While the banks will tell you that they work on very tight margin,is this actually the case.

You see banks generally work on about a 2.5% margin,this means they borrow at say 4.5%, then lend at 7%.

Now while this may appear quite a small margin, they are actually making a killing as thier actual margin is more like 35%.

Is this one sector that should be paying more tax on their super profits?

Certainly agree with rehctub

IMHO our banks do NOT generally work on a 2.5% margin, rather their general margin is what public consumers receive which is a lot higher.

IMHO many of our public consumers - particularly those on lower income groups, are provided credit cards with high interest rates, whilst at same time refused personal loans.

Higher rates for first loans, are understandable, though often not excusable.

Yet for many these higher rates seem to stay with them, they lack the financial strength to battle the banks.

Lower income people particularly suffer here, failing the income test so denied lower rate loans.

Being on lower income does NOT make someone a higher or lower risk.

Yet borrowing money over decades, making regular payments on time, appears fail to influence the rates which our banks provide to many if not most everyday consumers.

OK the wealthy borrow more money, may have more to lose, but do they really have proportion of recoverable assets to loans ?

Where are the clearly worded statistical explanations for how these higher rates are deemed necessary ?

Should our financial regulations require lenders make their loan assesment calculations /calculators available so all can calculate their ability to borrow before they must identify themselves ?

Considering our financial histories, our banks larger losses appear to have come from other "influential", "persuasive", types similar to those sitting comfortably in bank management or boards.

Is such nepotism bad for all our financial health ?

Rectub, banks nett return on assets is around 1%. So if they dropped
interest rates by 1%, they would earn nothing.

Their return on equity varies between 8% to 20%, depending of
write offs for bad losses. They are certainly not the most
profitable companies in Australia, in terms of returns on equity.

I note that you prefer to speculate on real estate rather then
buying bank shares, so you clearly think that real estate speculation
is far more profitable. A super profits tax on that would not
be such a bad idea really.

Rechtub seems to me you are hooked on super profits,and miss use the term often.
Your Butcher shops,like the banks, are private property.
Investors, your risk takers, invest.
To make money,not sure if you sell on credit.
Banks do.
No one stands out side mine with a gun forcing us inside.
I think the margin is well below say electronics.
And do not see any need for price fixing.

Yabby:>>Rectub, banks nett return on assets is around 1%. So if they dropped interest rates by 1%, they would earn nothing.<<

We have been down this road before Yabby, what a load of bean counter crap. What of their assetts, bricks mortar land, their assets have grown by over 700% in the past 10 years. Banks are now owners as well as financiers.

If they make 1% return on investment, would this not mean they hold trillions of $ worth of assetts?

Indeed Sonofgloin we have and you seemingly still can't read
a balance sheet.

Rehctub, banks have assets and liabilities. That is quite different
to equity. The 4 major banks earn around 20 billion, on 2 trillion
worth of assets on their books. About 1% is left after all
expenses.

If you have a mortgage with them, its an asset, if you have a
bank deposit book, its a liability. It just shows you how much
money that people and businesses have borrowed.

But don't forget, our 4 major banks also dominate NZ banking and
NAB owns quite a few British banks. ANZ are busy expanding their
banking business in Asia and the banks other income stream is
superannuation, where they have a major interest

rehctub,

Your assumption about bank margins ignores the concept of the Fractional Reserve system we are under.

The bank doesn't lend only the money it actually has on hand - the funds held represent only "a fraction" of the amount it is able to lend.

Simply it means that if you deposit $100 then the Bank can loan say $1000 to somebody else, and the margin is really the difference between paying interest on a $100 deposit and charging interest on a $1,000 loan.

*if you deposit $100 then the Bank can loan say $1000 to somebody else, and the margin is really the difference between paying interest on a $100 deposit and charging interest on a $1,000 loan*

Ah wobbles, just like Arjay, you remain highly confused as to how
the system actually works. If your confusion were true, Australian
banks would never have to borrow from overseas etc.

What fractional reserve banking means is that banks need to hold
reserves of around 10% of total loans outstanding. The money supply
does increase, as bank a lends to say me, who spends it and somebody
else redeposits it, etc.

If you don't believe me, go to any banks website, check out their
financials and check out how much interest they actually pay
out, in comparison to interest earned. Perhaps then it will
be clearer for you.

