The FED is a serious scam. When is something going to be done about it?

Exactly.....the confusion is exactly what the owners/operators of the FED thrive on! I think Henry Ford said it quite well:



Why would Henry Ford think the American people would want to revolt if they knew how the banking system worked if it was legitimate?

Thomas Jefferson was a pretty sharp guy...this is what he thought:




"If the Amercian people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies......."

The two tries prior to 1913 to have private banks control our money were wisely shot down. There was 60 to 70 years of economic growth and prosperity prior to the formation of the FED in 1913. The owners of the FED were not going to allow all that money to not pour into their own greedy hands....thus, the formation of the FED. "...the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Welcome to hell.....

Some people who are religious must remember another word for charging interest is USURY:



Today though, the money changers get around the immorality of charging usury by re-interpreting it as 'excessive interest charges'
en.wikipedia.org...

We were warned!

hmm, so when the UK is portrayed as Bush's dog or whatever. We really mean the Bankers and other elite within one square mile of a city in little ole Englnad, controls everything!

Shocking.

Its not suprising. More Money goes through London than that of New York and Tokoyo combined. And I'm sure alot of it is dirty.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Peyres]

Some good quotes on the subject....



Lincoln felt he had 2 enemies during the Civl War: The Southern Army and bankers. He felt bankers were his biggest foe. He was also against forming an organization like the FED and he, like Kennedy, was assassinated.

Lincoln also felt the best thing for the American people was to have their own currency to pay their own debts (there was no FED at that time). When you and I write a check, we have to have the money to back it up. When the FED writes a check, it has NO money to back it up...the check creates the money.....that is just plain twisted. The FED has also never been audited ever in it's 93 years of existence. NEVER AUDITED!

JFK felt the FED was a plot to destroy the freedom of Americans. He was killed 10 days after making a speech regarding the need to inform the people about the scum known as the FED!

Alan Keyes....said it right. We are slaves to our own country! The income tax is a slave tax! A free people should not have to pay taxes on their hard earned money!...especially when that money goes right to the FED and the FED makes $1 trillion per year TAX FREE and HAS NEVER BEEN AUDITED!




The scum that wanted to form the FED deliberately caused the 1907 money panic to force Congress to create the National Monetary Commission which led to the ultimate creation of the FED! Thus, the creation of the Invisible Government...the people that truly run this country and the world. Do you want that list again??



Lovely bunch of people....Here they are! These are the people that run the world!



David Rockefeller, one of the people that formed the Trilateral Commission (that's a story for a whole other thread)...was looking to make this United States a Socialist Nation. These are the people that run the world. These are the people our government has allowed to OWN US! We are all slaves to these scum bags!

This nation was supposed to be a Republic...a Democracy..what a joke. What the hell is it really? Seems more like a dictatorship to me with the FED being the DICTATOR!!

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Woah, didnt see this post and I noticed you mentioned Japan too!



One quick point, the article is taking a historical look at the birth of banking, the quote you made is absolutely true 'back then'. Coins and notes were issued, first by the goldsmiths, then they got the government to issue it. So no, back then there was no more money than what was issued - for someone to get richer (yer creation value thing) someone had to get poorer. Money doesnt grow on trees and must be printed and counted for, none will appear from hard work, the only new money will be bank issued (back then).



I was led to believe that money (cash) is printed and counted, am I wrong?



Creation of value? Isnt that when you take money and make much more money from it? That still must depend on actual printed money no? I could have it all wrong there. No-one 'makes money' they acquire it.



Why does the value of money change? Have humans become uber now and their work done is more valuable than five years ago?



Hmm sounds a bit properganderish to me, we cant trust governments but we can trust banks?



Im sure that this is the case today (fractional reserve lending), but back then? Dun think so... They are allowed to lend multiples of their reserve... and we trust banks to have at least some of this reserve? And still, unless I have understood incorrectly, they are still lending money they do not have.



