Is the Financial "Crisis" an Engineered plot for Rothchild/Rockefeller famalies?

questiontime2

I mean think about. These two famalies are alleged to be worth well in excess of 500 Trillion USD, not to mention the fact they basically control the strategic central authoritative news sources like the associated press, Reuters etc. To keep the populace docile.

Is it all just a big wealth consolidation scam, to pillage any sort of wealth from people and enslave them within the confines of the IMF/EU and other one world government systems? It's easier to enslave people when you have built governance systems that are not accountable to anybody but a small select elite. Like the unelected imposters in the Rothchild endorsed European Union for instance. Government has to rely mostly on these famalies.

clever_name

questiontime2 wrote: »

I mean think about. These two famalies are alleged to be worth well in excess of 500 Trillion USD, not to mention the fact they basically control the strategic central authoritative news sources like the associated press, Reuters etc. To keep the populace docile.

Can I ask where you got that figure from?, I presume its here, if so I would suggest checking it out, try having a look at the total amount of USD that exists (cash & virtual) first of all.

Then consider that the prediction starts with an unexplained investment principal, continues with a presumption of no errosion of investment and no timeline is given for the various returns calculated, (at a quick guess I think its about 120 years, + or - 10).

The end result is a prediction that ranges from 2 to 500 trillion, IMO thats useless - I think most of us could take a look at any of our neighbours at take a guess that they have between 2 thousand and five hundred thousand in the bank.

questiontime2 wrote: »

I mean think about.
Is it all just a big wealth consolidation scam, to pillage any sort of wealth from people and enslave them within the confines of the IMF/EU and other one world government systems? It's easier to enslave people when you have built governance systems that are not accountable to anybody but a small select elite. Like the unelected imposters in the Rothchild endorsed European Union for instance. Government has to rely mostly on these famalies.

I would suggest you have a look at some videos or books that are not aimed at conspiracy theorists, also (no idea of your interest level so no offence is intended) try having a look at some econmics textbooks, you might disagree with the principles but you might get a deeper understanding of the systems.

Also how is it possible to have multiple one world goverments? Surely the whole point is to have just one...

questiontime2

clever_name wrote: »

Can I ask where you got that figure from?, I presume its here, if so I would suggest checking it out, try having a look at the total amount of USD that exists (cash & virtual) first of all.

Then consider that the prediction starts with an unexplained investment principal, continues with a presumption of no errosion of investment and no timeline is given for the various returns calculated, (at a quick guess I think its about 120 years, + or - 10).

The end result is a prediction that ranges from 2 to 500 trillion, IMO thats useless - I think most of us could take a look at any of our neighbours at take a guess that they have between 2 thousand and five hundred thousand in the bank.

I pulled it out of my ass for ****s and giggles. I used that number as a reference point to make my argument. I would argue it's impossible to quantify their total wealth. Isn't most actual "wealth" simply imaginary? Most "wealth" is created by appending numbers into a database.

clever_name wrote: »

I would suggest you have a look at some videos or books that are not aimed at conspiracy theorists, also (no idea of your interest level so no offence is intended) try having a look at some econmics textbooks, you might disagree with the principles but you might get a deeper understanding of the systems.

Also how is it possible to have multiple one world goverments? Surely the whole point is to have just one...

I don't have time to be reading Economics books. I don't even regard Economics as a natural scientific discipline, so studying the concepts is of no value to me outside of amusement perhaps. As to a one world government, you do know there is more than one planet you know:mad:

Torakx

It takes baby steps to make a ne world gov anyway.
First you make countries,then you make countries join into bigger states.Then you combine states with treaties and combine all of these together through many different mechanics,like media,economics,race and so on.

clever_name

questiontime2 wrote: »

I pulled it out of my ass for ****s and giggles. I used that number as a reference point to make my argument. I would argue it's impossible to quantify their total wealth.

Ok you just pulled a figure out of you backside that matches the most common figure throw around. As for a reference point - well starting in reality is a good place.

questiontime2 wrote: »

Isn't most actual "wealth" simply imaginary? Most "wealth" is created by appending numbers into a database.