Rechtub I am not having a go at you.
This thread/subject conflicts with other views you have put here.
In part, no small part, freeing up Australia's banks, under Labor, maintained by Howard,saw us become this current trading nation.
Our banks,far better than others,Americas mashed potato ones, we are doing well.
Re regulating banks, is unwise,may even be a form of Socialism.
The bottom line, profit,of banks is linked to all our welfare.
We do need to keep our eye on them, they are not saints but in this matter?
Super profits are not involved.
Rechtub here is the difference, super profit was about digging holes in our country,
Taking forever and once, the much needed minerals.
By over seas owned firms and ours.
The tax was to be an extra dividend for Australia.

Are the banks getting away with blue murder (as do most institutions)
Yes !

It is a constant surprise to me that so few people (as represented on this forum, at least) understand the banking system, either in concept or in their daily activities.

>>You see banks generally work on about a 2.5% margin,this means they borrow at say 4.5%, then lend at 7%.<<

The difference between the two is generally described as "spread" as opposed to margin. Margin is more easily understood in a simple retail environment, where it is derived from profit/revenue. At a product level - say the purchase and sale of a tin of baked beans - it is gross margin. After the wages of the shop staff and delivery boy have been taken into account, it becomes the net margin.

Banks borrow funds from many sources, the composite of which is "cost of funds". They then lend it out in a multiplicity of ways, at different "spreads" to the cost of funds. In no way does the process equate to the buying and selling of baked beans, hence the confusion of equating interest spread with operating margins.

>>What of their assetts, bricks mortar land, their assets have grown by over 700% in the past 10 years.<<

This is probably the hardest concept to grasp, apparently. Yabby explained it, but it's probably worth revisiting.

When the bank lends you money, it records it as an asset, carrying a term and an interest rate. In order to lend you the money in the first place, it has to borrow it from somewhere. That is recorded in the books as a liability, also carrying a term and an interest rate. So the growth in assets of "over 700% in the past 10 years" will be matched by a similar growth in liabilities.

It cannot work any other way. That's why we have double-entry bookkeeping.

And the continuing ignorance of the fractional reserve system is, frankly, frightening.

>>...it means that if you deposit $100 then the Bank can loan say $1000 to somebody else<<

But they must borrow the money in order to do so. It is not "created out of thin air".

"""
And the continuing ignorance of the fractional reserve system is, frankly, frightening.
"""

Could that continuing ignorance stem from the American Federal reserve and its supposed fraudulent practices. Some think their ability to print money at will so to speak is akin to government sanctioned counterfeiting, which effectively pushes up inflation, lowing the value of peoples money, which they consider a form of theft.

Some would argue it's necessary, but is it fair? The Fed seems to do quite well out of it at the expense of everyone elses hard work.

There's no doubt in peoples minds that money shufflers make plenty without really doing it tough and contributing to societies benefit.
In fact it's got so out of control, they've shifted all the worlds money into the hands of a few, which is now why so many are complaining and feeling hard done by. Are they wrong to feel that way?

It seems to me that alot of people are confused by the many kinds
of "banks".

We have merchant or investment banks, then reserve banks and then
your vanilla kind of deposit taking institutions. They really
all play quite different roles.

The role of reserve banks is designed to keep them at arms length
from political pork barreling, which could easily happen if
politicians directly controlled the printing presses. Their mandate
is to keep economies ticking along as best as possible, no matter
what political disasters are happening at the time.Any profits which
they make, are finally returned to Govt treasuries.

To cut a long story short, the US Fed faced a similar situation as
to that now being faced by the ECB. If you play the whole scenarios
out, either you print money or you face a depression. IMHO the
ECB, will keep kicking the can down the road for some more months,
until they finally face the inevitable and do just what the Fed did,
ie print money, as its the easier option all round.

So what do you think they should do RawMustard, of the two options?

It is ok to have an opinion of your own, RawMustard.

>>...the American Federal reserve and its supposed fraudulent practices...<<

Do you suppose they are "fraudulent practices" Or is that your way of saying "I saw somewhere, someone said..."?

>>Some think their ability to print money at will so to speak is akin to government sanctioned counterfeiting<<

Who are the "some" that you talk about? And do you yourself believe it is "sanctioned counterfeiting", or is that just a phrase that sounded good to you?

