As a follow on from my previous mention of posting up some exploits of recent years I offer this interview by Freeman Michael of freetheplanet.net as an explanation of the Mortgage/Banking fraud going on globally. May it be of assistance to you and your loved ones.
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2011/09/14/the-great-mortgage-illusion/ (http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2011/09/14/the-great-mortgage-illusion/)
Booosh
Mortgage loans are a way for people to buy expensive things they need such as a house. If everyone had to save up the money first, few sales would be made. The same could be said about buying a car or other things. Getting over one's head in debt can be through no fault of the borrower. They might lose their job, have a major illness, etc. I don't think we can blame everything on the banks. They are providing a service and if they are greedy, its up to each of us to read the fine print and refuse to sign if things aren't right.
Of course the customer/Mortgagor has some responsibility for ensuring they understand the nature of the contract they are entering into however we have all been lied to on a grand scale with the Mortgage Fraud. The nature of the modern business of banking is not disclosed upon entering these contracts with banks and thus one can be forgiven for entering them, the responsibility now lays with those subject to the Fraud to not be apathetic and ensure that we amek our fellow man aware of the nature of this fraud for the benefit of all.
Stonehenge.. did you listen to the interview?
Booosh
I don't have time for that. If they can't clearly summarize what is wrong then they probably aren't clear on it themselves. Its caveat emptor, the buyer must beware. If they don't understand the contract, go to an attorney, dont just assume everything is fine.
Most fraud was done by borrowers overstating their income. Banks, in their greed, did not do their due diligence in vetting the borrower. They then sold the paper to fannie mae, freddy mack, etc.
With all due respect my friend, whilst the intent of your comments were entirely benevolent they do show a lack of understanding on the nature of the fraud. I invite comments from those whom wish to discuss the material presented, as opposed to comments from those who have not the time to view.
Booosh
Why don't you explain the fraud then? If you understand it then you can do that easily. If not, then you may be a victim of bafflegab. I'm not saying there was no fraud, certainly there was some.
Hey Stoney, you'll have to excuse the delay in reply.
The Mortgage fraud is a whopper and although its so simple, the fact is we receive very littlle information regarding the money system we live in.
So it is a fraud because the alleged lender (Mortgagee - the bank) does not have any money to lend only credit they create after obtaining from the alleged borrower a negotiable instrument in the form of a promissory note.
Based on this negotiable instrument they forward credit to fund the purchase of the property/land. You see, this is a swap, the giving of a negotiable instrument (Promissory note) and the bank giving credit to use in the system.
So you may think the promissory note requires 'paying'. Well i would ask 'with what' ?
In the modern system of banking the promise to pay is the payment.
The alleged borrower (Mortgagor) also completes a Deed that acts as security for the alleged loan. This also conveys an irrevocable power of attorney to the bank to do whatever they please. It is possible this Power of Attorney is used to create the negotiable instrument used to fund the alleged loan.
So you see the alleged borrower is actually the lender. It is all upside down and inside out.
In Albion (Britain) the last few years has seen much research into this and many claims have gone into the Courts against the banks. The Courts will not use their powers to ask a single bank to disclose their accounts to prove us wrong once and all. There is not a single Mortgage contact I have seen that complies with the statutory provisions. The banks, courts and police are all breaking the law when repossessing peoples homes. What has been learnt thus far is that the Courts are going against the law to cover up the fraud. There is much cognitive dissonance but a big share of corruption in their also.
I can go into much more detail regarding English Law and Mortgage fraud if you have sincere questions.
I would also point all interested parties to:
http://freetheplanet.net/ (http://freetheplanet.net/) (right hand side menu titled bankerbusters)
Booosh
The deed is also void as the mortgagor cannot place a charge on a property he does not yet own (the bank do not release the funds to purchase the property until the deed has been executed). The bank are guilty of pressurising Mortgagors to do this.
Booosh
Mortgage fraud at the point of sale has been disastrous for us all.
But the even bigger fraud has been the creation and sale of mortgage derivative instruments by the hybrid banks/finance houses like Goldman Sachs. These derivatives were sold to other banks, investors and investment houses all over the world.
But not only were a lot of the mortgages illegal, overvalued and over-rated, the Wall St. houses compounded the crime by bundling the same bad mortgages multiple times across multiple instruments. Essentially, the same mortgage was being sold to multiple buyers, much like the electronic and paper precious metals market sell the same bar of gold multiple times to multiple buyers. There is no underlying asset! Good luck trying to take physical delivery in these markets.
When the EU and other banks realized how they had been swindled by Wall St., they demanded their money back, or else. The trillions in bailout money given by the FED to the Wall St. firms was then paid out to EU investors (banks) in the buyout of the toxic paper. This has also had the effect of hiding the felonies, allowing the Wall St. bosses and their companies to walk free.
The waves of risk and fear generated by these crimes are still destabilizing the credit markets worldwide, as we see daily. All part of an effort to tear down the current currency system and bring in a new world currency.
Now, who's ready for some world war? :-\
Hey Dendro,
Thankyou for your contribution,
You are right in what has happened but I am not convinced it is the 'bigger fraud' though it is certainly part of it all. It is however the one that has gathered most of the mainstream interest, often to the detriment of the fact that each mortgage from the outset is fraudulent before they are even bundled up and sold on in packages to investors.
There are fantastic things happening over in America regarding this and for those who care to look into it may find the opportunity to free themselves from this major aspect of debt slavery.
Booosh
This is all very interesting and the english system may work a bit different than our own. However, this is very different than selling a bar of gold for example that does not exist. Fraud occurred in some overvalued appraisals. The values obtained were based on recent sales of other overvalued properties. An item is worth what people will pay for it whether gold or a house.
In our system, banks made the loan and then sold the mortgage to fannie mae or freddie mack. They then bundled the mortgages and resold them to investors who got burned. Some banks held the mortgages and were themselves burned when the r/e market crashed. To the best of my knowledge, no property was sold to more than one buyer at the same time. They were resold multiple times in some cases but that does no make the transaction illegal.
A deed is simply a bill of sale for a property. The seller, not the buyer executes the deed transferring the property to the buyer. When a bank loans the money they get interest in the property and the right to resell the debt which is then considered an asset. This may sound confusing but a contract saying the borrower will pay x amount per month at y rate of interest, clearly has value and can be sold. This all would have worked out fine had the real estate and job market not tanked nearly simultaneously along with the stock market. The buyers were willing and happy participants until they stopped making payments. Who was it that committed the fraud?
