more corrupt bank news

[fj1200]

maybe your right about me FJ,
Populasit bank hater,
have you seen this film?
If anyone has the time they should watch this.

history of central banks , commentary on the gold standard, and the causes of depressions.
amazing

So far... mostly crap. Facts are thrown in which are completely unrelated to the point that they're trying to make. "People are hungry" because of our monetary system? BS.

[revelarts]

Geez rev. do you watch ANYTHING less than an hour long?

Nothing worth repeating

So far... mostly crap. Facts are thrown in which are completely unrelated to the point that they're trying to make. "People are hungry" because of our monetary system? BS.

watch on my friend, or maybe you just like the private bankers controlling the national money supply. And banks lending on 10% of what they actually hold and pray they don't get called on it.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7qIhDdST27g?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

[fj1200]

watch on my friend, or maybe you just like the private bankers controlling the national money supply. And banks lending on 10% of what they actually hold and pray they don't get called on it.

If the rest was the same as the first 12 minutes it was utter balderdash. Repeat after me:

FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING IS NOT THE CAUSE OF OUR COUNTRIES PROBLEMS!!!

Or you could check into someone who has some actual intelligence on the subject.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...183736325.html

He also did an excellent bit on PBS a few years ago. Here's episode I:
[YOUTUBE]kXMygmS_Ank[/YOUTUBE]

[revelarts]

Did we watch the same film?

Fractional reverve banking is not the only thing delt with HOwEVER it is a unstable -to say the least- and nigh on corrupt way to do biz. C'mon Loaning and making interest on money you don't have, it's an outstanding CON. the only way to think otherwise is to have been immesred in the system for so long as to think it's a normal healthy business arragment, it's always been this way. Similar to a dysfunctional families kids who thinks getting beatings everyday is NORMAL and good for them. But the bigger issue in the film is WHO Creates the Money Supply the gov't or a group of Private bankers masquerading as a FEDERAL agency who it appears have manipulated the money supply to there own advantage.
Not sure why You call it balerdash, when Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield and other presidents saw the dangers of the "federal" reserve banks that you like to defend.

What's wrong with the gov't issuing the money directly without BORROWING from the private Banks? to me it's a no braininer and your defense of the system is balderdash FJ. I'm not sure where it comes from, defending the status quo, or what?

[fj1200]

Did we watch the same film?

Unfortunately yes. You, however, thought it contained something resembling intelligence.

Fractional reverve banking is not the only thing delt with HOwEVER it is a unstable -to say the least- and nigh on corrupt way to do biz. C'mon Loaning and making interest on money you don't have, it's an outstanding CON. the only way to think otherwise is to have been immesred in the system for so long as to think it's a normal healthy business arragment, it's always been this way. Similar to a dysfunctional families kids who thinks getting beatings everyday is NORMAL and good for them. But the bigger issue in the film is WHO Creates the Money Supply the gov't or a group of Private bankers masquerading as a FEDERAL agency who it appears have manipulated the money supply to there own advantage.
Not sure why You call it balerdash, when Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield and other presidents saw the dangers of the "federal" reserve banks that you like to defend.

What's wrong with the gov't issuing the money directly without BORROWING from the private Banks? to me it's a no braininer and your defense of the system is balderdash FJ. I'm not sure where it comes from, defending the status quo, or what?

Why are you quoting founding fathers after posting a video that decries a "defect in the constitution"? Nevertheless, the reason for an independent central bank is that it takes the manipulation of a currency out of the hands of elected officials who would manipulate it for their own purpose.

I just figured out why you like that video; it takes little bits of information which may or may not have a grain of truth to it and then extrapolates it into rationale which easily fits into your worldview of global corruption. In some threads you decry the power of the central government and how easily it will slip into a corrupt morass but in this thread you wish that the government would be the one to have the powers to manipulate the currency. You have little consistency in the views you espouse.

[fj1200]

What's wrong with the gov't issuing the money directly without BORROWING from the private Banks? to me it's a no braininer and your defense of the system is balderdash FJ. I'm not sure where it comes from, defending the status quo, or what?

Alright then rev, defend this statement:

Coxey was a greenbacker, and his idea was simple: The federal government should build public works and pay for them by printing money

"At the time the idea seemed to be the wildest kind of extremism. But given unemployment of 18.4%... few modern economists would be prepared to dismiss such a proposal out of hand."

EVERY modern economist would dismiss such a proposal out of hand. It's exactly the type of inflationary, politically based policy that would be the temptation of an elected official. It would be the rehash of the Weimar Republic of the 20's, the Argentinian meltdown of the 80's, the Zimbabwean inflation of the '00s... Nothing good can come of that kind of power resting in the hands of Congress.

