How Banks Are Enslaving Humans

[psychoslice]

yes banks do enslave humans, but us stupid humans keep letting them get away with it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Communism's been tried all over the world, and it failed.

There has not been a single communist state. Just because we call places like the USSR or China communism doesn't actually make them communism. Those where state dictatorships of tyrannical rule. The early Christian societies, on the other hand, were not dictatorships, and they were not failures.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many native American tribes, including the ones with established cities, economically were much better off than we are.
Technically, every society pre-circa1600 had no capitalism. Pre-industrial revolution, capitalism was an entirely different system. Henry Ford changed capitalism again.
With a further series of changes, I do see society gradually working towards societies that are more based on socialism than capitalism (which has been happening), with gradual changes towards a communist model provided the socialist society lessens the desire for material things.

I agree that communistic societies can function on a small scale. But when applied to a large society...a whole country, it's never been successful to anywhere near the extent capitalism has.
Btw, the Native Americastanian low technology subsistence approach is one which dooms them to being conquered.

 

[Revoltingest]

There has not been a single communist state. Just because we call places like the USSR or China communism doesn't actually make them communism. Those where state dictatorships of tyrannical rule. The early Christian societies, on the other hand, were not dictatorships, and they were not failures.

Whatever the name, communism has either not yet even been tried in a country, or it's failed. Countries have had to employ capitalism to avoid starvation (PRC, USSR). This confirms that it's an unworkable or at best unstable system. What you really want is a welfare state fueled by capitalism.

 

[Stevicus]

That's merely a policy applied to capitalism, not an alternative to it.

So...?

 

[Revoltingest]

So...?

It's a response to a conversation beginning with post #115, ie, a request for a viable alternative to capitalism.

 

[Stevicus]

Communism's been tried all over the world, and it failed.

Actually, if you look at the historical situations faced by countries commonly associated with "communism," they clearly improved from their previous capitalist regimes. Russia and China had especially improved after throwing out their pre-revolutionary capitalist regimes, and both of those countries had grown more powerful than the United States.

In fact, when you take a look at capitalism around the world, one can cite numerous examples of failed states throughout Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Apart from the USA and NATO (which aren't even really "capitalist," according to capitalists), the rest of the non-communist world is pretty much a dismal state of human misery. And they'll eventually drag us down with them, as our government has been in a panic since 1945, desperately sending troops worldwide to prop up failed regimes all over the place.

That's capitalism, and I suppose it "works," as long as one doesn't mind blood on one's money. But I suppose all money has blood on it.

 

[Stevicus]

It's a response to a conversation beginning with post #115, ie, a request for a viable alternative to capitalism.

Are you telling me that you're really interested in a reasonable conversation on this issue?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you telling me that you're really interested in a reasonable conversation on this issue?

Are you?
I asked for an alternative to capitalism, & you responded with Keynes's flavor of capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Related to banking......
Citi Economist Says It Might Be Time to Abolish Cash - Bloomberg Business

I like cash. It leaves no trail. It feels good, & it's fun.
Abolish or tax currency?
This gives me dark thoughts....knives into eye sockets.

 

[Stevicus]

Are you?
I asked for an alternative to capitalism, & you responded with Keynes's flavor of capitalism.

That's because you're ostensibly misinterpreting my criticisms of capitalism as a desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm not advocating that. You seem to think of capitalism as an unchanging, rigid ideology where I either have to swallow the whole enchilada or come up with a completely different alternative.

Therefore, your request for an alternative to capitalism and your subsequent response did not appear reasonable in the context of the discussion we've been having.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's because you're ostensibly misinterpreting my criticisms of capitalism as a desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm not advocating that. You seem to think of capitalism as an unchanging, rigid ideology where I either have to swallow the whole enchilada or come up with a completely different alternative.

Well that explains your being miffed.
I don't think capitalism is an ideology at all.
It's just a name for a kind of economic system.

 

[Stevicus]

Well that explains your being miffed.
I don't think capitalism is an ideology at all.
It's just a name for a kind of economic system.

If it's not an ideology, then why does it have to have a name? Why not just call it the "economic system"?

 

[Curious George]

First of all, whenever you take out a loan you are basically signing a contract to the bank that you will be her slave and she will be your master.

Banks give out loans that basically it doesn't have. For example if the bank has in cash form $5 million , it can loan up to $20 million. The government can raise or lower the limits. But as we all know banks have a big say in government, so it becomes just a whole big circle.



Algebraic equations:



$=Work

Work=Time x Energy



When the bank gives four people $5 million dollars each, that is fake $15 million thrown into the economy. This is money that doesn't really exist. It is like a master telling his slave to do something under the name of the master.



