IMF's epic plan to conjure away debt and dethrone bankers

reply to post by phroziac


You would be homeless or you would assimilate.

Unless you have no debt and you earn off the grid owning your own land, then where else is there to go.

Even then you still must trade to survive.

reply to post by magma


This analysis seems to suggest it would be the IMF or the central banks that would essentially lend out (or print) money to initially pay off all the debt, before switching to government backed money, which in turn would get paid back to the banks? Or am I misreading this?

The authors envisage converting from fractional to full reserve essentially by having the central bank print some truly astronomic quantities of new money, and pay off all the country’s debtors. And when I say “astronomic” I mean something like 200% of GDP: which makes QE look like extremely small damp squib.

ralphanomics.blogspot.ca...

am I understanding this right??
the mortgage debt would be forgiven, although we'd still have to pay the interest (the interest on most mortgages equate to about the value of the home, do they mean all of it??? and yet, the assett, the home is taken from them, and replaced with pieces of paper that probably aren't worth much more than the paper they are printed on???

huh??????

Originally posted by soulshn


Another very interesting piece coming out of the mainstream British media. Like the author, however, i am undecided on wether this would be a viable solution; as badly as the private banks have run our economy into the ground i have little hope that turning the reigns over to just-as-corrupt governments would prove any better.

None the less it is refreshing to see the bankers being called out on exactly what their 'fractional reserve system' equates to: money "ex nihilo".

www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

The author is a well known, and not mainstream in his ideology, eurosceptic.

Trust him as a "journalist" at your own peril.

Trust his statements and predictions as accurate doubly so.

ipezone.blogspot.ie...

reply to post by boncho


Who holds the security?
Assuming IMF lends money to countries and each country has a limit and that limit must be calculated by GDP which then becomes asset backed.

Does the country that borrows the new money get a free ride?

The proposal could have merit if it was presented in an easy way to understand. The reality remains it is a very complex reality that could be simplified.

I can feel a certain strategy and some sort of direction is affecting human rationality.

A change is needed, It needs to be realistic.

IMF proposal means another layer is added "0n the top"

Originally posted by dawnstar
am I understanding this right??
the mortgage debt would be forgiven, although we'd still have to pay the interest (the interest on most mortgages equate to about the value of the home, do they mean all of it??? and yet, the assett, the home is taken from them, and replaced with pieces of paper that probably aren't worth much more than the paper they are printed on???

huh??????

That is it

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by phroziac

 

You would be homeless or you would assimilate.

Unless you have no debt and you earn off the grid owning your own land, then where else is there to go.

Even then you still must trade to survive.

Why should i rely on the government? You know they dont need a search warrant if they own it right?

Now i have to say....i dont believe in for profit utilities. My water and sewer are provided by the city. Electricity by "indiana and michigan electric power", a something of "american electric power inc". Hell one of our nuke plants is owned by a company in louisiana. And these nuke plants dont provide us with any power.

Why cant power be a coop?

reply to post by soulshn

Fractional reserve banking is a major threat. Only problem is that the IMF is yet another Rothschild owned and run central bank so why would they suggest something which would hurt the banking dynasty?

Compartmentalization? Sincere attempt at a solution by a clueless underling?

The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money -- roughly 97pc of the money supply -- with state-created money.

Actually, the private banks receive the deposits from the Federal Reserve, another private bank. Libya had a state owned bank, but not anymore: Libya all about oil, or central banking?

The US Federal Reserve would take real control over the money supply for the first time, making it easier to manage inflation.

What a shock, the "Federal Reserve" would have MORE power. Correction, they already control the money supply and inflation. But nice try.

The IMF, like every other central bank, is a failure:

Of the 89 less developed countries that received IMF loans between 1965 and 1995, 48 are no better off economically today than they were before receiving IMF loans;

Of these 48 countries, 32 are poorer than they were before receiving IMF loans; and

Of these 32 countries, 14 have economies that are at least 15 percent smaller than when they received their first IMF loans.

www.heritage.org...

Its time the debt based monetary system be scrapped. Scrap the "Federal Reserve", the Bank of England, the ECB and the rest of them.

Bye bye Rothschilds.

*waves*

reply to post by phroziac


It already is.

Carbon credits become the commodity and form part of the security.

reply to post by magma


so, I would be still paying my mortgage in essence, since most of that payment is for the interest on the loan....
but the central bank would own the title to the home (which they probably m ight as well, since mers messed up the property rights to most of the homes anyways..) and will probably be charging me rent???
I have to be missing something here, maybe once they wipe out the principle, no interest is charged or something, in which case, heck, I am kind of in the you broke it you own it kind of mood anyways...you take the home, I don't owe you any money!!!

although, most businesses owe a pretty big sum of debt, as well as the individuals...
it would give the gov't or central bank, imf someone a lot of power not only to dictate how businesses are run, but how we run our lives...

sometimes I t hink it is good that they consider some of us useless eaters, I don't really think I am gonna want to live in the world they are creating anyways...

have they've prosecuted anyone big in the banking industry,, real estate industry, aig, ect for the fraud that was committed yet???

reply to post by dawnstar



Yes. You pay interest on the original loan. The principle ( original purchase price or perceived value) is 'forgiven' in exchange for the security (the property or asset) Most likely at a blanket valuation

I can not see how one would ever own the home though because it is then transferred to the lender and then reassigned. So one never owns anything in essence.

All it really means is that everyone who has debt, does a deal with their provider and surrenders equity in exchange for forgiveness of the original debt.

