Downloaded From www.AllSubs.org
Subtitling is not complete. Missing words are marked with #. 17 minutes at the end remain to be subtitled.
If two parties instead of being a bank and an individual were an individual and an individual,
they could not inflate the circulating medium by a loan transaction,
for the simple reason that the lender could not lend what he didn't have, as banks can do...
Only commercial banks and trust companies can lend money that they manufacture by lending it.
Professor Irving Fisher, economist in his book "100% Money" (1935)
The study of money, above all other fields in economics,
is one in which complexity is used to disguise or to evade truth not to reveal it.
John Kenneth Galbraith economist, author
The issue which has swept down the centuries...
and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the banks.
Lord Acton (1834-1902) English historian
Money as Debt II
Promises Unleashed
Anybody here want lemonade?
For a job well done!
You kids are real go-getters!
It's time we opened some bank accounts...
so you can put your money to work for you!
We'd like to open bank accounts please.
We're just like grownups!
Yeah, we have our money in the bank!
Maybe your first experience of putting money in the bank wasn't quite as hard warming as this...
but odds are years later, you still refer to the balance showing on your bank account...
is being your money in the bank, but it isn't.
If we had a deposit box in the bank, the valuables we put in it are still ours.
We're just renting secure space to store them.
In common usage, the word "deposit" means to set something down.
But the use of the word "deposit" to refer to a bank account is misleading.
The bank deposit is in reality a loan.
With the amount in our bank account really indicates is how much money the bank owes us.
It's a record of the bank's promise to pay us money not the money we deposited itself.
The difference is important.
The truth is from # the contents for piggy bank to the bank teller...
our money becomes the bank's money to do with it as it pleases.
All the money in the bank is the bank's money, none of it is ours.
That's why the bank pay us interest, we have loaned the bank our money.
This may seem to be a semantic distinction.
We know, we can go to the bank at any time and take our money out in cash if we want to.
But the distinction is not semantic nor is a trivia.
The distinction is crucial.
What happens if banking affects everyone and yet few of us know anything at all...
about how banking really works?
The entire world economy now runs on a system of credit provided by banks...
and when that credit system breaks down, everyone suffers.
Defaults, foreclosures, bankruptcies, bank failures, gov't bailouts.
To make things worse, the explanations for these break downs offered by the experts...
never look at the root cause.
Namely that other than cash and coins which make up just 1-5% of money in circulation...
all the money in existence today was created as the principal of a bank loan...
with the banks requiring principal plus interest as so-called repaiment.
Not only does this make the existence of money entirely dependant on the existence of bank credit.
It makes the system as a whole bankrupted by design as total # (principal+interest) exceed total assets
for the moment the first loan document has signed.
As the global banking system staggers towards worldwide collapse...
more and more people are realising they can no longer ignore the realities behind banking as it is practiced today.
Many have lost their homes and jobs # entirely unastainable practises of money lenders.
It's time people understood money and the pressing need to fundamentaly change the way it works.
Clarifying with the words used in banking really mean, is the first step.
Now that we know that a deposit is in truth a loan to a bank...
the next question is what does a loan that we take out from a bank.
When we sign for a loan, we give the bank a pledge to pay the amount of the loan plus interest.
In return the bank credits our account in the same amount as the so-called loan.
When we speak of the bank is having put the loan money into our account...
in reality the only thing the bank puts into our account is its promise to pay the money.
What it's actually happen is an exchange of promises.
Neither party has delivered anything to the other except matching pledges of debt.
So who's the borrower and who's the lender?
The terms loan, lender and borrower are all misleading.
The truth is, the two parties have traded promises to pay and...
in the process created something called bank credit or checkbook money...
that can be legally spent as money.
Bank credit can be spent because we in our innosence notice that each time we deposit into our account...
it increases our balance by the same amount.
In fact, unless we put something in our account would be empty.
Thus, it's a natural assumption that money in an account is money someone put in.
The account is a promise to pay not the money itself.
In fact, a promise always indicates the absence of the item promised.
Otherwise why does it need to be promised?
Now, because all bank accounts are promises to pay...
the bank and the borrower can simply exchange promises and...
in the flash of few key strokes a positive balance appears to the borrower's bank account...
with no anyone putting an existing money in.
Now, you know the real source of what we called a bank loan.
Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan,
simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, I Bet You Thought, p.19
How different would it be if two parties just got together in a basement with a printing press...
and created new money that way?
We # understand the act of fraud called counterfeiting.
Imprinting fake hundred dollar bills, the counterfeiters also create new money out of thin air.
Money give us the ability to purchase the real goods and services of the world.
