UOG I agree,banks create very little.You like others seem to have an incorrect notion of money.Our fiat currency has no intrinsic value.It just represents human potential or worth.It only has value because of the faith that people put in it.

Too much inflationary money is bad for any economy since it let's the finance system feed off itself and become detached from the real economy.What I'm trying to espouse,is the regulation of inflationary money via taxes.Tax only the money that banks create from nothing since this inflationary money really takes from the wealth of the nation.

Presently they use increase in interest rates to control money supply.When you buy a car the salesman does not increase the price at a later date.The same should be said when you buy money.We can tackle the problem at it's source and then force the banks to borrow from existing sources of money without punishing the borrower.We then have more stability for borrowers so they can plan for the future and not have these cataclysmic collapses.

By the way log onto youtube see Prof Neils Harrit,Nano Thermite.You will find this very interesting.

For all the bank bashing that goes on (and I'm not accusing anyone in here of bank bashing - I'm pointing the finger more at A Current Affair, Today Tonight and their equivalents on other channels), I think we can be happy at least that our banking sector is one of the most tightly regulated in the world. That's why Australian banks aren't going under left, right and centre like many of their overseas counterparts.

That said, I think we have seen space for even tighter regulation both in the banking sector and in the non-bank lending sector. Here in Townsville, the Storm Financial fiasco hit quite hard, and the figures show that money was lent that never should have been lent. This resulted in the creation or purchase of assets which could not be financed - pensioners on $25,000 a year buying million-dollar houses and actually borrowing the bulk of the money to do this. What was even worse in the USA was people borrowing $550,000 to build a $500,000 house (3 years no deposit no repayments), living in it for three years then mailing the keys back to the bank. The bank (who must should much of the blame here for being stupid enough to give finance) ends up with an asset worth much less than the loan, unsaleable at its original value because the housing market has crashed.

Sorry for the lengthy blabbing here - curious, though, arjay - is this sort of thing what you are talking about?

its worth noting that two bob beer[we bought pre 66] was a coin minted from silver[real silver;ok sterling silver]but that silver two bob piece is worth the price of a beer STILL today

trouble is that silver coin was stolen when we went into the decimal coin-age[see we took our silver two bob coin and got a nice new cupra-NICLE coin,..the only silver coin AFTER decimilisation is the round 50 cent piece..that contains around 7 buck's worth of silver

see the worlds feds took the only constituted legal tender[silver coin]and gave us nickle[currently nickle coins even are worth very near the face value

it gets worse with the theft of our pound notes[if you read one of them they read this note can be paid in silver coin[real silver [remewmber]..now im not sure what a pound of silver is worth today[but i bought two pounds of silver[predecimal shillings]for 300 bucks

so when your parents bought thier house for 50 pounds[that then was 50 pounds of silver]..funny how your house today is still worth THE SAME WHEN FACTORED BACK INTO THE PRICE OF SILVER

thats inflation..[its real..parity price in silver hasnt gone up..[only its value in ever more worthless fiat fed paper]..inflation means the price you need to pay ever goes up,inflation is a stealth tax..[stealing our silver also led to higher inflation]..but no one told you then[and they certainly are/not telling you now]

we been sukkered,the fed began the theft when gold coin was legal tender[franking roosavelt took back the gold coin and gave it straight to the fed[who gave it to wrathchild]..the gold that is supposed to be in fort knox is rusting..[as reported by maintance staff]..so the fort knox gold has been looted long ago

its a clever scam,..find some info here
http://www.morpix.biz/x15/
more here
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=1062
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=1327
ignorance is no excuse
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8796&page=0

Sorry, Arjay, but you are missing the obvious.

Money, as anyone who knows anything about it understands completely, only has value when it moves, not when it is created.

You can mint, forge, manufacture, invent, conjure into existence or whatever phrase you like to employ, as much money as you like. But it won't affect anybody or anything unless and until it gets into circulation.

And how does it achieve this? Through either being earned, or being borrowed.

The problems we are facing right now are a result, to some extent, of a whole stack of money being created to buy property that had a lower asset value than the amount of the loan. Once the loan defaulted, the money was effectively destroyed.

But the transaction that brought the money into circulation was when the loan - together with it's repayment schedule and the lien on the asset - was agreed.

You can argue, as most people do, that it was the accumulation of such transactions that got us into this hole. But the transaction itself was perfectly normal, and nothing at all to do with the creation of "cyber money", in that it could equally well have taken place using dollar bills.

To add to the problem, money was advanced against paper assets - such as shares - that, once the economy started to go south, could not sustain their value. Once again, the value that had been created was destroyed.

One of the ways to achieve a balance again is indeed to refuse to borrow even more - which is the present fad of many governments - but to let these holes in the economy destroy businesses, jobs and pensions.

That would be unpopular.

It really is very simple, as long as you remember one thing.

Money has no value until it moves, and it only moves when it is used as an exchange medium for something.

Give it a go - try to identify one example where this does not hold true.

Pericles ,you are trying to distract from my central argument.Money it itself has no intrinsic value.The financial system has turned money into a commodity that feeds off expectation rather than real productivity.It was originally just a medium of exchange and store of wealth.How do you think that the cost of a beer has gone from 25C to $5.00 in 39 yrs? This represents a 2000% increase in the money supply above productivity or population increase.

The Banks have created inflationary money through their fractional reserve system.This is a reality you choose to ignore.If you were to create your own money,this is counterfeiting,but banks call it monetary policy.In reality it is theft since inflation devalues assets and savings of all in our society.How is it just for a bank to create the value of a housing loan in a computer as debt,then not only take the interest but also the principal,which wasn't theirs in the first place?

If the principal doesn't belong to the bank, then who does it belong to? Banks borrow money. They then pay the money that they borrow to builders, who build houses. The person who owns that house then slowly buys it off the bank, paying interest. The person repaying the bank pays more interest than the bank, so the bank creates a profit. If the person cannot repay the bank, the bank reclaims the property (as agreed by the borrower when they take out a mortgage) in order to reclaim lost money and (theoretically) repay its own debt. Banks don't just conjure up money every time someone takes out a mortgage. They borrow it.