Again I would urge you to have a look at some research here, just making stuff up like this "as a reference point" is pointless, try finding out what wealth is (hint - its not imaginary)

questiontime2 wrote: »

I don't have time to be reading Economics books. I don't even regard Economics as a natural scientific discipline, so studying the concepts is of no value to me outside of amusement perhaps. As to a one world government, you do know there is more than one planet you know

I thought it might be useful for you to understand the systems your discussing, as for "scientific discipline" - just pulling figures out of your backside is not very scientific.

Too bad you didn't answer my question, I really was curious how we could have multiple "one world governments" - well I guess you don't have time to be studying to find the answer, oh well just have to move on and pretend I never seen this thread.

questiontime2

clever_name wrote: »

Ok you just pulled a figure out of you backside that matches the most common figure throw around. As for a reference point - well starting in reality is a good place.

You are getting caught up in literal semantics. Even if the figure is incorrect, the argument is the same - These famalies are the richest currently in existence. Therefore it is logical to assert they have serious pull with Governments. This is a fact.

clever_name wrote: »

Again I would urge you to have a look at some research here, just making stuff up like this "as a reference point" is pointless, try finding out what wealth is (hint - its not imaginary)

Are you trying to argue that every single euro is backed by a precious commodity? It's not. Look up fractional reserve lending if you don't believe me. The ratio is never 1:1

clever_name wrote: »

I thought it might be useful for you to understand the systems your discussing, as for "scientific discipline" - just pulling figures out of your backside is not very scientific.

Too bad you didn't answer my question, I really was curious how we could have multiple "one world governments" - well I guess you don't have time to be studying to find the answer, oh well just have to move on and pretend I never seen this thread.

Even if the figures are incorrect, the basic argument remains intact. You are getting far too wound up in semantics. These famalies could have 1*10^15 USD for all I care, nobody knows their true value for certain. Unless you want to personally audit their accounts?

Torakx

Not to mention subsidiary companies and resources owned through said companies.
You cant possibly track it all.

questiontime2

Torakx wrote: »

Not to mention subsidiary companies and resources owned through said companies.
You cant possibly track it all.

They probably don't even allow audits of their primary accounts.

charlemont

None of it would surprise me.

clever_name

questiontime2 wrote: »

You are getting caught up in literal semantics. Even if the figure is incorrect, the argument is the same - These famalies are the richest currently in existence. Therefore it is logical to assert they have serious pull with Governments. This is a fact.

Its not about semantics, its about accuracy - when impossible figures are made up at random it makes me wonder what else is being made up, If a basic point such as this need to be fabricated to such a ridiculous degree IMO it weakens the argument. Are they rich - undoubtedly, would that lead to great influence - undoubtedly, as you say its a fact - so why play lets pretend and throw around claims that are made up?

questiontime2 wrote: »

Are you trying to argue that every single euro is backed by a precious commodity? It's not. Look up fractional reserve lending if you don't believe me. The ratio is never 1:1

Thats not what was said, I said wealth is not imaginary, its noting to do with fractional reserve lending, I have more wealth then some people and not as much as others, the same as you- its a reality we all live in. Again saying wealth is imaginary weakens the whole point of the argument by making it seem like the person did not understand the reality of the super rich.

Thats why I suggested reading some books to get an idea of what really goes on, they might not like it but the end result is they would understand it better than saying its all numbers in a spreadsheet.

questiontime2 wrote: »

Even if the figures are incorrect, the basic argument remains intact. You are getting far too wound up in semantics. These famalies could have 1*10^15 USD for all I care, nobody knows their true value for certain. Unless you want to personally audit their accounts?

As I said I am concerned with accuracy, when I see wild speculation it brings out the doubt in me regarding the source. You are 100% right that its impossible to know how much they are worth. So the basic argument is they have lots of money and that equals power, its old news sadly.

Finnbar01

questiontime2 wrote: »

I mean think about. These two famalies are alleged to be worth well in excess of 500 Trillion USD, not to mention the fact they basically control the strategic central authoritative news sources like the associated press, Reuters etc. To keep the populace docile.