It's clear that the counterfeiters have created new ability to purchase real goods and services...
without giving anything in exchange except the fancy piece of paper
Counterfeiters get something for nothing...
directly at the expense of whoever gets caught with the counterfeit money.
And if the counterfeit money is not discovered, it # the money supply, stealing from everyone.
Counterfeiting is a serious crime and it is easy to understand why.
It's cheating on a basic social agreement, "Thou shalt not steal".
But taking a loan from a bank also creates new purchasing power...
however instead of being considered a form of theft, it is the very basis of our monetary system.
Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing.
Ralph M. Hawtrey 1879-1975 former secretary of the British Treasury
How do one form of creating new money out of thin air become a crime...
and the other becomes standar business practise and the source of almost all our money?
For this is what it happened.
To understand how, we need to look at the history of the laws governing commerce.
Before that we need to understand the logic of the loan process itself.
Anatomy of a Loan
The Motive
The borrower wants to purchase an item that doesn't have the funds to do so at the present time.
However the borrower does have confidence in having sufficient funds over time...
to pay both the original price of the item and the interest # loan.
So he goes to a bank to arrange a loan.
The borrower is capable of making # promise of money in the future.
But otherwise at this moment he comes with empty pockets, that's why he needs the loan.
The Method
We propably all familiar with what happens next.
The bank gets the borrower to sign an agreement...
in which the borrower promises to pay the bank the amount of the loan plus interest...
or in default surrender to the bank the object that it is to purchased with the loan.
This is done countless times every day all over the world.
But there is a problem.
How can the borrower pledges collateral something the borrower does not yet own?
If I wanted to borrow 10.000$ from you to go on a luxury cruise to Europe...
would you accept my neighboor's car as collateral?
Of course not, because you know very well that I have no legal right to give you my neighboor's car...
...no matter how much I owe you.
But if instead, I promised to buy my neighboor's car with the 10.000$ you lend me...
...the situation is different.
You might agree to lend me the 10.000$ believing that I would buy the car...
and will pledge it as collateral for the loan, once I obtain legal title to it.
However, until the transaction is completed your 10.000$ loan cannot be secured by title to a car.
The sequence of event's problem could be very simply avoid it.
You can buy the car and then sell it to me.
The bank can do it this way too.
If the borrower commits to the bank to buy the item why doesn't the bank just buy it with its own money...
and then sell it to the borrower on time payments and interest.
Well, the answer to that question is also very simple.
Because the bank, like the borrower, has come to the transaction with empty pockets.
The bank fulfills its part of the so-called loan transaction by creating an account for the borrower.
The truth is the so-called borrower has funded his own account by # pledging a car,
he does not yet own as collateral.
And the bank, the so-called lender hasn't put up any existing money at all.
And if all goes well, it never will.
Acceptance of the Fraud
The borrower believes the new numbers in his account now represent his money in the bank.
He like the rest of us doesn't understand the difference between existing money and a promise of money.
If you gonna spend it, what does it matter?
So now, the question is: Will the seller of the item accept the bank's promise to pay?
Well, some people may # for cash say yes to a check or an electronic funds transfer from the buyer's bank.
Why? Because the seller knows from experience...
that she can deposit the check at her bank and it will increase her account accordingly.
So, what happens next?
Balancing the Promises
Well obviously the buyer's bank now owes the seller's bank the amount of the loan.
So, you might be thinking isn't this where the money comes out of deposit.
The bank's promise to pay the borrower has just been transformed by the transaction...
into a promise to pay the seller's bank instead.
So now the buyer's bank has to transfer # that's existing money to the seller's bank, correct?
Yes, but probably only a small proportion.
In over the long term, as long as the bank gets its fair share of deposits...
the net amount of existing money, the bank needs to cover its loans can theoretically be zero.
How?
Well, imagine first that the seller has her account at the same bank as the buyer.
She deposits the buyer's check into her account.
All the bank has to do to complete the transaction...
is reduce the buyer's account by the same amount and increases the seller's account.
As both accounts are just promises no existing money is involved in doing this.
What is the end result?
The bank has created bank credit for the borrower to the sum of 10.000$.
The borrower has bought the car that it existed in the world of real things...
and the seller now has that bank credit of 10.000$.
Thus, a brand new claim upon 10.000$ worth of real goods of value...
was accomplished with absolutely zero dollars of the bank's or anybody else's money.
On top of that, the bank gets to have all the so-called money paid back...
by the borrower's on # plus interest or the bank gets the car.
Magic like this is usually seen on stage.
So now let's examine what happens if the seller deposits her check in a different bank.
