Is anyone actually buying into this load of crap?

I see banks as an encroachment on freedoms,of course there are many who do not agree with this out of sheer ignorance.

The monetary system only makes it easier for those with more than they need,to take more from those who do not have enough,the system limits options by requiring people to do things a certain way.

If things worked the correct way,one could save enough wealth on their own and not need to take out a loan to buy a house,or transportation....

Banking isn't the only scam going on here,women's equal rights was used to increase the workforce by getting housewives into the workplace,in effect freezing wages,making it necessary for two incomes to run a household,and having a negative effect on the upbringing of children,and society as a whole.

The woman at home was the true power,and the center of the family,and what made this country work once.

I mean to make no "sexist" statements here about womens' rights,I am old enough to remember a time when things actually worked.

The banking system has evolved to take advantage of every negative event in this country's history.

That must be why the founders of this country were against centralized banking.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

Baloney. Take the Balance Sheet of any well-run mid-sized bank. They have billions of dollars on deposit that they can lend against.

17 years ago, I went to the bank to cash a check for a measly $15,000. I had to run around to THREE different banks before I found one with enough cash on hand to cash it. Let me tell you, that was NOT a confidence-inspiring experience. I started easing out of that system right then and there. Funny, though, even though the banks didn't have it on hand, they'd have been more than happy to float me a $25,000 dollar loan.

Banks don't operate in a make-believe fairy world of made up deposits. I can assure you, that when you close on a house, that the check cut at closing is a real live check with real live purchasing power.

Probably so, as long as you don't try to convert it to cash. As long as everything stays in bits and bytes, it's all good, eh?

So Ford is permitted to make a profit, but a bank is not allowed to make a profit for taking a risk on a loan? What's wrong with this picture?

Ford gives you a car for your money. The bank gives you electrons for your good word.

Ever tried to drive an electron?

If I lend you $100, and you agree in writing to pay me back in 6 months, am I entitled to any interest? Yes or no. You tell me.

Depends on whether you can sweet talk me into promising that interest, too. Since you didn't mention interest in the quote you made, then NO.

No one is putting a gun to your head to force you to borrow. If you don't like the terms of the loan, then don't borrow money. Can't do it? Baloney. Ask any debt-free Dave Ramsey fan if it can be done. It can. Millions of families live debt-free if they only take control of their spending habits.

You know, I haven't a clue who this Dave Ramsey cat is, but I agree with you here anyhow. Don't borrow. It CAN be done (I'm living proof) and carries a lot less headaches. As an added bonus, you actually get to KEEP more of what you earn, rather than throwing it down some bank's electronic rathole. That means you can buy MORE, because you have more to work with! Simple concept, huh?

Oh my God. You're right. Why invest in bank when there are plenty of high risk low accountability options to invest in. Man, why play it safe just after all that's happened.. What were we thinking !!!!!

Originally posted by daggyz
Oh my God. You're right. Why invest in bank when there are plenty of high risk low accountability options to invest in. Man, why play it safe just after all that's happened.. What were we thinking !!!!!

Invest? I guess I have a different take on what constitutes a viable 'investment' than normal people. I have no need at all for extra money laying around, just to run my fingers through. It seems a waste to me. Likewise, I feel no pressing need to throw money at something just to see if it's gonna bounce back at me all swelled up with interest.

No, for me, and evidently me alone, an 'investment' will be on something that will have a higher probability of returning something I can eat. Land springs to immediate mind, but I already have all of that I need. Note that I don't mean land to sell at a profit to BUY food with, I'm talking something that will sprout food I can eat directly. Cut out the middle man.

That's why I get a kick out of all the gold investment that's been pushed lately. A fine thing for those of that bent, but not me. Ever try to eat a gold coin? they're awful! You just can't put enough ketchup on one to make it palatable. Not knocking those folks who DO that, because that's their thing. If someone wants to amass gold coins, more power to 'em. I'm just saying that ain't a useful endeavor for me.

By the same token, it just wouldn't do for someone to offer me gold for food in a pinch. I got use for food, but no use at all for gold.