>>...they consider a form of theft<<

Who are "they"? And do you personally believe that inflation is a "form of theft", or is it just another sound-bite-cum-cliché?

>>Some would argue it's necessary, but is it fair?<<

It's those "some" again. Is that "some of us" or "some of them"? What constitutes "fair" in this context?

>>There's no doubt in peoples minds that money shufflers make plenty without really doing it tough...<<

Which "people"? And just how relevant is "doing it tough"?

>>...so many are complaining and feeling hard done by<<

What about you? How do you feel "hard done by", and by whom?

I wouldn't normally bother, but your post is riddled with half-truths, veiled accusations and innuendo, to the point where it becomes nothing more than a cut'n'paste moan-fest.

Are you by any chance a journalist?

I was asking genuine questions. I don't have all the answers to the worlds financial woes and as you said, we're all entitled to our own opinion.

"""
Do you suppose they are "fraudulent practices"

@ Yabby So what of the two options?
"""

To my way of thinking, I'd let the dice roll and see where it lands, the Fed uses a loaded dice, you do the math!

"""
Who are the "some"?... And do you yourself believe it is "sanctioned counterfeiting"
"""

We are the some, Pericles, as well as some politicians and economists!
What do you call quantitative easing(Short for "print money out of thin air") Why is counterfeiting illegal, Pericles? Why is it ok for a private corp to do it?

"""
And do you personally believe that inflation is a "form of theft?
"""

Well isn't it? If I have a 100 cents in my pocket and you take 75 of them without my knowing, it's call pick pocketing(theft).
If you print money out of thin air and devalue my 100 cents to 25. I'm in the same boat, I only have 25 cents, 75 of which I didn't spend. Call it what you want, I call it government sanctioned theft!

"""
"some" again. What constitutes "fair" in this context?
"""

Pffft, waist of CO2, another theft!

"""
Which "people"? And just how relevant is "doing it tough"?
"""

Are you honestly going to tell me money shufflers do it tough? Those that got it because they were bred from sacred sperm?

"""
What about you? How do you feel "hard done by"
"""

Don't feel hard done by at all, quite content actually, but always thinking it didn't need to be as hard as it was to get somewhere and am a bit sick and tired off giving it to those who don't deserve it!

"""
I wouldn't normally bother...
"""

Well you're certainly entitled to your own opinion :)
But it would seem I hit a raw nerve, Pericles?

"""
Are you by any chance a journalist?
"""

Are you a money shuffler?

Just out of interest, Pericles. If you're up to it, could you give us all ("in your opinion") a rundown of this interview?

Ron Paul's Greatest Interview - Gold & Silver With Mike Maloney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SOlXxUBLk

Do you have a transcript?

>>Just out of interest, Pericles. If you're up to it, could you give us all ("in your opinion") a rundown of this interview?<<

Forty minutes on YouTube with Ron Paul is for rusted-on Austrian school fanbois only, I'm afraid.

But - just out of interest - which one of his wacky ideas appeals to you most?

im reluctant to butt in
in the main because most are in ignorance..on the basics as perridiucules has said..

thing is knowledge is money..
and those who get the knowledge...
are those with the desire to get in on..all that easy money..

then comes the issue of keping it
or making it's worth..stay abouve the pace of 'inflation'

pers...noted fractional reserve borrowing..[lets call it leverage]
and the numbers quoted are no where near the ammounts actually leveraged

we hear the banks are leveraged..in eu/usa..
to the point of only having 2%..actual funds in hand..
and the rest mortgauged to bond writers..and other underwriters..investment fund holders..pensions..

to like of multinationalcorperations owning the other corperations...plus reserve banks and national banks

in short leveraged..to the old money lenders
who in time reap the harvest..while the rest of the lol capitalists..
become debitors..churn is a wonderfull thing

see they know money is debt
this ron paul knows as well

he might even know..that the us fed govt can buy back the fed for a m,easilly 44 point 4 billion dollars..[cause thats the fixed debt..it was seized for by the bankers/money lenders]

so for a mere 44 billion[paid back to the 12 bankers
govt could return to issuing its own money..[for jobs]
INTREST free

and voting time is the time..
to grant them acces..to the govt credit nose bag

we can control govt
we cant control banks..!

we vote for a govt to have a budget
then to spend the extra..by the cost of their policies

its gotta be better than BORROWING..at ever compounding intrest
from the money changers..turning assets into plunder..then having it stolen from them

make EVERY debitor pay back in full
WITH NO INTREST..!

every debt paid in full
and govt serving you
with health/education/food housing basics

with the open public purse..
open for individuals needs..not corperations nor individualists greeds

The banks have always screwed us.We see two unelected bankers incharge of of Greece and Italy.Foxes incharge to the henhouse.

