The Zionist conspiracy wants another US war

[respect]

I think the comparison that is often made regarding the Fed's control of the money supply is to Germany in the early Weimar period, but people making that comparison fail to appreciate just how slowly the process unfolds here and now as opposed to there and then. As you point out, there is more money in supply now than a generation ago, but it isn't as if that money was (1) poured into the economy all at once, to (2) to pay off a gigantic debt that was incurred pretty much over night (i.e., the signing of the Versailles treaty).

Well conspiracy theorist whack jobs are idiots that don't know what they are talking about. For instance, they often claim that the Fed buys Treasury Securities to bail the government out of debt in a roundabout way of printing money. This raises a fairly obvious question, if that is the goal, why aren't they doing it? They only hold about 8.2% of US debt now and that is after a buying spree. And for that matter, they don't print money.

The Fed's balance sheet can be found here. You may notice that they don't list a large money reserve as an asset. There is no reason to because they can create money. When they purchase Treasury Securities, they become an asset, and the money created becomes the countering liability in the account of whoever sold them the Treasury Securities.

 

[Saggy]

huh..

ignore you go. see ya.

Progress. One small step at a time.

 

[TSR]

Progress. One small step at a time.

.
Then lets take the next step, namely: what proof do you offer that this person is some sort of spokesman for (or even an advocate of) Zionism, or where in this film (or any of his films) he advocates war as the solution to the problems he points out, as opposed to, say, diplomacy or some sort of economic sanctions regarding those very real problems?

Could you please elaborate on this, and tell us why you hate Jews?

Or are you going to continue to emulate your craven heroes who ran away?
.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The usual question with Zionists is 'are they stupid, or are they just playing stupid?'. It's a pity, but it makes no difference here, as our Zionists exhibit as little knowledge about econ as they do the conspiracy to involve the US in a war with Iran.

As to the Zionists conspiracy to get the US into a war with Iran, read ...

Israel ’s War with Iran and The Zionist Power Configuration in America

by Prof. James Petras
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9590

If, of course, the Zionists have not blocked the site on your computer. Excerpt from the intro ....

“The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves. Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime.” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, speaking to US House Speaker, Senator Nancy Pelosi in favor of a unilateral, pre-emptive US naval blockade of Iran. (Haaretz May 21, 2008.)

“It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization (AIPAC), the most powerful group in the US Israel lobby, had never seen anything like. Seven thousand Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite. The three presidential hopefuls (Hillary went too) made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. Three hundred senators and members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wanted to be elected or re-elected to any office came to see and be seen.” Uri Avnery, London Review of Books, July 3, 2008. page 18

In a 2006 article entitled "9/11 Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Still Abound", the Anti-Defamation League noted Petras's assertion there was evidence that "Israelis" may have known about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks but withheld the information from the United States government.[7][8] Petras has called American Jews "Israel's fifth column," a synonym for traitors, goes on to stereotype the American Jewish community "primarily defined by their entrepreneurial capacities," and then calls them "upholders of a doctrine of offensive wars."[5] Petras has also called Israel "the most militarized country in the world."[5]

Petras has defended the 2009 election results in Iran giving "nationalist-populist" President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a 60%+ victory, in a 2009 article entitled "The Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax".[9] Describing the struggle in Iran as pitting "high income, free market oriented capitalist individuals" reformists against Ahmadinejad's "working class, low income, community-based supporters of a 'moral economy'", he denounced the claim that the election was stolen as a "hoax" perpetrated by "Western opinion makers"

Link.

 

[grndslm]

It is true, and it would be quite pointless for it not to be. The Fed's ability to create money is unlimited for all practical purposes. Why maintain an asset account of infinity dollars? They create it as needed.

What is it we were discussing??

False. The Fed creates money by buying assets from member banks, there is no mystery.

OK... so I go to a bank and say, give me some money so that I can buy a house. They say, OK... sign here.

They take my signature and get the Fed to generate the $250,000 as needed.

So the deal is... you give me $250,000 and I'll pay you back with interest.. here's my signature to secure this contract.

But the problem is... the bank never had that $250,000 to loan you to begin with. By Law, they cannot hand out other peoples' money.

