Banker/Wall Street Governance

GostHacked · January 26, 2007

Don't try and dodge the question by posting pages and pages of copyrighted material (and by the way, posting pages and pages of copyrighted material is against the forum rules.)
Why don't you tell us why you think Alex Jones lied about what that poll actually says?

-k

I have a problem with you here on this Kimmy EDIT(actually with everyone and polls), . Polls are useless, I don't post them or link them. Useless. Even Alex Jones's (I must admit I am a fan of Alex Jones) polls are doctored or made in a way to prove whatever the hell you want to prove. Just use the stats you want to use. Just like MSM on their POLL OF THE DAY concerining some dumb thing about a celebrity.

Out of the people I know.. and I am going to guess here :lol: most of us think that the US government let it happen or took part. I'd say about 60% of my friends think this way. This is all here in Ottawa ON. So yeah this poll proves you wrong, but again polls are useless.

I got quite a laugh out of the "Infowars" video you linked to. Scary music, explosions, a couple of Dobbs soundbites from the above-mentioned report taken out of context, an angry Libertarian Party candidate ranting about a communist state, and finally a big commercial at the end for Alex Jones' shitty websites

You recall the Republican's TV ads about the Congressional Elections? Using a ticking sound and images with sound bites from Osama, and his croonies, ending with an image of a mushroom cloud? Same line of thinking. Everyone does it, but since Alex Jones is a nutcase (right?? RIGHT?) then his stuff is obviously laughable (ever watch Bill O'Rielly?) to the point where it is utter nonesense.

I read

cnn.com

cbc.ca

ctv.ca

bbc.co.uk

infowars.net

freepressinternational.com (warning Kimmy this site is way too over the top for you, best off to skip this one)

drudgereport.com

(much more to list than I can recall at the moment)

in paper form

Ottawa Citizen

Ottawa Sun

Metro and 24 (both free mini newspapers)

EDIT - I wish there was more variety in MSM news, but there is none. They all rely on Reuters, or AP or other news spin bins. Why not go so some real investigative reporting like they used to. Call out the criminals in our governments and financial institutions and corportations. Hence the reason I seek out the other news. But strange thing is, that Alex Jones and et al posting links from those news agencies of REUTERS, AP, CNN and the like. He for the most part shows the hipocracy of the 4th Branch of Government in the US. Report A, then deny A by saying we said B, but doing C.

I've already posted this topic here......

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6091

Jenna · January 26, 2007

ah, nice

maybe this isn't a fantasy land after all.

Canadian Blue · January 26, 2007

ah, nice
maybe this isn't a fantasy land after all.

What you talking about Willis???

PolyNewbie · January 26, 2007

Alex Jones provides an excellent news service that is packed full of content. It is far better than mainstream news in this regard. Alex Jones is also far more credible that the TV pundits. He provides a free news service and is in no way controlled by the banks & corporations, he is completely opposite to mainstream media in this regard.

The news he delivers is shocking and very different from what you see on TV. He also reports verifiable fact.

GostHacked · January 26, 2007

Alex Jones provides an excellent news service that is packed full of content. It is far better than mainstream news in this regard. Alex Jones is also far more credible that the TV pundits. He provides a free news service and is in no way controlled by the banks & corporations, he is completely opposite to mainstream media in this regard.
The news he delivers is shocking and very different from what you see on TV. He also reports verifiable fact.

Well that is just it is it not? MSM has been dumbed down so much that there is no intelligent REAL reporting. I don't see any MSM reporters getting all bent out of shape when they deliver a story that could really affect them as well. But, it's just business as usual.

If you had a televised event of every dead soldier comming home, then you would take notice it on it more. But since you don't see the faces of those soldiers, you are disconnected from that altogether having no real feelings about the event, then switching the channel to watch some dumb celebrity.

Same goes with our financial institutions. You hear it all the time that bad things go on in banks, but nothing and no one is held accountable for it.

This is the problem with treating the corporation as a 'person' (in the US anyways, not sure about Canada and the rest of the world)

PolyNewbie · January 27, 2007

CanadianBlue:What you talking about Willis???

I finally remember where that came from - a kids TV show. You watch far too much TV.

Canadian Blue · January 27, 2007

No polynewbie, its a commonly used quote, besides doesn't that mean that you watch alot of TV as well... :blink:

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

CanadianBlue:No polynewbie, its a commonly used quote, besides doesn't that mean that you watch alot of TV as well...

