Fractional Reserve Banking

[digitalalba]

Anyone know what it is? Would you be surprised to know that its the mathematical basis in which the planets economy via the International Banking System opperates, and that there is no University in the world that teaches it? Theres only 3 countries the IBS doesn't opperate in, Cuba, North Korea and Iran. In recent times, Libya and Afghanistan were part of that until the coalition got rid of Gadaffi in Libya and the Taliban in Afghanistan, hmm

A very interesting article by the UK Column describes it http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/bankers-bradburys-carnage-and-slaughter-western-front

I'm particuly interested in the following,

"The USA now has a National Debt of over 16 trillion dollars, whilst the UK owes its creditors over one trillion pounds."

Rarely do you we hear the word 'Trillion' in monetry terms on the news, yet this is quite fundamental to all our futures.

"At the height of the American Civil War, the US Treasury warned President Lincoln that further funding would be needed if the Federal North was to have the resources needed to defeat the Confederate South. The President initially went to the Rothschilds and the private banks who wanted between 24 and 36 per cent interest. Lincoln knew that if he agreed to take loans from the bankers that he would be putting his country into a debt noose that would strangle the economic prosperity out of his country and which would be almost impossible to pay off.

On the advice of a businessman with proven integrity, Colonel Dick Taylor from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln made the decision to print debt-free and interest-free paper money based on nothing more than the honour of the American Government."

In the words of Lincoln himself:

"The government should create issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."

Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865

What a great man, standing up to the powers of the elite.

"However, the response by the private bankers to this sudden threat to their banking empire was swift and brutal as this extract from The Times of London in 1865 shows:

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedence in the history of the civilised governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

On Good Friday, April 14th 1865, a lone gunman ended the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, his Greenback legacy died with him as the private bankers managed to ‘persuade’ Congress to revoke this successful initiative in favour of the debt creating National Banking Act which eventually led to the formation of the privately run Federal Reserve in 1913. Since then, America’s unlawful debt has risen to over 16 trillion dollars."

Rest in peace.

"The real values of the private bankers and the City of London have been exposed for all to see. Whilst hundreds of thousands of British soldiers were dying on the killing fields of Flanders and elsewhere doing what they saw as their patriotic duty, British bankers, safely out of danger and not sharing the appalling conditions on the Western Front, were only interested in one thing – how to make obscene profits from Britain’s desperate efforts to win the war. To say that the private bankers and the City of London have the morals of sewer rats is to be extremely unkind to our little rodent friends. But this is the clincher. As a direct result of the greed and treason of the British private bankers in preventing the continuance of the Bradbury Treasury Notes, Britain’s National Debt went up from £650 million in 1914 to a staggering £7,500 million in 1919."

Cannon fodder for monetry gain. When has a war been a war?

[breadandcheese]

There is a lot wrong with the article you quote from and shows the author does not have a good grasp of his subject matter.

[Captain...]

There may be errors in there, but it still doesn't get away from the fact we have created a financial noose, we have got ourselves into such a ridiculous mess over our greed in trying to control "money", which doesn't really exist, that people and countries end up in ridiculous situations because of it, and as always those in control of it make lots and lots more of it on the back of these people.

[breadandcheese]

There may be errors in there, but it still doesn't get away from the fact we have created a financial noose, we have got ourselves into such a ridiculous mess over our greed in trying to control "money", which doesn't really exist, that people and countries end up in ridiculous situations because of it, and as always those in control of it make lots and lots more of it on the back of these people.

The gold standard was just as unstable. Without the ability to "control money" (our ability to control it in the manner we hope is questionable), our country would have been bust a long time ago. How else would this or the previous government have funded our ballooning budget deficit?

There seems to be a belief that debt is evil. Debt is only evil if you do not have the means to pay it back. If you do, debt is the means to prosperity. Look at those areas with poor access to finance, they are the poorest in the world, with little ability to escape poverty as they have no access to funding for vital infrastructure (plant, machinery, etc). Look at the problems for business when banks reduce lending and access to credit.

On a personal level, take the example of buying a car. if my car breaks down and I need a new one, I can get finance to buy one relatively easily so that I have private transport. I pay for the finance, but I can use the car now, rather than having to wait 4 years to save up and buy one. In our grandparents' generations, this was not the case. You may regard it as admirable, that our grandparents generation would have to wait the 4 years until they had the cash to buy the car, but I don't.

Debt is bad if you cannot service it, but vital if you are able to service it in the future.

[leicsmac]

The gold standard was just as unstable. Without the ability to "control money" (our ability to control it in the manner we hope is questionable), our country would have been bust a long time ago. How else would this or the previous government have funded our ballooning budget deficit?

There seems to be a belief that debt is evil. Debt is only evil if you do not have the means to pay it back. If you do, debt is the means to prosperity. Look at those areas with poor access to finance, they are the poorest in the world, with little ability to escape poverty as they have no access to funding for vital infrastructure (plant, machinery, etc). Look at the problems for business when banks reduce lending and access to credit.