As far as Im aware, we cant do that anymore, all rushing to the banks demanding our gold... Im sure we have a law against that now.



Ahah! So banks have a way round that then, they just call themselves a financial company and volia, another way to loan money they do not have.



So, any value we people have made is what pays for the interest? So no-one is getting wealthy, 'cept these finacial companies.



Now you say they 'tend to be irresponsible' but governments are down right spasticated if they run the show? Banks today are running amuk, irresponsible beyond words! Giving people loans for holidays, well anything YOU want! Wheres the value then? People are spending their money in Spain, spending, not investing in new power tools to run a business, to create value.



Why has it been recovering? 'Cos the bank of Japan decided to loan at 0% interest. This took pressure off the people and growth occured, despite the fact that the banks were very reluctant to loan to 'its people' (I say 'were' as the interest went to 0.25% the other day).



Awww poor bankers! So um, how do the governments bail the bank out? Do they replenish its vaults with some stash of gold they have kept at the end of rainbows?

Knowledge is Power
NOT MONEY

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Deus_Brandon]

[edit on 17-7-2006 by masqua]

Deus....why the need to quote my whole first post??

But anyhoo...you said:



Maybe you are in the wrong thread in the wrong forum. We are talking about reality here. We are talking about the many scum bags/families that own/operate the FED and the scam they have been pulling on people/governmanets for the last 93 years. This power in this thread is in regards to MONEY!

Maybe you should start another thread somewhere else about "Knowledge is Power" because it isn't at all relevant to this thread.

This thread is based on several items that are simply false.

First, the Fed is not a "private organization", it is a quasi-public one, which means that the people who run it are nominated by the president and confirmed by congress, like most ofther government bureaucrats are.

It's true that once a Fed governor is independent once nominated, but then, so is a Federal judge and the Judiciary isn't privately owned, either.

And as far as the names of those individuals who supposedly "own" the Fed, why don't you publiswh some evidence?

If you're reaslly interested in what the the Fed (or any other Central Bank) is and what it does (and, bear in mind, that every other country has its own central bank, too) why not go to the Fed website and see what they have to say?

Now I'm not a Keynesian by any means, and I'm also no fan of a central bank. Not only that, I like the idea of a dollar backed by something tangible, like gold.

But I did take enough econ courses in school to at least understand the concept of a Fractional Reserve and understand that money can be created; and I think I have a fairly good handle on inflationary and deflationary mechanisms.

The stuff you're posting about the Fed is just bunk.

[edit on 17-7-2006 by Off_The_Street]

Bunk? Why don't you publish evidence to your side? I have already published plenty on mine and I will be publishing more based on what I research and what I feel is of interest.

I see my earlier posts have raised a few issues -- and a few hackles too. Let me try to respond to some of the more interesting issues, leaving the hackles to take care of themselves. I see I'm going to need more than one post to do it, so I'll take you guys on one at a time.

Excitable_Boy, my name is not Rockefeller, though given the current state of my bank balance, I could be forgiven for wishing it was.

The Fed doesn't "print money out of thin air". The amount of cash it keeps in circulation is based on a calculation of the economic potential of the USA. This might sound like little better than thin air to you, but that isn't the Fed's fault; it's just that you need to learn a bit more about how money supply is adjusted. If the Fed were printing money out of thin air, you'd have galloping hyperinflation, just as is now the case in Zimbabwe, where the central bank has to do what the government tells it, even under protest. This is what all too frequently happens when governments dictate to central bankers.

"The more I read, the angrier I get," you said in one of your earlier posts. Perhaps you should just stop reading these silly websites and look for more trustworthy sources. Those sites are crank sites, and they lie.

You quoted some of their lies yourself. For instance:


Jefferson never said that.

You also attributed this to John F. Kennedy:


Kennedy never said that.

