Can banks predict (control) the future?

jimkeith

Joined Oct 26, 2011
540
strantor, you struck a nerve...
Communism is simply a tool created by the godless, globalist bankers that is intended to control the masses for their profit. It is a top-down control system as compared with the bottom up free-enterprise system. What we call capitalism is not free enterprise at all as it is fascism (big business linked with government) which again becomes a top-down system of control. Communism offers wonderful promises, but always fails to make good on them. The bottom line is that fascist capitalism is little different than communism--we are there!

Check out this essay by Henry Makow Phd:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in America/Feminism/communist_takeover_began_long_ago.htm
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
The words "communism" and "socialism", like "conspiracy" carry around a lot of baggage so I avoid using them.
I see what you mean...
strantor, you struck a nerve...
Communism is simply a tool created by the godless, globalist bankers that is intended to control the masses for their profit.
When I say communism, I am referring to the simplest definition of communism:
com·mu·nism
 /ˈkɒm
yəˌnɪz
əm
/ [kom-yuh-niz-uh
m] noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
In a small intentional community, well most anyways, there are no godless globalist bankers. There are actually no leaders at all. The people share everything equally, to an extent, depending on the rules set forth at the community's inception, including the decision making power. Some go as far as to share the children, describing every adult as a "parent" to every child. I can't align with that, but a lesser form I think I could do.

I understand the baggage attached to "communism" but if I were to describe communism without saying the word "communism", someone would just come along behind me and say "well you just described communism" and then it would look like I was trying to mask a foul odor. No, I prefer to get it all out there in the open and hopefully engage open minded individuals in intellectual discussion about it.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
Before I get labelled a "commie", let me totally clear: I am in no way insenuating that communism would be a beneficial governmental system for the United States or any country. I am simply stating that in very small communities, it has been shown to be effective, especially when all the people come together with equal or no possessions. check out the twin oaks community for an example of what I am talking about. I realize that communism is BAD on the nation scale. Now I am trusting you guys to not skew my words and make me out to be the devil.
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
21,326
In this case the word "commune" or "community" is a better choice.

Check out Findhorn in Scotland:

http://www.findhorn.org/aboutus/ecovillage/

(Sorry about all the links - I have done years of research in the field of Sustainability. As a public speaker, I am called upon to give talks on Sustainability, Ecovillages and Transition Initiatives. I am a member of the Transition Network, locally, nationally and globally.)
 

GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
1,729
I think the term 'conspiracy' has poloarized much of North America, and one should be conciderate in it's use, as far as communicating thier thoughts.

I believe that 80% of the North American population is basically a herd of cattle. They are predicatible, docile, and offer economic advantage to the herdsman. Thier dissadvantage is that they were born into the herd, so they are taught to behave like cattle. To further our plight, we are domesticated, and not the self surviving wild cattle. The interesting part, what we need to understand, is that the herdsmen are also cattle.

Lately, with all the talk about 'conspiracy' , I've beening leaning towards the term used to describe an emotion, rather than an act.

On a different note, yet just as important, is the recent occupy movement. In our neck of the woods, the last remnants of the movement ceased activities last week. Behind they left placards with phrases such as 'a voice that will not be heard'. Mainstream, debt ridden consumers sloughed off the movement as unorganized, unintelligent lowlifes. I'm wondering who was who?
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
21,326
The objective of the Occupy movement is not to occupy anything but to build awareness of the situation and condition of the 99%. In this regard they are being successful and support will continue to grow in the future.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
(Sorry about all the links - I have done years of research in the field of Sustainability. As a public speaker, I am called upon to give talks on Sustainability, Ecovillages and Transition Initiatives. I am a member of the Transition Network, locally, nationally and globally.)
Oh, no, keep them coming. I promise I will read them, just not as fast as you post them. I am still watching the videos you posted on the first page. I have only watched 2 so far. Your research and input is invaluable to me.

I think the term 'conspiracy' has poloarized much of North America, and one should be conciderate in it's use, as far as communicating thier thoughts.