I don't. Really. I remember seening that show - my younger sister used to watch it.

Charles Anthony · January 28, 2007

No polynewbie, its a commonly used quote, besides doesn't that mean that you watch alot of TV as well...

Chalk one up for PN008E because he is right on this one.

It was from the television show "Different Strokes" and everybody copied poor little Gary Coleman's famous line ad nauseum until it became soooooo common that we forgot its origin.

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

Charles,

I think probably you and everyone else that is arguing with me have never read anything about money and banking. If you had, you would know that both Presidents and bankers have admitted that bankers do in fact control the United States and the rest of the world.

It does work against what you have been lead to believe but you have never heard anything that is counter to this fact.

You should educate yourselves, that way you can post more intelligently. Its a fact that our civilization would dramatically change for the better if we had monetary reform. All the big problems of today would be rapidly dissapear and people would have a say in their governments actions, unlike today. People would have more money and less taxes. People like George Bush would be in jail & we would stop having wars except with countries who were still controlled by bankers. The USA would have to threaten war in which case they would start printing their own money. People like Rothschild and Rockefeller would be lynched by angry crowds, end up in jail, or on the streets.

Free Videos on Google:

"The Money Masters"

"The Capitalist Conspiracy"

"Monopoly Men"

Links:

COMER

Five Page Text On Money

UK Monetary Reform Party

Canadian Action Party Website (see cartoon)

Claire Foss Journal (some say this is best site)

McFaddens Speech To Congress 1934

Books:

The Creature From Jekylll Island (Griffin)

Money (JK Galbraith)

Why Only In Fantopia (Stuart)

The Money Bomb (Stuart)

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."

John Adams

Robert H. Hemphill,

former credit manager,

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

"Money is the most important subject intellectual persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and its defects remedied very soon."

Sir Josiah Stamp, former President,

Bank of England

"Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."

Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna, former

Chancellor of Exchequer, England

"Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."++

Wm. Jennings Bryan

"Money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes."

geoffrey · January 28, 2007

The Money Master's one has some production value. It's full of crap and false unfounded conclusions, but it does provide an interesting history into our current monetary system.

PolyNewbie · January 28, 2007

geoffrey:The Money Master's one has some production value. It's full of crap and false unfounded conclusions, but it does provide an interesting history into our current monetary system.

Where is it full of crap ? Can you name one false statement ?

I think you missed the basic point of the documentary.

Charles Anthony · January 28, 2007

I think probably you and everyone else that is arguing with me have never read anything about money and banking.

You have got me there.

Its a fact that our civilization would dramatically change for the better if we had monetary reform.

I agree that we should have drastic monetary reform but not what you suggest. You suggest state-controlled currency.

I believe we should ONLY have private banking.

I believe that the tax-payer should NOT have to provide any form of insurance to any of the banks. If the banks want to hold fractional reserves, their customers should take that risk themselves.

geoffrey · January 28, 2007

I think probably you and everyone else that is arguing with me have never read anything about money and banking.
You have got me there.

Unfortunately Newbie thinks that reading a few books and watching a movie is substitute for a real education in the matter. 1/3 of my education has been on the financial systems of the world and the other 1/3 on how to report on them or manipulate them to your advantage. So I've spent ~2.6 years of my life studying this very topic. So ya, I might have read a thing or two on the topic.

Saturn might be a better resource yet, he's a graduate level economist...

And Newbie is dead wrong on this one. He doesn't grasp the bigger picture, and it's his downfall. We cannot possibly enjoy the same standard of living without fractional reserve banking that we do today.

Its a fact that our civilization would dramatically change for the better if we had monetary reform.
I agree that we should have drastic monetary reform but not what you suggest. You suggest state-controlled currency.
I believe we should ONLY have private banking.

I believe that the tax-payer should NOT have to provide any form of insurance to any of the banks. If the banks want to hold fractional reserves, their customers should take that risk themselves.

That's an acceptable belief from a theoretical standpoint anyways. There is an enourmous amount of risk involved though CA. A run on the banks would be devastating, whether or not the depositors accepted that risk going in or not.

