User panel stuff on forum
  199 posts on 7 pages  First page1234567Last page
Off Topic
2011-10-30, 21:33
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
You didn't answer any of the points I raised about fractional reserve though, which is addressing the problem you are talking about.

Well that extreme example may be illegal, but "donating" money to election candidates, lobbying etc is not. It may require a bit more finesse, but eventually the rich and powerful usually get what they want.
2011-10-30, 22:38
Member
1 post

Registered:
Apr 2011
dedi wrote:
"That's bad business for banks. A good customer is a customer who owes the bank an amount that does not bankrupt him, a bad customer is one who has too much loan and will never be able to pay it back. And

Year 2008, subprime mortgages and CDS's beg to differ.

Anyways money makers documentary was extremely interesting because of the historical references. The thing is I have only a vague grasp on the banking system here in eu. Banking, financial sector and politics in the us are completely fucked up, how anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me. Same could be said of the eu probably, it just is very complex. Anyways interesting thread. Funnily enough I will be working at a bank but on the software side
2011-10-30, 22:38
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
you won't have the mega rich, with option to pay millions and millions to politicians, that they earned BECAUSE of fractional reserve. Besides that is pure corruption, we can deal with that on the side, like we alwatys have.

But what you dont understand is that this kind of fucking whole world is L E G A L!!!!!
And it should not be.
ready!
2011-10-31, 07:45
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
You cant just print more money without something, like gold, to back up its value. If not, ppl will figure out that noone can guarantee the moneys value and thus salaries and prices will rise causing an inflation spiral.

Germany printed more and more money in the 30s until normal groceries costed billions of D mark because of the mega inflation the money printing caused.
So, if you, as a country, need more money for something you need to raise taxes, make cuts in other sectors and/or borrow money.

The current system may suck but you cant solve it by printing money all over the world.
Chosen
2011-10-31, 19:20
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Hooratio yes you can print money, without something. You just don't understand it

FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING.

If a bank gets 1000 kroner, it can lend out 10.000... those 10.000 are created OUT OF NOTHING, but is to be expected paid back + interest. Just printed on the computer screen and transferred, there's no actual printing of physical money needed.

And don't for a second think that all banks even obey this rule. Once you open that pandora's box banks can go crazy with it as there are many examples of.
ready!
2011-10-31, 19:43
Member
1433 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
ParadokS wrote:
If a bank gets 1000 kroner, it can lend out 10.000...

Uhm, Para, please...
2011-10-31, 19:52
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
I was talking about you wanting countries to just print money instead of raising taxes, borrowing or making cutbacks.
Chosen
2011-10-31, 20:21
Member
26 posts

Registered:
Jul 2007
<Para> Yeah and all this because of fractional reserve lending which is the real killer here.
- Referrenging to that fractional reserve lending leads to people being allowed to take loans they can't handle. To me it seems like a false accusation. I agree fractional reserve lending helps make this problem larger compared to full reserve lending. But do note that it is also possible and likely with full reserve. Also take into note that reserve ratio and open market operations (money supply) work hand in hand. If the case was full reserve lending, central banks would have to use bigger open market operations to get same effect. I believe total amount of loans would be smaller. But would it save anything? Hard to say.

<Para> It actually shows you from history that there are alternatives, but you are as many others, indoctrinated and brainwashed that this is the ONLY system that exists, because it's been (ab)used for 300 years!!
- Please, don't be so rude here. I have not watched the video, it is 3h30mins long. You are referring to a lot of it, maybe you could also share some arguments that are presented? I'm sorry for being rude but you don't give the best image of you by simply repeating a mantra you heard somewhere. Facts or opinions, but I would love some argumentation!
- Also I feel you are referring to me when saying "you are as many others, indoctrinated and brainwashed that this is the ONLY system that exists". Either you have not read my posts or you just don't care, but I have said many times I don't think this system works well. I've also been asking for alternative systems, you haven't really been open about those. You have previously written that money printing is no issue and just ignore the cases we have presented you (Japan, Germany, Sweden). Printed money has to have some basis. Simply raising amount of notes has been proven not to work. If you have $100 against 1kg of gold and you print another $100 bill and still have 1kg of gold, the gold price has inflated. Simple example but bare in mind this is losely what happens when you simply try to print money. Please give me an example where, in large scale, it has had good implications. Please explain why it would not lead to inflation. Argument your answers! I like you quoting Mr. Friedman. Here's a quote by the very same man: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output." If you do some researh, Mr. Friedman actually thought you could remove FED and, what you are missing here, "instead of government involvement at all, he was open to a 'real', non-government, gold standard where money is produced by the private market". This is both against and for your ideology. You don't like central banks but I guess you hate private banks even more. His point against central banking is that decision making power is given to so few persons. Humans as they are, they make mistakes. They have too great responsiblity. If I understand correctly, he was not against fractional reserve lending per se (don't remove the gap finns!). Rather he was against central bankind and would have no problem with private banks creating money supply based on a mathematical model. So basically no judgemental power to private banks, but instead they would follow a model.

