Calling The Federal Reserve

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony: Are you kidding?? Again, you have things all mixed up!

The Bank of Canada is far better than The Fed for controlling inflation.

That may be so, but the point of this thread was about allowing private bankers to collect massive profits by creating money for nothing.

Whether the bank of Canada distates interest rates is not really very relevant. The relevancy is that the private banks get to create all that money.

I do not think that your fear of Builderbergs or CFR (whatever that is?!?) is warranted in Canada

So you don't fear the North American Union ? You don't think that whatever happens down there affects us in a strong way ? CFR stands for Council On Foreign Relations and it is chaired and was formed by David Rockefeller. Many people say it is our real government.

- you referred to a 40 minute video

- I watched your 40 minute video

- the video did NOT support your argument (although it was a good video)

- you said your reference to the video was ONLY to support the gold standard

- after I ask you to defend the inherent instability of the gold standard

- you now say you do not support the gold standard

My point was never to endorse the gold standard - there are many problems associated with this too. Again, the point of the thread was to illustrate the power private banks have over us.

I dis not get any particular ideas from the Von Mises Institute video - it again just points out the power they have over us. I have read many books on banking and seen all the videos to be sure that I can confidently say what I am saying.

I am not qualified to get into a debate about the particulars of monetary policy - I have only met a few people in my life who were qualified.

One does not have to know exactly how a nuclear bomb operates when you know what it does. This discussion is like me telling you nukes can destroy cities and giving you evidence and you comming back and debating the particular types of bombs and their inherent design features and benefits.

I do not care.

Your argument is like saying Bill Gates controls the type of computer operating systems that are most popular.

or

Elvis Presley (or Michael Jackson) controls the standard by which we judge good Rock And Roll (Or Pop) music.

or

The teachers' unions control how much of our youth is wasted staring at blackboards and taking things for granted and becoming submissive fools.

or

The person walking down the street and buying a poutine from the chip-wagon controls the livelihood of the fry-guy.

Big deal! Rich people do rich things and that includes sponsoring research. Of course they have biases and they want to make more money.

If Bill Gates sat on a board that controlled all computer software he would determine what you get.

If Michael Jackson was the sole music artist he would determine what you hear.

Cancer clinics used to be independently owned - you don't mind when one person owns everything to do with one industry ? You do, like JD Rockefeller think that (quote) "competition is a sin".

If one person owned rights to all the TV stations and news outlets you would not feel threatened by this?

[Charles Anthony]

So you don't fear the North American Union ?

No more than I fear my own government.

My point was never to endorse the gold standard - there are many problems associated with this too. Again, the point of the thread was to illustrate the power private banks have over us.

If you do not want the banks to exert power over you, do not use them.

One does not have to know exactly how a nuclear bomb operates when you know what it does. This discussion is like me telling you nukes can destroy cities and giving you evidence and you comming back and debating the particular types of bombs and their inherent design features and benefits.

No. This discussion is like you telling me that the sky is falling and that the "government" has to catch it.

You do, like JD Rockefeller think that (quote) "competition is a sin".

No, I do not think competition is a sin. I do not think that a government should dictate who owns what.

If one person owned rights to all the TV stations and news outlets you would not feel threatened by this?

No. I would not feel more threatened than I do now -- which is not much.

You just want a "government" that controls everything. I do not trust government bureaucrats to do anything reliable.

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony: No. This discussion is like you telling me that the sky is falling and that the "government" has to catch it.

Thats actually true. You could not have put it better.

The US monetary system will crash - its just a matter of when. Anyone can see the national debt cannot grow for an infinite time. Eventually the USA will owe almost all of its economic output directly to the private bankers and bond holders. Its a mathematical fact that the economy will crash at some point. That process seems to be accelerating right now.

The only thing that can stop it is monetary reform.

[White Doors]

Charles Anthony: No. This discussion is like you telling me that the sky is falling and that the "government" has to catch it.

Thats actually true. You could not have put it better.

