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

the only thing real is the tangible assetts, like real estate...

wonder how they are gonna deal with something as intangible as the student loan debt??
the assett was knowledge, education......
the assett would be the mind of the person....
ummm...what, do they turn over the people as the assetts...

not joking here...most of the companies are in debt up to their ears, most of the people...
the land is an assett worth having, so isn't the workforce. it wasn't that long ago that they had debtors prisons and slavery was a good way to make a person pay back a debt...

Originally posted by lewman
I somehow doubt the evils of this world are out to help the little guy. Maybe they can wipe the debt of these prosperous nations, meaning stronger economy's and higher debts for third world nations to pay back or have all their crops seized by the imf causing mass famine.

Seems like an easy way to keep undeveloped nations as undeveloped nations imo.

There is a simpler way, forgive all debts and start again. As far as your undeveloped nations comment, there is no point in giving money to nations were it ends up in a despots pocket, Mugabe is just one example of this kind of greed.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by dawnstar


Well, if you will allow me to wax conspiratorial...

Maybe all those curious so-called "FEMA" camps are the debtor prisons of tomorrow.

Insofar as the globalization of the economy (and the accelerating decay of national and personal sovereignty,) it may be that the US (at least) posed a very difficult nut to crack. As a people, we tend to adhere to a general sense of individual empowerment (illusory or not.)

It will be difficult to envision how a nation whose genesis was the rejection of the notion of "debtor's" prisons and financial subjugation by economic royalty could possibly surrender what little personal sovereignty they have.

The loss of national sovereignty is clearly a long-term plan that started decades ago, and can be effected by any nation under external economic control (like a any central bank's monetary policy monopoly.) Our representatives have not resisted this (generally speaking) - as it was in their own best interest.

But citizens will resist being told that "the rules are changing" and now you are subject to a set of conditions established by a profit-making enterprise. Of course when Madison Avenue is fully engaged in manufacturing consent this will be shown in a completely different light.

reply to post by magma


Actually I think the misunderstanding was that I was talking about money owed to the bank. I should have stated that more clearly, so I was saying the debt held by the mortgage holder is not legitimate because the bank didn't really have the money to begin with. This is actually a very old conspiracy and some people have even taken banks to court using this argument. That's why what you said wasn't exactly right, because it's not a move to pay off all their debt, it's a move to have all their liabilities paid off (money they've loaned out). The large banks are already have high profit levels and they don't need to pay off any large sums of debt. But they will go into debt if a lot of people default on their loans... that is why it's beneficial for them to have a lot of the principles on those loans paid off by the Government.

Here comes the NWO Global Banking / Money scheme..Trading their Fiat Paper for your Sovereignty.

Originally posted by soulshn
reply to post by BlindBastards

 

Yes, there would be pullbacks, but there must. The current fractional reserve system is dependant on perpetual exponential growth, something that is obviously unsustainable.

When money is de-facto created as debt there will never be enough money to pay the debt. Every time the central banks lend $100 to the government they have created $100.50 in debt. We are only digging ourselves deeper and deeper with no end in sight.

edit on 10/22/12 by soulshn because: (no reason given)

Wow someone actually gets it. Every debt based dollar they print just serves to shrink the pool of total wealth. Simple math is a reason why a fractional reserve, debt based money system never has and never will work over the long term.

Just so you all know, they are talking about reducing Sovereign debt and not consumer debt. Another plan will have to be hatched to fix that one. Under such a system it would be possible though. The Gov would be able to print the money needed for the consumers to pay off their debt and that act alone would probably be sufficient to reinflate the economy.

Our issues are fixable, just not in the current paradigm.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

Just so you all know, they are talking about reducing Sovereign debt and not consumer debt.