Yeah, maybe I'm weird, but I get by.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Not to mention the fact that, thanks to fractional reserve banking, they get to loan out 10 times more money than they actually have in those savings accounts. They're charging people massive interest to loan them money that they don't even have, that they created out of thin air.
[edit on 5/14/10 by FortAnthem]

In plain language, here's my developing view on this:

The reason why this system just perpetuates itself is that the people are indoctrinated and conditioned to believe and accept from a very young age that this is the natural order of things. We grow up within this system and accept it like fish in water. You're brain washed into seeing it as "just the way it is" as the "natural order of things" and not to question it but rather accept this ball-and-chain around your neck for your entire lifetime.

I'm beginning to see through the fog.

If fractional reserve banking allows a bank to lend $10 for every dollar it holds in deposits, what does that tell us about the rate of return the bank is reaping on every dollar deposited on which the bank may pay no more than 1% to 2% interest to the depositor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem to mean that the bank is charging 6% to 20% on $10 for every $1 on which it pays at most 2%. So the bank's cost of 2 cents of interest paid out reaps 60 cents to $2.00 or more profit on every dollar deposited. Anyone else think there's something wrong with that picture?

Just as disturbing is the system under which the federal agencies lend money to banks at 1% to 2% and the banks then re-lend that money to the people at anywhere from 6% to 20% and more. Why does this system exist? How did it come into being? It's nothing more than fat cats feathering each other's nests. It is why the US and most Western nations, in reality, have a two-tier economic and social system: The haves who lend money to everyone else at grossly excessive interest rates, and the have-nots who borrow that money and lose a large share of their earnings just to pay interest to the fat cats. Every dollar paid in interest is a dollar that could have been spent tp purchase goods and services. But when that dollar is diverted to payment of interest, it impairs the flow of commerce. Yet I don't recall ever hearing an economist or news program draw attention to that very basic and obvious fact.

Why doesn't the federal government make that money available to the people at 1% to 2%, rather than distribute it through these banker middlemen who then charge their customers from 6 to 20 times and more their cost of the funds? If it did, the people would have no problem paying their mortgages and other debts and would still have money left over to get ahead financially in life. This system is rigged so that the people who find themselves in the "borrower/have-not" class stay there.

Now, I realize that it is possible for individuals to break their chains, but those who do are the rare exception and far from being the rule.


[edit on 5/15/2010 by dubiousone]

Cookiemonster, I ask you these questions:

Where does money come from?

How much is there?

How much was there?

By what method did the amount increase?

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

Explain to me, please, how Comerica Bank is "making money out of thin air."

Per their 2009 audited financial statements, they have $42.2 billion in outstanding loans out on the street. Total deposits? $40 billion. Investment securities for sale? $7.4 billion.

Alright, we'll take your numbers as gospel. Let's do the math...

They had 40 billion in deposits.

And loaned out 42.2 billion.

Seems they loaned more than they had, didn't they? Where did that extra 2.2 billion come from?


The question keeps coming down to this: how can a bank loan money it doesn't have?

Because loaning creates money



Wikipedia:

Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve (as cash and other highly liquid assets) and lend out the remainder, while maintaining the simultaneous obligation to redeem all these deposits upon demand.

...

By its nature, the practice of fractional reserve banking expands the money supply (cash and demand deposits) beyond what it would otherwise be. Because of the prevalence of fractional reserve banking, the broad money supply of most countries is a multiple larger than the amount of base money created by the country's central bank. That multiple (called the money multiplier) is determined by the reserve requirement or other financial ratio requirements imposed by financial regulators, and by the excess reserves kept by commercial banks.

Central banks generally mandate reserve requirements that require banks to keep a minimum fraction of their demand deposits as cash reserves. This both limits the amount of money creation that occurs in the commercial banking system, and ensures that banks have enough ready cash to meet normal demand for withdrawals.

...

For the economy and the banking system as a whole, the practice of keeping only a fraction of deposits on hand has an important cumulative effect. Referred to as the fractional reserve system, it permits the banking system to create money.

...

The main reason customers deposit funds at a bank is to store savings in the form of a demand claim on the bank. Depositors still have a claim to full repayment of their funds on demand even though most of the funds have already been invested by the bank in interest bearing loans and securities.[11] Holders of demand deposits can withdraw all of their deposits at any time. If all the depositors of a bank did so at the same time a bank run would occur, and the bank would likely collapse.

