Topic: is it possible at all for a bank to be honest (Read 3449 times)

As I said, since you refuse to address any of the many flaws in your "theory" or answer the most basic questions, and simply categorically ignore anything for which you do not have an answer, there is little room for discussion. 

First, I would like to mention that it takes two to tango; I do not at present have any interest in going back through your posts to answer your questions; so will you still be my dance partner?...

That claim sounds silly because you have not proposed a means by which it could be tested.

However, the claim that capitalization is relevant in law has in fact been tested and you can test it yourself by submitting a plea in abatement with the primary cause being misnomer.

I will now show you a few examples, now you don't have to believe that these tests occurred, but you can easily run a similar test yourself:

Test 1:


Test 2:
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/irs.html

OK, now I am not suggesting that you DO go out and run these tests, just that it is possible, and that it seems like it has already been done. The combination of apparently successful tests and a well-reasoned hypothesis, along with the possibility of disproof by counterexample, are good reasons to believe what I have claimed. Your assertion that I am a foreign agent does not have any of those elements, nor can I see any other kind of hard evidence for that claim, so I am not obliged to refute it.

I don't need to do anything of the sort.  You know what the questions are, because you are perfectly capable of picking out certain pieces of my posts and responding to them.  You just choose to ignore the parts you don't have an answer for.  As you said, there is little point in discussing the issue further, your agenda is quite obvious to any neutral observer. 

Incidentally, I believe you are a DPRK agent sent to undermine the US banking system.  Prove me wrong    See how silly such a claim sounds?

Sorry, we really need to agree on this fundamental point about proper names and how the government is failing to write them out properly... and why it is doing that... because that is the key to understanding the first layer of this; now, if you would like to pose questions to me one at a time and with full context I can try and answer them, but we will probably keep getting stuck on this point.

Typically, in a discussion, the one making a claim has to provide the proof (and no, someone's opinion on a website is not proof).  One does not make a ridiculous claim, and then demand it be disproven or else it must be true, and get taken seriously.  With that said, I will be happy to answer your specific question posed here as soon as you go back and answer at least some of the questions posed to you. 

Sorry, I did not see a counterexample in your post, so I will assume that I have spoken correctly by stating "capitalization is important in law". Once we can agree on that, then I would be happy to cointinue our conversation.

Feel free to provide any proof that "capitalization is NOT important in law"; all it would take is a single counterexample:

I do not claim to have all the answers, but I would be happy to discuss with you as long as we can agree on facts such as the above. It is quite important that we start from a point of agreement before going further, if our goal is to understand the banking system.  

But your entire argument up until now has been there is something unique and special about how they write your name.  Now you're saying they don't need the name at all?


But see thats the whole problem.  You haven't actually said what you're trying to say.  You've been asked several times what that is, and you refuse to answer.  You asked why that line is there, and I'm telling you that line isn't there on my checks.  But since you won't actually get to your point we have no idea what to make of that.  Of course my proper name is written on my checks. 


To a certain extent perhaps, but not nearly as much as you claim.  I provided two specific examples refuting this, but like everything else you don't have an answer for, you simply ignored it.


Or perhaps they chose that format completely at random?  I'de ask you again what the bank told you when you asked them but we both know by now you won't answer.  What it really comes down to is two things.
1.  Obviously they have to write something.  We could just as easily be having this exact same conversation if they had chosen to write your name in lowercase letters.  You would then be asking why do they do  it that way.  They have to write something though. 
2.  You pick and chose what to respond to, ignoring anything that refutes your claims.  Don't tell me it has anything to do with not formatting the questions correctly, because anything you have a ready answer for you DO answer. 

I guess the best answer for you then would be to just not do business with the bank.

Perhaps they don't need the NAME, just the ID number.

As far as your checks, the "authorized signature" line is but an example of what I am trying to say here. Your proper name is not the name written on your checkbook, is it?

Actually, it is factually correct to say that punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and grammar are important in law. For example, an alleged violation of law charged to the all-caps name can be abated with the primary cause being misnomer.

