wealthiest family in the world. And there isn't
that much evidence out there to suggest that this is no longer the case.

The money supply is briefly discussed in the economics I was taught,
but I never understood exactly how it worked until I watched that film.
It is just like Galbraith said:

The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.

[Specop_007]

Yet when I look at my friends who c stand on the fiscal precipace of disaster I have to ask did they do anything that they were not suppose to? They listened their financial advisors, one even got an MBA they did everything that society told them they should do yet in a few years they too will be facing a fiscal abyss.

You make a good point. Over consumption and spending with no worries about future debt have been the cultural norms in this country since the 1990's. Unfortunately, the piper is on his way about now and it's time to start worrying.

Several of the wealthier people I know prefer having a mortgage over owning a house/property outright because of the tax breaks for the mortgage. I must be a low-rent retard, because I've never understood why having a piddly tax break beats having title in hand.

Title in hand??
You think you OWN it?

I'll let you in on a little secret. You own what the government wants you to own for as long as they want you to own it. No more and no less.

Heres a perfect example. Stop paying your property tax. When they drag you to court wave that title around and see how much its actually worth.
Not the paper its printed on, I assure you.

Its sad, it angers me, but thats the way things are.

[Ibon]

I'll let you in on a little secret. You own what the government wants you to own for as long as they want you to own it. No more and no less.

Not if you have the majority of your assets offshore.

[Specop_007]

I'll let you in on a little secret. You own what the government wants you to own for as long as they want you to own it. No more and no less.

Not if you have the majority of your assets offshore.

1) If you think other governments wont be just as willing to take your stuff....Well, keep it offshore.
2) Hard to move your land and house, unless you have more then 1 and one of them is offshore.

[Ibon]

I'll let you in on a little secret. You own what the government wants you to own for as long as they want you to own it. No more and no less.

Not if you have the majority of your assets offshore.

1) If you think other governments wont be just as willing to take your stuff....Well, keep it offshore.
2) Hard to move your land and house, unless you have more then 1 and one of them is offshore.

There are many governments who whose very existance depends on helping foreign nationals (many many US citizens) keep their tax free assets offshore. Belize, BVI, HongKong, Mauritius, Lichtenstein, Isle of Mann, Seychelles. Cayman Islands to name a few. You don't have to be wealthy to do this but you do need to be savy.

How many people pay property taxes on the home they own in the USA with funds derived from tax free havens they have offshore?

In general you are right about the goverments control but there are crafty ways of minimizing the governments reach. And it can be perfectly legal.

[GoIllini]

Far from giving it away, they are moving their wealth into tax-free trusts which they control.
Buffett and Gates obviously copied each others' PR strategy.

The difference is that Buffet is giving everything away during his lifetime. What's the purpose of this? If he's going to hold the stock anyways, there's no tax advantage to putting it into his charitable trust, now.

I've had this discussion many times before, with people who don't buy the idea that
Rothschild have a hidden fortune which dwarves anything else out there.
It quite often descends to the other person bringing up 20-foot tall lizards to
discredit my argument.

In the nineteenth century it was estimated that the fortune was worth somewhere in
the region of 400million/6billion pounds. Which was roughly equivalent to controlling
half the world's wealth.

You'd think that something like this would make it into the history books. It really hasn't. Honestly, how do you hide half the world's wealth? Stick it under a mattress? Hide it in some underground vault that has to be so gigantic to hold all the world's wealth in gold that it would take an engineering feat impossible in the 1850s?

There is nothing to indicate that their influence and standing has diminished since then,
it is more likely that they have consolidated their position.

All of this is in that film, which you have dismissed for historic revisionism.

I believe stuff based on data that's been widely reviewed, or generally accepted, and then come up with my own conclusions based on that. "The Money Masters" hasn't been widely reviewed, but in the cases it has, people claim it promulgates conspiracy theories.

What I don't like about the Money Masters is the facts that it leaves out. It seems the widely accepted claim is that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), appointed by presidents over a course of 14 years, sets interest rates and controls the printing of the dollar. Additionally, all revenues from creating this new money get paid to the federal government. A small yearly dividend is paid to banks; in 1985, this dividend was a hundred million dollars. The rest went to the U.S. Government's treasury; several hundred billion dollars.