...

Money creation is the process by which new money is produced or issued. There are three ways to create money:

* by manufacturing paper currency or metal coins,
* through fractional reserve banking and lending by the banking system,
* and by government policies such as quantitative easing.

reply to post by dubiousone


dubiousone, you're hitting the nail on the head.

if a bank has $10.00, it can loan out $90.00. It then charges, say, 5% interest on that $90.00. Assuming it's paid back precisely in 1 year, the bank will get back $94.50.

So it made $4.50 on $10.00. That's 45% interest, even though they get to say they're only charging 5%.

Think about it.

reply to post by nenothtu



Everyone who screams "don't borrow" isn't aware that money wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't borrowed into existence. That's the absurd reality we live under with the way the money system works today.


"If all the bank loans were paid up, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks for our money. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible - but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."

- Robert H. Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta



"I am afraid that ordinary citizens will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. The amount of finance in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit.

They who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

- Reginald McKenna, Chairman, Midland Bank London


"If two parties, instead of being a bank and an individual, were an individual and an individual, they could not inflate the circulating medium by a loan transaction, for the simple reason that the lender could not lend what he didn't have, as banks can do. Only commercial banks and trust companies can lend money that they manufacture by lending it."

- Irving Fisher, Economist and Professor, Yale University, 100% Money



"The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. Bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promise to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way banks began to create money. Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could “spend” by writing checks, thereby “printing” their own money."

- Modern Money Mechanics, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago



"In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called “Colonial Scrip.” We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, by creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay, to anyone. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury."

- Benjamin Franklin




[edit on 15-5-2010 by 30_seconds]

The interest on my car loan is 50%. Love those banks. Love how all their call center reps sound like foreigners. Must be outsourcing that to China. I just love giving my social security number to someone in another country.

reply to post by Cygnis


The people are not up in arms because for years now they have been sedated with medication and for those who have not we have the chemtrails finishing the job. try waking people up to it and you will see that glazed look in their eyes like "please don`t give me something else to worry about, I`ve got enough on my plate without having to worry about your conspiracy theories" Until people WAKE UP from this stuper they have been led into there`s not a lot of hope.

I hate banks, legalized loan sharks more like, but in the UK you have to use a bank to keep your cash, otherwise this happens

Quote

"Police find £67,000 stash in burglary victim's home"

May 5 2009 WalesOnline

A SOUTH Wales burglary victim has ended up losing £67,000... to the police.

Unfortunately for the householder, the cash was discovered by officers looking for clues.

And when the unnamed victim of the burglary, who lives on Port Talbot’s Sandfields housing estate, could not prove where he got the money from it was seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA).

A South Wales Police spokesman said:”Police were called to the man’s address in Sandfields after reports of an attempted burglary to his property.

“While officers were at the address carrying out inquiries they discovered large quantities of cash and the man was arrested on suspicion of money laundering but later released without charge.

“However, police instigated proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act as he could not provide any legitimate source for the money.”

After a forfeiture hearing at Neath Magistrates Court at the weekend an application to seize the money made by South Wales Police was granted.

The man claimed at the hearing he had “saved up” some of the money and made the rest from selling German military memorabilia.

But he was unable to provide any proof to back up his claims and checks were made with HM Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions and Neath Port Talbot Council which further proved the cash was not earned legitimately."

source
www.walesonline.co.uk...

This guy was being burgled and the police took it upon themselves to search his house, the victim soon turns into the criminal because he had cash in his house! I live a few miles away from this guy, and he deals in militaria, his house was full of the stuff which he sells online and at military shows, markets etc, but because he couldn't show sales receipts, he lost all the cash! The guy was not charged with anything, they let him keep his stock, which they also tried to confiscate initially, but they still went ahead and took his money, while finding him to be guilty of nothing!

The banks and the government are joined at the hip! To everyone who lost their homes in this recession, what did the government give you, nothing, what did they give the banks, billions of pounds of our money!