At this point I'm actually interested in spending 3h30mins on your video. I wouldn't mind a small history recap.

<Para> Controlling the quantity of money supply is what controls inflation - and by fractional reserve lending, banks are legitimized money printing factories, Just because you don't actually PRINT them, doesn't mean you are not creating them.. electronically.
- Private banks increase money supply when there is fractional reserve lending, that's a fact. But bear in mind that they are expected to do so! Central bank makes the call on the ratio as well as initial money supply (initial deposits). Central banks control actual money printing, printing of notes. Private banks are not in control of reserve ratio or note printing. And you don't need electricity for fractional lending I'm not against full reserve lending! My initial thought about going into full reserve lending: higher costs, more stabilized growth. Does not sound bad in the end. I have not thought this through and I would not yet give vote for either.

<Para> And you stated earlier banks were not able to print own money, but you don't think about electronic create own money (which in essence is the same thing). Isn't that a game changer?
- I guess the last answered this one too. Different concepts, but if you think of it as "increasing money supply" (as I believe you do), I agree with you.

<Para> If airline company is threaten by bankrupcy, LET THEM FAIL. If big bank going down.. LET IT GO DOWN. Means it was fucking up somewhere, so why print more money to keep letting them fuck things up?
- The airline was just a real life example on where governments actually spill tax payers money. Italia has supported it's Airline, so has Sweden and Latvia too for example. I'm sure many others too. This leads to unhealthy competition, which to me sounds bad. On the other hand I can't blame a government if they want to maintain independence in air transportation.

<Para> Good idea, don't need taxes. tax are just illegal way of stealing from people.
- Seriously? Usually people who are against 'capitalistic pigs' like taxes! I have not heard of any country where tax collecting was illegal, maybe you just mixed your words... But you can call it "stealing from people" if you like, that's exactly what robin hood did. He took from the rich and gave to the poor, taxes too are a means of 'income transfer'. I'm a bit lost with you. You say taxes are used (and I get the image you mean 'most of it goes into') for paying interests on government bonds that central banks have bought (=central bank giving a loan). I have tried to explain it many times that central banks are not owned by private investors but rather governments. European Central Bank's suprlus is divided to Euro countries. It is true that private banks have tiny stakes on FED, but they are not meaningful. Governments are not fucked by themselves (central banks they have created). What you propably are going after is this: when central bank buys government bonds, government deposits this money into private banks. Private banks pay interest to governments (hey, there's income for governments!). But the crucial point is that now private banks can give loans and ask for a higher interest. Here's where the private banks make shitloads of money! Say now they might need to pay 1,5% interest to government for the money, but they get atleast 2% on the loans they give out. And 2% is really the lowest, 7% is not far from reality either! 5% difference on say $100.000.000 is significant amount of money. And $100 millions is not a big figure. Do bear in mind banks also take risks on the loans, just as we have seen with US housing crisis. I really would not like to dig into Icesave at the moment, this answer is already way too long But please share some facts on the deal. I believe foreigners had deposited money into one of the icelandic banks and when 'shit hit the fan', they were left without their savings. Someone suggested Icelanders would pay all depositors back their money via taxes? Please enlighten me, I'm not sure if this is the case? Quick googling revealed they have had a vote on the issue.

<blAze> I'm not against taxes, but it would be interesting to hear what are the alleged benefits of fractional reserve lending to the society, if there are any.
- I have not read any paper on this issue. I imagine it will improve growth. And just like with bikes, if you go faster, it hurts more when you fall. It seems to work two ways, just like Finnish government used to handle fiscal policy. When government had lots of income, every party was demanding different projects to spend the money. Even to the extent where loans were needed. Nothing was put aside for the bad day. Works two ways and it really destabilizes economy. If you strengthen oscillation, the bottoms will be lower too.

