Protest 15th Dec 2010

IM0 · 13-12-2010 02:04PM

Guill wrote: »

STRIKE!!!!!!

<Downs tools and walks off site>

its a compelling arguement isnt it! oh no wait there is none yet :rolleyes:

upandcumming · 13-12-2010 02:11PM

If what I can gather from the OP's posts, he wants us to default on our obligations, so we can 'start again'. If that happens, where will the money come from when this mess is finally over?

ScumLord · 13-12-2010 02:14PM

I like the way your protest poster has a hyperlink in it. This may serve as a distraction to the violent socialist student unions as they may spend ages waiting for the link to load on the web page stuck to the telephone pole. They will want to be fully informed when they go to the protest march.

IM0 · 13-12-2010 02:19PM

so far its "look Im using these 3 big new words, so I know what Im talking about..honestly I do, I dont need to explain it, just do it"

starbelgrade · 13-12-2010 02:25PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

What the did Status Quo ever do to anyone?? :mad:

This...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/images/2007/09/03/status_quo_250_01_250x300.jpg

thebigbiffo · 13-12-2010 02:27PM

me@ucd wrote: »

so far its "look Im using these 3 big new words, so I know what Im talking about..honestly I do, I dont need to explain it, just do it"

that pretty much sums it up i think

Is mise le key · 13-12-2010 03:07PM

You really think they are big words, well the hope for the future looks dim if your an example of college education, here it is explained in its simplest (and i stress simplest) form,

[SIZE=-1]How It Works[/SIZE]

Fractional reserve Lending wrote:

[SIZE=-1]John Doe decides that he is going to deposit in the bank the sum of $100 dollars. The bank gladly takes the $100 dollars from Mr. Doe, and in return gives him a receipt (passbook) that states that the bank owes him $100 dollars.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]If you read the fine print on any deposit agreement you sign with the bank, you will notice that you have actually loaned your money to the bank. In return you get an i.o.u. from the bank (deposit receipt or passbook), which stipulates the principal owed to you, and an amount of interest to be paid to you for the loan of money you just made to the bank. For simplicity, let us say you are paid 1% interest.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The bank has a 10% reserve requirement that means that on the $100 dollars you just loaned to them, they only have to keep on reserve 10% x $100 = $10 dollars. That leaves them $90 dollars to loan out to someone else.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]When they loan out the $90 they have to keep on reserve 10% x 90 = $9 on reserve. They then can loan out $82.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Now stop and think about it. You "loaned" the bank $100. In two loan transactions subsequent to your "deposit" the bank has already loaned out $90 + $82 = $172 dollars.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By the use of fractional reserve lending, the bank has already loaned out $172 dollars using your $100.00 dollars.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]So where do they get the extra $72 dollars to loan out. They do not get it from anywhere's - they just create it out of thin air as entries on a ledger. The money does not actually exist.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Granny Smith comes into the bank and wants to take out a loan for $90 dollars. No problem says the bank; John Doe just deposited $100 so we have plenty of money to lend you. Granny gets a loan for $90, and a loan agreement that says she owes the bank $90 dollars plus interest of 3% percent.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]What this means is that the bank owes John Doe the $100 dollars he deposited with them, yet they only have $10 dollars on reserve, as they have lent the other $90 dollars to Granny Smith. How can the bank possibly meet its obligations?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Solvent Versus Liquid[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As long as no more than 10% percent of all total depositors demand their money at any one time the bank remains solvent, as in aggregate they have that amount held in reserve. This is the dark side of fractional reserve lending: the seamy side - the moral hazard that borders on fraud.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]If a number of depositors greater than the 10% held in reserve demand their money at the same time, the bank will be in a bit of a bind, as they do not have that amount of money on deposit. They will have to call the Fed as the lender of last resort.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Fed will have no problem in supplying the money - as long as no more than 10% of the total of ALL DEPOSITORS in the banking system don't want their money at the same time, because if they do - it ain't there. This is a banker's worst nightmare - it's called a run on the banks.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To the bankers, a run on the bank is sacrilegious and immoral, showing no faith in the system. What system? - The system of fractional reserves. The system of make believe.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To the depositors, a run on the banks is the simple and honest act of withdrawing their deposits on demand, as they are supposed to be able to do.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The bankers consider it immoral because fractional reserves themselves are immoral, they are the epitome of moral hazard - they allow contractual obligations to be placed in harms way, in default's way.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]All it takes to start the refusal to meet contracted obligations is more than 10% of depositors wanting their deposits at the same time. Then the system of fractional reserves will be seen for what it is - a straw man - an illusion - what some would call a fraud.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The banking system appears to be solvent - but it is not liquid - it cannot be - it is impossible because of fractional reserve policy. Banking is the only type of business that is allowed to function this way. If any other business used a similar modus operandi, it would be subject to censor, arrest, court, and possibly imprisonment.