Is it all just a big wealth consolidation scam, to pillage any sort of wealth from people and enslave them within the confines of the IMF/EU and other one world government systems? It's easier to enslave people when you have built governance systems that are not accountable to anybody but a small select elite. Like the unelected imposters in the Rothchild endorsed European Union for instance. Government has to rely mostly on these famalies.

No. To suggest the financial crisis was deliberate would also suggest that our politicians are intelligent enough to pull it off.

They're not.

Torakx

Of course not.They are actors and the face of policy, not the makers of policy.
Thats exactly why they are only smart enough to pull of various frauds and need help to cover it up..and even then alot of them get caught later when they are in retirement..but because of previous connections ussually dont need to worry about much in the way of reprisals.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Of course not.They are actors and the face of policy, not the makers of policy.
Thats exactly why they are only smart enough to pull of various frauds and need help to cover it up..and even then alot of them get caught later when they are in retirement..but because of previous connections ussually dont need to worry about much in the way of reprisals.

You are saying the government doesn't make policy? they are actors?

In which countries? can you back this up?

Torakx

No im not saying that lol
Read the post i replied to.
Not all people working behind th scenes are politicians.You need people who are actually trained in administration of various sectors of government.
The politicians are their to represent.

If you even need to ask me why i think that you have been wearing your blinkers too tight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician

A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Greek "polis") is someone who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions, whether by means of election, coup d'état, appointment, electoral fraud, conquest, divine right, or other means. Politics is not limited to governance through public office. Political offices may also be held in corporations, and other entities that are governed by self-defined political processes.

Government and plitician are two very different things in my view.
It feels like you are trying to trip me up with strange questions that do not make sense, but i will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

They are actors and the face of policy, not the makers of policy.

Who are you referring to?

Torakx

Politicians who represent policy made in government.
They do not ussually in my view do all the work.There are advisors and strategists involved too.
And i would say some politicians are recieving back handers or even the advisors of politicians to guide legislation in favour of big corperations..who as the CT world say are being guided by the corperate board members,who the Ct world suspect are being guided by people above them in certain circumstances and certain corperations.
All the way back to these incredibly powerfull families.

obviously not all politicians are like this and smae goes for corps,ceo's,political advisors.
Do some digging around and find out for yourself who is dirty by way of their actions..certainly not their words though.

I know you know how it works.
you appear educated enough from what ive seen.Im sure you know how bussiness men make deals and implement them into legislation.

If not, i dont think i have time to go through it all.
Because 2 weeks down the road some other guy will come on the same forums and ask the same questions...
The onus is on you to figure how the world works imo.

Im just here to discuss Ct's as a devils advocate most of the time.
A few of them i do believe are partly true.

Ninja12R

Jonny7 wrote: »

You are saying the government doesn't make policy? they are actors?

In which countries? can you back this up?

Ireland.
Remember back a few years when our now Taoiseach slated the thought of a property tax in Dáil Eireann as “Immoral” for one thing.
Now he is introducing it.
Why? Because of his puppet masters, The Central Bank, IMF and ECB all Belvedere Corporation run private banks.

Jonny7

Ninja12R wrote: »

Ireland.
Remember back a few years when our now Taoiseach slated the thought of a property tax in Dáil Eireann as “Immoral” for one thing.
Now he is introducing it.
Why? Because of his puppet masters, The Central Bank, IMF and ECB all Belvedere Corporation run private banks.

Well this post is definitely progress over the first post of this thread.

Monty Burnz

Ninja12R wrote: »

Why? Because of his puppet masters, The Central Bank, IMF and ECB all Belvedere Corporation run private banks.

These are not 'private banks'. HTH.

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

These are not 'private banks'. HTH.

LOL "The love of money is the root of all evil".

The ability for private banks to issue currency at interest out of thin air has enabled the elite to enslave the people of the world under a perpetual debt based system.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

LOL "The love of money is the root of all evil".

The ability for private banks to issue currency at interest out of thin air has enabled the elite to enslave the people of the world under a perpetual debt based system.

Nonsense. Would you lend money to people for no interest?

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Nonsense. Would you lend money to people for no interest?

Stop trying to badger bait on the topic.

