The Banking and Money Conspiracy

jessop1

This is an excellent video which illustrates extremently well how the banking and money scam works and keeps the vast majority of people in the world in slavery to a tiny few.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Jocksereire

Jessop have you watched the money masters?
Also is this how the Euro is run?

oscarBravo

Sigh.

What is it about these grand conspiracies that they can't be adequately presented in text form? Can you summarize the key points for us?

jessop1

Jocksereire wrote: »

Jessop have you watched the money masters?
Also is this how the Euro is run?

Havent seen it Jockser. Found this website though ...looks like you gotta pay for it.

As to the euro question - the central scam described in the video - the practice of fractional or no reserve lending (basically creating money out of thin air and charging people interest on it) is in use globally, so the euro, along with all other currencies is subject to the scam.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sigh.

What is it about these grand conspiracies that they can't be adequately presented in text form?

What makes you think they cant? theres actually quite a bit of text in the video.. you should watch it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you summarize the key points for us?

The key point is that the practice of fractional reserve lending is a con job which basically allows banks to create money out of thin air and then charge people interest on it.
The long term effect is that virtually everyone but the bankers themselves are stuck in a rut of perpetual debt which is escalating at an exponential and unsustainable rate. The result we are heading for seems to be the centralisation of ownership of notional and material resources into fewer and fewer hands (ie the bankers hands)

Actually Oscar, I would strongly recommend that you give it a look - its presented in a straightforward and easy to understand way (better than I can give you in a couple of bullet points) and it really crystallises how the scam works.

Give it a look and I'll be delighted to discuss it with you afterwards..

oscarBravo

I'll try to have a look, no promises.

Creating money out of thin air is the job of banks. If they didn't do it, there would be a permanently fixed amount of money, which would make it an artificially scarce resource - not necessarily a good thing.

Jocksereire

jessop money masters is linked in the links sticky thread at the top of the forum. excellent documentary. or just search it in google video

Oscar there is lots of text on this stuff out there but would it not take you longer to read an hours information than to listen to it being presented? Although i do admit im a very very slow reader so maybe for others its better to read.

jessop1

Oscar, at first glance that may seem to make sense but think of the vast amount of money banks can make by charging interest on even vaster amounts of money they dont even have. Its win win for big banking... at the expense of the plebs - ie virtually everyone in the world.

Jockser ta for link, I'll check i out.

I think audio/visual presentations are sometimes more effective at elucidating a point than just the written word.

oscarBravo

I'm not sure why being able to borrow money is perceived as such a major problem. If my business couldn't borrow money it wouldn't have survived its first week. The interest I pay is just another business expense.

As for people crippling themselves with personal debt, it's not like the banks are holding guns to their heads and forcing them to borrow money.

jessop1

Oscar in your first point, you are not looking at the bigger picture.

In the second, you're not being very realistic at all - and its not just people and personal debt - governments the world over are debt laden to these banks as well.

please just watch the vid and let me know what you think of it.

oscarBravo

I'm not being awkward, I have genuine reasons why watching online videos is a problem for me.

What's the big picture I'm missing? As a business owner, I absolutely rely on the availability of debt. Is there a way I can continue to avail of debt financing without the problems created by this so-called conspiracy?

As to the second, for several years the only personal debt I had was my mortgage. What's unrealistic about living within your means? As for governments, they operate similar to businesses on a large scale (only much less answerable to their shareholders), and as such are also heavily reliant on the availability of debt to function.

Time Magazine

That video is Monetary Economics for Idiots, rather than Monetary Economics for Dummies.

The financial markets play an absolutely vital role in the functioning of an economy. Say, for whatever reason, I am illiquid (do not have cash) at the moment and need a bottle of water that costs €1 to live through the week to produce my product (e.g. a potato) that also costs €1. The bank offers me credit facilities to purchase the bottle of water. As it happens next week the water bottler is also illiquid and wants to buy my potato. He borrows to facilitate buying my potato.

In some regards, no money at all is needed for this transaction. We could have just straight swapped. However the differential in times of production (extend this concept to you not being able to pay for your house until you've worked for twenty years) requires a financial intermediary. Instead of the water bottler becoming a de facto bank by saying "Okay, you give me a potato in a week for the water", banks "invent" money to facilitate the trade. It does not matter how much money they temporarily invent (my potato didn't exist at the start of the trade) as long as it balances in the end.