So impress me with your defense of the "no brainer" monetary system.

[red states rule]

Dems are playing the populism card in hopes of regaining their power

It will not work

Democrats have been rediscovering their inner populist lately. President Obama is calling on the wealthiest Americans to pay their “fair share” in taxes. Elizabeth Warren, campaigning for the Senate in Massachusetts, has become a rising star by bluntly criticizing the business class. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a petition last month aimed at leveraging the Occupy Wall Street movement against the Republican Party.

But the clearest test for whether Democrats can sell a message centered on income inequality won’t be in the presidential race, where Obama’s chances of victory depend heavily on the mood of upscale, white-collar professionals. Rather, the battle for the hearts and minds of the working-class will take place in the House race battlefields, where Democrats can’t afford to write off blue-collar voters if they hope to win the 25 seats they need to recapture the majority.

It wasn’t long ago that Democrats were highly competitive with that demographic. In 2006 and 2008, their greatest gains came in heavily white districts with relatively small concentrations of college graduates. Former DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel aggressively recruited culturally conservative candidates, recognizing that the party couldn’t handicap itself by ceding Middle America to Republicans. The ability to compete across the country is what allowed the party to forge a congressional governing majority for four years.

Democrats suffered their biggest losses last year in blue-collar territory, as Obama’s approval ratings with blue-collar white voters plummeted. White voters without a college education voted for Republican House candidates nearly 2 to 1, according to last year’s Edison Research exit poll. The party’s bulwark of Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom had held onto seats in deeply conservative districts no matter the political climate, collapsed.

While Democrats aren’t going to win back many of those seats given the districts’ conservative orientation, they’re betting that a message decrying income inequality can put some of them in play.

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/a...ulism-20111101

[revelarts]

Alright then rev, defend this statement:


EVERY modern economist would dismiss such a proposal out of hand. It's exactly the type of inflationary, politically based policy that would be the temptation of an elected official. It would be the rehash of the Weimar Republic of the 20's, the Argentinian meltdown of the 80's, the Zimbabwean inflation of the '00s... Nothing good can come of that kind of power resting in the hands of Congress.

So impress me with your defense of the "no brainer" monetary system.

the question is the role of gov't as a necessary good/evil.
One of the founders described gov't as a fire . great in it's place but beyond that, trouble.
Sure congress could get it wrong but at least they would be directly accountable to the people in some respects.
As apposed to now where the banks of the Fed are accountable to NO ONE and only ultimatly have their own private undisclosed motives at heart. Which group has a greater temptation to do wrong? The congress who are accountable and should be transparent or private bankers LOANING money to the gov't and others at Interest that they've create out of nothing?

There's more that can be said , but I'll read your notes to flesh out my own opinion but i think the foundation seems clear. If these are the only real choices for money creation, I'll take the more or less Neutral player, Congress. over a Commercial player with a profit motive and the possibility they manipulate everyone to their own private advantage.

[fj1200]

the question is the role of gov't as a necessary good/evil.
One of the founders described gov't as a fire . great in it's place but beyond that, trouble.
Sure congress could get it wrong but at least they would be directly accountable to the people in some respects.

Congress would do what they always do and delegate their responsibility to the Executive branch, or establish an independent entity anyway, and you'd be in the same boat as we are now where some mythic bankers are pulling the strings behind the curtain. If you want to really get the government out of the action you need to seriously think about passing the Aldrich-Vreeland Act (1914?) again which gave authority to the banks to issue currency as necessary subject to standards. Canada survived the Great Depression much better than we did with no central bank and a structure similar to AV sought to implement with no bank closures iirc.

But I implore you, read an actual book on the subject that isn't predicated on the myth that it is a beast meant to consume us. The History of the Federal Reserve (Meltzer) or Lords of Finance (Ahamed). There's another history of the Fed book but I don't recall the author or exact name but it's less technical than the Meltzer book.

As apposed to now where the banks of the Fed are accountable to NO ONE and only ultimatly have their own private undisclosed motives at heart. Which group has a greater temptation to do wrong? The congress who are accountable and should be transparent or private bankers LOANING money to the gov't and others at Interest that they've create out of nothing?

Their motives are two; Monetary stability and full employment (or some such thing) and their accountability is to Congress. I also challenge your basis, and the videos, that our monetary system requires debt. Treasury creates the debt, the Fed creates the money; those are two different things.

There's more that can be said , but I'll read your notes to flesh out my own opinion but i think the foundation seems clear. If these are the only real choices for money creation, I'll take the more or less Neutral player, Congress. over a Commercial player with a profit motive and the possibility they manipulate everyone to their own private advantage.