[/SIZE]

Now lets have a lokk at how money is created,

[SIZE=-1]Step One[/SIZE]

Money creation wrote:

[SIZE=-1]It all begins at the Treasury Department. The Treasury prints up a piece of paper called a bond, which presently is done electronically. Treasury bonds are debt obligations or liabilities of the government to repay a loan - with interest.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Treasury deposits bonds with the Federal Reserve. When the Fed accepts the bond from the Treasury, it lists the bond on its books as an asset. The Fed assumes the government will make good on its promise to pay back the loan. This is based on the belief that the government's power to tax the people is sufficient collateral.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Because the Fed now has an asset that it did not have before receiving the Treasury bond, the Fed can now create a liability that is offset by its new asset.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The liability that the Fed creates is a Federal Reserve check. It gives the Treasury the check in payment for the Treasury bond.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]THERE IS NO EXISTING MONEY IN THE FED'S ACCOUNT TO COVER THIS CHECK.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Federal Reserve check is endorsed by the Treasury and is deposited in one of the government's accounts at the Federal Reserve. The government can use the deposits to write checks against, to pay for government expenses.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This is the first new money flow to enter the system. Various government contractors, vendors, etc. receive these checks as payment for services rendered, and they take the checks and deposit them in their commercial bank accounts.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The Second Step[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]This is when the wizards of finance really earn their keep. The deposits in the commercial banks take on a sort of split personality or dementia, brought on by a preponderance of delusional thinking that wizards are prone to have.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]On the one hand, the deposits are the bank's liabilities, as they owe the total sums to their depositors. The commercial banks, however, list the deposits as RESERVES. Because of FRACTIONAL RESERVE lending, the bankers get to lend out that which they do have.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]In addition, they get to charge interest on it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As the newly issued money is put to work by borrowers, they then spend it and the receiver then deposits it in their bank account, and the bank starts the reserve lending policy all over again. This is why the[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Money supply must expand by the amount of interest owed on the debt.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]If it didn't, the debt would not be able to be serviced. There is no money created without creating debt, they are one and the same. Creating money by fiat does not create wealth - only debt.

[/SIZE]

ScumLord · 13-12-2010 03:08PM

Is mise le key wrote: »

You really think they are big words, well the hope for the future looks dim if your an example of college education, here it is explained in its simplest (and i stress simplest) form,

[SIZE=-1]How It Works[/SIZE]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Now lets have a lokk at how money is created,