Conspiracy theorists claim this is all a big scam to defraud to poor working man. On the contrary, if it wasn't for the bank I'd have died of thirst (or slightly more realistically, oscarBravo's business couldn't have functioned) and the water bottler died of hunger. They take their cut for taking on the risk, which consumers are evidently willing to pay for a financial intermediary.

Banks profit when the trades work, not fail. Unfortunately there's a financial crisis on at the moment so I have clear evidence of this. I'm sure you guys have heard of the subprime market crash, where people were given too much debt. These people are going to default on the debt they took out that they couldn't afford. But the banks also suffer, for taking on the risk. And it's no small sum either. Read today's Financial Times or Wall Street Journal - Merrill Lynch have written off $8.4 billion of value of their firm (and a corresponding fall has hit their share price) because people defaulted.

jessop1

Ibid wrote: »

"Okay, you give me a potato in a week for the water", banks "invent" money to facilitate the trade. It does not matter how much money they temporarily invent (my potato didn't exist at the start of the trade) as long as it balances in the end.

For someone who knows so much about the financial system this seems to be an an extremely naive viewpoint... it does not matter how much money they invent? and so presumably it does not matter how much usury they can make out of this invented money?? are you serious???

What the video clearly shows is that worldwide debt is perpetually increasing, ..please tell me how that "balances in the end"

Ibid wrote: »

I'm sure you guys have heard of the subprime market crash, where people were given too much debt. These people are going to default on the debt they took out that they couldn't afford. But the banks also suffer, for taking on the risk.

Can you answer me one simple question then -
why were hundreds of people queing outside northern rock banks frantically trying to get their money out?

What is the bank really risking?? losing money that it never had in the first place?? the real losers are the depositors - the ones frantically trying to get their money out because they know if the bank goes under, their deposits (the only real assets of the bank) are the real risk.

I do find it quite strange that knowledgeable wouldnt address the bigger picture - ie that the tiny few who control the worlds major banks and central banks have such vast power at their fingertips to drastically influence the system. Presumably you reckon these guys are 100% honest and would never try to influence events in their own interest, no?

Neither of you think theres anything wrong with banks charging interest on money they dont actually have. ?

...it does makes me wonder. :D

Ibid wrote: »

That video is Monetary Economics for Idiots

Actually, its not. Rather, it illustrates perfectly how the current monetary and banking system is for Idiots.

Time Magazine

jessop1 wrote: »

For someone who knows so much about the financial system this seems to be an an extremely naive viewpoint... it does not matter how much money they invent? and so presumably it does not matter how much usury they can make out of this invented money?? are you serious???

Of course it doesn't matter how much they invent once they can back it up.

What the video clearly shows is that worldwide debt is perpetually increasing, ..please tell me how that "balances in the end"

So is world GDP. Look at the surge in take home pay in the last 100 years.

why were hundreds of people queing outside northern rock banks frantically trying to get their money out?

It was basically because somebody failed to produce a potato. So the bank owed Mr. Water Bottle a euro they weren't going to get from Mr. Potato. So the depositors obviously made sure they didn't turn illiquid.

I'm going to a party (\o/) so I don't have time to respond to the rest fully, but trust me, there hasn't been a financial crisis proper in the West for 20 years for simple reasons. People save, so there's always a reserve. No Northern Rock customers lost money and their fleeing behaviour only increased chances the bank would become illiquid. I think it was Tim Hartford had a good article on slate.com about this. But most importantly, Northern Rock lent out money stupidly (or were reliant on stupid loans) so that when people defaulted they lost money. Their share price plummeted,
so banks will only exist if they lend to credit-worthy customers who produce the goods. If they "invent" money they can't afford, they can't afford it and they'll be wiped off the map like NR have been.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

Neither of you think theres anything wrong with banks charging interest on money they dont actually have. ?

It's so incredibly difficult to discuss economics with someone who, with all due respect, hasn't the first idea about economics.

jessop1 wrote: »

Actually, its not. Rather, it illustrates perfectly how the current monetary and banking system is for Idiots.

I eagerly await your suggestions on how I can get access to six-figure sums to grow my business without being an Idiot.

Time Magazine

Back. With a sore head. But feeling friendly, so I'll try to make the case for financial markets. I won't take kindly to being called an idiot though.

jessop1 wrote: »

For someone who knows so much about the financial system this seems to be an an extremely naive viewpoint... it does not matter how much money they invent?

Once it can be backed up. They "invented" money (literally they provided credit facilities, no money was actually created) so I could make my potato. If they can successfully provide this to ten potato men, all the better.

and so presumably it does not matter how much usury they can make out of this invented money??

