Is anyone actually buying into this load of crap?

Not half as bad as this one:



www.youtube.com...



Now they think they're God, too, because the song that is used here is about GOD!!!!


WTF won't it let me imbed the effing vid?

[edit on 15-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

Good one, LS. Almost made me want to throw up.



Took me several tries to embed this. Don't know what's up.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by ladyinwaiting]

Do we have anyone on ATS that understands the communist banking system??? If so I would LOVE to hear HOW that system worked before the system "envitably" collapsed.

I am not saying we should model it directly to their specs, I just want to get a rough idea.

Originally posted by 30_seconds
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.

Actually, if your descritpion of how fractional reserve banking operates holds true, then, in your example, where the bank loans out its depositors' money rather than its own money and pays its depositors at most 2% or 20 cents for the $10.00 deposited, the bank earned much more than 45% on the money that it, the bank, had at risk:

Since the bank had none of its own money at risk and paid only 20 cents to its depositors in order to earn $4.50 interest, the bank actually enjoyed a yield of $4.50 on the 20 cents it paid for the use of its depositors' money. From the borrower's prespective it looks like they are paying 5% interest. From the bank's perspective, it is raking in profits of 2,250% of its costs in interest paid out on the transaction.

If the bank charged the borrower 10% or 15% interest then it is taking a profit of 4,500% and 6,750% on its 20 cent cost, respectively.

Realizing this, it's no wonder banks are reporting quarterly profits in the billions and their owners and officers are reaping bonuses in the tens of millions and more.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by dubiousone]

The problem as I see it is NOT that we have a fiat system, but WHO is controlling that fiat system.

Congress could abolish the Federal Reserve tomorrow if it decided to do so.

Haven't you ever seen Bernanke being grilled by the Senate Banking Committee on C-Span?

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

Maybe when you get out of kindergarten, we can have an adult conversation like two normal human beings.

My posts have been pretty straightforward. I just don't buy into your hatred, venom, anger, and immaturity.

Why not try to make your point using logic, reason, and evidence? You don't need to sound like a raving-mad emotional lunatic to make your point.

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!

I guess that's one perspective. However, if you worked at a bank, would you prefer to let every criminal, money launderer, terrorist, and drug pusher just conduct their banking without any questions being asked? I didn't think so.

In fact, banks can play an instrumental role in stopping terrorism, and crime in general by paying attention and reporting highly suspicious behavior. Maybe that intrudes on your sense of entitlement - Fine. Don't put your money in a bank.

Instead of lambasting banks for protecting a community from crime, you should be applauding them.

This fiat money system is Microsoft's fault now?

No, it was a joke. Take it easy. I am sorry that you have anger and hatred over modern computing systems. Sorry. We can't all live in the stone age anymore. Some of us have actually adapted to the new technologies, and find them more efficient, convenient, and customer-friendly.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


if you had to actually save for a house it would cost you 40,000 dollars instead of 400,000 dollars to buy a crappy 800sq/ft house.

reply to post by star child


Saying that chemtrails contribute to the people's inability to comprehend the workings of the system in which they exist is unproven and likely false. The causes of their mental lethargy are more likely their socialization, conditioning, indoctrination, and all the foreign chemicals now added to and found in the water supply, such as fluoride and the psychopharmaceuticals people wash down the drain in their urine and feces.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by dubiousone]

reply to post by FortAnthem


They made bank = communism. FYI, the Founding fathers were extremely against sharing anything other than a common culture of freedom. failbanks.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

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!

I guess that's one perspective. However, if you worked at a bank, would you prefer to let every criminal, money launderer, terrorist, and drug pusher just conduct their banking without any questions being asked? I didn't think so.

Well, you sort of jumped the gun there, making an assumption as to what I personally would prefer. Yeah, I don't much care what any of those folks do with their money. Questioning anyone is sort of intrusive, unless, of course, you tend to think of THEIR money as YOUR money. So, to be honest, I DO think they ought to be able to conduct their finances unfettered.

'If you worked at a bank...' - I did that gig for a while, in a security capacity. Never much cared about what folks brought IN to the bank, or where they got it. I was a little more concerned with abrupt withdrawals, if you get my drift.

