Banker/Wall Street Governance

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:IOW: if a bank issues a loan for $100,000 then it must either provide $100,000 in cash it must pay interest on a $100,000 deposit. No matter what happens that loan costs the bank something.

Their costs are administrative, security and media management.

Its a cashless society. Of the $100,000.00 only a small portion gets converted to cash.

How much cash do you use ? Do you buy groceries with cash ? Pay your car and house payments with cash ?

[Jenna]

CNBC - The Great Game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHSeSo7sfkE...related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH4R-rk0N9o...related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRM28vc4Q88...related&search=

CNBC - The Great Game: Creation of the Federal Reserve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3mi6Y_53xI...related&search=

ahhhhhh yeah.

[Riverwind]

Their costs are administrative, security and media management.

Wrong - bank have to pay interest on that $100,000 as if someone deposited cash. Electronic transactions are a quick convenient way to exchange cash - they do not replace cash and do not produce difference results than they would if the same transaction is conducted in cash.

If someone borrowed money from a bank to pay you would refuse to demand interest payments on that money from the bank after the check clears?

[Drea]

What they don't understand, Poly, is that "money" is "virtual".

When your employer deposits your paycheque into your account, no actual money is transfered -- only the "idea" of the money.

A bank does not have wads and wads of cash -- some sure, but certainly not enough if everyone wanted to drain their accounts at the same time.

[Charles Anthony]

What they don't understand, Poly, is that "money" is "virtual".

Most of us understand that perfectly. What we do not understand is why you think that is a problem.

A bank does not have wads and wads of cash -- some sure, but certainly not enough if everyone wanted to drain their accounts at the same time.

That is not a problem because we (customers of the bank) agree to it.

We do not want to hold ALL of our cash ourselves. If we did, why would we go to a bank?? Answer that.

[PolyNewbie]

Charles Anthony:That is not a problem because we (customers of the bank) agree to it.

Only people that know nothing about monetary history agree to it. If you read about monetary history you can understand how the banks could function so much better than they do now. Our governments and people are slaves to money and their debt. Things could be a lot different.

Banking has functioned the way it does currently for about 1000 years but with legislation that has already passed the country (both Canada & the USA) could finance its own debt instead of going to private banks. Currently 100 % of collected tax in the USA goes straight to the Federal Reserve banks.

There is only one reason a government would go to a private bank to finance its affairs - that reason is the government must be controlled by the banks.

An interview with Catherine Austin Fitts on Rense radio is very instructive about the banks. You would be too afrraid to listen to that because she knows the banks and she would strongly interfere with your belief system. You would be better off just to keep watching TV, that way your belief system gets reinforced instead of challenged - much easier for you.

[Riverwind]

An interview with Catherine Austin Fitts on Rense radio is very instructive about the banks. You would be too afrraid to listen to that because she knows the banks and she would strongly interfere with your belief system.

Why would anything this person has to say be any more credible that the BS you post here. Everything you have said about banks has been shown to be wrong or incomplete.

Why do do you evade the question:

If I borrowed $1000 from a bank and wrote you a cheque for $1000 then what would do with the money?

Would you:

1) Withdraw cash and put it in your mattress

2) Deposit it into a bank account and collect interest from the bank

3) Give the money to someone else that would have to do 1), 2) or 3)

If you choose 1) then the bank would have produce the cash to back up the loan.

If you choose 2) then the bank ends up paying you for the money it created to make the loan.

Choosing 3) does not continue forever - eventually someone would chose 1) or 2).

How it is possible for a bank to create money with a loan that it does not end up paying for with either cash or interest? If you took the time to think you would realize that it is impossible and that it costs banks money to create loans.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: Go learn something about monetary history. I'm sick of your nonsense.

You are just an apologist for the big banks, governments and war and you have no idea what you are talking about.

You have never shown me to be wrong about anything. I post on here wrt topics that I have extensively researched and read about and listened to experts on. You speak from your a$$ and know nothing.

Go away and bother someone else.

If you don't get that most money never gets converted to cash then thats your problem. I am not here to convince you of anything. The fact is that about 3.5 % of our money supply is cash. The cash is debt free currency printed by the bank of Canada in Canada. It is debt bearing currency in the USA.

