|
Post by turbonium on Jul 18, 2005 19:34:39 GMT -4
But, not having the bank being able to "create" money out of thin air as a book entry or written check is a key to these transactions. They cannot be allowed to have this advantage over any and all other businesses or citizens. As any of us must now do, a check written does not create any new money - it is a note representing actual money the check writer has in a bank account, and is worthless if that actual money is not present.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 18, 2005 19:48:56 GMT -4
This type of transaction is conducted on a daily basis between people all the time. It's really a barter where the exchange or loan of goods is for services or goods. For the tool owner, a one time loan (of his tools) is exchanged for a price (getting a cabinet).
Interest is a different animal - it is used and manipulated around through contracts and terms that create a false impression of a "good deal" to the borrower. They take advantage of the lack of knowledge most people have regarding money, contracts, clauses and so on. Win-win would be nice, but in reality it usually is a big win-big lose result.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 18, 2005 19:59:25 GMT -4
No doubt - I too save up to purchase in full if at all possible to avoid being caught in the monthly payment interest scam. What happens in real life - the ones who can least afford to get more in debt are the ones who invariably do go more into debt through "low monthly payment" plans. The money "vultures" take advantage of this, of course. They know that if someone CAN buy something up front in a single purchase, they will do so to save money (funny to call it that - it's really to avoid losing money through interest charges). Note - banks don't change rates for OUR benefit - only for THEIR benefit. -as you would expect from private for profit corporations. Of course, much like at the gas pumps, we see amazingly coincidental rate changes - no collusion or monopoly funny business, I'm sure!
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 18, 2005 20:16:19 GMT -4
Turbonium
Do you own your own house? If so, how did you come to purchase it?
Why is it such a surprise that banks change interest rates for their benefit alone? They're businesses, and as such charge as much as they think they can get away with, just like every other business. As times change, they'll change their interest rates, the way a furniture shop will change the price of a bed. Have you noticed that banks also generally reduce their interest rates when official rates go down? If they don't, they lose custom to other banks. So, like other businesses, banks are driven by market forces as well.
This is not to say they shouldn't charge less. In Australia, mortgage brokers have opened up the home loan market considerably. They borrow money in bulk from banks at much lower rates than individuals can afford, then lend it out to individuals at lower rates than the banks originally offered. Also, the mortgage brokers had much lower overheads, allowing them to cut rates even further.
But what has been the result? While official interest rates are low, people are borrowing up to the hilt, and many may end up getting into financial difficulties when interest rates rise.
Market forces. Gotta love 'em.
When I took out my first home loan, I did the sums to see how much my total repayments would be: something like 8 times the principal. A few more sums showed that paying an extra $5 in the first month of the loan would shorten the loan by a month, saving me about $850 in 30 years time. So when I went into the loan, I was fully aware of my financial situation. As it was, I paid the loan off in about 5 years.
