Banker/Wall Street Governance

White Doors · January 31, 2007

Why are you worried abotu WE? You can use the godl backed currency if you want. If you really believe it then you should.

Jenna · January 31, 2007

Why?

Because I'm nice like that.

White Doors · January 31, 2007

I don't need you to worry about me but thanks anyways.

kimmy · January 31, 2007

Kimmy straighten him out on this, same as geoffrey and the others. These are stupid conversations.

These are stupid conversations, because people are not reading what each other is saying.

Just to check on things, guys, we're all in agreement about how fractional reserve banking works?

CanadianBlue:but hard currency is fixed at whatever the BoC prints minus what is taken out of circulation or destroyed.

No. Private banks create money. Ask your economics professor.

You missed the key phrase in what Blue said: hard currency.

Riverwind:My economic professors might say that banks created money but when I ask how they would give me the explaination I provided. They would not tell me that private banks create money from nothing.

Why don't you ask one ? You never provided a link that explains that only BOC creates money because there is no link like that because its wrong.

Again, you've missed a key phrase. Riverwind states that private banks can not create money from nothing. A reserve ration means they can't create it *from nothing*. It means that there's a limitation on their ability to lend and that they have to have some amount of hard currency to back up their liabilities.

You earlier mentioned a 300:1 figure...

First of all most people dissagree with me when I explain that bankers create money from nothing. The reserve requirements are 300:1 - irrelevant unless you are in a rapidly growing economy.

...and said it's practically irrelevant. (I am not sure where the 300:1 figure comes from, but let's leave that aside for now.)

Plot some graphs of graph of money supply expansion with few different reserve ratios-- 10:1, 100:1, 300:1... then plot one where the reserve ratio is 300:0. And you can see from this sort of graph, the central bank can contract or expand the money supply by taking currency out of circulation.

So, with a fixed reserve ratio, the government does have direct control over the money supply, even though the banks are the ones who create the large majority of the actual money supply.

Back to the 300:1 figure, or whatever our reserve ratio actually is: as Geoffrey states, and as I've read this morning, Canada no longer has a fixed reserve ratio for most types of lending. In Canada a bank's reserve ratio seems to be completely at the bank's discretion. The limit on the banks' ability to continue lending, and continue increasing the money supply, isn't clear to me. Nor is the means by which our Central bank has the power to control the money supply. So in this respect, the banks are closer than it would seem to being able to create money from nothing.

-k

Charles Anthony · January 31, 2007

For what it is worth, I am going to pipe in here.

So in this respect, the banks are closer than it would seem to being able to create money from nothing.

The banks (central or private or real or imaJennary) are not creating money out of "nothing" per se but rather out of our "faith" that they will stay solvent.

If we invest in a shoe-making business, we have faith that people will demand shoes in the future. It is the same with banks.

If we put money into Enron stocks, we have faith that Enron will continue to exist.

Banks are a relatively safe bet regardless of their reserve structure.

PolyNewbie · January 31, 2007

kimmy:Again, you've missed a key phrase. Riverwind states that private banks can not create money from nothing. A reserve ration means they can't create it *from nothing*. It means that there's a limitation on their ability to lend and that they have to have some amount of hard currency to back up their liabilities.

I did miss that key phrase but we have been argueing abount money creation. the fact is that private bankers create about 97 % of the supply of money in circulation in Canada & 100 % in the States. Most of this is electronic money - you don't pay your mortgage in cash.

The fact that there is a reserve requirement does not mean money is not created for nothing. If a bank has a reserve ratio of 10 , has 1000.00 on deposit then it can create another $10,000.00 from thin air. The reserve ratios have been increased to 300 to 1 thats when the banks started complaing about welfare check accounts - they do not provide needed money for reserves anymore because reserve ratios have been increased.

PolyNewbie · January 31, 2007

CharlesAnthony:If we invest in a shoe-making business, we have faith that people will demand shoes in the future. It is the same with banks.

Its not the same thing. There is a real work done in making the shoes. Someone earns the money. The banks just print it off for nothing but the ink & presses or computers to do money creation.

Banks are very rich & powerful because they do not have to earn their money. The earn more than everyone else working to earn their money because they create it and are the only source of money.

Charles Anthony · January 31, 2007

This is where your concept of freedom and economics spins you out from one galaxy to an other.

