Banker/Wall Street Governance

[Riverwind]

Currently when you borrow money from the banks the reserve ratio is so high or non existent that they can create lots of money for very little. To create $ 100,000 they need about $350.00 in deposit with a 300 to 1 reserve ratio.

Banks in the US have a legislated 10% reserve ratio. Banks in Canada have no legislated reserve ratio, however, they maintain a prudent reserve of about 10%. I looked at the annual report of ScotiaBank to confirm this:

Cash resources: 23,376

Loans: 231,086

Deposits: 263,914

So it is clear your 300 to 1 reserve ratio is another one of your fantasies.

If they lend $100,000.00 they reasonably get about $80,000.00 in pure profit after all expenses paid.

Again, that is BS. Your own source explains that when a bank makes a loan that pays interest it also creates a deposit which it must pay interest on. The bank only profits from the difference between the interest they receive and the interest they pay. More importantly, the holder has the right to demand cash to cover that deposit at any time so your are simply deluding yourself if you think those matching deposits are assets of the bank - those deposits belong to whoever the borrower chooses to give those deposits to.

[PolyNewbie]

Whether the reserve ratio is 10 to 1 or 300 to 1 is not really relevant unless the currency supply is expanding at a great rate.

I'm assuming at this point that you do not believe all those ex bankers and presidents that tell you the banks are corrupt. You wish to believe that they are not and turn to their own websites to confirm your beliefs. I know the required reserve ratio is not 10 to one, its much lower and has been for a very long time, particularly since the 80's during bank deregulation.

If the banks chose to maintain a 10 % reserve ratio then its because they do not have people to lend out the extra money.

Don't believe the ex presidents and bankers that tell you the system is corrupt, ignore all of the monetary reform movements lead by Phd economists. Your a$$ knows better and the banks are not corrupt because they say so right on their very own websites and they would never lie because corporations are always honest.

Just because the banker control over us is explained in history and major economists say so, plus piles of ex presidents say so doesn't mean anything because it doesn't say so on the banker web sites. It must be a comfortable world you live in and there is no reason to pick up a book on this subject matter that may challenge your beliefs.

I wonder why you need to defend something so badly that you don't even bother to learn about it first. Your posts on this banker thread are the absolute stupidest thing I have ever seen on any message board.

[Riverwind]

I know the required reserve ratio is not 10 to one, its much lower and has been for a very long time, particularly since the 80's during bank deregulation.

Your are making up facts again. There are numerous sources that show the banks keep 10% reserves. I even checked the audited financial statements for one bank and they said the same thing. Your are wasting your time claiming that you have some special knowledge that no one else does.

Every time you post a source with detailed information I look at it and find out that YOUR source actually supports my point of view. This demonstrates that your are not really capable of comprehending the topic. Yet you have the nerve to claim that you have superior knowledge of the topic. Your capacity for self-delusion is amazing.

To summarize: you have provided zero evidence to back up your assertion that banks make $100,000 profit minus expenses on a $100,000 loan. All of the sources that actually describe the mechanics of loaning money clearly indicate that a loan is always offset by a deposit which is owned by someone other than the bank. This means the money created by the bank is not profit for the bank. This is obvious to everyone except you.

A reasonable person would have conceded that they are wrong by now, however, you are clearly mentally unhinged and unable to acknowledge facts that undermine the paranoid delusion that appears to be your life.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Your are making up facts again. There are numerous sources that show the banks keep 10% reserves. I even checked the audited financial statements for one bank and they said the same thing. Your are wasting your time claiming that you have some special knowledge that no one else does.

Whetehr it is 10:1 or 300:1 makes very little actual real difference to the principle on which banks operate, the power they have and the profit they make. The reserve figure varies and its not so simple anymore with the wide variety of financial products avialable.

Riverwind:I look at it and find out that YOUR source actually supports my point of view.

I don't dissagree with some of the things you are saying but they are not exactly correct and grossly oversimplified and you are missing the point and you cannot see the big picture. This is because you really do not understand fundamental aspects of this subject matter because you haven't read about it and you have no high level experience in international banking - you have admitted this Therefore it is logical fact that everything you say must be comming right from your rectum - unless you were born with a built in knowledge of how banking is done today. I don't know of any other logical reason regarding how you could understand how banking is done.

The fact is that banks make huge profit and they control society today. We don't have to read to see this, all we have to do is read about what ex bankers and ex presidents have had to say about banking. If that isn't good enough there are many good monetary reform sites run by economists who have absolutely no reason to lie and are the only ones to talk about banking history. The issue is simple to understand, but the anti conspiractorial view that you take prevents you from believeing anything bad about the establishemnt.

[Riverwind]

If that isn't good enough there are many good monetary reform sites run by economists who have absolutely no reason to lie

Sure they do - there are plenty of hopelessly deluded and paranoid people out there (you are a shining example). There is no reason to believe that these sites are credible - especially when their arguments are based on false claims and are directly contradicted by information from credible sources.

Your entire argument against banking rests on the incorrect assumption that banks make a huge profit when they loan money. This is false. Banks make a profit on the difference between what they charge and what they pay - just like every other business. This is a fundemental fact that you cannot avoid.