In fact, banks can play an instrumental role in stopping terrorism, and crime in general by paying attention and reporting highly suspicious behavior. Maybe that intrudes on your sense of entitlement - Fine. Don't put your money in a bank.

Instead of lambasting banks for protecting a community from crime, you should be applauding them.

Naw, they only report it because the Feds require 'em to report large transactions. If it wasn't for that, I don't think I've ever met a banker who would care where the money came from, as long as it kept coming.

I put my money where my mouth is. Well, not literally, but I sure as hell don't put it in banks any more.

Again, I can tell ya that banks don't protect 'the community' from crime, but do an admirable job of covering their own behinds.

This fiat money system is Microsoft's fault now?

No, it was a joke. Take it easy. I am sorry that you have anger and hatred over modern computing systems. Sorry. We can't all live in the stone age anymore. Some of us have actually adapted to the new technologies, and find them more efficient, convenient, and customer-friendly.

Relax. I don't have 'anger and hatred over modern computing systems'. Quite the contrary, that's how I make my own money out of thin air these days. Take a set of basic components, assemble 'em into a machine, and voila! I've just created my own money out of thin air, but being a cheap sort of cuss, I only create about 50 bucks a machine in the deal.

Stone age? You oughtta see the computers I chip out of flint!

Originally posted by Cygnis
I agree, you would think that we would have realized much sooner that we were being robbed, raped, and getting it stuck to us much sooner then now.

Just goes to show how naive we are about how things work.

My question is.. Why are people NOT "up in arms" over this. Yes, you can take "up in arms" as either armed rioting, revolution, to simple pulling their money out of the banks.

It completely eludes me as to why we are taking this lying down.

People are stupid. It is really that simple. I pulled all my money out of the banks back in the early 90's. As a young man, trying to make my way in the world, it seemed like a very obvious scam to me.

Really..think about this...

You take your money and put it into an institution for safe keeping. The Institution you place your money into can then use that money investing, and thus making money off of your money. Do you get a cut of that profit? Of course not!!! The bank keeps it.

Of course I have access to that money that I placed into the bank, however I have to pay the bank to get access to what is rightfully mine to begin with. I write a check, I pay a check fee. I use the ATM, I pay a service charge. Who does that money get paid to? The Bank. So not only do they make money by using my money for their investments, but now if I want to use my own money I have to pay the bank for all the trouble I am causing them by trying to access my own funds.

Bottom Line: It is all a scam that has been used for so long that it seems normal to the average Joe. No one questions why the bank can use your own money to make money and yet not pay, what is in essence, the backer of their investments a single dime from the profits.

About the Video.. I love how the establishment is now going back to the forefathers of our country to make people feel as if it is their duty to place money in the banks. Meanwhile Law Enforcement are taught that these same Forefathers are not Patriots but Terrorist. Seriously, talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can not have it both ways. If the Forefathers are "Terrorist" why would I take their advice about banking? However if they are Patriots, and placing my money in the bank is my duty, why would anyone claim that the Forefathers were the original "Terrorist"?

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
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.

Like many lessor commercial banks and thrifts that went up in flames, IndyMac, WaMu, and Wachovia were all subprime loan originators, both directly and through their operating subsidiaries. WaMu being one of the worst offenders.

Washington Mutual ignored subprime mortgage risks, former insiders tell Senate panel

The subcommittee has blamed Washington Mutual for contributing to the financial crisis by originating a huge volume of risky loans that were sold as mortgage-backed securities and ultimately became toxic. - Full Text

CRL Releases Report "Indymac: What Went Wrong?"

WASHINGTON, D.C. - As IndyMac Bancorp battles questions about its financial stability, a new report from the Center for Responsible Lending provides evidence that IndyMac put itself in a hole by engaging in unsound and abusive lending during the nation's mortgage boom.

In interviews and court documents, 19 former employees describe an atmosphere where the drive to close loans ruled even when IndyMac's own risk experts recommended against approvals. Most of the ex-employees who provided information for this report were mortgage underwriters who were supposed to be making sure borrowers could afford the deals. They say their efforts to do their jobs were hamstrung by higher-ups.

