Kingfish, and Broker, while I agree with most of what you are saying. Especially your solution, I fear we won’t see it in our lifetimes. For the simple fact of interest, and leverage. Now if you concede, all money either cash or credit is fungible, and you realize that most of the money in circulation is in the form of credit, and all money is born out of debt. You must also concede that ALL money has interest attached to it. Interest that doesn’t exist. That’s the hard part for most people to understand. THE INTEREST DOSENT EXIST! For an example take some money and lay it on the table, the amount doesn’t matter for this exercise. Now we will call this pile of money all money in existence. Now slide the pile across the table and call it a loan. Now add interest to the loan, say 1 percent. Now pay yourself back with all the money in existence, you can’t because the one percent interest doesn’t exist. However the debt is still owed, regardless of whether the money exists or not. So how do you repay the debt? Now if you understand the fractional reserve banking system, you know that one dollar is generally lent out on 10 different loans at the same time. So the bank just created 9 dollars that doesn’t exist. Now add the interest to those nine dollars and one percent is now 10 percent. Now even though the 9 dollars doesn’t exist it can be repaid, and the balance sheet will zero out. What can’t be repaid is the 10 percent that doesn’t exist until it is created. Next add derivatives, into the mix where trillions are created out of thin air through leverage, with interest attached, and you can begin to see the problem. It is impossible to repay the interest, without first creating it. That’s where the FED comes in, it creates the difference in the form of inflation, and as long as debtors need that created Fiat the Ponzi will continue. I think it’s a crime and a shame but until the FED is abolished, Derivatives are made illegal, and the banks are no longer allowed to create money out of thin air through fractional reserve lending nothing will change until the Ponzi runs it’s course. Unless of course the people see how they are being systematically robbed, which is in my opinion not going to happen. The average person has no idea the FED inflation target is theft. This is proven by the fact it is openly advertised on TV and taunted as a good thing. Don’t believe me just try and explain it to someone, and watch their eyes glaze over. CT.
Yet, if you substitute a bushel of wheat for the pile of cash you push across the table, the interest CAN be repaid by a quantity of grain which certainly can exist, not so? And the cash (or price equivalent in another commodity) obtained by sale of the quantity paid back. Hm.
If wheat or any other consumable is used as currency which has worked successfully in the past can be paid back with interest as long as it is created. But who creates the wheat? And who benefits from it’s creation? The farmer benefits from his hard work. As long as wheat is needed he will always benefit. Also substitutes can be used to repay a debt if wheat is in short supply. Try to pay your mortgage or any other debt with Wheat, see how far that gets you. The game is rigged, and until the people say enough it will stay rigged. What the FED does is control the medium of exchange, as well as creates it. Then benefits by spending it into existence for others to use. However in the creation it dilutes the money supply, it does this intentionally to keep the Ponzi going. It is no different than them going out into every field and steal (insert FED target inflation rate here.) to cover the interest needed, which they spend for their own benefit, making the bankers fat from the labor of others. This would be illegal and the people would never stand for it. But the way they do it, it is legal and so confusing people sit by blissfully ignorant of their own enslavement. As long as the FED controls the medium of exchange nothing will change. CT.
So you concede that a medium of exchange is necessary, whether in paper form (dollars, yen, renminbi, rials, or whatever) and that a farmer borrowing a table of grain and pay it back with an extra bit for the privilege of borrowing in the first place is OK. So the lender is then unjustly enriched because he had enough to lend? Is that then theft as others on site would contend? Even barter, it seems, is subject to interest in kind or money, unless exchanged at that moment in time rather than a delayed payback. (And even then, there has to be an equivalency established.)