Are you daft? Congress is not neutral, they are politically motivated which is exactly the opposite of what you want when determining monetary policy. The original 13 Fed banks were established so different parts of the country, read farmers, would have input into monetary policy. The results were disastrous, a bad law to begin with, but you had various factions trying to jigger policy so it would suit their constituents. It took quite some time for the Fed to gets its head straight in determining a national monetary policy and asserting its independence and speaking with one voice and not 13. It's also not a "commercial player" that is controlling our monetary policy, they may be a tool by which the Fed does it's business but they are not the beast.

[revelarts]

Congress would do what they always do and delegate their responsibility to the Executive branch, or establish an independent entity anyway, and you'd be in the same boat as we are now where some mythic bankers are pulling the strings behind the curtain. If you want to really get the government out of the action you need to seriously think about passing the Aldrich-Vreeland Act (1914?) again which gave authority to the banks to issue currency as necessary subject to standards. Canada survived the Great Depression much better than we did with no central bank and a structure similar to AV sought to implement with no bank closures iirc.

But I implore you, read an actual book on the subject that isn't predicated on the myth that it is a beast meant to consume us. The History of the Federal Reserve (Meltzer) or Lords of Finance (Ahamed). There's another history of the Fed book but I don't recall the author or exact name but it's less technical than the Meltzer book.



Their motives are two; Monetary stability and full employment (or some such thing) and their accountability is to Congress. I also challenge your basis, and the videos, that our monetary system requires debt. Treasury creates the debt, the Fed creates the money; those are two different things.



Are you daft? Congress is not neutral, they are politically motivated which is exactly the opposite of what you want when determining monetary policy. The original 13 Fed banks were established so different parts of the country, read farmers, would have input into monetary policy. The results were disastrous, a bad law to begin with, but you had various factions trying to jigger policy so it would suit their constituents. It took quite some time for the Fed to gets its head straight in determining a national monetary policy and asserting its independence and speaking with one voice and not 13. It's also not a "commercial player" that is controlling our monetary policy, they may be a tool by which the Fed does it's business but they are not the beast.

FJ i'll say it again if I have to choose between congress and private banks to create money I'll choose congress.

Take a second and replace a different items with money.

would you like Congress to control the water supply or a private cartel for a completely profit motive. who's going to be more responsive to your needs a congressman who needs your vote or a ceo with a monopoly? Sure BOTH could go corrupt but
I don't see the advantage of a cartel having cotrol of the spigot.

[fj1200]

FJ i'll say it again if I have to choose between congress and private banks to create money I'll choose congress.

Take a second and replace a different items with money.

would you like Congress to control the water supply or a private cartel for a completely profit motive. who's going to be more responsive to your needs a congressman who needs your vote or a ceo with a monopoly? Sure BOTH could go corrupt but
I don't see the advantage of a cartel having cotrol of the spigot.

You still have a mistaken assumption: Private banks do not create money. Do a bit of research into elected officials controlling money; I gave a short list earlier.

[revelarts]

I'm reading but I also read items like those below and from where i sit at this point they seem to be the most frank about the situation

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924.

“The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn’t realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create it.”
H W White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.


“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.”
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).

Federal Reserve Bank of New York quotes:
Because of 'fractional' reserve system, banks, as a whole, can expand our money supply several times, by making loans and investments.

Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU.



Jerry Voorhis quotes:
The banks -- commercial banks and the Federal Reserve -- create all the money of this nation and its people pay interest on every dollar of that newly created money. Which means that private banks exercise unconstitutionally, immorally, and ridiculously the power to tax the people. For every newly created dollar dilutes to some extent the value of every other dollar already in circulation.


Richard McKenna

Secretary to the Treasury (1903), President of the Board of Education (1907–08) First Lord of the Admiralty (1908–1911), Home Secretary (1911–1915) and Chancellor of the Exchequer (1915–1916), and Chairman of the Midland Bank (1918)

"I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create and destroy money.
And they who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."

Ralph M. Hawtrey, former Secretary of Treasury, England.
Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing.

[fj1200]

I'm reading but I also read items like those below and from where i sit at this point they seem to be the most frank about the situation

Some quippy quotes that happen to coincide with your worldview are not the same as gathering a complete understanding of the whole situation. Besides, private bankers operate at the pleasure of the Fed and under the rules created by it and the rest of the government regulation.

[red states rule]

Rev reminds me of a custmer who called after we refused to grant him a loan mod due to the workout plan being outside investor guidelines

He was yelling how he hoped Obama put all the banks out of business

I asked him how that would improve his situation - he was silent on that question - but continued his rant against the "evil" banks

[red states rule]