I don't see why anyone else wouldn't do what I did. After all, with that sort of knowledge, I knew how to act to my own benefit. Rathern than complain about the concept of interest, use it to your own benefit, and educate others. It's education which will change the world.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 18, 2005 21:51:07 GMT -4
Turbonium Do you own your own house? If so, how did you come to purchase it? Yes I own a home - again I was able to save up for a large down payment so the interest wouldn't kill me every month. But not everybody can manage to save more than the minimum dp and so are stuck with the interest monster for a long long time. But I still have a long time to pay it off, too - and I know it shouldn't and doesn't need to be that way. Why is it such a surprise that banks change interest rates for their benefit alone? They're businesses, and as such charge as much as they think they can get away with, just like every other business. As times change, they'll change their interest rates, the way a furniture shop will change the price of a bed. Have you noticed that banks also generally reduce their interest rates when official rates go down? If they don't, they lose custom to other banks. So, like other businesses, banks are driven by market forces as well. It is certainly not a surprise - I've never claimed that it is. Far from it. Now, you say they'll charge as much as they can get away with because they are in it for profit, like any other business. And that point is correct - but if you effectively have a monopoly situation, as exists with the Central Banks, you have the inevitable result - a commodity being controlled at their whim, with nothing to stop gouging of the public. Any other business would be breaking anti-trust laws in the US (or similar anti-monopoly laws in other countries). But they control the law-makers (gov't) so they become unstoppable tyrants as a result. Nobody in gov't will either take a stand against the rest of their party, or if they do, they are generally denigrated for doing so. It is best put by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the "godfather" of our central banking system today, who said (or rather boasted) quite correctly in 1828... "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws." It doesn't take an PhD in Economics or Political Science to come to that realization - if you control the money, you control the Gov't. Really, most politicians have known this for years. A few more relevant quotes on the Federal Reserve system would seem appropriate here.... Thomas Jefferson in 1816: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." President Andrew Jackson 1829-1837 (dealing with a predecessor variant of the Fed: "You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." President Franklin Roosevelt Nov. 21, 1933: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson." "People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project (Muscle Shoals Dam) nor contribute a pound of material, will collect more money from the United States than will the People who supply all the material and do all the work. This is the terrible thing about interest ...But here is the point: If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People. If the currency issued by the People were no good, then the bonds would be no good, either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to insure the National Wealth, must go in debt and submit to ruinous interest charges at the hands of men who control the fictitious value of gold. Interest is the invention of Satan". - THOMAS A. EDISON That last quote is one of my favorite ones - it really encapsulates the problem in a nutshell. Turbonium This is not to say they shouldn't charge less. In Australia, mortgage brokers have opened up the home loan market considerably. They borrow money in bulk from banks at much lower rates than individuals can afford, then lend it out to individuals at lower rates than the banks originally offered. Also, the mortgage brokers had much lower overheads, allowing them to cut rates even further. But what has been the result? While official interest rates are low, people are borrowing up to the hilt, and many may end up getting into financial difficulties when interest rates rise. Market forces. Gotta love 'em.[ No - because there is no market force (as in a free market) as one would hope for - it's a controlled and manipulated game being played by the big banks - and I despise it, as should anyone who is on the other side of this transaction, once they realize the "con" that is being put on them. When I took out my first home loan, I did the sums to see how much my total repayments would be: something like 8 times the principal. A few more sums showed that paying an extra $5 in the first month of the loan would shorten the loan by a month, saving me about $850 in 30 years time. So when I went into the loan, I was fully aware of my financial situation. As it was, I paid the loan off in about 5 years. I don't see why anyone else wouldn't do what I did. After all, with that sort of knowledge, I knew how to act to my own benefit. Rathern than complain about the concept of interest, use it to your own benefit, and educate others. It's education which will change the world. The last sentence I totally agree with. But it is not for the knowledge of how to use interest for your own advantage - it is for the knowledge of how interest is being used for the banks advantage, and that it is an unfair monopolistic system that needs to be eliminated for the benefit of all people. Your mortgage, like mine, has been worked out to best limit the ravages of interest. But I'm not at all pleased by that fact in itself, because I know it could and should be much less costly on top of that factor. You and I and 99.99% of the population are still getting the short end of the stick. For only one reason - it is being allowed to poison our lives, generation after generation. You may be content with a table scrap you are thrown because you figured out a trick for the masters. I want to kick the masters right the hell out of the dining room, and sit down for a full meal at the dinner table.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 18, 2005 22:21:58 GMT -4
Turbonium
You still seem to be missing a couple of my points.
Firstly, banks change their lending rates in response to changes in official interest rates. If the Reserve Bank (in Australia) puts rates up, the banks follow suit (usually within 24 hours). If the Reserve Bank drops interest rates, the banks again follow suit (though perhaps only after a week or so). If your scenario was correct, they'd continue to keep interest rates up. They might be a cartel in the supply of money, but they're still affected by the Reserve Bank Governor's thoughts on how much people should be encouraged to save or spend.