First off interest is necessary, for without it there would be no incentive to lend. And NO interest is not theft it is mutually agreed upon payment for use. Like I said it’s hard to get your mind around the Ponsi. The forced use of Fiat allows the FED to inflate to meet the demand for more FRN’s. Due to the fact that interest doesn’t exist until it is created, whether it be wheat or FRN’s. Likewise when a table of wheat is traded and the interest is due the farmer must create the deficit by growing more wheat. This is healthy because sooner or later too much wheat will be produced, and it will outweigh demand driving the price down on it’s own. This could be considered inflation, however the overabundance of wheat will cause farmers to grow a different crop, and inflation will be held in check by natural market forces. Not so for Fiat, the Ponsi has to continue to grow to cover the Vig. (interest) That’s the catch. As long as the Vig. is needed the FED can print unchallenged. Only after the market is flooded will the dollar collapse. As long as the market is expanding due to the need of interest it cannot flood, and if it doesn’t flood it cannot collapse. The theft comes in the form of inflation. When a medium of exchange is required, and managed by the FED. That gives the FED the Vig. They take it by printing the difference and spending it into the market. The fact that they advertise they are skimming the rake, and nobody gives a shit, is what makes it so repulsive. CT.
No, it is not hard to understand the subject once removed from fallacies and errors. And I can offer you my own advice having learned this lesson well at these forums --do not assume your post is received by those with little sight or knowledge. The term "preaching to the choir" comes to mind, and so does "beating a dead horse". Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. The truth is self evident. I do not concede. The FRN's are not freely replaceable, as it costs a great sum to print the currency, to manage and pay for the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, then pay for the printing services and materials, then transport and guard the bills. It costs the "taxpayers", who have been suckered in to the lie, and it costs them again many times over in every sales tax, income tax and petty tax. The "money" belongs to the Federal Reserve, and since it's a private corporation, and it's in business to be profitable, what better way to do this than to charge face value plus interest for the use of its "money"? It is quite sad, really. The private interests have always been able to swindle the politicians into allowing the banks to operate at no cost of their own, while making the U.S. Gov't foot every start-up and operating cost. The entire scheme is quite simple, really. As for "fungible" as you like to call it, the currency used (FRN's) are the only "legal tender", and any competition to its use has always and will always be met with extreme force and prejudice. With a monopoly on the money making business, the FED stands as king above all others. Therefore, not "fungible" in the manner I perceive you've used it. Now, if by "fungible" you simply mean it's something to trade for another item, then sure...isn't that obvious? Also, I do not concede that all money has interest attached to it. As I have already mentioned, the Greenbacks were a debt free currency, as was Colonial Scrip. Now, if you meant to claim all money currently used (FRN's only) has interest attached to it, then sure. You claim interest doesn't exist and that it is hard for people to understand. Well, as you will find with time, most of the people active at the Survival Monkey are not like the average clone zombie. The concept of interest perhaps predates even money itself. The notion is that, if one borrows an item, the borrower then will owe something additional as well as the item borrowed. Making the claim that "interest does not exist" would be entirely false if the borrower actually follows through with the arrangement and pays the lender what is owed in interest. However, I will not play with words or concepts here and grant you proper audience instead. Interest is only an agreement to pay additional to the borrowed sum, and this is called usury when applied to money. It is no wonder why it was so illegal, because it is often a scheme to empower the lender. For reference, I have around twenty years experience studying the monetary system and all it encompasses. You don't need to prove to me that usury is a bad thing.
Points well taken, thanks for the advise. I kinda knew I was opening a can of worms. It’s just that glazed look I get whenever I try to explain Fiat to others. I thought I would try here because I cant see the readers eyes. But I can see now, the truth is self evident. I am all in favor of interest. Just not the way it allows the FED to keep the Ponsi going. They are not only charging a Vig. They are benefiting directly, by also creating the Vig, so it can be paid to them. They do this in the open uncontested. Heck they report in advance what they intend to steal. Right now the FED target is 2% but they will likely steal 3% or more this year alone. Back to interest and usury. Without an incentive why would anybody lend anybody anything? If you wanted to borrow my lawnmower, and I said yes if you trim the bit of grass alongside my house while your at it, is that usury? If not, then if I lend you 10 dollars that I could otherwise invest myself, is it usury to ask for eleven dollars in return.? If so why should I lend you any money at all? What if you need the money more than I do, but you have a history of not repaying your debts? What if you woke one morning with a fantastic idea, and wanted to produce a wonderful new product. But you didn’t have the money to buy the necessary equipment to make it? How would you attract investors? Are you saying no compensation is necessary for me taking risk? What mechanism do you see that could be employed to get people to lend without compensation? Charity? Guilt? Compulsory lending? Government redistribution of wealth? CT.