[PolyNewbie]

Anyone interested in this subject matter should watch The Money Masters

Its free on google. The monetary view of history is very different from the UNESCO/state sponsored truth taught in the schools. There is a very good reason why the monetary view of history is not taught. It exposes the power that banks have in our society - which is really incredible.

Many books and videos say the same thing as The Money Masters. Nothing in that movie has ever been shown to be false. The movie is based on presidential quotes, banker quoptes and uncontested facts of history. The monetary view of history provides a very interesting and more complete view of history than the conventional accidental view. It makes a lot more sense.

This is the most important documentary that you can watch. It will change your views on everything from your own finances to wars and politics. Learning more beyond this movie can show you how much the bankers are in control today. They effectively re - engineered women and started the womans movement to get two people on the payroll and paying taxes.

Learning about how banks operated in the past and the history of fractional reserve banking can give you perspective on our current system, and an understanding of the various ways it can be changed.

Banking is one of the most corrupt, secret and profitable enterprises that exists. Banks make enourmous profits from wars through lending the money to build the weapons and through the reconstruction efforts. Banks profiuts from war cannot even be simply defined, they in in the order of thousands of percent profit.

The countries that do not have central banks controlled by the Rothschilds are: Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea & Libya. Imagine why they are on the same "rogue nations" list for the USA. The US army is nothing more than a collection agency and thug for the international bankers.

[Riverwind]

If you don't get that most money never gets converted to cash then thats your problem. I am not here to convince you of anything. The fact is that about 3.5 % of our money supply is cash. The cash is debt free currency printed by the bank of Canada in Canada. It is debt bearing currency in the USA.

I never said that all money is converted to cash. I said that if the money is not converted to cash then the banks must pay interest on it. My example makes that fact painfully obvious. If you disagree then tell us where does the money go if it not in cash or it is not collecting interest in a bank? Why don't you answer the question:

If I borrowed $1000 from a bank and wrote you a cheque for $1000 then what would you do with the money?

Would you:

1) Withdraw cash and put it in your mattress

2) Deposit it into a bank account and collect interest from the bank

3) Give the money to someone else that would have to do 1), 2) or 3)

What is your answer?

[PolyNewbie]

Another great source of information on monetary reform can be found at The American Monetary Institute

This has free video presentations.

Riverwind: If you gave me $1000.00 cash I would donate most of it to the Canadian Action Party and some of it to The American Monetary Institute. I would buy some copies of "Money As Debt" and lend them out to people to spread the word on monetary reform.

The money would never be converted to cash.

Monetary reform is the most important political movement of today. Once we have monetary reform all other problems become insignificant and easily solveable. We eat better, get better educations, fewer wars, better hospitalization and a better media. The world becomes more interesting and it leads to individual empowerment and a growth of culture and knowledge like what we have never seen before.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind: If you gave me $1000.00 cash I would donate most of it to the Canadian Action Party and some of it to The American Monetary Institute. I would buy some copies of "Money As Debt" and lend them out to people to spread the word on monetary reform.

Great. So what does the Canadian Action Party do with their donations? I bet they put them into a bank and collect interest. That means that the Canadian Action Party would make a profit on the money that the bank loaned me. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the Canadian Action Party.

The money would never be converted to cash.

BTW: refusing to read the arguments that you are trying to counter makes you look like a complete idiot. I never said that all money would be converted to cash. I said it is converted to cash or it is sitting in a bank depoit collecting interest.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:How it is possible for a bank to create money with a loan that it does not end up paying for with either cash or interest? If you took the time to think you would realize that it is impossible and that it costs banks money to create loans.

If you took the time to read a book on the matter you would understand how this is all easily possible.

You can watch the first 15 minutes of Money As Debt on the Canadian Action Party website for free and it does explain this. Its very simple to understand.

[Riverwind]

If you took the time to read a book on the matter you would understand how this is all easily possible.

Then why don't you explain it? Probably because you can't. All of your theories are rubbish built on a pile of factual errors and omissions. If you disagree then answer the question:

How it is possible for a bank to create money with a loan that it does not end up paying for with either cash or interest? If you took the time to think you would realize that it is impossible and that it costs banks money to create loans.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Then why don't you explain it? Probably because you can't. All of your theories are rubbish built on a pile of factual errors and omissions. If you disagree then answer the question:

I'm through talking with you. The question you asked can be answered by watching the video better than I could explain it. The video is free.