And this to Abraham Lincoln:


Lincoln never said that. Go to the section on the page entitled 'Lincoln's Alleged "Corporations Enthroned" Speech'. Also, This .pdf, linked from this site

Instead of reading lies and getting angry, why not try learning a bit more about how the Fed actually works? A good place to start might be here. Or, if that link's too much like supping with the Devil, start with Economics 101 and go from there. Some useful keywords might be "monetary policy", "money supply" and, of course "central bank".

Question: What makes you think that the group of bankers you mentioned owns or dictates to the world's central banks? As Off_The_Street correctly pointed out, there is a difference between an independent government agency and a private enterprise. If you disagree with him, could you explain your understanding of exactly how these bankers own the Fed? Or is this, again, something you've taken on trust from an Internet source that was lying to you?

Not wrong, but it's not relevant. Yes, cash is printed and counted. How much cash? See my earlier post addressed to Excitable_Boy: as much as the central bank calculates the economic potential (capacity for production and consumption) of the country is worth. This figure is constantly changing, so the amount of money in circulation keeps changing, too.

What would happen if it didn't? Say the amount of money available was always $1,000, or any figure you like. Then, when the economy grew, the value of $1 would grow in proportion, and when there was a recession the value of $1 would fall. This is usually bad for the economy for various reasons (for example, the value of the money in your pocket would keep changing, making it impossible to budget and destroying your confidence in the future). So central bankers try to keep the value of $1 near-constant (some inflation is desirable) or control its fluctuations in predictable ways. That is the main function of central banks.


When you make and sell goods and services, you create value, which is monetary. So yes, you do make money, and the central bank prints more notes accordingly.


Haha! No, not really. The value of the work is the same, but the value of money is less, because of inflation, so a piece of work costing $40 yesterday costs $50 today.


No, you can't trust anybody, but governments have more power than banks, so we must fear them and limit their powers accordingly.


No, no, it's money they have. It's just that it's money held in trust for depositors, and there could be trouble if the depositor asks for his money back when it's been lent out. That's the trouble we call...


No, there is no law against it. Though banks hate it when you try to withdraw all your money and close your account. It gives them the collywobbles, you see.


No, no! Banks are not finance companies. The laws and regulations pertaining to each are different, corresponding to their scope of operations. And even finance companies don't 'lend money they do not have'. If I borrow $10 from you and lend it out to Excitable_Boy, how am I lending money I do not have?


No, only some of the value. The rest is yours to keep. It's called your profit.


Sorry, Dae, you're not understanding this right. You're forgetting that over the zero interest period, the Japanese economy suffered from deflation. Remember what I said -- with deflation, a unit of currency increases in value.

Imagine I come to the Bank of Dae and borrow Y1,000,000 today. The interest is zero. The loan falls due on 18 July 2007.

I'm an honest boy, so on that day, I pay you back the Y1,000,000 as agreed. But in the intervening year, the purchasing power of the yen has risen because of deflation. So the Y1,000,000 I pay back in July 2007 is actually worth, say, Y1,100,000 in 2006 yen. So even though it has charged me no interest, the Bank of Day has still made Y100,000!

Interest rates weren't kept at zero by the Japanese central bank in order to help customers repay their loans. It was done to prevent deflation from accelerating still further. Central bankers' main weapon against currency value fluctuations is management of interest rates.


No, they just agree to take on the debt and pay the creditors. So instead of the bank going broke, the country does. This is why bank crashes are to be avoided at all costs.


That's what Karl Marx thought (see Das Kapital, Chapter One). Maybe that's what money should be, but that's certainly not what it is. Some people regard this as a pity and they may well be right.

Yes, the evils of fractional reserve banking and fiat money. Good luck getting a significant number of people to care. Nationally, we're more concerned about preventing gay marriage or flag burning than we are about taking the time to educate ourselves about what's really going on. Think the distractions of the trivial and irrelevant aren't by design?

My humble recommendations-

1) Include in your "to be read" list Miracle on Main Street: Saving Yourself and America from Financial Ruin .