<Para> A central PRIVATE bank, lends money (printed out of paper) to the government AT INTEREST. The security the government puts up, to pay this loan back, is by claiming tax from the people. Same thing in the states, huge part of taxes goes to foreign banks on interest on loans or to the FED
- Please prove FED is a private bank, that the president of US or senate is not the ones naming representatives. Please prove ECB is private in the same sense. Please note this is not personal, I have nothing depending on these issues. I have quoted one, not so trusty source in this case, the FED website. Please show me the light!
- If you think money printing is fine and there is no such thing as inflation, I guess government taking loans doesn't make much sense. I believe what has happened in Germany or Japan or some other money printers. Or more recently, please Para, study what happened to Zimbabwe. I myself have held a Zimbabwe note worth $100.000.000. And that was not the biggest note there was! They had the great idea of printing money, initially $20,5 trillion in order to buy some foreign currencies. Later 'another' $60 trillion. Increased soldier and police salaries 300%, other civil cervants 200% (source Wikipedia, kill me for this). I don't believe it works, but please show me how it could. To me it makes governments take loans, just like you and me. If we can't afford something now AND at the same time we have certainty there will be future income (and then some) to cover the payments, loan is ok. "Huge part of us taxes goes to foreign banks". Facts? I don't have trustworthy sources available, have to google for figures and these come from Wikipedia. Please correct me. US tax expenditure 2010:
1. 23% health care (Medicare & Medicaid, I assume means health care)
2. 20% social security
3. 20% defense
4. 19% discretionary
5. 12% other
6. 6% interest
Is this data wrong? 6 % interest, so roughly 3% to foreigners. Yes, vast amount of money, but "huge part"? I'm assuming half the loans are from foreigners.

<Para> Hey, what if they printed own money, debt free... would make a difference?
- Zimbabwe, Japan, Germany...

<blAze> Is something forcing government to borrow money from private banks though?
- Not sure about this, but I would imagine FED also has some limits and does not want to go Zimbabwe...

<Para> no it's not?? Why should ANY country EVER borrow from a bank? Makes no sense. At least not at interest.
- Again, Zimbabwe agreed with you. Makes sense if you are in need of money now, believe you can pay back and at the same time believe in inflation and try to avoid it.

<Para> But if a bank could be held accountable for giving out bad loans etc. maybe they would think twice about doing that?
- Nice to hear this, I totally agree with you. Well, indeed if bankes would fear they will get treated the same way as Lehman Brothers. Seems Europe is playing pussy here, too afraid to let banks go down. I'm not taking stands here though, it's too hard for me to weight all the consequences. But it might be refreshing Yes we have seen big banks go down and it has not been the end of the world although there has been very serious consequences. Depends on your angle, you might not even notice a thing or if you had the right derivatives you might be a millionaire!

<Para> So is it better for taxpayers if country print own money, and pay back at no interest, than to pay back to private banks with huge interest?? You seem really slow on this subject yet it's so simple.
- Come on Para, don't insult others like this. Please show how printing own money would be a reasonable solution, why it didn't work for Zimbabwe? Countries paying huge interests? Do you know why Italy pays twice the interest as Finland? They took more loan than they can handle! Why Greece pays ten fold what Finland pays? They fucked it up. What (until otherwise proven) a healthy country pays as interest is not HUGE. Risk-free rate in Europe is 1,5% so Finland pays roughly 1% risk margin on the loan. Not too much considering the world we live in at the moment.

<Para> Country can print own money to do some project, when tax payers pay regular tax, they simply take this money they loaned out of circulation, then u got no inflation, no debt and progress. And no big banks taking all money and dictating politics.. sounds too good to be true? At least for the banks and people in power now - they don't want this change for sure
- I don't follow your logic here. Regular tax? Do you mean a 'normal amount'? "They simply take this money they loaned out of circulation" <- what do you mean by this? What money was taken out of circulation? And by printing a significant amount of money, how can you avoid inflation? Would you simply mean you would save for all your purchases beforehand and never loan money? I agree this is very safe and sound! That's how I was raised, yet I have walked over my upbringing and taken some loans. I prefer taking a mortgage to living on rent, but that's just a personal matter. As long as it's something I can pay back, I'm fine with this loan. This way I can create some wealth for the next generation. If I just paid rent, I'd feel I'd be making rich people richer.

<Para> ... why should they earn money on loaning to governments? What purpose does that serve public interest? Explain that to me please.
- If I understand you correctly, the logic is: central bank buys government bonds, government deposits this money into banks and then sells bonds to these same private banks. This does sound stupid, agreed I'm not sure how much this happens, but I guess government would not pay any more interest than it is getting from the bank. What does happen though is interest funds buy government bonds so private investors can get into government bonds. Translation: you and me are able to lend money to governments via investment funds. We would not ofcourse be thinking we are lending money for US to go into war, for us it would be a means to diversify our portfolio.

<Para> But in ANY case, it's better sollution than current to give power to banks. Government is ALL you have.
- Please expand. Better solution would be going Zimbabwe style? "Give power to banks", could you open this too? Central banks, private banks, who? Power to do what? Central banks' power to influence economy or private banks' power to do something?
- Government is all you have? What do you mean?