It would be nice if you could point out what exactly has been revised, for me it
answered questions I already had. Everything there is verifiable.

It selectively covers information. I could tell you that Hitler was a wonderful guy, that he did all this great stuff for Germany, and then skip to the part where the U.S. was bombing Germany and claim that Hitler was a good guy and that the U.S. was evil, but if I leave out the fact that Hitler invaded Poland and France and that he engaged in racial cleansing that killed six million people, I'm engaging in historical revisionism.

In school, the names Rothschild or Rockefeller were never mentioned once in all
the history or economics I was taught. On the face of it this seems to me incredibly
conspicuous considering it is a matter of historical record that the Rothschild
were at least in the 19th century the wealthiest family in the world. And there isn't
that much evidence out there to suggest that this is no longer the case.

We learned about the Rockefellers, mostly because of standard oil and antitrust issues. Also about a lot of industrialists, like Carnegie, Stanford, and Ford. Think we might have touched on the Rothschilds, but I didn't take European History.

The money supply is briefly discussed in the economics I was taught,
but I never understood exactly how it worked until I watched that film.
It is just like Galbraith said:

The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.

Yeah, money can be created "with a keystroke", but there's more to it than just that:

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Source: Prof. Edward Flaherty, College of Charleston Economics Department

[GoIllini]

Don't you think the accumulation of wealth within a few families would be impossible without a fixed economic system? You say conspiracy I say good business. Maybe you'll get time to watch the rest of the series.

Good old phrase is remaining us that should you take all available money and divide them equally between all the people tommorow, than one day later you would have current situation again.

There is no need for elites to conspire to destroy society.
Common folk will do this dirty job himself and for free, and he will vote to elect government, who would help him in this task most efficiently.

If you look at our society you will find out that only few dosens or may be few hundreds of families are fit to own big money, million of families or so is fit to own some money, ten millions or so are fit to break even (means still own personal freedom) and LARGE majority is not fit to own anything, except of huge credit card debt in addition to other loans.
This last group would make for enslaved peasants in feudal society.
It is sad to say, that most of common folks are only fit to owe money rather than own them.

Thanks, EU. IMHO, the biggest conspiracy on the planet is the fact that people are foolish, behave destructively, and act against their own self-interests. The fact that people often just do stupid and destructive things just randomly is often what makes it hard for me to believe most conspiracy theories. I believe that the fed was just a random and destructive decision. Conspiracy theorists look at charts of gold prices relative to the dollar, see a huge explosion starting in the '30s when the Fed confiscated gold in the country, and automatically assume that since the dollar is devaluing, that money has to be going to private individuals who are stealing from us.

[dr_doom]

The difference is that Buffet is giving everything away during his lifetime. What's the purpose of this? If he's going to hold the stock anyways, there's no tax advantage to putting it into his charitable trust, now.

He's putting 5/6 of his berkshire hathaway stock into the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.

There is a tax advantage of this, you could argue that he loses control, but you might find that he is largely in agreement with Bill about what he wants done with the money.

You'd think that something like this would make it into the history books. It really hasn't. Honestly, how do you hide half the world's wealth? Stick it under a mattress? Hide it in some underground vault that has to be so gigantic to hold all the world's wealth in gold that it would take an engineering feat impossible in the 1850s?

Control / own half the worlds wealth. When you comprehend the idea that they control the entire banking system, it is not difficult to see how this is possible.

But what you say about underground vaults, the Rothschilds were infamous for having vast and sophisticated ones.

I'm not sure how this is hard to believe, in London the Victorians built a vast underground transportation network in the late 19th century. Building a vault big enough to store gold bullion would be a much simpler, and less resource-intensive task.

I believe stuff based on data that's been widely reviewed, or generally accepted, and then come up with my own conclusions based on that. "The Money Masters" hasn't been widely reviewed, but in the cases it has, people claim it promulgates conspiracy theories.

It's easy to dismiss a lot of things by branding them "conspiracy theories".

What I don't like about the Money Masters is the facts that it leaves out. It seems the widely accepted claim is that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), appointed by presidents over a course of 14 years, sets interest rates and controls the printing of the dollar. Additionally, all revenues from creating this new money get paid to the federal government. A small yearly dividend is paid to banks; in 1985, this dividend was a hundred million dollars. The rest went to the U.S. Government's treasury; several hundred billion dollars.