We have a $ 1.1 trillion economy.On average the increases in GDP 3% + inflation 3% increase the money supply by 6%. Now 6% of 1.1 trillion is $66 billion.Our balance of trade is positive approx $ 30 billion pa.Where does the other $36 billion come from ? It has to mostly come from the private banking system since the RBA give the Aust Govt a dividend of only $ 500 million pa.

Since our Banks do not have enough deposits to use the fractional ratio to the optimum,they have to borrow from OS banks.30% of our mortgage money comes from OS.

In 1976 our total debt was 3% of GDP.In 2008 is was 53% of GDP.

We have to end the fractional reserve system of banking for private banks.They should not be allowed to create money for increases in our productivity + inflation as debt.

have you seen the cartoon arjay
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

it fits in with the theme

other stuff noted

goldman harburg and sax..[in eu-rope]
http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/2649739:BlogPost:710073

time to arrest those aiding and abetting banker fraud?
http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/11/it-is-time-to-arrest-congressman-who.html

The singular role of any government is to secure the rights of the people, any law that does not hold this basic tenant is unconstitutional.” –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq3BYw4xjxE
canp/panc (corporations are not people,
people are not corporations)

never let the dead corpus
lord it over the living

if people think they are the 1%
watch how a few years changes their thinking

http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/occupy-endgame-arrest-the-1-emperor-has-no-clothes-obvious-criminals
they will wish..they stood up
once they lay down and take it like a man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzak22Py8v8

there were those who tried to tell them
and others who defended the indefensable

china has the right idea
http://www.thechinamoneyreport.com/2011/11/10/chinese-fund-managers-sentenced-to-death-after-cheating-investors-out-of-1-billion-usd/

child poverty...the mark of the capitalist beast
http://presstv.com/detail/210758.html

how will his-story judge
http://thesheetnews.com/archives/11360

its allright to hate others
http://uruknet.com/?p=m83211&hd=&size=1&l=e

if they dont think like you do
http://uruknet.com/?p=m83217&hd=&size=1&l=e

anyhow..i was sick of the bullssswit..but couldnt stay away
its like watching a train wreck..with those most needing to know..acting like its the titanic all over again

we hit the ice berg folks
but dont worry..we kicked the can down the road

and the mjechanics are plastering eu/putty
in the 60 foot gash
with fiat cash

bankers and polititions first
next economists..[who didnt se the grash comming]

then the bloggers who didnt blog?

Thanks UOG.The cartoon speaks the truth.Isarel is pushing for war with Iran and the USA is stirring China.They want war to escape us and save their collapsing Bankster empire.

yes they are
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=12072

getting away with it

just a quote from a recent court case

edited

""The attorney asked,
"If the bank records a new deposit
and records an asset..on the bank's books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value..always come from a customer of the bank or an investor..or a lender to the bank?"

The banker thought for a moment..and said, "Yes."

The attorney asked,.."Is it the bank policy
to record the promissory note..as a bank asset
offset..by a new liability?"

The banker said,.."Yes."

The attorney said,
"Does the promissory note..have actual cash value
equal to the amount of the bank loan check?"

The banker said.."Yes."

The attorney asked,.."Does this bookkeeping entry
prove that the borrower provided actual cash value
to fund..the bank loan check?"

The banker said, "Yes,
the bank president..told us to do it this way."

The attorney asked,.."How much actual cash value
did the bank loan..to obtain the promissory note?"

The banker said,.."Nothing."

The attorney asked,.."How much actual cash value
did the bank receive from the borrower?"

The banker said, "$50,000."
[plus intrest/ursury]

The attorney said,"Is it true you received $50,000
actual cash value from the borrower,..plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed..and never invested one cent..of legal tender..or other depositors' money..

to obtain the promissory note..in the first place?
Is it true that the borrower/financed the whole transaction?"