Won't that require a transfer of existing bank funds from the buyer's bank to the seller's bank?
Perhaps.
But it will almost certainly never be anywhere near the whole amount...
because #, the banking system functions as one bank.
To illustrate let's add another transaction to this senario.
That same day, the seller's bank made a similar loan to a little old lady...
who bought a mega home theater system.
The electronic store deposited her check at their bank.
The electronic store's bank made a similar loan that was deposited at the original borrower's bank.
And when all the various balances were settled the banks didn't own each other anything.
And even if there were differences, they would have been just a small portion of the total credit created.
So, at this point we can say that all # banks actually lend their depositors money is most of
they still need deposits to make loans.
This is because banks need incoming credit from other banks...
to asset their own credit being deposited at those banks.
As long as banks keep their outgoing credit balanced with incoming credit,
they're free to make new loans and thereby keep creating brand new credit money.
None of it will ever have to come out of the bank's pockets.
The bank is free to invest its own funds in corporate and goverment bonds...
and whatever other instruments #.
If one draws a diagram of a # it looks like this.
The interest, goverments and corporations, pay the banks on their bonds is paid by us.
We pay it as a portion of our taxes and we pay it in the price of all the goods and services that we buy.
And there is another thing passed on to us as well
And that's the risk that the bank will go broke and not be able to honor its promises to pay.
Now you may wonder, how can a bank go broke if it doesn't put any money up in the first place?
What have they got to lose?
The answer to that question is that banks differ from counterfeiters...
in that the banks are legally allow to create new money but only by certain rules of accounting.
Banks can only create money by entering a borrower's payments and collateral as an asset...
on the positive sign of the # balanced on the negative sign by the loan...
or what the banks call for deposit liability created by the bank.
When the borrower defaults on the payments, the asset pledged as collateral is siezed by the bank and sold.
In a declining market where # is most common,
the new lower value of the asset doesn't cover the bank's liabilities...
which were based on the previous higher value.
This shows up as a loss on the bank books.
When foreclosures are # as a collapsing real estate market...
much of the value of the banks collateral simply evaporates as home prices drop...
exposing the bank to huge losses.
In truth it's all just numbers created out of thin air.
But banks must adhere to the dictates of these numbers...
and the coincequences of bank arithmitic gone wrong can include:
economic standstill, social disentegration...
total financial chaos, #, starvation and war.
Those who live by numbers can also perish by them...
and it is a terrifying thing to have an adding machine write an epitaph.
George J.W. Goodman best-selling author, The Money Game (1968)
However for the purposes of understanding the anatomy of the loan,
we shall assume that the system is still functional...
and all three of the loans we were looking at will get paid.
The end result is that none one dollar of existing money has changed hands...
but 30.000$ of new bank credit has been created and spend into the money supply.
And each of the three banks gets to collect interest on 10.000$ of it.
Is creation of this brand new 30.000$ really an act of fraud like counterfeiting?
The obvious difference is that the banking system is legal...
regulated by goverment and discipled by the courts to follow the rules of accounting.
Another difference is that there is no obvious victim...
like the person getting caught with a counterfeiting bill.
Banks argue that the buyer and the seller both # they wanted and agree to, so where's the fraud?
And if there was a fraud, who lost out?
To detertant that let us list who got what out of the deal.
The borrower got the item he desired on terms he willingly agree to.
He may curses decision later as he strungles to make the interest payments.
or he may live happily ever after thankfully got the loan.
The seller got an increase in bank credit...
which she's been # since childhood to think of as her money in the bank.
She's confident that she'll able to spend it in turn and she will.
So as far as the seller is concerned she's been paid in full.
She's happy.
So who if anyone suffer as a result of the deal?
Is there another party to this transaction, we've overlooked?
Well, there is also the bank that gets to collect interest on promise to pay money.
That's the business there're in and usually do very well by.
And anyone else?
Where were # car come from?
It came from the world of real things.
Natural resources, energy and labor were expended to produce it.
What if we consider the hidden party to be society at large...
and the natural world from which all things ultimately come.
Because the brand new bank credit money didn't just sit there.
It got spend into the general circulation in the real world.
It's the real world that ultimately gets the new money and exchanges for its car.
This new money might stimulate new production,
temporarely enlarging the economy, making lots of people happy.
In fact it often does, as most bank credit comes into being as a home mortgage,
stimulus for the residential construction industry, big provider of good paying jobs.
However after its initial productive use, this newelly created money,
more basically just daillout the money supply,
reducing money's purchasing power by a very small amount.