The whole thing is smoke and mirrors designed to misdirect anyone who is seeking the truth.

The majority of money that gets created by "The Fed" doesn't generate any revenues, the Fed buys government debt with a simple book-keeping entry (money out of thin air).

The money-printing operation is really just a side-show and generates an insignificant amount of revenue.

The first time I saw Money Masters, I did not like it either. In fact I felt physically ill, but it was the only satisfactory explanation of the inner-workings of banking and central-banks that has ever been presented to me. In time I've learnt to live with the truth.

It selectively covers information. I could tell you that Hitler was a wonderful guy, that he did all this great stuff for Germany, and then skip to the part where the U.S. was bombing Germany and claim that Hitler was a good guy and that the U.S. was evil, but if I leave out the fact that Hitler invaded Poland and France and that he engaged in racial cleansing that killed six million people, I'm engaging in historical revisionism.

I take your point. But producing any historical account, you can't provide every event from every angle. You have to be selective.
It was news to me that people did actually profit from wars in the past, and profit massively they did too.

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

With the risk of sounding like a broken record, smoke and mirrors.

"banks cannot costlessly create money" - such an ambiguous claim that it means nothing. It costs me 5 seconds of time to update a number in a database. Does this prove the system somehow isn't a total scam?

Going back to the point in the video, the reason we are up to our necks in debt, both personal, and national, is that we have a debt-based money system. We can attack the credibility of Bill Shill until the cows come home, but this simple fact is not going away anytime soon.

[GoIllini]

The difference is that Buffet is giving everything away during his lifetime. What's the purpose of this? If he's going to hold the stock anyways, there's no tax advantage to putting it into his charitable trust, now.

He's putting 5/6 of his berkshire hathaway stock into the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.

There is a tax advantage of this, you could argue that he loses control, but you might find that he is largely in agreement with Bill about what he wants done with the money.[/quote]
Shoot, you're right. He gets to write off the basis right now, too. I forgot. Still, the basis has got be what, $10/share with the current market value around $90K/share?

Control / own half the worlds wealth. When you comprehend the idea that they control the entire banking system, it is not difficult to see how this is possible.

So they control Bernanke? I thought he was appointed by the President.

But what you say about underground vaults, the Rothschilds were infamous for having vast and sophisticated ones.

I'm not sure how this is hard to believe, in London the Victorians built a vast underground transportation network in the late 19th century. Building a vault big enough to store gold bullion would be a much simpler, and less resource-intensive task.

True, but it would take an area several football fields in size to store half the world's wealth in gold (assuming that gold made up at least half the world's wealth in 1850) underground. Using 1850s technology, it would have taken thousands of people chipping away at rock for years. There was no way such an engineering feat could have avoided a massive amount of publicity, if not from outlets supposedly controlled by the Rothschilds, by normal people just showing up and later telling others.

This conspiracy has just gotten too big. The truth is that the Rothschilds didn't have $6 Billion back in 1850; heck, the French/English branch of the family barely has $1 Billion, today. If it were otherwise, my bosses would have spent 1/2 their time talking on the phone with the Rothschilds. The truth is that they didn't.

It's easy to dismiss a lot of things by branding them "conspiracy theories".

A lot of smart people have come up with easily verifiable claims that put "The Money Masters" in perspective. One of them is that the federal reserve refunds all of its profits, except a tiny dividend, to the federal government. The other is that Bernanke, and the other members of the FOMC, are appointed by the President. I'm not saying the Fed isn't a stupid system, but I am saying that there's a great deal of verifiable evidence that the current conspiracy about it being privately owned isn't correct.

The whole thing is smoke and mirrors designed to misdirect anyone who is seeking the truth.

The majority of money that gets created by "The Fed" doesn't generate any revenues, the Fed buys government debt with a simple book-keeping entry (money out of thin air).

The money-printing operation is really just a side-show and generates an insignificant amount of revenue.

Who gets the interest? An easily verifiable claim is that the interest gets refunded to the federal government. Again, the vast majority of the fed's profits wind up in the hands of the federal government. A very small percentage, which amounted to $100 million in 1985, went to member banks:

Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

-Edward Flaherty, PhD.