[SIZE=-1]Step One[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]It all begins at the Treasury Department. The Treasury prints up a piece of paper called a bond, which presently is done electronically. Treasury bonds are debt obligations or liabilities of the government to repay a loan - with interest.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Treasury deposits bonds with the Federal Reserve. When the Fed accepts the bond from the Treasury, it lists the bond on its books as an asset. The Fed assumes the government will make good on its promise to pay back the loan. This is based on the belief that the government's power to tax the people is sufficient collateral.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Because the Fed now has an asset that it did not have before receiving the Treasury bond, the Fed can now create a liability that is offset by its new asset.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The liability that the Fed creates is a Federal Reserve check. It gives the Treasury the check in payment for the Treasury bond.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]THERE IS NO EXISTING MONEY IN THE FED'S ACCOUNT TO COVER THIS CHECK.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The Federal Reserve check is endorsed by the Treasury and is deposited in one of the government's accounts at the Federal Reserve. The government can use the deposits to write checks against, to pay for government expenses.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This is the first new money flow to enter the system. Various government contractors, vendors, etc. receive these checks as payment for services rendered, and they take the checks and deposit them in their commercial bank accounts.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The Second Step[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]This is when the wizards of finance really earn their keep. The deposits in the commercial banks take on a sort of split personality or dementia, brought on by a preponderance of delusional thinking that wizards are prone to have.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]On the one hand, the deposits are the bank's liabilities, as they owe the total sums to their depositors. The commercial banks, however, list the deposits as RESERVES. Because of FRACTIONAL RESERVE lending, the bankers get to lend out that which they do have.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]In addition, they get to charge interest on it.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]As the newly issued money is put to work by borrowers, they then spend it and the receiver then deposits it in their bank account, and the bank starts the reserve lending policy all over again. This is why the[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Money supply must expand by the amount of interest owed on the debt.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]If it didn't, the debt would not be able to be serviced. There is no money created without creating debt, they are one and the same. Creating money by fiat does not create wealth - only debt.

[/SIZE]

Does all that explanation of the American banking system really apply here too?

123balltv · 13-12-2010 03:09PM

Hats, scarfs, hot tea/coffee, gloves etc its going to snow on Thursday
wrap up well protesters

IM0 · 13-12-2010 03:17PM

Is mise le key wrote: »

You really think they are big words, well the hope for the future looks dim if your an example of college education, here it is explained in its simplest (and i stress simplest) form,

are you still missing the part where I told you I know how fractional reserve lending occurs and why?
you still haven't told us how parts 3 and 4 of your list relate to points 1 and 2 which I told you I know about. at this rate you are better off putting it in conspiracy theories forum.

AntiMatter · 13-12-2010 03:18PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Does all that explanation of the American banking system really apply here too?

Fractional reserve banking is used pretty much all over the world.

Basically, if you deposit x amount in the bank, the bank can then lend out multiples of that amount, charging interest, on the basis that you're unlikely to withdraw all your cash.

It is said that to cover the interest, which is a debt created out of thin air, growth has to continually increase, like a pyramid scheme.

It's a favourite subject of conspiracy theorists, but has also come under much criticism from many economists, who claim it is the cause of boom and bust cycles, growing disparity between the rich and poor, it allows the banks to create free wealth for themselves etc. (just don't try and discuss it on the economics forum here. Criticism of FRB isn't allowed here).

Is mise le key · 13-12-2010 03:20PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Does all that explanation of the American banking system really apply here too?

Now this is where we should have been using the word 'systemic', take a look at exactly where the anglo bondholders hail from,

Bondholders

They are all inter 'lending' to one another using this fake system based on nothing of value, this is the biggest failing of all nations, to allow such an illogical way of creating false economy & wealth take hold.
What should have happened is the people of any given country, now finding itself burdened with debt created from nothing, should have done what is the logical conclusion in a capitalist system, if your business is unsustainable you go under & face your creditors.

All of these banks that have on ledgers everywhere that they are owed billions would be left chasing each other for their ficticious money that they so easily created but cannot now meet their obligations rather than it going now to every man woman & child to work off for generations.

Anyone who can stand by this kind of illogical way of living where money is created from nothing, has no real value & will be passed on to entire nations for literally generations really cannot see the writing on the wall.

It is unsustainable & will only ruin lives.

IM0 · 13-12-2010 03:36PM

AntiMatter wrote: »

Fractional reserve banking

It's a favourite subject of conspiracy theorists, but has also come under much criticism from many economists, who claim it is the cause of boom and bust cycles, growing disparity between the rich and poor, it allows the banks to create free wealth for themselves etc. (just don't try and discuss it on the economics forum here. Criticism of FRB isn't allowed here).