Hey Stoney,
Question:
What do the banks loan & where did they get it from?
Boooshpig
Banks loan money which they get from a variety of sources. Usually it comes from deposits. Banks can also borrow money from the fed.
Hey Stoney my friend, sorry for delay in reply... away over yule with no internet ..a strange experience these days.
My understanding differs from yours somewhat. I'd go so far as to say that the fundamentals are not understood by many people, it is just simply not taught as part of our education (for reasons that will become obvious). Yes the banks can obtain money from the central banks (the Fed just like the Bank of England are in fact private but that is another story). But the credit you and me have been extended when getting loans, mortgages and the like are not taken from deposits made by other people.
When looking for a simple way of explaining this I came across this video, I feel watching this 10 minute video will begin to explain the basic concepts. I can then further detail it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm3DixfL9o0
Hope you had a cool festive/holiday time.
Booosh
I got the message "video not found". I'm sure there are lots of things i dont know about banking. I rather doubt there are any earth shaking secrets out there, not likely in a u tube video.
I'm puzzled that you say the fed is private. It is a consortium of publicly run but privately owned banks, from what i gather. There is a lot of secrecy surrounding them and they have not been audited. Are you saying the banks do not lend out the deposits they receive? They have other forms of investments they can dabble in but lending is their main business. What then do they do with the deposit money if it isnt lent? I'm sure if they could make a fraction of a point on money they borrow from the fed they would do that. Perhaps you cold explain your theory since the utube seems to be out? Does it involve aliens and conspiracies? I like those theories.
The youtube video works for me, perhaps you need to login for it?
QuoteI'm sure there are lots of things i dont know about banking. I rather doubt there are any earth shaking secrets out there, not likely in a u tube video.
I think you're in for a surprise then my friend. In short the credit extended to alleged borrowers does not come from the deposits of other lenders. The fractional reserve banking system allows banks to extend credit based upon a ratio held in reserve. Essentially it appears that banks 'create' money out of thin air though this would be a half truth. What they seem to be doing is accepting promissory notes (a form of negotiable instrument) from alleged borrowers, depositing them as something of value and extending credit. (At this stage the exchange of note for credit would be a fair deal ... as opposed to asking for it all back again + interest)
What we need to understand is that in a world where money is no longer backed by gold, the promise to pay
is the payment. Just look at the fact our bank notes effect payment and they are nothing but promissory notes made payable to bearer on demand. When gold no longer backs the money what can you actually pay a promissory note with ?
"We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary"(see per Lord Denning M.R. in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar
[1969] 1 W.L.R. 357 at 361; [1969] 2 All E.R. 150 at 152, CA)
Banks do not have money to lend you, they fraudulently misrepresent the transaction and fraudulently fail to omit to us the nature of the source of the loan, which is completely created by ourselves when we sign the document and create the promissory note.
I have been involved in litigation and the litigation of others on this subject over the last few years. Multiple requests to the banks and applications to the courts have been made for the disclosure of the accounting of the banks losses with regard to the loans made. The banks refuse, the courts also refuse despite specific statutory provisions compelling them to grant said orders. Ask yourself the question, if the banks wanted to stop this argument in its tracks and not suffer continued litigation on the matter would they not allow the inspection of their books ?
Please throw any questions you have,
Booosh
For further information you may benefit from watching this one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
(get your snacks at the ready its a monster)
Yes, we all know about fractional reserve banking. But only the central banks are allowed to do this. The thing is that actual money is paid when you buy a home. The seller gets cash and he does not care where it came from. I dont see where fractional reserve banking has anything to do with a home sale or how it makes it fraudulent.
The federal reserve is a fraud but thats another subject altogether. I would not be surprised if the world economy went into collapse sometime soon.
Fractional reserve banking applies to commercial banks. Check out:
http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf (http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf)
Boooshpig
Another link that doesn't work. Here is wikipedia's definition of fractional reserve banking
Fractional-reserve banking is a form of banking where banks maintain reserves (of cash and coin or deposits at the central bank) that are only a fraction of the customer's deposits. Funds deposited into a bank are mostly lent out, and a bank keeps only a fraction (called the reserve ratio) of the quantity of deposits as reserves
I still do not see any fraud that you speak of. A mortgage involves real money paid to the seller of a property. Is your beef with the central banks or is the fact that mortgages are treated as assets it?
Link edited Stoney.
Once you are familiar with money creation principles we can get back on topic to the mortgage fraud. But for the avoidance of doubt let me say it again BANKS MONETISE YOUR PROMISE TO PAY, IT DOES NOT COME FROM OTHER BORROWERS DEPOSITS, JUST YOUR OWN DEPOSIT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE WHEN YOU APPLY FOR THE LOAN, THE MONEY DOES NOT EXIST UNTIL YOU CREATE IT BY APPLYING FOR IT.
From the Bank of England:
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/quarterlybulletin/qb0801.pdf
...banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer's current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank 'writing a cheque on itself'. That is, banks extend credit by creating money."
Page 105 on the pdf
Also check out the TOP SECRET BANKERS MANUAL
http://www.4shared.com/office/I1ZjfMsE/Vol_3_-_Top_Secret_Bankers_Man.html
You now have 3 awesome resources for re educating yourself on the money creation process, good luck !
Boooshpig
So you are saying the banks don't have the money they lend? When the seller cashes his check, he gets real money not thin air. I see how you are bringing in the fed reserve and the equivalent in england. The corner bank is not the fed and can not lend more than it has on hand. In fact, they are required to keep a percentage of their deposits on hand. They are not allowed to lend it all out. Bank examiners will shut them down if they try it and many have been shut down for insufficient deposits.
They can sell a mortgage and in that respect, monetize a debt. But another bank or investor has to pay actual money for that mortgage believing they will collect it in full with interest. Perhaps what you speak of is more to do with england? In this country they are not allowed to do that. What you are alluding to sounds more like bank fraud not mortgage fraud.
Hey Stoney, well done for sticking with me on this one. We'll get there!
QuoteSo you are saying the banks don't have the money they lend?
Correct. Until you ask for it, it's not there. See the above bank of England bulletin statement as evidence.
QuoteWhen the seller cashes his check, he gets real money not thin air.
