Cant you see that dedi is just one of "their" agents Rikoll!!!!!1111

"if it is in the internet it must be true!"
That is for u para

dedi: and you think current system is better, and dont have run away inflation? Ofcourse there will be some controlled inflation even if the country prints its own bills.

BUT. at least you will have complete CONTROL!!!! oversight from the congress etc.
As it is now, the central banks can do anything they want, and you can't check up on them, there is no transparancy.
So yes, I deffinitely think it's the lesser of 2 evils, to have public elected control the money in full transparancy, instead of PRIVATE COORPORATIONS control the society's money supply.

You know that's just bullshit talk about runaway inflation if you print your own money - its doomsday talk from the bankers because they want to stay in charge. It's been shown throughout history that it can work just fine. Actually there has never been so much instability and inflation as with those central banks in charge printing debt money to countries.

Also the part about president appointing the people on the FED board. Everyone says it's über lol, I'm not even sure he appoints more than 2 of the 7, and the rest gets to sit for 14 year terms. Everyone needs to be approved by wallstreet and it's common knowledge that president would never pick anyone that is not approved - all a fkn show for public.

They deal in such secrecy, with no oversight. After that huge bailout not so long ago they had to pressure REAL hard to see what the money even went to. American banks? LOL. Most of it went to foreign banks.

I know dedi is much smarter than me, writes more fancy and has more knowledge about how the economy works, Although i still think Bill Still and some others have even more knowledge. I've seen quite a lot of those videos now, some of them were not so good but the MastersOfMoney by bill still was still the best by far in my oppinion.

I would like to know if you (Dedi) saw that one or any of the others here that are just saying "whatever, you are crazy conspiracy babbler). It's quite important question, at least you owe yourself to check it out imo.

Also I must say this, I feel a little about this subject as I do about religion. I don't know all the verses in the bible but I can still look over the history and the see the bic picture and basic concept at fault and see it is a complete fraud.

But still billions of people believe in it. Same way I see the banking system. We all trust in it, as people trust in the church institution. It's been part of our life for so many generations and they have this authority over us we do not dare go against it.

And their "high priests" like top financial people in charge of world banks etc, set the order of the day, and their branches carry out their will. setting interest up or down, granting loans or not.

And you can't say all is bad either, as they say most of them think they are doing good work in banking industry, as I believe most priests think they are doing gods work and doing good.

But knowledge truely is power - and once you get past that facade of authority and learn about the basic concept, you will realize how fucked up it is, and that it needs to change somehow.

And it's hard to get a lot of airtime to credible opposers of this monetary system because who owns ALL the major media? Same coorporations as the big banks. As was said before, they are now trying to pas through internatinal law that they can close down any internet site they will, that is the final styep for them to cencur global free media. And it sound so absurd also that people think this cannot be true - so they don't even dare to investigate. And those who do are silenced by media or deemed conspiracy nuttjobs by "experts".

That Bill Still is all about facts from history, gives you a real good overview of how shit works. I would love to hear your input from it. Tell me it's bogus somehow convince me I'm NOT a crazyperson, based on what they are saying.

It's like, you can find good things in the bible, it doesn't mean it's all good and we should follow it blind. There are alot of good things in banks and the way they can service people... It doesn't mean we should trust them blind and let them run everything.

I'm pretty convinced of this as of now based on what I read/heard - eventhough I don't understand all the technical parts of economy, I still believe I understand the basic concept and why it's fucked up.

If they say "countries do NOT need to loan money, they can print themselfs", Your response is "but they will just print as much money as they will, and it will get runaway inflation"

But the banks are already printing as much as they want Just look at what's happening with all the bailouts.. that's new money, printed, for the banks. It's so blatantly obvious.

At least if the country is printing it's own money, it's for progress in society, building stuff, not just giving the money away to other rich people. And it's transparant, and debt free!

You are not addressing the question WHY SHOULD COUNTRY LOAN AT INTEREST FROM PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKS??? Can't you see it's FUCKED UP? The money doesn't belong to the banks, it belongs to the people, and the governments ARE the people. Sure you can setup various controlling institutions to oversee the budget and so forth, but that's not even possible with the private institutions. They have numerous laws now, protecting them against oversight. That's even more crazy.