The thread topic of concerns the privately run corporate elite flooding the worlds economies with cash at a ridiculously low interest rates in order to stimulate people to make excessive purchases and then pulling the rug from under leaving them with no choice but to become enslaved.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Stop trying to badger bait on the topic.

I don't even know what that means. Answer the question, or admit you can't answer it: would YOU lend your money to people for no interest?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The thread topic of concerns the privately run corporate elite flooding the worlds economies with cash at a ridiculously low interest rates in order to stimulate people to make excessive purchases and then pulling the rug from under leaving them with no choice but to become enslaved.

I'll leave the moderating to the mods.

Torakx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't even know what that means. Answer the question, or admit you can't answer it: would YOU lend your money to people for no interest?

Thats a loaded question if i ever saw one.Why do you do that?
Do you really want an answer?
I feel like its rhetorical and that i am the fool about to answer it.

Before money existed and coins were made with gold,silver and copper, they used these Tally sticks.
This allowed merchants and farmers and commoners alike to trade "currency" for products without having to trade products for products afaik..much like money.

Then i believe coins were made from metals that had an intrinsic value,thus negating any need for interest.You simply earned your gold,silver and spent it on products.

Its when somebody had the smart arse idea to make gold and silver etc into promisary notes,we started to have issues.
The banks were saying" ok there is alot of gold floating around,let us store it for you people like before,but this time we will make paper notes you can turn in at any of our banks in exchange for your gold any time you like"
This ment if you had a big bussiness deal in another state...taking america as an easy example, you could just get a note/s from your bank and sign it over to someone else when doing bussiness.
This allowed alot of freedom and security for gold/silver transactions.

Now the real kicker is the banks wanted more! not just charging gold for doing these transaction and holding onto peoples metal..they wanted more again..like alot more!
So they decided they would make a currency that was not based off the value of the gold they had in stock.But based on whatever rules they decided regarding interest..or maybe rules agreed by the state(who probably got gold in exchange for cooperation).
Im a bit rusty on where governments stood in relation to this.But the effect left a lot of currency and "i owe you's" in the system that far out did the amount of gold actually held in the banks.
If everyone asked for their gold back say 50 years after the banks did this, they would have to shut down or do somethign drastic...because there was more money out there than gold inside the vaults!
Scam alert!

But lets be clear about one important fact.

A government can control its countries currency without having any interest causing inflation, as the fractinal reserve lending mechanic does now with independant/international banks and subsidiary banks.
The fact they do not, tells me they are not for the people or working individually.
Any country that tries, gets attacked economically,waged war on or branded rebels and terrorists.


And before someone argues about a need for inflation where fractional reserve banking is the standard(90% inflation capabilities),there are other mechanics available to inflate and deflate, so that cost of items do not need to rise exponentially.
They can actually stay as they are while production can increase in said countries economy.

Thats roughly why i wouldnt lend someone money without a return, but would trade or barter with them or lend moeny interest free to a friend in need.
If the gov wants to really take care of its people who apparently vote its constituant in each time,they would issue a form of lending that allowed people to borrow money at no interest and pay it back.
When paid back the money is destroyed(this allows inflation through lending and deflation when destroyed)..much like tally sticks..but with paper for practical reasons.

So if anyone here can understand and process what i have just written, you should also be able to see why the rest of the NWO Ct's start to fit into place more easily.
Step back and take a look around.
We are now owned by the money makers.The bussinesses are owned by using their currency and the world will be owned or already is.
It can stop as soon as we all decide at the same time to stop playing their rigged game.
But to do that you must first kick out all the shams in our governments parliament.All of them.

Then force out all banks and start an irish bank and print our own money again,except we lend from the gov without interest.
This doesnt prevent a one world government.But it does prevent some people taking it all for themselves.
And the guy at the bottom doesnt get his ass kicked every time somebody takes out a loan.

Imagine that..a country with ZERO citizens homeless.

Monty Burnz

Torakx - I don't understand what is difficult about the question. I know the answer: 99% of people will not lend money to strangers unless the strangers pay them for the loan.

This is for two reasons:

1. The 'time value of money' - I'd prefer €100 now than €100 in 10 years. I might be dead then, or inflation might have made the money lose value.
2. The risk premium - what if you don't pay me back? I'm taking a risk when I lend it to you, so I'm going to need an incentive to lend.