I just read the Telegraph article and I understand their plan a little bit better now. It's not just a plan to reduce Government debt, but it seems the main focus is to reduce Government debt. They explain it in these paragraphs:

The benign side-effect of their proposals would be a switch from national debt to national surplus, as if by magic. "Because under the Chicago Plan banks have to borrow reserves from the treasury to fully back liabilities, the government acquires a very large asset vis-à-vis banks. Our analysis finds that the government is left with a much lower, in fact negative, net debt burden."

The IMF paper says total liabilities of the US financial system - including shadow banking - are about 200pc of GDP. The new reserve rule would create a windfall. This would be used for a "potentially a very large, buy-back of private debt", perhaps 100pc of GDP.

However this seems to assume banks will need to borrow reserves from the treasury... which they most likely will if a lot of their liabilities aren't repaid before they are forced to fully back those liabilities. My initial misunderstanding was thinking that the Government would pay off a lot of those liabilities before enacting these new rules, which doesn't seem to be the case... in fact they want the banks to borrow reserves from the treasury. Then it seems they claim they would use some of the profit generated from that. And that's where the private sector would benefit by having their debt reduced.

reply to post by soulshn


When we consider what is "good and bad" we have to consider our considerations.

For example.. would a 100pc reserve banking system work within our own system? No .. the entire system would systematically collapse overnight. The authors belief that it would not is completely false (and I'd be shocked to find they even really believe what they said)

But if we collapse the system and rebuild under a state run currency system would it work? Absolutely! It would be a system that favors the working classes more so than the rich..

The problem for society however is that most people do not know anything about economics, and the vast majority of people think banking is actually based on deposits (haha.....) so you tell them the system needs changing and they have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by lewman
I somehow doubt the evils of this world are out to help the little guy. Maybe they can wipe the debt of these prosperous nations, meaning stronger economy's and higher debts for third world nations to pay back or have all their crops seized by the imf causing mass famine.

Seems like an easy way to keep undeveloped nations as undeveloped nations imo.

While they don't care for the little guy, they depend on him; an impoverished nation can't afford an army powerful enough to police the world and enact a global agenda. If the country collapses, so do the revenues of many wealthy people.

Originally posted by magma
So what is the outcome for somebody who has a house mortage that they will repay over the next 20 years?

you will have to repay the mortgage IMMEDIATELY and in full because that "money" will "no longer exist" any more.

Will assets be revalued to suit the plan?

no - just foreclosed.

There would be instant massive deflation - you would not be able to get a loan for anything - any company with an operating overdraft would be out of business instantly.

reply to post by soulshn


Dear soulshn,

As I read your thread I saw a number of people wondered about mortgages and kept talking about the banks. The government and not the banks own 80% of all mortgages (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the Federal Reserve has been buying the rest at $40 billion a month. Those mortgages which were seen as a horrible debt now become a government asset that can back the new currency.

The other aspect of this issue that is fascinating is that you would no longer have private lending. It should also be noted that in order for the IMF scheme to work, you have to have international agreement on a level. All the countries get rid of their international debt by hyper-inflating in a coordinated effort. A nations wealth will be based on it's GDP which is nothing more than a combination of your labor value and your resources and ability to deliver goods. It becomes an international currency because all currencies end up being pegged to the same thing. It will also make it easier to do the next step which is all electronic currencies.

There is a simple solution to all this banking fiasco...Don't borrow money.
I never have...the idea of paying interest always disgusted me...plus the concept of being in debt repulses me.
The only other way to do things is to live within your means...that means you have to live a very "ordinary life" and do your very best to save every penny...until you have enough to invest in a business or a plan to get out of the trap.
But borrowing is only condemning yourself permanently.

another great way to stop all the bs is get rid of lobbyist, make a law that banks cant charge more than 1% of what the bank lending to you got the money for, and make another law that no percent can go over 5%.

but i think the best law to be passed, D E A T H (under treason) for manipulation of markets.......BAM 99% of the banking industry would quit the next day.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Can't work, won;t work.