Yish. Only a very tiny percentage of the money in circulation is hard physical currency, the rest is in fact credit created by the banks in the form of loans. It is created as debt, not credit.
QuoteThe corner bank is not the fed and can not lend more than it has on hand. In fact, they are required to keep a percentage of their deposits on hand. They are not allowed to lend it all out.
When you say 'corner' do you just mean your average high street bank as opposed to a central bank ? These high street banks as a matter of course, as part of the daily business of banking are continually creating loans/debt, which are NOT backed by money they have. It is not that the bank has $100 of actual deposits so can lend out $90 and has to keep $10 but that they for example have $100 in reserve so can create $900 in loans
seemingly 'out of thin air'. The following link documents this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm3DixfL9o0 (if not youtube 'modern money mechanics zeitgeist' and you will find it)
QuoteThey can sell a mortgage and in that respect, monetize a debt. But another bank or investor has to pay actual money for that mortgage believing they will collect it in full with interest.
The investors are getting conned also. This subject is vast and its not necessary at this juncture to go into it. Fact is the investors are purchasing fraudulent products, in many regards.
QuotePerhaps what you speak of is more to do with england? In this country they are not allowed to do that.
Nope, you will find this is the global monetary system.
QuoteWhat you are alluding to sounds more like bank fraud not mortgage fraud.
Both my friend, both. The entire monetary system is completely fraudulent. Mortgages, loans, credit cards, the lot.
Boooshpig
When you mix everything together like that it makes it suspect. The english system is not run the same as usa. I know for a fact that our banks have to have enough deposits to cover loans and possible losses. I read all the time how banks and s+l's are shut down for insolvency. If they could create $10 for each actual dollar they have, they would get away with much more. A utube video is not going to convince me otherwise and i don't want to read a book in hopes of finding something solid.
Our banks get put on a credit watch for having a low level of reserves or have their ratings lowered. A solid bank has much more in reserve than just loans. I agree loans are shown as assets on the books. This may be what you are talking about. If i was owed money on a property, i would consider it an asset too. In that case the property would be the security. Unsecured loans are another matter. If banks have too many of those and cant cover in case of losses, they have to come up with more capital or be shut down and sold to another bank with more cash.
The original loan is made with cash. That loan is then put on the books as an asset, which it is. During the subprime meltdown, property values dropped, people quit paying and the assets became liabilities. Bank regulators swooped in and made them come up with more cash to cover or the bank was sold or in some cases shut down and depositors were paid out of federal funds.
Banks can sell a mortgage or borrow on it. This does give the appearance of creating money out of thin air but it is backed by the property which underlies it. If i owe you $100k on a property which you loaned the money to buy, don't you still have the value of the money in the form of the debt backed by the real estate? I think you would say you have a solid asset and have not created anything out of thin air at all. Mortgage fraud relates to overvaluing a property and often creating straw buyers who have no intention of paying the loan back. The loan then defaults and the lender is stuck.
Stonehenge, you're wrong, just read or check some of the material I have presented. Surely to verify my statements you need to do the research?
Whilst the below link is painful to watch and very slow, check out a forensic examiner take you through some of the mortgage fraud (and its american). It's 3 hours long, but perhaps wortth it. More importantly read the modern money mechanics pdf as it is written by the fed, there is also a youtube video on a guy leading you through the modern money mechanics document that adds some commentary to it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBI5lV2M4OM
Boooshpig
A 3 hour utube? OMG! There are ways to commit fraud but let me tell you how things are done this side of the pond. A bank has $100m in capital, lets say. They can lend out to a max of perhaps 90m and keep 10% or whatever the govt says in reserve. OK, they lend the whole 90% and then some of the loans go sour and must be written off the books. Bank examiner comes in, tells them they are below required reserve levels and must bring in more capital within a certain amount of time. They get put on a lower rating for those who check those things. If the bank's reserves drop below 0 and the bank can not cover deposits, it will have a short time to come up with the money or they get shut down.
When a bank lends a mortgage, they can turn around and sell it thereby getting money for a second mortgage which in turn can be sold. That may be where you are thinking they turn $1 into $10. Not really because its paid off each time with real cash.
With all due respect Stonehenge, it is apparent you have not studied the information I have presented. In particular your above comment would not be made should you have studied the document I linked entitled 'Modern Money Mechanics', of which I humbly present video commentary of below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rdZYIW1zRY&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rdZYIW1zRY&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr1Ceba0liw&context=C30dd599UDOEgsToPDskK7oCvd3iNnyzhonWOnsSQz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr1Ceba0liw&context=C30dd599UDOEgsToPDskK7oCvd3iNnyzhonWOnsSQz)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPKtEKk7xzQ&feature=related
The above explains the money expansion process, as detailed in MMM. I trust you will pay this due diligence.
Boooshpig
OK bushy, i went and watched it. 30 minutes i can tolerate but not 3 hours of beating around the bush. He had a point but it is not really creating money out of thin air.
First of all, the govt gets money by borrowing it. It has printed money with no backing before and this was called quantitative easing. They don't do that as a regular practice. They borrow and have to pay back.
The rest is just the way money passes from hand to hand. $1 can pass through many hands and simulate the economy many times more than $1 sitting in a vault.
What has happened is people are borrowing money from a bank and spending it and the bank they put it in loans part of it out. Just like i told you before. But at each stage the loan is backed by the credit of the individual. In mortgages, the loan is backed also by property. The problem is when the unsecured borrowers can't pay back and the whole system collapses. Or when the value of the property falls and they can't pay it back.
The money supply increases because the money is going from hand to hand same as if no loan were involved. Where is the fraud you spoke of?
Well done on studying but your conclusions however do not follow the material presented. I advise some revision.
QuoteThe money supply increases because the money is going from hand to hand same as if no loan were involved. Where is the fraud you spoke of?
This is incorrect:
Firstly you should now be aware that there is an increase in the money supply, not just through central banks (in fact only minimally) but instead through the creation of credit to so called borrowers. This is the deposit expansion term that is used in the document. Please refer back to the Bank of England statement also. You need to understand that the money supply through loans multiples many times over. The bank as you will now have learned does not have these funds available before the 'borrower' approaches the bank. The credit is created as a book keeping entries to balance the promissory note (loan agreement) that they received from the alleged borrower. On the books it is a swap, note for credit except the bank asks for it all back again, plus interest. It is also to my knowledge against GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles)
Now, in a contract both parties must provide 'consideration', that is something of value must be brought to the table.