There is nothing wrong with interest as long as there is no centralized private cartel setting the rates and controlling the markets. These financial thugs cause gold to go down in value then they buy it up and cause it to skyrocket. Then then they sell just before they make it nose dive. It is a vicious cycle controlled by the elite. In a fair market with sovereign currency the markets sort themselves out and any one can benefit. These maggots use false interest rates, false currency values, they print money out of thin air, and more. I'm getting a head ache just thinking about it. We need sound money. Sound currency based on some form of wealth not on debt.
There once was a time when usury was forbidden. One simply could not lend money of any kind for the reason to charge added money as interest. Slaves are made in such a way. One example I like to use is the Picasso reference when I used to try and tell of this scheme. If I were Picasso, and the currency of the day was Picasso works, I would have a monopoly on the currency (the same as today). If I charged one Picasso for every three I lent, at the end of the day I am still the only originator of Picasso works, so the interest becomes impossible to pay off on the greater scheme of things. On the lowest levels it is possible to pay the debt off plus interest, but if the Picasso's are lent to a middle party (government) plus interest, and the Government can only excise payment from the people who use the Picasso's as currency, then there will always be a zero sum gain. An example: 9 Picasso's lent, plus 3 interest owed. Only 9 in circulation at this point, where do the other 3 come from? Exactly, the same place as the rest. Now the government needs more Picasso's to pay off the increasing debt as it continues to demand more operating currency and the cycle continues. This is why every scrap of land and every soul has been exchanged as chattel property --collateral on a debt that can never be paid off. MORE INFORMATION HERE: http://www.survivalmonkey.com/threads/fdr-and-emergency-war-powers-explained.36189/#post-248527
No foul, so no harm Precisely. And I propose another question in return: why should anybody lend money in the first place? No. Usury is only a term applied to currency for its use. Think more along the lines of leasing a car. Once upon a time, before corporations ruled the land, men would enter contractual agreement and invite investors to offer money in exchange for a portion of the holdings and profits. Under the common law they would have their grievances addressed if necessary. Since we operate under Admiralty today and the law of the Merchant, the very use of "Legal Tender" at all constitutes a contract. Most do not know this little tidbit. Also, the very use of unconstitutional currency warrants the advent of codified "laws", which only have the appearance and substance of law, but are totally void of law. This is unique because the entire system --all of it, operates outside the Constitutional boundaries under Admiralty. I believe this would answer most of your questions.
“why should anybody lend money in the first place?” In our current FED Fiat system with a target inflation rate set at 2%, but more likely to be 3% if you put your savings in the bank of Sealy. By the time you retire you will have less than half the purchasing power you started with. Investing ones money is a hedge against inflation. “money in exchange for a portion of the holdings and profits.” This is generally referred to as an equinity stake, and it allows the investors to continue to collect profits on their initial investment, even after the principal of the loan is paid off. The borrower must repay more if the venture is profitable, and far more if it is extremely profitable. How is that better than interest? A savvy business man who knows his product and therefore his business will be extremely profitable, would not want to trade X% of his labor for the duration of it’s run life. Not when he can repay the initial investment and some interest within a reasonable amount of time. Thus pocketing all the profits of his labor. CT.
First, it is a Ponzi scheme when a "perp" is knowingly engaged in selling the idea that monstrous returns will come from an investment that clearly won't yield enough to send profits unendingly to investors; simply fraudulent sales. Buying stock in a company that manufactures or intends to manufacture a perpetual motion machine comes to mind, as well as selling beachfront real estate in Arizona both qualify as Ponzis. That is not the case here. Granted, the unending increase in paper looks Ponzi-ish. The open question is who or what is the entity that stands to gain from it? This whole enterprise behaves like a Ponzi scheme, but really isn't however the similarities exist. No one is going to gain, there's no perp. You can't even point to some mythical cartel, or conspiracy, or some silly island off South Carolina planning for 100 years or so to take over the world as gaining squat from sinking an economy. If the economy goes down, it takes them right along with it to one extent or another. It looks to me, like my eyeballs or not, that dot gov is trying very hard for a soft landing. Personally, I don't think that is possible so long as the scheme entails spending more money to save it, there's an inherent WTF,O going on here, the logic does not hold. It is certainly possible to make an investment that will give returns, but that is NOT what is happening with dot gov. There are no returns to yield from spending alone, and as we see, the returns are only inflationary. As I've said a number of times, the value is constant, as in the grain example we played with, the price alone increases with inflation. An ounce of gold is worth an ounce of gold, inflationary pressure raises the price in sinking dollars (or, par ex., renminbi) but not the value which is based in utility, whether industrial or decorative (neglecting supply and demand pressures.) Show me the perp that knowingly engages in selling something that will make him richer in something other than a jail term, and I'll agree it's a Ponzi. In the meantime, I'll go blindly forward convinced that dot gov and it's "independent" minion (the Fed) is simply misguided and stupid at best.