Absolutely concur with the statements about religion and stuff: as I've mentioned: its the biggest scam ever, worse than the banking system (lasts 2 milleniums).
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.” A. Einstein

Never expected to stumble on such an interesting morning read at a Quake forum. Especially thanks to dedi for informative and rational posts. They make a stark contrast with some of the ravings from the conspiracy lunatics. If corporations by their nature are too greedy not to give out dangerous loans and people too stupid not to take them, shouldn't the goverment regulate it more though? I've watched some of these documents but it's sometimes hard with zero background in economics. From what I understood though is that the banks and credit ratings companies created a scam where utilizing complicated financial intruments the risk of giving out loans was transferred from the banks which lead to the 2008 crisis. Maybe dedi can better explain what exactly happened with 2008 crisis and nowadays with Greece and how to avoid that in the future. I'm sure it would make an interesting read.

Why do you still keep calling central banks private? Funnily enough Swedish central bank (Riksbanken) was private bank initially. I also find it funny that the founder was condemned to death because of careless PRINTING of money

"...you think current system is better..." than what Para? I've not compared it to any and have not said it is working well. And I suggested regulation to give some relief to the problems, just like Blaze also pointed out.

To me US and Greece have very little in common on the reasons for their problems. Again I share Blazes view on US crisis. The foundation lies with careless loans which had easy-to-meet terms for initial period, toughening later and causing payment trouble. So what would you do if you notice you cant pay for your house? Sell it. What if everybody is selling? Supply and demand -> prices go down. Well then, what is commonly used as the collateral on mortgages? Surprise, its your house and has far less value now. Doesn't look too good so far. At the beginning when the hosuing market was booming in US, the Asian investors wanted to get their share too... financial world is global anyway, so came the mortgage backed securities into the game. These financial instruments are based on how well people pay back their mortgages. Thsese ended up declining in value too, naturally.

Lots of these mortgages were so called sub-prime loans, meaning they were very high risk from the banks side. Loans given to people who clearly will never be able to handle the payments. What would you do if you were bank? Get rid of these? Remember that market was still good and when market is good people tend to take more risk. First you invest in risk free products, get your payments and maybe try some more risky like stocks next. Hmm, stocks paid off, why not take more risk to get more profit? So there were banks who had too much risk and people willing to take more risk, the banks created new instruments from these mortgages. So called collateralized debt obligations, CDOs. And here comes the credit rating agencies! "These are just fine, you will get your payments". And the history was good, market was booming and the initial terms were good and interest rates had just started climbing, but were fairly low. Well the banks got rid of their risk but customers wanted more of these CDOs that paid well and had good credit ratings. but banks had already ran out of the risky mortgages to sell. Solution? Loosen the terms for new loans, a hobo can surely manage a million dollar loan! Sounds good....

And the culmination of human imagination brough yet another financial instrument, a CDS. Credit Default Swap. The idea was that you could easily manage your MBS risks (if you had shitloads of subprime crap, hobo mortgages). If the house owner failed to pay this would work as an insurance and you would still get paid. But compared to normal insurances, this was a financial instrument with less regulation. It was actually possible to take, in common language, several insurances on the same house. So you can see what happens. Say you got ten insurances on one house and it burns down, now you get the value of the house ten fold!

And all these products were sold globally. I would love to see the engine in the fan that can actually blow this amount of shit when "shit hits the fan" But just imagine you being a bank and making money as the counterpart of CDS (the one giving insurances), you being obliged to pay when Mr. Smith no longer couldn't cope with his mortgage. Or if you were a Finnish interest fund manager holding so much CDO that your fund was actually called "CDO debt" (well of course the name was this, the fund invested in these and thats what customers were looking for...). Or if you were a rich Swede and had heard of this well rated CDO fund that gave good returns and had your money in it. Your investment manager told you this is a high risk product and at the same time showed you a stable history, ALL IN you thought! shiiiz

Thats some sort of summary and remember that I have not verified any of this, it's not absolute truth. Its my view. And I'm definitely not saying this financial system is working well or even that this is better than some other. Regulation might help, but would it make this impossible?

Greece... maybe another time.