The US monetary system will crash - its just a matter of when. Anyone can see the national debt cannot grow for an infinite time. Eventually the USA will owe almost all of its economic output directly to the private bankers and bond holders. Its a mathematical fact that the economy will crash at some point. That process seems to be accelerating right now.

The only thing that can stop it is monetary reform.

And Polynewby! Stay clear of those FEMA death camps POLY so you can rescue us sheep when the time is right.

[PolyNewbie]

No one is going to save you from this - not me and there is no fairy riding around on a white horse that will do it either. People just died in Germany, Russia & China when they did this but They wouldn't do it to Us would they ?

[Canadian Blue]

No one is going to save you from this - not me and there is no fairy riding around on a white horse that will do it either. People just died in Germany, Russia & China when they did this but They wouldn't do it to Us would they ?

They were fascist and communist regimes. Listen PN if we lived in a fascist regime do you think they would allow videos about concentration camps. We actaully live in a democratic society, and yes you do have the freedom to BS as much as you want on here. As well I think me and armyguy would know about the concentration camps if they were happening. Not to mention hundreds of other government employees who would blow the whistle if this were to occur.

[PolyNewbie]

Canadian Blue: They were fascist and communist regimes. Listen PN if we lived in a fascist regime do you think they would allow videos about concentration camps

I hope you are not talking about the USA. As a matter of fact the USA is now a totalitarian fascist regime. If you don't believe me look up HR 6166 yourself.

They no longer allow anyone near these camps.

As well I think me and armyguy would know about the concentration camps if they were happening.

How is that ? Do you think they would openly brag about it so everyone in the army knows that they plan to destroy freedom and execute citizens ?

[Canadian Blue]

QUOTE

As well I think me and armyguy would know about the concentration camps if they were happening.

How is that ? Do you think they would openly brag about it so everyone in the army knows that they plan to destroy freedom and execute citizens ?

Well they'd would need troops to go along with it, especially if they need personel and support at these "camps".

I hope you are not talking about the USA. As a matter of fact the USA is now a totalitarian fascist regime. If you don't believe me look up HR 6166 yourself.

A totalitarian regime which has just democratically elected a democratic majority to both houses who would oppose many of the policies of the current administration. Which includes the use of torture which John McCain had opposed.

I looked up HR 6166 myself, I wasn't too distressed by it. I don't think it mean's were living in a fascist totalitarian regime. Hell Canada's had much worse then that, remember the October Crisis.

[PolyNewbie]

Canadian Blue: A totalitarian regime which has just democratically elected a democratic majority to both houses who would oppose many of the policies of the current administration. Which includes the use of torture which John McCain had opposed.

HR 6166 and the Patriot act are not being opposed. America is not a free country. You can be imprisoned indefinetly without trial and tortured.

[Canadian Blue]

I believe several politicians, and many people have voiced opposition to the Patriot Act. Yet these people haven't been sent off to deathcamps yet.

[PolyNewbie]

No but planes get blown up, presidents get assasinated and the Patriot Act was signed.

Check this out: http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...le&sid=2253

MacDonalds plane was shot down by the Rusians in 1979 when it flew over some of their top secret area.

McDonald did everything in his power to warn the American public. However, as usual, the attempt was to no avail. He stated unequivocally, that the Rockefeller intended to control "--first our own country, and then the world!" He went on to state. "Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, yes I do. I am convinced there is a plot, national and international."

Kennedy was assasinated after signing in Executive Order 1110 and that has not been repealed. It has not been enacted. That executive order would allow the government to print its own debt free currency rather than borrow it from private bankers at face value.

****************

From http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...le&sid=2253

On February 17, 1950, CFR member James Warburg (banker, and architect of the Federal Reserve System) stated before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "We shall have one world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Again, the media remained silent. In the April 1974 issue of the CFR journal, "Foreign Affairs", page 558, Richard Gardener states that the new world order "will be built... but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault."