The bank has nothing until you give it to them. They are then able to charge interest and the entire principle of the loan back, of which was entirely created by the alleged borrower.
The fraud ....
Now is the time to go back and listen to the original link that I posted at the beginning of this thread (highly recommended) I post it again blow for convenience:
http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2011/09/14/the-great-mortgage-illusion/
Basically fraud takes a number of forms, misrepresentation, omission of significant facts, abuse of position.
Firstly the bank do not tell you how the transaction works, almost everybody has the false belief that the bank has some money they can lend you, your own comments in this thread are testament to this. You enter the contract based on this, fraud by misrepresentation/omission of significant facts. You do not know that YOU are the creator of the credit in the system and that without you the bank has nothing.
As for the mortgage deed, well it gets even stickier. How can you provide security for a loan by way of charge on the property when at that stage you do not even own it? How can you give what you do not have?
Ask yourself firstly, WHY do governments borrow money from a central bank at interest instead of creating it themselves not at interest?
Then ask yourself WHY we allow a small minority of individuals (Bankers) to create credit out of thin air, then ask for it all back again plus interest?
Is this system set up to best facilitate the trade endeavors of the people? Or is it instead a fantastic method for stealing the wealth of nations ? When interest is applied, the money to pay it off is not. It's like musical chairs, when the music stops someone loses out. It aint the bankers.
In a system of fiat currency the promise to pay
is the payment. Hard to believe ? What else can you now pay with ? Your bank notes are promises to pay the bearer on demand. You can write your own promises to pay. If the loan was funded by that specie of money, is it not the fact that it can be repaid that way ? Try getting your bank to accept a promise to pay to clear your mortgage ... they don't like it. But hey, refer yourself to the Lord Denning case law already presented.
Boooshpig
For your consideration Stony (and all others I would encourage to read this). Expert witness/Affidavit on the very subject.
Boooshpig
What you and the video are talking about is simply creating an economy, not creating money from nothing. Lets say person #1 has a dollar and buys from person 2 who spends it with person 3 down to person 10 who then spends it with person 1. $10 dollars has changed hands, did someone pull a fast one and create money out of thin air? No, this is the normal multiplying effect of cash in the economy.
Lets say person 1 loans a dollar to 2 who loans it to 3 etc and 10 loans it back to 1. Now $10 has been loaned even though only $1 actually exists. Is it fraud? No, its just commerce. Each of them borrowed a dollar, owes a dollar and someone owes them a dollar. So they are all even just like the banks in your example. Nothing was created out of thin air and no fraud exists.
>The bank has nothing until you give it to them. They are then able to charge interest and the entire principle of the loan back, of which was entirely created by the alleged borrower.
The bank receives money from a depositor and then lends it out to a borrower. The borrower can then lend it out again or deposit it and the bank lends it out. Its just like my example of $1 changing hands many times.
>As for the mortgage deed, well it gets even stickier. How can you provide security for a loan by way of charge on the property when at that stage you do not even own it? How can you give what you do not have?
The bank pays the money to the seller and takes a lien on the property. What is so complicated about that? The buyer is the nominal owner but the bank has a claim in the amount owed. The buyer gives up the lien because that is the only way to get the loan.
>Ask yourself firstly, WHY do governments borrow money from a central bank at interest instead of creating it themselves not at interest?
They do borrow at interest. USA owes some $15t at interest. If they could truly create money out of thin air as you seem to believe, they would do that and not borrow at all. I hope this clears it up but if you have more questions i'll try to answer them too.
Stonehenge, with all due respect you need to re read (if you read it first time) as your interpretation is completely in correct and shows a lack of understanding of the material presented.
QuoteLets say person 1 loans a dollar to 2 who loans it to 3 etc and 10 loans it back to 1. Now $10 has been loaned even though only $1 actually exists. Is it fraud? No, its just commerce. Each of them borrowed a dollar, owes a dollar and someone owes them a dollar. So they are all even just like the banks in your example. Nothing was created out of thin air and no fraud exists.
QuoteThe bank receives money from a depositor and then lends it out to a borrower. The borrower can then lend it out again or deposit it and the bank lends it out. Its just like my example of $1 changing hands many times.
Completely incorrect. Bnkas expand the money supply through loans, it is not the simple transfer you describe. The material provided makes thus point repeatedly. The guy on the video even provides examples of when there is a money expansion and example of a simple transfer... showing a clear distinction between the two!
QuoteThe bank pays the money to the seller and takes a lien on the property. What is so complicated about that? The buyer is the nominal owner but the bank has a claim in the amount owed. The buyer gives up the lien because that is the only way to get the loan.
How can you give what you do not own ?
Admittedly it does take a while before the penny drops. You have definately not read the latest document either, which is an affidavit form an ex federal reserve employer/legal officer whom describes the process of loan creation and why it is fraud. It is probably the best document thus far for explaining the process in a concise manner.
Booosh
Irie,
I'm not sure why ur not getting it stoney?
Bushpig, have you found gordon hall!!! wikkid!!
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=91191&cmd=tc (http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=91191&cmd=tc)
Some long-ass interviews to listen to. With complicated speak, not for the uninitiated. A whole lot heavier deal!
I recommend episode 52....nothing to do with mortgage fraud, though others episodes do cover that.
I like the way these guy's think! Making debt collectors pay, per letter/call!Hahha!!
Also check-out BenLoweryhimself on youtube....
Respect,
Z
Those three videos are supposed to be the smoking gun. I admit for a little while i started to become convinced. Its easy to be taken in by stuff like that. Where he made his mistake was in thinking that a loan creates money out of thin air. The example i gave was exactly the same principle as what banks do. I thought you would see it there. Going back to the video
bank 1 gets 10k in deposits
bank 1 loans 9k which is deposited
The guy seems to think this creates new money in the amount of 9k but it does not. Yes, 19k seems to be in circulation but it really is not. The original deposit is now short 9k which needs to be made up for at some future time. The guy who borrowed the 9k can spend it and the guy who deposited the 10k can come back and take the money out. As long as at least enough people leave the money in the bank at any one time, it will work. It is kind of a juggling operation, robbing peter to pay paul but as long as people repay the loans it will work. It has worked for decades and centuries, perhaps longer than that.