If we are to argue the value and benefits of profiting from interest on a monetary loan compared to an intrinsic agreement between two parties, then the former will more often prove to return greater profit. I am not arguing simple mathematics, but the scandalous nature involved with usury. If the only factor of importance is monetary profit, and assuming the FIAT currency is in play, then at the end of the day there is no tangible wealth anyway. The "money" is debt laden the moment it becomes "money" because it is lent to the "Government" by a private corporation (The FED) at interest plus face value. Worthless paper is turned into currency with debt already attached before your hands touch it. The "Government" injects the currency into the economy and banks accept deposits and can then lend out by fractional reserve banking many times its deposits. The people enter into contract of loans and pay back, plus interest what they have borrowed. The scheme only benefits the lender on every occasion. The question I would like to concentrate on is the moral relevance of a contract based on the credit of honor and obligation and held to account by common law versus profiteering based on interest and savvy schemes centered around an already debt-laden currency backed by nothing. In modern terms, a baseless economy with an ever expanding debt bubble and unregulated spending, coupled by greedy and nefarious corporations who prey upon ignorant people who have been conditioned to spend themselves happy, is a recipe for disaster. In previous times, people bought only what they needed and invested in companies who produced valuable goods or offered services of quality. If we are to ignore these terms and simply look at the return on a loan through interest, then the investment is never in the quality of the labor of man, but in economics and assigned interest (debt), which often serves to benefit the lender. I believe this is the heart of the subject, the crucible of realization --creating debt slaves from a free people.
First off Broker. You hit the nail on the head! The problem is the system, the debt and subsequent interest is what creates the necessity to loan money in order to stay afloat in this rigged game. It is what I have been trying to get to but you have summed it up perfectly. I was busy concentrating on explaining how they get away with it. As for ghrit: Our exercise of money on the table, or wheat if you insist begins with the premise, that it is all the wheat in existence. So we must concede the interest due doesn’t exist if it did it would be on the table, and therefore lent out with the rest. So if we lend all the wheat, the interest must be created. So a farmer must grow it to pay off the entire debt including interest. This premise is only the tip of the iceberg, because we know that far more than all the money in existence is on loan. If you consider fractional reserve lending, and derivatives. So the amount of interest accrued that doesn’t exist is staggering this deficit is what allows the FED to print. And why the system isn’t flooded, and hyperinflation is kept in check. The fed calculates the deficit and sets a target inflation rate. This inflation is what is stolen, currently advertised at 2%. This is blatant outright theft and the FED directly benefits from the theft. What the FED does is print money and spends it into existence. They are currently buying something like 80 billion dollars a month in mortgagee backed securities. The 80 billion in securities goes on their balance sheet. They belong to the FED, they bought them with money they created out of thin air. The sellers get to spend the money into the economy. If the securities are worthless the FED lost nothing. However if they perform the FED profits. And as for the sellers, they profit from the sale, as well, because they are getting face value on junk they never should have bought in the first place. The FED is also buying US treasuries, so the US Government can continue to deficit spend. Without the FED there would not be enough idiots to keep the Government afloat. Then we have QE 1, QE 2, QE 3, QE infinity. “Show me the perp” The central bankers, wall street to big to fail’s, and especially the chairman of the federal reserve. Helicopter Ben Bernanke, who earned this nickname when he threatened to throw money from a helicopter if he had to. Just to keep the Ponzi going. CT.