So you're slaving away the rest of your life to pay back this house, all because you didn't realize that the money was CREATED after you signed the dotted line.

This is the reality of the situation. There was no consideration in the contract. If banks spelled out the whole terms like this... "I'll provide you with money that I won't have until you provide me with your signature, and if you default on one payment, I get to repossess your house in addition to keep your prior payments."

... Then people would question the legitimacy of their "greenbacks", which would do no good for The System, now, would it??

 

[respect]

What is it we were discussing??



OK... so I go to a bank and say, give me some money so that I can buy a house. They say, OK... sign here.

They take my signature and get the Fed to generate the $250,000 as needed.

So the deal is... you give me $250,000 and I'll pay you back with interest.. here's my signature to secure this contract.

But the problem is... the bank never had that $250,000 to loan you to begin with. By Law, they cannot hand out other peoples' money.

So you're slaving away the rest of your life to pay back this house, all because you didn't realize that the money was CREATED after you signed the dotted line.

This is the reality of the situation. There was no consideration in the contract. If banks spelled out the whole terms like this... "I'll provide you with money that I won't have until you provide me with your signature, and if you default on one payment, I get to repossess your house in addition to keep your prior payments."

... Then people would question the legitimacy of their "greenbacks", which would do no good for The System, now, would it??

No, the bank has to sell the Fed something (almost always Treasury Securities) to get money from them.

 

[grndslm]

The bank has a "promissory note" (my signature), which is like a "secured document", is it not?

LOANS and other secured documents are what make the economy grow.

 

[respect]

The bank has a "promissory note" (my signature), which is like a "secured document", is it not?

LOANS and other secured documents are what make the economy grow.

The Fed doesn't hand other banks money to give you a loan. Bank of America does not call the Fed and say, "give us a million dollars LOL".

 

[Wroclaw]

Banks lend to one another, and the Fed controls how it does this to some extent based on what is called the Fed Funds rate (and to a lesser extent the reserve rate), as well as by enacting fiscal policy by changing the prime rate.

But it's essentially a trickle-down effect for how the Fed's actions have an impact on local or regional banks and their lending policies.

 

[Wroclaw]

The Fed doesn't hand other banks money to give you a loan. Bank of America does not call the Fed and say, "give us a million dollars LOL".

Nor does Bank of America even necessary need to have the money it loans out. Most banks do fractional reserve lending.

 

[Saggy]

What is it we were discussing??



OK... so I go to a bank and say, give me some money so that I can buy a house. They say, OK... sign here.

They take my signature and get the Fed to generate the $250,000 as needed.

So the deal is... you give me $250,000 and I'll pay you back with interest.. here's my signature to secure this contract.

But the problem is... the bank never had that $250,000 to loan you to begin with. By Law, they cannot hand out other peoples' money.

So you're slaving away the rest of your life to pay back this house, all because you didn't realize that the money was CREATED after you signed the dotted line.

This is the reality of the situation. There was no consideration in the contract. If banks spelled out the whole terms like this... "I'll provide you with money that I won't have until you provide me with your signature, and if you default on one payment, I get to repossess your house in addition to keep your prior payments."

... Then people would question the legitimacy of their "greenbacks", which would do no good for The System, now, would it??

This is pretty close to right.

Suppose bank A has no money at all.

Then I deposit $25,000.00 in bank A, and bank A desposits this money in its Fed reserve account.

Then you come in asking for a loan of $250,000.00. Bank A says 'no problemo' because it can lend 10 to 20 (the ratio is set by the Fed) the amount in it's Fed reserve account. It prints up, i.e. credits your account, with $250,000. Bank A 'created' the money. Then it earns interest on the $250,000. Sweet, if you're bank A.

But, wait a minute, you give the money to Y who transfers the deed of the house to you and your bank.

Y deposits the $250,000.00 in bank B. Bank B deposits $250,000.00 in its Fed reserve account.

Then Z comes in to bank B and asks to borrow $2,500,000.00 ! 'No problemo' says Bank B.

(Note: this isn't how it works but I don't know where the error is in the above scenario, gotta review this fractional reserve lending again.... interesting !).

Editing .... trying to get this right ....

One thing is that a bank cannot put all its deposits in a Fed reserve account. It has to keep some money on hand. But this is a relatively small ratio, I think.

