It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Every market crisis dating to 1933 has been caused by private control over our coin and to keep on allowing private interest over our coin further errodes freedom, democracy and has us time and time again answering to outsiders.
...Given the confusion inherent in conflating the services of deposit or safekeeping of money, on the one hand, and lending of money, on the other, why not simply make it clear to the bank customer what his options are? Why not give people a choice: do you want to own your money and have it deposited and safeguarded, or do you want to give up ownership of it and permit the bank to lend it on your behalf, in order to earn interest?
Carswell and Baker’s proposed Bill does just that. As Carswell explains:
Under my Bill, when opening a new bank account, you’d still be free to tick the box that says “it’s fine to lend on my money”. … To be clear, this Bill does not stop banks from treating your deposit as a loan. You just have to make clear that you give them permission to do so. There would, in effect, be two types of bank account; one where it was made clear that you owned the money (and probably paid for banking services in fees), and one where the bank was free to lend on your money like they owned it.
In other words, banks would have to make customers aware of whether it will (a) safekeep the funds to be deposited; or (b) loan out these funds on behalf of the customer (who is choosing to be a lender). It would align the law to mirror what people actually think happens: that they deposit money and it is theirs. It also seeks to allow savers to save in a term deposit which the bankers can then with the saver knowingly and indeed willingly lend out this money to borrowers. This relationship will then be that of a depositor lending to the bank and the bank being the creditor to the lender. (See also the somewhat similar Safety Deposit Current Accounts Bill, introduced in 2008 by the Earl of Caithness.)
The Bill was stimulated by Baxendale, as the result of his setting up the Cobden Centre and talking to Carswell and Baker about this issues, and generally making the mainstream audience more aware of the issue through postings on the Cobden Centre site and other activities. The basic ideas behind Baxendale’s efforts here and the proposed Bill are influenced by the work of the Austrian economist Huerta de Soto, primarily his book Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles, which sets out the relevant legal distinctions, drawing on Roman legal principles, and the proposals for reform set out in Chapter 9.
Baxendale also approached me for assistance in drafting the initial Bill, based on my Austrian and libertarian background as well as my mixed civil law/common law/Roman law legal background.... blog.mises.org...
I have read your posts and Hawkiye's and I get the feeling you are pretty much talking about the same thing, but using different words.
The last system is the Austrian System where there is NO fractional Reserve "lending" This means no one can inflate the money supply by "creating debt" the only addition to the money supply would be through mining of gold and silver if those metals are the basis of the system.
If you are suggesting a THIRD system that is neither the Austrian System or the Keynesian system how about telling us.
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by crimvelvet
I have read your posts and Hawkiye's and I get the feeling you are pretty much talking about the same thing, but using different words.
Not sure how you could read my posts and his and say we are saying the same thing. The only thing we agree on is the The federal reserve, however he doesn't even know we agree on that cause he doesn't read the responses I have given. This mental midget wants control of the money to be in the hands of the federal government ( the same ones who gave control to the banksters in the first place) he just wants the monopoly to revert back to the Feds and thinks that will solve everything. The rest of his argument is incoherent. The guy doesn't read my posts and then accuses me of all sorts of BS I obviously never said or do not support. He's a joke.
The last system is the Austrian System where there is NO fractional Reserve "lending" This means no one can inflate the money supply by "creating debt" the only addition to the money supply would be through mining of gold and silver if those metals are the basis of the system.
If you are suggesting a THIRD system that is neither the Austrian System or the Keynesian system how about telling us.
Fractional reserve is fraud and is unlawful, but legal. The so called free banking thing won't work either because banks using fractional reserve don't lend on depositors money as everyone believes, in fact it is illegal for them to risk thier assets period . The free banking thing is just a scam to reinforce the illusion of the people. The banks create money out of thin air on the spot based on promissory notes they receive for loans. They never actually loan any money period, the notes fund the transactions and they dupe the borrower into thinking they got a loan they need to pay back. then they sell or trade the notes as securities and make millions on a single note. So the money never existed and now the borrower has to find even more non existent money to pay back that which never existed in the first place. This is the main way they create so called money. This is the driving force of the economy called credit expansion and is why it is crashing. FRN's are just the petty cash of the system and thus we have the false scarcity imposed on usl.
The only way to ensure this never happens again is to not allow banks or governments to ever have control or a monopoly on a monetary system. If you want real choice it must be left up to the individual what he chooses to use as currency and it is no one else's business not governments or anyone else's...edit on 29-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
How can something be fraudlent yet legal? It's either one way or the other.
How can something be fraudlent yet legal? It's either one way or the other.
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)
...Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
www.webofdebt.com...
The idea that congress is waking up to some con they haven't figured out in a hundred years is pure fantasy.
...in 1917 Lindbergh brought articles of impeachment against members of the Federal Reserve Board including Paul Warburg and William Proctor Gould Harding. Lindbergh charged that the Federal Reserve Board members were involved "...in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States... en.wikipedia.org...
On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has YET TO BE ACTED ON.
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any...... home.hiwaay.net...
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
How can something be fraudlent yet legal? It's either one way or the other.
Because legal is a statutory term to legalize that which is unlawful. Fraud is unlawful however there are many statutes legalizing fraud such as fractional reserve banking. And Congress was not conned they supported it. I know a big deal is made about the federal reserve act being passed when most of the congress was gone for Christmas so they sneaked it though. However that is just more BS excuses. If congress was so against it they could have repealed it and they haven't in almost a hundred years. They are in bed with the banksters and are on the gravy train of slush fund money. Like the billions that disappeared and is still unaccounted for. You can bet that part of that went into congress peoples pockets. The idea that congress is waking up to some con they haven't figured out in a hundred years is pure fantasy.edit on 29-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ..5..