If $1 million= 1 unit of Work(W), then $ 20 million= 20 units of W



Initially the bank had 5 units of work, but assigned 15 units of work to 4 people by taking loans from the bank. That 15 units of work is basically giving work orders to its enslaved population who opt in for this kind of institution. The government helps in a way to force people to opt in for loan receiving.



Nevertheless, the 4 people will go out to work to create a profit and repay back the money it took from the bank and not only that but additional interest. What a heinous prank this is on the public. Not only they are paying back the 5 units of Work the bank originally carried(not even owned), but also the extra 15 units of work and an addition probably 4 units because of interest.



So at the end the bank clears out with 24 units of work, profit=19 units of work they received from their slaves.





Lets say one of their slaves wasn't able to pay back the units of work, the bank with the enforcement of the law can seize your previous owned articles without your consent.



In the end the bank doesn't lose anything but gains a lot.



It is a legalized form of Slavery!

Bad math.

Bank has 5x bank loans 20x to people A-D. Persons A-D spend 20x at vendors E-H. And begin paying back bank. Bank has issued 20x in credit which vendors E-H can draw upon. A-D. Pay interest sure but the only extra money bank gets is the interest. In the end the bank doesn't lose anything because doing so would be a bad investment.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it's not an ideology, then why does it have to have a name? Why not just call it the "economic system"?

This is an odd objection, but I'll bite....

1) Names are useful for describing many things, not just ideologies.
2) Many systems aren't ideologies, & they have names, eg, "property management system".
(This is the origin of a software product called "PMS", which I use.)
3) To call it "the economic system" has problems....
- "The" implies that it's singular. But it isn't, since there are other economic systems.
- "Economic system" doesn't specify which of several economic systems is being designated.

 

[Curious George]

Very good question!

It all really depends on the environment. Just think about it for a minute. If your father dies and you inherit from him a 1 million dollar home. Am guessing you will not be able to live in that home because you will not be able to pay 30,000 tax/yearly on the property. So basically the property you inherited is actually not yours. Bare with me..

If that property your inherited is not yours who owns it actually? the ans: government.

A better environment which makes it easier for newly couples to acquire a property would be to eliminate property taxes as a whole. This will give a chance for young couple to inherit money/property from their parents.

Another solution is for the government to provide the basic needs for survival. Example: Shelter, water, food, clothing, and electricity. I believe those are rights and not privilege.

Another horrible assessment.

If u cannot afford the taxes you sell. If you choose not to sell the government takes you to court and a judgment is issued against you. They can seize your assets, one of which is that house and sell it. However, any excess over the judgement amount goes to you. Why? Because you did own the house, not the government.

 

[Stevicus]

This is an odd objection, but I'll bite....

1) Names are useful for describing many things, not just ideologies.
2) Many systems aren't ideologies, & they have names, eg, "property management system".
(This is the origin of a software product called "PMS", which I use.)
3) To call it "the economic system" has problems....
- "The" implies that it's singular. But it isn't, since there are other economic systems.
- "Economic system" doesn't specify which of several economic systems is being designated.

The point you're missing here is that the economic system is merely reflection of the political system. Economics is politics, and when you put forth your opinion/philosophy as to what form of economic system produces what you perceive to be the most favorable result, then that's a political stance which would put it in the realm of ideology.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point you're missing here is that the economic system is merely reflection of the political system.

I advocate political agendas in order to improve economic performance.
But you think I missed this, eh?
Oh, well....if you say so.

 

[Curious George]

Yes slavery is working for 20-30 years to pay off a debt.

A debt you chose. This is nonsense. If I pay you in advance to build me a house, you are must work to fulfill your end of the bargain. If that house is so elaborate that it takes 20-30 years I did not purchase you as my slave for that amount of time. Never mind the whole concept of debtors rights; never mind bankruptcy. Slaves are very much different than a debtors returning money that he/she borrowed, and money of which he/she received the benefit.

 

[Curious George]

The way Banks enslave humans is by creating more debt than there is actual money, thus ensuring many, many people always have to do something to pay off said debt.

Here's how it works (at least in America), translated from Bankese to English from my personal copy of the Federal Reserve's Modern Money Mechanics.

Now when the US Government decides that it needs some money, it calls up the Federal Reserve and requests - let's say - 10 Billion Dollars. The Fed agrees to this by buying 10 Billion in Government Bonds from the US Gov. The US Gov sends the Bonds and the Federal Reserve prints what they call Federal Reserve Notes. The US Government places these Federal Reserve notes into a bank account, and upon doing so, they become Dollars to the tune of 10 Billion.

All of this happens electronically.