Larry Macdonald was "was not only a 5-term U.S. Congressman, Democrat, from Georgia's 7th district, but that he was simultaneously Chairman of the John Birch Society and President of Western Goals Foundation. What Mr. Rather also did not say--never will say--is, that Dr. McDonald (he was a Board certified physician, an M.D., with flight surgeon experience aboard Airforce 2, the Vice President's craft) had announced that he would run for the Presidency of the United States in 1988, fact confirmed by McDonald's trusted advisor and former OSS agent Hilaire duBerrier and by officials at John Birch Society's headquarters and also via associates of Dr. McDonald, through his Western Goals Foundation.

by Alexander James

The Hidden History of Money

June 15th, 2004

"

There are some things the corporate owned media does not want you to remember or think about.

[Canadian Blue]

Well I read the article, and congressman Larry McDonald was the chairman of the John Birch Society.

Now here is just an insight into what the John Birch Society believes in, and has believed in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

As well you can go to the website and find out how evil Martin Luther King was on the website. Not to mention believing that Eisenhower was a "communist agent".

During the 1960s, the JBS opposed the Civil Rights Movement since it was rumored that it was backed and supported by the American Communist Party. Yet, the John Birch Society has always described itself as being open to people of all races and religions and is staunchly against communist beliefs. The Society maintains that its rumored backing by the Communist party was an attack by the conspiratorial efforts that it believes exists and actively opposes.

So, PN are you a JBS member???

As for the flight being show down, read it and weep.

[qoute]Some people, including former U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina, have said they believed that all or most of the passengers and crew of flight KAL 007 survived after their damaged aircraft managed to land safely at an airfield on Sakhalin island, and were then placed inside various Soviet "gulag"-style slave labor camps, prisons, and orphanages, in the case of the many children. This theory was largely discredited when the flight recorders that the Soviets had recovered were released to the public after the Soviet Union fell.[/qoute]

But not to worry, their are those that support your view, like Jesse Helms.

Helms opposed the Martin Luther King holiday bill in 1983 on grounds that King had two associates with communist ties, Stanley Levison and Jack O'Dell, and he was also angered by King's alleged philandering. Though popular with the capitol staff, Helms once deeply offended a black colleague, Democratic Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, by singing part of "Dixie" on a capitol elevator. Helms was in a battle with Moseley-Braun over the recognition of the Daughters of the Confederacy through symbolic legislation. Moseley-Braun won, in a memorable floor fight, and Helms was furious. Helms's seemingly nostalgic remembrances of segregation and slavery, as well as his long record as an opponent of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s also led many to call him a racist.

[bradco]

wow this is about the most confusing thread Ive seen on this board....so much misinformation and garbage....I only made it through the first 5 pages so forgive me if I say anything that has been cleared up but I feel like a little knowledge about central banking etc is needed.

The BOC is not a private instiution with the power to do anything it wants. It has day-to-day independance from cabinet but is ultimately accountable to the government, The responsiblity of the BOC is to implement government monetary policy. Currently, the sole goal of the BOC is to keep inflation between 1-3%.

The BOC used to make it mandatory for chartered banks to keep reserves (in order to stop a run on the bank). This restriction was lifted because of competition from financial intermediaries and international banks who did not have to hold required reserves. Banks still keep reserves (in Canada currently 0.5% of their liabilities). They do this because if they need to borrow money in the event of a run on the bank they will have to pay interest. They keep a reserve at a level they feel the risk is ok. If the interest rate the BOC charges (the Bank Rate or "overnight" rate) goes up the chartered banks hold higher reserves because the costs of borrowing go up. If BOC reduces rate chartered bank will hold smaller reserves. The BOC can therefore induce chartered banks to increase and decrease their reserves, which affects the money supply.