I believe that 80% of the North American population is basically a herd of cattle. They are predicatible, docile, and offer economic advantage to the herdsman. Thier dissadvantage is that they were born into the herd, so they are taught to behave like cattle. To further our plight, we are domesticated, and not the self surviving wild cattle. The interesting part, what we need to understand, is that the herdsmen are also cattle.

Lately, with all the talk about 'conspiracy' , I've beening leaning towards the term used to describe an emotion, rather than an act.
agreed, on all counts.

On a different note, yet just as important, is the recent occupy movement. In our neck of the woods, the last remnants of the movement ceased activities last week. Behind they left placards with phrases such as 'a voice that will not be heard'. Mainstream, debt ridden consumers sloughed off the movement as unorganized, unintelligent lowlifes. I'm wondering who was who?
I have also cast my thoughts towards the occupy movement since all this economics stuff has made itself known to me. The occupy movement people were (are?) disorganized. I never saw any coherence in their protest. what were they protesting? I don't even think most of them knew what they were protesting other than "the 1%" - do they know who the 1% is? Because It seemed to me like they were after anybody who is rich; business owners, stock traders, whatever. The 1% I'm realizing now is the bankers. The occupy movement makes more sense to me now and I think it was probably started by some people who had a clue, but then a band of lazy idiots dog piled it and removed all credibility. I think they did more harm than good, as far as raising awareness goes. Now, spreading the the word about the real 1% is going to get me assosciated with "those occupy idiots"
 

GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
1,729
I have also cast my thoughts towards the occupy movement since all this economics stuff has made itself known to me. The occupy movement people were (are?) disorganized. I never saw any coherence in their protest. what were they protesting? I don't even think most of them knew what they were protesting other than "the 1%" - do they know who the 1% is? Because It seemed to me like they were after anybody who is rich; business owners, stock traders, whatever. The 1% I'm realizing now is the bankers. The occupy movement makes more sense to me now and I think it was probably started by some people who had a clue, but then a band of lazy idiots dog piled it and removed all credibility. I think they did more harm than good, as far as raising awareness goes. Now, spreading the the word about the real 1% is going to get me assosciated with "those occupy idiots"
My thoughts are that the 'idiots' were the group that had nothing to loose. The rest of us are afraid to rock the boat. I agree that the movement has not gone away, but rather reformulating based on the wide support. The manipulators where way too smuge in thier response, and based on that alone, I'd like them to feel some pain.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
See. It worked. The Occupy movement as gained one more convert.:)
I was just reflecting on that; on myself, and the occupy movement. I'd like to think that I spontaneously began to question the monetary system, but more likely somewhere deep inside the occupy movement, what little bit that I payed attention to, planted a seed that grew into the realization I've made lately. I should give credit where credit is due I suppose.

However, because of the "lazy idiot" stigma assosciated with the occupy movement and for the reasons already discussed for not using terms like "conspiracy theory" and "communism", I choose to refrain from the terms "1%" and "99%". And I choose to disassociate myself with the occupy movement. I think I stand a better chance of opening people's minds, and maintaining my own credibility this way.
 

loosewire

Joined Apr 25, 2008
1,686
Until you have seen young men using what ever means they have to
get to the occupy site.No tents allowed and committed homeless with
monthly checks not allowed. The silent hungry when some food arrives,
no yelling ,waiting to get a little food. If you didn't see this for your self,
you would call these guys a lot of things. You would not call them hungry
young Americans with no jobs or prospects for getting a job. There is no
feeding programs this age range. So far its a quiet voice looking for answers.
 