Probably not, but if it makes it harder then it's probably better than nothing at all, right? Of course even if the terms of giving out loans were regulated and enforced by a gvmt body, the banks would start a multifaceted attack trying to simultaneously lobby this body to make decisions their way and at the same time trying to go around it one way or another.

Yeah and all this because of fractional reserve lending which is the real killer here. And btw just because you are just allowed to lend out 10 times as much as you have in reserve, doesn't mean they ONLY do that, they got exempt to lend out A LOT MORE. up to 300 times more in some cases, with presidential approval, it's completely run amok.

But think about this, who has interest in market crashing going back to gold standard? Guess who owns most of the gold Getting ready for this transition.
Did you seriously not watch the video YET?? It's a thorough history lesson, not just conspiracy mumbo jumbo.

It actually shows you from history that there are alternatives, but you are as many others, indoctrinated and brainwashed that this is the ONLY system that exists, because it's been (ab)used for 300 years!!

Also think about this, in the beginnig, as you will learn from watching the video, it was key families who were behind the banks initially, but after 300 years the system is so integrated in society that it doesn't even matter if you make them public anymore if you don't change the system itself. As he said, the bank of scotland was coverted to being stateowned, and NOTHING changed. He also said we should not try to focus on individual's in power or 1 bank etc.

Milton Friedman, famous nobel price winner of economics said even if you remove the FED you have done NOTHING, if you don't abolish fractional reserve lending.
That's the main reason why Icesave (the icelanding bank) could do what it did. And what almost every other bank is doing. And sure if all people involved are honest, and banks doing the right thing I'm sure you could have a working system, as in some countries with no corruption. Please please watch the video and watch the history and learn something. And come back to me after you watched it and tell me wether or not it brought you some enlightenment.

Here is another little video about swedish banks from Bill Still.
Where he again emphasizes the 'control the quantity of money supply' and 'decentralization of power in banks'.

I'm only beginning to grasp the meaning of these terms myself, so bare with me dedi

Controlling the quantity of money supply is what controls inflation - and by fractional reserve lending, banks are legitimized money printing factories, Just because you don't actually PRINT them, doesn't mean you are not creating them.. electronically.

And you stated earlier banks were not able to print own money, but you don't think about electronic create own money (which in essence is the same thing). Isn't that a game changer?



If airline company is threaten by bankrupcy, LET THEM FAIL. If big bank going down.. LET IT GO DOWN. Means it was fucking up somewhere, so why print more money to keep letting them fuck things up?

Good idea, don't need taxes. tax are just illegal way of stealing from people. But even if it wasn't do you know what the taxes go to? PAYING INTEREST TO THE BANKS, FOR LOANING MONEY, TO PUT IN SOCIETY IN THE FIRST PLACE.. still don't think it's fucked up? Nice money laundring there btw. "here is some made up money for you to give to ppl, so they can pay taxes to us, that u can pay back to me, that i can go and spend on factories and shit or buying my own island or even country."

Well this sound ridicilous when i say it like that - even if its the truth, watch the movie for history lesson and get a bigger perspective please

Half of tax income in Iceland goes to pay INTEREST on the Icesave bailout... ONLY THE INTEREST ON THAT LOAN! Bwuauhaha. Crazy world !!

"tax are just illegal way of stealing from people." Are there also legal ways of stealing? At least here in Finland, taxes are legal... I think you need to take a breather. And use less caps. Writing style that resembles the ravings of a lunatic simply eats away your own credibility. I'm not against taxes, but it would be interesting to hear what are the alleged benefits of fractional reserve lending to the society, if there are any. Or is it simply a way to accumulate wealth more rapidly to those who already have it? Dedi...?

But blAze, maybe you think its lunacy but you didn't think about what I wrote or commented on it, only in which way it was phrased.

A central PRIVATE bank, lends money (printed out of paper) to the government AT INTEREST. The security the government puts up, to pay this loan back, is by claiming tax from the people. So in an extreme example of iceland, HALF of the income tax for the WHOLE country's population, goes to pay the INTEREST on the icesave fiasco to foreign banks - sounds hot?

Same thing in the states, huge part of taxes goes to foreign banks on interest on loans or to the FED. Need more money to pay back the loan? LOAN MORE MONEY!