The perp I want to see is the one that benefits from causing, or allowing, the inflation that makes it look like a Ponzi. I still fail to see how the perps, single individuals, or cartels, or corporate raiders, benefit from pillaging the peons. Fighting for market share is one thing, but to conspire to destroy the economy has no benefit to anyone. When a benefit (in destroying the very economy that feeds them) to a consortium of competing corporations is revealed to me, I'll start believing conspiracy theories. Ethics and morality are not part of this discussion (yet.) Your last paragraph in post #33 indicates you'd like to pursue that angle. Let's see where that leads if you wish.
From the position of the average citizen, it makes no sense to have the economy collapse. From the position of wealthy families who have continuously benefited from destroying economies, it makes perfect sense. If the great depression of the early 1900's proved anything, it would be indicative of the means by which the wealthy banking interests use crisis to their advantage. If that's not enough, research just how Lord Rothschild gained control of the Bank of England with the defeat of Napoleon. Nations and economies rise and fall, but the money masters will always remain until we cast them out and never forget the dangers associated with private banking. The proof is so abundantly clear, I cannot fathom why anybody with an IQ above 50 could have difficulty recognizing the problem.
When the economy busts the banking cartel buys up companies and real estate for pennies on the dollar or repossess. During the Depression many farmers defaulted and farms reverted back to banks. In 2008 Lehman was busted and bought up for a pittance. When countries go to war they borrow big money to ramp up and then afterward borrow to rebuild.
“I would argue that if it wasn't needed by the borrower, it would not be on the table. The interest creates more than exists at the time of the loan, but isn't manifested until the loan is paid off.” Then you are missing the entire point of the exercise. The fact is that not only all the money in existence is on loan as I type this, but more than all the money in existence is on loan, that’s the hard part for most to understand. Everything is on the table, and then some. Because of fractional reserve lending, and derivatives. ALL OF THIS MONEY BOTH REAL AND CREDIT HAS INTEREST ATTACHED TO IT! According to M2 roughly 11 trillion dollars are in existence. That’s what you can put on the table. But if you add derivatives to the M2 you get 630 trillion. You can’t put that on the table because it is nothing more than an entry in a ledger. When it is paid back the entry will zero itself out. What won’t zero is the interest owed. The loan doesn’t create the interest, the loan creates a deficit where the interest is needed. The FED creates the interest, by printing it. The FED gets away with counterfeiting because the deficit created by the need for interest absorbs the funny money. Thus staving off hyperinflation. The FED runs the game and the game is rigged. What makes it so bad is the FED tells the world they are going to steal the deficit by way of a targeted inflation rate. But most people don’t understand they are being robbed. The system is immoral, the same way all theft is immoral. CT.
ghrit said: ↑ Fighting for market share is one thing, but to conspire to destroy the economy has no benefit to anyone. When a benefit (in destroying the very economy that feeds them) to a consortium of competing corporations is revealed to me, I'll start believing conspiracy theories.. If it were just fighting for market share we would NOT have had the redistribution of the United States industrial base. This is not conspiracy theory at all. This is the way it has been for centuries. Go back to the era of lords and serfs, Kings and subjects. This is nothing new. These power brokers are destroying the United states economy and building a global economy in its place. Like and Broker and I have stated , the banker wins when he repos your house because he just sells it again. He pockets your money and takes the house back. So if he can control your Job he can allow you to pay off half of the contract(when you are paying mostly interest) then bankrupt you and repo the house. The cycle continues. These Central banks not only move money but things like industry and they create wars for profit. Money needs to be sovereign and based on wealth not debt. Currency needs to be minted by the Congress not a private bank which loans it to the government. We need to remove the Elite from control of our economies and currencies and return this control to the people of the world. What we have today is a form of socialized corporate fascism with a little democracy mixed in to keep western folks in the game. If the people knew how far towards communism /fascism the global elite have swung they would hang them all.
Rothchild spies beat the kings advisors back to England and told the English parliment that Wellington had lost and the English economy crashed. Rothchild bought it for pennies on the pound. They do the same things today on and even greater scale.