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
Until you have seen young men using what ever means they have to
get to the occupy site.No tents allowed and committed homeless with
monthly checks not allowed. The silent hungry when some food arrives,
no yelling ,waiting to get a little food. If you didn't see this for your self,
you would call these guys a lot of things. You would not call them hungry
young Americans with no jobs or prospects for getting a job. There is no
feeding programs this age range. So far its a quiet voice looking for answers.
Along with my new understanding of the monetary system, comes the realization that the system inherently does not allow everyone to be successful. there have to be losers; and by "loser" I don't mean a judgement, just by virtue of not being a winner are they a loser. The system does not allow everybody to pay their debts; there will always be some who, despite their best efforts, get foreclosed on or have to file bankruptcy. I'm in a limbo between conflicting ideals right now. I have not found a happy medium. I am still 100% against the entitlement ideal but I also am seeing the other side, where people might not have an option. It was easy to judge before; not now. I still think that the losers tend to be the less motivated people; the ones who feel entitled, but on the other hand I realize that some are not. Technically I am one of the losers, having just filed for bankruptcy at the beginning of this year. I have been beating myself up for it, but now I realize that I'm just another number. But this is also a bad mentality, that "its ok to not pay your debt because not everybody can". Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I am perpetually confused. I am going to try to withold judgement on all from now on, because I'm not in a position to judge. I gave a homeless guy my fries from lunch yesterday. The first time I've rolled down my window to a homeless person in a couple of years. it felt good.
 

GetDeviceInfo

Joined Jun 7, 2009
1,729
I gave a homeless guy my fries from lunch yesterday. The first time I've rolled down my window to a homeless person in a couple of years. it felt good
The Mustard Seed homeless shelter is just down the block from my current employer. We volunteer there 4x a year. I picked up a stack of there business cards, and whenever I see someone begging, I call them over, give them a card, and tell them they can get a meal and a warm bed for the night.

By and large though, this population has the largest greivance against corporate greed. They should be heard, and it's all of our problem.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
429
It makes me sad when I hear someone refer to themselves as a loser. But I guess that is what it is here. You are either a winner or a loser. Before we came to this continent, I knew that people could be liars, alcoholics, they could be traitors, they could be chronically depressed or always happy, they could be born with a silver spoon in their mouth and do no wrong, but they were not divided into winners and losers. Stay true to yourself.

surprisingly relevant to the economic situation:
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/beck/loser_20015293.html
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
I have been talking about this on another forum. I was talking about how banks lending money creates money and I was given this example, which seems to contradict the idea:
Let's create a community of a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker. These people trade in gold. As they live in a backward town, and everyone knows each other to be trustworthy, there is no bank (yet). Everyone has 10 one ounce coins of gold. There is no fed minting new coins, money is not brought in from external economies. Let's keep the model simple, right? But nothing that would impede a banker "making money out of thin airs from loans", so none of the model constraints impact the comparison with real life. Until the banker arrives, everyone keeps their coins in a jar under their mattress or something.

Current balance sheet:
Butcher: Asset - 10 coins in hand
Baker: Asset - 10 coins in hand
Candlestick maker: Asset - 10 coins in hand

Then one day a banker moves into town. For simplicity's sake, he brings no money to the economy. No new cash. He's purely a broker. He says to the locals "If you deposit money in my safe. I will give you 10% a year interest If you want to borrow from me, I will lend to you at 20% a year interest"

So everyone thinks this is great - I have 10 coins, but really don't need them all now. I'm going to put 5 of my coins in the bank, and keep 5 in circulation to spend. So the balance sheet now looks like this:

Banker:
Assets - 15 coins in the bank
Liabilities - 15 Coins worth of deposit slips it is liable to pay out for.
Balance = 0

Butcher, baker, candlestick maker
Assets - 5 coins in the jar under the bed each, and a deposit slip for 5 coins each = 10 coin total
Balance = 10 coins each

The baker is quite the entrepreneur, and thinks "Hey, if I had more light later in the night, I could make more bread, and therefore more money." He withdraws his money, and asks for a loan of 10 gold pieces from the bank. Balance sheet:

Banker:
Assets - 0 coins in the bank + a loan of 10 coins that the baker must pay for.
Liabilities - 10 Coins worth of deposit slips it is liable to pay out for.
Balance = 0 coins

Butcher
Assets - 5 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 5 coins = 10 coin total
Liabilities = None
Balance = 10 coins