You completely skipped over my example of person one who spends $1 to person two etc until person 10 spends it back to 1. $10 has been circulated and spent yet only $1 exists.
The banks by lending out money on deposit are simulating the economy the same way the people did who spent the money soon as they got it. Why do you believe that making a loan creates new money?
>How can you give what you do not own ?
In re to the home mortgage. Its no different than an unsecured loan in that the bank lends the money to buy the house which they took out of depositors accounts. The borrower pays back with interest. The lien is so the borrower cant just sell the house, pocket the money and skip town. A lien simply says money is owed on this property so no one can buy it without satisfying the lien.
You explain it zaka since you sound like you have it down solid
I ask again, why is borrowing money from depositors and lending it out the same as creating money out of thin air? Don't tell me to watch the video again. If you really and truly understand it, bush or anyone, then explain to me that part. But noooo, it will be watch this 3 hour video and then you will be a true believer too. And if not, then another long video.
My example of borrowing seemed also to create new money but you ignore that because its not a video.
Irie,
I'm not sure I'm able to explain it any better but here goes.
So what is money?
It's a promissory note!
Each one of the fed res dollars are the same.
Each has a social security number, to whom the promissory note has a lien against.
Anyone can create a promissory note, which is what you are actually doing when you create a bank loan.
The money does no exist prior to that point. The same is true of credit card machines...
None of these instruments actually create a real paper fed res note (or similar), but all are money(promissory notes).
Promissory notes are money.
Sorry link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbgZqtQb88k&feature=related)to a darn youtube but I think it explains it!
Actually I found a better one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_1iXbIjFQ&feature=related).
Damn this gonna take some time!!
BTW try listen to podcasts rather than waste heaps of time watching...
Laters,
Respect,
Z
Zaka, a federal reserve note is fiat currency backed by the govt. A promissory note is a promise to pay by an individual. The govt has not yet defaulted ever, individuals have many times so money is better than iou's even though they are both promises to pay. It would be nice if we could write iou's and spend them like cash. But who would accept them?
Bush, i hope you have started to see through the bafflegab this guy was peddling. If you want to call an iou new money in circulation that is a way of looking at it but no new money has actually been created. Its just expanding buying power through borrowing.
The example of the house is the same as any loan. You say how can the buyer give back a lien when he doesn't own it. When the bank makes an unsecured loan and the borrower buys something, doesn't he/she own it? Same thing with real estate. They borrow the money and buy the house. The only difference is the bank puts a lien on the house to prevent funny business.
Quote from: Stonehenge on January 19, 2012, 01:02:55 PM
Zaka, a federal reserve note is fiat currency backed by the govt.
Irie,
Who is the Government??
What are Government Bonds??
Really take a look at the last vid I posted, it shows how the fiat card-trick works..only 5mins..
Also What are REMITTANCES???
You see that word on you traffic tickets but do you know what they are???
Respect,
Z
I hope you guys see the difference between borrowing and creating new money. Bush, does your silence mean consent?
Borrowing does free up money which can then be spent and stimulate the economy. If not for that the economy would stagnate. Borrowing gives the borrower money he did not have and may seem like new money. But that is only if you ignore the necessity of paying it back. The bank borrows from the depositor, the client borrows from the bank and so on. The statement that banks create money out of thin air is not true. They borrow it.
Irie Stoney,
Nice one, try pulling a complicit consent ....hehehe
I think your missing the point of fiat banking.
What you seem to be implying is that these fiat banks work like a credit union...
They don't, they are not the same....
Respect,
Z
Zaka, the corner bank does not create currency. Fiat refers to the fact all money is backed by only the credit of the govt.
>What you seem to be implying is that these fiat banks work like a credit union...
Only the fed reserve is a fiat bank and can create money aka qe like we had a while back. Commercial banks work the same as credit unions in the way they make loans. They borrow against deposits and lend that money out. Banks can also borrow from the fed. The difference is a credit union is supposed to be non profit
Hi all, no in fact I've been rather busy of late Stoney.
This is what I see Stoney
I have presented an argument and have backed it up with various sources of evidence demonstrating my argument. You Stoney have not read or looked into that evidence and have failed to put any evidence to support your propositions. This is entirely up to you. I made this topic with the intention of assisting those viewing these forums what can be done about the unlawful banking practices gripping the globe. I'm not so interested in a tit for tat with somebody not prepared to do the research. I asked on the first page of this thread for those prepared to do the research. Please if you are to continue with your position stoney, show us the evidence!
That said, I hope you do not take this personally. Well researched and considered responses welcomed.
More food for thought Stoney and all:
US court case documenting some of the issue:
http://homelessokc.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/25/2475871-mortgage-foreclosure-precedence-set-in-1969-case-of-the-first-national-bank-of-montgomery-v-jerome-daly-by-instrument-of-consideration-and-upon-this-revelation-the-court-rejected-the-banks-claim-for-foreclosure-and-daly-kept-his-home (http://homelessokc.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/25/2475871-mortgage-foreclosure-precedence-set-in-1969-case-of-the-first-national-bank-of-montgomery-v-jerome-daly-by-instrument-of-consideration-and-upon-this-revelation-the-court-rejected-the-banks-claim-for-foreclosure-and-daly-kept-his-home)
Booosh
Irie,
Stoney, if you want, I'll mail you my copy of the creature of Jekyll island.
Booosh, I think this quote explains it;
Quote"Mr Daly explained that the money was in fact not the property of the bank, for it was created out of nothing as soon as the loan agreement was signed. Remember what Modern Money Mechanics stated about loans? What they do, when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions, but deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system. In other words: The money doesn't come out of their existing assets, the bank is simply inventing it, putting up nothing of it's own, except for a theoretical liability on paper."
Respect,
Z
Bush, i did indeed watch your 30 minute video that was supposed to capture the essence of the fraud. All it did was document the fact that banks lend out their deposits to borrowers. We've known that for a long time. I asked you how making a loan creates new money and you have not answered. Your original claim was that the banks were committing mortgage fraud and you have veered away from that and said they created money out of thin air by lending deposits. Now its something else?
>What they do, when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions, but deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system. In other words: The money doesn't come out of their existing assets, the bank is simply inventing it, putting up nothing of it's own, except for a theoretical liability on paper."
