International Banking Criminal Organisation

[ralis]

Actually, he did just the opposite -- he made a point of saying that while your words contradict your stated position he believes this is not intentional. More specifically, he is implying that you mistake branch for root. I have voiced this opinion on numerous occasions, too. I don't bother to maintain a file of references to quote in Internet forums but I did intentionally provide sufficient information so that anyone with the intellectual curiosity to do so could find the details in short order with a search engine.

 

When I clearly stated my point a second time he reiterated with the same accusation.

[Brian]

The main issue at hand is private financial-corporate monopoly rule by the likes of Goldman Sachs and others. The Federal Reserve is one big lever in the overall process, but it's actually the big banks themselves that perform the initial creation of debt 'out of thin air'. The Federal Reserve certainly serves the private financial elite, but the Fed itself is still very much a creature of Congress, who are in turn funded by private and corporate sponsers. It's an intricate web, and while it does help attract notice and build solidarity, the 'End the Fed!' approach really isn't adequate. At this point I think that ending Citizens United may be essential before any meaningful reform can be made with the government, the Fed or the banking cartel.

 

Once the financial monopoly is ended inequality would certainly decrease, but I don't think it would go away entirely, and nor should it, there's simply too much variation in terms of IQ, MBTI psychology types and personal initiative. A more 'balanced' world might be one where top executives or professionals make an average of 10 times that of the lowest paid worker, instead of hundreds more.

 

The whole thing is a house of cards. It's origin is woven into the debates in Philly and the individual ratifying conventions and nearlykept the rerepublic from forming in the first place. We now have a largely unfettered central bank enabling make-believe on Wall Street by printing $84B per month in fiat currency unpinned from reality.

[Mark Foote]

You know, I appreciate that folks here have thick enough skins to continue to provide some facts and some insights based on the facts as they understand them. I skim the name-calling, and hope that at the end of the day we can, in our spare time and mostly for our own amusement, marshall the facts as we understand them and maybe get excited enough to do a little research and share more facts as time permits.

 

That's interesting, Brian, about the origin of derivatives that you give. Can you tell me where I would begin to look for a source concerning the federal government as the origin of these loans, for the purposes you mention?- I can't think of what to google!

[ralis]

You know, I appreciate that folks here have thick enough skins to continue to provide some facts and some insights based on the facts as they understand them. I skim the name-calling, and hope that at the end of the day we can, in our spare time and mostly for our own amusement, marshall the facts as we understand them and maybe get excited enough to do a little research and share more facts as time permits.

 

That's interesting, Brian, about the origin of derivatives that you give. Can you tell me where I would begin to look for a source concerning the federal government as the origin of these loans, for the purposes you mention?- I can't think of what to google!

 

I will post later the YouTube video of the bankers (Citigroup) that lobbied for the dissolution of Glass-Steagall. They argued that their banks could not compete under that law.

[Brian]

My bad! Herb Moses was Assistant Director for Product Initiatives at Fannie Mae rather than VP. He was one of many players in this distasteful game but his role was pivotal, as was his relationship with Frank...

[Brian]

See also: Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank

[joeblast]

You know, I appreciate that folks here have thick enough skins to continue to provide some facts and some insights based on the facts as they understand them. I skim the name-calling, and hope that at the end of the day we can, in our spare time and mostly for our own amusement, marshall the facts as we understand them and maybe get excited enough to do a little research and share more facts as time permits.

 

That's interesting, Brian, about the origin of derivatives that you give. Can you tell me where I would begin to look for a source concerning the federal government as the origin of these loans, for the purposes you mention?- I can't think of what to google!

google community reinvestment act. banks were forced to lower lending standards in order to be fair and gov tells them "we'll make it right for you, now dont worry, now make the goddam loans."

 

but of course you know they lobbied for that. they can only ignore reality at the stroke of congress' pen.

 

and I disagree with the notion that the fed is a creation of and therefore a creature of congress. the fed was a creation of swindlers and con men, of which congress is a creature of. congress merely made the symbolic act of abdication in creating the 16th amendment.

 

 

fyi, ralis, I did not call you a liar....brian read the same words you did, how did he understand it 100% perfectly and you got some mangled hate message? what else you got besides GS repeal, because while it was a significant chunk, it was not even close to the whole picture on how things happened, merely a single facet of it.

Edited January 25, 2014 by joeblast

[eye_of_the_storm]

I don't believe a gold currency would work either, still playing their game.

//

Part X - Politics, Aristotle

By Aristotle

 

There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. Themost hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

I would attempt some system based on the above thought.

That money "was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest" (being unnatural)

The exchange being ones hard work, real goods... of which money represents.

Considering money today has no value (fiat, fantasy) to begin with I would consider all debt to the private international banks irrelevant, + pursue with appropriate legal action for fraud and so on.

Which would probably leave us with an entirely new government... this government would print credits (for real goods/service) @ no interest (nothing is being borrowed)

basically...