So in contrast, a counterfeiting where the laws occurs to specific victims
here the loss is born by us all...
because the real substance of the loan (car) was extracted from the economy at large
by a slight loss in the value of everyone's money.
"The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money...
due to infation imparts gains to the issuers of money."
St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Review, Noov 1975, p 22
To continue our comparison of bank credit with counterfeiting,
counterfeit cash eventually gets detected and removed from circulation,
causing a direct loss to whoever accepted it.
There is of course no guarantee of how much will be detected,
nor any prescribed schedule for its removal.
Bank credit is also removed from circulation over time...
because as bank credit is paid back, the principal part of every payment is extinqueshed.
Now remember that almost all the money in existence today is bank credit.
Therefore almost every dollar that passes through our bank accounts has a schedule appointment...
to one day be paid as a principal payment on a bank loan and siezed to exist.
On top of the principal are the interest payments...
which will become bank income much of which will be recycled...
into the economy as interest to depositors and other bank expenses.
So it's not immediately apparent that...
there is a loss to someone as a result of bank credit being withdrawn from circulation...
the way there is with counterfeit cash.
But if we look closer, we find an interesting situation.
We don't need anything more than fundamental arithmitic...
to understand the power that lies in controling the money supply.
And why is # currently designed total debt must constantly expand or the system collapses.
Whenever the rate of debt money creation falls behind the rate of debt money destruction...
the total amount of money in use will shrink.
This is called deflation because the money supply is shrinking, like a deflating balloon.
The result is less money relevant to the goods and services available.
The less money around to pay for them the prices of goods and services go down.
At first this sounds like a good thing and it could be...
if money were not created as debt and interest.
For anyone not in debt, deflation would be like a general divident on money...
paid in good and services of our choice.
It would be as if money were the people's stock in their own prosperous company, their nation.
People wouldn't have to demand a pay raise.
If a nation were more productive as a whole thus deserving of a raise,
everyone would benefit automatically by having their money buy more.
However this is definately not the affect, deflation has in a system...
where money comes in the form of interest # debt.
More than 95% of all money currently in existence is in the form of debt to banks.
Promises to pay with interest add it.
And as we have seen the principal is created but not the interest.
Due to the time delay between money's creation and its repayment...
and the recycling of interest turnings as bank operating expenses,
most of us can keep our part payments while the money supply is increasing.
However if the money supply or total debt is decreasing,
money becomes harder to earn due to its scarcity...
and fixed payments become harder to meet.
For those heavilly in debt, the money shortage can become catastrophic.
The entire world economy rests on the consumer;
if he ever stops spending money he doesn't have on things he doesn't need we're done for.
Bill Bonner, author, publisher and columnist on economics and money
Unfortunately the psychological effects of falling wages and prices rapidly accelerate the process...
as borrowers, including large businesses, loose confidence in being able to repay loans.
So they don't sign up for any.
Without new loans to replace old loans,
the money shortage rapidly gets worse resulting in a decrease in jobs and purchasing power...
even in the # to the abundant resources and productive capacity.
This # spiral math makes mass foreclosures inevitable.
Prices # as noone wants to spend their money.
Shrinking values destroy the value of loan collateral...
causing banks to ride off huge losses.
Some even close their doors.
Consumer and business confidences is loss.
# economical and social disfunction follows.
"With the monetary system we have now,
the careful saving of a lifetime can be wiped out in an eyeblink."
Larry Parks, Executive Director, FAME
This disastrous spiral cannot be turned around...
unless the goverment creates new money at self or goes deeply in debt to private banks
in order to create enough new money to reorganise and # the economy.
The most familiar example of this is the stock market crush of 1929.
The psychological follow of the stock market collapse resulted in less borrowing...
and thus less new money.
The Federal Reserve did nothing to correct the resulting deflation...
and by 1932 the money supply had been reduced by a third.
Countless people were # from their homes...
because the money to make their mortgage payments simply siezed to exist.
Then in 1932, Franklin Rusvelt became the US President.
Rusvelt's "New Deal" set out to restore the economy by restoring the money supply.
To counter the money shortage, Rusvelt borrowed from the private banking system.
Factories started hiring again.
But only when the war arrived,
# suddently no shortage of jobs and funds available to do what was necessary for the war effort.
It was the money expended on WWII that ended the great depression.
The war also resulted in 50 million deaths worldwide...
and led to a new hostile international balance of power...
with its # arm's raises, #
and sweeping social and technological transformations
When a goverment is dependant upon bankers for money,
they and not the leaders of the goverment control the situation,
since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes.
Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism
and without decency; their sole object is gain.
Napoleon Bonaparte
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers.