The banker said,.."Yes."

''“Does the creation..of the new note payable(now a bank asset)
allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value..to fund the $50,000 bank loan check..back to the same borrower,..forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000..plus interest? "

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value (i.e. Federal Reserve Notes Payable)..from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction,..

did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"

The banker said,.."No."..He knew that one must first deposit something..having actual cash value..(cash, check, or promissory note)..to fund a check.

con-tinued...""The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy..to first transfer the actual cash value..from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?"

The banker said, "Yes."
The attorney asked,.."Does the bank pay IRS tax
on the actual cash value ..transferred from/the alleged borrower to the bank?"

The banker answered,.."No, because the actual cash value..transferred shows up like a loan..from the borrower to the bank,..or a deposit which is the same thing,..so it is not taxable."

The attorney asked,
"If a loan is forgiven,..is it taxable?"

The banker agreed by saying,.."Yes."

The attorney asked,.."Is it the bank policy
to not return the actual cash value..that they received from the alleged borrower..unless it is returned as a loan..from the bank to the alleged borrower?"

"Yes",the banker replied.

The attorney said,"You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower..and keep as the bank's property?"
"No. No tax is paid." said the crying banker.

The attorney asked.. "When the lender receives the actual cash value (the promissory note)..from the alleged borrower,..does the bank claim that it then owns it..?..and that it is the property of the lender,..

without the bank loaning or risking
one cent of legal tender..or other depositors' money?"

The banker said,.."Yes."

The attorney asked,.."Are you telling me the bank policy..is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or legal tender,..

that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check,..and that the bank gets funds..*from the alleged borrower for free?

Is the money then returned back..to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays..when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note?

Am I hearing this right?

I give you the equivalent of $50,000.00,..you return the funds back to me,.l.and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest?

Do you think I am stupid?"

In a shaking voice the banker cried,
saying, "All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this."

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/download/file.php?id=5781

Thank you, one under god, for providing such an excellent description of how ordinary people can become confused about money and banking.

And also for showing us how a normally (presumably) intelligent person can be bamboozled by an unscrupulous lawyer, more concerned about trick questions than truth or relevance.

>>I give you the equivalent of $50,000.00,..you return the funds back to me,.l.and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"<<

Obviously, no-one in their right mind with $50,000 in their pocket would give it to a bank, then borrow it back. So the trickery comes in the word "equivalent".

What the lawyer is arguing is that because in the hands of the banker, the promissory note is able to be traded (i.e., it has value in their hands) it is "equivalent" to $50,000 in cash, in the hands of the borrower. Which, of course, it is not.

It has tradable value, but only by way of the security of the borrower, who has promised to pay it back. If he does not do so, the promissory note is valueless. Which is of course why poor property loans featured so heavily in the US' financial problems.

The lawyer's argument is completely circular. The promissory note only has value following the payment, by the bank, of $50,000. So, to say that the client has "given the equivalent of $50,000" to the bank is patently specious.

Ask yourself this: would you rather trust a) a banker who wants to lend you money to buy a house or b) a lawyer whose only objective is to trip you up and make you look like an idiot in court?

pericules...its an asset
thus it goes onto the books

you buy bonds right..same thing

look at your money[a note]..it should have two signatures on it
money is only a check[a promise to pay]

go look at an old pound note
it had actually the words writ on it
'promise to pay bearor one pound sterling[silver]]
at the bottum it was written redeemable at any commonwealth bank

the point being the constitution says
only gold/silver coin are to be legal tender for debt

[thus any note falls under contract law...is a promise to be a redeemable value..is a contract to deliver value

thats why its signed[twice]

fiat money [ie paper promise]..is only legal tender
because its a promise to deliver valie..heck the word fiat means by decree]

thus coins have the kins/queens face on it
a promise of both pureity and in weight to be that 'gold'..or that silver...[which chapter v of the constitution at 115 speaks of]

so bankers demanded the gold/sliver...
back when govts had treasuries...when the promise was undeliverable
they threatend to sue govt..so govt did a deal[that allowed bankers to take over the whole franchise[forcing govt to beg bankers for money at ursury[intrest]

its a shame people are so ignorant
they think a bank bill to be value
yet think [are decieved]..that..lol
any..other *bill..lol..is debt

see when we [govt]..went broke
there had to be a way to buy stuff that wasnt under lien
[cause by law stolen goods cant hold clear title...and by paying cash[fiat notes]..that are bankrupt...any goods legally are also under lien of bankruptcy

its the lies i hate ol mate
incometax was began..to repay the bank debt
boy talk about double dipping

[lol then
we bail the banking elites..[capitalists out]...lol

I think you may be getting closer to understanding, one under god.