In generally people are too short-sighted to see the full risk of their activities, so I'd question how safe our economy would be in an situation where the CDIC didn't exist. A bank run isn't an impossibility. CDIC assists the economy by giving greater confidence (lower-risk) on deposits.

--

pnewb, you wanted me to refute some points so I'll give you a few to deal with here:

1) That the Federal Reserve is not audited and accumulates billions in profit....

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rp...nual05/ar05.pdf

2005 financial statements of the Federal Reserve, audited by KPMG... page 293. Why does the movie lie?

2) "All our money is based on government debt"...

Definitely not true. Much of our money is based on private debt as well, some is 'real' money too. Another outright deception.

3) Some ridiculous assumption that the reserve causes recessions...

Reality would tell you otherwise. The largest downturns in the economy existed before monetarism was the accepted method of dealing with flucations in the economy.

4) Printing more money makes people richer

Doesn't happen. Printing more money make each dollar worth less. There is only so much value in the economy, printing more money reduces the value of each dollar, and reducing the supply makes money more valuable. Basic supply and demand applies to dollars too. This also applies to gold standard currencies.

5) Banks can loan out ten times more money than they have.

Not quite so. Banks can only loan out what they have deposited... the issue is where the lendee takes that money and invests/deposits it in that same bank, or another bank. That money is then reloaned... thats how the money supply grows.

Fractional reserve banking has to be looked at beyond the individual lender and at the macro level. If I drop $100 into my TD savings account today, TD only lends out at the most, $100 based on that. What the next user does with that loan is up to them.

Essientally that's the idea behind the Bank of Canada... the BoC can loan money to the banks at the overnight rate to cover any shortfalls in cash. That cash is gained from Bond Issues or trading on international currency markets.

Anyways, a bank can only lend out what they have on hand in guarntees of payment from others. Not some mysterious creation of millions at whim.

--

The website of the Money Masters doesn't tell anything about who's ideas these are. It could be the ramblings of some basement crack addict, who knows.

PolyNewbie · January 29, 2007

1) That the Federal Reserve is not audited and accumulates billions in profit....
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rp...nual05/ar05.pdf

2005 financial statements of the Federal Reserve, audited by KPMG... page 293. Why does the movie lie?

The movie doesn't lie. You are confused. The board of governors is visible. The privately own central federal reserve does not have a public list of its directors/owners. These are the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, etc.

It does not accumulated billions - it accumulates trillions.

2) "All our money is based on government debt"...
Definitely not true. Much of our money is based on private debt as well, some is 'real' money too. Another outright deception.

I din't ever say that all money is based on government debt. I said that all money in circulation earns money for private bankers in the form of rent(interest) in return for its printing or creation.

3) Some ridiculous assumption that the reserve causes recessions...
Reality would tell you otherwise. The largest downturns in the economy existed before monetarism was the accepted method of dealing with flucations in the economy.

Monetarism is not the way the economy is looked at - a shift from Keynesian to something closer to monetarism has occured but economists do not manage currency supply from Says law.

Too much currency was printed around the time of the depression. The money was created by the banks and lent for the purchase of derivatives before the '29 crash. Same as now. Many people think it was bank policy that played a major role in 1929.

4) Printing more money makes people richer
Doesn't happen. Printing more money make each dollar worth less. There is only so much value in the economy, printing more money reduces the value of each dollar, and reducing the supply makes money more valuable. Basic supply and demand applies to dollars too. This also applies to gold standard currencies.

Good for you at least you got one fact right. One can view taxation asa controller of the money supply.

5) Banks can loan out ten times more money than they have.
Not quite so. Banks can only loan out what they have deposited... the issue is where the lendee takes that money and invests/deposits it in that same bank, or another bank. That money is then reloaned... thats how the money supply grows.

Currently the reserve ratio is about 300:1 not 1:1. Its never 1:1. Banks create money.

Fractional reserve banking has to be looked at beyond the individual lender and at the macro level. If I drop $100 into my TD savings account today, TD only lends out at the most, $100 based on that. What the next user does with that loan is up to them.

Thats rediculous and nothing like the way banks have operated anywhere in the last 200 (at least) years all over the world. No bank currently operates that way. You cannot earn a profit by operating like that.

Essientally that's the idea behind the Bank of Canada... the BoC can loan money to the banks at the overnight rate to cover any shortfalls in cash. That cash is gained from Bond Issues or trading on international currency markets.