I am not in receipt of any evidence that capitalization is universally unimportant in law, but I am again pointing you to evidence indicating that it is important and will await your providing evidence that disputes the following line of reasoning:


I would rather not cointinue quoting this source, but would prefer that you read it in its entirety because it provides definitive proof that capitalization is important in law, at least sometimes, and like I stated above, you can test this yourself. OK, now for your convenience I will quote this definitive proof and you tell me if you can find a counterexample:

Well this is a public message board, not a private discussion.  I have tried to engage you, but your refusal to address any of the many points brought up makes discussion quite impossible. 

pub·li·ca·tion:  a book, journal, etc. issued for public sale.
Clearly a SS card is non of those things.  This isn't really a debatable point.
That is correct.  The law requiring a SS card is quite new, 2002 I think?  Sometime around then.
None of those documents have anything to do with a private bank though.  A private bank can use whatever format they like. 
Well no, I don't think I have.  When I ask you something like, "did you ask the bank why, and what was their answer", you either have an answer or you don't.  There is no hidden meaning in the words, and the specific format or punctuation I use has nothing to do with whether or not you choose to answer.  It DOES however reveal why you have such great difficulty with dealing with institutions of any kind.
Just because you say it is true, doesn't make it true.  As an example, my drivers license had a mispelling in my name.  Never had a problem with the bank.  My father has a completely different name on his SS card as on his checks, never had a problem either.  As an asside, you keep going on about the "authorized signature" line.  My checks don't even have such a line.  A quick google image search will show many many checks that do not.  If this is some big scheme, obviously all the banks ain't in on it!

How can you justify this when you have not even started a conversation with me? 

Interesting claim; maybe we can get back to it later...

Oh? You mean to say you opened a "personal" checking account in the US without the use of a tax ID document bearing your name in all caps?

I do not point out documents like The Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press, among others, because this has already been done for me in that link that I gave you.
Here is that page again.

Well... have you been asking these questions one at a time and in full context as per my request??? Worle1bm has been abiding by my request and I have been answering his questions; I do not intend to stop so long as these two simple rules are followed. So, how have I refused to answer your questions when you have not even stated them to me in an acceptable format as far as I am aware? Go ahead and ask away; nobody is stopping you!

Law is extremely precise. Every letter, capitalization, punctuation mark, etc., in a legal document is utilized for a specific reason and has legal (i.e. deadly force) consequences.

Besides the obvious matter of a social security card not being a government publication  either, it has nothing whatsoever to do with a private bank or a checking account. 
Incidentally, it IS the only document giving you these guidelines.  If there was anywhere else, you wouldn't have to draw the conclusion for us, you would just point to that document.  Which you do not do.

As for asking you questions, you keep saying you will answer questions if they are asked, yet you have refused or ignored any question that you do not have a "good" answer for.  Obviously there is little point in having a discussion with someone who is not willing to actually discuss.

I have yet to run a test; however, a page linked to in that reference I gave you will tell you what is needed to run a test: a systematic legal approach.

The hypothesis that we are discussing here is that there is a difference between the name on your checkbook and your proper name, and that this relates to the bank's use of "authorized signature" in the fine print below the signature line.

The bank WILL NOT tell you this up-front; I wonder if they will admit to it?

Ok, what is your hypothesis and have you tested it?

Negotiable instruments typically bear a signature and the question is "in which capacity are you signing when you sign above the 'authorized signature'"?

Are you not declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account (and thus liable if that check is returned for lack of funds)?

A check is a form of a contract yes, however a very simple one. It is essentially a promise to pay a certain amount that is payable by the bank the check is drawn on

I do appreciate your opinion, but your opinion will not change the facts.

Face it:


Don't turn your back on facts. Rather, ask better questions. A hypothesis is NOT useless if it can be tested.

I think it is even more clear that you have a conspiracy theory rooted so deeply in your beliefs that you can no longer consider alternate theories, which is the opposite of what a skeptic should be. Your useless conspiracy theory is just that; useless.

Ah, but what about the SS Card? And are not "all" banks part of the Federal Reserve System?