Peace

This link explained a great deal about how banks operate.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's an excerpt:

Banks Create the Money They Lend

Bankers will tell you that they do not create money. At a 10% reserve requirement, they simply lend out 90% of their deposits. The catch is that their “deposits” include the money they have written into their customers’ accounts as loans. That is how loans are made: numbers are simply written into the accounts of borrowers, as many reputable authorities have attested. Here are two of them, dating back to when officials were either more aware of what was going on or more open about it:

“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”
– Robert B. Anderson, Treasury Secretary under Eisenhower, in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report

“Do private banks issue money today? Yes. Although banks no longer have the right to issue bank notes, they can create money in the form of bank deposits when they lend money to businesses, or buy securities. . . . The important thing to remember is that when banks lend money they don’t necessarily take it from anyone else to lend. Thus they ‘create’ it.”
– Congressman Wright Patman, Money Facts (House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1964)

Now the thread author's understanding of this:

Okay, now let me explain it - in my own words - as I have understood it, through my research.

Derivatives Meaning = Lets say: A bank has a deposit of $1000 - they are suppose to only lend up to 90% of that deposit out. So they then lend $900 out to someone, now they add that $900 loan to "deposits" - because it is seen as money in the bank. So, now they took that $1000 and made it to $1900 as deposits. So now they are able to loan 90% of $1900 - so they loan $1710 to someone else. Once that happens, again they can add that $1710 as money in the bank. The cycles goes on and on - until the reality is quadtrillion - some say quintrillions is loaned out - in money that is not actually there. Thus we have a house of cards that has no base and that is WHY the banks - don't actually have all the money that are in deposits in the banks. So that means - what you think you have in the bank in the form of money - is NOT THERE!

~Thread authored by ATS member QuestioningAll



[edit on 5/15/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

ok this just grinds my gears indeed you do need to bank but its giant banks like this that rape the people we should split them up and use the little guy banks more they actually CARE about the people not just see them as a resource to make more money

reply to post by 30_seconds


Yup. I'm not saying NO ONE should borrow. There are always going to be people around with dreams bigger than their means, and those people are always going to find some one who will float them a loan. I'm only saying that I'm not one of them. I have an aversion to allowing my dreams to become nightmares.

I'd rather own a little, and know it was mine, than to pseudo-own a lot, and know that the banks had first claim on it, and could snatch it right out from under me if I were to get ill or disabled or something.

I've watched folks lose their entire houses, and everything associated with them, in this mess. The only place they had to live - gone in a blink. Now, neither of the houses I have are not grand affairs. They're most definitely not in the Mansion on a Hill class, but I know, beyond doubt, that no man or bank will EVER take them away from me because of a mortgage default. The acreage around them - same thing. Free and clear, bought and paid for. Mine to do with as I will. No silly-assed Homeowners Association, no zoning. I'll do whatever I want with and on it, and no one can say "boo" about it.

I know, it's just me, and I'm a strange bird, but there's a lot to be said, in my mind, for the peace of mind incumbent on knowing those things, and always having somewhere to go if I ever have nowhere to go.

Further, the money I don't pay in interest gets injected right back into the community. What the community does with it after it's out of my hands is their own business, whether they keep it circulating in the economy or let a banker sit on it. Makes no difference to me. In putting it back into circulation, I wind up with something to show for it, other than a fat bank account made out of pretty ink numbers and bits-n-bytes.

Sure, I save. That's how I acquire those larger items that others take loans out for. You set a target, and don't take your eyes off the ball until you have it. I just don't use banks to do it. They don't pay enough return on my money, and charge me way too much to loan it back to me. Better in my mind just to hang on to it myself until I have enough to get whatever job done that I want. Without the compound interest being involved, I can save it and own it a bit faster than I can pseudo-own it and pay it off.

It really doesn't hurt that I'm pretty low maintenance, and have relatively few 'needs', and realize the difference between a 'need' and a 'want'.

Now businesses and individuals with those big, expensive dreams? Yeah, they're ALWAYS going to borrow in order to keep things ticking along. I tend to think there is probably a better system to get that done with, but they work with what they have to, and I can't really fault that.

Me? I'll take my peace of mind any old day over unwarranted worries from over extending myself.

Every time I watch this vid, it pisses me off more and more.

I really hate the part after they give the definition of "citizenship" as "A system of rights and responsibilities" that obvious bankster plant bursts out with the declaration "Banking!".