[geoffrey]

I know the required reserve ratio is not 10 to one, its much lower and has been for a very long time, particularly since the 80's during bank deregulation.

Your are making up facts again. There are numerous sources that show the banks keep 10% reserves. I even checked the audited financial statements for one bank and they said the same thing. Your are wasting your time claiming that you have some special knowledge that no one else does.

It's up to the banks in Canada to determine their reserve ratios, there is no legislation on the matter.

3-5% is common.

[EDIT]

I've decided to add some backup to my statement, don't want to pull a PolyNewb...

RBC's 2005 Financial Statements: http://www.rbc.com/investorrelations/pdf/cfs_05_e.pdf

Check it out there, they have only $10b ish in S/T liquid cash to about $306b in demand deposits from various sources.

Of course deposits = money lent out (which wouldn't agree in PN's mind), but the actual cash available is about 3.26% of the outstanding deposits.

[PolyNewbie]

geoffrey:Of course deposits = money lent out (which wouldn't agree in PN's mind)

Of course it would. That would be stupid. I've got a banker quote that I put on this a few messages back about bankers creating deposits. What do you supposer they mean by that ?

Riverwind:Sure they do - there are plenty of hopelessly deluded and paranoid people out there (you are a shining example).

People that pull information from their a$$es are deluded. People who read books about subject matter are "informed". People that depend on their rectums for information and do not read are destined to a life of delusional stupidity.

Are you hoping to get a laon at a lower rate by showing your local bank amanger this thread and about how you stuck up for him ?

Have you ever written a thread that is critical of government or big corporations ?

[PolyNewbie]

A Banker Cartoon

[geoffrey]

A Banker Cartoon

I knew you'd bring Bilderberg into this eventually.

[PolyNewbie]

geoffery:I knew you'd bring Bilderberg into this eventually.

Builderberg or not, its a great cartoon and illustrates the situation perfectly.

[PolyNewbie]

[Canadian Blue]

Is this going to be another 80 page thread with Polynewbie constantly posting youtube videos and bringing up more rediculous conspiracy theories.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:Is this going to be another 80 page thread with Polynewbie constantly posting youtube videos and bringing up more rediculous conspiracy theories

I would use presidential quotes, banker quotes and references to books written by economists. You would use the same arguemnt as the rest of your ilk - that is demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge on the subject, demonstrate your complete unwillingness to learn and assume that you already know everything.

[Riverwind]

I would use presidential quotes, banker quotes and references to books written by economists.

None of which actually support your argument. Opinions without context or evidence from people about how bankers are evil are _not_ rational arguments.

OTOH, when you are presented with rational arguments and facts that directly contradict your claims you refuse to address the facts and try to claim that you have superior knowledge of the topic.

Furthermore, when you are forced to concede that you were wrong you try to pretend that you thought that way from the beginning or make up bizarre fantasies about how evil bankers rewrite economic textbooks and a falsify gov't reports.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:None of which actually support your argument. Opinions without context or evidence from people about how bankers are evil are _not_ rational arguments.

So you think that this quote can be misinterpreted ? What do you think they meant ?

Woodrow Wilson President of U.S.: 1913~1921, Historian and Political Scientist

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

How about this one below ? How do you think it could be mis interpreted ?

Andrew Jackson, in an address to Congress, 1829

"You (International Bankers) are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out. If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning."

Explain how this is a misquote:

Theodore Roosevelt

"These International Bankers and Rockefeller Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government."

What about this one ?

"The real rulers of Washington are Invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."

- Justice Felix Frankfurter - US Supreme Court Justice

These all seem straightforward to me. I'm interested to hear how I am mis interpreting them.

[Riverwind]

These all seem straightforward to me. I'm interested to hear how I am mis interpreting them.

They are opinions without context. Each one claims that bankers have a lot of power but they do not explain why or how. That is why their opinions is meaningless and add nothing to the dicussion other than to demostrate that you cannot present a rational argument.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Each one claims that bankers have a lot of power but they do not explain why or how. That is why their opinions is meaningless and add nothing to the dicussion other than to demostrate that you cannot present a rational argument.

These are presidents not school teachers. The people who the quote was written or spoken to were already likely aware of how the banks work - by creating money from nothing and lending it at full face value. Your lack of understanding is not an arguemnt against what they are saying.

[Riverwind]

These are presidents not school teachers. The people who the quote was written or spoken to were already likely aware of how the banks work - by creating money from nothing and lending it at full face value. Your lack of understanding is not an argument against what they are saying.

First, George W Bush is a president and I do not consider him an authority on anything - never mind how the banking system works. Second, those quotes say nothing about how the banking system works - they just say that the speaker believes that bankers 'have a lot of power'. They do not explain why the banks have that power nor do they provide any evidence that supports their opinion.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:they just say that the speaker believes that bankers 'have a lot of power'. They do not explain why the banks have that power nor do they provide any evidence that supports their opinion.

The reason that bankers have so much power is that they are the only people in society that can create money from nothing and lend it a full face value to governments. You have to have a lot of power to be able to do this. Many people know how and why banks have so much power. Its in history, many books, many economists will tell you but you just refuse to understand, prefering to consult with your rectum instead.

