Can banks predict (control) the future?

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,291
I do not buy into conspiracy theories. I
Bill, do you believe that there is a small group of elites that control the major banks and the federal reserve, and that they intentionally inflate the dollar to take away the power of the people and are actively attempting to enslave us all? And that these people also use their power to buy or scare the U.S. Government into complying with their demands?

This is an honest question, not sarcasm and not poking fun.
 

maxpower097

Joined Feb 20, 2009
816
There is another cover up that has recently come to light. Body parts of deceased service people (read this as the remains of our troops that did not leave a good looking corpse) have been incinerated (no foul there) and then dumped into a land fill (which is vile). It appears it was discontinued in 2008, but the people involved did not want this to come out (imagine that!).

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/08/9290603-report-air-force-dumped-remains-of-274-troops-in-landfill

I am sure there is more than a little media hype here, but the basic story is disturbing.

There is an old phrase that covers most cases of coverup, Never attribute to malice where stupidity will suffice.

Side Note: Beenthere was an expert at keeping his private feelings private. I wish I could do that, but I am not wired for it. Now and then I manage, but for me it is hard. I wasn't going to forward the above link, for example, because could see this going political.

Please do not make this political, here or elsewhere. So far we (I include myself) have walked the line on the right side. Hopefully we can maintain.
I was just discussing this with a coworker, and on the other hand in vietnam we used our deceased troops to smuggle heroine back into the US. So mistreating our militaries remains is nothing new.
 

maxpower097

Joined Feb 20, 2009
816
and about the JFK thing the whole point is I don't think its a conspiracy. Since all the players have died its become public knowledge. I don't know where your getting your info but everything I've seen on JFK the past 5 years since Santo died has all been the same. So I consider it a conspiracy much like the moon landing.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,145
I not only researched, I lived it. I saw the launch, I saw the landings, I routed for Apollo 13 during it's mission. JFK's assassination also happened during my lifetime. In that span of time I have seen hundreds of books and other theories.

I don't care anymore, it is not significant to my life. Therefore, I choose not to care, nor to believe anything I read or hear on the subject. Life is short, I choose to expend my energies to what I consider is important. That does not include any conspiracy theory, especially JFK.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,145
Basically. I vote, and where I can I try to make a difference. If you believe post #21 what are you going to do? Go on a shooting rampage? If you chose to become a politician you may touch the solution, but unless a real leader steps our from the ranks there isn't much to do.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,291
Basically. I vote, and where I can I try to make a difference. If you believe post #21 what are you going to do? Go on a shooting rampage? If you chose to become a politician you may touch the solution, but unless a real leader steps our from the ranks there isn't much to do.
Well I haven't definitely said that I do agree with post #21. I'm still evaluating it. I wanted to hear your thoughts on the matter, being that you are the "well grounded" type. I like to hear from both sides, and it seems like the only people who talk about such things are all on the same side. just trying to get some talk out of you.
If I did believe post #21, I don't know what I would do. not yet anyway. If its true, then just voting and trying to make a difference, isn't going to make a difference, and neither is going on a shooting rampage. A coup would though. a mass initiative to stop using dollars would.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
429
Sure they can. They've now proven if they run out of money they can just take it from the tax payers. So our financial system has evolved into steal as much as you can today and let our kids try to pay it back.
agreed.

same with the post about real jobs trades ets. How many bloogers and web based businesses does world need?

made me remember "Money for Nothing" which was banned in Canada in january. What a world we live in.
 

thatoneguy

Joined Feb 19, 2009
6,359
and about the JFK thing the whole point is I don't think its a conspiracy. Since all the players have died its become public knowledge. I don't know where your getting your info but everything I've seen on JFK the past 5 years since Santo died has all been the same. So I consider it a conspiracy much like the moon landing.
Seriously? What about 9/11? Pray tell?
 

maxpower097

Joined Feb 20, 2009
816
Seriously? What about 9/11? Pray tell?
I honestly think it was Saudi Arabia behind it or atleast funding and carrying it out. I think our gov used it as an excuse to finish business in Afgan. and iraq. because our gov was too scared to invade saudi arabia. They also invaded because its good for their family biz which is the largest arms maker in the world. Ever wonder why the bush's are the onlyl presidents that still get CIA breifings decades after being in office , and they own a weapons company?Thats my take on 911. Money money money moneeeey! Then like every generation we send our poor families kids to go fight our fictional war in the hopes of getting a more stable oil supply.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
13,926
I think you may have all missed the boat on money and interest rates. The absolute level of interest rates is not that important. What is important is the spread and the existence of a secondary market.