[size=10]AAAAAARRRRGGGHH!!


I just want to get up and strangle that dude right in front of that whole gathering.


But, notice how brilliant the ad execs are in this ad: The bankster operative who derails the whole discussion is a kindly looking elderly black gentleman.

If we lash out against him, we come across looking like racists who pick on helpless old men.


This same kindly looking old man continues to derail the whole discussion with his pro-bankster BS.

Some of the participants in the discussion question his "banking" statement but, it is allowed to pass.


I just wish one of those brainwashed idiots would have had the nerve to go up to that kindly looking old SOB and say;

"SHUT UP OLD MAN, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!"




Edit to add: Too bad I can't report him to the mods and get an "Off topic post" banner slapped on him.



[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

I'll give you three of many ALT-A/exploding ARM subprime lenders that failed...three big ones, three commercial banks you might remember. IndyMac...WaMu...Wachovia.

Agreed. And there are a lot of other banks that have failed, and will continue to fail in the weeks ahead.

However, you are missing my point. Most of the banks didn't originate the loans. Take Colonial Bank. All of the loans were originated by mortgage brokers, processed and serviced by Taylor, Bean, & Whitaker, and funded by Colonial Bank for 1-2 months. Then the loan was sold to a GSE - Fannie/Freddie, etc.

Who originated the loan?

A sub-prime mortgage broker. Not a bank.

Who submitted the fraudulent loan application?

The sub-prime mortgage broker and/or the fraudulent borrower.

I am not familiar with IndyMac, WAMU, Wachovia, etc. in terms of their loan origination structure. However, I know that Wachovia went under went it purchased a sub-prime mortgage broker in California.

It all goes back to the same thing: The roots of the sub-prime crisis originated from sub-prime mortgage brokers. Not banks. Banks funded the loans, and failed to do their due diligence - or, were quite simply, outsmarted by the criminal class of sub-prime mortgage brokers who doctored up the loan applications with falsified information.

Banks got screwed over royally. That's why all these banks are failing.

On another note, the low interest rate policy you praise fueled the housing bubble under Greenspan.....

Don't put words in my mouth. I never ever praised Greenspan's low interest rate policy.

17 years ago, I went to the bank to cash a check for a measly $15,000.

Unusual scenario. Typically, only drug dealers and con artists need that kind of cash all at once. I am sure you raised a few eyebrows.

Probably so, as long as you don't try to convert it to cash. As long as everything stays in bits and bytes, it's all good, eh?

Blame Microsoft. Computers - It's the modern age.

Cookiemonster, I ask you these questions: Where does money come from? How much is there? How much was there? By what method did the amount increase?

First, let's talk about a traditional bank, such as Comerica, as I mentioned earlier.

The money for lending comes from deposits on hand. It could also come from the substantial reserves of the bank - cash it owns itself. A bank, after all, has substantial assets in the form of cash, stock and bond investments, real estate, land, equipment, loan receivables, etc.

How much does Comerica have in deposits? $40 billion.

How do their deposits increase? By collecting interest on loans, and gathering new deposit customers.

Seems they loaned more than they had, didn't they? Where did that extra 2.2 billion come from?

No. You neglected to include their massive liquid investment portfolio - $7.4 Billion. Do your math. Not to mention all of the other assets that the bank owns.

The loans outstanding are more than adequately covered by the liquid deposits and liquid investments that they have on hand, not to mention all of the other hard assets the bank owns - such as land, real estate - office buildings, equipment, etc.

Oh, and you don't have to take my word for it. They are publicly-traded. You and anyone else can pull up their audited 2009 financial statements online in a matter of minutes.

The fact is, Comerica isn't making "money out of thin air". It has more than substantial reserve deposits, liquid investments, and other tangible assets to lend against.

The question keeps coming down to this: how can a bank loan money it doesn't have? Because loaning creates money

It doesn't. It lends against the deposits that it has in the bank, only a tiny portion of which are being withdrawn at any given time.

Lending money creates profit for the bank in the form of interest repaid. Just as Ford makes a car to earn a profit, banks lend money to earn interest.