Do you accept these simple points? Because that is why you have to pay interest when you borrow money.

(And I think everybody...everybody...must surely know how banking started and the fractional reserve system, so surely it doesn't have to be trotted out every time as if it is a huge revelation? )

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

YES.

As I am in debt to the banks myself I would have to take a loan out in order to lend money to someone and yes I would expect them to cover the interest of the loan that the credit union or bank would be charging me.

That's fair enough but it's not actually your money! You'd be lending the bank's money...

Would you lend your own money to strangers for free if you had money to lend?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

My name is not Vincent BTW.

Fair enough, not Vincent.

Run_to_da_hills

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't even know what that means.

Trying to raise an argument.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Answer the question, or admit you can't answer it: would YOU lend your money to people for no interest?

EDIT: YES. But only to cover expenses and not to profit.

Reason, I am in debt to the banks myself so I would have to take out a loan in order to lend money to someone and yes I would expect them to cover the costs of interest on that loan.

Torakx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Torakx - I don't understand what is difficult about the question. I know the answer: 99% of people will not lend money to strangers unless the strangers pay them for the loan.

This is for two reasons:

1. The 'time value of money' - I'd prefer €100 now than €100 in 10 years. I might be dead then, or inflation might have made the money lose value.
2. The risk premium - what if you don't pay me back? I'm taking a risk when I lend it to you, so I'm going to need an incentive to lend.

Do you accept these simple points? Because that is why you have to pay interest when you borrow money.

(And I think everybody...everybody...must surely know how banking started and the fractional reserve system, so surely it doesn't have to be trotted out every time as if it is a huge revelation? )

Oh it does need to be trotted out..until everyone gets the message instead of the few who read CT's and are into economics.

My point is, why dont you tell them to get a loan from the state and pay it back to them without interest?
This is why your question was loaded.... and now so is mine as a result to try explain the blatantly obvious.

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

YES I would ask for interest.

Really?, why invite misery into you life?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

LOL "The love of money is the root of all evil".

the full quote;

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Reason, I am in debt to the banks myself so I would have to take out a loan in order to lend money to someone and yes I would expect them to cover the costs of interest on the loan that the credit union or bank would be charging me.

Going against your principles for the sake of money; Exodus has something to say about that.

“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him"

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

My point is, why dont you tell them to get a loan from the state and pay it back to them without interest?

Thats a pyramid scheme.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Oh it does need to be trotted out..until everyone gets the message instead of the few who read CT's and are into economics.

My point is, why dont you tell them to get a loan from the state and pay it back to them without interest?
This is why your question was loaded.... and now so is mine as a result to try explain the blatantly obvious.

So you think the state should borrow money and the taxpayer pays the interest for you?

Jonny7

A good case in study is Islamic banking in accordance with Shariah.

Interest cannot be charged on loans so they have developed work-arounds. It does show that banking is essential for development, business needs, personal needs and modern life.

Without the international banking system we'd currently be in a much worse situation than the worst recession - to put it mildly. On the plus side we'd be getting a lot more fresh air, what with all that subsistence farming and all

Monty Burnz

Jonny7 wrote: »

A good case in study is Islamic banking in accordance with Shariah.

Interest cannot be charged on loans so they have developed work-arounds. It does show that banking is essential for development, business needs, personal needs and modern life.

Without the international banking system we'd currently be in a much worse situation than the worst recession - to put it mildly. On the plus side we'd be getting a lot more fresh air, what with all that subsistence farming and all

The good news for the super-rich though would be that - as they control all the capital in the absence of bank lending - it would be very easy for them to remain super-rich forever, as nobody would be able to borrow a few quid to start off Apple, or Microsoft, or General Motors or whatever.

Torakx

ok Monty Burnz either you really dont understand economics and what i explained in fair enough detail, or you are purposefully redirecting for the sake of carrying on a pointless converation.

I already explained i that long post,the answer is there if you read and understand the english words and concepts..it cant be missed really.