There are only two things we should fight for.
One is the defence of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.
War for any other reason is simply a racket.
Major General Smedley Darlington Butler USA (1881-1940)
There is nothing left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper
into debt to the banking system in order to provide
the increasing amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and growth.
Our money system is nothing better than a confidence trick...
The "money power" which has been able to overshadow
ostensibly responsible government is not the power of the merely ultra-rich
but is nothing more or less than a new technique to destoy money
by adding and withdrawing figures in bank ledges,
without the slightest concern for the interests of the community
or the real role money ought to perform therein...
to allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create,
first, a secret and illicit arm of government and, last, a rival power strong enough
to ultimately overthrow all other forms of government
...an honest money system is the only alternative.
Dr. Frederick Soddy. Nober Prize winner (1921) author of Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt
The cycle of economic boom and bust is commonly called the business cycle.
# if were a natural occurence like the hydrological or carbon cycle.
These natural cycles are ultimately driven by the sun.
But what is it that drives the business cycle?
One answer is the supply of money...
and as we've seen, the supply of money is dependant on loans.
So let's look at what happens during the lifetime of an individual loan.
We've seen how bank credit is nothing more than the bank's promise to pay,
which the bank is created on its books to balance the borrower's promise to pay...
...that it has received.
The bank's promise to pay is usually spent on some real good or service...
and allowed to circulate,
making the efficient exchange of goods and services easier to accomplish.
As a medium of exchange today's promise to pay money...
is unsurpassed in its usefullness and flexibility.
However, because no money is created to pay the interest...
# impossible situation is created.
On the face of it, if borrowers had to pay the interest they owe # at once,
they would have to fight it out for a limited sum of existing money...
that was very much less than the total owned.
The percentage that would be unable to pay off their loans would be simple to calculate.
However, interest is usually paid over time not all at once.
If this interest incomes recycled into the general economy as spending,
it can be available to be earned repeatedly.
Once we understand this, the question of whether interest is actually unpayble becomes more #.
Is there such a thing as a sustainable system of lending...
that does not produce mathematically inevitable defaults?
In the middle ages, usury meaning charging interest...
or any form of making gain solely from having money was #damned as a sin.
While the justification was moral, the reason was practical.
In a fixed money supply like gold,
anyone systematically # over all of their loan money at interest...
would soon end up with all the money.
This problem was a big factor in the # of Rome.
Private accumulations of gold forced the government to make coins,
made of base metals instead of the real thing.
Debase currency that # confidence and ultimately decline.
The lesson was well learned.
For the next 1.000 years, the Roman catholic church declare collecting interest on a loan to be a sin,
punishable by #.
In some countries, the penalty for practising usury was death.
Does charging interest really is sin?
Well today it seems very reasonable to charge for the use of money.
There is a simple and unavoidable problem with doing so.
Unless money lenders spend every penny of interest they receive...
in such a way that the borrowers can earn it again, the borrowers are going to come up short...
regardless of their hard work and personal virtues.
Someone will default simply as a result of the arithmitic.
This is easy to picture whether is a fix money supply like gold coin.
As long as all of the coins taking as interest are spent so that the borrowers can earn them.
The same coins can be used to pay the interest over and over.
The lender can profit by buying real things with this coin
but the coin itself must be spent, not lend or removed from circulation.
Living aside any more on considerations, this arrangement would be sustainable.
However if the interest coins are relend at interest...
were removed from circulation by hoarding,
there would be an inherit shortage of coins with which to pay off the aggregate debt.
The situation has escentially no different in our current debt base system.
As we have seen, nowdays # every dollar comes into existence as debt...
with a scheduled appointment to be extinqushed as a principal payment on a loan that created it.
Thus, for all borrowers to be able to make their payments of principal plus interest...
...two things must be true.
The dollar created as the principal of the loan must be available to be earned by the borrower...
in order to make the principal payment that extinqushes that dollar.
And every dollar the borrower pays to the bank as interest...
must also be available to be repeatedly earned by the borrower,
so that it can be paid as interest again and again.
There is a common theory undoubtebly popular with lenders...
that because the bank spend the interest turnings as operating expenses,
interest to depositors and shareholders dividends,
There is in fact enough money released back to the community to make all payments.
However like the idea of absolute shortage this is an over simplification.
Picture what happens if someone else such as you or I or an institutional non bank lender...
obtains this dollar and then lends it out at interest.
Well, now that same dollar is simustenaly own to two lenders...
and # two simusteous interest charges attached to it.
In addition, if this dollar is loaned, repaid and reloaned by the secondary lender...
it is not available to pay off the principal of the loan that created it,
except as an other loan.
