[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'A')s for Basel II, well my advice is not to throw around terms unless you understand them yourself. Basel II has not been implemented yet.

[mmasters]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'B')ut the Deposit enters the balance sheet as a CREDIT on the LIABILITY side of the balance sheet of the bank and a DEBIT in the bank's CASH account on the ASSET side.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmasters', ' ')from wiki:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he commercial bank now claims $1,000,000 in new liabilities (the amount on deposit in a bank is called a "liability" by the bank, because the bank has to pay interest to it, amongst other things). In the US, the law allows the bank to makes loans so long as it retains a 10% cash reserve. This lending of money that it has on deposit is the precise point at which new money is created, because the depositor still has his money, and the person getting the loan now has money too. If the $1,000,000 is held by the bank as notes then it can lend $900,000 to borrowers.

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

[CrudeAwakening]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmasters', ' ')But once the loan is made additional to the cash there is an loan entry on the ASSET side of 90% of the cash, the total of this loan ASSET and the cash ASSET is 190% of the cash ASSET itself. But what about the liability side balancing? Well, in response a 90% LIABILITY is added to the primary deposit which is now referred to as a "demand deposit" That is credit expansion or how the money supply increases.

[paimei01]

The system is 2000 years old, that is why it's legal. I said legal, I do not talk about any conspiracy here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '�')��The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin... But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit .”
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. "
Josiah Charles Stamp (English Economist President of the Bank of England in the 1920's and the 2nd richest man in Great Britain)

[MrBill]

mmasters wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rom a cash perspective yes. But once the loan is made additional to the cash there is an loan entry on the ASSET side of 90% of the cash, the total of this loan ASSET and the cash ASSET is 190% of the cash ASSET itself. But what about the liability side balancing? Well, in response a 90% LIABILITY is added to the primary deposit which is now referred to as a "demand deposit" That is credit expansion or how the money supply increases.

[paimei01]

http://www.basicincome.com/basic_banks.htm

Solution : take away this power to create money from the banks. The state alone must have this power. We will borrow money from the state, then when we return them the state(we) will be richer, not some bankers, and the state will be able to use those money for something like tax cuts
Everytime a bank makes a loan, new money are created out of nothing, with a click of the mouse the money appear on some credit card. People will work to give back those money or they will lose their mortgage or something. The perfect theft.
Yes our society needs new money to grow, no the power to create them must no be in the hands of private people. The state must do this
Imagine me lending out money I do not have = jail
Bankers have done this for 2000 years, because it is so old , that is why this system is legal. Today it is called "fractional reserve banking" and they say it is useful for "flexilble money suply". Yes it is, no private people must not control it. The state must have control over it, and we will profit when we borrow and when we return the money

[max_power29]

Not only must the state have control over the currency, it must be backed by contantly audited precious metals so the state cant be allowed to overprint/overcreate/overspend/and inflate.

[chuck6877]

QUESTION:
Say the Bankers want to enslave the people of the world by making it difficult for people to pay their debts. Wouldn't the Bankers be better off by causing DEFLATION?

By causing deflation and a severely shrinking economy, with people jobless, people can not pay their debts as easily and the Banks will become the OWNERS of everyone's defaulted property correct?

Then they could reinflate after they own everything and sell the inflated homes or assets for profits.....

If hyper inflation were what was to come, people would more easily be able to pay back their old debts as long as their wages continued to climb.

I've always thought inflation would be the way, but if the Bankers want to enslave the people and accumulate all the assets, maybe it will be DEFLATION?

Any thoughts?



Chuck

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chuck6877', 'Q')UESTION:
Say the Bankers want to enslave the people of the world by making it difficult for people to pay their debts. Wouldn't the Bankers be better off by causing DEFLATION?

By causing deflation, people can not pay their debts as easily and the Banks will become the OWNERS of everyone's property correct?

Then they could reinflate after they own everything and sell the inflated homes or assets for profits.....

I've always thought inflation would be the way, but if the Bankers want to enslave the people and accumulate all the assets, maybe it will be DEFLATION?

Any thoughts?

Chuck

[Eli]

I have got to say I think that is exactly where we are today.

Does anyone know how much money the international Bankers have? The wealth and power these people have is completely hidden from view. What magazine or paper would print the info.

