Debunking Money - The Way the World Really Works

[Moretorque]

Rock,
Maybe these videos will shed light on your questions? They are easy to follow. This first one is animated too. Let me know if they answer your questions.

The American Dream - How the Federal Reserve steals your money



Here's the Fox special that Glenn Beck did on it before he was fired. (Probably for doing this special?)

There are a lot of issues here but a group of people figured out by counterfeiting the money and not being audited they could rule the world.

All you have to do is go to Bernard Sanders web site and look at the bailout #'s and if you cannot figure out who your real rulers are or the fact that they are counterfeiting you are not to bright.

There is no real payment involved with this system, it's all an illusion. It's the 5th plank of the communist manifesto installed in America and the rest of the world to move us in the direction of the one world dictatorship.

The oil nations of the middle east want real payment for their oil, not some digits headed to the value of 0 because there real value is 0 and the bankers haul all their natural resources off and get them for free.


Look at the prices of everything today compared to 50 years ago, the only things where prices have remained somewhat stable is where efficiency lowers cost or slave labor is used but other than that everything is way more expensive.

Money as debt 1 2004 is the best primer followed by The Money Masters 1996 and the Renaissance 2.0.

The reason the Bankers are getting away with this fraud is because they know they can, like I posted in an earlier post their Ace in the hole is the average IQ of the populace and they new this when they started this con.

They tried this crap in Iceland but the IQ was a little to high there so it did not work, they need to add fluoride to the water and that may solve the problem for them.

We are all buried in compound interest on an illusion, the bond holders deserve to get screwed for investing in fraud plain and simple.

This system can work and is for the elite, if you want to see how a fake money system can work for the masses go to a Mathematically perfected economy. England granted this fake system for their elite not the masses and they will kill you if you mess with their turf on this.

[Cornfed]

When a borrower choose to commit mortgage fraud by falsifying loan documents, it's his/her fault. Blaming anyone else does not change this.

Executives are employed to control the behaviour of others. That is the specific job that they are trained to do. When they deliberately pressure people to sign false documents, and then accept the false documents as real while knowing that they are false, they are the principal offenders in the crime. Why do you not want these criminals held responsible for their crimes?

[Cornfed]

1. Of course Momopi is not going to deny fiat money system exists in most if not all countries today. It's a well know and undisputed fact. The real issue is whether or not there is an alternative system which would be more economically beneficial to the majority of people. I don't think there is an easy answer to that one.

It is perfectly simple. Instead of money being created as interest-bearing debt by banksters, money could be created as chits for commodities by governments - a demurrage currency - or simply created and spent into the economy by governments, which is what Social Credit movements of the past were about.

[Moretorque]

A mathematically perfected economy goes over how to do a fiat with no interest, backing economies with trade agreements with one another is another system to consider. It appears the new BRIC might try this angle?

We have a middle man who has come in and hijacked the world, they did this by taking over the information and knowledge. Right now the populace is taking a IQ test because the net came on and popped them but their bet from the beginning was the herd would be so stupid they could pull it off and considering the net has been going for 20 or so years and alot of people still don't get it our rulers were pretty much correct in their thinking.

[Ghost]

.

[momopi]

When a borrower choose to commit mortgage fraud by falsifying loan documents, it's his/her fault. Blaming anyone else does not change this.

Executives are employed to control the behavior of others. That is the specific job that they are trained to do. When they deliberately pressure people to sign false documents, and then accept the false documents as real while knowing that they are false, they are the principal offenders in the crime. Why do you not want these criminals held responsible for their crimes?

Because the borrowers who used liar loans to commit mortgage fraud are just as responsible. I've been a small RE investor for ~15 years and I have never been "controlled' or felt "pressured" into committing mortgage fraud.

I could have used no doc loans to lie about my income and buy more properties for flipping, but I did not because that would mean committing mortgage fraud. Is this difficult to comprehend? Just because the government and executives are guilty of bad policy does not excuse the individuals who committed fraud for their own financial gains. This is not about taking a $1 pen from work for personal use. The level of individual mortgage fraud was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (see: Casey Serin).

[Rock]

When a borrower choose to commit mortgage fraud by falsifying loan documents, it's his/her fault. Blaming anyone else does not change this.

Executives are employed to control the behavior of others. That is the specific job that they are trained to do. When they deliberately pressure people to sign false documents, and then accept the false documents as real while knowing that they are false, they are the principal offenders in the crime. Why do you not want these criminals held responsible for their crimes?

Because the borrowers who used liar loans to commit mortgage fraud are just as responsible. I've been a small RE investor for ~15 years and I have never been "controlled' or felt "pressured" into committing mortgage fraud.

I could have used no doc loans to lie about my income and buy more properties for flipping, but I did not because that would mean committing mortgage fraud. Is this difficult to comprehend? Just because the government and executives are guilty of bad policy does not excuse the individuals who committed fraud for their own financial gains. This is not about taking a $1 pen from work for personal use. The level of individual mortgage fraud was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (see: Casey Serin).