Sorry Jonny7 i totally dissagree.
You could even have an imf running on that very system.Just take the example i gave in that long post about tally stick systems but in paper currency issues by state and apply it internationally.
You can control inflation no problem while having zero interest paid.which prevents inflation and inherently then rising cost prices for product and production.

i think the problem with people seeing how this can be done, is maybe alot are stuck with the current view of this global system of governance and economics.
Its like you guys can only understand one language and thats the one created by the bankers.
Or going donw a previous Ct line of thought.Maybe some people are really getting paid money to argue important topics out of these forums since this is the last place they can go.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

ok Monty Burnz either you really dont understand economics and what i explained in fair enough detail, or you are purposefully redirecting for the sake of carrying on a pointless converation.

I'm sorry but you explained nothing. All you said was:

If the gov wants to really take care of its people who apparently vote its constituant in each time,they would issue a form of lending that allowed people to borrow money at no interest and pay it back.

I'm not even sure what that means, or what you think a 'constituant' is. Your position is that either:

1. The state controls the money supply
or
2. The state does not control the money supply, and borrows from others to lend to you

Which is it?

Or going donw a previous Ct line of thought.Maybe some people are really getting paid money to argue important topics out of these forums since this is the last place they can go.

Is this really necessary? If you can't make a convincing case and your logic is shown to have holes, the problem is not with your theory, it's with your audience?

Torakx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sorry but you explained nothing. All you said was:


I'm not even sure what that means, or what you think a 'constituant' is. Your position is that either:

1. The state controls the money supply
or
2. The state does not control the money supply, and borrows from others to lend to you

Which is it?


Is this really necessary? If you can't make a convincing case and your logic is shown to have holes, the problem is not with your theory, it's with your audience?

Maybe i used the wrong word there, i had ment to type constituents,but maybe i have a slightly off meaning.I ment those voted by the people of a country.

And about the gov lending i ment they control the issue of currency and the destruction of currency as it is paid back.
This negates any need for interest to be paid back and the gov will always have a 0 mark as it were to use as a frame of reference.

This can be applied internationally or amongst countries with bussiness treaties..like an eu currency controlled by the EU state to each country within.

ps my typing is terrible i type too fast and am self taught in many aspects of english.So i hope you can see past those mmishaps in spelling and typing and even interpretation sometimes! lol

pps regarding your edit. im sorry but sometimes it seems people here who i know have been around for a while and educated enough should know better.When that scenario becomes a bit extreme i tend to think sometimes this could actually be the case.

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

ok Monty Burnz either you really dont understand economics and what i explained in fair enough detail, or you are purposefully redirecting for the sake of carrying on a pointless converation.

I already explained i that long post,the answer is there if you read and understand the english words and concepts..it cant be missed really.

Sorry Jonny7 i totally dissagree.
You could even have an imf running on that very system.Just take the example i gave in that long post about tally stick systems but in paper currency issues by state and apply it internationally.
You can control inflation no problem while having zero interest paid.which prevents inflation and inherently then rising cost prices for product and production.

i think the problem with people seeing how this can be done, is maybe alot are stuck with the current view of this global system of governance and economics.
Its like you guys can only understand one language and thats the one created by the bankers.
Or going donw a previous Ct line of thought.Maybe some people are really getting paid money to argue important topics out of these forums since this is the last place they can go.

What you are asking for is a pyramid scheme; when there is no cost to borrowing there is no incentive to stop borrowing, the first ones in get all they want and then what happens?

What you are advocating is a hyper-accelerated version of the last few years.

Run_to_da_hills

gibraltar wrote: »

Really?, why invite misery into you life?
the full quote; For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows

Going against your principles for the sake of money; Exodus has something to say about that.“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him"

If someone asks me to make a credit card purchase valued at €1000 covering a three month period with a bank charge of €60 in interest fees. I would be expecting €1060 in return after the three months.

I think you are confusing common sense with profiteering and extortion.

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If someone asks me to make a credit card purchase valued at €1000 covering a three month period charged at €60 interest. I would be expecting €1060 in return after the three months.

I think you are confusing common sense with extortion.

No not at all confused, for you to remain true to the principles you claim you either do not lend or do not charge interest.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

And about the gov lending i ment they control the issue of currency and the destruction of currency as it is paid back.
This negates any need for interest to be paid back and the gov will always have a 0 mark as it were to use as a frame of reference.