So, can we borrow from Peter to pay Paul and borrow from Paul to pay Peter?
This gets interesting.
We can, however each time money is borrowed there is an interest charge added it, that also must be paid.
If all added interest charges can be earned, all payments can be made.
On this basis many economists and defenders of the current system...
claim there can never be a shortage of money and all payments can be made.
But this seems to be a false assurance.
For instance, if secondary lenders capture some of the money...
needed to retire the loan that created that money, the original loan can never be retired.
The # will have to be borrowed over and over for ever, each time at interest
Each # would be #, adding to an ever building total of debt that can never be paid off.
And it stands to reason that for each # interest charge in the system as a whole,
something extra is demanded of the system as whole to pay for it.
This affects everyone: producers, governments and consumers.
For producers that something extra must be # through higher prices or more sales.
However, competition for more sales usually requires lower prices # even more sales...
and leads to over production and saturation of the market.
The end result can be job losses, plant closures and bankruptcies.
For governments that something extra is raised by increasing taxes.
But increasing taxes drains money for the productive economy,
resulting in reduction in the collective ability to pay taxes...
which then necessiates increase government borrowing and additional interest charges.
For consumers, something extra can mean getting an additional job...
or borrowing to pay past debts or paying off debt over longer periods of time.
Competition for jobs tends to lower wages and paying over the longer periods of time...
adds enormously to the amount of interest owned.
And of course borrowing to pay off past debts is like trying filling a hole with more hole.
And that is the situation, we find ourselves in today.
Producers can't sell more because consumers can't afford to buy.
Governments are cutting taxes not raising them, hoping to stimulate consumer demand...
and consumer's real incomes are limited or even falling due to competition for a limited number of jobs.
Therefore any increase in the total amount of interest charges within the monetary system as a whole...
will result in a # shortage of money.
This is because the real productive economy is limited by the availability of nature's resources.
The productive economy exists to serve actuall needs
It simply cannot keep pace with the demands of the artificial financial economy...
which is an unlimited appetite for profit...
and which operates with no regard for the natural limitations of the real world.
The theory that there is always enough money to pay the interest has a certain elegance #.
However by the very nature of the # to be true,
it has to be a 100% true. This is impossible.
For one thing secondary lenders # not banks
do comprise a significant proportion of lenders.
And they add their interest charges to money that already # in interest burdain.
Beyond that, we have a cultural expectation: # was money expects to generate more.
Money that needs to be spent to made available to be earned by its original borrower...
is instead lended at interest or invested for gain.
Therefore, we can conclude that the two conditions that must be true...
for all borrowers to be able to make their payments of principal plus interest...
and thus permenately discharged their debt, those conditions are not met by the current system.
Nowhere in the current system # any restriction or relending money that was created as a loan.
Nor is # any obligation upon banks to make their profits from interest available
to be earned by borrowers enabling them to extinqushed their debts.
Quite the opposite, banks invest these profits to make further profits.
And it's not just the banks that cause the problem.
Anyone who takes their ball of money and starts rolling it like a snowball to make it bigger,
does so with the expence of borrowers who will not find that money available...
to pay their debts except as more debt.
And of course, those rolling the biggest snowballs pick up the more snow.
As the same goes, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Money needed by borrowers in the lower realms of # and productive economics,
moves up stairs to play in the cazino world of abstract financial profit...
and that's a world where transactions are little more than gabling on numbers...
in an effort to achieve higher numbers.
They've little or nothing to do with providing the necessities of life.
Today the largest volume of money by far is changing hands...
in where as best described as the gabling economy.
The # exchange markets, the # market and the rest of the financial instruments...
being played by banks and investment funds for as much profit as possible.
For example the volume of trade on the world's foreign exchange markets...
In just one week exceeds the total volume of world trade in real goods and services during an entire year.
This money is in continous played by speculators...
looking to make # profits on currency fluctuations.
It exists but only in the gabling economy.
So how unpayable is the # interest burdain in actual fact?
That it could only be deternaned with certainty by tracking all of the money in the world.
With over six billion people earning, spending, borrowing and lending...
the world's money flows are at least as complex as the flows of the ocean.
They are impossible to know.
But the direction is pretty clear and simple.
And it's the same old story,
the rich are taking increasingly more money into the gabling economy...
where ordinary borrowers have almost no chance to obtain it.
And the only way the system can stay # is to create more money...
and as money is created as debt,
the only way to create more money is to create more debt in every way possible.
Including ridicously easy credit for unquelifed borrowers, massive government expendures on security and war
and bailouts # banks.