It is not only the US Gov Style Manual that gives you these rules for proper names.

Read moar carefully:


Feel free to ask questions one at a time with full context after you comprehend the above; I think it is obvious that you have not yet achieved full comprehension.

A check drawn on a private bank is not a "US government publication", so why would we care what the US Government style manual says is the correct format to print a name in a US government publication?  If you wish to know why the bank wrote your name the way that they did, did you try asking them?  What was their answer?

You still haven't answered a very simple question.   If you do not like the business practices on one or all banks, why do you do business with them?  I think it is fairly obvious at this point that you're simply a troll.

I did inform you that official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps.

Your name is a proper name, and there is a rule for how it is to be printed (i.e. "John Macadam"); so what is it doing in all caps on your "personal" checking account?

It appears the same way on all Social Security Cards--in all caps. It appears to me that said account and Social Security Card is not in your "proper" name, else they would print it differently (correctly).

I now ask you this question:
Why is "your name" printed in all caps on your personal checking account when proper names are not supposed to be printed that way?

A compilation of references to these publications is found here, but remember to do your own thinking (and ask good questions):
http://famguardian.org/subjects/lawandgovt/articles/memlawonthename.htm#2.5__US_Government_Style_Manual_

I'm sorry, you have to ask all questions with the full context.

OK, now I must first inform you that official publications state that proper names are not to be written in all caps.

On your personal checks, your name is in all-caps; by signing above the "authorized signature" line, are you declaring yourself the authorized user of that corporate account?

To prevent fraud because it is difficult to emulate. To join a contract in the legal sense. To prevent unauthorized users of corporate accounts.

You can't be certain. There are always some bad apples.

Why are the contract terms "authorized signature" written in "fine print" on all checks?

Sorry, you need to ask them one at a time with full context.

I have some questions for you:
Is a check a contract?
Should a prudent man understand every contract before signing it?
What does "authorized signature" mean and why is it "fine print"?

Yeah, you just keep avoiding giving an actual answer because you don't have an answer. You're just saying words that mean nothing.

You are correct, it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to hold onto others peoples wealth without running fractional banking.  100% impossible.

I already answered both those questions; what don't you like about my answer? I even gave you an example where a bank would not reveal the full truth behind the stuff that it prints on all its contracts.

You ask those questions one at a time with full context if you want answers. 

ITS: This guy refusing to answer simple questions because he's a shill.

In This Thread: People pretending that they understand the banking system.

How so?

No.

They are thieves by definition.

It's not about human nature, but about the system of values we live in. If you live in a strongly competitive system where everyone abuses of others for his own good, then you won't have much problems doing the same to survive in that context. We always lived in a world of artificial scarcity, let it be about raw materials, food or other, that brought human to be always afraid and to want more and more.
If you want a honest bank, you can find many local smaller ones that can offer such services and they are trasparent about their movements.

You insist on making a big deal out of nothing.  If you don't like the terms of the deal, don't do business with the bank.  This really isn't that complicated.

You need to ask them one at a time with full context.

Why can't you answer my questions?

I want to know why it says (in micro-print) "authorized signature" below the signature line on my checks! Normally, you are entitled to full disclosure on a contract, and a check is nothing more than that.

See if a banker will tell you the truth about that!

Ok, what does that literally mean? What information do you want to know? Why are you entitled to that information?

If you were to attempt to change any part of the account agreement then the bank would not accept it (the same is true for most other companies). The agreement is also written in a way that allows them to amend the agreement.

Banks however are generally good with disclosing potential conflicts of interest and other issues regarding specific transactions as all types of banking transactions are heavily regulated, with the regulations demanding that banks issue very specific disclosures regarding various types of transactions

HONESTY constitutes full disclosure, and you are not able to demand it from a bank. Therefore, it is not possible at all for a bank to be honest; i.e. you cannot enter into such an agreement with a bank.

Yeah, because that's an incredibly vague demand. What constitutes "full disclosure"? Why does a bank owe that to you?

