I stated that the FED and the BOE ownership (or lack thereof) was transparent, not their operations. If making "Money out of thin air" is an apt analogy, why do you not refer to the act of paying off that debt as "the gov. makes money disappear out of nowhere"? Fractional Reserve Banking methods aren't inherently 'dubious'. They are complex, and majority of people don't know about the practice. But the system was accepted by choice, and full knowledge of these countries' legislatures. It's not something that is done at whim. It's one of those things that I was really surprised to find out when I did, but it also made sense why it came down to it. There was a clear, pretty risk-free opportunity, to temporarily shift the purchasing power from net savers to borrowers, which obviously increases the money that is in circulation. Can the system do without it? Of course. But even the most "fringe" Austrian economists and the like admit that fractional reserve banking is a real boost to economic growth. (and it can be applied to non-Keynesian economies as well)
At least we seem to agree that there is no transparency now - though your back tracking is noted Paying off debt is paying off money that never existed in the first place - to private bankers who created it and charged interest on it If you dont understand this then there is not much point continuing until you have done more work. You explanation of fractional reserve banking is way wide of the mark. The money in circulation is a misnomer. The vast majority of 'money' is NOT in circulation - it is made up out of thin air. If we all asked for our money from the banks the whole system would crash because it does not exist. Research the term "bank runs" Fractional reserve banking serves the purpose of driving up prices for eveyone, whilst the lenders, lending money they dont have, get rich on the interest. If they charge 7% interest on a loan, then in fact because they can magic up 10 times the deposit amount, they are actually making 70%. I suspected you did know much about it because you avoided the question for so long, but even for a layman the explanation of "putting the buying power in the hands of the borrowers" was dumb. Without fractional reserve banking everyday prices would be lower, significantly lower. The 'availability' of money drives up prices. The only power being exerted here is by the bankers who have a vested interest in making sure that more money is 'available' to charge interest on. Go and reserach Benjamin Franklin and the American Colonial process of printing their own money in line with supply and demand. The flip side of central bank control is the contraction of money. At a whim money can be withheld - as the BOE have done in the past to the UK Government (who apparently own them ). When this happens the wealthy LENDERS step in and sieze assets at pennies in the pound, and business owners, home owners, and owners of assets they can no longer afford who borrowed imaginary money are left to wonder where it all went wrong. There is nothing good that comes from the made up money - the only reason for its existence as a system is to make the few very very wealthy. If you understood the principals fully you would understand why all those world leaders I referenced were so staunch in fighting against the private central bankers.
Here's an Austrian Economics view of Fractional Reserve Banking. I hope it helps your understanding. I suggest that you read Rothbard.
Or maybe I was answering most of my questions from work today, and had to deal with a person that makes claims such as "BOE secret nominee", is presented with material directly disproving that and just plays dumb for the rest discussion claiming the same disproved ****? Is that the only reason? Well the arbiter of truth has spoken. The work of hundreds of economists can now be safely burnt, as the wise one has spoken. Or it might be that at their time the central banks were actually (& factually) privately owned, and now they aren't? Yea right, that is crazy talk. The two central banking systems are not privately owned, and that won't change no matter how many times you choose to repeat that. But who the **** am I explaining this to? You are as thick as a brick. You can't even concede the simplest, easily falsified claim you have made and you are now making the application of FRD to be some kind of a class warfare scheme? Wow.
I jost noticed that gent said he wa sa ****er - sorry Banker. Now it makes sense. Similar to a murderer saying he didnt do it (except a murderer has committed a lesser crime).
. You seem to be upset. You are a banker telling us that the the UK goverment borrows money from the BOE, which it somehow owns, and then charges itself interest here's a link for you on what power the Treasury (dont) have over the BoE... you know that organisation which is publically owned http://www.goldmadesimplenews.com/g...“less-innovative-in-policy-formulation”-5990/ Tell us again who owns the BOE - and why, if it's us, we borrow our own money and get charged interest on it. Explain where the interest goes on all this imaginary money If it is to the UK govt, or US govt then why is there such a large national debt? Who's getting paid the 70-80% a year interest on deposits???? WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING???? You are telling us that US Govt owns the FED and lends money to itself and charges itself interest Now your position is that these organisations used to be private but decided to hand over the keys to all their debtors and fade away into the night FRB and the inherent fraud within the system is not my sole view - I have posted a clear view on that and referenced a leading Austrian economist for you to research - Rothbard.
No I meant I worked for one of the "evil entities" know as corporations, alluding to the comment made by theHotHead, the second wisest man in the thread after you: "Yeah but these companies/corporations were founded by corruption, they made money by corruption and instigated the financial problem we are n now by greed and corruption." Such eloquent words of wisdom.