Secondly, if interest was abolished, and people instead paid a much lower fixed fee for the supply of money, what would be the effect? It would be the same as if interest rates had been dramatically cut. Most people would go out and spend to a much higher level. No matter what the cost of money is (high or low interest rates, or a fee) most people will always spend just a little more money than they have access to. This is the same whether buying a house or a car, putting a TV, DVD player, surround sound and pigeon pair fridge in the house or eating at a restaurant.
And a simple consequence of increased spending is increased inflation. Why? Because if there's more money to spend, retailers will put up their prices to rake in more of this available money. The market thus adjusts itself to match the money with the goods and services being produced.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 19, 2005 1:34:26 GMT -4
Firstly, banks change their lending rates in response to changes in official interest rates. If the Reserve Bank (in Australia) puts rates up, the banks follow suit (usually within 24 hours). If the Reserve Bank drops interest rates, the banks again follow suit (though perhaps only after a week or so). If your scenario was correct, they'd continue to keep interest rates up. They might be a cartel in the supply of money, but they're still affected by the Reserve Bank Governor's thoughts on how much people should be encouraged to save or spend. peter, the Reserve Bank and the branch banks operate as one and the same. The Federal Reserve System in the US, for example, is made up of 12 privately owned banks within the US. They are... Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Chase Manhattan Bank of New York They profit off BOTH raising and lowering interest rates. For example, you mentioned earlier That is a great example of the methods used by the Central Banks to "draw people in" to borrowing when they normally would not at higher interest rates. It's like a lure and many will bite at the bait, and are then hooked by the banks - possibly losing all they have. It's a con game, one of many they have up their sleeves. The "cycle" has the effect of drawing people in at low rates, and breaking them when they raise the rates. From the link below is this text, again summarizing what the Fed is and had already done by 1933...... On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, conspiracy, fraud, unlawful conversion, and treason. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has yet to be acted on. The Federal Reserve - A Corrupt Institution
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.
"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks 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 lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. www.federal-reserve.net/
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 19, 2005 2:16:24 GMT -4
Secondly, if interest was abolished, and people instead paid a much lower fixed fee for the supply of money, what would be the effect? It would be the same as if interest rates had been dramatically cut. Most people would go out and spend to a much higher level. No matter what the cost of money is (high or low interest rates, or a fee) most people will always spend just a little more money than they have access to. This is the same whether buying a house or a car, putting a TV, DVD player, surround sound and pigeon pair fridge in the house or eating at a restaurant. And a simple consequence of increased spending is increased inflation. Why? Because if there's more money to spend, retailers will put up their prices to rake in more of this available money. The market thus adjusts itself to match the money with the goods and services being produced. Inflation is due to debt - and, spending will not increase, but instead, the spending will be with cash on hand, not purchased on credit (creating debt). There will be no "book entry" cash in the system to falsely "inflate" the money supply - the "appearance" of more cash in the system, without it actually existing. For example, when one wants to buy a car for $20,000, the seller does not care how you come up with the money. You may have the 20K in cash on hand, or may need a loan to afford it. But he only cares that you come up with it. When you are cash poor, you need to borrow at interest to come up with the money to buy the car. Debt has now been created. If you have the cash, no debt is created. But the majority of these purchases are made through loans, creating debt and inflation, as more "book entry" money has increased the money supply (it is "phantom" money but is treated in the system as real paper money). Increasing the amount of currency and checkbook money increases inflation. Creating new dollars reduces the value of all dollars, resulting in higher prices. By manipulating the quantity of created dollars, the purchasing power of every dollar is altered. Monetary inflation is the creation of new purchasing media (money), and changes the measure of the monetary unit by debauching the currency that people use in their everyday transactions. Monetary inflation is what counterfeiters engage in when they create false money, and it is just as wrong for Big Banks to "legally" create false money as it is for counterfeiters to do it illegally. Alternately, depressions are the result of private bankers reducing the money supply by tightening credit and withdrawing currency, causing a drop in prices, unemployment and foreclosure of property.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 19, 2005 9:20:50 GMT -4
Turbonium,
Although I ceased discussions with you, I have read some of your postings. These have raised some concerns.