How does the individual loan cycle relate to the boom and bust phenomena known as the business cycle?
The individual loan cycle can be described like this:
First there is economic stimulation because of initial spending,
this is followed by inflation because new money basically just dailouts the money supply...
and eventually inflation is followed by deflation...
as loan repayments grantually extinqush the principal removing that money from circulation.
As long as the individual loan cycle # match up, these cycles can smooth each other out.
This creates a fairly stable money supply that leads to fairly stable prices.
Although continous growth of the money supply is required at least in part...
because as you recall the money to cover the interest was never created.
This is the model on which our economy is currently based.
Avoiding deflationary spirals and keeping inflation at a level that doen't upset people's #
constitutes the art of # the economy...
which is rather narrowly defined as achieving so-called price stability.
However a look at the purchasing power of US dollar in real goods over the last century...
instantly reveals what the so-called price stability has really meant.
The dollar has clearly lost almost all its value (96%)
...and is continouing to do so at a rapid pace.
So, price stability is not being achieved...
# hardly needs a degree in psychology to understand how human nature itself...
# the individual loan cycle into the collective phenomena of the business cycle.
The simple reason # that if one person sees great prospects...
into # doing well borrowing and expanding, others would have a confidence to do the same.
Beyond the merely psychological effects, if one business is expanding on the basis of credit,
its suppliers and distributers will find it necessary to do so as well...
or lose that business to someone who will.
The same # effect would occur for a # look and a company credit contraction.
Thus, is entirely predictable that individuals loan cycles would have a built in # to line themselves up...
rather than be randomly distributed and when they do, we see largest scale cycle called the business cycle...
emerging directly from the cummulative of effects of individual loan cycles.
So to sum up, one could say that out of the exchange of promises made by the bank and the borrower...
society gets chronic inflation and # dependancy on banks for increasing infusions of money...
to pay ultimately impossible interest payments.
This results in an inescepable tredmill of accelerating debt and depriciating money.
The only alternative being a deflationary collapse of the economy followed by social chaos or war.
This # unhealthy situation filters down through society weaking harm on every level.
We are like addicts...
but the fix is not more and more heroin, it's more and more credit money.
And eventually our collective ability to borrow and repay so much credit becomes exhausted.
This then creates the need for constant expansion of credit into new markets.
In essence creating a # to drive everyone in the world further and further into deb for ever.
In US this constant debt expansion has led to a total credit market debt in 2008
of more than 53 trillion dollars which is about five times the total annual income of the entire country.
So is the world at large happy about its end of the loan transaction?
Probably not.
But the world at large has very little awareness of where these problems originate.
The illusive system of counterfeiting and hidden control that is modern banking.
And how about the banks? How of the bank's fair has resulted of the system?
Well first, by putting up only a small fraction of the money they # lend
tha banks have obtained a river of income from interest payments on consumer loans and mortgages.
Second by using their credit powers to acquire a large portofolios of corporate and government bonds
banks collectively appropriate control over government and industry.
And thirdly, due the inevitable defaults and foreclosures,
the banks gain legal title to a lot of real property the world over.
And finally, if the worst happens.
If borrowers default on mass causing the banks large losses
the government is forced to rescue the banks with multi-billion dollar bailouts...
to save the financial system.
And what are these bailouts financed with? You guest it.
More tax payer debt.
# really quite an achievement to pull this off...
and without most of the victims even being aware off.
If you're now thinking there ought to be a law...
well, there is a whole body of law that makes all of this legal.
So how # a system like this ever become the law?
To answer that we go back to England in the mids 17th century.
When plunder becomes a way of live for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themsevles in the course of time a legal system...
that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850 political economist
With the development of better ships and the new explorations they allowed...
...trade was expanding rapidly.
In order to carry # commerce especially over great distances and lengths of time...
written contracts would be becoming more and more important and more sophisticated.
Under english common law that long had been established...
that a contract could only been enforced # something of real sustance has changed hands.
A transfer of goods or rights in property was the real stuff of the exchange...
and that was what the court would evaluate for fairness,
not just the words on the document.
A contract under which there had been no exchange of consideration,
meaning real goods or rights in property was # to be empty...
and was therefore not enforc# by the court.
So a contract in which a borrower say pledged a car...
he does not own in exchange for a bank's promise of payment...
would not even qualify as a contract.
No common law court would enforce it.
As well, in the event of a dispute over a contract under common law,
only someone who had actually provided consideration to the transaction,
in other words, only someone who delivered the goods had the right to # in court...
for fullfilment of the contract by the other party.
This right was not transferable to a third party.