Its not the same thing. There is a real work done in making the shoes. Someone earns the money.

Wrong.

If nobody trades anything for those shoes, NOBODY earns money. You can only earn money if somebody gives you money -- it does not matter what you give.

People make money by dancing on stage. People pay money to watch.

People make ugly shoes. People do NOT pay money for those shoes.

People make money by lending money to other people. People pay interest charges to spend money they do not have. Banks provide a REAL service to real people.

PolyNewbie · January 31, 2007

Charles Anthony:People make money by lending money to other people. People pay interest charges to spend money they do not have. Banks provide a REAL service to real people.

You are just another person who has never read anything on banking in his life, you don't know anything about it and here you are an expert because you have a computer and you are logged onto the internet.

Of course it is assumed that someone will actually make the shoes and sell them. If they do not make shoes we were mislead in investing in a company that made shoes. They would still owe the money they borrowed even though they didn't make the shoes. They still have to earn the money even though they borrowed it.

The banks just creat money, they don't earn it with their services, they just create if from nothing and that is a fact. When you go in and borrow $100,000 the bank just made almost $100,000.00 profit just for creating the money.

A lot of people just "get" this. I guess when you are mentally conditioned to not believe conspiracy theories - actually believe that they do not exist then anything that doesn't sound like you think it should be must be wrong. You don't have to bother reading about it because its just common sense. If anyone makes a movie or writes a book and that does not match your version of reality they must be nutcases.

There are many movements regarding monetary reform in the UK, USA & Canada. One political party who has lots of expertise in economics has built a party platform on it. Just because people in the executive of that party are well educated and have many years of experience in economics doesn't mean anything because you have your a$$ and your a$$ gives information that is rational.

Bankers create money from nothing. This is not any kind of conspiracy theory. I've listed lots of references that will explain this. Many of the references are world famous economists (JKG), the bankers themselves and ex presidents. I've listed books, movies and provided quotes. But still your knowledge that you pull out of your rectum is worth more.

White Doors · January 31, 2007

When you go in and borrow $100,000 the bank just made almost $100,000.00 profit just for creating the money.

Jesus you are dense. You obviously don't even know what 'profit' means. You are also very ill-informed with banking. Your assumptions are outlandish and your theories are childish.

Not everyone pays back that 100,000 grand Poly. That's why the rest of us have to pay interest on it.

dumbass.

PolyNewbie · January 31, 2007

WhiteDoors:Not everyone pays back that 100,000 grand Poly. That's why the rest of us have to pay interest on it.
dumbass.

:unsure:

geoffrey · February 1, 2007

You are just another person who has never read anything on banking in his life, you don't know anything about it and here you are an expert because you have a computer and you are logged onto the internet.

That's awfully high and mighty coming from a person that is literally talking out of his ass about something knows not a thing about. It's comical listening to your ignorance of reality.

The banks just creat money, they don't earn it with their services, they just create if from nothing and that is a fact. When you go in and borrow $100,000 the bank just made almost $100,000.00 profit just for creating the money.

So why doesn't a bank just create infinite amounts of cash and line the streets with it? Why do they pay me interest on my deposits if they can just forgo the deposits and start the printers rolling?

There are many movements regarding monetary reform in the UK, USA & Canada. One political party who has lots of expertise in economics has built a party platform on it. Just because people in the executive of that party are well educated and have many years of experience in economics doesn't mean anything because you have your a$$ and your a$$ gives information that is rational.

The CPC and the Liberals have many former banking and finance execs, Maxime Bernier was a senior VP at Standard Life and in the Liberal party John McCallum is a former chief economist and senior VP at RBC.

But real bankers and finance people know nothing and PolyNewb knows far more about monetary policy and banking because he's read a handful of books and watches conspiracy movies.

Good gosh.

PolyNewbie · February 1, 2007

geoffrey:But real bankers and finance people know nothing and PolyNewb knows far more about monetary policy and banking because he's read a handful of books and watches conspiracy movies.

Thats about it. The establishment doesn't want you to know how banking works and thats why you do not know. You are not being educated if you do not know this and you are in financial studies, you are being trained to be a pencil pusher.

geoffrey:So why doesn't a bank just create infinite amounts of cash and line the streets with it?

