[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', 'T')ex, what's a "cornie"?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '
')Not necessarily a problem today

[Tyler_JC]

That's because you think it's still a lemonade stand. If your view of the renewable energy industry hasn't changed in the past 5 years...of course it will still look like a lemonade stand.

We've moved well past that stage. This stuff is attracting real money and generating real profits.

Is $150 billion a year in investment small change?

I just don't understand where you're coming from and I don't think I ever will.

I'm not talking about the Cornucopian "technology will solve everything so go back to sleep" folks. The founding principle of any renewable energy scenario is a major reduction in consumption combined with a change personal behavior and more concern about efficient use of resources. That's how they start their presentations. Demand side management is the central focus, renewable energy production is how we fill the gap between conservation and consumption.

No one is saying that we can run what we're currently running off of a few solar panels.

But they are saying that some of these technologies are going to produce an awful lot of energy or prevent the consumption of an awful lot of energy ("negawatts").

This particular conference referenced the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and used that as the play book for how to address the energy debate.

What you're basically telling me is that the industry professionals, scientists, and policy experts are fools and that a dozen fringe retirees from the oil industry are a better source of information. There are a lot of people with limited access to real time information making a lot of silly predictions. This forum is a prime example of that. How many times did people predict $100 oil in 2005 or war with Iran?

The people who left Microsoft before it went public probably thought that the company wasn't going anywhere and that the PC was a stupid idea.

Those people were wrong and Savinar'n'Company will be wrong too.

All I can say is give it a little time, maybe we'll be able to show you some undeniable progress. Change is finally coming and not a minute too soon.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', ' ')
Researching stuff posted on internet blogs by unaccountable loonies is entertaining but it pales in comparison to first hand knowledge.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', ' ')
That's why I'm trying to defer my judgment to the scientists and researchers.

[raisinbran]

It is clear that many people seem to lack in understanding of the meaning of my post. So I am going to prove right here and now that the entire monetary system of the United States is a giant, massive fraud, arguably the greatest fraud in world history. This may take multiple posts.

Before you consider this earth-shattering detail, I want provide some of my perspectives about human nature that may help make sense of what I'm about to reveal.

This is the foundation of my perspective:

- The main factor motivating the wealthy, influential people and leaders is power, not just through wealth, but power to directly control or influence other people.

- Like with many other pleasures, power breeds the desire to obtain more power. Greed and power go hand in hand.

- Power corrupts, and leads to a withering of good moral traits, like love, kindness, empathy honesty, and humility, and an increase in hatred, deceit, and pride.

- The main, and perhaps most effective, method of control and influence is deception, because someone can't resist something they don't know about.

- Another effective method of control is fear. Threatening someone is an obvious example of using fear as manipulation.

- Another method of control is by seizing another's possessions. If someone takes someone else's belongings then the one taking has yet another tool for manipulation, like blackmail.

- A method of control that is not as effective, but still usable, is the use of force. The problem with force is that people will generally resist, with resistance increasing as the force increases.

- Another process is integration. When operating a system, if the system is loosely bound and fragmented, then it is more difficult to influence the system as a whole with a single mechanism. The more integrated, streamlined, and connected the system is, the more influence that a single mechanism can exert over the entire system.

There are plenty of other points to make, but the above should suffice.

Now, this is not a shady conspiracy that's impossible to prove and too outrageous to be true. The fact that this can be readily proven is rather striking. I learned about this very recently and since then my perspectives on the reality of the world we live in have been shaken, leaving me to question a lot more things about this country.

I’m going to talk about Fractional Reserve Banking, a process through which much of the our currency, the dollar, is created. This process was introduced through the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, almost a hundred years ago. Also, The Federal Reserve was instituted with this same Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Check the chart from Wikipedia that shows how this works:


The process is described in this way:
The table below displays how loans are funded and how the money supply is affected. It also shows how central bank money is used to create commercial bank money. An initial deposit of $100 of central bank money is lent out 10 times with a fractional-reserve rate of 20%. This means that of the initial $100, 20 percent of it, or $20, is set aside as reserves while the remaining 80 percent, or $80, is loaned out. The recipient of the $80 then spends that money. The receiver of that $80 then deposits it into a bank. The bank then sets aside 20 percent of that $80, or $16, as reserves and lends out the remaining $64. As the process continues, more commercial bank money is created. To simplify the table, a different bank is used for each deposit. In the real world, the money a bank lends may end up in the same bank so it then has more money to lend out.”
Further, it states, “When a loan is supplied with central bank money, new commercial bank money is created. As a loan is paid back, the commercial bank money disappears from existence.”