Momopi, don't waste your time here trying to convince someone who is brainwashed to point of not even trying to understand what's really going on. People who took out the mortgages which blew up in their faces are responsible for their actions unless something material was misrepresented to them (interest rate, fees, etc.). Likewise, the institutions who tried to profit from situation by taking big risks and had those blow up should be responsible for their actions. But...taxpayers were forced to bail many of them out! We should have let them fail and clawed back money paid to their fat-cat execs.

[Moretorque]

When a borrower choose to commit mortgage fraud by falsifying loan documents, it's his/her fault. Blaming anyone else does not change this.

Executives are employed to control the behavior of others. That is the specific job that they are trained to do. When they deliberately pressure people to sign false documents, and then accept the false documents as real while knowing that they are false, they are the principal offenders in the crime. Why do you not want these criminals held responsible for their crimes?

Because the borrowers who used liar loans to commit mortgage fraud are just as responsible. I've been a small RE investor for ~15 years and I have never been "controlled' or felt "pressured" into committing mortgage fraud.

I could have used no doc loans to lie about my income and buy more properties for flipping, but I did not because that would mean committing mortgage fraud. Is this difficult to comprehend? Just because the government and executives are guilty of bad policy does not excuse the individuals who committed fraud for their own financial gains. This is not about taking a $1 pen from work for personal use. The level of individual mortgage fraud was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars (see: Casey Serin).

Momopi, don't waste your time here trying to convince someone who is brainwashed to point of not even trying to understand what's really going on. People who took out the mortgages which blew up in their faces are responsible for their actions unless something material was misrepresented to them (interest rate, fees, etc.). Likewise, the institutions who tried to profit from situation by taking big risks and had those blow up should be responsible for their actions. But...taxpayers were forced to bail many of them out! We should have let them fail and clawed back money paid to their fat-cat execs.

Their was no bailout by the American taxpayer, I cannot believe people cannot see through this con. The Fed produced a bunch of digits on a computer screen and doled them out to prop the Ponzi economy up.

The people who receive these digits then use them to purchase real items and assets out of the world economy but put nothing of value into it. CON JOB!

[HenryGeorge]

Good discussion, everyone.

Buy yes, there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that the Federal Reserve and the Private Commercial Banks can and do in fact create money.

Lets look at some of the past authorities and insiders on this issue...

Governor Eccles, a one-time head of the Federal Reserve Bank Board of the United States, said: “The banks can create and destroy money. Bank credit is money. It's the money we do most of our business with, not with that currency which we usually think of as money.â€￾ (Given in evidence before a Congressional Committee)

Mr. R.G. Hawtrey, previously Assistant Under-Secretary to the British Treasury, in his Trade Depression and the Way Out, says: “When a bank lends, it create money out of nothing.â€￾

In his book, The Art of Central Banking, Hawtrey also wrote: “When a bank lends, it creates credit. Against the advance which it enters amongst its assets, there is a deposit entered in its liabilities. But other lenders have not this mystical power of creating the means of payment out of nothing. What they lend must be money that they have acquired through their economic activities.â€￾

Professor Frederick Soddy, Nobelist and eminent physicist of Oxford University, wrote: “"There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt to the banking system in order to provide the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth.

Our money system is nothing better than a confidence trick...

The "money power" which has been able to overshadow ostensibly responsible government is not the power of the merely ultra-rich but is nothing more or less than a new technique to destroy money by adding and withdrawing figures in bank ledgers, without the slightest concern for the interests of the community or the real role money ought to perform therein...
to allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuer's is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of government and, last, a rival power strong enough to ultimately overthrow all other forms of government.

...An honest money system is the only alternative."

Irving Fisher, Professor Emeritus of Yale University, said: "If two parties, instead of being a bank and an individual, were an individual and an individual, they could not inflate the circulating medium by a loan transaction, for the simple reason that the lender could not lend what he didn't have, as banks can do....

Only commercial banks and trust companies can lend money that they manufacture by lending it."
And also said this...

"Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which lend, not money, but promises to supply money they do not possess."

John Kenneth Galbraith, former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’: “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.â€￾

Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Midland Bank, Said: "I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that 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 hands the destiny of the people"

Henry Ford (U.S Auto Pioneer), My Life and Work, Doubleday, Page & Company, 1922'' The people must be helped to think naturally about money. They must be told what it is, and what makes it money, and what are the possible tricks of the present system which put nations and peoples under control of the few.''

Wright Patman who was a Democratic representative from Texas, who served in the U.S. Congress from 1929 to his death on March 7, 1976. He was chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. For 20 of those years, he introduced legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913.

