Banker/Wall Street Governance

[Riverwind]

Don't ready any academically published info!!! Just internet stuff and wack job books!! They are the only untouched material in society!!!

Doesn't that make your head spin? According to Poly the omnipotent and murderous bankers are able to control our text books but they seem to be unable to stop the 'truth' from getting out on the Internet. It should be a simple matter for these all powerful bankers to put the squeeze on the ISPs and phone companies and ensure that this "truth" does not get out.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:According to Poly the omnipotent and murderous bankers are able to control our text books but they seem to be unable to stop the 'truth' from getting out on the Internet.

Right.

Riverwind:It should be a simple matter for these all powerful bankers to put the squeeze on the ISPs and phone companies and ensure that this "truth" does not get out.

They are. Many people are learning 911 was an inside job but not many know about the banks and their influence on society. If you ever can talk to an economist on these matters they will confirm what I am saying about bankers and the UNESCO textbooks.

[Riverwind]

If you ever can talk to an economist on these matters they will confirm what I am saying about bankers and the UNESCO textbooks.

I am fairly certain that any economics professor would tell you that you are an idiot and that your theories make no sense.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:I am fairly certain that any economics professor would tell you that you are an idiot and that your theories make no sense

I know of two Phd level economists that have told me I am right personally. I know of lots of other economists who speak out on this. I've never heard of an economist that said the private banks don't create money. That would be like a mathematician telling you 2+2=5.

[Riverwind]

I know of two Phd level economists that have told me I am right personally. I know of lots of other economists who speak out on this. I've never heard of an economist that said the private banks don't create money.

Your are an idiot. I have make it very clear that banks do create money. But I have also said that whenever a bank creates money by making a loan it always creates a liability as well. This means banks cannot make a profit when they create money - they can only make a profit on the difference between the rate they charge in loans and the amount they pay in interest on deposits. I am certain that any economist who looked at my example would agree that my analysis is correct - including the PhD level economists that you seem to know.

You simply do not understand banking. You are so obsessed with this idea that banks create money that you are not able to comprehend the extremely important subtleties that make the power to create money much less profitable that you would like to believe.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You are so obsessed with this idea that banks create money that you are not able to comprehend the extremely important subtleties that make the power to create money much less profitable that you would like to believe.

Talk about all your bank liabilities and assets all you want. I say its not real - its just the creation by someone with a pen and paper. Pull back the curtains and look beyond at fundamentally what is happening and how banks operate at the most basic level.

You do not read. You are telling me how the banks operate at a numerical level and you have never ever read a single book on the topic or taken a course in the topic or met with any single high level banker and even listened to a speech done by a high level banker.

You know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. All of your words come straight out of your rectum and you think that you have this sort of intuitive understanding of things that is better than someone elses research. You are not only incredibly stupid, but that much more arrogant as well.

Learn your subject matter before you start creating arguements, then your statements may have some basis in reality. Your little expose of how banks work comes right out of your a$$.

Its not a rational world and you cannot rationalize everything. You are probably young and do not yet understand that. Its not a rational world in which we live and rationalization is not the way to explain it. Rationalization is for math not economics and banking.

[Riverwind]

You are telling me how the banks operate at a numerical level.

You have made many statements about banking which are simply false. I used the numerical examples because that was the most effective way to prove that you do not know what you are talking about. Banks provide a important service in society and they do have significant power which could be abused - that is why the industry needs to be heavily regulated. However, I don't see any reason to radically change the system even though fractional reserve banking does come with some inherent economic risks because it also delivers huge economic benefits by making credit available to more people at lower rates than any other system.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You have made many statements about banking which are simply false.

such as... ?

Riverwind:I used the numerical examples because that was the most effective way to prove that you do not know what you are talking about.

Your opinion does not prove anything. That explanation came right from your a$$, not from your knowledge about banking.

You have never read a book about banking, never taken a course and unless you have worked under Rockefeller directly, why should anyone think you know anything about banking ?

You are actually insane. You think you know better than many economists about the subject but have never read anything about it.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind:You have made many statements about banking which are simply false.

such as... ?

Exhibit A:

(Currently 28 % of your income tax goes to private bankers and they give you nothing in return.

The majority of interest on the public debt goes back to Canadians via their investments in pensions and insurance policies. This fact can be easily verified by looking at the financial stats posted on the gov't website. I have posted links.