[raisinbran]

What is a very carefully concealed fact--economics textbooks won't mention this crucial detail--is that the person who borrowed $80 has to pay back $80 PLUS INTEREST (let's say, $10), so total he has to pay back $90. But remember, the bank loaned $80 dollars "out of thin air" because the $80 came from someone else’s deposit. So this interest also comes from nowhere. The statement: "When a loan is supplied with central bank money, new commercial bank money is created. As a loan is paid back, the commercial bank money disappears from existence" is flawed because the loan is actually paid back for more than what the loan was to begin with. When the loan is paid back, it is not paid back in $80, it is paid back in $90. Money does not "disappear", instead, money is created for the bank, because they are getting $10 back in return, from your hard-earned income, for a loan they made from no where. It's similar to this: so the school bully wants me to pay him $100. I don't have that much so I write a check from my mom’s checkbook to my friend and tell him "hey, I know you need $100, so let me write you a check for $100 and you pay me back $110".. so I write a check for $100 (not my money) to this guy. Later he pays me back $110. Then I give the bully $100. But hey I made a profit from the whole ordeal of $10. The school bully is the Fed, I am the bank, and the friend is you. The only thing is that the Fed creates $100, the bank loans out $80, and $10 is created FOR THE BANK at interest.

This sounds quite logical, but isn’t banking more complicated than that? A skeptic, I did further research, and came across a publication that was clearly in defense of the Federal Reserve System.

Here: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm

It actually addresses this subject under THE "MATHEMATICAL FLAW"

“A popular theory about the Fed and money creation in the United States is built around the notion of a "mathematical flaw" inherent in introducing money by means of "lending" as opposed to "spending."

This theory starts with the observation that money in the United States (and most other countries) is placed into circulation through the purchase of interest-bearing debt.

To inject money into the economy, the Fed buys federal securities, thereby acquiring an asset that pays interest. In the second round of money creation, banks, S&Ls, and credit unions, through the fractional reserve banking system, earn interest on the loans they hold as a consequence of creating checking account money.

This means that for every dollar of money, there is a corresponding dollar of interest-bearing debt. As a consequence of this arrangement, the argument goes, there is only enough money to pay off the principal of existing debt; there can never be enough to pay the interest that accrues on that principal. If there is to be enough money to handle interest payments in the economy, the theory continues, more borrowing must occur to generate the extra money. Of course, additional borrowing under this arrangement would mean even more interest that cannot be paid out of the existing money supply.”

It goes on to refute this idea…

“This analysis is deficient on four counts. First, the banking system does not behave as presented above. The payment of interest on debts that arise through the money creation process will neither contract the money supply nor result in the growth of debt relative to the money supply. Second, there is no reason for the money supply to equal the sum of debt and interest. Third, debt is such a common and essential part of an economy, there is always plenty of it available for money creation without any need to encourage the creation of more. (The fourth reason, that interest costs are not the cause of inflation, is discussed in another section).”


Actually, the author is correct on all but the last point. However, these do not refute the idea. The second point actually confirms what this whole problem is about: the money supply will never equal the money created plus interest on that money.

He continues…

“The crucial error made by the above arguments lies in the proposition that once interest is paid by the government to the Fed, money is "extinguished". If the interest earnings were simply put away into a vault until they were lent out again, the authors would be correct. But in fact, the money is spent back into existence.”