Baker
Assets - 20 coins in the jar under the bed, ready to invest
Liabilities = 10 coin loan from the bank which he will eventually have to repay with interest
Balance = 10 coins

Candlestick Maker
Assets - 5 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 5 coins = 10 coin total
Liabilities = None
Balance = 10 coins

He then goes to the Candlestick Maker and asks for 20 gold coins worth of candles. Balance Sheet:

Banker:
Assets - 0 coins in the bank + a loan of 10 coins that the baker must pay for.
Liabilities - 10 Coins worth of deposit slips it is liable to pay out for.
Balance = 0

Butcher
Assets - 5 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 5 coins = 10 coin total
Liabilities = None
Balance = 10 coins

Baker
Assets - 0 coins in the jar under the bed,
Liabilities = 10 coin loan from the bank which he will eventually have to repay with interest
Balance = 10 coins in debt

Candlestick Maker
Assets - 25 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 5 coins
Liabilities = None
Balance = 30 coins

Total physical gold in the system: 30 Gold Coins (Bank 0, butcher 5, baker 0, candlestick maker 25 = 30)

The Candlestick maker doesn't need that much money so puts 10 coins in the bank:
Banker:
Assets - 10 coins in the bank + a loan of 10 coins that the baker must pay for.
Liabilities - 20 Coins worth of deposit slips it is liable to pay out for. (15 to Candlestick and 5 to butcher)
Balance = 0

Butcher
Assets - 5 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 5 coins = 10 coin total
Liabilities = None
Balance = 10 coins

Baker
Assets - 0 coins in the jar under the bed,
Liabilities = 10 coin loan from the bank which he will eventually have to repay with interest
Balance = In debt for 10 coins

Candlestick Maker
Assets - 15 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 15 coins = 30 coin total
Liabilities = None
Balance = 30 coins

Total physical gold in the system: 30 Gold Coins (Bank 10, butcher 5, baker 0, candlestick maker 15 = 30)

So our first loan has been issued, and money has been deposited back in the bank. Has any money been created? I can't see any new money, can you? Total coinage in the system before the banker: 3 x 10 coins, total after 30. No change.

Ah - now here's the interesting thing and one of your "proofs" that the bank is lending money it doesn't have - The candlestick maker has a deposit slip for 15 coins. The bank only has 10 coins in its vault. If he wanted to withdraw all his money, he couldn't. So where did the money go? The answer is "you're asking the wrong question". We KNOW from the walkthrough before, that money was not created anywhere. What was created, was a promise to pay - using a the bank as a broker. In effect, the Baker spent money he didn't have, and the Candlestick maker made candles on a promise. But the candlestick maker got paid, essentially by a guarantee from the bank. The bank gave out money that it didn't own (It's so far had a zero balance sheet, remember?), but had access to. But it couldn't create money out of thin air - it could only do it when the Butcher and the Candlestick maker made the initial deposit.

See what happened there? If the baker can't repay his loan, then the bank can't repay the Butcher and Candlestick maker for their deposit slips.

What about interest, you asked?

Well, let's say the Baker was successful in his new venture. That year, he sells 5 coins worth of bread to the butcher, and because the candlestick maker is feeling so rich from his new found wealth, he buys 10 coins worth of bread, pastries, and other wonderful prandial delights. Balance sheet?

Banker:
Assets - 10 coins in the bank + a loan of 10 coins that the baker must pay for.
Liabilities - 20 Coins worth of deposit slips it is liable to pay out for. (15 to Candlestick and 5 to butcher)
Balance = 0

Butcher
Assets - 0 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 5 coins = 5 coin total
Liabilities = None
Balance = 5 coins

Baker
Assets - 15 coins in the jar under the bed,
Liabilities = 10 coin loan from the bank which he will eventually have to repay with interest
Balance = Net worth 5 coins

Candlestick Maker
Assets - 5 coins in the jar under the bed, and a deposit slip for 15 coins = 20 coin total
Liabilities = None
Balance = 20 coins

Now the bank needs to settle its interest payments, and for simplicity leaves town to wrap up this example. It needs to collect a 10 coin loan from the Baker, and 2 coins in interest. It needs to pay out a 5 coin deposit to the butcher, and 0.5 coins in interest. And it needs to pay out a 15 coin deposit to the baker, and 1.5 coins in interest.