If you write "I demand full disclosure on all transactions" or words to that effect on your account agreement, no bank will accept it.

Regulators are supposed to ensure that banks stay honest. Hopefully, these huge fines imposed on banks serve a purpose and banks have learned their lesson.

No, you aren't.  I lived for years without a bank account and had no problem paying taxes. 

Without getting too off topic, this is the sort of inane, lunatic  rambling that leads the average person to look at bitcoin and say "um yea no thanks".  
Back on topic, you keep saying all this stuff as if the "bank" came into your house and took your money.  If you are doing business with a bank it is quite the opposite; YOU chose to do business, and went out of your way to engage in business with the bank.  You do not have to if you do not want to, you know.

go ahead and read them, nowhere will it say they are going to lend your money out.
and by the way you are forced to open a bank account by the government to pay taxes.

But you did agree to it.  No one made you walk into the bank, give them your money, and sign all those papers you signed but didn't read. 

if you have zero morals and have no problem to rob your fellow countrymen and you have the tens of millions of dollars it costs to comply with all the regulations i can't think of a better business for the rich sociopath.
of course you run the risk of an angry mob with pitchforks lynching you once the economy starts to fall apart...

If you think its such a good business then why dont you start bank?  Easy money, no?

its a scam because you did not agree for the bank to loan your money out when you opened a checking account, indeed no one tells you that's what they are going to do with it.
if they did tell you and you agreed you would have specified how much risk you allow the bank to take with your money and how much interest they are going to be paying you for that risk.

How is that a scam?  Why else would a bank accept your deposit, and pay you interest for it, if not to loan it out?  That's the whole point of a bank.  

I'm not going to need to convince anyone.
once the fiat hyperinflation starts people won't have a choice.

Nobody is stopping you from holding bitcoins.  Good luck in convincing the rest of the world

You're a joke.  Blaming the victim like a chest thumping libertarian.  That is,  until you become victim yourself you go crying to daddy gov't

banking regulation is a joke, those regulators end up working at the same banks they regulated after they are done living of the tits of the government.
the only viable solution is being your own bank by using bitcoin.

if you give your money to a bank or to mt gox or to anyone else, and they run away, yes it is partially your fault.
you are responsible to do your due diligence and risk management, don't expect for anyone to bail you out.

Theres a reason why banking is heavily regulated

So, if I give my money to a bank, it's partially my fault? Huh, how about that; you can't lay all evils at the feet of banks because you're too lazy to think deeper.

in the crypto world you can store your money on your own.
if you give your money to someone else to hold it for you and they run away with it, its partially your own fault you got robbed.

Yeah, because no one has ever scammed anyone in the crypto world! Total honesty here! I don't think banks have a monopoly on being dishonest. I would submit that greed is the link between so many dishonest maneuvers.

It's stupid for banks not to cheat in a society of cheating institutions. What exactly is supposed to be fair about fractional reserve banking? Billing mistakes and banking errors always work in the institutions favor and that's a reason why banks dislike/ban crypto

If that happen , bank will not gained lot profit.
and all banker will not getting rich every year like this time now.
Like world bank , politic hide behind this .They can control some country with their money power.

One main reasons why banks continue to dominate over bitcoin is that it gives interest rate for your deposits and you can use the money to invest in trust funds. For bitcoin this area is lacking. Other than that bitcoin wins hands down in terms of security. So despite the question on whether honesty is there people will still continue to use them

I strongly agree with your opinion, now with bitcoin system then you save the property with a high level of security, which would be very difficult for someone else to take your bitcoin with a layered security system, hopefully bitcoin wallet is always updating its security system ... 

I've been going over the history of modern banking, and right from the start when banks were little more than goldsmiths with vaults they already couldn't stop themselves from loaning out deposited client gold to other clients (e.g running a fractional reserve scam).

is it possible that humans by nature simply cannot hold other people's money for long periods of time without their greed leading either to them loaning out other people's money or downright running away with it?
it seems to me bitcoin's solution of being your own bank is the only way to keep your precious money from being stolen by one elaborate scam or another.