bankers who came here from Europe
The “European Bankers” line is has been used by anti-Semitics as a code word for Jews. Some of the other charges in your posts against bankers were really leveled against Jews. Turbo, although, you are quoting someone else here are you insinuating anything about Jews in your arguments? Do you believe in a conspiracy by Jews through history? Based on a similarity to some anti-Semitic writings I have read in past years, your posts in this thread could reasonably be interpreted to be this way. However, I don’t want to level charges but request some clarification.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 19, 2005 17:15:43 GMT -4
Turbonium, Although I ceased discussions with you, I have read some of your postings. These have raised some concerns. bankers who came here from EuropeThe “European Bankers” line is has been used by anti-Semitics as a code word for Jews. Some of the other charges in your posts against bankers were really leveled against Jews. Turbo, although, you are quoting someone else here are you insinuating anything about Jews in your arguments? Do you believe in a conspiracy by Jews through history? Based on a similarity to some anti-Semitic writings I have read in past years, your posts in this thread could reasonably be interpreted to be this way. However, I don’t want to level charges but request some clarification. No - the people who own the banks and where they come from or what "race" they are doesn't concern me in the least. The only important thing is eliminating the private "for profit" control of the banking system. They could all be "little grey aliens" for all I care, I just want the money back in a system that isn't used to bankrupt all of of us. Thx for not leveling an accusation without asking about it, though. I don't see where my posts were "really levelled against Jews", though. I don't know the races of the bankers, so if that's what it looks like, it's not intended that way. I only care about economic policies.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 19, 2005 18:18:32 GMT -4
Turbonium, Although I ceased discussions with you, I have read some of your postings. These have raised some concerns. bankers who came here from EuropeThe “European Bankers” line is has been used by anti-Semitics as a code word for Jews. Some of the other charges in your posts against bankers were really leveled against Jews. Turbo, although, you are quoting someone else here are you insinuating anything about Jews in your arguments? Do you believe in a conspiracy by Jews through history? Based on a similarity to some anti-Semitic writings I have read in past years, your posts in this thread could reasonably be interpreted to be this way. However, I don’t want to level charges but request some clarification. No - the people who own the banks and where they come from or what "race" they are doesn't concern me in the least. The only important thing is eliminating the private "for profit" control of the banking system. They could all be "little grey aliens" for all I care, I just want the money back in a system that isn't used to bankrupt all of of us. Thx for not leveling an accusation without asking about it, though. I don't see where my posts were "really levelled against Jews", though. I don't know the races of the bankers, so if that's what it looks like, it's not intended that way. I only care about economic policies. Thanks for the reply, I accept you at your word for this because you have given no racists indications to me in any of your posts. But do be aware that when you quote people that speak of “European Bankers” and through around names of those banks, which are predominantly founded by Jews, some will question your motives. A second point, several of those bank you mention no longer exist. Most of the rest are publicly traded not the private clubs that you seem to be implying. Warburg was absorbed by UBS, (formerly Union Bank of Switzerland). Kuhn Loeb was absorbed by Lehman. Lehman was in turn merged with American Express then later returned to independence through an IPO. Lazard and Rothschild are niche players in the investment and private banking world but they are not multinational financial powerhouses on the scale of HSBC (formerly the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Company), Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS or the occasional Japanese bank that is still solvent. Your proposal that they are owners of the Fed is preposterous. That all, because I still cannot debate with you. While everyone is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts and you have your facts very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 19, 2005 19:00:00 GMT -4
Thanks for the reply, I accept you at your word for this because you have given no racists indications to me in any of your posts. But do be aware that when you quote people that speak of “European Bankers” and through around names of those banks, which are predominantly founded by Jews, some will question your motives. A second point, several of those bank you mention no longer exist. Most of the rest are publicly traded not the private clubs that you seem to be implying. Warburg was absorbed by UBS, (formerly Union Bank of Switzerland). Kuhn Loeb was absorbed by Lehman. Lehman was in turn merged with American Express then later returned to independence through an IPO. Lazard and Rothschild are niche players in the investment and private banking world but they are not multinational financial powerhouses on the scale of HSBC (formerly the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Company), Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS or the occasional Japanese bank that is still solvent. Your proposal that they are owners of the Fed is preposterous. That all, because I still cannot debate with you. While everyone is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts and you have your facts very wrong. Well, they can question my motives if they want, but it doesn't bother me, as my posts are only to the points of the economic system. The banks do go through mergers and acquisitions, of course. That is not the issue - they are still the ones in control of the Federal Reserve. If you can show me documentation that indicates these private banks are publicly controlled banks through various public citizens' shareholder ownership, please do so. Otherwise, it is not preposterous. If I have my facts very wrong, again post the facts as they truly are, and if they are facts which contradict what I believe, then I will accept that. But until then, I am confident of what I see as a very debilitating monetary system being in place in the US and around the world. If you are confident in the facts as you see them, you should be able to post those facts so I can see them.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 19, 2005 19:30:35 GMT -4
Consider that the typical "new world order" publications do not check the validity of their sources before publishing them. The notion that Rothschild et al. are "secret" owners, in significant part, of the U.S. Federal Reserve system is an oft-repeated statement that seems to gain credibility with each new repetition. It's something that everyone seems to "know" is true, but no one can really substantiate.