<Para> Its the choice, banks or government, who do you want to run your world?
- What if we didn't help the banks in trouble this time? Would that not be government running the world? Or if government decides to support the banks, is that not yet again government decision? Sure I see some point here, the fact our financial system works through private banks makes governments very cautious on letting banks fall. What if we had tighter regulation, would we be able to prevent banks getting into trouble? Do you have an alternative system we could use instead?

<Para> And it really is simple, but instead of doing the run around all the time, can you adress my points specific? Why should banks earn interest from taxpayers to bring money in circulation
- "The seven members of the Board of Governors are nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate." (c) dedi a few days earlier. And todays post requests you to bring up some facts that FED or ECB is indeed a private bank. I gave you quote from FED website which I agree is far from credible against your accusation, but please prove me wrong. I do believe though you can find proof for my quote from Federal Reserve Act. I'm sure you can find this from another government website too, but FED's link here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section%2010.htm. It also openly presents that each member will be reseiving an annual salary of $15,000. (together with actual necessary traveling expenses, notice these represantatives do not receive bonuses which is contrary to dare I say ALL private bankers)

<Para> You think banks are better suited and more trustworthy to be in charge of the most important thing in our society?
- No I don't think private banks are trustworthy at all for this task. Central banks act as representatives of their governments. If they fail to do their job (not based on your judgement, but rather by the government who entited the central bank.

<Para> Like I'm saying the main problems are those things, and he's talking about insurrance stuff.
- I have not talked about insurances at all. I have used the term insurance when I explained how credit default swaps work. It is not relevant to discussion on fractional reserve lending or central banking, it was me giving my sight on what happened in US (answering blAze). Either I didn't write it clearly enough or you missed a part there. And I have before and in this post explained how I see central banks work and am asking you for any proof this is not correct. I've also quoted some websites to confirm my beliefs. I don't think I'm getting it all and I'm not (again) saying this system works well. Or that this is the best one there is.

<kkkk> Year 2008, subprime mortgages and CDS's beg to differ. (referring to me saying "A good customer is a customer who owes the bank an amount that does not bankrupt him, a bad customer is one who has too much loan and will never be able to pay it back." Anyways money makers documentary was extremely interesting because of the historical references.
- Oh the contrary, the customers who couldn't pay back their loans ran banks into problems. The customers defaulting on their mortgages, collaterals losing value on declining market, it is by no means a good combination to banks. Good business was selling CDO's, bad business was financing them with subprime loans.
- Sounds really interesting! Maybe I'll find 3h30mins!

<kkkk> Banking, financial sector and politics in the us are completely fucked up, how anyone could argue otherwise is beyond me.
- Pretty much agreed here. As a whole it did completely fuck up, big time.

<Hooraytio> You cant just print more money without something, like gold, to back up its value. The current system may suck but you cant solve it by printing money all over the world.
- Agreed!

<Para> If a bank gets 1000 kroner, it can lend out 10.000
- Facts please. 1:10 ratio here means they can lend 909 kroner, leaving 90,9 in the bank. Thats 90,9:909 = 1:10. In full-reserve system you could just fine lend 1000 kroner! But the trick with full-reserve is that the guy who deposited that 1000kr in the first place can not withdraw his money until the loan is paid back. Basically in full-reserve banking system depositor would not make a deposit but instead loan the money to the bank and the bank would simply put this through to a customer who want's to loan money. Again, correct me if I got it wrong. I'm no specialist despite writing on these issues. But you can get to the 10000kr with fractional calculus. You now have to deposit that 909kr, then take a new loan on that etc. This does not explode as would happen if bank could lend out ten fold the deposit, it expands the money supply to the ratio 1:10. And as I earlier posted the M-figures, their ratio is 1:10 and not 1:indefinite. The problem is when everybody wants to withdraw deposits at once and nobody pays their loans.

Ps. You could also ask why government has to spend more than it can collect in taxes. That's like asking why should you spend more than you earn.

ps2. added fractional calculus notes...
2011-10-31, 21:56
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Despite the fact that Para is doing a pretty good job at presenting himself as a raving conspiracy lunatic, I would still urge you guys to watch that documentary. I know it's long but you can watch it in a few pieces and it's actually very interesting and seems to be backed with a lot of historical facts. Also noteworthy is that although it's actually quite old, it still feels timely for today. At least I would be interested to hear comments about it from those who better understand finance and economics. The problem here is that Para seems to be unable to present the arguments in the documentary and simply resorts to repeat some mantras from it. But actually it comments many of the issues in your post Dedi, in way that seems rational at least to a commoner like me. The documentary argues against both, privately owned FED and also gold standard.