There are a lot of people who are richer than Bill Gates they just never have let anyone do a public accounting of their finances or wealth.

Look back at the stock panic of 1907 which led directly to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Back then it was JP Morgan with the backing of the banking houses of Europe who came in and saved the day. They manufactured a crisis and then came in to save the day. Wilson signed the Fed Charter into law and regretted it soon after.

The Fed and Banks are run by den of Vipers.

It is an incredible thing that the an organization as powerful as the Federal Reserve would be placed in private hands. The Fed has the power to sink the stock market with just a few words.

The housing boom was manufactured. It is ludicrous to think that the these Banks who understand all the workings of finance would not know making an ARM loan to somebody who already had bad credit was a mistake. They knowingly made loans to people who did not have the ability to repay their debt.

We are all victims of their greed, the Banks knowingly inflated the housing market now they will deflate it at their whim. They have put everything in place and are ready to make is their final move.

The end goal is an absolute cashless world, one in which they control every legal transaction made. In the ensuing panic they are going to implement the system of money that they have always dreamed of.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chuck6877', 'I')'ve always thought inflation would be the way, but if the Bankers want to enslave the people and accumulate all the assets, maybe it will be DEFLATION?

Any thoughts?

[mmasters]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')No. Your double counting your assets because you're only looking at assets vs. liabilities and not also debits and credits to the same side of the balance sheet, which in effect cancel themselves out. Here it is very simple if you look at your T-accounts or at the cash flows as I suggested.

Step One:

ASSETS

CASH DR $100

----------------------Liabilities

----------------------Demand deposit CR $100

Assets = Liabilities + Equity

Step Two:

ASSETS

-----------------------CASH CR $90

Loans Recievable
DR $90

Assets = Liabilities + Equity

As in this case the DR + CR on the Asset side of the leger match and cancel each other out. Therefore, the Liabilities side is not effected.

The loan receivable becomes an asset for the bank which is a promise to pay by the borrower.

There is no $100 + $90 = $190 because then both assets the cash and the loans receivable would have to be not only on the same side of the balance sheet, but also both debits. They are not.

And only the original $100 demand deposit is a credit on the Liability side of the balance sheet, so there would be no offsetting liability to match 'those extra' assets (or $190 in your example).

This is just basic introductory accounting.

[MrBill]

mmasters wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat you're saying is correct for investment banking but with commerical banking this double counting hokey pokey does go on when a loan is made. At least I can see you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't believe it.

As evidenced the Wikipedia and the FED link Monte provided above this double counting aspect is acknowledged though they don't use the exact term.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', ' ')That means savers would have to pay to keep their money in a bank or keep it at home earning zero interest.

[MrBill]

MacG, I understand what you are talking about. The interest paid and earned has to be based on the underlying sustainable development in the real world and not paper profits.

But let us say I lend you the seed to plant your garden this spring because you ate your surplus last winter to stay alive. you think I will do it for 6% of what you eventually grow? no way, dude, I want 25-50% of the harvest! that is real interest on my risk that you once again fail to grow enough.

many simply do not realize how expensive merchantile capitalism was or could be again. the rich would get richer and the poor poorer without efficient intermediation.

you want me to underwrite your sea voyage to pick-up spices to keep your rotten meat tasting edible? okay, I get half the incoming cargo for taking that risk!

mortgage? HAH, live in my rented premises until you have saved enough year after year to get out from under the yoke of renting!

that is the way it was. rage against interest if you want. it is simply the time value of money or capital and that capital can be measured as an agricultural surplus, the gains from trade or the future value of those rents to allow you to sleep in my house.

and as energy becomes more scarce its value, no matter how you measure it, will become more expensive in real terms. I want to be the one who owns the only source of renewable power in any given area. preferably a hydro-electric dam. there may be less energy to grow the economy, but my energy will be worth more and more in real terms - grain, spices or rental units.

be careful what you wish for?

[chuck6877]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('chuck6877', 'I')'ve always thought inflation would be the way, but if the Bankers want to enslave the people and accumulate all the assets, maybe it will be DEFLATION?

Any thoughts?

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')many simply do not realize how expensive merchantile capitalism was or could be again. the rich would get richer and the poor poorer without efficient intermediation.