The first time I saw Money Masters, I did not like it either. In fact I felt physically ill, but it was the only satisfactory explanation of the inner-workings of banking and central-banks that has ever been presented to me. In time I've learnt to live with the truth.

It didn't make me ill. I think the problem for me was that believing it required a paradigm shift. Believing that Peak Oil is real took a paradigm shift, but I let it happen because I didn't find a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

I Googled "federal reserve" "privately owned", found a whole lot of interesting sites that alleged a conspiracy, and many other sites that explained what the conspiracy sites left out; that member banks only make a small profit, and the majority of the profits leaving the fed is sent back to the federal government (not as loans).

I take your point. But producing any historical account, you can't provide every event from every angle. You have to be selective.
It was news to me that people did actually profit from wars in the past, and profit massively they did too.

I'm saying that if you're claiming that the federal reserve is privately owned, the first question from the contrarian in me, is:
1.) Who controls it?
2.) Where do its profits go?

Why wasn't the information that the FOMC controls monetary policy (the ability to print money) and that the Fed refunds interest it charges to the federal government (and would refund everything it had, save a small dividend for member banks if market conditions allowed) not included in the video?

With the risk of sounding like a broken record, smoke and mirrors.

"banks cannot costlessly create money" - such an ambiguous claim that it means nothing. It costs me 5 seconds of time to update a number in a database. Does this prove the system somehow isn't a total scam?

DD,

It seems like in many areas, you know a lot more about econ and finance than I do. I've always taken it as a given that banks can create money by having money on deposit since I took Macroeconomics.

Going back to the point in the video, the reason we are up to our necks in debt, both personal, and national, is that we have a debt-based money system. We can attack the credibility of Bill Shill until the cows come home, but this simple fact is not going away anytime soon.

That's true, but when we allege something that 99% of the country would think we're crazy to allege, we weaken our argument.

It doesn't take much to convince people that the Fed causes inflation and weakens the dollar. Just pull out a graph of the cost of an ounce of gold over the past 200 years.

However, all of that common sense convincing is undone when we start alleging that a whole bunch of sneaky money men are pulling the strings at the Federal Reserve, and can now print or create all of the money they want and make trillions of dollars.

The truth is that the federal reserve allows congress to act like drunken sailors with our budget at the expense of our currency. This is especially bad news for people with lots of dollars in the bank. At the very least, if you believe that the fed is heavily manipulated by banks or monied interests and helps banks profit off of the government's ability to create money, you have to disbelieve all the others that help people with dollars, or hurt people that owe dollars. Otherwise, monied interests with trillions of dollars would be working against the monied interests with hundreds of billions of dollars.

[jupiters_release]

The first time I saw Money Masters, I did not like it either. In fact I felt physically ill, but it was the only satisfactory explanation of the inner-workings of banking and central-banks that has ever been presented to me. In time I've learnt to live with the truth.

It didn't make me ill. I think the problem for me was that believing it required a paradigm shift.

At least give credit that Money Masters is a highly sophisticated fairy tale then.

Why would any of us want to believe our income taxes only goes to pay off interest on the money the government owes the Fed? That can't be good for your work morale no? The proverbial personal bias in your paradigm we never see that here at peakoil lol. Aaron Russo just made a documentary on the Fed "Freedom To Fascism", even got a congressman to admit to the money master system.

[dr_doom]

So they control Bernanke? I thought he was appointed by the President.

The president chooses from a list of candidates
prepared by the banking cartel.
So the answer to your question is, yes.

True, but it would take an area several football fields in size to store half the world's wealth in gold (assuming that gold made up at least half the world's wealth in 1850) underground. Using 1850s technology, it would have taken thousands of people chipping away at rock for years. There was no way such an engineering feat could have avoided a massive amount of publicity, if not from outlets supposedly controlled by the Rothschilds, by normal people just showing up and later telling others.

The Manhatten project was successfully kept under wraps for years,
and that involved thousands of people.

This conspiracy has just gotten too big. The truth is that the Rothschilds didn't have $6 Billion back in 1850; heck, the French/English branch of the family barely has $1 Billion, today. If it were otherwise, my bosses would have spent 1/2 their time talking on the phone with the Rothschilds. The truth is that they didn't.