2) Educate yourself about the Libertarian Party. Even if you choose to not vote that way, you'll be aware that there is an alternative. And it can be a viable one.

Good luck.

How does the ecomony grow? How does it recess? Would these things happen if we didnt have to deal with interest? Why should the value of $1 change? Its just a number that doesnt even reflect any wealth (gold) anymore. There isnt enough gold in the world to cover the monies we have in circulation.




Is this to do with that projection of growth? 'Cos if I made £50 profit one day, I dont call up the Royal Mint and say, "Yo dudes, I just made 50 quid, make sure you have it printed to go." So someone somewhere has to guess how much profit we are making and insert this money accordingly? (I have read about the Bank of England's Agents, running around each month visiting over 700 business to get an understanding of the working economy)

Im going to write a statement and I want you to tell me if its correct or not.

Banks are allowed to issue new money as credit which is then immeadiatly called debt and can be sold at a profit.



"whosoever creates and issues money has absolute power." Rothschild

I disagree, I believe that banks have more power, lets face it that little red suitcase on budget day means the government has a certain amount of money to spend, and who we vote in is basically how we want that money spent.

From what I have read, Governments dont have much of a say in anything really, its groups like Monetary Policy Committee that determins what happens and when.

Source - BoE




Hang on, hang on... Lets talk about the reserves not depositors money. Banks can loan mulitples of their reserve (as you pointed out correctly) - what does that mean? Banks can loan 100 times more than the worth in their reserves. Hence loaning credit from this reserve to it becoming debt with interesst. Recap, Banks produce money from thin air (or at the type of a keyboard) and expect us to pay this back with real earned money plus interest.



I understand that, the Bank of England keeps on looking rosey when it says interest rates are at 2%, when in fact for us it is much much higher. The BoE loans to fincial institutions who then loan it to us for much much more, 29.9% anyone?



Hang on, how does the Bank of Dae make Y100,000? Are you saying deflation causes wealth for the bank? Is it like a car? When you buy a new car, as soon as you drive it away it looses its worth?

Ive tried to find out what causes the value of money to fluctuate and found out about Trade Cycles, could you have a gander at this page for me and tell me what you think (he links Inequality in income distribution as one of the major causes of the trade cycle.)




Heh, didnt know that, fancy Dae and Marx getting it right like that

The buying and selling of money in my mind is wrong. Charging interest on money that didnt exsist in the first place is evil beyond words. Remember you said they can loan mulitples of their reserve? That mean they can loan money (credit) that doesnt exsist, it makes them richer because credit increased their coffers. Of course correct me if Im wrong!

What makes me think they own the FED? The fact that they do.

The FED is not an independent government agency and it is not a quasi-government agency...it is not a government agency at all....it is privately owned.

It is easy to call everything lies..isn't it? All the quotes are lies...everything is lies lies lies. Yeah....right! I've learned in life that the truth usually is somewhere in the middle, but in this case I would have to say that the truth is way over on my side. I would be happy to find more sources, more quotes and more information to help educate you and others.....and I'll certainly try to make sure those sources are as legitimate as possible, because it is extremely important to me that you are happy with my sources!!

And I don't need an economics lesson....I don't need to be told I should take Economics 101...etc.....Anyone with any true knowledge of economics would see right through what the FED is doing and understand the disgusting crimes that are being perpetrated against the American people..........

Oh wait.....is this where I should go to find the truth?: www.federalreserve.gov...

There are so many wonderful GOVERNMENT websites that are full of truths. Example: I'm sure there is a GOVERNMENT website I can go to that tells the truth about the Kennedy assassination. NO? There isn't? Why not? Aren't all GOVERNMENT websites truthful?? They're not? OH MY! What to do?

There must be a GOVERNMENT website that tells the truth about Pearl Harbor. NO?
There must be a GOVERNMENT website that tells the truth about Vietnam. NO?
There must be a GOVERNMENT website that tells the truth about the assassinations of RFK and MLK. NO?
There must be a GOVERNMENT website that tells the truth about 9/11. NO?

