Is anyone actually buying into this load of crap?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. Non-profit Delaware Corporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

There have been plenty of threads on this subject:

Is the United States of America even a country?

Who Owns The 'United States®'

Act of 1871 - Inventing the Illegal U.S. Corporation

April 19 1775 transitioning to April 19 2010


The more you learn about the country today, the scarier it gets.








Edit to add:

Hey, cool, I made the 200th post!





[edit on 5/18/10 by FortAnthem]

Things like this don't phase me. I can see so well through media propaganda like it's a big ugly hole in the wall. It's so blatantly obvious to me that I've learned not to try explaining it to other people because they have to figure it out for themselves. Instead I've learned to 'catalyze' them into asking the question.
Giving people answers is useless. They have to think about it, and formulate the right question. Then they will go wide eyed and say, O_O..."I ..get it"

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

The bank also earns profits - interest if you will. With these profits, the banks has its own checking account, so to speak, where it can invest as it chooses. In general, next to oil companies, banks have been historically very profitable businesses.

WOW! Enlightening! So the banks and the oil companies are very profitable hey? Well I never!

Originally posted by seataka
The head of China told citizens to acquire gold and silver. Chinese Expats in the US have been making 5 digit physical purchases..

The recent proliferation of cash4gold type companies to facilitate the transfer of gold, create scarcity of gold amongst the general population so that when currency is abolished, the majority will be more amenable to accepting fully automated exchange system?

Originally posted by teapot

Originally posted by seataka
The head of China told citizens to acquire gold and silver. Chinese Expats in the US have been making 5 digit physical purchases..

The recent proliferation of cash4gold type companies to facilitate the transfer of gold, create scarcity of gold amongst the general population so that when currency is abolished, the majority will be more amenable to accepting fully automated exchange system?

That's certainly one possibility. It might also be that more gold has been bought on paper than there is in all of creation, so there is a push to collect all the physical gold for the premium buyers (like the banking cartels?). Then when the meltdown comes, all who bought gold shares will be penniless, like those who sold their gold for cash...to much the same end you mentioned.

WOW! Enlightening! So the banks and the oil companies are very profitable hey? Well I never!

Enlightening comment. You're missing the point.

Why would a profitable bank need to "create money out of thin air"? It doesn't need to. It already has sufficient assets - liquid assets - to invest and lend, as well as an adequate amount of deposits to lend against.

At a typical retail bank branch, there are literally hundreds (sometimes thousands) of retail banking customers that have money on deposit that don't have any kind of lending facility. Retired, elderly, and high net worth individuals will hold Certificates of Deposit on hand at the bank at $100,000 or more, with no correlating debt obligation. These are all deposits that the bank can utilize to lend against.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

WOW! Enlightening! So the banks and the oil companies are very profitable hey? Well I never!

Enlightening comment. You're missing the point.

Perhaps the 'point' is not important.

Why would a profitable bank need to "create money out of thin air"?

I've no idea! I'll take a guess! Because the entire monetary system is a completely imagined construct that allows banks to do pretty much what they like?

It doesn't need to. It already has sufficient assets - liquid assets - to invest and lend,

As you said, profitable business is banking!

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC. Non-profit Delaware Corporation Date 4/19/89 File No. 2193946

There have been plenty of threads on this subject:

Is the United States of America even a country?

Who Owns The 'United States®'

Act of 1871 - Inventing the Illegal U.S. Corporation

April 19 1775 transitioning to April 19 2010


The more you learn about the country today, the scarier it gets.








Edit to add:

Hey, cool, I made the 200th post!





[edit on 5/18/10 by FortAnthem]

Thanks for the links buddy! I noticed ALL OF THOSE THREADS got less than 10 flags each, meaning people either don't care if our country is a corporation or they are ignorant of such facts. Very sad indeed!

One person even said and I quote:

Originally posted by finemanm
Similarly, the federal government is a legal entity that has bank accounts and owns property; therefore, it is a corporation. It must be able to enter in legal contracts, to sue and be sued in court, etc... Thus, its a corporation.

The Red Cross is a not for profit corp, but still a corp. Private schools are incorporated. Small towns are incorporated, New York City is a corporation, I'm sure the town or city you live in is incorporated.

Can someone with a reasonable legal background tell me why the USA "government" must be a corporation inorder to enter into legal contracts?

Can't a commonwealth or a cooperative enter into legal contracts? And what the heck is a non-profit corporation? I thought all corporations are profit oriented since they are business entities.

I've no idea! I'll take a guess! Because the entire monetary system is a completely imagined construct that allows banks to do pretty much what they like?

Hmmmm....If the entire monetary system is a complete imaginary construct, why don't you stop paying your mortgage, auto, insurance, property taxes, utilities, etc. and then come back to this forum and tell us how imaginary the monetary system is, fair enough?