For a minute there I thought you might actually have some insider knowledge, but no, you are just spouting ****. Anyway, I would be interested in your views about where all the money earned from interest is actually going???
Not saying he's an idiot. But for a complex issue such as that there are very diverse views, and Rothbard's is on the very extreme side of the spectrum. For issues where you can apply boolean logic (true/false), you don't and for those that you can't, you do. You can't apply same boolean logic to the ethics of FRB or some philosophical/moral issue, as you can for example on a question of "who owns this shop". If Hamza owns the local grocery shop, and presents the certificate to it, he ****ing owns the shop. There is no place for opinion on it. Your view that the Rothschilds actually own the shop based on your extensive research means **** all. And yet you apply black and white logic to matters that are exponentially more complex.
These issues might be more complex to you, but I find them quite simple. The trick is to steer clear of the BS spouted by people like yourselves, and refrain from dressing up the fundamentals with complete horse**** like 'putting the buying power in the hands of the borrower' . At its core FRB allows for private bankers to charge interest on money that they create from nothing. The more they create the more interest they make. Start compounding that interest over hundreds of years and at 70% per year you quickly realise just how much money the private banking community has ammassed. More than the GDP of any country. Throw in the secret practices of the BOE and FED (apparently public companies - just a special type that we are not allowed to look at ), who have unrestricted rights to control the supply of money and charge interest to governments, putting them so far in debt that it will take generations to pay back. The whole system is quite plainly corrupt.... it's not complex at all. People make the finance industry complex for sure - but ultimately it is all about debt. If you are the right side of that debt - as private bankers are, then you are laughing. Unfortunately the vast majority of the worlds population, businesses, and governments are on the wrong side of the fraud. As for business ownership, comparing a local grocery shop ownership to the FED or BOE is dumb. Lets just replay this - you are saying that since 1946, the BOE has been a nationalised company, right? Who's making the day to day decisions then? Who is the REAL owner? Who is making decisions on when and when not to print money? Here's a recnt article in Reuters that nails - once and for all - the lie that the UK govt really owns the Bank of England. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/10/uk-britain-boe-idUKBRE8481KU20120510 You are saying that the FED doesnt have an owner .... so who made the decision to give Citigroup $2,5 trillion dollars??? The US govt did not even know about it till 3 years later. Who authorised them to give out $16 trillion dollars worlwide - more than the entire GDP of the USA??????? Who is making the decisions gent - because they are the owners, whoever they are.
Jayram, I will only repeat this one more time, and am done with you: Managing does not equal "owning". Who made the decision to give Citigroup 2,5 trillion? The board of Governers appointed by the president and confirmed by Senate!? (see there's this concept of the executive delegating powers to other government entities )
That is where you are wrong. You made the mistake of assuming that ownership on paper is actually worth something in all cases and have confused simple ownership stuctures like grocery shops with central banking and corporations. If the BOE is a public company but makes its own decisions regardless of what the govt or the public say then how in the blazes can we own it??? I terms of the FED, they made their own decision to lend - they did not ask the senate. They are accounatble to no one - that we know of. "As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years.[2] Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy opinions" Ben Bernanke was appointed by Bush.
That decision making power was delegated to them by the government, and there is nothing "permanent" about it, it can be changed if there is a desire for it to change. They were delegated those powers to make decision to lend. They are accountable to Congress. If tomorrow Congress approves a wide-encompassing audit to be made on the FED there would be nothing stopping it. The bills proposed by Ron Paul as far as I could read just didn't get enough backing from his colleagues. And there were Governers in the Bush era who were appointed by Clinton.
Of course it can be changed if the people of this country, or the USA, demand it through their representatives. It has happened through history, with private central banks seizing power and then losing it through the work of honest men in goverment, only to seize it back again. The fact remains though that it is not changing today. The BOE and FED make their own decisions and have FULL ownership of the money supply in those countries - and others. The point about Bernanke is that he was appointed by the GOP who are not even in power any more. The government of the USA did not appoint the chairman or the governers of the Fed who are operating completely independently. They are not operating on the instruction of the govt. A few men are making decisions to lend $16 trillion dollars of money they just made up to banks and govts around the world, in the process indebting taxpayers wordwide for generations. You have to be incredibly naive to think that those decisons are independent. Here's yet another source for you that says that the Fed is owned by private bankers. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489 "Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders." – The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s
This is hilarious. Jayram, I see you've now told him the same things I already told him about the Fractional Reserve system and how he should look up the meanings of bank runs. If he can't be bothered to help himself how on earth can we be expected to help him ??? The information is readily available. Instead of arguing the toss he should spend an hour reading up on some stuff rather than believing the tosh he is told. You have more time and patience than me to be arguing with a pleb