Oligarichal families run the banking system and they have power through intelligence. Rothschild really understood the value of intelligence. After the Battle Of Waterloo, he found out that the English won but pretended they lost in the stock exchange that day by selling off his English government bonds at discount rates. Others began to sell off seeing that Rothschild was selling his, his agents bought up the bonds, by the end of the day he owned all the bonds and had bought them at discount rates. He is quoted as saying its "the best business I've ever done".

Rothschild found out sooner than anyone else because he had an intelligence networks and high speed cutters to cut across the water and keep him ahead of everyone else in knowledge.

[Riverwind]

The reason that bankers have so much power is that they are the only people in society that can create money from nothing and lend it a full face value to governments.

Two things:

1) That statement is false. I have shown you many times exactly why it is false but you simply close your eyes and stamp your feet screaming about how it must be true because you want it to be true.

2) Your quotes say nothing about why those people think bankers have a lot of power so it is rediculous to claim that those quotes support your bizarre theories.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:1) That statement is false. I have shown you many times exactly why it is false but you simply close your eyes and stamp your feet screaming about how it must be true because you want it to be true.

I've listed books written by economists, quotes showing that bankers create money and videos that explain how it is done. You have responded witha couple of links that show bankers cannot lend what they do not have in deposit, but what you seem to miss is that bankers actually create deposits and I put at least one quote of bankers saying that they create deposits.

You always admit that you haven't read any books or taken any classes about banking. You haven't worked in high level banking. The only logical conclusion from this is that you are getting your information from your rectum or you were born with some kind of built in genetic undertstanding of banking.

If there is another explanation to explain how you know so much more about banking than these presidents and bankers that are saying they create deposits, I would like to hear it.

2) Your quotes say nothing about why those people think bankers have a lot of power so it is rediculous to claim that those quotes support your bizarre theories.

It doesn't matter why they think bankers have such power, they assume that anyone reading their stuff already knows. Can you turn on your radio and know it will work without knowing anything about electromagnetic fields ? The fact that these bankers and presidents don't explain the operation of banks is not surprising.

Many people understand how the banks operate, maybe you should just go away and think about it and come back and try to write more intelligent posts on this matter.

Explain how this quote should be read and how it may be misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists:

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit." - Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, c. 1940 (the second richest man in Britain at the time - was killed).

You need to correct the Federal Reserve on some of their thinking:

"The actual process of money creation takes place in commercial banks. As noted earlier, demand liabilities of commercial banks are money.."Confidence in these forms of money also seems to be tied in some way to the fact that assets exist on the books of the government and the banks equal to the amount of money outstanding, even though most of the assets themselves are no more than pieces of paper--.", P.3."Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU.", p. 19. "The 12 regional reserve banks aren't government institutions, but corporations nominally 'owned' by member commercial banks.", p. 27 - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

I think there is at least one economist and one treasury secretary in the quotes below that also requires some correction from you:

"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it (p15). The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." - John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went - 1975, p29.

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most, astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint, and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency." - Major L. L. B. Angus

"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment, out of nothing." - Ralph M. Hawtery (Former Secretary of the British Treasury)

[PolyNewbie]

How might the quotes below be misinterpreted by conspiracy theorists ? Do you think maybe they are talking about Monopoly money ?

You should do a paper for some economics society explaining how these economists and bankers are all wrong. This along with your paper explaining how the scientists and engineers that think 911 was an inside job should make yyou world famous and a leading thinker of today.

"The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn't quite realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must all be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create credit." — H. W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.

"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." - William Patterson, founder of Bank of England, 1694.

[Riverwind]

have responded witha couple of links that show bankers cannot lend what they do not have in deposit, but what you seem to miss is that bankers actually create deposits and I put at least one quote of bankers saying that they create deposits.

You just don't see to get it. When a bank creates a loan they create an ASSET, however, a bank can never create the loan on its own. They MUST always create a matching deposit. When they they create a deposit they create a LIABILITY. That means they are creating a DEBT that they owe to someone else. In other words, banks make no money when they create money to loan but they take on a risk because the person borrowing the money migh not be able to pay it back.

You could read million books on banking but you will remain ignorant until you understand that basic concept. In fact, I know that many of the sources that you have read explain it exactly the way I have, however, you choose to deliberately misread these sources because you want to believe in conspiracies.

[White Doors]

however, you choose to deliberately misread these sources because you want to believe in conspiracies.

He's 'special' that way

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:You just don't see to get it. When a bank creates a loan they create an ASSET, however, a bank can never create the loan on its own. They MUST always create a matching deposit. When they they create a deposit they create a LIABILITY. That means they are creating a DEBT that they owe to someone else. In other words, banks make no money when they create money to loan but they take on a risk because the person borrowing the money migh not be able to pay it back.

So these ex presidents, bankers and economists are simply misinformed about the bankers ability to create money and their power over society ?

I don't see how your post is even relevant - call it whatever you want, justify it however you want. The banks do not lend money they already have. They create it.