Now a Government Bond is, fundamentally, debt. When the Government gives the Federal Reserve these bonds, they are in effect promising to pay back the 10 Billion in Federal Reserve Notes (note: Reserve Notes are not considered Dollars until deposited in a Bank Account).

In other words, the money was created at a debt.

Now according to the Fractional Reserve System, that 10 Billion Dollars has become part of the Bank's Reserves (just as all deposits do - even your money). And regarding Fractional Reserve requirements:

"A bank must maintain legally required reserves, in the form of vault cash and/or deposits at its Federal Reserve Bank, equal to a prescribed percentage of its deposits." - Modern Money Mechanics.


It then goes on to say:

"Under current regulations, the reserve requirements against most transactions is 10 Percent." - Modern Money Mechanics

This means that out of that 10 Billion Dollars, 1 Billion is considered 'Required Reserve' while the other 9 Billion is considered 'Excessive Reserve' and can be used as the basis for new loans.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that this 9 Billion dollars is coming from the existing 10 billion dollar deposit, but this is actually not the case.

What really happens is that the 9 billion dollars is created from nothing on top of the existing 10 billion dollar deposit ($19,000,000,000) and this is how the money supply is expanded.

"Of course they [The Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts." - Modern Money Mechanics.

Simply put, the 9 Billion Dollars can be created from nothing simply because there is a demand for such a loan, and the reserves satisfy the Fractional Reserve System's requirements.

So what happen if someone were to borrow this newly created 9 Billion? They would most likely put it in their own bank account. The process then repeats as now that 9 Billion has become part of the Bank's reserves. 10% and the remaining 90% (or 8.1 billion) is then made available as newly created money available for loans. And, of course, that 8.1 Billion can be loaned out to create an addition 7.2 Billion and on and on and on.

This process can go on forever. Theoretically 90 Billion dollars can be created on top of the original 10 Billion. In other words, for every deposit made within the Banking system, nine times that amount can be created from nothing.

So that's how the Fractional Reserve System works. But this raises an interesting question: What gives this newly created money value?

The answer is: the money that already exists.

The new money leeches value from the existing money supply because the pool of money is being increased irrespective to the demands for goods or services and, as supply and demand find an equilibrium, the prices of goods and services rise lowering the purchasing power of every dollar.

This is what we call 'Inflation', which is essentially a hidden tax on the public. This is why you always hear bankers talking about inflating the currency, or lower the interest rates etc. But how can you expect to solve the problem of inflation with inflation? You can't.

The Fractional Reserve System and monetary expansion is inherently inflationary because the act of expanding the money supply, without a corresponding expansion of goods and services, will always debase the currency and cause inflation. So $1 in 1913 would require $21.13 in 2007 to match it's value. A 96% devaluation.

Now if you're thinking, but that's ridiculous! You haven't heard anything yet.

In America, Money is Debt and Debt is Money. If you examine the National Debt in relation to the increase of the Money Supply in America over the years, you'll find a corresponding increase in both because the more money there is, the more debt there is, and the more debt there is, the more money there is.

So every single dollar in your wallet and bank account is owed to someone by someone. And if everyone paid off their debts, including the Government, there wouldn't be a single dollar left in circulation.

There's only one time in history when America paid off its national debt, and that was after President Jackson shut down the Central Bank that preceded the Federal Reserve in 1835. That was pretty much Jackson's entire campaign.

"The bold efforts the bank has made to control Government, are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into the perpetuation of this institution, or the establishment of another like it." - Andrew Jackson, 1835.

So all money is debt, and this causes people to compete for labour to pool enough money out of the money supply to cover their cost of living.

But that's not all...

Now when the Government borrows money from the Federal Reserve, or a person borrows money from the Bank, it almost always has to be paid back with a crude interest. Almost every single dollar that exists must eventually be returned to a bank with interest paid as well.

But if all money is borrowed from the Fed, and that money is expanded in commercial banking through loans, only the 'Principal' is being created in the money supply. So where is the money to cover all of the interest that is charged?

It doesn't exist.

This means that the amount of money owed back to the Banks (and Federal Reserve) will always exceed the amount of money that actually exists. This is why inflation is a constant in the US economy. New money is always needed to cover the perpetual debt created by the need to pay the interest.

In short, there isn't enough money in existence to pay back the US National Debt because any attempt to pay back the debt creates more debt with interest.

This also means that defaults, bankruptcy, housing repossessions are inherently built into the system, and there will always be poor people. It's like musical chairs.

And that's how the US Money system works.

Despite the bias, I agree with all but the suggestion poverty is built into the system. Excluding that leap in logic, what is the problem?