There are two problems with your idea. Interestingly, and you really have to consider the logic of your points when I can argue this from both market-based and regulatory-framework principles. In a market-based system, if they try to charge outrageous rates, people simply won't take them up on the offer. It's really that simple. If people are still willing to take loans up on high interest rates (and I'd like you to provide some examples of this, because our interest rates have been historically rock-bottom for the last decade or so), then surely that in itself is an argument for financial intermediation? All these people need credit facilities so much, but you think it's all a big conspiracy that needs fixing?

In reality, interest-rates are set by the central banks - and your central bank is a particularly democratically-orientated one - so you need not worry about banks being greedy.

Also, you have raised an interesting "ethical" point about banks making as much as they want. I notice the video links to a socialist website - perhaps this is a case of conspiracy regulatory capture?

What is the bank really risking?? losing money that it never had in the first place??

Precisely. If I default on my potato loan, they're obligated to pay. They see that Mr. Oscar "Money Bags" Bravo has €100 in the bank. They also know there's exactly a 1 in 100 chance of someone defaulting on a loan (if you think the odds are higher, I can use algebra if you like). Thus they can offer credit facilities to the sum of €10,000 and, without charging any interest, break even. The leverage allowed is set by central banks and is very much on the safe side. Why? To avoid Northern Rock situation where Money Bags legs it to the bank to withdraw his money because he knows that nobody ever loses money by depositing it in the bank.

the real losers are the depositors - the ones frantically trying to get their money out because they know if the bank goes under, their deposits (the only real assets of the bank) are the real risk.

How many people can you name that have lost deposits in banking systems in the west? I know none.

How many people can you name that have successfully used the financial system to their gain? Every single person I know who's over 25 has.

The real winners are people like me who are going to go into debt to finance their education.

I do find it quite strange that knowledgeable wouldnt address the bigger picture - ie that the tiny few who control the worlds major banks and central banks have such vast power at their fingertips to drastically influence the system.

The major banks don't set the interest rates, they're all controlled by central banks. Central banks are controlled by independent economists. You think it would be better to put it in control of the government? Okay, that's a fair argument theoretically (the government are more accountable than independent technicians, after all). But let's have a look at what happens in the real world. How do you think central bank independence effects things that really make a difference in people's lives like inflation?



Oh dear. The cost of having "more accountable" central banks (which can be kicked to touch by legislation) is higher inflation. Which I presume you're aware influences the financial markets - namely it's an ex post transferral of wealth towards the rich. It also causes unemployment.

Presumably you reckon these guys are 100% honest and would never try to influence events in their own interest, no?

I don't presume anyone is 100% honest - and that includes you and your video. I do think however that I can analyze financial situations better than you and see that banks can only influence events in their own interest by making deals work and charging interest on it. Look at the evidence of Merrill Lynch this week, please, and tell me how it's any way difference.

Neither of you think theres anything wrong with banks charging interest on money they dont actually have. ?

...it does makes me wonder. :D

No, I think it's great. If this wasn't the case there'd be less availability of credit. Big mean profit-maximising banks would sell this credit to the people who could pay the highest interest and I'd have to work in my final year to live. By removing the myopic view of financial markets, banks now have the ability to lend to me at extremely low interest rates. It benefit me, the average Joe on the street.

jessop1

Ibid wrote: »

I won't take kindly to being called an idiot though.

:rolleyes: wow, cant believe you said that.. what with you having “called” me one with your opening sentence on this thread and in your obviously condescending tone ever since. Hmm…I’m seeing a pattern in the nature of the replies I’m getting on this thread.

Ibid you may have a good understanding of the mechanisms and machinations of this system, but it does not make it a fair system.

Both yourself and Oscar have shown that it is actually you who do not really understand the true nature of the system you so ardently support – because there is one piece of vital information neither of you are taking on board – you are not average joes!

Only a minority of people in the world are in a position to have a mortgage they can afford or get a 6-figure business loan or invest in the stock markets. And even in the wealthy nations like Ireland, the majority have to bear crippling mortgages and other debt if they want a home of their own, have transport and all the other essentials and mod cons (where possible) of life etc...never mind a 100k plus business loan.

But the bottom line is that even those with the crippling mortgages are still in the upper echelons of privilege in this world. Still slaves to the system though, but luckier ones.