There has been a lot of talk about banks "printing money". This gives the impression that they have giant printing presses rolling out cash. This is not true. It isnt printing but "creating". This creating money simply increasesthe money supply, it isnt a bad thing. Ill give an example of how the banks "create" money:

I deposit $1oo into my bank account at TD so the current money supply is $100, The bank takes my $100 and puts say $20 into its reserves and loans out $80. Someone else then spends that $80 and the reciever of it puts it in his account at TD.The money supply is now $180. TD takes that $80 puts $16 into reserves (same 20% into reserves as above) and loans out $64. Somone else then puts $64 into TD....Td puts $12.80 into reserves and loans out $51.20.....etc etc

As you can see the money supply is being enlarged by the bank because it only hold a certain amount in reserve and then loans out the rest. This is how banks create money: by having a fractional reserve system. This is known as the Money Multiplier. The change in the money supply (or the creation of money) is equal to 1/reserve ratio. In my example.... $100 (initial deposit)/0.2(reserve ratio) equals $500...there is then a $400 increase in the money supply. Thats how banks create money! Note my example assume no cash drains (ie households will usually hold a % in cash....it can be included in the equation but lets not complicate things)

EDIT: thought it is important to note that when the banks "create" this money it is not them that own it. Example: Bank loans me $80 of your $100 deposit (they will make interest on the loan), I take my $80 and buy an MP3player at Future Shop (it is therefore future shop that owns the created money)

There seems to be confusion how the BOC effects money supply/interest rates. When the BOC sets its interest rate it doesnt just happen automatically. The BOC determines the interest rate they want then change the money supply in order to achieve it. I kind of covered one option earlier.

1. Bank Rate ("overnight rate"): This is the rate which the BOC charges to chartered banks when they are short on overnight reserves. Chartered banks MUST borrow from the BOC to neurtralize any daily negative reserve balances. By increasing/decreasing the Bank Rate (the rate charged to banks by the BOC) the BOC can induce changes in the reserves held by chartered banks by changing the risks of being short on money. Example: Increase the BOC bank rate --> banks increase their targeted reserves --> therefore the money supply decreases since they hold more reserves ---> as the money supply decreases there is less money available for loans and hence the interest rate rises!!!

2.Shifting: the BOC is where the government of Canada hold its money. By "shifting" this money between BOC and chartered banks the BOC can change the money supply. Example: If the BOC shifts government money into chartered banks the money supply increases which decreases interest rates.

3. Open Market Opertions: buying and selling of T-Bills

4. buyback operations: specials and reverses

[PolyNewbie]

I deposit $1oo into my bank account at TD so the current money supply is $100, The bank takes my $100 and puts say $20 into its reserves and loans out $80. Someone else then spends that $80 and the reciever of it puts it in his account at TD.The money supply is now $180. TD takes that $80 puts $16 into reserves (same 20% into reserves as above) and loans out $64. Somone else then puts $64 into TD....Td puts $12.80 into reserves and loans out $51.20.....etc etc

So based on the $100.00 deposit, how much actual money gets created from nothing ? Suppose your reserves from that $100.00 become $95.00 ?. Banks do create money from nothing, they just need to hold onto a small amount of deposits to do it. Its still a great deal for them and leaves the country needlessly in debt to private bankers.

[Charles Anthony]

So based on the $100.00 deposit, how much actual money gets created from nothing ? Suppose your reserves from that $100.00 become $95.00 ?. Banks do create money from nothing,

What you are overlooking is that our money, in fact, is nothing. That is what people commonly want.

When somebody goes to the bank and gets a loan, the bank asks them to pay back the loan gradually over time. People do not get wacked with a full-principle repayment --- so long as they are making their periodic payments. Banks are brokers for people's money:

depositers -> who do not want all of their money back at the same time

and

borrowers -> who can not pay all of their money back at the same time

they just need to hold onto a small amount of deposits to do it. Its still a great deal for them and leaves the country needlessly in debt to private bankers.

If you do not like it, do not use those banks.

[Wilber]

Check this out: http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...le&sid=2253

MacDonalds plane was shot down by the Rusians in 1979 when it flew over some of their top secret area.

McDonald did everything in his power to warn the American public. However, as usual, the attempt was to no avail. He stated unequivocally, that the Rockefeller intended to control "--first our own country, and then the world!" He went on to state. "Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, yes I do. I am convinced there is a plot, national and international."

Be carefull about what you believe.