In this case the rich get richer and the poor can never get rich. But also to consider the rich now have a new set of rules

I wonder how unsecured debt will be treated.

reply to post by magma
I don't see how anyone could ever own homes since the banks would have limited lending power and the people would be stuck paying interests on debts that have been cleared and the assetts that were backing those debts handed over to another....
the values of those homes and apartments would have to decrease alot for the people to aquire them, or else the wages the people can earn would have to increase a heck of alot....

unless, once the principle is absolved, there is no interest, since their is no principle...
that would be acceptable in my opinion and might even be the best solution, since in many cases, they destroyed the notes that attached the real estate to the mortgage, and commence to hack them to peices and sell them around the globe, with mers as the only viable way to track the ownership of those now non-existant notes.

like I said, they broke it they've bought it, I have no problem walking away from the mortgage, the home, but I am not gonna end up owing anything afterwards.

reply to post by dawnstar

but I am not gonna end up owing anything afterwards.

Not exactly.

There will be some sort of arrangement, of which I have no clue.

reply to post by boncho


Another interesting quote from that article:

As they say on p.7 “the principal of all bank loans to the government (20% of GDP), and of all bank loans to the private sector except investment loans (100% of GDP), is cancelled against treasury credit.”

When they say "is cancelled against treasury credit", I assume what that means in simple terms is that the debt will be paid off with new currency issued by the central bank. Keep in mind they call it credit, because in reality Federal Reserve Notes are backed by Government debt... so when the banks accept this payment they rely on the trust and stability of the Government issuing those notes, which keep in mind are created as easily as a few key strokes, we don't even need to print new money on paper anymore.

Now it may sound like a some what decent idea on the surface... all these indebted folk in the private sector will have their debts paid off and that is likely to have some positive effective on the growth and success of those business. However, there are many other factors which will negate those positive effects, many of which have already been mentioned in this thread, some of which will include huge levels of inflation and it will become harder to get a loan. But there's another more important outcome which we need to consider carefully.

So... the Government creates a whole bunch of new money and pays off all this debt and then I assume they make fractional reserve banking illegal? If I'm right so far, which I have no idea if I am, then what we have here is a massive instant payout to the banks. It eliminates the risk of default and they don't have to wait for their debtors to pay them back. Everything that was owed to them (which they created out of thin air via fractional reserve banking) can now be paid to them in one easy payment from the central bank with money which they also created out of thin air. I think now I can see why the IMF would promote something like this.

reply to post by soulshn


Sadly this has nothing to do with the littler guy and more of another great "idea" concocted by the elite banking to clear themselves of the debt that they have accumulated while screwing nations and their populations

Actually this will put them at the top economically once again, when they erased their own debt.

Still the debt has to go somewhere, we are now as tax payer bailing this corrupted entities out, so now that is not more to be milked the debt has to go somewhere else, so why not erasing it just for those on the top, we the consumer and tax payer still have to keep paying for their mistakes while the bankers get a clean start.

reply to post by marg6043

another great "idea" concocted by the elite banking to clear themselves of the debt that they have accumulated while screwing nations and their populations

Exactly... they want to have their liabilities (debt) paid off instantly... but remember, that debt was in fact created mostly through the act of fractional reserve banking, so it's more like "fake debt"... they don't truly have the reserve to issue the loans they hand out. So when those debts get paid off, they are receiving real payment for debts which they created out of thin air. By having all these debts instantly paid off by the Government it's like having all that fake debt instantly become real secure assets for them which are no longer liabilities.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


It is not fake debt it is real debt, which has to end up somewhere.


It has to end up somewhere in the assets

(A) "Fractional Reserve Lending/Banking" is not a threat. It is a scheme. A racket. And it is the foundation upon which virtually every nation on the planet has been feeding the banking cartel - whose entitlement to the "wealth" seems as unchallengeable as the supremacy of King George during the American rebellion/insurgency/revolution.

(B) Fractional reserve lending is the 'economist' rationalization for gambling; which they call "speculating." Everything is based upon a likelihood that owners of wealth will not access it - while it's "held in a bank." It's all about "likelihoods," "opportunities," and "windows" when the bankers can make use of other people's wealth.

(C) Fractional reserve lending engendered the creation and empowerment of the investment class which overran the political systems of the world. It is one reason why we often hear the ridiculous meme: "A leader has to be a good businessman." Such a moronic assertion is at the heart of the mind-game and "new-speak" crafted by the manufacturers of consent. With it they "overlook" rather than "oversee" the actions of those with a monopoly on monetary policy; as they collude with those with control over fiscal policy...and they both get obscenely wealthy.

On the presumption that this was/is a legitimate aim of consideration for the IMF; we might conclude that we now know why the banking cartel has behaved as it had for the last century. They were squeezing the radish dry... before the transnational racketeering scam led to it's inevitable exposure. Further, the IMF, World bank, and the International bank of Settlements (the heart of the beast) have made healthy economic functioning and a free market a practical impossibility. Therefore any movement away from the underlying racket will require global coordination. Empowering them, and their Priests of Economic theology once again.

Such a plan as is proposed here 'could' be epic. But it won't be for the "human resource" who actually produces or serves. It's not focused on that... hence the toxic economic culture that prevails in most of the world.

reply to post by magma


Obviously you didn't understand what I was saying. It is "fake debt" in the sense that the banks don't really have the reserves to back the loans they hand out (thanks to fractional reserve banking). When they receive payment back on those loans they are essentially receiving money for a debt which was never based on anything real, it was merely made real by the banks after they changed a few numbers on their computers.

Correct me if i`m wrong here but arent the IMF one of the problems in Europe ? i`ve never considered them to be legitimate , and i dont recognise them or thier " authority ".