For example if I understood correctly, the international bankers have taken the amount you need in the reserve in fractional reserve lending scheme from government, and then loaned the rest using that to themselves, and then using that loan they have bought the shares of the new central bank. So they have basically aquired with nothing to start with from themselves.
2011-10-31, 22:21
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
dedi wrote:
- Please prove FED is a private bank, that the president of US or senate is not the ones naming representatives.

I put it in google and got this. No idea about the reliability. Check the link at your own risk.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489
2011-10-31, 22:54
Member
63 posts

Registered:
Jan 2009
Don't know what topic is about, but I just read dedi's post and I'm wondering where's the line to sign up for FU?
2011-10-31, 23:18
Member
26 posts

Registered:
Jul 2007
Awesome feedback blAze! I was hoping this would come from Para though I had the image that FED would only be partly private owned, but it seems it's most if not 100% of FED that is owned by private banks! My guess actually would be 100%, I have no idea why government would invest in the company itself. To become a member bank in the system you have to invest into FED. But this is only ownership and it's not the same as owning a private bank or private company. They don't have much rights. There is still Obama and Senate who appoint Board of Governors, the guys who hold the power to call the shots. The private banks, despite having to invest into FED, don't get to make the decisions. Instead it is the guys you see in TV and who do not work for private banks. Ben Bernanke is the Chairman of FED for example.

Private banks that had to buy their share to become member banks do get 6% dividend, which is quite high if you ask me. But it's 6% on the invested capital, not 6% of FED income. How much it relates to actual FED income naturally depends on FED's each years income, assuming that private bank investment does not change. For example in 2010 NY FED interest income was ~$38 billion. Member banks got $455 million in dividends. That's 1,2% of NY FED interest income. Source is as credible as it can get, NY FED annual report. Over 98% was paid to Treasury (government) as interest on Federal Reserve notes.

Thank you for opening my eyes here on the ownership! I should probably look into ECB ownership too. I assume it would be either member countries or their central banks. And quick googling notes on the latter. Some results say it's essentially not owned by anyone Here's an unverified list. Unverified! Ownership of ECB:
Bank of Germany (23,40%)
Bank of Sweden (2,66%)
Bank of French (16,52%)
Bank of Austria (2,30%)
Bank of England (15,98%)
Bank of Greece (2,16%)
Bank of Italy (14,57%)
Bank of Portugal (2,01%)
Bank of Spain (8,78%)
Bank of Finland (1,43%)
Bank of Netherlands (4,43%)
Bank of Denmark (1,72%)
Bank of Belgium (2,83%)
Bank of d’Irleland (1,03%)
Bank of Luxembourg (0,17%)
2011-11-01, 05:53
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
Private banks that had to buy their share to become member banks do get 6% dividend, which is quite high if you ask me. But it's 6% on the invested capital, not 6% of FED income.

And again as explained in the video, they put up SQUAT.. nada, nothing. What happens is that the government has to put up a share, which they do. The bank then uses that money coupled with fractional reserve lending, to lend out the money for the other investors, who then say "tadaa, here is our share (that we just loaned in the bank)". It was GG. And ofc it's not just the money from the FED they earn, think about all the power they have, they own most of all the other banks as well, where the process just continues. But this is where it started on a big scale. If you start up a bank, people start deposit their savings or from paychecks. Now you got capital, now you can start making more capital out of thin air. Got a friend with a good idea for an investment? Cool, lets freeroll and give him some made up money using the fractional reserve lending. If it works out cool, hey I might even get a kick back - hell I'll invest in my own company What happens if the companies go bust or they run away with the money? Well we we earn lots of interest on customers paying back other loans, we can just use those money, to make up MORE money and do it all over again. And if the shit REALLY hits the fan? Hopefully we will be so big by that time, and our bust would effect too many people in society, that the government would be forced to help us out. How? Give us a blank check and what do you know, we can start all over again

That is just part of it, the whole system is very complex with house loans, insurance and pension companies investing and putting their money into banks - then talk about international banking puuhiiiee. But just because it's very complex, doesn't mean it doesn't have very dire consequences for our society or should be taken lightly

So I urge you again, please do watch the full documentary and give us your thoughts - and stop calling me a lunatic Everything I've said so far was on the mark, just go look it up or do the research.
You know why I was raving? It was because most of you simply dismissed the idea because it sounded so outrageous, and you refused to actually watch the documentary or the research - exactly the actions any indoctrinated person would take. Blind faith!
ready!
2011-11-01, 06:05
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
You have previously written that money printing is no issue and just ignore the cases we have presented you (Japan, Germany, Sweden). Printed money has to have some basis. Simply raising amount of notes has been proven not to work.