Here is where his argument falls apart. The fact is, the money in interest that is accrued by the bank IS LENT OUT again. The bank (or the Fed) spends the profit from interest somewhere, say to an employee. The employee then goes and spends this money. This new money, which came from interest, has now entered into the money supply. But remember this money FIRST came from someone’s interest payment, or his hard earned money. Now this money deposited, and ultimately is LENT OUT, like the author described. He also says that the authors would be correct if that money was eventually lent out again. It is clear that this author is trying to distort the truth.

[raisinbran]

There are a number of people who are well aware of this:

http://www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm

http://www.barefootsworld.net/banking-fed-quotes.html

Now think about this for a minute. It seems like a minute detail, not really a big deal, but what kinds of implications can be drawn from it?

Why would the Fed, the banks, and the government charge interest on every dollar produced?

Think about how much interest you probably pay. Why do you pay so much? Why does virtually every single American pay interest on their loans? Why is there so much debt in this financial system? Have you ever been free of debt?

The fact is the interest you pay for your mortgage, car loan, student loan, credit card, you name it, is nothing more than indentured servitude to the bank. Have you ever been caught paying the bare minimum, where virtually nothing of your payment goes to principal, only interest? Why does it seem so hard to get out of debt?
Also, why are interest payments usually high? This is interesting, from the link above:

“I assumed that there was going to be a $100,000 house built. I assumed that $30,000 would have to go for land, architect's fees and permits and that kind of thing. $70,000 would go for the actual construction of the house, building materials and labor. I assumed that the buyer would go to the bank and put 20% down and then borrow the balance at 10% over 30 years. I punched in the numbers and discovered that the borrower will pay to the bank in interest $172,741 compared to $70,000 paid for the construction of the house. In other words, about 2 1/2 times as much money will be paid to the bank in interest than will be paid to those who provide all the labor and all the materials. And you may say to yourself, yes but that's fair, after all a 30 year loan is a long loan and people work for their money and sacrifice its use and loan it and so forth and deserve to be compensated. No. Not this money. Nobody worked for this money, nobody saved this money. There was no sacrifice of any kind for this money. This money was created out of nothing and I suggest that $172,741 interest on nothing is excessive!”

Furthermore, this system ensures that it is mathematically impossible for the people to get out of debt.

Think of all the trillions of dollars in mortgages, car loans, students loans, credit cards there are out there, and how many more trillions of interest is being paid every month.

“Doesn’t the Fed, the Government, all the Banks, our leaders, all these rich people, realize this scheme has been going on for nearly 100 years?” Of course they do. The rabbit hole doesn’t stop there.

Now there is nothing to back up the dollar. It is based on “full faith and credit” of the government. This means that the Fed, which is actually a banking cartel, not your friendly market regulator, has complete control of our money system. They can raise prices at will, deflate prices at will, if they ever decide that they hate all of humanity and want to see them suffer.

So, what do you think about the meaning of the word “control” from my post now? Open your eyes, and see what’s really going on.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('raisinbran', '
')Before you consider this earth-shattering detail, I want provide some of my perspectives about human nature that may help make sense of what I'm about to reveal.

[Cashmere]

Well, I read all you wrote.

I'll give you a "good try". Nothing you wrote was new to me. I understand the banking system fairy well.

What was your critical point?

Conspiracy?

You didn't support it with your post.

[BigTex]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('raisinbran', 'I')t is clear that many people seem to lack in understanding of the meaning of my post. So I am going to prove right here and now that the entire monetary system of the United States is a giant, massive fraud, arguably the greatest fraud in world history. This may take multiple posts.

Before you consider this earth-shattering detail, I want provide some of my perspectives about human nature that may help make sense of what I'm about to reveal.

This is the foundation of my perspective:

- The main factor motivating the wealthy, influential people and leaders is power, not just through wealth, but power to directly control or influence other people.

- Like with many other pleasures, power breeds the desire to obtain more power. Greed and power go hand in hand.

- Power corrupts, and leads to a withering of good moral traits, like love, kindness, empathy honesty, and humility, and an increase in hatred, deceit, and pride.

- The main, and perhaps most effective, method of control and influence is deception, because someone can't resist something they don't know about.

- Another effective method of control is fear. Threatening someone is an obvious example of using fear as manipulation.