You neglect to mention, however, that the bank takes a risk that the borrower may default, and the bank may, therefore, never recoup its original investment paid at the time of the loan's inception. The borrower could skip town, file bankruptcy - This is the inherent risk in lending money, and the reason why banks hire credit analysts to review and approve loans.

The collateral - such as real estate - could be worth half of its original value due to market conditions and devaluation.

Banks don't operate in a fairy land world of make believe. They operate like a business. They are concerned about deterioration in their loan portfolio, and the risks inherent in the loans that are given. Banks don't lend willy-nilly, unless they are stupid - and in that case, they don't tend to stay in business for very long. Hence, we have these banks that were exceptionally reckless in their lending practices that are now being shut down by the FDIC.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


If the banks would stick to just commercial and industrial lending, thus avoiding usury, the economy would be much more stable.


The current crisis is like deja-vu all over again:

Savings and loan crisis

The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls aka thrifts). A Savings and Loan is a financial institution in the United States that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members - a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the US government via a financial bailout under the leadership of George H.W. Bush—that is, the US taxpayer provided the funding for the bailout, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts and increased taxes—which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990–1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, which was at the time the lowest rate since World War II.

Read more: Wickipedia

Private lending for homes and cars resulted in the S&L bailouts in the 80's and it happened to us again. People never learn.

At least in the 80's it was restricted to just the S&L industry. After the S&Ls were wiped out, the private lending market was thrust into the general banking sphere spreading the risk to the whole lending industry.

When are people gonna learn that the old moral injunctions against usury were in place for very good sound reasons, both moral and financial.




[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

The problem as I see it is NOT that we have a fiat system, but WHO is controlling that fiat system. The Federal Reserve system is a PRIVATE central bank, not part of the government in any way, shape or form. Thus it gets to create any amount of currency it wishes and then informs the treasury department TO PRINT IT! The federal reserve does not directly print the money to avoid arrousing suspicion from the general populace otherwise it could and should do that SINCE IT ISSUES ALL THE CURRENCY!

If a PRIVATE central BANK gets to issue money, can't they also bribe politicians with any amount the politician requests to keep his mouth shut and do as told? That then means government IS OWNED by the Federal Reserve Bank of America and will do whatever the shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank of America WANT! It is NOT a government *by the people, for the people*, it is *a government by those shareholders, for those shareholders*.

The European Union operates on the same principles and so do many other countries throughout the world. PRIVATE central BANKS issue money out of thin air to commercial banks who then lend out 5 to 10 times what they originally have(called fractional reserve) and then bribe ALL THE POLITICIANS to act stupid/confused.


THE FOLLOWING NEEDS TO BE DONE:
1)Fractional Reserve loaning should be greatly reduced or eliminated.

2)Private central banks should be NATIONALISED and the interest collected that once went to the PRIVATE CBs would then go directly to the government to fund its existance, via the treasury department. That ALSO means taxes would be substantially reduced(50%-80%) if not entirely abolished.

@cookiemonster: Either your an ignorant fool or part of the corrupt system that has a vested interest in prolonging the world's misery.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

17 years ago, I went to the bank to cash a check for a measly $15,000.

Unusual scenario. Typically, only drug dealers and con artists need that kind of cash all at once. I am sure you raised a few eyebrows.

Ah yes, the beauty of a self regulating system, eh? "You will not keep your money where I can use it, so you are obviously some sort of criminal." 'Tis a thing of beauty, this means of keeping the sheep in line by the efforts of their own minds, is it not? It allows them to build their own prisons of the mind, guard and police themselves, while the bankers reap all the profits of that.

A truly beautiful thing - and it's the American way!

That's right up there with the message of the commercial at hand - "You will keep your money where I can use it, or your just not a good citizen!" How much further is is to the connection that these bad citizens are criminals, and probably terrorists, too?

It's truly a thing of beauty to make a man do your own bidding, regulate himself, and pay you for the privilege of doing so!

Probably so, as long as you don't try to convert it to cash. As long as everything stays in bits and bytes, it's all good, eh?

Blame Microsoft. Computers - It's the modern age.

This fiat money system is Microsoft's fault now? Eh, probably so. Everything else is. I'll just send Bill Gates the bill for my next purchase, and let ya know how that turns out. Fair enough?