Who is giving the new deposits? If it is the fed or an agency like freddy mac then the bank is selling the mortgage for cash. Yes, they get their money back right away but so what? They originate the loan, make a few points on it and sell it. Then they have the money to lend again. How is that fraud? In your own words?
Telling people to watch a 3 hour video when you can't explain it yourself means you are taking the word of someone because they sound like they know what they are talking about. Everything i've heard so far is just normal banking practices. Nothing comes out of thin air although making loans does get more cash into circulation. If that is your point then point taken. Fraud, not so much.
Irie,
As always the "Gems" are in the comment section;
Quote"The Greenbacks actually were just as good as the bankers' banknotes. Both were created on a printing press, but the banknotes had the veneer of legitimacy because they were "backed" by gold. The catch was that this backing was based on "fractional reserves," meaning the bankers held only a small fraction of the gold necessary to support all the loans represented by their banknotes. The "fractional reserve" ruse is still used today to create the impression that bankers are lending something other than mere debt created with accounting entries on their books.
QuoteGiving the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) interest for printing money is the biggest fraud upon the American people. Per the constitution, only congress can mint coin. Money must be based on something of value. The Fed is owned by a secret group of the most wealthy individuals in the world. Instead of paying a printing fee for stamping out dollars, they charge interest. But since only Congress can print money, the Fed does not own the money, therefore, cannot charge interest.
The way it works now is that private owners basically print "counterfeit" money and lend it to the United States government (supposedly the people) in return for interest. It is like an author hiring a print shop to publish his book. Instead of paying a fee for the service, the author would have to give over his royalties to the printer. But since the print shop does not own the publishing rights, it has no right to royalties.
And the American people silently allow this to happen . . .
This is why the rich get richer.
Quote[Peter Joseph] from Zeitgeist
A number of years ago, the central bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve, produced a document entitled "Modern Money Mechanics". This publication detailed the institutionalized practice of money creation as utilized by the federal reserve and the web of global commercial banks it supports.
On the opening page the document states its objective. The purpose of this booklet is to describe the basic process of money creation in a fractional reserve banking system. It then precedes to describe this fractional reserve process through various banking terminology.
A translation of which goes something like this:
- The United States government decides it needs some money.
- So it calls up the federal reserve and requests say 10 billion dollars.
- The FED replies saying: "sure, we'll buy ten billion in government bonds from you".
- So the government takes some pieces of paper, paints some official looking designs on them, and calls them treasury bonds.
- Then it puts a value on these bonds to the sum of 10 billion dollars and sends them over to the FED.
- In turn the people of the FED draw up a bunch of impressive pieces of paper themselves, only this time calling them federal reserve notes, also designating a value of ten billion dollars to the set.
- The FED than takes these notes and trades them for the bonds.
- Once this exchange is complete, the government than takes the ten billion in federal reserve notes, and deposits it into an bank account.
- And, upon this deposit the paper notes officially become legal tender money.
- Adding ten billion to the US money supply.
And there it is! Ten billion in new money has been created. Of course, this example is a generalization. For, in reality, this transaction would occur electronically, with no paper used at all.
A mate of mine just today told me how he & his lawyer, have just sussed out a robo-signing fraud with his mortgage, in Florida.
He was stoked!
Respect,
Z
I'm not sure who owns the banks in the federal reserve but they are run by the us govt. When the govt needs money, it does not just print some up, normally. This has been done and it was called quantitative easing which has been done 2 times. Normally they borrow the money by selling treasuries on the open market. If they did not have to do that and could owe the money to no one, they would do that and nothing else. So how do you explain the fact that we owe some $15t in national debt? It is owed to people and corporations as well as foreign govts.
Making a loan on deposits does not create new money. People get confused over all the terminology and accept the statements made by people with an agenda. I loan you $100 and you loan it to someone else. How much new money has been created? None.
Bush, you were confused over the fact that a lien is created when you buy a house with a loan. You say how can you give back what you don't own. I've explained that but you don't want to hear it.
The real scandal is that we owe more than we can repay, not just the feds but state govts and local govt too.
But you folks have your minds made up and do not want to be confused with facts.
Irie,
QuoteI'm not sure who owns the banks in the federal reserve but they are run by the us govt.
It's privately owned. And it's they that run the us govt.
QuoteWhen the govt needs money, it does not just print some up, normally.
Normally; They commission the fed to print the money at $1+interest.....scam!
QuoteThis has been done and it was called quantitative easing which has been done 2 times.
Number 3 today!!but I don't think lamestream presstitutes said anything about it!
QuoteNormally they borrow the money by selling treasuries on the open market.
Which is bought up by the fed.....ingenious!
QuoteSo how do you explain the fact that we owe some $15t in national debt?
Cos the "TOO BIG TO Fail" bankers palmed off a bunch of crud derivatives to the tax payers.
Damn man I'll pay for the shipping, let me send you that book!!!
Respect,
Z
Z, you have a point about big money people controlling the govt but neither of us know who owns the fed banks.
>Normally; They commission the fed to print the money at $1+interest.....scam!
Nope
>> This has been done and it was called quantitative easing which has been done 2 times.
>Number 3 today!!but I don't think lamestream presstitutes said anything about it!
I searched the web and you are the only one who "knows" about it. England is thinking about a third round of qe.
>> Normally they borrow the money by selling treasuries on the open market.
>Which is bought up by the fed.....ingenious!
No, the debt is owned by foreign investors in large part with china owning over $1t. Domestic investors own a smaller part and govt does own part of the debt but less than 40% or so. Most of that is due to ss payments coming in and being used to buy treasuries and the money is spent. That is a long way from printing money from nothing as you claim.
>> So how do you explain the fact that we owe some $15t in national debt?
>Cos the "TOO BIG TO Fail" bankers palmed off a bunch of crud derivatives to the tax payers.
That dodges the fact that we had to borrow the money and did not print more of it. Anyone can say whatever they like in a book or on a website. I've seen books etc that claim aliens are running everything. Does that make it true?
The "smoking gun" video that bush persuaded me to watch simply made the claim that lending deposits creates new money. It causes more cash to go into circulation but this is neither mortgage fraud nor creating money out of thin air. Do you create new money when you charge something on a cc? It may seem that way but it has to be paid back with interest.
Irie,
QuoteThat dodges the fact that we had to borrow the money and did not print more of it. Anyone can say whatever they like in a book or on a website. I've seen books etc that claim aliens are running everything. Does that make it true?