If I can borrow money at 5% and loan it out for 7% then my profit is the difference between the two rates. Say that I also collect an "origination" fee for every mortgage that I write. So I get my fee and my spread for as long as I hold the mortgage. Now suppose that something changes and I no longer consider that 2% spread attractive. I sell that mortgage at its discounted NPV (Net Present Value) to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac because now I can borrow at 4.5% and continue to lend at 7%. So I collect a "new" origination fee and I've increased my spread to 2.5%

Absolute rates mean nothing to bankers -- It's only the spread that matters. The good thing about low interest rates for the time being is that as the government pays off the last of the high yield bonds it wrote in the 1980s it is replacing them with new 30 year bonds at very attractive rates which allow us to carry a much larger debt than we could previously manage.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,291
If I can borrow money at 5% and loan it out for 7% then my profit is the difference between the two rates. ... So I get my fee and my spread for as long as I hold the mortgage.
where are you getting the loan @ 5% and who are you loaning to @ 7%? Why couldn't that person (the one you're loaning to) not just go get the 5% loan from your source? What necessitates you as a middle man?

Let's assume there is no middle man. you are the bank; you are the one typing money into existence..... No, actually lets assume you do not have that ability yet. For now, you are loaning out physical money that you actually have. you loan out @ 5%; during the 30yrs you are holding this loan, the value of the money you are receiving is going down, correct? because of inflation? so at the end of the loan, after 30 years, the total you received, although with interest works out to be twice what you originally loaned out, actually turns out to be less value than you loaned out when inflation is factored in. you lost money.

but, this is not a problem because, as a bank, you don't have to loan out physical money that you actually have. you have the power to simply loan money into existence and then collect the interest on it, so it really doesn't matter that you lost money, because the money never really existed. and the bonus, is that if the person defaults, you get to keep their house. you receive tangible goods when in exchange for fake money.

now, you want to bring mortgage trading into it, doesn't really matter if you hold the loan for 30 years, or you sell it off to someone else who sells it to someone else and to someone else. the point is that the banks are creating money. they can type 200,000$ into the screen and then transfer it you in exchange for your signature on a paper. why can they do that? why can't I type 200,000$ into my own account and then lend it out someone else? If I want to loan money out to people, I need to actually have the money first. why is the bank any different?
 

thatoneguy

Joined Feb 19, 2009
6,359
where are you getting the loan @ 5% and who are you loaning to @ 7%? Why couldn't that person (the one you're loaning to) not just go get the 5% loan from your source? What necessitates you as a middle man?

Let's assume there is no middle man. you are the bank; you are the one typing money into existence..... No, actually lets assume you do not have that ability yet. For now, you are loaning out physical money that you actually have. you loan out @ 5%; during the 30yrs you are holding this loan, the value of the money you are receiving is going down, correct? because of inflation? so at the end of the loan, after 30 years, the total you received, although with interest works out to be twice what you originally loaned out, actually turns out to be less value than you loaned out when inflation is factored in. you lost money.

but, this is not a problem because, as a bank, you don't have to loan out physical money that you actually have. you have the power to simply loan money into existence and then collect the interest on it, so it really doesn't matter that you lost money, because the money never really existed. and the bonus, is that if the person defaults, you get to keep their house. you receive tangible goods when in exchange for fake money.

now, you want to bring mortgage trading into it, doesn't really matter if you hold the loan for 30 years, or you sell it off to someone else who sells it to someone else and to someone else. the point is that the banks are creating money. they can type 200,000$ into the screen and then transfer it you in exchange for your signature on a paper. why can they do that? why can't I type 200,000$ into my own account and then lend it out someone else? If I want to loan money out to people, I need to actually have the money first. why is the bank any different?
It's only the Federal Reserve Banks that can simply "Add Money", and they need permission.

Though I think the Federal Reserve Needs an Audit (all points on the political spectrum agree on this), ever since we left the Gold Standard, inflation has been crazy, and not one crosscheck between the gov numbers and private numbers has actually been made. I'm talking about a visual inventory.

The rest of the banks, They sell the loans to other banks that are specialized in taking payment and or making collections, that's a big chunk of time for a small bank, and therefore, costly.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,291
It's only the Federal Reserve Banks that can simply "Add Money", and they need permission.
Really? I thought the FDIC specified that banks only have to keep 10% of the money they lend out in actual money. meaning if you want a loan for 100,000$ and the bank has 10,000$ in the vault then they are allowed to type you 90,000$ into existence.
 

thatoneguy

Joined Feb 19, 2009
6,359
Really? I thought the FDIC specified that banks only have to keep 10% of the money they lend out in actual money. meaning if you want a loan for 100,000$ and the bank has 10,000$ in the vault then they are allowed to type you 90,000$ into existence.
I thought you were referring to adding billions into the money supply. You are correct on small loans.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,291
I thought you were referring to adding billions into the money supply. You are correct on small loans.
I don't have any data to support this, but I suspect that the amount money created by banks for home, auto, small business, and personal loans equals or surpasses that created for government spending.
 
Top