Hey, what if they printed own money, debt free... would make a difference?

I don't really have a problem with what you're saying. I commented on the style, because it's hard to take someone seriously if they're SCREAMING AT PPLZ FACE!!11. It's only doing a disservice to your cause.

Is something forcing government to borrow money from private banks though? I mean they took the loan, and now they pay it. Isn't that how it should be?

Earlier you mentioned fractional reserve lending. I was thinking would full reserve lending solve something then. I mean, you could still borrow more than you can pay, lose your house etc. And if banks can insure their risks when lending, they would still give out crazy loans that they know the borrower can't get back. What would keeping a full reserve solve exactly? Isn't it more important to make sure that banks can't outsource the risk when lending, so they stop giving out loans that even they themselves don't think they ever get back...? If the bank must carry the risk on it's own, they probably wont be lending a million bucks to a hobo.

no it's not?? Why should ANY country EVER borrow from a bank? Makes no sense. At least not at interest.


Watch the video about sweden, and there is also the north dakota bank. Actually making money and has surpluss and no debt using this full reserve lending.
But as a bank manager what would you choose between? Being able to print own money at will (and here i'm talking about creating digital money on screen, not ACTUALY paper money, eventhough it in reality they hold same value) or be forced to work within strict transparant budget??

But if a bank could be held accountable for giving out bad loans etc. maybe they would think twice about doing that? Less bad investments etc.
Now they don't care so much, if shit hits the fan they get bailed out by governments anyway. So they are free rolling

I can't explain all technical details, but It works in the world some places already.

Yeah, I don't know. Maybe for the same reason individuals borrow from a bank. They want to buy something now, that they can't afford. Is that wise in the long run? Dunno.

So is it better for taxpayers if country print own money, and pay back at no interest, than to pay back to private banks with huge interest?? You seem really slow on this subject yet it's so simple.

Country can print own money to do some project, when tax payers pay regular tax, they simply take this money they loaned out of circulation, then u got no inflation, no debt and progress. And no big banks taking all money and dictating politics.. sounds too good to be true? At least for the banks and people in power now - they don't want this change for sure

I'm not sure if that would really work. Say that Sweden wants to buy assets in China, but they dont have money. So now they should just print a billion new kronas and go shopping? Would such money preserve any real value? Maybe it seems simple to you, only because you have oversimplified it...

Banks can earn money making sound loans and investements to the public, why should they earn money on loaning to governments? What purpose does that serve public interest? Explain that to me please.

There is always point of failure, but more oversight and say for example such buys cannot be made without majority of parlement agrees.

But in ANY case, it's better sollution than current to give power to banks. Government is ALL you have.

Its the choice, banks or government, who do you want to run your world?

And it really is simple, but instead of doing the run around all the time, can you adress my points specific? Why should banks earn interest from taxpayers to bring money in circulation? You think banks are better suited and more trustworthy to be in charge of the most important thing in our society?

I have never made any such claims. I wonder, if you even read what others write. I'm not an economist and my knowledge on the subject is very limited. I don't really trust neither, the banks nor the government. It seems that most of the time, the latter is always bought by the former...

It's only bought by the former, because of central banking and fractional reserve lending... Those are the issues im talking about, why aren't you

Or dedi for example. Like I'm saying the main problems are those things, and he's talking about insurrance stuff.

And it's not like a monarchy where king has the printer in basement. Idea of government printing own money can be monitored quite good today I think.

Are you saying that no country should be allowed to borrow money, or that a country is making a mistake by borrowing money in the current system?

I did mention it I think. I asked how would full reserve lending change this? I don't know, so I'm asking. As far as I can see, requiring full reserve doesn't prevent a central bank nor government borrowing from that bank. From the documentary I understood that fractional reserve only allowed the bankers to basically start the new bank without any own capital. But these people already own half the world, so it shouldn't stop them. But then I didn't finish the documentary yet...

Also I don't see how "it's only bought, because...", because no matter what system, a rich man can always go to a legislator and say, I give you a million, you pass this law, deal? Or as in real world, their lobby group keeps whispering to the ears of the legislators until they get what they want.

That still doesn't address the problem I'm talking about

That is corruption at its heart, this is LEGAL.