- Another method of control is by seizing another's possessions. If someone takes someone else's belongings then the one taking has yet another tool for manipulation, like blackmail.

- A method of control that is not as effective, but still usable, is the use of force. The problem with force is that people will generally resist, with resistance increasing as the force increases.

- Another process is integration. When operating a system, if the system is loosely bound and fragmented, then it is more difficult to influence the system as a whole with a single mechanism. The more integrated, streamlined, and connected the system is, the more influence that a single mechanism can exert over the entire system.

There are plenty of other points to make, but the above should suffice.

Now, this is not a shady conspiracy that's impossible to prove and too outrageous to be true. The fact that this can be readily proven is rather striking. I learned about this very recently and since then my perspectives on the reality of the world we live in have been shaken, leaving me to question a lot more things about this country.

I’m going to talk about Fractional Reserve Banking, a process through which much of the our currency, the dollar, is created. This process was introduced through the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, almost a hundred years ago. Also, The Federal Reserve was instituted with this same Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Check the chart from Wikipedia that shows how this works:


The process is described in this way:
The table below displays how loans are funded and how the money supply is affected. It also shows how central bank money is used to create commercial bank money. An initial deposit of $100 of central bank money is lent out 10 times with a fractional-reserve rate of 20%. This means that of the initial $100, 20 percent of it, or $20, is set aside as reserves while the remaining 80 percent, or $80, is loaned out. The recipient of the $80 then spends that money. The receiver of that $80 then deposits it into a bank. The bank then sets aside 20 percent of that $80, or $16, as reserves and lends out the remaining $64. As the process continues, more commercial bank money is created. To simplify the table, a different bank is used for each deposit. In the real world, the money a bank lends may end up in the same bank so it then has more money to lend out.”
Further, it states, “When a loan is supplied with central bank money, new commercial bank money is created. As a loan is paid back, the commercial bank money disappears from existence.”

[BigTex]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')hat's because you think it's still a lemonade stand. If your view of the renewable energy industry hasn't changed in the past 5 years...of course it will still look like a lemonade stand.

[LastViking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('raisinbran', 'I')’m going to talk about Fractional Reserve Banking, a process through which much of the our currency, the dollar, is created. This process was introduced through the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, almost a hundred years ago. Also, The Federal Reserve was instituted with this same Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Check the chart from Wikipedia that shows how this works:


The process is described in this way:
The table below displays how loans are funded and how the money supply is affected. It also shows how central bank money is used to create commercial bank money. An initial deposit of $100 of central bank money is lent out 10 times with a fractional-reserve rate of 20%. This means that of the initial $100, 20 percent of it, or $20, is set aside as reserves while the remaining 80 percent, or $80, is loaned out. The recipient of the $80 then spends that money. The receiver of that $80 then deposits it into a bank. The bank then sets aside 20 percent of that $80, or $16, as reserves and lends out the remaining $64. As the process continues, more commercial bank money is created. To simplify the table, a different bank is used for each deposit. In the real world, the money a bank lends may end up in the same bank so it then has more money to lend out.”
Further, it states, “When a loan is supplied with central bank money, new commercial bank money is created. As a loan is paid back, the commercial bank money disappears from existence.”

[raisinbran]

Here's the bottom line of my post:

In an ideal economy, money should be a medium of exchange for goods and services, an intermediary.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm

G. Thomas Woodward, in writing "Congressional Research Service Library of Congress" of 1996, states:

"Money is principally a medium of exchange. Its purest form, currency, earns no interest."

When money is created, and interest is earned on that money, that money is NOT interest free.

Please for a second suspend your belief that things are vastly complicated and nothing that simple can be true. Sometimes it seems we can be very good at analyzing complexity, but we fail to analyze or question the most basic principles that support the entire, complex structure. As you've probably experienced, asking yourself the most simple, fundamental questions can be the most revealing.

Conspiracy or not, my critical argument here is that there is plenty of deception going on.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut they are saying that some of these technologies are going to produce an awful lot of energy or prevent the consumption of an awful lot of energy ("negawatts").