As was mentioned in the video about sweden, it was because of WAR TIMES, where any country would do anything to survive, including printing money to raise warmachine production and win the war for survival. In times of peace this should be no problem. And it happened during the civil war as well, where they made boat loads of counterfeit money in the UK, shipped them to the states, to undermine their currency and create a depression by raised inflation, which in turn was a primary factor for starting the civil war - also explained in lots more detail in the full documentary with more accurate facts than I am able to pull out of my ass here at 7 AM.

So you want me to write arguments from the documentary, instead of watching it yourself? But spend double the time on the forum arguing over them? Doesn't sound logical to me - please just take the few hours to watch it
You are free to cut it short an hour in if you think it's irrelevant.

Regarding alternatives I did give you an example.
If the government prints it's own money, puts it into society - and control's the quantity (which it would be able to without fractional reserve lending) then for example that could still be some flexibility. For instance the government needs to build a new hospital or university and it was over budget - the governemtn can now loan money from itself (ie. print own money) to do this project. But from actual taxes paid by people, it would pay back it's own loan by taking this money out of circulation graduately again. This way over time there is not more currency added to the system and the inflation is under control. And just because u have this system doesn't mean you don't have small acceptable inflation - and that works very well. It's when inflation runs amok you get the problems.
ready!
2011-11-01, 06:21
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
<Para> But in ANY case, it's better sollution than current to give power to banks. Government is ALL you have.
- Please expand. Better solution would be going Zimbabwe style? "Give power to banks", could you open this too? Central banks, private banks, who? Power to do what? Central banks' power to influence economy or private banks' power to do something?
- Government is all you have? What do you mean?

Central banks to have power over governments by putting them in debt - did you watch the Croatia video? It should be short enough even for you.
Government is all you have? If you don't have democracy with a government you have nothing but local tribes like Africa I guess
Or the wild west - every man for himself. If we can't trust in government to help us with the greater things in society like currency or laws, what can we even base our civilization on? We have to trust someone, and public elected, officials with transparancy and finite terms is my best offer, do you have a better one? BANKS?

And Zimbabwe? Plejz, some African shithole in the sandbox of the world ruled by a dictator who can actually print his own money and use armies to crush people. You really wanna compare THAT, to Sweden, Finland or any other big country in the western civilisation? No, I don't want a dictator instead of central banks is my short answer I guess.

About power to banks - all I can say is WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY, it will give much better insight and perspective than I am able to give here. But you are obviously very knowledgable so I don't understand why you have not watched it yet. To seek out such important information.

Quote:
- No I don't think private banks are trustworthy at all for this task. Central banks act as representatives of their governments. If they fail to do their job (not based on your judgement, but rather by the government who entited the central bank.

I guess you found out later, that central banks were in fact privately owned. So that's covered then - not at all working in interest of society, but only for their own profit and gain of power.

And even if you find out ECB or world bank is not privately owned, it's run by same ppl who run the central banks in each country, and they are privately owned, the whole system is fucked from start to finish.
ready!
2011-11-01, 06:29
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
The problem is when everybody wants to withdraw deposits at once and nobody pays their loans.

That's not a problem, that's an IMPOSSIBILITY. Since EVERY dollar EVER created is debt based. Every dollar the government creates is suppose to be paid back by it's citizens, PLUS interest. Well obviously it can't pay it back with interest since those money haven't been created yet, so we have to create more money to pay the interest, but that money also has debt on it, so there we go. That's the simple part of it.

And btw, that 1:10 ratio isn't even obeyed even if it's the "official" rule. But without going into that, you did not think about the other issue. That it's not just ONE bank that can lend out 909 kroner. If those 909 kroner is spent to buy something, and shop owner puts that money into a new bank, that bank is now able to to lend out 8181 kroner out. Same process, someone borrows that, buys a PC from dell, dell puts 8181 into their bank account. That bank then lends out 73629 kroner out. and here we go again I know it's more complicated than that, but in essense that's how they can do it.

Just like they did in Iceland. Pension funds and houndreds of thoussands opened up savingsaccounts depositing their money there, and vouila now they could lend out BILLIONS for shady investments in Russia. BAM whole country in debt wtf. The woman from the parlement, in the video interview with Bill Still said it best when she said "we went from being the most developed nation in the world 5 years ago - to now spending half the countries income tax every year, to pay INTEREST on foreign notes." The Iceland video should be short enough for you to digest
ready!
2011-11-01, 06:43
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
And then you might say well why isn't EVERY bank in the world doing this scam and why isn't whole economy just in the shitter. Well look around you - looks like it's in the shitter to me And also as Bill Still said, the majority of people working the banking industry does not wish the destruction of society, or want's to hurt us. Most of them are just working people. But giving them the tools to do so and putting whole country's lives in their hands cannot be a good thing nomatter what.

