It's no surprise, daggett, that your thread on 9/11 is so long.

>>If Pericles was not aware of the largest single forum thus far to have been held on OLO -- "9/11"<<

You single-handedly kept the discussion going, long after all logic and reality had fled.

Much as you are doing here.

There is no conspiracy.

Just Bankers doing their job. Somewhat badly, in recent years, it is true. Which I have never argued to the contrary.

But the system itself is well-established and transparent. You may not like what they do, and that is your prerogative. But just because you personally don't like it - and, dare I suggest, don't actually understand it - that doesn't indicate the presence of a massive international conspiracy.

Fickle Pickle, you are a worry.

>>Pericles argues that credit money is NOT money from nothing but is money backed by assets<<

I maintain that the practice of a Bank keeping a particular level of reserves against the loans that it makes, is not "creating money from nothing".

As proof, I can review the balance sheets of that Bank and see both sides, Assets and Liabilities, plus the fact that they balance.

If your argument is that the level of prudential reserves should be 100%, that's fine. While satisfyingly conservative, it would stifle growth and drive the economy into recession.

If your argument is that only the government should be allowed to lend to the people, that is fine too. But is a political argument, that rests entirely upon your view of the government's role in our lives.

But Fractional Banking is not synonymous with the creation of money out of thin air. It simply governs the amount of credit that a bank is allowed to provide, which is always balanced against another source of funds.

But how does this work?

>>The banks should be allowed to "write off" the zero interest loans and not write off from their reserves if the loans are not repaid<<

What are they "written off" against?

Come to that, what does the term "written off" mean, in your world?

(continuedfromabove)

Q. It can credit the account of the individual bank by making a loan to the bank?
A. Yes, sir, this is a loan that is repaid.


Q. And when the Federal Reserve bank makes the loan or that credit first comes into existence, is when they manufacture it on the books?
A. It is a credit to their reserve?

Q. And it first comes into existence at that time?
A. These are temporary loans.

Q. And it doesn't make any difference if it is temporary or long term, the first time it comes into existence is when it is credited on the books of the bank?
A. Yes, sir.

---

Of course it comes as no surprise that Pericles has, yet again, attempted to avoid discussion of the evidence by trying to divert the discussion into subsidiary issues---and on another thread at that---such as attributing blame for the length of that thread.

Actually, Pericles, the 9/11 Truth discussion was kept alive by quite a few others as well as myself, including some who disingenuously claimed to have no interest in the topic and repeatedly promised to leave only to subsequently poke their noses back in when they thought they saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot at me.

I only mentioned the discussion's length in order to try to establish whether you had truly been unaware of it through its eight months of existence. It strikes me as intellectual cowardice to have not joined in at the time and then attempt to drag 9/11 into this discussion, seemingly as a red herring.

Pericles wrote, "There is no conspiracy."

I have already shown that a number of credible and authoritative historical figures believed that there is, including Bismarck and Woodrow Wilson. I could easily add to that many more, including Jefferson, President Andrew Jackson (who had several attempts made on his life) and Henry Ford.

What makes you so certain that they are wrong?

---

Pericles wrote, "But the system itself is ... transparent."

Please, whatever you do, don't stop making such idiotic assertions.

Nothing new here, move along...

>>Pericles has, yet again, attempted to avoid discussion of the evidence<<

I fail to see any value in dissecting a fortyone-year-old verdict that has absolutely no impact. On anything.

Apart from allowing an about-to-be-disbarred lawyer to get away with failing to pay his debts, naturally.

The case was not binding, by the way, on anybody except the Bank, with whom Daly mortgaged the property. It was a "Justice of the Peace" trial, held in the storeroom - complete with the obligatory wood stove - of the local General Store in a tiny mid-Western town,

The verdict - or more accurately, opinion - has no value.

No substance. No impact. No significance. No relevance.

Put it behind you. Move on. It is only confusing you.

>>Actually, Pericles, the 9/11 Truth discussion was kept alive by quite a few others as well as myself<<

As you are well aware, the last few months of that "discussion" was populated by you, one acolyte, and a couple of others who pointed out that you were being faintly ridiculous.

As CJ put it so succinctly "Still channelling my late ex-mother-in-law I see, Jimmy."