WOW! I guess it's hard to find a government website that tells the truth. Hmmm. But we should believe what the Federal Reserve website tells us.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

Here we go....



This source also lists the same current owners of the FED. I don't believe that is a coincidence.



also: www.apfn.org...

This site is mainly a vast essay written by Eustace Mullins, Dedicated to two of the finest scholars of the twentieth century: GEORGE STIMPSON and EZRA POUND

Scholars should know a thing or two about a thing or two, no?




Jacobson, mentioned in the last quote is economist Steven Jacobson, author of the audiotape series Mind Wars. I imagine an economist has taken much more than just Economics 101.



Seems those ECONOMISTS really know there stuff.





President Wilson sold his soul to the devil (the FED) in order to win the presidency. Three years later he realized how horrible what he had done was....and 93 years later we still have the FED controlling us and all our money. The power of these few that own the FED has only gotten more disgustingly humungous over those 93 years. Like I said before....Capitalism OUT OF CONTROL!!

According to economist Steven Jacobson, the Secretary of the Treasury is not the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury because the U.S. Treasury was bankrupted in 1933.



Tom Rose is another ECONOMIST!!

why does money have to be based on anything except the good faith of the government. Gold will only be cornered by those that can afford to purchase it all, and there are those that can. Maybe silver, there is a lot more, but still.... that means that the value of money is not based on the increased development of that country, but rather how much silver can be dug up.

Why cant a nation be in control of it's own money? Print it as it is neccessary, loan it out at zero interest, as well as print money to pay for infastructures (roads, bridges, parks). printing the money and spending it into the economy for construction and social programs is the same as lending it out, except no one has to stress out about intrest.

And all this talk about the bank should not have control of the money because then it will be too powerfull. Excuse me... i dont think so, that is a buch of horse pu pu.
What is a nation that cant decide the growth of a nation. If i vote for someone that is elected, i want that person to have the absolute power to do what is neccessary for the nation. otherwise what is point of voting for.

Fine if you say so, maybe private institutes should be in charge of the funds, but if that isn't enough... not only are we giving our right to control the money, we also gave the right to someone else to charge us massive amounts of interest in order to do so.

Why would we pay for our own money? thats STUPID!!!

and dont try and confuse fractional reserve policy with anything legit. Just because the laws says so, doesn't make it right.



Fractional reserve banking started with Jewish goldsmiths, that printed paper reciepts for gold that was deposited. wether they planned on it or not, it did not take long before they figured out that nobody was picking up their gold, they were just trading the reciepts on the street for goods or services. so they were already lending out recipts at interest, until they realized they can print more reciepts than they have gold, because nobody comes to pick up their gold. Who would know? so they printed as many reciepts as they wanted and lent them out demanding interest. You would think that these criminals were caught and brought to justice considering the obviouse problems this would have with a growing economy making people believe there was wealth when in reality it was just paper... Nope! that's just called fractional reserve banking.

for all of the people that take economy classes, consider this... all the fancy equations and formula's that you were taught, and the system they work in, was created well after the roots of fraction reserve banking were in place. If you only knew what was known at the beginning of this crime, before it got clouded with confusion from those that know what lies underneath, you would be able to see how simple this is, and not have your nose so high in the air thinking you are so much smarter. congradulations, you learned how to use a system that means NOTHING, it is based on NOTHING, and good for NOBODY except banks and those who help them screw the rest of us. You will be teachin this in history class soon i hope.


If it is no big deal, and this is just how our economy works for the good of the people. why not try and switch it up? it wont be the first time... i mean, what does anyone have to lose?... right?
oh ya. TAXES, in any other system, the only ones left to benifit from taxes are people and government, but only in this system is the income tax which is what keeps the banks operating. Banks should not be allowed to make money, they should be public banks pure and simple, otherwise it is usery plain and simple.

so ya communisim with a touch of democracy, keep the greed in check

I think to better understand the forces at work here, we need some information on these banks that own the FED? Sounds like an idea.