Thats essentially what they are doing now, they are doing the same things that preceded the 1929 crash. At this point we have many of the same things going on today that were happening before 1929 - piles of derivatives, cash supplied have quadrupled since around 1999. A lot of it is being driven around in pickup trucks in Iraq and is sitting in tax shelters for the rich. Mainstream media isn't telling you about it.

geoffrey:The CPC and the Liberals have many former banking and finance execs, Maxime Bernier was a senior VP at Standard Life and in the Liberal party John McCallum is a former chief economist and senior VP at RBC.

People like John Kenneth Galbraith must be crazy for saying bankers create money. He must have been a nut case. Too bad he is dead, you would sure be able to straighten him out with your knowledge.

August1991 · February 1, 2007

Thats about it. The establishment doesn't want you to know how banking works and thats why you do not know. You are not being educated if you do not know this and you are in financial studies, you are being trained to be a pencil pusher.

That comes from a poster who has yet to state whether he's talking about the nominal or real interest rate and apparently can't make the distinction between the two.

Jenna · February 1, 2007

http://www.endgame.org/

look into some of the corporations on this site, and specifically, the banks.

You can go through all of their lawsuits and criminal charges, etc., as well as getting to have a look at who's in charge of what.

Also, when I hear Lou Dobbs speak of the "Corporate elite", or when he says "if people don't see that theres a hidden agenda here thats not of our government", I'm inclined to point my finger at the dirty bankers.

look it up look it up look it up

http://www.endgame.org/

PolyNewbie · February 1, 2007

August 1991:That comes from a poster who has yet to state whether he's talking about the nominal or real interest rate and apparently can't make the distinction between the two.

It is irrelevant to this discussion. Interest that banks earn on loans is a small part of the profit they earn. Most profit comes from creating money in the first place. The point of this thread is about how banks control us, not about specific internal policies and loan rates.

Words like "nominal" and "real" have many applications. I could of course look this up on the web but its not relevant.

PolyNewbie · February 1, 2007

The endgame is to get public assets into the hands of the private investors that elect politicians through their control of the media. A Security and Prosperity Partnership is all about putting a police state in place so that assets can be sold off to private companies and people will work harder for less, be taxed more, and be stopped from doing anything about it by the police state.

This makes perfect sense, unless you think the terrorists are real and not government doing inside jobs to scare the public into wanting a police state and war.

Recently the federal government in Canada has announced its plans to sell off 40 billion in public asssets to private companies then lease the buildings back. This is how obviously stupid it has all become.

Riverwind · February 1, 2007

It is irrelevant to this discussion. Interest that banks earn on loans is a small part of the profit they earn. Most profit comes from creating money in the first place. The point of this thread is about how banks control us, not about specific internal policies and loan rates.

PN, your basic assumptions are simply WRONG. Banks can only lend cash that they have on hand. The only way they can get cash is to convince someone to deposit money in their institution which means they have to pay interest on that cash before they can lend it.

I gave you a like that explains how banking really works but you seem to insist on denying reality.

Riverwind · February 1, 2007

Back to the 300:1 figure, or whatever our reserve ratio actually is: as Geoffrey states, and as I've read this morning, Canada no longer has a fixed reserve ratio for most types of lending. In Canada a bank's reserve ratio seems to be completely at the bank's discretion. The limit on the banks' ability to continue lending, and continue increasing the money supply, isn't clear to me. Nor is the means by which our Central bank has the power to control the money supply. So in this respect, the banks are closer than it would seem to being able to create money from nothing.

Kimmy, the limits on expansion of the money supply set by reserve ratios are theoretical maximums that depend on the willingness of people to borrow money from the banks at the prevailing interest rates. If the BOC raises rates then people will borrow less, payback their existing loans faster and deposit money into interest bearing accounts - this reduces the money supply. If the BOC lowers rates rates then the people borrow more which increases the money supply. Furthermore, every bank has to maintain some level of reserves even if the gov't does not legislate a minimum - these informal limits put a pratical limit on money supply expansion.

That said the most important point to remember is banks have to pay interest on every dollar they loan so they can only make money on the difference between the interest rate of the loan and the interest rate on the deposits that they use to make the loan. In addition, the bank is on the the hook if someone defaults on a loan since once that cash gets into the system they cannot get it back. This means that every loan represents a risk that a bank must balance against the returns. These last two factors explain why banks don't rush out to bring in business with 1% mortgages and credit cards.

geoffrey · February 1, 2007

I did miss that key phrase but we have been argueing abount money creation. the fact is that private bankers create about 97 % of the supply of money in circulation in Canada & 100 % in the States. Most of this is electronic money - you don't pay your mortgage in cash.