Well I guess the federal reserve wasn't created in 1913 & there's no life throughout the universe apart from on earth!
Cool! That settles that then.
Just curious?????
Why would you want to trade for pre-'65 silver coins, if the fed bucks are more value than the paper they are printed on & totally solid???
Respect,
Z
I'll take fed bucks too but we are supposed to trade. Could be aliens out there but i'm not so sure they run everything like that guy said at the nook. So your argument was that the fed was created in 1913? Here i thought you were talking about printing money without borrowing and that qe3 happened today. You are right about the fed
Irie,
Ouch! my head is hurting from banging it against this Stoney Brick Wall! :'(
I'll not try again my lips are :-X on this matter.
Peace & guidance to you brother Stoney!
Boosh,
Did you get a chance to check-out the Gordon Hall???
Those podcasts are all 1hr+ long....
These guys are putting the whole thing to the test with real court cases......
And getting some surprising results.
It's all a matter of how you see yourself....& asserting that position....competently.
Respect,
Z
Its like going to a religious service or a meeting of ufo people. You either believe it or you dont. I'm the one running into a brick wall. Its more faith based than science based. I hear that if you burn incense and recite the correct incantation you get your interest rate lowered. I better get out of here before you make a voodoo doll of me and put pins in it.
Irie,
Back on subject.
Everybody with a mortgage or debt can benefit from this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKF-BoiQhI&feature=channel_video_title)
Enjoy!
Respect,
Z
Another utube! and this time a guy trying to sell a get out of debt plan. He couldn't even afford any video on his ad. These people prey on those who are desperate. The only thing he can deliver is more debt to those already underwater. Dont tell me you sent in the money? Why are you pushing this? I've seen scams like that all over the place. Sometimes the "secret" plan to get out of debt is to declare bankruptcy. And that is no secret.
I dont mean to laugh at anyone but come on, utube videos??? People trying to sell stuff? Next it will be a rap video. I wish i could create money out of thin air.
Stoney, you have received in this thread a variety of reseources that you have failed to study because you 'don't have the time' (though you seem to have the time to continually regurgitate your misguided opinion on the matter ). Firstly an interview that would have provided you with the framework for the claims made further on in this discussion. You have also received documents from the federal reserve and the Bank of England detailing the mechanics of money creation. Have you studied them? It appears not. I have also presented affidavits submitted by an expert on the subject, have you studied that? You tube is just a medium for information, it's use is not a logical ground for claiming the information contained within is incorrect. Only by paying due diligence and researching the subject and the resources provided will you be in a position to ask the correct questions or make a valid rebuttal. You will see upon your own research that the claims made by myself are backed up.
Let this thread continue for those willing to read the information and make appropriate contributions.
Booosh
Bush, you forgot to mention the father, the son and the holy ghost. I did study what you told me was the core of the "fraud" the way money was created out of thin air. It showed no such thing and yet you believe in it fervently. I want the 30 minutes back i spent on it. If you dont see that lending money is not the same as creating new money, why would i waste another 3 hours on one of those others? And then you would say i hadn't seen the 10 others and must spend days watching utubes before i can say its baloney.
There may be a valid point in there about something but you cant tell me what it is. You still think making a loan is still the same as creating money, dont you? You haven't answered any of my questions along those lines but i'm supposed to spend countless hours listening to random junk.
If someone asks me what is wrong with govt today, i dont hem and haw. I can reel off several main problems like corruption, career politicians, pay for play etc. I dont tell them to watch 100 hours of utubes and maybe they will figure it out themselves. Your one cogent statement was that the banks were creating money by lending it out. That turned out to be totally untrue and you have not stated anything else since then.
Its like the preacher who thumps the bible and says "the answer to all your questions is right here" and if you read it and dont agree with him, you are a heathen.
Fraud detailed reasonably well here folks:
http://crag1.webs.com/banksters.htm
More statements of faith and belief
>1.When we sign an application for a loan (called a "financial accommodation "), the Banksters don't go to the vault and remove printed legal tender money ... they just turn on their CONputer, and create counterfeit money from air, by simply typing in say $100,000 ... thereby monetising our signature into a dual faceted "Promissory-Mortgage Note" ... IMPORTANT, as ours is the only signature, it is not a legal contract .
This is false on the face of it. When you buy a home, the seller receives cash money contrary to what is stated above. And also contrary to that statement of faith, a mortgage contract does indeed have the signature of the loan officer authorizing the loan along with that of the borrower as well as that of the notary who verifies the identity of the parties. It will have other signatures as well. I have bought properties so i'm speaking from experience, not from theory or something i read.
I don't know what is done in uk but i know it is not done that way here and i highly doubt it is done that way over there. The rest of the rant you linked me to works off that first false statement so it is all false as well.
Really, bush, you should make some effort to verify these things rather than taking the word of someone on the net. Try talking to a real estate agent and see what he says. After he gets done laughing that is.
Read Money mechanics yet Stoney? Read the bankers manual ? Still going on the distorted facts you have grown up with or gleamed from the mainstream media? Why will no bank disclose their loses? Please do us a favour and read for example the walker todd affidavit ... it is specific to the U.S (though the banking fraud is global in its reach).
Tell me also, how on earth are you able to pledge as way of security your house, when you do not hold good title to it at the time you execute the deed?
QuoteThis is false on the face of it. When you buy a home, the seller receives cash money contrary to what is stated above.
Incorrect. Solicitors escrow account receives credit. Have you read the affidavit by walker todd, Ex federal reserve employee detailing the species of money in existence ?
QuoteAnd also contrary to that statement of faith, a mortgage contract does indeed have the signature of the loan officer authorizing the loan along with that of the borrower as well as that of the notary who verifies the identity of the parties.
Not in this England & Wales. Documents need to be executed in accordance with s44 of the companies act and s2 of the Law of Property Misc provisions 1989 act. None do so.
Why do you not ask your bank to show you the accounting of the transaction Stoney... but some real research in ?
You keep talking but aint reading Stoney.. come on
Boooshpig
Bush, some of those things may well be standard practice or done from time to time in jolly old england. I'm talking about over here.
>how on earth are you able to pledge as way of security your house, when you do not hold good title to it at the time you execute the deed?