"I would reject a loan and the insanity would begin," one former underwriter told CRL. "It would go to upper management and the next thing you know it's going to closing. . . . I'm like, 'What the Sam Hill? There's nothing in there to support this loan.' "

"CRL's investigation provides a body of evidence that discredits the idea that IndyMac and other lenders were victims of overreaching borrowers or rogue mortgage brokers," says Michael Hudson, the report's primary author and a senior investigator at CRL. "IndyMac's current problems appear to be largely the legacy of top-down pressures that valued short-term growth over making responsible lending decisions. These are the kinds of actions that have produced record-breaking foreclosures and weakened our entire economy. Lenders engaged in reckless lending and, unfortunately, the entire country is paying for their actions now." - Full Text

reply to post by CookieMonster09

I guess that's one perspective. However, if you worked at a bank, would you prefer to let every criminal, money launderer, terrorist, and drug pusher just conduct their banking without any questions being asked? I didn't think so.

In fact, banks can play an instrumental role in stopping terrorism, and crime in general by paying attention and reporting highly suspicious behavior. Maybe that intrudes on your sense of entitlement - Fine. Don't put your money in a bank.

Instead of lambasting banks for protecting a community from crime, you should be applauding them.

I have read this thread in its entirety. I believed the points that you made throughout were logical and decided the banking systems made sense.

Then I read what I quoted above. Now, the only logical conclusion that I come to is that you are an active participant in the banking industry.

It seems to me that you think that anyone who makes what a bank would call a suspicious transaction is classified as a criminal. If a bank is in business to make a profit, as you claim, they should not care how their customer earns their income. The bank would simply deposit the customers money and use it as you describe to make profit for the business.

Are banks a branch of the Law Enforcement agencies or part of National Security? It seems to me from what you stated that yes, they are. If a person does not conform to a banks policies, they are suspect. That is extremely revealing.

I cannot fathom why a bank would find any kind of transaction questionable if they are only in business to make a profit. That would mean that the banks have a vested interest in something other than simply profit. I can only speculate as to what that interest is.

Look at that! Not only does banking equal good citizenship, banking also equals protecting the community from criminals! Amazing. Unbelievable....

Banking is parasitism. They create nothing of value. They live off the value that others create.

Pushing numbers around on paper or computers, they deal in smoke and mirrors and sleight-of-hand to make it all look legitimate, but at the end of the day they haven't built one road, school, car, they haven't fed one person, they haven't taught anyone anything but they end up telling us what to do and what to fork over that we worked so hard to create.

Any way you cut it, they look like mosquitoes, tapeworms, ticks, and leeches to me.

reply to post by 30_seconds


Unfortunately I think you're right. But I don't want to keep my money under the mattress, you know? I like the little plastic debit card I carry now, rather than a check book.

I don't like banks either, but for the moment we don't have a viable alternative. And if you want to buy a house...well.

But the more I learn about Banks, the more I despise them.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by 30_seconds

 

I don't like banks either, but for the moment we don't have a viable alternative. And if you want to buy a house...well.

But the more I learn about Banks, the more I despise them.

The reason for the whole financial collapse is that all of the easy credit offered by the banks artificially inflated the price of homes way above their actual value. The housing market was bound to come crashing down.

The bankers want us to believe that there is no way we could afford a house or a car if it weren't for them. This is a lie.

Without bank-loans, home and car prices would be forced to drop to what the market could bear. Builders would be forced to build more modest homes real people could actually afford (bye bye McMansions). People would have to save up their money to afford them but, once they bought the home or car, it would be theirs, not the banks.

Other options for those who don't have the savings on hand are leasing cars and rent-to-own for housing.


The world wouldn't suddenly stop spinning if the banks were gone tomorrow.






Edit to add: Without banks and fractional reserve banking, it would actually make sense to save your money.

Without the banks inflating the currency, your money would hold it's value and you wouldn't need to earn interest or risk it in investments just to keep up with the loss of value caused by inflation.



[edit on 5/15/10 by FortAnthem]

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
Maybe when you get out of kindergarten, we can have an adult conversation like two normal human beings.

My posts have been pretty straightforward. I just don't buy into your hatred, venom, anger, and immaturity.

Why not try to make your point using logic, reason, and evidence? You don't need to sound like a raving-mad emotional lunatic to make your point.

*SIGH* I already read the entire damm thread before replying and I read your posts too! People are trying to explain the obvious and you keep derailing the topic with your ignorance.