On a personal level, take the example of buying a car. if my car breaks down and I need a new one, I can get finance to buy one relatively easily so that I have private transport. I pay for the finance, but I can use the car now, rather than having to wait 4 years to save up and buy one. In our grandparents' generations, this was not the case. You may regard it as admirable, that our grandparents generation would have to wait the 4 years until they had the cash to buy the car, but I don't.

Debt is bad if you cannot service it, but vital if you are able to service it in the future.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on the issue of credit itself (totally necessary in this day and age for society to function)...what they are annoyed about (and what this article covers) is that people over the course of generations have made vast amounts of money out of the misery of other people. And this has happened throughout every major conflict in the past couple of centuries.

War is a bankers (or an investors) delight.

[James.]

His solution through using this debt free interest free Treasury note appears to be based on some incredibly spurious economics... haven't gone into the detail but I myself can't quite see how he can simply remove the deficit overnight without any serious consequences. Can anyone explain as it's been awhile since I looked at my economics textbooks?

And where does that comment about not being taught in university come from? The money creation method whereby banks lend out deposits which then get deposited and leant out again is one of the cornerstones of economic theory.

[digitalalba]

Theres nothing wrong with a bank charging an individual interest via a loan. That tiny aspect of life has miniscule effect on the nation.

There is something wrong when a banking institution charges our elected government to print money. Surely the government should be in control of printing money and more importantly, the value of our currency.

The monetary system is the cornerstone of our economic system, we did not elect the IBS to dictate such a huge aspect of our lives...or have we??

There is alot iffy about the documentary 'ZeitGeist Addendum', alot of it is expossed on the net, but i havn't found this bit expossed (from 3min50) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_YxNG3nUUk.

The article suggests that the IBS have gained economic control over the government which includes the people who supossedly elected the government to run things, which effectively is fraud on a grand scale. Writting our 'debt' off, is like taking back from theives what was rightfully ours in the first place.

Universities don't teach Fractional Reserve Banking, the conerstone of our economic system. Banks don't create money, banks only use money to make money. Only affiliates to the IBS create money, independent private organistions like the Bank of England and the federal Reserve.

[breadandcheese]

There is something wrong when a banking institution charges our elected government to print money. Surely the government should be in control of printing money and more importantly, the value of our currency.

How does a banking institution charge our elected government to print money? Do you mean they charge the government to borrow money? In which case, there is nothing wrong with that.

Universities do teach fractional reserve banking. Try doing a monetary economics module as part of an economics degree. Much fun and hilarity is had reading those textbooks, I can assure you.

[leicsmac]

How does a banking institution charge our elected government to print money? Do you mean they charge the government to borrow money? In which case, there is nothing wrong with that.

A countries national spending (or other national policy for that matter) shouldn't be subject to the whims of private, unnaccountable and unelected (by the populace in any case) individuals, no matter how much money they have. Whether it's in finance, or any other matter.

[Zingari]

How does a banking institution charge our elected government to print money? Do you mean they charge the government to borrow money? In which case, there is nothing wrong with that.

Universities do teach fractional reserve banking. Try doing a monetary economics module as part of an economics degree. Much fun and hilarity is had reading those textbooks, I can assure you.

As I understand it though , they are charging interest on money that they themselves have created.

[The People's Hero]

As I understand it though , they are charging interest on money that they themselves have created.

I plan to do this also. Who want to borrow some money?

ps you will be paid in fictional money but I very much would like real money repaying.

[digitalalba]

The IBS charge for the services of printing and borrowing money. What they charge is staggering compared to the miniscule cost it would have on the tax payer if the government did it themselves.

Only universities in countries outside the International Banking System could possibly teach FRB. The reason being, is that if joe bloggs knew what the IBS get upto, the government of the day would have to re define their cosey relationship with the IBS or risk being sacked and possibly banged up.

The simplest way to understand this, is that if the many thousands of people that have gained graduate status in economics knew about FRB, the IBS wouldn't be able to opperate that system.

[Zingari]

there are lots of vids about this on youtube , mostly under the heading " money as debt" or something similar

[Steven]

The Chicago Plan, the way forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_plan

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf

[sphericalfox]

May I add my link to the thread about Kubrick. If you haven't seen the 'Gold Story' analysis on youtube, it's definitely worth a watch! All about the manipulation of the financial market etc. back in the day.

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/84390-the-shining-kubrick-genius/page__hl__kubrick

[Monk]

And where does that comment about not being taught in university come from? The money creation method whereby banks lend out deposits which then get deposited and leant out again is one of the cornerstones of economic theory.