As i said before, you are borrowing the money to buy the house giving them certain rights to guarantee the repayment. You are the nominal owner and they record a mortgage on the property which means no one can buy it from you without satisfying the bank on its loan. This also creates a lien. I'm not sure why you are confused about this part. It seems very straight forward. If you take the loan you take the lien along with it. You do have good title, what do you mean by that? Its just not free and clear because the bank does not trust everyone to pay their debts and wants a claim on the property.
>>Quote
This is false on the face of it. When you buy a home, the seller receives cash money contrary to what is stated above.
>Incorrect. Solicitors escrow account receives credit. Have you read the affidavit by walker todd, Ex federal reserve employee detailing the species of money in existence ?
Perhaps in uk they do this. Here, as i told you over and over, the seller receives cash at closing or a check if you want to be picky. We don't have solicitors here but if the seller had a lawyer handle the paperwork the lawyer may receive funds and disburse them to the seller. In that sense you would be correct but normally it goes directly to the seller. If the seller owes money on the house because of a mortgage or a lien, the money goes first to pay that off and the excess goes to the seller.
>Why do you not ask your bank to show you the accounting of the transaction Stoney... but some real research in ?
I have indeed looked over the documents each time i bought a property and it is just as i said. I have talked with real estate experts here and they agree with my assessment. Why would i read a book to see if someone else has a different opinion on how it is? Besides the fact you are without doubt misinterpreting what was said. You told me those videos showed money being created out of thin air and they showed no such thing.
In england it may be, though i doubt it, just as you say. Here, the seller gets paid in real money, not some "credit" as you imagine. You have told me that the lien on a property is fraud even though i tried to explain it to you and have again. No doubt i wasted my time because you are convinced its fraud and facts be damned. There may well be fraud going on and i can give examples of it, mostly inflated appraisals using straw buyers to defraud the bank but there are other forms of fraud as well. You simply have not shown me any.
Quote>how on earth are you able to pledge as way of security your house, when you do not hold good title to it at the time you execute the deed?
As i said before, you are borrowing the money to buy the house giving them certain rights to guarantee the repayment. You are the nominal owner and they record a mortgage on the property which means no one can buy it from you without satisfying the bank on its loan. This also creates a lien. I'm not sure why you are confused about this part. It seems very straight forward. If you take the loan you take the lien along with it. You do have good title, what do you mean by that? Its just not free and clear because the bank does not trust everyone to pay their debts and wants a claim on the property.
The mortgage on the property is a charge by way of deed. It may very slightly in the U.S but my basic premise is the same. That is, to pledge the house as security for the debt you need to own the house first, and have good title to it. Well, when you sign the deed pledging the house you did not own the house, so how can you pledge what you do not own ?
Quote>>Quote
This is false on the face of it. When you buy a home, the seller receives cash money contrary to what is stated above.
>Incorrect. Solicitors escrow account receives credit. Have you read the affidavit by walker todd, Ex federal reserve employee detailing the species of money in existence ?
Perhaps in uk they do this. Here, as i told you over and over, the seller receives cash at closing or a check if you want to be picky. We don't have solicitors here but if the seller had a lawyer handle the paperwork the lawyer may receive funds and disburse them to the seller. In that sense you would be correct but normally it goes directly to the seller. If the seller owes money on the house because of a mortgage or a lien, the money goes first to pay that off and the excess goes to the seller.
It is only a small percentage of sales would be cash buyers, so in that case maybe, but on the whole one the lender will advance credit to the solicitor/lawyer, this is generally held in escrow until completion of the relevant documents before being forwarded to the sellers bank/solicitor.
Quote>Why do you not ask your bank to show you the accounting of the transaction Stoney... but some real research in ?
I have indeed looked over the documents each time i bought a property and it is just as i said. I have talked with real estate experts here and they agree with my assessment. Why would i read a book to see if someone else has a different opinion on how it is? Besides the fact you are without doubt misinterpreting what was said. You told me those videos showed money being created out of thin air and they showed no such thing.
In england it may be, though i doubt it, just as you say. Here, the seller gets paid in real money, not some "credit" as you imagine. You have told me that the lien on a property is fraud even though i tried to explain it to you and have again. No doubt i wasted my time because you are convinced its fraud and facts be damned. There may well be fraud going on and i can give examples of it, mostly inflated appraisals using straw buyers to defraud the bank but there are other forms of fraud as well. You simply have not shown me any.
A call to authority when you fail to present the questions you have asked, the answers given and the evidence upon which they rely is call to a logical fallacy. Looking at a different opinion is the way in which one ascertains the nature of a concept, perception, object.
The U.S system with regard to the fraud is exactly the same as the rest of the globe. It is the same system. Who do you think set up the banking in your country ? I'd say it was the same interests that set it up in Europe. The MoneyMasters video at the start of this thread documents this history of the banking industry.
Your remarks on real money and credit are just not in keeping with the truth of the matter, the affidavit I recommended will clarify it.
You still claim banks do not create any more, that it is just transferred. Perhaps look into the data on the money supply. You will notice that money is created vua 2 sources. The Central Bank, and e commercial banks. Ask yourself the question how can commercial banks be part of the money supply ? Well, the must be creating money mustn't they ?
As you did not want to read modern money mechanics below is an explanation on the wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation
Once you have reached an understanding that commercial banks create money we can move onto the fraud in some more detail, until then we are going around in ever decreasing circles.
Much love
Boooshpig
Bush, i think we are done here. Believe what you will.
:-*
Irie Bush,
QuoteOnce you have reached an understanding that commercial banks create money we can move onto the fraud in some more detail, until then we are going around in ever decreasing circles.
Much love
Boooshpig
I think we should move on since stoney just can't seem to grasp it.
Maybe he'll pick up some knowledge on the way?? in spite!
Did you have a chance to listen to the shoetalk link?
If you did you'll notice their approach is completely new concept.
Its all in the infancy stage but they are making head way...
At the end of one of them podcasts they discuss a friend that went with this approach was successfully but fell foul when he tried to access his strawman account & got banged up for 20yrs for fraud.....!!
It's not a simple path!
Respect,
Z
Useful link on understanding the monetary system and its problems.
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
Boooshpig
Bush, one thing i think we can agree on is that fiat money is going down the drain. The usa is hooked on "qe" or printing up fake money and spending it. Many european nations are doing the same as is japan. I think paper money will gradually become almost worthless. Put your money in gold or silver or anything solid like land.
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/how-banks-create-money/proof-that-banks-create-money/
Booosh