So it collects 12 coins from the Baker. The baker has 15 coins at present, so no problem. Banker now has 22 coins in his vault.

He pays out his best creditor first - 15 coins, plus 10% interest for 1.5 coins, that's 16.5 credits plus the 5 coins he had under his bed, for a total 21.5 coins

Finally, he pays out the butcher, who gets 5 coins from his deposit, 0.5 coins as interest. He spent the money under his bed, so that's all he gets, 5.5 coins.

Let's add it all up. The banker now has nothing. The butcher now has 10.5 coins, the baker has 3 coins (and a bright shiny new candle driven bakery) and the candlestick maker goes into semi-retirement on the Amalfi coast with a whopping 21.5 coins.

So that's Banker 0, Butcher 5.5, baker 3, candlestick maker, 21.5 for a total of... 30 coins.

In this scenario, we showed:

1. How loans can be issued without creating new money

2. How interest can be paid without the creation of new money

3. How a bank can have a market create new goods and services, by moving money faster (Taking savings that would have otherwise sat in a jar under the bed, and using it to get the candlestick maker to make more candles).
any input?
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
21,326
I didn't read through the entire scenario... it seems just a bit too long winded and convoluted.

The simple revelation is that all interest has to be created from nothing in the form of outstanding loans. The bank becomes the beneficiary of the outstanding debt which gives it entitlement to current and future production and assets, i.e. you lose not only your possessions but also your productive capacity to the bank.

The only solution I can see is to allow governments the power to increase the money supply in direct relation to economic activity (not GDP since this is totally erroneous). Some governments have the constitutional right to do so but have failed to do so and have delegated this authority to the commercial banks leading to our current financial crisis.

In a nutshell, our financial system is not broken. It was flawed right from the start. We need a hard reset and a new operating system.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
at the end of the long convoluted scenario, he shows how, even with the debtor paying interest, no extra money is created, and the debtor is still able to pay. This seems impossible to me, and I can't figure it out. I've read through the entire scenario at least 5 times and I don't get it. I need some ammo against this scenario.
 

MrChips

Joined Oct 2, 2009
21,326
Ok, I worked through the scenario and found nothing wrong with it. No "interest" was actually created.

The butcher bought 5 coins worth of bread and earned 0.5 worth of "interest" from the bank.

The candlestick maker sold 20 coins worth of candles and bought 10 coins worth of bread. Net gain is 10 coins. Plus he earned 1.5 coins from "interest".

The baker ended up with 7 fewer coins out of which 0.5 of interest went to the butcher and 1.5 went to the candlestick maker.

This is just a typical example of "there is no free lunch".

The candlestick maker was the most productive and the butcher and the baker rewarded him for his productivity. No new money was created and any "interest" came out of the existing pool of money.

You can say that the "loser" was the baker because he took out a loan on which "interest" had to be paid. He became indebted to the other two and his balance sheet shows this with 3 coins remaining. Even though his efforts made him more productive and he made more bread, his expenses exceeded his income and he lost money in the process, 5 in net loss and 2 in "interest" payments.

(In real life, notice how the commercial banks have the grandest and most expensive buildings in the city centers. This comes from the productivity of the general population.)

In a utopian world, each one of us would contribute to society and we would each wish to see our net worth increase. This can only happen if we increase the money supply in direct relation to the net increase of real surplus (and not in increased production of consumer goods).
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,290
I think the answer may lie in the ratios he chose. He chose that the banker pays 10% interest on deposits and recieved 20% interest on loans. This coincides nicely with the fact that there were 2 people who the bank owed, and one person who owed the bank. The ratios cancel eachother out. Now if he had chosen more realistic intrest rates, like 1% on deposits and 10% on loans, would money be created?
 
Top