With all due respect, perhaps you live in a land of fairy tales and make believe, but some of us actually live in the real world where the monetary system is very much a reality.

As you said, profitable business is banking!

Used to be. Not so much anymore. Read the FDIC web site every Friday evening and count the number of failed retail banks. Of course, borrowers and speculative real estate investors that defaulted on their mortgages have nothing to do with bank failures, right? And when 70% of all mortgage loan applications that were submitted during the years of 2003-2005 were totally fake, the banks weren't defrauded, right? Thanks.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

I've no idea! I'll take a guess! Because the entire monetary system is a completely imagined construct that allows banks to do pretty much what they like?

Hmmmm....If the entire monetary system is a complete imaginary construct, why don't you stop paying your mortgage, auto, insurance, property taxes, utilities, etc. and then come back to this forum and tell us how imaginary the monetary system is, fair enough?

With all due respect, perhaps you live in a land of fairy tales and make believe, but some of us actually live in the real world where the monetary system is very much a reality.

In my reality, I already do not use banks to carry out my financial obligations for me. It irks me that the days of being paid honest cash for honest work are long gone as I am nontheless forced to indirectly use the banking system to convert payment cheques into cash.

I pay no overdraft fees and no bank charges, just commission and processing fees on the cheque. I used to use a bank. My reality is more cost effective for me.

In my reality, I have no debt and live within my means.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Its actually in the United States code:

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Interesting no?

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Its actually in the United States code:

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

Interesting no?

Yes I already know the USA is listed as a federal corporation.

A federal corporation IS MORE than just a legal entity to allow the federal government to be able to enter contracts. It is a general(c) PRIVATE corporation that is not traded on the markets, does not have strict disclosure requirements as public corporations do, the shareholders of said corporation ARE UNKNOWN and do not have to be known.

In other words the only requirement for private companies is simply to be registered in a state registrar and fulfill the absolute minimum SEC regulations. Do people get the complete picture yet?

Its more than just interesting. It is surreptitious slavery!

Lets see if we can analyse "the deal"...

The Federal Reserve Bank is listed at the delaware registrar as *FEDERAL RESERVE ASSOCIATION* and is of a *non-profit or religious* type. It was incorporated on September 3, 1914.

The United States of America is listed as *UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC* and is of a *non-profit or religious* type. It was incorporated on April 19, 1989.

The United States Treasury is listed as * UNITED STATES TREASURY / U.S. TREASURY, INC* and is a private, general(c) type. It was incorporated on February 8, 1990.

If we go by the official data at the delaware corporate registry, we can see that ONLY the US Treasury is profit-oriented. The US Treasury supposedly prints the money for the Federal Reserve Bank of America and its services/functions terminate there.

That is what I thought initially, but now it seems they reversed the game and are funneling the interest money from the FEDs debt to the US Treasury department. If you look at the Federal Reserve Bank of America entry in wikipedia its says:

According to the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, "It is not 'owned' by anyone and is 'not a private, profit-making institution'. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."[15] In particular, the US Government does not own shares in the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks, but does take all of its profits after salaries are paid to employees, a dividend is paid to member banks that is 6% of their capital investment, and surplus is put in a capital account.

The government also exercises some control by appointing its highest-level employees and setting their salaries. The Federal Reserve made a record profit of 45 billion in 2009, nearly all of which was transferred to the US Treasury.16. The structure of the central banking system in the U.S. is unique in the world. It is also unusual in that an entity outside the central bank (the U.S. Department of the Treasury) creates the currency used.

It seems the illuminati is getting nervous, or is it just me?

The IRS listed as *INTERNAL REVENUE TAX AND AUDIT SERVICE, INC.* is a private, general(c) profit-oriented corporation and was incorporated on July 12, 1933.

So the the private IRS collects money from tax-payers for the Federal Reserve Association(which is supposedly public) THROUGH the US Treasury? So the US Treasury LAUNDERS the money under the disguise of Treasury bonds(selling debt certificates)?

HMMMMM...just a theory! What do you guys think?

[edit on 20-5-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

reply to post by GreenBicMan

But I am in the camp of not thinking the FED is inherently evil. We need a central banking system, and no, we can not use gold or barter for chickens.

So, if you would like to debate the finer issues that deal with fact and the reality of here and now I will be waiting.

Why can we not use a LIMITED NATURAL RESOURCE THAT HAS VALUE as a central banking system? The Lydians did it(the culture that invented monetary coins), the Romans did it, the Persians did it, The Byzantines did it, the Chinese did it. I could go on. Is it that the population of the planet exceeds said natural resource? Or is it that the people controlling FIAT CURRENCY live better lives due to said fiat currency.