What can anyone possibly discuss with biased, pre-conceived minds? If I want mainstream news all I have to do is turn on CNN, BBC or FOX. ATS is reknown for ALTERNATIVE NEWS!

Like many lessor commercial banks and thrifts that went up in flames, IndyMac, WaMu, and Wachovia were all subprime loan originators, both directly and through their operating subsidiaries. WaMu being one of the worst offenders.

Agreed. Wachovia, however, bought a sub-prime lender in California, which was their main downfall.

Banks that make reckless lending decisions typically go bankrupt. This is nothing new. In fact, this is being played out every Friday when the FDIC shuts down banks that have overextended themselves with their overzealous lending practices during the boom years.

Clearly, IndyMac and WaMu made some moronic blunders when it came to their lending decisions. I am glad the FDIC shut them down.

It seems to me that you think that anyone who makes what a bank would call a suspicious transaction is classified as a criminal.

If you have ever worked in a bank, you can detect suspicious behavior. Someone that withdraws $15,000 in a single teller transaction, acts with evasiveness and hesitation, etc. is going to raise suspicion.

If a bank is in business to make a profit, as you claim, they should not care how their customer earns their income. The bank would simply deposit the customers money and use it as you describe to make profit for the business.

So, if I catch a terrorist money laundering through my bank, you are saying that it would be more appropriate, because I am in the banking business to make a profit, that I should just ignore this criminal behavior?

Huh?

It is public information that banks work hand in hand to stop terrorism, by identifying suspicious banking practices that raise red warning flags. This is nothing new, and has been public information for quite some time.

Does that mean that every person that does something suspicious is a criminal? Of course not. However, there are tell-tale signs of criminals using banks for nefarious purposes, such as money-laundering. It is the bank's responsibility to report this suspicious activity.

Are banks a branch of the Law Enforcement agencies or part of National Security? It seems to me from what you stated that yes, they are. If a person does not conform to a banks policies, they are suspect. That is extremely revealing.

Banks aren't in the law enforcement business. They are in business to make money, like any other legitimate business.

Given the nature of banking, banks have to be very careful about who they do business with. Because banks deal with cash and money, they have to take defensive and protective measures to defend themselves from fraud, theft, money laundering, etc.

If you see a terrorist holding a bomb outside of a movie theater, do you have a responsibility to report this suspicious activity to the police or not? Do you just turn a blind eye?

Of course not. It's no different in banking. If you have clear and irrefutable evidence that a customer is engaged in illicit activities - such as identity theft, money laundering, terrorist activities, etc. - you have an obligation to report such activity to the authorities. That's common sense.

And, banks do have the software, technology, and specialized staff on hand to detect fraudulent and suspicious activity. Are they 100% dead on correct in identifying criminal activities? No, because they are human beings, subject to mistakes like anyone else. Their primary responsibility is to protect the bank from losses, and secondarily, to report criminal activities to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Banking is parasitism. They create nothing of value. They live off the value that others create.

Obviously, you don't own a business. If you did, you wouldn't state such nonsense. Any good businessperson knows that having a good working relationship with a trusted business banker is paramount to having a successful company.

Banks supply the capital for businesses to grow, expand, hire more people, buy equipment and technology, purchase land and buildings, etc. They work in partnership with business owners. Ask any successful businessperson, and they will tell you that having a good working relationship with a bank is critical to their long-term success.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Just curious, What is your relationship with banking?

*SIGH* I already read the entire damm thread before replying and I read your posts too! People are trying to explain the obvious and you keep derailing the topic with your ignorance.

This is a discussion forum, open to debate and discussion. Just because you disagree with my counterpoints, does not make me ignorant. It does, however, make you appear close-minded and rude when you resort to insults instead of dialogue.

I just don't buy your conspiracy theories about banking. They are utter nonsense, derived from a few silly web videos, some out-of-context quotes from dead senators 100 years ago, and a single conspiracy book about Jekyll Island.

All of which are utter and pure gobbley-goop nonsense.

This forum is not a thought dictatorship where everyone has to buy your line of baloney just because you say so. Sorry. That's not how this works.

What can anyone possibly discuss with biased, pre-conceived minds?

Like I said, when you graduate from kindergarten, let me know. Maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Just curious, What is your relationship with banking?

How do you mean exactly? Are you asking me to divulge personal information on a public forum?