Exhibit B:

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

Every time a bank creates a loan it creates an liability that cancels the asset of the loan - this means the banks make no net profit from creating money. They only make money from the interest rate differential. This fact is easily verified by looking at any economics textbox. I also have posted links.

You think you know better than many economists about the subject but have never read anything about it.

I have read a lot about economics and studied it in university. More importantly, I can actually understand what these economists write - you simply ignore what they write and make up your own theories to support your bizarre fantasies.

When you are presented with information that clearly shows that your are wrong you respond by claiming that some mysterious power fabricated the information and only the information from 'PolyNewbie Approved' sources can be considered correct.

The fact is everybody reading your bizarre responses to factual information recognizes that you are insane and that you are simply making things up.

[stignasty]

Let's assume for a minute that the evil bankers met on mystery island and created the reprobate banking scheme we have now. Imagine that what PolyNewbie is saying is all true...

Okay, now answer this, has the standard of living for the bulk of people living in the US (where the evil bankers were from) improved since the system was put into place, or have they (we) been reduced to a life of menial labour and slavery?

I for one don't buy into the conspiracy theories, but even if I did I would admit that my life is a better one than my parents lived (you know, the great depression and World War II and all), and their lives were better than their parents (coal mining in order to give your pay back to the company stores and to pay the company rent on one side, subsistence farming on the other).

The one thing that's worse than a conspiracy theory that doesn't make a lot of sense, is one that really doesn't matter. Instead of pointing at the boogey-man, maybe present a design for a better economic model. By that I mean one that will improve the lives of common people, not just shut out the bad bankers.

[PolyNewbie]

Stignasty:Let's assume for a minute that the evil bankers met on mystery island and created the reprobate banking scheme we have now.

Its fact that they met on Jekyll Island in a secret meeting.

Stignasty:Okay, now answer this, has the standard of living for the bulk of people living in the US (where the evil bankers were from) improved since the system was put into place, or have they (we) been reduced to a life of menial labour and slavery?

We have more land than we need and an abundance of natural resources. Well fed people work harder.

Stignasty:I for one don't buy into the conspiracy theories

The Iran Contra affair was real. Someone other than Oswald shot Kennedy. How did Kennedy car dissapear ? What is going on with the trillions of dollars that are going missing from the Pentagon ? What about all the secret negotiations about the North American Union ? How can you not believe there is a conspiracy ?

[PolyNewbie]

Stignasty:Instead of pointing at the boogey-man, maybe present a design for a better economic model. By that I mean one that will improve the lives of common people, not just shut out the bad bankers.

Life would dramatically change - from education quality, hospital quality, infrastructure quality, lower taxes, fewer (if any ) wars, unbiased media that reports news.

Removing the central bankers from their position of being able to print our money at virtually no cost and lending it to us at full face value would change society so much for the better that it is difficult to count the ways or imagine how much. They are an incredible drain, not only on us but for every member of h7umanity that is not living in one of the "rogue" nations all of which that do not have private central banks.

[stignasty]

Stignasty:Instead of pointing at the boogey-man, maybe present a design for a better economic model. By that I mean one that will improve the lives of common people, not just shut out the bad bankers.

Life would dramatically change - from education quality, hospital quality, infrastructure quality, lower taxes, fewer (if any ) wars, unbiased media that reports news.

Removing the central bankers from their position of being able to print our money at virtually no cost and lending it to us at full face value would change society so much for the better that it is difficult to count the ways or imagine how much. They are an incredible drain, not only on us but for every member of h7umanity that is not living in one of the "rogue" nations all of which that do not have private central banks.

You've got it all wrong. It's the fault of those teens with their backwards hats and rappity rap music.

What do you think of beluga whales? I think they're silly looking.*

[Riverwind]

Exhibit C

Removing the central bankers from their position of being able to print our money at virtually no cost and lending it to us at full face value would change society so much for the better that it is difficult to count the ways or imagine how much.

Central banks in all major economies are publically owned institutions that operate at arms length from the gov't. The profits from printing money already go into public coffers.