Essentially you have no idea about what you are talking about.

Anyways, a bank can only lend out what they have on hand in guarntees of payment from others. Not some mysterious creation of millions at whim.

Not true. Mysterious billions can be created on a whim.

--

geoffrey · January 29, 2007

The movie doesn't lie. You are confused. The board of governors is visible. The privately own central federal reserve does not have a public list of its directors/owners. These are the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, etc.
It does not accumulated billions - it accumulates trillions.

Evidence?

Monetarism is not the way the economy is looked at - a shift from Keynesian to something closer to monetarism has occured but economists do not manage currency supply from Says law.
Too much currency was printed around the time of the depression. The money was created by the banks and lent for the purchase of derivatives before the '29 crash. Same as now. Many people think it was bank policy that played a major role in 1929.

There was no prviate central bank in Canada at the time and we had the same troubles. Keynesianism is gone as a relavant economic theory, in practice it didn't work half as well as monetarism.

Good for you at least you got one fact right. One can view taxation asa controller of the money supply.

No you can't. Taxed money is spent or used to pay the debt, so it always returns to the supply.

Currently the reserve ratio is about 300:1 not 1:1. Its never 1:1. Banks create money.

Yes, but they don't just do it whimsically. They can only lend out $500 if I deposit that $500.

Fractional reserve banking has to be looked at beyond the individual lender and at the macro level. If I drop $100 into my TD savings account today, TD only lends out at the most, $100 based on that. What the next user does with that loan is up to them.

Thats rediculous and nothing like the way banks have operated anywhere in the last 200 (at least) years all over the world. No bank currently operates that way. You cannot earn a profit by operating like that.

Actually, it's exactly how a bank works. It's quite easy to earn a profit like that.

Essientally that's the idea behind the Bank of Canada... the BoC can loan money to the banks at the overnight rate to cover any shortfalls in cash. That cash is gained from Bond Issues or trading on international currency markets.

Essentially you have no idea about what you are talking about.

Ok sir. I'm sorry but I didn't attend the school of quackery. How I explained it is how it works in the world we call reality. However the banking system works in your universe, I have no idea.

Anyways, a bank can only lend out what they have on hand in guarntees of payment from others. Not some mysterious creation of millions at whim.

Not true. Mysterious billions can be created on a whim.

--

Evidence?

PolyNewbie · January 29, 2007

geoffrey: where do you get this information about banks only being able to lend what is on deposit ? No bank has ever operated that way - gold standard or not- in the history of banking - pretty much for hundreds of years.

I really want to know where you got this information. I think you imagine what you think should be true, assume that to be true then argue it here. You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever about how banking works.

geoffrey:Ok sir. I'm sorry but I didn't attend the school of quackery.

I think you did.

PolyNewbie · January 29, 2007

geoffrey:The website of the Money Masters doesn't tell anything about who's ideas these are. It could be the ramblings of some basement crack addict, who knows.

Its all fact that is repeated and believed elsewhere. Bankers admit that they create money from nothing. Politicians have said it. Economists have said it. Its a matter of history and how banking is widely understood to work.

I want to know where you got the idea that banks can only lend out what they have on deposit. I really really want to hear this because you are so arrogant and foolish and I want you to see that.

Riverwind · January 29, 2007

-

Charles Anthony · January 29, 2007

Unfortunately Newbie thinks that reading a few books and watching a movie is substitute for a real education in the matter.

Low-level basic economic principles (make no doubt about it, that is what is lacking here; along with a cluttered thought process) is a science like any other: anybody can learn it.

We cannot possibly enjoy the same standard of living without fractional reserve banking that we do today.

I am not going to argue that point -- for now. However, that is not my contention. I do not believe it is the tax-payer's responsibility to take on that risk. I do not care how much we may "enjoy the same standard of living" because it is coerced charity.

If we forced Bill Gates and the Queen of England and Warren Buffett and The Waltons to send every person in the world a thousand dollars, we could all enjoy a higher standard of living too. Does that make it right???

There is an enourmous amount of risk involved though CA. A run on the banks would be devastating, whether or not the depositors accepted that risk going in or not.

Big deal. Many people put their money in dubious or risky investments all of the time. Some win and some lose. Why should the tax-payer be forced to take on that risk instead of just the specific agents involved?????

CDIC assists the economy by giving greater confidence (lower-risk) on deposits.