You two are bought into the system, because you are obviously comfortable enough in it. Well, you are perfectly entitled to your “I'm all right Jack” attitudes but please spare me the scoffs that it’s a fair system, that just wont wash.

oscarBravo

I'm waiting to hear your ideas on how a better (or "fairer") system would work. Leaving aside the fact that owning your own home isn't a basic human right (as opposed to having somewhere to live, which is), how do you propose the average person should obtain the price of a house if not by borrowing it from a financial institution?

As an aside, be careful with your sweeping generalisations. I'm in a position to go to a bank for a six-figure loan because of being prepared to risk my home (and everything else I own) and working 80-hour weeks for two years on a subsistence wage. The only difference between me and your average Joe is that I'm probably a little bit brighter in a particular technical field, and somewhat less risk-averse than most. I spent the first part of my life growing up in rented accomodation; my parents couldn't afford to contemplate a mortgage until I was a teenager.

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm waiting to hear your ideas on how a better (or "fairer") system would work.

the abolishment of usury for a start. But tell me this - do you think the current system is as fair as it can be? If not, what could be improved in your opinion?

oscarBravo wrote: »

The only difference between me and your average Joe is that I'm probably a little bit brighter in a particular technical field, and somewhat less risk-averse than most.

erm.. You are deluding yourself if you think that its your above average talent alone thats responsible for your prosperity. While that logic may apply to many (but far from all) in the western world, it is no no way the case for the majority of people in this world.

You may have done very well and sacrificed a lot to achieve what you have but the real average joes in the world dont have access to the same opportunities as you, no matter how hard they may be prepared to work to get them. still dont get it?

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

the abolishment of usury for a start.

Usury, in the strictest original sense of the word, means charging interest on loaned money. In the more widely accepted sense of the word, it means lending at exorbitant rates of interest. Given that interest rates are at an all-time low, are you seriously suggesting that the lending of money in return for the payment of interest should be abolished? If that happens, why would anyone lend money?

jessop1 wrote:

But tell me this - do you think the current system is as fair as it can be? If not, what could be improved in your opinion?

I'm unclear as to how you are measuring fairness. Financial institutions lend money to people they feel will be able to repay it with interest. What's not fair?

jessop1 wrote:

erm.. You are deluding yourself if you think that its your above average talent alone thats responsible for your prosperity. While that logic may apply to many (but far from all) in the western world, it is no no way the case for the majority of people in this world.

Clear something up for me: when you talk about average Joes, are you talking about other people in comparable Western economies, or are you comparing me to sweatshop workers in Vietnam? It's not at all clear to me what point you're trying to make.

jessop1 wrote:

You may have done very well and sacrificed a lot to achieve what you have but the real average joes in the world dont have access to the same opportunities as you, no matter how hard they may be prepared to work to get them. still dont get it?

See my question above; I'm not sure what we're discussing.

Either way, you seem to have a problem with the idea of banks charging interest on money they don't have. The problem with that is that it misses the most fundamental point: money doesn't exist at all, in any literal sense. Money is something that exists only because people believe in it. With the possible exception of religion, money is the single most successful conspiracy theory of them all. Every time you hand over an intrinsically worthless tenner in a shop, you're buying into the conspiracy, and helping to perpetuate it.

Given this, I don't understand why you'd have a problem with the finer details of how it works. I mean, you don't really believe that money is created in a printing press or a mint, do you? Money is created in markets - that's the single most important concept.

Mahatma coat

oscarBravo wrote: »

Usury, in the strictest original sense of the word, means charging interest on loaned money. In the more widely accepted sense of the word, it means lending at exorbitant rates of interest. Given that interest rates are at an all-time low, are you seriously suggesting that the lending of money in return for the payment of interest should be abolished? If that happens, why would anyone lend money? I'm unclear as to how you are measuring fairness. Financial institutions lend money to people they feel will be able to repay it with interest. What's not fair? Clear something up for me: when you talk about average Joes, are you talking about other people in comparable Western economies, or are you comparing me to sweatshop workers in Vietnam? It's not at all clear to me what point you're trying to make. See my question above; I'm not sure what we're discussing.

Either way, you seem to have a problem with the idea of banks charging interest on money they don't have. The problem with that is that it misses the most fundamental point: money doesn't exist at all, in any literal sense. Money is something that exists only because people believe in it. With the possible exception of religion, money is the single most successful conspiracy theory of them all. Every time you hand over an intrinsically worthless tenner in a shop, you're buying into the conspiracy, and helping to perpetuate it.