You claim Rothschild is an owner of the Federal Reserve. We claim they are not. Since our claim is the negative and can therefore not be proven, the burden of proof is yours. We justly assume Rothschild et al. are not owners of the Federal Reserve unless you can prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 19, 2005 21:12:57 GMT -4
But, not having the bank being able to "create" money out of thin air as a book entry or written check is a key to these transactions. They cannot be allowed to have this advantage over any and all other businesses or citizens.
You are switching to a different argument. The Debt Virus Hypothesis (DVH) still fails, even if banks really did have an unfair advantage. The argument was that there was no money being created to account for the interest, and that this forced other loans to be made with there interest charges and so on, causing an infinite spiral of debt buildup. Now that we know that money is being created by the banks from the interest payments, we know that the central argument of the DVH collapses.
As any of us must now do, a check written does not create any new money - it is a note representing actual money the check writer has in a bank account, and is worthless if that actual money is not present.
Money is anything we accept as a medium of exchange. Businesses happily accept checks from banks and give them toasters in return. The beauty of loans and checks is that new money comes into existence just when it is needed, when the loan is made, and goes out of existence when the loan is paid off.
It makes no sense for the bank to create the money for the interest at the same time it makes the loan. The bank, of course, is not going to give the borrower the money to pay the interest on the loan. If the borrower is a business, the business will try to use the money to expand its business and make it more productive. Its hard work and industriousness grows the economy by creating additional goods and/or services that did not exist before. THAT is the real backing of money whether you want it to be or not. That also signals the proper time for new money to be created, which happens as the bank receives its interest payments.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 19, 2005 21:56:48 GMT -4
Note - banks don't change rates for OUR benefit - only for THEIR benefit. -as you would expect from private for profit corporations.
Such action is the engine of the free market--we each try to act in our best interest. The big advantage of this is that each of us are in the best position to know what we need or want at any given time and what we are willing to do or trade for it. The interplay between us leads to the creation of prices, which are numerical expressions of the value of economic goods. Numbers allow for economic calculation--you can make economic decisions by comparing numbers.
Your scheme of completely centralizing the money supply and just letting the printing presses run in hopes of paying off all debt works to destroy price information and the possibility of economic calculation. You have no means to tell how much money to stuff into our pockets, and thus, no means to make money any sort of measure of value.
Of course, much like at the gas pumps, we see amazingly coincidental rate changes - no collusion or monopoly funny business, I'm sure!
Business monopolies can't easily stay that way for long. The world is always changing, and people are always coming up with better ideas. A government-enforced monopoly, on the other hand, is much more difficult to get rid of. I don't understand how you can be against monopolies yet want to seize control of the money supply and give it completely to the government, who will have a legal monopoly over it. If you argue that powerful businessmen mismanage the money supply, then why should we think that the government, the most powerful organization of all, will manage it any better?
|
|