This can be applied internationally or amongst countries with bussiness treaties..like an eu currency controlled by the EU state to each country within.

The problem with this idea is that you end up with a communist-style disaster if the government is in control of money. If you control the money supply, you control everything. In the private sector this isn't a big problem because a bank that creates too much money soon goes bust (Anglo Irish, for example). But a state in control of money creation is a disaster - a recent example is Zimbabwe, where every day prices would double. You had to spend your money in the morning or you'd have lost half of its value by the evening!

Over the course of the five-year span of hyperinflation, the inflation rate fluctuated greatly. At one point, the US Ambassador to Zimbabwe predicted that it would reach 1.5 million percent. In June 2008 the annual rate of price growth was 11.2 million percent. The worst of the inflation occurred in 2008 and 2009, leading to the abandonment of the currency. The price of $1USD cost $Z 2,621,984,228[19] in October 2008.[20][21][22]

Two and a half billion Zimbabwe dollars for one US dollar...:eek:

Torakx

gibraltar wrote: »

What you are asking for is a pyramid scheme; when there is no cost to borrowing there is no incentive to stop borrowing, the first ones in get all they want and then what happens?

What you are advocating is a hyper-accelerated version of the last few years.

Thats a very good and reasonable question!
I would imagine protocols would be put in place to only allow so much to be borrowed before it is paid back.If the agreement is broken the gov should be allowed to take all assets and/or convict people partaking in fraud by selling off assets abroad or "under the table".

Today there are whole departments who just look and guard against fraud.Im pretty sure there are ways to prevent this as there is with the current system.
Really the main difference is that with the fractional reserve mechanic the currency issued does not go back to be detroyed it continues to create more money and so we have a controled inflation that does not go down only up.
Im proposing a system that has the option of both due to no interest.
Its kind of like a community effort.Not a bussiness model.

Torakx

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The problem with this idea is that you end up with a communist-style disaster if the government is in control of money. If you control the money supply, you control everything. In the private sector this isn't a big problem because a bank that creates too much money soon goes bust (Anglo Irish, for example). But a state in control of money creation is a disaster - a recent example is Zimbabwe, where every day prices would double. You had to spend your money in the morning or you'd have lost half of its value by the evening!
Two and a half billion Zimbabwe dollars for one US dollar...:eek:

We are already in that situation.Banks already have gone well past the stage of bust.But are being propped up with IMF loans or loans from apparent outside sources at interest i might add too.

I dont know about the zimbabwe situation and i know there was something similar in other areas.

I would rather see an elected government be responsible for our currency than some bankers off on the other side of the world where we cant get to them.

I see your point,but i still am pretty sure there can be many ways to solve this issue.
I have no idea how they implemented that currency system for a start.It could well have been an example to the world why we should stick with the bankers and all one big manipulation.
It might take a long time for me to study that case alone to see what happened truly.

It would be nice to have a forum to discuss ways this can be implemented.but cant see that happening here with so much opposition and i doubt it would have the right participants on an economics forum.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

We are already in that situation.Banks already have gone well past the stage of bust.But are being propped up with IMF loans or loans from apparent outside sources at interest i might add too.

Well, we are in a mess, but our inflation rate is about 3%, not 11,000,000% as in Zimbabwe!

Torakx wrote: »

I would rather see an elected government be responsible for our currency than some bankers off on the other side of the world where we cant get to them.

But how do you reconcile giving so much power to governments with a fear of excess government power and a loss of our freedoms?

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

Thats a very good and reasonable question!
I would imagine protocols would be put in place to only allow so much to be borrowed before it is paid back.If the agreement is broken the gov should be allowed to take all assets and/or convict people partaking in fraud by selling off assets abroad or "under the table".

Today there are whole departments who just look and guard against fraud.Im pretty sure there are ways to prevent this as there is with the current system.
Really the main difference is that with the fractional reserve mechanic the currency issued does not go back to be detroyed it continues to create more money and so we have a controled inflation that does not go down only up.
Im proposing a system that has the option of both due to no interest.
Its kind of like a community effort.Not a bussiness model.