Use of seigniorage revenue

In recent years, just over $35 billion in notes has been in circulation. The interest revenue of the Bank of Canada has fluctuated between $1.7 and $2.2 billion per year. A small portion of this—$130 million, on average—has been used to finance the Bank's general operating expenses. The remainder has been paid to the Receiver General. Seigniorage revenue thus allows the federal government to finance a portion of its expenditures without having to collect taxes.

http://www.bank-banque-canada.ca/en/backgrounders/bg-m3.html

All of your arguments are based on incorrect information which means they are rubbish.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:All of your arguments are based on incorrect information which means they are rubbish.

No. I have explained that approximately 3.5 % of Canadian money is not debt based.

[Riverwind]

No. I have explained that approximately 3.5 % of Canadian money is not debt based.

And I have explained that when banks create money with loans also create a liability. This means their is no seigniorage revenue being lost when private banks create money. Seigniorage only enters into the question when the central bank prints hard currency or buys treasury bills or bonds.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:And I have explained that when banks create money with loans also create a liability.

No, you just pulled that explaination out of your rectum.

This means their is no seigniorage revenue being lost when private banks create money.

No it doesn't. Your imagination doesn't prove anything. Your opinion is not proof of anything.

Seigniorage only enters into the question when the central bank prints hard currency or buys treasury bills or bonds.

Yes thats true in a sense - it really depends exactly how seigniorage is defined. Seigniorage is very close to 100% when electronic money is created if it applies to electronic money.

[Canadian Blue]

What about all the secret negotiations about the North American Union ?

If their secret, then how do you know about them?

No it doesn't. Your imagination doesn't prove anything. Your opinion is not proof of anything.

I don't know, what about people that say Canadian lawyers wear the robes of Saturn, and that Caesar was killed due to monetary reform, despite the fact historian's say otherwise.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:I don't know, what about people that say Canadian lawyers wear the robes of Saturn, and that Caesar was killed due to monetary reform, despite the fact historian's say otherwise.

Private bankers have been running the world for well over 1000 years. Its not something that is taught in school.

For example in archealogical shows they tell you everything about a society except how their money and banks worked. Shows will talk about sewage, water, housing, politics, technology, wars but never money and financing. This part of history has been practically erased.

All the US leaders that were assasinated or had an attempted assasination were monetary reformers and you can find quotes from them.

[Riverwind]

No it doesn't. Your imagination doesn't prove anything. Your opinion is not proof of anything.

I have backed my opinion with detailed examples and links to websites. It is infinitely more credible that anything yo have posted.

Yes thats true in a sense - it really depends exactly how seigniorage is defined. Seigniorage is very close to 100% when electronic money is created if it applies to electronic money.

There is no seigniorage revenue when banks loan money, That is a fact that can be verified with any economics text book.

[Canadian Blue]

Private bankers have been running the world for well over 1000 years. Its not something that is taught in school.

For example in archealogical shows they tell you everything about a society except how their money and banks worked. Shows will talk about sewage, water, housing, politics, technology, wars but never money and financing. This part of history has been practically erased.

All the US leaders that were assasinated or had an attempted assasination were monetary reformers and you can find quotes from them.

So let me get this straight, you're saying historian's know nothing of history, yet some shady website on the internet does?

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:I have backed my opinion with detailed examples and links to websites. It is infinitely more credible that anything yo have posted.

You web links do not explain that the money is created before it is deposited. Your website links explain what happens after the money is created.

If the bankers had this much power do you think their websites would lay it all out for you ?

Do you think all those movies and books I have listed are all wrong because your a$$ says so ? Many were written by Phd economists.

[geoffrey]

Many were written by Phd economists.

Evidence? Most are uncredited.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:So let me get this straight, you're saying historian's know nothing of history, yet some shady website on the internet does?

History is written by the winners. Its almost never actually true. Topics that get researched in history are controlled by UNESCO because they control the grants given to profs for research. Money is a topic that is consistently avoided.

[Riverwind]

You web links do not explain that the money is created before it is deposited. Your website links explain what happens after the money is created.

What I am saying once the money is created by a loan it must be IMMEDIATELY deposited or paid out in cash. It is IMPOSSIBLE to create money with a loan without immediately creating an equal liability. My examples and links show that clearly.

Do you think all those movies and books I have listed are all wrong because your a$$ says so ? Many were written by Phd economists.

I think you are an idiot that does not understand the topic. Many of the economists that you claim to read say the exact same thing I do but you can't see that because you are so obsessed with the idea that banks create money from nothing. Your post quoting Greenspan is a perfect example.