I assume you are talking about selling the Rothschilds wealth management services?
Do you really think they would need any of that, given their legendary history.

A lot of smart people have come up with easily verifiable claims that put "The Money Masters" in perspective. One of them is that the federal reserve refunds all of its profits, except a tiny dividend, to the federal government. The other is that Bernanke, and the other members of the FOMC, are appointed by the President. I'm not saying the Fed isn't a stupid system, but I am saying that there's a great deal of verifiable evidence that the current conspiracy about it being privately owned isn't correct.

It isn't a stupid system at all, it is a extremely cleverly designed, but ultimately destructive system.

I've heard that before about the Fed giving interest back to the Federal Government,
and I have no reason to believe it isn't true.

But how does this prove the Fed isn't privately controlled?

In England we have a similar but different array of things designed to confuse anyone looking for answers,
the BOE was "nationalised" in 1946, but the government still needs to borrow money into existence
from its own "nationlised" bank. It was also declared that this "nationalised" bank
was to be made "independent" in 1997.

Then if you look on the BOE's own website it tells you that the highest level of management
at this bank, is appointed by "The Crown". A huge secretive corporation, which is hundreds of
years old and operates outside the control of government. The queen is a front for this
entity, I don't believe she ultimately controls it though.

Who gets the interest? An easily verifiable claim is that the interest gets refunded to the federal government. Again, the vast majority of the fed's profits wind up in the hands of the federal government. A very small percentage, which amounted to $100 million in 1985, went to member banks:

Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.
-Edward Flaherty, PhD.

So now you attest that they are privately owned, but not privately controlled,
whereas above you said they the idea that they are privately owned is not correct.

I agree control is the important issue here. You can say the board of governors is
"publically-appointed", but it is from a list of candidates prepared by the banking
cartel.

I'm saying that if you're claiming that the federal reserve is privately owned, the first question from the contrarian in me, is:
1.) Who controls it?
2.) Where do its profits go?

Why wasn't the information that the FOMC controls monetary policy (the ability to print money) and that the Fed refunds interest it charges to the federal government (and would refund everything it had, save a small dividend for member banks if market conditions allowed) not included in the video?

There's a limit to how much you can fit into 3 hours.

The FOMC is part of the federal reserve system,
are we basically in agreement then that the privately-owned
federal reserve system controls the volume of money in
circulation, not the federal government.

It seems like in many areas, you know a lot more about econ and finance than I do. I've always taken it as a given that banks can create money by having money on deposit since I took Macroeconomics.

That's true, but when we allege something that 99% of the country would think we're crazy to allege, we weaken our argument.

It doesn't take much to convince people that the Fed causes inflation and weakens the dollar. Just pull out a graph of the cost of an ounce of gold over the past 200 years.

However, all of that common sense convincing is undone when we start alleging that a whole bunch of sneaky money men are pulling the strings at the Federal Reserve, and can now print or create all of the money they want and make trillions of dollars.

It's certainly a difficult thing to explain to people.

For many reasons, it is made-purposefully difficult to understand,
some people don't want to understand because to believe the world
is run by unaccountable elites isn't what they want to hear.

Aaron Russo's new film freedom to fascism, is a good attempt at
raising awareness in this area, he even claims to have known
Nick Rockefeller.

[IslandCrow]

...., and automatically assume that since the dollar is devaluing, that money has to be going to private individuals who are stealing from us.

This reminds me of a time several years ago when the government brought in a law saying that employees had to start paying something towards their pensions (and not just the employers). This resulted in a small deduction from the salary. [I am responsible for calculating and paying salaries] Although all this was clearly in the papers and on the radio and TV news at that time, when I started deducting the legally required amount from people's wages I was accused of pocketing the money myself.

This expirence has taugh me how easy it is to shout "Conspiracy", and how difficult, once someone is emotionally committed to the idea of a conspiracy, it is to talk to that person and explain that there might be another way of viewing things.

One eyeopener for me as a non-US citizen (and frankly one that I do not understand) in coming to this forum is just how many times people shout 'Conspiracy'. Is it a deep need that we humans have to know that someone is in charge?--- having practically reject 'god' there seems to be the need to find the god subsitute defind as a person who has the power, whether it is a banker, or the head of the CIA, or some Zionist/Crusader.