Given this, I don't understand why you'd have a problem with the finer details of how it works. I mean, you don't really believe that money is created in a printing press or a mint, do you? Money is created in markets - that's the single most important concept.

that were well said, Jesop you need to learn the distinction between money and wealth.

money is the thing we all have CONFIDENCE in as he backbone of our economic systems, IBid , Oscar etc at the moment my confidence in our monetary system has been shaken more by your comments than the video presented, I , well I was always a fan of the Aul Keynsiyan multiplier theory, and the mistaken belief that BANKS not central or fedral or whtever were required to hold AT LEAST 20% of their assets in GOLD ye're now sayin1% paper/digital money sfine :eek:

I do think that the current system is seriously flawed, easily manipulated, deeply entrenched, and the only one we've got.

but theres a differ tween money and wealth, money is sellin the spud wealth is ownin teh Field;)

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

money is the thing we all have CONFIDENCE in as he backbone of our economic systems, IBid , Oscar etc at the moment my confidence in our monetary system has been shaken more by your comments than the video presented, I , well I was always a fan of the Aul Keynsiyan multiplier theory, and the mistaken belief that BANKS not central or fedral or whtever were required to hold AT LEAST 20% of their assets in GOLD ye're now sayin1% paper/digital money sfine :eek:

Thankfully Keynesianism and the Gold Standard were ditched the early '70s. Wikipedia it, it was useless. I never said 1% in earnest, I used it as an illustrative figure.

jessop1

I'm not confusing money with wealth. They are very closely linked. Money is the measure of wealth in this world.

The current corrupt global banking system is the mechanism by which the wealth of the world is continually manipulated into the hands of a few.

I'm not sure what ye lads are arguing in favour of anyway.

You are pretty much admitting that its a corrupt manipulated system.. which was the point I was making in the first place.

Time Magazine

Right, I'm finished with this thread.

jessop1

fyi I was replying to oscar and mahatmas posts, i hadnt seen yours at that point.

all the best.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

The current corrupt global banking system is the mechanism by which the wealth of the world is continually manipulated into the hands of a few.

I'm not sure what ye lads are arguing in favour of anyway.

You are pretty much admitting that its a corrupt manipulated system.. which was the point I was making in the first place.

Are you remotely interested in discussing the topic? If so, you could start by answering some of the questions you've been asked.

Mahatma coat

Bump

heres the thread that started the whole Money discussion off this time round.

note Ibid has rolled out the same diagrams a few times, to explain all sorts of things.

Économiste Monétaire

He probably stopped posting in the thread because you don't have an open opinon (there HAS to be a conspiracy theory), nor do you understand anything he says because you've not even got basic economic knowledge. It is same as trying to explain banking and monetary theory to a dog. The dog just keeps barking at you.

It's a complicated field. Pick up a book rather than trying to insult those who are educated. It's obvious you've never studied economics.

I've noticed you've stopped posting here. There's a better summary in that thread as to why you won't get the answers you're looking for.

Flamed Diving

I have never once heard a convincing argument for the CT banking side. Just a flurry of youtube videos and childish retorts.

Mahatma coat

Oh I havent stopped posting in the other thread, I rebumped this thread to put a bit of perspective on the situation for those of ye who have joined into the discussion later, I have every intention of sitting down and writhin a reply to some of the points raised in that thread, I am formulating what I'm gonna say, this takes time because as we have seen If I make one tiny little error people will jump on that and make a big deal about it rather than actually respond to any of my questions.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Oh I havent stopped posting in the other thread, I rebumped this thread to put a bit of perspective on the situation for those of ye who have joined into the discussion later, I have every intention of sitting down and writhin a reply to some of the points raised in that thread, I am formulating what I'm gonna say, this takes time because as we have seen If I make one tiny little error people will jump on that and make a big deal about it rather than actually respond to any of my questions.

Tumble weeds are rolling on that thread.

You've not explained have infrastructure would be supported, how medicine would be made, how doctors would compensated. How people would be trained as farmers. How tractors would be manufactured, or oil processed. How research and development would exist.

Or hey hey just try and claim you made "one tiny flaw" and hope everyone ignores your hopeless moronic and infantile arrangement.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Tumble weeds are rolling on that thread.

You've not explained have infrastructure would be supported, how medicine would be made, how doctors would compensated. How people would be trained as farmers. How tractors would be manufactured, or oil processed. How research and development would exist.

Or hey hey just try and claim you made "one tiny flaw" and hope everyone ignores your hopeless moronic and infantile arrangement.

Back to work wage slave.. go work and make money for the elites who were born into the position whereby they don't need to work to make the paper that controls your life.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.