Let's start with the HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD....aka Rothschild Bank...aka just plain old Rothschild.

Some history on the Rothschild's here: www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Truly fascinating. Can you say Illuminati? Some people throw that word around like crazy around here...but this family has it's picture in the dictionary under the word Illuminati: "The secret ideology of the international bankers or the Illuminati........Their aim was the creation of a One World Government to be ruled over by the 'Illuminated ones' at the top."

The last section of that source talks about the "Plan to Conquer the World." That part gets a bit out of wack (I think/hope)...but the rest is quite educational and biographical.

I'm not so sure about all that, I think these guys are just plain greedy. I don't really think they care who runs what, as long as they own the person and they stand to gain a lot of money from the deal. I think this gets into territory better suited for another thread.....

But, again a very educational read indeed!


Now this www.rothschild.com... is where you can go to learn about what the Rothschild's want you to know and believe abouting their banking business.



They do admit to owning the treasury in the UK and in Australia, but note the United States is not listed here...

They currently have interests here:



and...they do have offices here:

North America:
Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Denver, Mexico City, Montreal, New York, Toronto, Washington

South America:
Sao Paolo, Santiago

Europe:
Amsterdam, Athens, Birmingham, Budapest, Frankfurt, Geneva, Guernsey, Leeds, Lisbon, London, Luxembourg, Madrid, Manchester, Milan, Moscow, Paris, Prague, Rome, Warsaw, Zurich

Africa:
Harare, Johannesburg

Asia/Pacific:
Beijing, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Melbourne, Mumbai, Perth, Shaghai, Singapore, Sudney, Tokyo

This is interesting (part of their disclaimer):



Errors and ommissions.....why would the Rothschild's worry about errors and ommissions??

Here are some fascinating quotes from the scum bags:



Not sure what that means ("Oh my, what would we do without those wonderful Rothschilds?.....they are so essential!"), but I wonder why they dropped the VON in von Rothschild? Did it make them sound too much like Nazis? Oh, I'm sorry....this was the early 1800's....they weren't Nazis yet. My bad!



See...no more VON! Yeah Nate...it takes a lot of boldness and you were one bold bastard weren't you!




As far as that quote is concerned:

Ethics? The whole lot of them have been bold!

Oh and BTW: Where did the DE come from? Is it VON or DE damnit? Maybe they should be called DE DAMN VON ROTHSCHILD'S??


[edit on 19-7-2006 by Excitable_Boy]

I'm busy now, won't be able to give this debate the attention it deserves until Tuesday or Wednesday next week. I hope it will continue until then.

Just a quick word, however, on the following:


I read the page. Mr. Moheyuddin, its author, gives a fairly standard textbook description of the nature and cause of economic cycles, apart from two things.

1/ He imaginatively suggests that 'inequality' is the cause of the trade cycle, but does not show a causal connection. Or perhaps the connection he makes is too subtle for me to follow. Could you make it more explicit for me?

2/ His explanation of the link between prices and wages is flawed. This is obvious, because in his explanation, wages remain static or fall regardless of whether the economy is expanding or in recession. If this was the case, people would progressively earn less and less and their standard of living would continue to decline until everybody starved to death. Obviously, that doesn't happen.

In fact, wages rise during the expansion phase of the cycle. Why? Because increased demand calls for increased production to meet it, and increased production results in more people being employed to create and distribute goods and services. Thus the demand for workers also increases. But since the number of workers is not unlimited, increased demand results in wage rises. It is wage rises that are the primary cause of inflation.

Inflation then impacts negatively on demand, which decreases production, which puts people out of work, which increases the pool of the unemployed, creating a supply-side imbalance that causes wages to fall.