That is one way of looking at it. In effect, you are forcing the tax-payer to fund somebody else's consumption and spending. You are not being fair.

A different way of looking at it is that we lead ourselves into a fake standard of living which can not be maintained in the long run. Inevitably, we will crash and the standard of living rises somewhere else in the world. We complain about outsourcing or exporting jobs.

Let us look at the same dynamics. If my business goes under, I propose that YOU and the rest of the tax-payers should be forced to bail ME out. We may call this the CADIC or the Charles Anthony Deposit Insurance Crock. Would it be fair for YOU to be forced to bail me out?

We could have a tax-payer funded X-DIC for every other business in the entire country to prevent a "run" in everybody's business. Sounds fair??

I do not believe the private banks get special treatment.

geoffrey · January 29, 2007

geoffrey: where do you get this information about banks only being able to lend what is on deposit ? No bank has ever operated that way - gold standard or not- in the history of banking - pretty much for hundreds of years.

Ummm... the reality of banking?

Ok, let's put this in understandable terms. I deposit $30,000 into my chequing account, or any demand account. You want to buy a new car, costing $35,000. Ignoring the rest of the banks operations, the bank cannot front you $35,000 cash on behalf of my $30,000 deposit, the cash doesn't exist. The only place that prints money in Canada is the Mint. You can be assured that Ford wants $35,000 in cash.

It's even more understandable if we look at it internationally, Joe Blow in France wants $30,000CDN to buy some oil from Hibernia. The transaction between Euro's and Canadian dollars is in real terms. That money exists.

Now, it's easy to see how this could get a little wild in a hurry. I deposited $30,000... you borrowed my $30,000 but then Ford deposited it after your payment... and that money was traded with Joe Blow in France so he can buy his oil.

So technically my $30,000CDN is now $30,000 in my account, $30,000 in Ford's account and $30,000 in Joe Blow's account, about to be wired to Hibernia. So yes, the bank created $60,000 in additional wealth in just 3 transactions. But that doesn't change that they can't initially make a loan without the cash, at least if it's not for an exchange of goods.

When a company issues a bond for example, say a nice big $500m 30-year, it receives $500 million in CASH from whoever purchases it, even institutional lenders... but while that $500million is in the bank and not being spent, it's being redistributed to many people. Then those people are redistributing it after it's deposited again, and again and again.

So yes, banks 'create' money, but they don't create cash. My $100 deposit cannot be made to give you $300 in cash, at least not initially, and if you read what I'm saying, that's exactly my point.

It's far more complex then that, but you need far more background on the industry before we even go there.

Otherwise the banks would just lend out all the money they wanted and not even bother to take deposits.

I really want to know where you got this information. I think you imagine what you think should be true, assume that to be true then argue it here. You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever about how banking works.

I'm a finance and accounting major. I know how banking works, my current contract has me valuing commerical paper issues as well as some work on the valuation of bonds. This can't be done without knowledge of the banking system.

geoffrey:Ok sir. I'm sorry but I didn't attend the school of quackery.

I think you did.

The University of Calgary is generally regarded as a reputable institution. Far more than some random internet documentary. Your the perfect example of when a little bit of knowledge is a very danagerous thing.

geoffrey · January 29, 2007

Let us look at the same dynamics. If my business goes under, I propose that YOU and the rest of the tax-payers should be forced to bail ME out. We may call this the CADIC or the Charles Anthony Deposit Insurance Crock. Would it be fair for YOU to be forced to bail me out?
We could have a tax-payer funded X-DIC for every other business in the entire country to prevent a "run" in everybody's business. Sounds fair??

I do not believe the private banks get special treatment.

Your business isn't a bank.

I'm ok with your proposal so long as we have more banks (ie. foreign competition). With only 5 major banks in Canada, we can't possibly accept that risk to our economy.

Charles Anthony · January 29, 2007

Tell me why a private bank should get special treatment?

Riverwind · January 29, 2007

I'm ok with your proposal so long as we have more banks (ie. foreign competition). With only 5 major banks in Canada, we can't possibly accept that risk to our economy.

More bank means more competition and more failures. We would need CDIC even more and, to make matters worse, taxpayer dollars would be bailing out foreign banks.

Any fiat currency system depends on belief - deposit insurance is an essential part of that belief system.