And if it was mandatory for all ppl working in banks to watch that documentary - and gain this knowledge, I think most of them would go puke. And we are not just talking about "a few bad apples" in the world banking system.
Well compared to the masses it's probably a few, but they are big ones With all the power of the world.


---

Credit Suisse reports put focus on how the worlds wealth is distributed

90% of the population owns 16% of the wealth
10% owns 84%

In perspective only 1% owns 46% of the worlds wealth. How many of those 1% do you think belong to the families that started those central banks?

But anyway, as he said, don't put all focus on ownership or who is in power now - focus on the system in place!! Correct the source.
ready!
2011-11-01, 06:46
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
<Hooraytio> You cant just print more money without something, like gold, to back up its value. The current system may suck but you cant solve it by printing money all over the world.
- Agreed!

Who said you can just print money endlessly? Wasn't that exactly the opposite of what I proposed? Fractional reserve lending DOES mean printing money at will, for every bank. having government control money supply + having full reserve lending for banks you eliminate these problems. Then the problem you have is controlling the government or supervise it - but that is another issue. At least it doesn't legalize this global scam and power corruption.
ready!
2011-11-01, 06:59
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Btw here is an interesting link explaining in more details the difference between fractional reserve lending and 100% reserve lending, and the benefits.
ready!
2011-11-01, 07:02
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
1. 23% health care (Medicare & Medicaid, I assume means health care)
2. 20% social security
3. 20% defense
4. 19% discretionary
5. 12% other
6. 6% interest
Is this data wrong? 6 % interest, so roughly 3% to foreigners. Yes, vast amount of money, but "huge part"? I'm assuming half the loans are from foreigners.

yeah those are the actual money that goes in and out, but you didn't take into account the accumulating debt in the background, or the HUUUUGE bailout, where after much scrutenty was discovered most of that bailout actually went to foreign banks. So sure, it doesn't show up on some annual budget paper, but when shit hit the fan, and they make a a trillion dollar check, I can assure you that the money is not going to Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
ready!
2011-11-01, 07:05
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Quote:
<Para> But if a bank could be held accountable for giving out bad loans etc. maybe they would think twice about doing that?
- Nice to hear this, I totally agree with you. Well, indeed if bankes would fear they will get treated the same way as Lehman Brothers. Seems Europe is playing pussy here, too afraid to let banks go down. I'm not taking stands here though, it's too hard for me to weight all the consequences. But it might be refreshing Yes we have seen big banks go down and it has not been the end of the world although there has been very serious consequences. Depends on your angle, you might not even notice a thing or if you had the right derivatives you might be a millionaire!

Again here is the problem of size. The banks grow SO HUGE, because of fractional reserve lending, and in part because banks just buy up each other and merge. And when the bank is so huge that it simply cannot fail (or won't be allowed to fail by government) they can pretty much do whatever they want, as I said earlier, they can simply not crash, they will just get a blanco check from government or even several countries.
ready!
2011-11-01, 07:07
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
PS: I'm very sorry for the spam post- I guess I come off as a lunatic again I'm not as structured as our economic wiseman dedi. But please watch the full documentary and give us your thoughts and possibly new perspective, in relation to our debate here on this puny forum.

And others following the debate, please also watch it, and join in
Or at least do your part of watching it and spread the word to watch it, you are not obligated to make a fool of yourselfs like me.
ready!
2011-11-01, 07:32
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
Make sure to check all the related videos that show up in the list to the right when watching money masters on youtube. They all seem very legit! Or not?
I have watched money masters now and to be honest its just another conspiracy movie. really.

Yes I am dismissing the "documentary" because it just isnt trustworthy.
Chosen
2011-11-01, 07:47
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
lol? dismissing it based on what? All the historical facts? The logical explanations of how the monetary system works? Please enlighten us. And you are basing the validity on THIS particular documentary.... by checking related videos on youtube? haha. That's like saying you don't like the taste of the tomatoes in the supermarket, because the green pepper is lying next to it and you are allergic to that.

In my tries to find debunking of the documentary, came across of few comments I agree with (surprise).

Quote:
I agree that itīs a very interesting documentary, especially with all the quotes from past leaders. Itīs insinuations that there is some kind of vast, generation-spanning conspiracy that was all planned out from the beginning of the Rothschild dynasty(although they never come out and actually SAY it) is misguided. There needs to be no conspiracy for a certain economic paradigm to emerge. The people who are in control today probably donīt give a shit about what went down in the 18th century.