This thread is a year old why drag it up again? For it's birthday next week?
Having a 'State Owned Bank' is not what saved North Dakota from reccession.
They enacted a very shrewd economic development plan in 2000. The fruits of their labour are now showing.
You are in dreamland my friend. If congress actually grew a pair they would simply repeal the act today. They could not even pass the real audit the fed bill despite having nearly 300 co-sponsors of it. It is all just a dog and pony show to keep people duped into thinking they are actually doing something when in reality is just business as usual....
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
You are in dreamland my friend. If congress actually grew a pair they would simply repeal the act today. They could not even pass the real audit the fed bill despite having nearly 300 co-sponsors of it. It is all just a dog and pony show to keep people duped into thinking they are actually doing something when in reality is just business as usual. Any sweeping change or so called replacement of the system will not be what you imagine. It will be the same whore with a new dress and different color lipstick! It is their MO and they are on the banksters payroll, they will not cut off thier meal ticket.
Unfortunately change will come only when enough people are feeling enough pain and we are very close. When that happens the crooks on capital hill will probably need to go into hiding.
edit on 30-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by hawkiye
You are in dreamland my friend. If congress actually grew a pair they would simply repeal the act today. They could not even pass the real audit the fed bill despite having nearly 300 co-sponsors of it. It is all just a dog and pony show to keep people duped into thinking they are actually doing something when in reality is just business as usual....
Unfortunately I think you are correct. Every time a Congress Critter "grew a pair" he either backed down or someone ended up dead.
In 1913, Congressman Charles Lindbergh a Republican, said: "When the President signs this bill; the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized…The day of reckoning is only a few years removed." Source www.newswithviews.com...
On February 12, 1917, Rep Charles Lindbergh (R) brought articles of impeachment against five members of the Federal Reserve Board.
On December 13, 1932 Congress McFadden (R) brought an Impeachment motion against Herbert Hoover Source www.scribd.com...
NOTE: Hoover is the Republican president who had Major George S. Patton attack the ten thousand US WWI veterans, called the BONUS ARMY, with tear gas, tanks, and a troop of saber-wielding cavalrymen. SOURCE www.thebonusarmy.com...
On January 6, 1932 Congressman Patman, a Democrat, brought an Impeachment motion against Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon Source www.scribd.com...
On May 23, 1933, Congressman McFadden, brought charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Controller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. Source www.conspiracyarchive.com...
On March 7, 1985, Rep. Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat, introduced an Impeachment resolution. against the Federal Reserve on three separate occasions.
I am counting two republicans and two democrats FOR the USA and AGAINST the Banksters.
REPUBLICANS:
McFadden was killed and Lindbergh had his grandbaby kidnapped.
DEMOCRATS:
Gonzales was an 18-term Democratic Congressman. Rep. Wright Patman who died at the ripe old age of 82, served from 1929–1976. He supported FDR's New Deal and introduced a bill (defeated) mandating immediate payment of the bonus to World War I veterans.
Know of any others besides Ron & Rand Paul???
Our No. 1 focus has been and continues to be economic development. When we came into office at the end of 2000, we started right then with a very aggressive economic development plan. We not only did a strategic plan where we brought people into the process from around the state, including higher education, the economic development community, obviously the private sector--we did a very comprehensive plan with goals and benchmarks.
We targeted five industries for growth, industries where we have natural advantages in North Dakota: value-added agriculture, advanced manufacturing, technology-based businesses, energy and tourism. We worked very hard to grow all those businesses, and that's what's happening. We've had consistent growth and strong growth not only in more jobs, but better-paying jobs, growing wages, growing per-capita income. We've been very aggressive in growing our exports.
Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by crimvelvet
Our No. 1 focus has been and continues to be economic development. When we came into office at the end of 2000, we started right then with a very aggressive economic development plan. We not only did a strategic plan where we brought people into the process from around the state, including higher education, the economic development community, obviously the private sector--we did a very comprehensive plan with goals and benchmarks.
We targeted five industries for growth, industries where we have natural advantages in North Dakota: value-added agriculture, advanced manufacturing, technology-based businesses, energy and tourism. We worked very hard to grow all those businesses, and that's what's happening. We've had consistent growth and strong growth not only in more jobs, but better-paying jobs, growing wages, growing per-capita income. We've been very aggressive in growing our exports.
Source
Edit to add:
I have found little to no bi-partisan fighting in North Dakota (on record anyways). Could this be a bigger cause of success than a state owned bank?edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)
Edit to add #2:
Here is the publicised North Dakota Economic Development Plan 2002.edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)
Edit to add #3:
Here is the publicised North Dakota Economic Plan 2010-2020edit on 30-3-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by peck420
Thanks for satisfying my curiosity bump. I have not had a chance to read the report yet.
From what I can tell ND is doing what a government is SUPPOSED to do.
As you said the state owned bank is only a small part of it.
This reminds me of all the "flavor of the month" management magic bullets I was forever seeing at work. Someone would see a success and figure out all the buildings were painted blue so a consulting Guru would sell the newest magic bullet - paint your buildings blue.
No one ever bothered to see that it was HARD WORK that caused the success.