Still far from right.

 

[TSR]

(Note: this isn't how it works but I don't know where the error is in the above scenario, gotta review this fractional reserve lending again.... interesting !).

.
So you know it's not how it works, you don't know what is wrong with your scenario, but it's "pretty close to right?"

Still waiting for the part where you show the video you linked to was created by (or accurately copied from, in violation of copyright) someone who has expressed support for Zionism (or some sort of spokesperson for that movement,+ or where in that film (or any of his films) he has advocated war as the solution.

Keep running, Saggs...
.

 

[respect]

.
So you know it's not how it works, you don't know what is wrong with your scenario, but it's "pretty close to right?"

He really should consider learning about it before blathering about it.

 

[Saggy]

.
So you know it's not how it works, you don't know what is wrong with your scenario, but it's "pretty close to right?"

.
.

I meant the referenced post was 'pretty close to right'.

I thought I was going to clarify a few details. LOL.

I discovered I didn't understand it myself. I think I did about a year ago. Gotta review.

Feel free to give the correct description

 

[TSR]

I meant the referenced post was 'pretty close to right'.

I thought I was going to clarify a few details. LOL.

I discovered I didn't understand it myself. I think I did about a year ago. Gotta review.

Feel free to give the correct description

.
Okay, the correct description is that you have not been able to show that the filmmaker you originally referenced wasn't edited in your youtube video, that he was a spokesman for Zionism or even supported it, or that he in this clip or anywhere has advocated war as a solution.

So your OP is nothing but lies, and *that's* the correct description.

If you want an education about economics, read a book, or better yet take a course from someone that *actually* understands these matters, rather than depending on the interwebs and only those sources which agree with your prejudices.
.

 

[dafydd]

The Fed doesn't hand other banks money to give you a loan. Bank of America does not call the Fed and say, "give us a million dollars LOL".

In the Freeloader's Neverland they do.

 

[Saggy]

Got it, I remembered while washing the dishes.

grndslm's post was all wrong ...

Here's how it works ..... a bank can only lend money that is deposited in it, it cannot print money.

Still, there is some magic.

Suppose I deposit $250,000 in bank A.

Bank A is required to keep some of that money 'in reserve', let's say 10%, the actual rate is set by the Fed. It is free to lend the rest.

So, Bank A can make a loan of up to 90% of $250,000 to X, let's say the loan is for $200,000.

X takes the money and deposits in in Bank B. B has to keep 10% in reserve, so it does. But it can loan 90% of $200,000 to Y, let's say the loan is for $180,000.00

Y deposits the loaned money in bank C. C has to keep 10% of $180,000 in reserve, so it does. But it can now lend $162,000 to Z....

Etc, etc, and when it is all said and done, my initial deposit of $250,000 into bank A has generated close to $2,500,000 in loans ($200,000 + $180,000 + $162,000 + ....... )

Wicked !

 

[Mycroft]

Got it, I remembered while washing the dishes.

grndslm's post was all wrong ...

Here's how it works ..... a bank can only lend money that is deposited in it, it cannot print money.

Still, there is some magic.

Suppose I deposit $250,000 in bank A.

Bank A is required to keep some of that money 'in reserve', let's say 10%, the actual rate is set by the Fed. It is free to lend the rest.

So, Bank A can make a loan of up to 90% of $250,000 to X, let's say the loan is for $200,000.

X takes the money and deposits in in Bank B. B has to keep 10% in reserve, so it does. But it can loan 90% of $200,000 to Y, let's say the loan is for $180,000.00

Y deposits the loaned money in bank C. C has to keep 10% of $180,000 in reserve, so it does. But it can now lend $162,000 to Z....

Etc, etc, and when it is all said and done, my initial deposit of $250,000 into bank A has generated close to $2,500,000 in loans ($200,000 + $180,000 + $162,000 + ....... )

Wicked !

You know, you don't have to guess at this. You can go to the Federal Reserve website and read about what the Fed does and how it works. That's a lot better than just making stuff up.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You know, you don't have to guess at this. You can go to the Federal Reserve website and read about what the Fed does and how it works. That's a lot better than just making stuff up.

No see, because the Fed are all jooooooos.