People will not allow this to happen.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Actually I think the misunderstanding was that I was talking about money owed to the bank. I should have stated that more clearly, so I was saying the debt held by the mortgage holder is not legitimate because the bank didn't really have the money to begin with. This is actually a very old conspiracy and some people have even taken banks to court using this argument. That's why what you said wasn't exactly right, because it's not a move to pay off all their debt, it's a move to have all their liabilities paid off (money they've loaned out). The large banks are already have high profit levels and they don't need to pay off any large sums of debt. But they will go into debt if a lot of people default on their loans... that is why it's beneficial for them to have a lot of the principles on those loans paid off by the Government

Except it is bound by a contract, which is mutually binding,

I need to look at this differently because I think I am missing something somewhere. Thanks

Originally posted by TheBlackHat
There is a simple solution to all this banking fiasco...Don't borrow money.

Yep.

Save up until you ahev enough to set up in business, for example.

Never mind that it will take you 20 years longer, and that means 20 years you are poorer and you are not employing anyone.....

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TheBlackHat
There is a simple solution to all this banking fiasco...Don't borrow money.

Yep.

Save up until you ahev enough to set up in business, for example.

Never mind that it will take you 20 years longer, and that means 20 years you are poorer and you are not employing anyone.....

edit on 22-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

yes...correct...or you could continue the current model..of living on credit... having a few boom years...then having a massive economic collapse because you couldn't pay back all the money you borrowed in the first place...
Nobody want s to take the slow lane in life...i get it...but look where the fast land takes you..straight into a brick wall at 100 mph.

However this seems to assume banks will need to borrow reserves from the treasury... which they most likely will if a lot of their liabilities aren't repaid before they are forced to fully back those liabilities. My initial misunderstanding was thinking that the Government would pay off a lot of those liabilities before enacting these new rules, which doesn't seem to be the case... in fact they want the banks to borrow reserves from the treasury. Then it seems they claim they would use some of the profit generated from that. And that's where the private sector would benefit by having their debt reduced.

edit on 22/10/2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Perhaps they mean the banks would be able to lend 100% of assets, and then use the Treasury as their "reserve" in periods of instability and such?

It seems a bit construed. We should print money with no debt attached and pay off the current debts with it. Eliminate the leverage involved in the money system and such "money printing" will simply keep us at an equilibrium.

For those that don't understand, by removing the banks ability to create money through credit , and the Fed Reserve ability to through debt (actually shrinks real money supply), you would be eliminating a bunch of zeros on both sides of all the financial related firms balance sheets. Instead of reporting 9 billion in assets and 8 billion in liabilities, it would be reduced to something like 900 million in assets and 800 million in liabilities. Reduces capital from $1 billion to $100 million. This would mean 10 times less money in the economy and deflation that would boggle the mind. We would go back to the days of a $.25 loaf of bread. thats why I say they can just print the money, Pay off all the debts, and let us start over with money backed by governments and not quasi central banks.

The next step would be to eliminate federal income taxes. With the governments able to print their own money, they could be self funding. Again not inflationary because an expanding economy means the need for more money and since the banks won't be allowed to create it any longer it makes sense for the government to do it.

Mechanisms would have to be put in place to limit spending to things that actually improve the country's well being if it was going to work. I think in a different monetary paradigm we could come together to reach that objective.

Anyone who tries to fix the problem of debt and monetary issues with the same instruments and vices that got us IN to this mess, I'm very deeply suspicious of. They're made artificially confusing (think credit default swap or mortgage backed securities, if that one's not enough how about a collateralized debt obligation) so that we're all kept in the dark.

It's a very simple method - it's called fraud, fraud, fraud. (bankers thoughts) "We're to set prices and direct the markets, but we have to be careful that thems there filthy proles don't catch onto our game. Money doesn't grow on trees, it's created by my computer obviously. Imagine the people ever realised we're going to steal all their assets from them with an illusion to pay them!"

Jesus warned us about bankers and we should of listened then, then Andrew Jackson did the same, so did Jefferson and various other historical figures. We never learn and we ALWAYS get burned. Material wealth equates moral decline.