>>pericules...its an asset
thus it goes onto the books<<

The problem is that as soon as the borrower defaults - that is, is not in a position to pay either principal or interest - the asset disappears. It must be written down, taken off the books, and a loss recorded on the profit and loss account. That was the power of the toxic loans held by the US banks - when they went sour, the banks were left with a massive hole in their balance sheet and losses coming out the wazoo.

Then again, perhaps you are still in the dark after all...

>>its a shame people are so ignorant
they think a bank bill to be value
yet think [are decieved]..that..lol
any..other *bill..lol..is debt<<

What "other *bills" do you have in mind here? It isn't very clear.

>>[lol then
we bail the banking elites..[capitalists out]...lol<<

That is one way of looking at it, of course. But there is another way.

Governments have been relying upon the banks to fund their extravagances for a number of years. Because we have been in boom times, across the world, governments have been spending like drunken sailors, on money they borrowed... from the banks.

The bonds they issued, promising to repay the principal in x years, and to pay y% interest along the way, were funded by banks. There's more than a touch of irony in a situation where a government causes a bank to go under through that government's inability or unwillingness to repay.

Did you understand, by the way, why the "worldfreemansociety" piece was pure bunkum? I really hope that you did.

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=12069&p=92259#p92259

pers quote...""as soon as the borrower defaults..the asset disappears.""

no mate it increases the claimed debt
and gets a huge tax claim on its losses

""It must be written down,..taken off the books,""'

mate it was only 'on the books'..till it got bundled
rated tripple AAA plus..and on sold into outr pensions and investments

little known is the multifacited playing of it as a 'security'
and cashed in on...[securities get speculated on..but under it all is the quality of the promise..plus the assured values it represents

the problem in japan usa china etc wasnt the dent
but the insane values placed on assets by the rating's agencies
or rather those whjo know ghow they 'rate'..assets in bundles

thing is the 'lenders[banks]..
got their cash back..by swelling the bundled securities to pension funds..and investers taking advice of the ratings agencies

""and a loss recorded on the profit and loss account."''

is pure bunkum...proffit loss..thats one colum
where were the accountants being held to account
or the ratings agencies held to account[or those who robosigned the processing]..will the courts now do their job[a few are]

se they origonals alone hold contracted rights
and the robo signing was often only on photocpies
and in court if you dont got the ;origonal'..you got nuthin

""the toxic loans..held by the US banks""

lol was only their own greed[bonus]
..plus short term proffiteering to sharholders[in the masin other corpertions/trusts..other investment vehivles[also looting/bonus and colluding to do then not do

no one is held to account
govt protections were circumbvented and prevented from working

""the banks were left with a massive hole""

no mate..the underwriters were
potentially

needing to cash in their securities..
plus the securities of those underwritting the securities valued AAA+..that really were only junkbond derivitives...of photcopies[huge frauds ol mate]


'''What "other *bills" do you have in mind here?
It isn't very clear."""

not my job to educate you ol mate

>>[lol then
we bail the banking elites..[capitalists out]...lol<<

That is one way,of looking at it, of course.""...

good we can agree occasionally

""Because we have been in boom times
governments have been spending like drunken sailors,
on money they borrowed... from the banks."""

borrow FROM the banks
TO BAIL OUT the banks..
something seems wrong there

so we get govt to enter onto the bank book..an asset[bond]
the bank sells on to the fed

""The bonds they issued,
promising to repay the principal in x years,
and to pay y% interest along the way, were funded by banks.""

no they were monetised..by the fed or equivelent
or by onselling via securities to investers

""There's more than a touch of irony
in a situation where a government causes a bank to go under
through that government's inability or unwillingness to repay.""

lol the very bond
they used to bail the banks out..in the first place

lol

there are a few more topics on the subject
be great to have you there too

You're still muddling things up, one under god.