The statements in this article about KAL 007 are complete crap. The person who wrote it either didn't now what they were talking about or was deliberately misleading. Prior to the early 90's no western commercial aircraft had access to Soviet airspace. Sakhalin had some of the most sensitive and restricted military areas in eastern Siberia, there is no way overflight would have been allowed unless possibly someone was on fire. In the event of being low on fuel, Chitose on Hokkaido would have been a far better option than any place in Russia.

The most north and westerly routing from North America to Asia was an airway called R220 which kept all traffic east of Soviet airspace including the Kurils which are well to the east of Sakhalin. Passing Shemya in the Aleutians aircraft were required to transmit a position report including their position relative to Shemya to confirm that they were not infringing on Soviet airspace. All air traffic control on this route was the responsibility of Anchorage and Tokyo centers. There is no air traffic control radar coverage between Shemya and Japan only position reports given by radio. At no time would there be communication with Russians. The normal routing to Seoul was across Japan and over the Sea of Japan south of Soviet and North Korean airspace. These guys were way off course but that was not unusual for KAL, they had a history of violating Soviet airspace. Several years before they had another aircraft forced to land by fighters because it was over Kamchatka.

[bradco]

I deposit $1oo into my bank account at TD so the current money supply is $100, The bank takes my $100 and puts say $20 into its reserves and loans out $80. Someone else then spends that $80 and the reciever of it puts it in his account at TD.The money supply is now $180. TD takes that $80 puts $16 into reserves (same 20% into reserves as above) and loans out $64. Somone else then puts $64 into TD....Td puts $12.80 into reserves and loans out $51.20.....etc etc

So based on the $100.00 deposit, how much actual money gets created from nothing ? Suppose your reserves from that $100.00 become $95.00 ?. Banks do create money from nothing, they just need to hold onto a small amount of deposits to do it. Its still a great deal for them and leaves the country needlessly in debt to private bankers.

I dont think you really understand the issue. When the bank "creates" the money it isnt that they are actually making money that they can go spend on what they choose. They are merely increasing the money supply. In fact this creation of money doesnt needlessly harm us by putting us in debt to private bankers. By "creating" money the banks allow for us to take out loans which is beneficial for the economy. If you dont want the loan because you decide it doesnt benefit you then dont take it. The truth is most people decide to take loans becuase they decide that in the long run it benefits them.

"how much actual money gets created from nothing "

the money creation, or the change in the money supply, as I already said is equal to the initial deposit/reserve ratio (minus any drains such as households holding cash).

[PolyNewbie]

the money creation, or the change in the money supply, as I already said is equal to the initial deposit/reserve ratio (minus any drains such as households holding cash).

OK. So lets get down to actual figures. With a $10.00 reserve and a then to one reserve ratio, how much money do you think the bankers would be able to print for nothing ?

When the government borrows money from these bankers for a project, say building a bridge, here is what happens:

The government borrows money from private bankers to build the bridge using the labour of the people and the natural resources of the land to create a bridge. They owe the bankers the amount of money that the bridge is worth($100.00 for arguement sake) - or with interest , reserve ratios taken into account, more. For this they do nothing but print the money. All the money the bankers create ends up in the economy - (usually) an interest payment to service the debt rather than pay it off - leaving the country in debt.

The bridge is built from natural resources and labour of the people but the banker affectively owns the bridge because he is owed its worth.

Every dollar from that bridge while in the economy is earning interest for private bankers. Under this scenario the bankers are effectively renting our currency to us by collecting interest on it while its still in circulation.

Suppose the government printed its own money then the workers earn it into the economy and the bridge would be built with no debt. The $100.00 would be circulating in the economy as it is re earned. The country built the bridge with its own natural resources and people and does not pay interest to private bankers.

In a system such as this the government prints money for its expenditures and it gets earned into the economy by gove employees. Taxation is used to control money supply, we still end up paying for our governmnt services but the money being used isn't earning interest for private bankers.

In addition to that, under such a system the private bankers cannot control the conomy and the economy can be run to benefit people rather than control them as is done now through foundations, focus groups & think tanks.