I thought so, didnt realise how right I was though, thanks

thebigbiffo · 13-12-2010 03:36PM

Is mise le key wrote: »

Now this is where we should have been using the word 'systemic', take a look at exactly where the anglo bondholders hail from,

Bondholders

They are all inter 'lending' to one another using this fake system based on nothing of value, this is the biggest failing of all nations, to allow such an illogical way of creating false economy & wealth take hold.
What should have happened is the people of any given country, now finding itself burdened with debt created from nothing, should have done what is the logical conclusion in a capitalist system, if your business is unsustainable you go under & face your creditors.

All of these banks that have on ledgers everywhere that they are owed billions would be left chasing each other for their ficticious money that they so easily created but cannot now meet their obligations rather than it going now to every man woman & child to work off for generations.

Anyone who can stand by this kind of illogical way of living where money is created from nothing, has no real value & will be passed on to entire nations for literally generations really cannot see the writing on the wall.

It is unsustainable & will only ruin lives.

now i know about fractional reserve lending - how exactly does this knowledge help us as per your OP?

ScumLord · 13-12-2010 03:54PM

AntiMatter wrote: »

Fractional reserve banking is used pretty much all over the world.

Basically, if you deposit x amount in the bank, the bank can then lend out multiples of that amount, charging interest, on the basis that you're unlikely to withdraw all your cash.

Is mise le key wrote: »

Now this is where we should have been using the word 'systemic', take a look at exactly where the anglo bondholders hail from,

I know how it works it's just every time it's brought up the explanation is a copy and paste from the Zeitgeist movement. I haven't seen it with explained with Irish and European banks.

Our entire system of economy is destined to failure as it in it's entirety relies on infinite growth which is simply impossible, it's obvious and proven that an economy depending on infinite growth will always collapse.

IM0 · 13-12-2010 03:57PM

OP you need to know about modern economics and inflation, money doesnt just disappear and appear, there is a price to be paid for it, printing money is an easy knee jerk solution, but this wont solve anything, not that Im saying you are suggesting anything like this, but this is what people who dont know about the complexities of the inns and out of the system and general banking civilisation will come out with, and you still have not been able to join up parts 3 and 4 to parts 1 and 2, and therefore have no arguement or debate as yet.

AntiMatter · 13-12-2010 04:02PM

me@ucd wrote: »

I thought so, didnt realise how right I was though, thanks

I wasn't actually criticising the OP in terms of his opposition to it. Yes, it is a favourite of the conspiracy theorists, the system itself was introduced by stealth in the U.S. in 1913 or so, but like I said it also comes under criticism from many economists.

me@ucd wrote: »

OP you need to know about modern economics and inflation, money doesnt just disappear and appear, there is a price to be paid for it, printing money is an easy knee jerk solution, but this wont solve anything, not that Im saying you are suggesting anything like this, but this is what people who dont know about the complexities of the inns and out of the system and general banking civilisation will come out with, and you still have not been able to join up parts 3 and 4 to parts 1 and 2, and therefore have no arguement or debate as yet.

Yes, under fractional reserve banking, money (and debt) does just appear out of nowhere.

ScumLord · 13-12-2010 04:03PM

me@ucd wrote: »

OP you need to know about modern economics and inflation, money doesnt just disappear and appear, there is a price to be paid for it, printing money is an easy knee jerk solution, but this wont solve anything, not that Im saying you are suggesting anything like this, but this is what people who dont know about the complexities of the inns and out of the system and general banking civilisation will come out with, and you still have not been able to join up parts 3 and 4 to parts 1 and 2, and therefore have no arguement or debate as yet.

The problem with these complexities and inns and out's is that they grew through personal deals between people that may be dead and gone at this stage.

It's a club where people milk the general population, the banking system is not set up for the benefit of the people but to take advantage of the people. You can say the people are ignorant of how the banks work and that's completely true it's like the legal profession it's set up so only a privileged few can benefit from it by paying money to learn the language.

Is mise le key · 13-12-2010 04:04PM

What!!!!