Edited January 26, 2014 by White Wolf Running On Air

[Mark Foote]

found an interesting article, interviewing Sheila Bair, former director of the FDIC, on the state of Frank-Dodd and derivatives in particular; here's a quote:

 

 

Since Dodd-Frank, unfortunately, the trend has been to move this activity from the investment banking affiliates, which do not use insured deposits, into the banks where the activity can be funded with cheap, FDIC backed deposits. Section 716 would at least keep certain credit default swaps outside of insured banks. I don’t understand why conservatives would be pushing this so hard. Derivatives have many legitimate functions, but they can be high-risk and poorly understood because of their complexity by bank managers and even regulators, as we saw with the London Whale debacle - so keeping them outside of insured banks and making the market fund them is the way to go. This will increase market discipline and protect the FDIC.

 

Longer term, government policies toward financial derivatives need to be fundamentally rethought. I’m concerned that members of Congress act on these issues without full understanding of the ramifications. If we are going to revisit derivatives regulation, I’d go in the direction of more market discipline and disclosure, rather than letting big derivatives dealers use insured deposits to support their high-risk operations. This market is amazingly complex and potentially destabilizing. Yet Congress keeps showering special benefits on this industry. Derivatives get breaks under the tax code, under the bankruptcy code, and under capital and margining rules. They have all this preferential treatment even though they can be quite destabilizing. I’m not sure if we have the derivatives regulations right, but repeal of Section 716 moves in the wrong direction.

 

But regulators leave the door open to this kind of industry-driven legislative mischief when they fail to finalize the rules and leave these issues dangling. I was surprised and disappointed by these votes in the House. In an area as complex as this, I wish Congress would at least wait for the regulators. But the regulators need to use their authorities.

 

" I don’t understand why conservatives would be pushing this so hard."

 

Off the top, I would say that the conservatives are probably just behaving as puppets of the wealthy who stand to benefit from sticking it to the taxpayers. But we all benefit in the long run if the wealthy take their own risks, instead of sticking it to the taxpayers. Unfortunately Citizens United has pushed the balance of power in our democracy toward the tycoons, and I think the Sierra Club's constitutional amendment is a good idea.

[ralis]

found an interesting article, interviewing Sheila Bair, former director of the FDIC, on the state of Frank-Dodd and derivatives in particular; here's a quote:

 

 

 

" I don’t understand why conservatives would be pushing this so hard."

 

Off the top, I would say that the conservatives are probably just behaving as puppets of the wealthy who stand to benefit from sticking it to the taxpayers. But we all benefit in the long run if the wealthy take their own risks, instead of sticking it to the taxpayers. Unfortunately Citizens United has pushed the balance of power in our democracy toward the tycoons, and I think the Sierra Club's constitutional amendment is a good idea.

 

 

JP Morgan and Bank of America have used their retail deposits as a counter party for sometime.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/20/bofa-puts-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-merrills-derivatives/

[Enishi]

and I disagree with the notion that the fed is a creation of and therefore a creature of congress. the fed was a creation of swindlers and con men, of which congress is a creature of. congress merely made the symbolic act of abdication in creating the 16th amendment

 

In terms of the end result I would say that yes the Fed is beholden to those con men. I mention Congress though because some criticisms of the Fed jump the gun by claiming that the Fed is 100% privately owned, in a technical sense that's not true, it's a form of "hybrid" control between member banks and Congress.

 

In the long run though Goldman Sachs definitely runs the show...

 

 

 

Some argue that the Fed is captured by Wall Street. Heck, I’ve argued that for years! So is the Treasury. So is the entire darned Administration of Obama, and that of Bush, Jr, and that of Clinton. We’ve got the best Government that Wall Street’s money could buy. I agree. That was not the issue I was discussing in the two part series. If the critics are trying to argue that is what they mean by the Fed being “independent” then they can also argue the Treasury is independent of government, as is the Obama Administration, as is the Supreme Court of the United States. They all work for Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and and Citi and Bank of America and AIG, and so on. Or, in Timmy Geithner’s case, for Warburg Pincus. (Literally.) Fine.

They’ve got the Supreme Court claiming that corporations are people, too.

The first order of business when a new President is elected is to choose which Wall Street firm gets to run Treasury (usually it is Goldman Sachs, which also gets to run many of the treasuries in Europe and around the world). Our conspiracy theorists love to talk about the cabal of bankers running the Fed, but they completely ignore the Rubins, Summerians, Paulsons and Geithners at Treasury where there is a completely open and unashamed Wall Street cabal running the entire show.

If you want to call the Fed “hybrid” public and private, so is the Treasury. Indeed, so is Government Sachs, since it not only runs a bank but also holds many of the top positions in the US government. And in the governments of a number of other countries, too.

 

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/01/randy-wray-greatest-myth-propagated-fed-central-bank-independence-part-3.html

Edited January 29, 2014 by Enishi

[Marblehead]

Well, the Fed cut back on its "stimulus" and the stock markets fell. If one cannot see that the stimulus program of recent years is helping only the wealthy then one has their eyes firmly closed.

[Mark Foote]

Shadow Deposits as a Source of Financial Instability: Lessons from the American Experience for China