Here are excerpts from what he said on September 29, 1941, as reported in the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives (pages 7582-7583):

“When our Federal Government, that has the exclusive power to create money, creates that money and then goes into the open market and borrows it and pays interest for the use of its own money, it occurs to me that that is going too far. I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money... I am saying to you in all sincerity, and with all the earnestness that I possess, it is absolutely wrong for the Government to issue interest-bearing obligations. It is not only wrong: it is extravagant. It is not only extravagant, it is wasteful. It is absolutely unnecessary.

“Now, take the Panama Canal bonds. They amounted to a little less than $50,000,000 — $49,800,000. By the time they are paid, the Government will have paid $75,000,000 in interest on bonds of less than $50,000,000. So the Government is paying out $125,000,000 to obtain the use of $49,800,000. That is the way it has worked all along. That is our policy. That is our system. The question is: Should that policy be continued? Is it sane? Is it reasonable? Is it right, or is it wrong? If it is wrong, it should be changed.

“Now, I believe the system should be changed. The Constitution of the United States does not give the banks the power to create money. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to create money, but now, under our system, we will sell bonds to commercial banks and obtain credit from those banks.

“I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with this Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue. I make that statement after years of study.

“We have what is known as the Federal Reserve Bank System. That system is not owned by the Government. Many people think that it is, because it says `Federal Reserve'. It belongs to the private banks, private corporations. So we have farmed out to the Federal Reserve Banking System that is owned exclusively, wholly, 100 percent by the private banks — we have farmed out to them the privilege of issuing the Government's money. If we were to take this privilege back from them, we could save the amount of money that I have indicated in enormous interest charges.â€￾

Under Patman, a little booklet summarizing his views, in the form of questions and answers, called “A Primer On Moneyâ€￾, was prepared by the Sub-committee on Domestic Finance, House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Currency — 88th Congress, 2nd session, August 4th, 1964. Here are excerpts:
Q.: Who has the right to create money in the United States?

A.: Under the Constitution, it is the right and duty of Congress to create money. It is left entirely to Congress.

Q.: To whom has the Congress delegated this money-creating right?

A.: To the banking system, that is, to the Federal Reserve System and to the commercial banks of the country.

Q.: If the Government can issue bonds, why can't it issue money, and save the interest?

A.: A few clear-headed and firm individuals, such as Abraham Lincoln, have insisted that the Government should.

The late Thomas A. Edison stated the matter this way: If our Nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds, and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay: but one promise fattens the usurer, and the other helps the people.

However, it has long been one of the political facts of life that private banks must be allowed to create the lion's share of the money, even if not all of the money. Thus there is little opposition to the Government's printing bonds, and then permitting the banks to create the money with which to buy those bonds; but proposals that the Government itself create the money instead of the bonds have always set off tremendous political upheavals. For example, Abraham Lincoln set off a political furor when he insisted upon having the Government issue $346 million in money (the so-called “greenbacksâ€￾) instead of issuing interest-bearing bonds, and paying interest on the money.

Q.: If the Government issued more money instead of Government bonds, isn't there a danger that the Government would issue too much money, and cause inflation?

A.: No. It is no more or no less inflationary for the private banks to create $1 billion of new money than it is for the Government to create $1 billion of new money. Furthermore, as an agency of the Government, the Federal Reserve System decides in any case the total amount of money to be created.

Also what came to be known as fractional reserve lending dates back to the seventeenth century, when trade was conducted primarily in gold and silver coins. How it evolved was described by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a revealing booklet called “Modern Money Mechanicsâ€￾ like this:

“It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their “deposit receiptsâ€￾ whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.

“Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.

“Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could ‘spend’ by writing checks, thereby ‘printing’ their own money.â€￾

If a landlord had rented the same house to five people at one time and pocketed the money, he would quickly have been jailed for fraud. But the bankers had devised a system in which they traded, not things of value, but paper receipts for them. It was called “fractional reserveâ€￾ lending because the gold held in reserve was a mere fraction of the banknotes it supported. The scheme worked as long as only a few people came for their gold at one time; but investors would periodically get suspicious and all demand their gold back at once. There would then be a run on the bank and it would have to close its doors. This cycle of booms and busts went on throughout the nineteenth century, culminating in a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The public became convinced that the country needed a central banking system to stop future panics, overcoming strong congressional opposition to any bill allowing the nation’s money to be issued by a private central bank controlled by Wall Street. The Federal Reserve Act creating such a “bankers’ bankâ€￾ was passed in 1913. Robert Owens, a co-author of the Act, later testified before Congress that the banking industry had conspired to create a series of financial panics in order to rouse the people to demand “reformsâ€￾ that served the interests of the financiers.

[PeterAndrewNolan]

And all this is why we are going to have the man-bank and have our own money.

http://www.man-bank.com

[Winston]

Matt exposes the banking scam in the US and how money really works. @Moretorque will love this. It's his favorite topic. lol. Matt also says that the Tacopocalypse can never happen because the money system is now digital A.I., that's why it never comes to pass. If the money system were real, it would have imploded long ago. That proves that we are in a fake digital reality.