Thus economic cycles are self-correcting. If left to its own devices, however, the market is cruel; the cycles can be rapid, short-lived and brutal. Central banks exist to help smooth them out, promoting soft landings and steady growth. This is very difficult and central bankers, being human and therefore limited in their capabilities, often get it wrong. The Fed didn't cause the 1929 stock market crash and the Depression; like all crashes, it was caused by foolish, greedy investors. But it is certainly possible that the Fed failed to prevent it, exacerbated its effects or even promoted it through mismanagement.

So now you have the answers to some of your questions:


Mr. Moheyuddin's page explains growth and recession in fairly standard economic terms. With the reservations expressed above, it provides rough but useful answers to your first two questions.

Would these things happen if we didn't have to deal with interest? Yes, they still would. Capitalists would continue to invest in enterprises, expecting financial returns from the profits of those enterprises. However, capital flows would reduce and economic growth would be much slower. This may not be a bad thing altogether, though you'd have a hard time convincing a capitalist of that!

Why should the value of $1 change? Because the productive capacity of the economy changes. And if you think that's just a central bank economist's dream, consider the forex (money) markets. People buy and sell money, you know. How do you think they agree on its price? At bottom, currency prices are based on the strength of the issuing country's economy, estimated using the same figures central bankers use. This, by the way, is yet another reason why government control of central banks is a Bad Thing: governments may falsify economic statistics or artificially fix the price of their currencies, which always impacts negatively on the value of the currency in the long run.

tom goose wanted to know why governents can't just print money and set its value arbitrarily. Answer: if you do that, you create a currency black market and ruin your economy further.


Yes, it is.


No, only central banks are allowed to issue new money.

The Janus-faced nature of credit (once extended, it becomes debt) is all too real, sadly. Caveat emptor.


It is the state, not its central bankers, that honours the 'promise to pay' embodied in currency. Never forget this.


Reserves are depositors' money. So is the money bankers lend. To repeat part of my earlier post, banks cannot lend more than depositors have lent them -- unless they borrow if from another source and pay it back later, with interest. Banks do not make money out of thin air. To imagine they do is merely to misunderstand double-entry bookkeeping.


Gosh, back to square one. In 2006, when I borrow a million yen from the Bank of Dae, that million yen could buy a hundred thousand apples. In 2007, when I pay it back, it buys 110,000 apples. So a million yen is worth more. So the bank gets back more value than it gets, even though the amount of currency lent and returned is the same. Clear?


Why is it more wrong than buying and selling books or chickens?


But the stuff exists -- it certainly exists in effect -- so charging interest on it isn't evil at all

Excitable_Boy, the external sources you quote aren't valid means of verification. I checked. They're all nut sites.

If you can support your assertions with references to reliable, verifiable sources, you'll do a lot better at convincing people that what you say has truth in it.

Those economists you mention are pretty dodgy, too. George Stimson believes that people's minds can be controlled from the outside by other people. Some economist! I don't know who Tom Rose is -- couldn't be bothered to find out, frankly. The thing is, these people certainly aren't economists, because they don't even understand the basics of the 'dismal science'. None of them seems to have studied economics at all.

Ezra Pound was a poet, not an economist. Yes, he had a few economic theories. Cracked ones.

The Rothschilds are an international family. Some of them were ennobled (doubtless for all the wrong reasons, but nevertheless they were). Noble members of the French branch would be called 'de' (meaning 'of' or 'from') the house of Rothschild. Noble German and Austrian members would be referred to as 'von' (same meaning as 'de') Rotschild. Simple really. So simple, I'm amazed you didn't know it.

Couldn't find anything else in your recent posts that required comment. See you next Wednesday.

Oh yes, there is something else. There's this quote you posted, taken from a Rothschild commercial site:


Ouch. You don't really know much about finance and economics, do you?

'Treasury financial products' are government bonds, treasury bills and the like. They're types of equity. All investment banks deal in them. Saying you deal in 'Treasury financial products' doesn't mean you own a national treasury.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to try Economics 101 after all?