It also has some inaccuracies(although Iīve yet to find a precise debunking of the doc as a whole, despite looking)

source: http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f54/money-masters-freaky-documentary-495072/
ready!
2011-11-01, 08:02
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
History is not fact at all. History is always written for a purpose and is easily altered to suit ones needs. You think this historical run down in the "documentary" is 100% fact and not at all adjusted or altered to suit the authors needs? Same with statistics. Just design tables and graphs to show something you want it to show.

Typically for any research to have real value it should for example be published in a journal and reviewed by fellow researchers to gain any validity.
Posting a film on youtube, or anywhere else on the internet without any review just doesnt make it very trustworthy. Until, ofc, other researchers or research instituites come forward and acknowledge it as an important and good source of information. Which they havent. But they are probably owned by those 1% controlling all the important assets in the world and dont want the "scary truth" to reach the masses.

I still wonder how there can be so many videos about this when powerful ppl and powerful banks should be able to just take it offline.

And now you quote some other anonymous poster on another forum discussing the video and they are just as amazed as yourself? gg
Chosen
2011-11-01, 08:27
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
It's a 15 year old documentary, where is all the debunking sites? And this movie was not just "posted on youtube", it's 15 years old as I said, when not as many people even used the internet.

And you still wonder why they don't take it down? Cause they don't care, the scam is "over", they are already filthy rich Remember this has been going on for 300 years, well before any good means of information sharing was established like we have today. What fucking stupid arguments you come with.

"This documentary has no validity at all, because it's on youtube!"

"This movie is totally bogus because.. well he probably made it up"

Comoon
Dedi where are youuu..

another good comment:

Quote:
Its closed minded people that allow these institutions to flourish. Every single time someone took the time to get me to read some sort of literature or watch a film about something, I NEVER gave it back to them and said that I didnt have the time to watch or read it.

You take it for what its worth and either believe it or not, but you dont just shove it off to the side and tell the person its not wrth your time. Especially when they are telling you that it directly affects your life.
ready!
2011-11-01, 08:31
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
I mean that there should be real researches supporting this documentary if it in fact does raise any valid points.
And the fact that you have to call ppl "fucking stupid" etc and post 5 posts in a row in excitement doesnt really prove your point.

Yeah the scam is naturally over because they are now filthy rich. And they will stay that way without upholding the scam or atleast come up with a new scam to preserver their wealth?

More interesting would be: what are they doing now? The world goes on so there must be new scams in the pipeline to keep their power.
Chosen
2011-11-01, 08:35
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
The main beef I had with the documentary is that it didn't interview or discuss the topics with almost anyone. One would think that you could find at least a few economists and historians to discuss these topics with and it would bring a lot of credibility. Still, it would be equally silly to dismiss it on that bases alone. If the facts presented in it are false, it should be easy to point them out, right?
2011-11-01, 08:43
Administrator
325 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Hooraytio, you have just completely misunderstood the point of the movie, the concepts of the problem and this debate. You are just talking out of your ass, please be quiet now or come with something actually relevant.

---

and to blaze, well this is just 1 documentary... there are lots of interviews with economists who has said the same thing just look for it. If they would need interviews as well it would be 10 hours long. It's a vast subject and I think he tries pretty good to cover the history of it.

Anyway it's more an eye opener and suggestion for you to understand the concept of it - then look at your own world and see does it match? And maybe do some own further research if you find it relevant. I'm sure they do in Iceland, Croatia, USA, Greece and other countries on the chopping block. Noone is safe

Noone claimed that this particular documentary had ALL the answers to all of YOUR questions. But it doesn't need to. But to dismiss it because of related youtube videos that has nothing to do with it, or just say "he probably made it up" is just über lol.
ready!
2011-11-01, 08:44
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
ParadokS wrote:
Quote:
1. 23% health care (Medicare & Medicaid, I assume means health care)
2. 20% social security
3. 20% defense
4. 19% discretionary
5. 12% other
6. 6% interest
Is this data wrong? 6 % interest, so roughly 3% to foreigners. Yes, vast amount of money, but "huge part"? I'm assuming half the loans are from foreigners.

yeah those are the actual money that goes in and out, but you didn't take into account the accumulating debt in the background, or the HUUUUGE bailout, where after much scrutenty was discovered most of that bailout actually went to foreign banks. So sure, it doesn't show up on some annual budget paper, but when shit hit the fan, and they make a a trillion dollar check, I can assure you that the money is not going to Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Besides, who do you think has shares in the defense contractors (defense), insurance companies (health care), etc... Probably the international banks.
  199 posts on 7 pages  First page1234567Last page