When early traders went off personally on expenditions with trade goods...
they bought those goods at home with their local currency...
and would sell them for foreign currency in the distant destination.
They would then buy foreign goods with the foreign money,
bring those goods home and sell them for the local currency.
Pretty simple.
But as trade became more sophisticated, traders became more # to stay home...
and just hire ships to carry out deliveries.
This gave traders the freedom to import cargos of foreign goods from different sources...
than in the destination to which their home goods had been exported.
Thus, a problem was created.
The exported goods had been paid for with foreign coin, the value of which needed to be spent somewhere else.
Moving money as coins entailed a high risk of theft...
as well as the near certainty of partial loss by currency conversion in a different land.
This problem of payments from a distance was overcome by the use of bills of exchange.
A bill of exchange was a signed order from a payer to an #...
demanding that the # pay a certain specified sum of money to the person identified as the payee.
These were secured by signature...
and they could not be acted upon in court by anyone other than the original parties.
Thus, they're have no use to a thief or any other third party.
You probably recognize that these were the pre# of checks.
I the payer instruct the bank the adr# to pay the payee,
a person named on the check a certain sum of money.
This was all well and good for transactions among parties who were known to each other.
The bill of exchange was used merely as a way to order payment in coin at a distant location.
But merchants soon wanted more flexibility, they wanted to be able to use bills of exchange...
to # payments among many merchants in many locations...
using bills of exchange like money itself.
For this to work, bills of exchange had to be # to and enforceable by third parties.
As we shall see, this was the moment in legal history that gave # to the banking system we have today.
A third party who might have honoursly purchased a bill of exchange...
several steps remove from the original exchange...
could not be expected nor would have the right to show up in a common law court...
and defend the # of the contract and collect on it.
This made third party bills of exchange an unacceptable risk.
So, in order to be able to use bills of exchange as a convenient and guarante third party payment system,
essentially equavalant to money,
the common law practise had to be set aside regarding bills of exchange.
In England, by a series of legal decisions from 1664 to 1699...
this problem for commerce was remedied by making bills of exchange enforceable by third parties.
If a third party had purchased a bill for valueable consideration and in good faith...
having no apparent reason to suspect fraud or some # in the right of the seller to sell it,
then the bill automatically became good and enforceable by the court against the signer.
What did this change mean?
It meant essentually that any bill of exchange would be consider legitimate once it was sold.
Bills of exchange and all other subsequent types of signed promises to pay...
with the notably exceptions of checks became transferable and enforceable in court.
Just what the merchants wanted.
Now debt contracts could be sold like things and transacting business would be a whole lot easier.
Not only that, it opened up a whole new market for profit seekers, trading bills of exchange themselves.
The marketing of debt was born.
The change in the law had another affect as well.
It made # to trick or even force a person into signing a legally binding promise to pay...
and then if that promise were purchased by a third party for real consideration and in good faith...
it would be enforceable against the signer in court.
Ultimately, this became one of the foundation # principals of the uniform commercial code...
which governs the contact of business in the US and by extension in most of the world.
The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C.
US Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966
# if we buy a stolen laptop from a guy on the street, we're guilty of receiving stolen goods, a criminal #.
Doesn't matter if we # on its money and were unaware the goods were stolen.
The court will restore the goods to the rightfull owner.
We as purchasers, innocent or not, lose our money and may even be charged with a crime.
But if we buy a loan contract from a banker and give him real value for it in good faith...
it doesn't matter that the loan contract may have come into existence under false pretenses.
Whoever signed it, is required by commercial contract law to pay up...
and the courts will enforce the obligation.
Today, debt contracts come in a myriad of forms, including and especially loans and mortgages.
It's significant to know that just as these common law restrictions were been removed,
the brand new Bank of England was been established.
The first banks # authorize to create money out of thin air.
The new loss # perfectly, making the new bank's empty contracts enforceable against the so-called borrower.
The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates ouf on nothing.
William Paterson founder, Bank of England
Those who've discovered the true nature of their own bank loans...
and have attempted to challenge the # of their debt contracts in modern courts...
have discovered to their # that this commercial contract law is still the # rock defence of money as debt.
The bank would have sold the original loan agreement to a third party for value...
and even though that third party is often just a sister company of the bank,
all that matters to the judge is who # the document, what it says and whose signature is on it.
The bank's failure to inform the borrower about the true nature of the loan contract...
and the absence of any actual money loan on the bank's part is not relavant.
So, to conclude our investigation...
it appears that modern banking practise rests on several dinstict violations of...
common law, common sense and natural justice.
Downloaded From www.AllSubs.org