Another great video on banking is The Capitalist Conspiracy. This video doesn't address banking directly like some others. I will post more links to these free videos as Riverwind adds more posts of nonsense and stupidity.

Every time Riverwind does a post I am going to link monetary reform web sites and free videos.

[Riverwind]

I'm through talking with you. The question you asked can be answered by watching the video better than I could explain it.

Finally! You admit that you don't understand banking enough to explain it to others. My work is done.

[PolyNewbie]

Its just such a stupid question. You think that your $1000.00 cheque must be converted to cash at some point ? You have to understand the basics of banking to know this is not true. I cannot explain this on here anywhere nearly as well as Money As Debt, the video.

Thats not true. Chequing is also well explained in The Creature From Jekyll Island, an excellent book.

Another free video on google is Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud)

[Riverwind]

Its just such a stupid question. You think that your $1000.00 cheque must be converted to cash at some point ?

I never said that. Read what I wrote. As soon as that $1000 is deposited into a bank the bank MUST pay interest on that money. If you give it away then people who receive the money (i.e. the CAP) would get that interest from the bank instead. IOW: the bank will have to produce the cash OR pay interest on the money. That is a fact and posting a 1000 links won't change it.

[White Doors]

If he closes his eyes and stamps his feat he might change it river.

[PolyNewbie]

Go read a book about banking Riverwind. The answer to your question is simple but long.

Cheques are very good for banks essentially because they reduce the requirement for cash.

Another great source of information on mionetary reform is The British Association For Monetary Reform. They have a five page book on economics on this site as well.

[Riverwind]

The answer to your question is simple but long.

Then answer it. Refusing to answer is a cop out deisgned to hide your ignorance on the topic.

Cheques are very good for banks essentially because they reduce the requirement for cash.

Cheques represent electronic cash. Transferring money by check transfers the right to receive interest payments on the cash from one person to another. The bank gains nothing more than lower adminstrative costs.

[White Doors]

Who uses cheques now a days? The loonies need to update their schtick to include bank cards as being evil.

there's 666 on them ya know!

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:The bank gains nothing more than lower adminstrative costs.

That came straight out of your a$$ again. Really - try reading some time.

Money As Debt explains chequing, so does The Creature From Jekyll Island.

Riverwind:Then answer it. Refusing to answer is a cop out deisgned to hide your ignorance on the topic.

Essentially the banks work togather with cheques and the cheques end up cancelling each other out. No cash or very little actual cash is needed to handle cheques. Cheques are a very imporatnt aspect of fractional reserve banking.

COMER, the committe on economic reform in Canada is an excellent source of information on what is happening currently wrt banking & money. Most of it is written by William Khrem and IMO he is a great writer, better than JKG who can be confusing at times. Khrems writing is not about simple topics, but it is as clear and understandable as it can be made to be.

COMER

Many books on banking are reviewed on this web site.

Whenever I smell you talking out of your a$$ I will post informative links on monetary reform.

[Riverwind]

Essentially the banks work togather with cheques and the cheques end up cancelling each other out. No cash or very little actual cash is needed to handle cheques.

I agree. Banks use cheques to avoid having to move huge sums of cash around. They only need to move the difference at the end of the day. However, even though that is true cheques still represent REAL cash that the bank must pay interest on. That means that a bank that loaned $1000 to me would have to pay interest on that $1000 when the Poly/CAP deposits it into their bank account.

IOW: your counter argument does not answer my original question:

Explain how banks can lend money without EITHER coming up with the real cash OR paying interest on the money when it is deposited into someone else's bank account.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Explain how banks can lend money without EITHER coming up with the real cash OR paying interest on the money when it is deposited into someone else's bank account.

Of course they pay interest on the amount but to transfer money you use cheque.

The particulars of branch operations is not relevant to the influence banks have on world affairs. Its off topic and not interesting enough.

This is interesting:

Did you know that the only countries taht do not have privately owned central banks are: Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, Libya

Do you think its just a coincidence that the USA labels them as rogue states ?