How does it create more money?

With no interest and limited inflation the money supply is stagnant.

Also we would end up with a department that controls how much a person is allowed to borrow, how is this kept corruption free?

Look at what happened in recent years when the cost of a loan was low, imagine if it was free.

Monty Burnz

gibraltar wrote: »

Look at what happened in recent years when the cost of a loan was low, imagine if it was free.

And can you imagine the inflation?

Run_to_da_hills

gibraltar wrote: »

No not at all confused, for you to remain true to the principles you claim you either do not lend or do not charge interest.

It would not go against my principals to do this at all as I am not profiting.

Passing on the interest on a loan to brake even on my own costs is not "money lending" (extortion) or "charging interest" in the biblical sense and would not go against my conscience.

Torakx

Elections with rules regarding advertisements for a start.Maybe with this system implemented each candidate can be assigned a certain amount of airtime and/or currency to run their campaign.
This issue in government at the moment as i see it, is the politicians are in the pockets of those issuing money to them.

So its no wonder the people are getting the shaft over and over again.

Another issue is there are probably loads of very good candidates from within local communities who would do a very good and honest job.But they cannot get elected without have a good campaign and those who make it onto the media have a crazy advantage.

I think there are alot of problems in government and democracy because of the money system we use.

Torakx

gibraltar wrote: »

How does it create more money?

With no interest and limited inflation the money supply is stagnant.

Also we would end up with a department that controls how much a person is allowed to borrow, how is this kept corruption free?

Look at what happened in recent years when the cost of a loan was low, imagine if it was free.

See my above post for said departments being corruption free.
Yes not perfect and there would be alot more to do,to fix alot of issues.
But its a good start.

And yes id imagine the gov would issue money and have a department to control its lending(inflation) and destruction of currency(deflation).

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

See my above post for said departments being corruption free.
Yes not perfect and there would be alot more to do,to fix alot of issues.
But its a good start.

It sounds nice but it would not work, its just moving the problems from one place to another.

Torakx wrote: »

And yes id imagine the gov would issue money and have a department to control its lending(inflation) and destruction of currency(deflation).

Thats not how inflation/deflation works. Also the idea that a government would have to wait for a loan to be repaid before issuing a new loan would cripple the economy.

Torakx

gibraltar wrote: »

It sounds nice but it would not work, its just moving the problems from one place to another.



Thats not how inflation/deflation works. Also the idea that a government would have to wait for a loan to be repaid before issuing a new loan would cripple the economy.

Why would they need to wait to issue someone else a loan.
There must be a way to control hyperinflation.Maybe a limit like fractional reserve banking?
Say a certain % over the current amount in circulation per year allowed and i am presuming if a company loans 1 million to open a restaurant they would be paying back money per annum or weekly or whatever thus allowing the inflation to drop.
Unfortunately i am not an expert in economics so im sure there are loads of ideas out there to compensate these issues.
Maybe some of those documentaries that support this idea have more info.
Isnt money masters one of them? or maybe im mistaken,its been a while.

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

Why would they need to wait to issue someone else a loan.

Where else do they get the money from?, interest does not exist under the new system so there are no cash deposits to draw from.

Torakx wrote: »

There must be a way to control hyperinflation.Maybe a limit like fractional reserve banking?
Say a certain % over the current amount in circulation per year allowed and i am presuming if a company loans 1 million to open a restaurant they would be paying back money per annum or weekly or whatever thus allowing the inflation to drop.
Unfortunately i am not an expert in economics so im sure there are loads of ideas out there to compensate these issues.
Maybe some of those documentaries that support this idea have more info.
Isnt money masters one of them? or maybe im mistaken,its been a while.

Allow me to very basically sketch an outcome;

The best description of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods, now consider what happens when the cost of borrowing is zero and there is no incentive to save - actually the opposite - as no interest can be accrued the best thing to do is spend all your money ASAP to beat inflation.

Now everyone is doing this - spending - so everything goes up in price as demand has increased, and when this burns out the end result is a select few (who were ultimately selling/providing services) are left with the lions share of the money.

What do they spend it on? maybe nothing - they keep it and take control of the money system. Sound familiar?