A government that uses, for example, the gold standard, should have no problem adapting to another limited natural resource when the aforementioned gold standard becomes obsolete. The main problem that I see with this topic is is that the Fiat Currency is controlled globally, rather than each individual nation issuing currency based on that nation's current natural resources.

Another major problem is unlimited natural resources, such as solar power. This is only theoretical, and publicly, we are informed that the technology is insufficient. How can a Fiat Currency make a make a profit with unlimited natural resources? The answer is that it cannot, unless that currency manipulates the situation.

My main problem with this scenario is the desire for UNCHECKED PROFIT. I can see no reason at all why a financial institution needs to make that kind of profit. Why is it not enough for said institution to make enough money to pay for all their expenses, including paying the human staffers sufficient money to have a house, car, computer, etc(or any other modern convenience one can think of)? This would still allow for competition in private sectors without the exuberant profits of financial institutions(Such as inflated interest, overdraft fees, foreclosures, repossessions, etc).

Why is it that the majority of financial institutions profits go to a select few? Would it not be MUCH better for a nation if that majority of profits went to improving the lives of every legal citizen of said nation? Not in the personal sense but in the collective sense.

It is greed and power that drives the modern financial system. Perhaps I am naive to think so, but that is what I think. I would be happy to read any explanations that prove my logic flawed. Sadly, logic is not heavily employed in the Modern Era.


[edit on 20-5-2010 by My_Reality]

reply to post by My_Reality


Sweet, I'm glad they used it at the time.

During the last few centuries though we also use electricity as well. We could probably do without that because the Romans did right?

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by My_Reality

 

Sweet, I'm glad they used it at the time.

During the last few centuries though we also use electricity as well. We could probably do without that because the Romans did right?

[Groan] Are you even trying to make sense? What is the "it" you refer to in your first paragraph? What is it the thing we are supposedly doing without now that was mentioned in Mr_reality's post that prompts you to draw a parallel between it and electrical power and then suggest we can do without electricity because the Roman's didn't have it?

I t seemed like his discussion was along the lines you sketched out in your earlier post... is that your final answer?

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

...
Kooky. I can assure you that banks have deposits, and they also have significant assets. They don't need to create money "out of thin air".

Look, if 50 people each deposit $100,000 in 6 month Certificate of Deposits at the bank, and you stroll into my bank looking for a $20,000 loan, I can assure you that the bank doesn't need to "create money out of thin air" to give you the $20,000 in certified funds at the time of closing. Assuming you're creditworthy, the loan could close within 24 hours or less in most cases. No goofy accounting gimmickry, no silly Mickey Mouse games, no funny "money out of thin air" tricks. The bank has the money - It's on deposit.

How can the bank do this? Well, for starters the bank has figured out, much like an actuary, that the likelihood of all 50 depositors withdrawing $100,000 over the next 6 months is relatively unlikely. Sure, you might have a handful that decide to cash in early due to better rates somewhere else, a family emergency, etc. But, by and large, statistically speaking, assuming that there isn't some major run on the banks or national emergency, the bank will retain these funds on deposit for the next 6 months, rain or shine.

The bank also earns profits - interest if you will. With these profits, the banks has its own checking account, so to speak, where it can invest as it chooses. In general, next to oil companies, banks have been historically very profitable businesses.

Then are you saying that fractionalized banking is just some phony conspiracy theory and doesn't take place at all? That loans are made solely and directly from the bank's customers' deposits? I just want to make sure I understand your position.

Another aspect of bank complicity in their own undoing vis a vis the housing crisis that you seem to ignore is the fact that banks were reselling the promissory notes to the brokerage houses and other debt-dealers almost before the ink was dry on the signature lines. Don't you think that this is because they had their doubts about the surety for these debts and the borrowers' ability to pay them off? And didn't this also contribute to the ballooning crisis in a real and irresponsible way?

Then are you saying that fractionalized banking is just some phony conspiracy theory and doesn't take place at all? That loans are made solely and directly from the bank's customers' deposits?

Naturally, each bank is capitalized differently. However, even some leading mid-sized banks can easily have $40 billion in deposits or more.

What I am saying is what I have stated many times before: Most conservatively run retail banks have significant assets, and significant deposits to lend against. They don't need to "manufacture money out of thin air" in order to make a loan to a bank customer.

Just pull up the balance sheet for any publicly traded bank and see for yourself. If you don't understand how to read a balance sheet, any competent CPA can help you. On a Balance Sheet, look closely at the section under Assets - Here you will see that your typical bank has all kinds of assets. Banks own real estate, land, equipment, investments in the stock and bond markets, etc. Banks also have their own cash (Wow, what a concept, huh?), and significant loan receivables. All of these are assets that the bank owns.