This debt is belonging to the Irish Banks, that were given credit by other banks all based on nothing real, if the actual reserve & hard cash is, as explained in the previous posts, about 10% in reality of deposits then iif we accept the debts of the banks as the countrys liability (which i dont agree we should) then the debt should be only 10% of what is on the books (the actual reserves of the hard cash the fractional lending is based on), leaving the overall amount needing to be borrowd far far less than what is being pushed on us.

Is mise le key · 13-12-2010 04:18PM

ScumLord wrote: »

it's set up so only a privileged few can benefit from it by paying money to learn the language.

Below are the words of the man that so many conspiracy theorists have as the root of all our modern banking system & are still to this day controlling it all (whether they are or not is for another forum so dont try & drag it into that, this is just for reference purposes in the context of the quoted post),

Mayer Amschel Rothschild said,

The few who understand the system (Banking),
will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependant on its favors,
That there will be no opposition from that calss.

ilovesleep · 13-12-2010 08:35PM

Protesting will do nothing. We need a war against our government to take them down and out. Fcuking destruction on dublin at this stage too. Put the fear of god into politicans until they sh1t their pants's. Maybe just maybe they might then start listening to what the people of this country want and need. The bullies will only laugh at ye out marching and protesting. My wish for war will not happen because the irish are too tame and timid.

mloc · 13-12-2010 09:19PM

ilovesleep wrote: »

Fcuking destruction on dublin at this stage too

Destroy our own city? At our own expense?

Stop. Just stop.

Run_to_da_hills · 13-12-2010 09:44PM

mloc wrote: »

Destroy our own city? At our own expense?

Stop. Just stop.

The Bastille was stormed and good things happened.

mickydoomsux · 13-12-2010 10:45PM

ilovesleep wrote: »

My wish for war will not happen because the irish are too tame and timid.

It won't happen because the majority of people realise it would be idiotic.

"DEEEEEEERRRRRPPPPPPPPP, LET'S WRECK DA PLACE, THAT'LL FIX THE ECONOMY. PADDY DOWN THE PUB TOLD ME IT'D WORK. 1916. ETC."

Is mise le key · 14-12-2010 09:09AM

While your anger is heard & understandable it also would lead to no change as it would only serve to be used against any credible movement & crushed by the army/police.

The only real thing that will affect how desicions are made & force the voice of the people to be listened to is by affecting how money circulates.

Effectivley trying to bring it to a halt so better,fairer terms can be agreed with the knowledge that the overwhelming majority of it is fiction in the first place.

This is a very interesting proposal from Eric cantona which is entirley peacful yet would be the most effective & can be organised again,

(click on the english at the top)

http://www.bankrun2010.com/

Lumen · 14-12-2010 10:14AM

Defaulting is theft, however you wish to dress it up. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The (more) legitimate way for the state to steal wealth is through engineered inflation, by printing money/QE/whatever. That's easy if you control your the currency of your debts. Oh, wait...

Is mise le key · 14-12-2010 10:32AM

Lumen wrote: »

Defaulting is theft, however you wish to dress it up. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The (more) legitimate way for the state to steal wealth is through engineered inflation, by printing money/QE/whatever. That's easy if you control your the currency of your debts. Oh, wait...

Ah but you see when did the state become the owner of the debt of the private banks??
It has been passed onto the state when it should never have been so therfore that does legitimise negotaiting the amount to be paid by the state to the 'bondholders' to be less than what it is up to 80-90% less.

EDIT: Thhat is if we should accept it at all.

14-12-2010 11:22AM

If this thread disappeared of the face of the earth, nothing of value would be lost.

starbelgrade · 14-12-2010 11:25AM

Lumen wrote: »

Defaulting is theft, however you wish to dress it up.

No - it's not.

Sovereign borrowers such as nation-states generally are not subject to bankruptcy courts in their own jurisdiction, and thus may be able to default without legal consequences.

Lumen · 14-12-2010 01:08PM

starbelgrade wrote: »

No - it's not.

Sovereign borrowers such as nation-states generally are not subject to bankruptcy courts in their own jurisdiction, and thus may be able to default without legal consequences.

Lack of legal consequences is irrelevant when you have a structural budget defecit.

Protest 15th Dec 2010

Comments