No one has ever shown that there is an advantage to allowing private bankers to collect seigniorage* on money that is spent by government.

What do the private bankers bring to the table for the privilidge of renting us our currency ? Is this not a huge drain on the economy ?

Why should we owe them so much money - what have they done for us in return ?

This example is of how the USA operates exactly - all of their money in electronic and currency form in circulation is earning interest for the people who created it. In Cnada gov prints coin/bill currency.

*seigniorage is the difference between the face value and cost to produce money. For $100.00 the seigiorage is about $99.25 because it costs $0.75 to print it.

[PolyNewbie]

Wilber:Be carefull about what you believe.

This really did happen. I remember it on the news around that time. People don't make this stuff up. The Soviets did in fact shoot down a passenger airliner flying over Russian airspace.

[Canadian Blue]

People don't make this stuff up.

People make this stuff up all the time.

Here's a few examples:

- The civil rights movement was really a front for the communists

- 9/11 was perpetrated by the government

- The government has alien's at Area 51

- A "Phaser beam" incinerated the World Trade Center

- The Nazi's didn't kill more then 200,000 Jews

People make this shit up all the time, then find bogus evidence to prove their point.

[Wilber]

Wilber:Be carefull about what you believe.

This really did happen. I remember it on the news around that time. People don't make this stuff up. The Soviets did in fact shoot down a passenger airliner flying over Russian airspace.

Yes they did. What is crap is that articles version of it.

[PolyNewbie]

Canadian Blue:

- The civil rights movement was really a front for the communists

Maybe it was. Womens rights movement was done by the banks to get two people in every family on the payroll.

- 9/11 was perpetrated by the government

We know this because there is a big coverup around 911 and the government has been lying and hiding evidence.

- The government has alien's at Area 51

That was just done to provide ammunition for people like you when you run out of arguement and still wish to prove conspiracies non existent. You automatically assume that if I don't believe whats on TV and what the gov says I must be crazy and believe in martians. What about Kennedy, What about Iran Contra ?, USS Liberty ? Shah Of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, etc ? Do you think the theories around them are not true?

- A "Phaser beam" incinerated the World Trade Center

There are three theories as to how it happened. The only thing known is that the official version is BS. This has been proven many times & many ways. One theory is that a rocket fuel was implanet inside the hollow verticle beams by a robot lowered from the top. One theory is that it was nuked using techology developed in the 60's for building demolition with nukes, and the other theory is that microwaves or a particle beam was used (this sounds plausible to me). Personally I think the nuke theory is most likely true and explains most of the evidence. It is the only explanation for increased radiation measurements in the area afterwards.

- The Nazi's didn't kill more then 200,000 Jews

Its against the law to say that.

Personally I believe that whenver there is a coverup then I know there are lies. When there are lies force needs to be applied to maintain them. The truth looks after itself and is not afraid of light and doesn't need to be protected from it.

In the case of the wtc, there were coverups and lies and that is fact.

[PolyNewbie]

Wilber:What is crap is that articles version of it.

Maybe you are right about that but the fundamental facts cannot be denied. He was a powerful & outspoken critic of globalism and died mysteriously and unusually. People do die when they speak against the money interest.

[bradco]

the money creation, or the change in the money supply, as I already said is equal to the initial deposit/reserve ratio (minus any drains such as households holding cash).

OK. So lets get down to actual figures. With a $10.00 reserve and a then to one reserve ratio, how much money do you think the bankers would be able to print for nothing ?

When the government borrows money from these bankers for a project, say building a bridge, here is what happens:

The government borrows money from private bankers to build the bridge using the labour of the people and the natural resources of the land to create a bridge. They owe the bankers the amount of money that the bridge is worth($100.00 for arguement sake) - or with interest , reserve ratios taken into account, more. For this they do nothing but print the money. All the money the bankers create ends up in the economy - (usually) an interest payment to service the debt rather than pay it off - leaving the country in debt.

The bridge is built from natural resources and labour of the people but the banker affectively owns the bridge because he is owed its worth.