To suggest that banks don't carry deposits, and don't have assets, is negating basic accounting principles, and is just plain silliness. Of course, banks have assets, just like any other business.

Another aspect of bank complicity in their own undoing vis a vis the housing crisis that you seem to ignore is the fact that banks were reselling the promissory notes to the brokerage houses and other debt-dealers almost before the ink was dry on the signature lines. Don't you think that this is because they had their doubts about the surety for these debts and the borrowers' ability to pay them off? And didn't this also contribute to the ballooning crisis in a real and irresponsible way?

Not if the loans originated were based on fraud from the get-go.

We had an epidemic of mortgage fraud during the past decade, and the banks and GSE's (government sponsored entities such as Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.) were left holding the bag.

Why do you think we are having an unprecedented number of bank failures the past year or two? Number one reason? Mortgage fraud. Loosey-goosey mortgage loans that were given to home builders, real estate developers, house flippers, speculators, and sub-prime borrowers during the feeding frenzy of the real estate boom.

According to Bitner, the author of "Confessions of a Sub-Prime Lender", he states that upwards of 70% of all mortgage loan applications between the years 2003-2005 (the height of the real estate boom) were fraudulent, misrepresentations, or deceitful.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but the fact of the matter is that everyone is mad at the banks when they are the ones that were most often defrauded, along with the GSE's.

Back during the real estate boom, when credit was loose and easy, I sure didn't hear the American taxpayer expressing anger at the loose lending standards. No, they were happy as a clam that a sub-prime borrower could buy a $750,000 McMansion down in Florida, with no money down, no income verification, at interest-only, even with substandard credit and a shaky job history. Thankfully, that circus is now over, and hopefully common sense and traditional lending standards will bring some semblance of sanity back to the mortgage world.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Okay, so you are not going to answer me about fractionalized banking. You paint with a very broad brush, but the only color you use is orange... And why not, you have a lot of information about that wedge of the banking industry and how it works. To broaden your scope would make your vision lose its crystal-sharp clarity on the matters you have at hand and are quite handy with.

But please note I never said that banks do not have assets, so you needn't condescend to repeat your explanation yet again--it doesn't hide the fact that you ignored my question. Certainly banks have assets, and fractionalized banking is one of the ways they acquire assets, tremendous assets, in fact.

On the second point, regarding banks' culpability in this mess, in the immortal words of our last President "Fool me once, fool me... won't get fooled again." Allegedly these phony mortgage applications have been coming in since the tail end of the Clinton years. That's a period of roughly ten to fifteen years this has been going on, and the brick and mortar banks and other financial institutions involved--from brokers, GSE's, all the way up to the Federal Reserve chapter banks--could have put an end to it all long before they reached a volume that threatened the stability of the global financial markets. If they got stuck holding the bag, it was because they failed to apply common sense to their lending practices. They failed to be "good citizens."

And I don't know where you are in this wide world, but you paint your portrait of "Joe Taxpayer" smiling through the good times and whining through the bad with far too broad a brush as well. I know of plenty of people here in California that expressed concern over pie-in-the-sky housing prices, no down payment lending practices, and the loose regulation and predatory mortgage practices that blew that bubble until it burst. Of course, none of them were in the banking sector. I guess that's what you're most familiar with, so maybe that's just how those folks acted. You needn't generalize about the rest of us like we were all there with you, doing what they were doing. OK?



edit to add: Bitner wrote a tell-all book full of excuses to reassure the public with one version of the story. He excelled in making a fortune by playing a game of fraud--bending the rules and telling people what they wanted to hear. I would hardly consider him an economist or a statistician, or an expert on the ins and outs of the staged global financial meltdown. I wouldn't trust him to be an authority on anything except what he's good at--telling people what he thinks they want to hear.

[edit on 5/22/10 by without_prejudice]

If they got stuck holding the bag, it was because they failed to apply common sense to their lending practices. They failed to be "good citizens."

Or deceived. It was very possible for a sub-prime mortgage broker to engage in misrepresentation and deceit without the funding source detecting the deceit and fraud taking place. Some of the fraud was actually quite sophisticated, and went undetected by both the banks and regulators.

I know of plenty of people here in California that expressed concern over pie-in-the-sky housing prices, no down payment lending practices, and the loose regulation and predatory mortgage practices that blew that bubble until it burst.

They certainly didn't make themselves vocal in the public domain.

I would hardly consider him an economist or a statistician, or an expert on the ins and outs of the staged global financial meltdown.

He was on the front lines of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Regardless of your views on his credibility, my point was simply that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud. His claim that 70% of all sub-prime mortgage loan applications between the years 2003-2005 were fraudulent, deceitful, or misrepresentations can be substantiated by other authorities that were on the front lines as well. Even the FBI has come out with public reports about the epidemic of mortgage fraud that took place during these years.