>>It strikes me as intellectual cowardice to have not joined in at the time and then attempt to drag 9/11 into this discussion, seemingly as a red herring.<<

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm willing to join a thread where I can offer opinions or discuss facts. A discussion based on pure paranoid fantasy and a visceral devotion to conspiracy theory doesn't interest me one tiny bit.

And far from being a red herring, I referred to your "previous" as an indicator that you quite happily drive endlessly pointless arguments, based solely on your own vivid imagination.

It exposes the greater part of your motivation, given that your grasp of either topic is based wholly and solely on information you have gleaned and reprinted from similarly conspiracy-inclined web sites.

Which is one of the reasons I occasionally ask that you use your own words. Just to see whether you are thinking, or simply regurgitating the thoughts of others.

Pericles,

Please read and try to understand what I am saying. I am saying that the ideal is to have 100% reserves - or that banks only lend money that is on deposit. We can get there in different ways and that is what I am advocating. We set up a system that reduces the need for credit money and always uses fiat money. We can move to this desirable outcome by having a way of creating money that is backed by assets without at the same time creating loans. It is possible to do it and that is what I am proposing.

Look at what I am saying and think it through. It will work and it will increase the ability of banks to create loans and grow the economy and it will stop inflation in its tracks.

What the Fed is REALLY Trying to Hide In Fighting an Audit
(Washington’s Blog)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/what-fed-is-really-trying-to-hide-in.html

75% of Americans and at least 276 Congress members and 19 Senators want to audit the Fed,
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-21/ron-pauls-bill-to-audit-the-federal-reserve-now-has-275-co-sponsors-in-the-house-and-17-co-sponsors-in-the-senate/

but the Fed is fighting tooth and nail to keep everything hidden.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/federal-reserve-to-hire-ex-enron.html

Most people assume that the Fed wants to keep secret the list of banks which received bailout money. You know, something along the lines of “we gave Goldman Sachs $100 billion”.

But what the Fed is really struggling to keep hidden is the fact that the entire financial system is based on massive manipulation and fraud by the Fed and its primary dealers.

Specifically, the Fed is desperately trying to hide that many trillions of the government’s bailouts
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/government-watchdog-bailouts-could-rise.html

have gone to inflating the stock market, buying up the U.S. government’s own treasuries, and gaming the currency and gold markets.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/real-economy-versus-fake-economy-of.html

Of course, when the New York Federal Reserve’s “primary dealers” (the dealers through which the Fed carries out its open market operations in general, and its PPT, ESF, and other schemes through) get the huge sums of cash from the Fed,..they place bets based on inside knowledge of where the money flows are going

(they also, supposedly, skim off part of the cash, but that’s for another essay).

In other words, the Fed’s primary dealers engage in insider trading and frontrunning on a scale which would make your normal white collar felons look like a silver nanoparticle.

Finally, the Fed is not the only central bank engaging in manipulation. An audit would show how the Fed is playing footsie with other private central banks in an international con game.

Don’t believe me?

Show me the books and prove me wrong.

Pericles, please don't let anything I, or anyone else says on this forum, shake you in your resolve to play the man and not the ball.

---

Pericles wrote, "Which is one of the reasons I occasionally ask that you use your own words. Just to see whether you are thinking, or simply regurgitating the thoughts of others."

Now, who was it that complained earlier about being patronised?

When I did explain to you earlier, in my own words, why our privatised money-creation system leads to an impossible contract for society as a whole, it went completely over your head.

You wrote, "If I run a business where people pay me from their after-tax income, and I use the profits from that business to repay the Bank, where's the need to take out a loan to repay me?"

The need originates from the fact that that money used to repay the debt, originated as debt somewhere. Of course, the person paying you may not have had to go into debt to get the money, and maybe the person who paid him/her did not have had to go into debt, but somewhere at some point someone did have to go into debt to get that money.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

If, instead something like Lincoln's Greenback system were to be used, that need not be the case. The start of the whole chain could simply have been the money having been created on the government printing press, or, possibly as a ledger entry in the Government owned bank in return for work, or goods of some sort. If that money had eventually been used as payment for goods and/or services from your business, then, unlike our current system, no-one -- no government and no individual -- need to have gone into debt in order for you to have been able to run your business profitably.

And as we have shown many times before, that need not be inflationary if the introduction of money into the system has allowed sufficient additional real wealth to be created.