Absolutely. FRB is year one university stuff. Don't see why these videos are making it out to be some kind of conspiracy or amazing discovery. The videos seem to need to quote long gone people like Woodrow Wilson. Doesn't say much about modern capital adequacy ratios etc either.

Yes, banks make money from nothing. If anything it's via derivatives that's the dangerous one - not mortgage lending.

[Zingari]

Absolutely. FRB is year one university stuff. Don't see why these videos are making it out to be some kind of conspiracy or amazing discovery. The videos seem to need to quote long gone people like Woodrow Wilson. Doesn't say much about modern capital adequacy ratios etc either.

Yes, banks make money from nothing. If anything it's via derivatives that's the dangerous one - not mortgage lending.

I think this is what most people find surprising, not just because they can do that , but because it's claimed they are privately owned and not government as we mere ordinary folk assume .

Or have I got this wrong ?

edit;

I'm referring to bank of England/ Federal Reserve here , not high st banks

[Saxondale]

This explains is very well:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/macroeconomics/monetary-system-topic/fractional-reserve-banking-tut/v/overview-of-fractional-reserve-banking

[lavrentis]

Theres a good film called Zeitgeist which talks about it and some "solutions", such as a moneyless society which I am sceptical of but it's a good idea and worth a watch

[Guest]

Too heavy

Frictional Reserved Wanking.

[digitalalba]

The BoE and Federal Reserve are private companies, which are part of the IBS. It sounds conspiritoral due to the power they have, but those who run the federal reserve run/own the US government, Obama works for David Rockerfeller effectively, the democrat and republican parties are the same party, just have different names to create the illusion that the voter has a 'choice'.

The simplest laymen way to prove this is that the government doesn't print its own money, and worse still, when the federal reserve does issue money to the US government, the American tax payer has to pay them huge sums of money, and not all the money is created physically, only 4% of the entire US $ circultaion is actual paper money, the other 96% is literally figures on a computer screen. The same in Britain.

The Zeitgeist movement claims that only those who want to work would be needed and that food etc would be available to everyone for free pretty much at will, in theory, this could happen, but that would mean everyone gotta be a nice person haha

I fully understand FIFs point, its soooooo brain teasing, and thats what they want, they want people to be put off from the reality of life because that means they live at the top and everyone else ponders near the bottom. The richest 1% are worth more than the other 99% combined, not that they should have to share it out, more so that everyone can have a more equal share if they want it but they've got to start empowering themselves.

Its quite feesable that all of humanity can have a comfortable home with a large garden and a driveway, 2 quality holidays a year, own a season ticket, run a car, have children etc etc etc all the things we scrape for.

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing†– Edmund Burke.

[Webbo]

The BoE and Federal Reserve are private companies

The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

[Zingari]

The Bank of England was nationalised in 1946.

http://en.wikipedia....Bank_of_England

read it a bit further down

In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited, (BOEN), a private limited company, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are:- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….â€

Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.†The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act.

In other words, you and I are not allowed to know who the shareholders are who own the company which carries out Central Banking in the UK. Some people say that Mandelson's buddies, the Rothschilds are major shareholders. Also the Queen. But the information is secret. We are not allowed to know.

But what would surprise everybody is that the Bank Of England, which is entitled to issue cash, then lend it and charge interest to the government, is still essentially a private business.

[Webbo]

read it a bit further down

In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of England Nominees Limited, (BOEN), a private limited company, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are:- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….â€

Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.†The Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act.

In other words, you and I are not allowed to know who the shareholders are who own the company which carries out Central Banking in the UK. Some people say that Mandelson's buddies, the Rothschilds are major shareholders. Also the Queen. But the information is secret. We are not allowed to know.

But what would surprise everybody is that the Bank Of England, which is entitled to issue cash, then lend it and charge interest to the government, is still essentially a private business.

In other words Bank of England Nominees is owned by the BoE which is owned by the govt.

A bit further down it says;

BOEN is a vehicle for governments and heads of state to invest in UK companies (subject to approval from the Secretary of State), providing they undertake "not to influence the affairs of the company".[18][19] BOEN is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[20] Although a dormant company,[21] dormancy does not preclude a company actively operating as a nominee shareholder.[22] BOEN has two shareholders: the Bank of England, and the Secretary of the Bank of England.[23]

[Zingari]

In other words Bank of England Nominees is owned by the BoE which is owned by the govt.

A bit further down it says;

click on the references link number 23 ( in the wiki article) below that and it seems to contradict that , or maybe i'm misunderstanding it .I must admit that this stuff makes my head spin though .

Subject to this, I can provide the following information in response to your questions. BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers.

BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey. The Secretary of State has granted BOEN an exemption under section 796 Companies Act 2006, which means that BOEN is not subject to the notification provisions in section 793 Companies Act 2006. The exemption has been granted to a subsidiary of the Bank because it is intended to apply only to BOEN and persons on whose behalf securities are held by BOEN, rather than the Bank itself.