Every dollar from that bridge while in the economy is earning interest for private bankers. Under this scenario the bankers are effectively renting our currency to us by collecting interest on it while its still in circulation.

Suppose the government printed its own money then the workers earn it into the economy and the bridge would be built with no debt. The $100.00 would be circulating in the economy as it is re earned. The country built the bridge with its own natural resources and people and does not pay interest to private bankers.

In a system such as this the government prints money for its expenditures and it gets earned into the economy by gove employees. Taxation is used to control money supply, we still end up paying for our governmnt services but the money being used isn't earning interest for private bankers.

In addition to that, under such a system the private bankers cannot control the conomy and the economy can be run to benefit people rather than control them as is done now through foundations, focus groups & think tanks.

No one has ever shown that there is an advantage to allowing private bankers to collect seigniorage* on money that is spent by government.

What do the private bankers bring to the table for the privilidge of renting us our currency ? Is this not a huge drain on the economy ?

Why should we owe them so much money - what have they done for us in return ?

This example is of how the USA operates exactly - all of their money in electronic and currency form in circulation is earning interest for the people who created it. In Cnada gov prints coin/bill currency.

*seigniorage is the difference between the face value and cost to produce money. For $100.00 the seigiorage is about $99.25 because it costs $0.75 to print it.

Again creating money is NOT the same as printing money. Using a fractional reserve system money is created..... really it just increases the money supply. If the government actually prints it off to pay for the bridge you get inflation.....now if the government was dumb and reckless enough to be doing something like this you would probably be into hyperinflation awfully quick. Go ask people who lived through hyperinflation in the 1920's in Germany how much fun that was!

"What do the private bankers bring to the table for the privilidge of renting us our currency ? Is this not a huge drain on the economy ?"

No in fact it is a huge plus for our economy. Without the availability of loans created by a fractional reserve system the cost of borrowing money would be much higher. You would get less investment--->less jobs.

"In a system such as this the government prints money for its expenditures and it gets earned into the economy by gove employees. Taxation is used to control money supply, we still end up paying for our governmnt services but the money being used isn't earning interest for private bankers."

If the government just prints money you will have inflation.... most likely hyperinflation. What they would have to do is collect tax money and then loan out the tax money on a fractional reserve system like that used by the banks. Since governments are not motivated by profit, but rather by votes, this system would be MUCH MORE inefficient than using banks.

I still dont think you understand the process in which money is "created" by the banks. For the government to do the same thing they cant just make transfer payments to people. That isnt changing the money supply.....it has to be a loan to increase the money supply.

"Every dollar from that bridge while in the economy is earning interest for private bankers. Under this scenario the bankers are effectively renting our currency to us by collecting interest on it while its still in circulation."

The bankers earn the interest on the loans they give out because they are taking RISK. Yes it is with our money which we have deposited at their banks but if they lose our money they still have to give it back to us.

"The government borrows money from private bankers to build the bridge using the labour of the people and the natural resources of the land to create a bridge. They owe the bankers the amount of money that the bridge is worth($100.00 for arguement sake) - or with interest , reserve ratios taken into account, more. For this they do nothing but print the money. All the money the bankers create ends up in the economy - (usually) an interest payment to service the debt rather than pay it off - leaving the country in debt."

First of all, stop using the word "print" because I think it has got you all confused. The bankers arent doing nothing. They are getting paid rent on the money because they are taking RISK. If they lend out money and it isnt paid back they get hooped. Who is going to take the risk of losing money in the absence of any benefits??? The only option is for the government to run every bank and hand out loans on an interest free basis (or set to inflation rate). That would lead to massive inflation from overheating the economy (pre-school macroeconomics there). The other option is the government runs the system and sets the interest rate and collects the interest for the supposed public good. Here we have to trust the government in making decisions. Personally Ill leave a private institution motivated only by profit to make the efficient choices.

Anyways, take some macroeconomics courses at school or something because your really lost man.

[White Doors]

Its against the law to say that.

haha.

No it's not.