Actually you do, but that topic is so far beyond the level of this conversation.... I suggest that you go down to your local university and register is some senior economics courses, then come back and talk to us about banking. You really just don't quite get it. A little knowledge is a terribly dangerous thing.

The fact that there is a reserve requirement does not mean money is not created for nothing. If a bank has a reserve ratio of 10 , has 1000.00 on deposit then it can create another $10,000.00 from thin air. The reserve ratios have been increased to 300 to 1 thats when the banks started complaing about welfare check accounts - they do not provide needed money for reserves anymore because reserve ratios have been increased.

No it can't just create that money. It has to be lent out, then re-deposited, then lent out, re-dposited, re-lent yet again at least 10 times for them to get to $10,000. All those deposits carry interest and all those loans make interest. The difference is the bank's take, minus there operating expenses, and now you get bank profit.

The reason why banks are so rich is not some scheme, just that North Americans borrow astonishing amounts of money.

Thats about it. The establishment doesn't want you to know how banking works and thats why you do not know. You are not being educated if you do not know this and you are in financial studies, you are being trained to be a pencil pusher.

So don't get educated, hide in your house and read books created by likeminded parnoia mongerers? I think I'll pass. The education system is not broken, your worldview is.

Thats essentially what they are doing now, they are doing the same things that preceded the 1929 crash. At this point we have many of the same things going on today that were happening before 1929 - piles of derivatives, cash supplied have quadrupled since around 1999. A lot of it is being driven around in pickup trucks in Iraq and is sitting in tax shelters for the rich. Mainstream media isn't telling you about it.

We do have piles of derivatives, and you've got some reason to question that. But I'd simply explain it as an increase in companies desire to hedge against long-term currency risk. Risk management and dealing with it has never been such a priority as it is today. That's why we see tons of derivatives.

Since these derivatives are a cause of great concern to you, why don't you please describe to us (as I surely want to know, my education is all a falsehood taught by corrupt bankers) how these instruments work and how they influence market behavoirs. Most importantly, explain to me the industries that use these instruments to a great extent... and upon explaining that key aspect, you may gain an understand of what is going on.

People like John Kenneth Galbraith must be crazy for saying bankers create money. He must have been a nut case. Too bad he is dead, you would sure be able to straighten him out with your knowledge.

One of hundreds of economists doesn't make a theory sound.

Now I must be off. Going to waste a few hours getting brainwashed by the Builderbergs or whoever is running the schools to prevent me from seeing the big picture. Good day sir.

Jenna · February 1, 2007

Honestly though

Do any of you actually click on the links that we provide?

Or do you just assume that you already know everything.

Whats the deal with Citigroup anyways.....

http://www.endgame.org/corpfines1.html

http://www.endgame.org

and don't forget to watch this too, so you can debunk it or whatever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rsEOrME_-o

secret meetings in Canada?

When old Louie mentions the elite, hes talking about the bankers.

The bankers own us, and are controlling everything that happens.

He friggin names them off for God's sake.

A stupid textbook from some finance course is good for jack squat.

Seriously, look into it instead of doing the usual auto response thing.

And stop using your college exam questions as some kind of proof.

This is the real world, bucko

kimmy · February 1, 2007

When you go in and borrow $100,000 the bank just made almost $100,000.00 profit just for creating the money.

August 1991:That comes from a poster who has yet to state whether he's talking about the nominal or real interest rate and apparently can't make the distinction between the two.

It is irrelevant to this discussion. Interest that banks earn on loans is a small part of the profit they earn. Most profit comes from creating money in the first place.

....

:rolleyes:

-k

PolyNewbie · February 1, 2007

When you go in and borrow $100,000 the bank just made almost $100,000.00 profit just for creating the money.

Its really true. You can read about it, watch movies about it or ask major economists - or even bankers. This thread is filled with references. My favorite is "Money As Debt" for movies, followed by The Money Masters (available on google). A great book is The Creature From Jekyll Island. JK Galbraiths book called "Money" also explains it. There are many quotes from presidents and bankers on this thread that show how banks actually operate.

We do not live in a rational world and part of that irrationality is how we allow banks to operate. Bank operation is kept well hidden in the classrooms.