>>pers quote...""as soon as the borrower defaults..the asset disappears."" no mate it increases the claimed debt and gets a huge tax claim on its losses<<

Then...

>>""It must be written down,..taken off the books,""' mate it was only 'on the books'..till it got bundled rated tripple AAA plus..and on sold into outr pensions and investments<<

Let's take a closer look.

Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan, it is no longer an asset, because the loan/asset ceases to have value

Fact #2: when a loan/asset ceases to have value, it needs to be written off via the profit and loss account. Thus, reducing the holder's profits, or increasing their losses.

Fact #3: it is indeed possible for some classes of assets to be bundled together, and sold as a parcel. In which case the value released by the sale will be entered into the profit and loss account, and the assets extinguished from the balance sheet.

However (and this is the important bit) Fact #3 does not in any way invalidate Facts #1 and #2.

Think of "pass the parcel". Whoever is holding the assets at any point in time has to reflect their value on their balance sheet. If you happen to be caught with them when the bottom falls out of the market - let's say, all the borrowers default at the same time, and the entire parcel is worthless - Facts #1 and #2 come into play. Fact #3 won't, because no-one is going to buy it.

>>little known is the multifacited playing of it as a 'security'<<

Ummmm.... actually, everybody who has taken even the faintest interest in the background to the GFC understands the workings of this market. Check out "securitization" on Investopedia.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/07/securitization.asp#axzz1fhelG03A

While Wikipedia tells us that:

"Securitization has evolved from its tentative beginnings in the late 1970s to a vital funding source with an estimated outstanding of $10.24 trillion in the United States and $2.25 trillion in Europe as of the 2nd quarter of 2008."

Hardly "little known", one under god.

lets look at rule 1

quote..""Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan,
it is no longer an asset, because the loan/asset ceases to have value""

tell that to the mug that just lost his house

that lost all his payments into the debt

tell that to the mugg who lost his credit

mate try to go to a mortgaugee auction
se that thing they are selling

is that an asset?

think hard ol mate

where did the asset go to
the babnker?...where is it?
on his books?

proffit/loss...lol
never the twain should meet

babnks cant loose!

then lenmt nothing...made a book entry
then got the house and all payments/costs..bonus etc

then got a bailout...lol

how do you sleep at night
defending criminals...with rules they make up as they go

robo signing mate
google if thats legal

Sorry one under god, I was trying to keep it really, really simple for you.

Obviously, I oversimplified, so I need to backtrack a little. Here's a more accurate version.

Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan, it value as an asset will change, because the loan/asset ceases to have the same value as before.

Any such loans will most likely be segregated into a category of "distressed" assets, and a revaluation conducted, or a sale effected. If the asset is on-sold (e.g. through a mortgagee sale) than the difference between that amount and the asset's balance sheet value is processed through the P&L. A lower amount causes a loss, a higher amount causes a profit to be recorded. In either case, the asset disappears from the balance sheet.

>>tell that to the mug that just lost his house<<

Which mug would that be? The one who borrowed money that he couldn't afford to repay? Or the bank for lending him the money in the first place?

>>babnks cant loose! then lenmt nothing...made a book entry then got the house and all payments/costs..bonus etc then got a bailout...lol<<

You mean, these banks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_United_States_(2008%E2%80%93present)

To save you the trouble of counting, in the US alone, 412 banks failed between 2008 and 2011 y.t.d.

So much for a universal bank bailout.

perscil quote...""Let's take a closer look.""

yep i have

you said...""Obviously, I oversimplified, so I need to backtrack a little.

Here's a more accurate version.

NEW*..Fact #1: when a borrower defaults on a loan,
it value as an asset will change, because the loan/asset ceases to have the same value as before."""

you previously said...OLD*..""Fact #1:
when a borrower defaults on a loan,
it is no longer an asset, because the loan/asset ceases to have value""..

LOL

those egsamples
certainly changed arround..eh brother?

that wernt no 'partial quote'
it was pure gall

not sure what..first factoid to read into
your connection...with your latest factoid

""Any such loans will....[lol]..*most likely [lol]
be segregated into a category of "distressed" assets,

and a revaluation conducted, or a sale effected""...

effected or affected..

""If the asset is on-sold (e.g. through a mortgagee sale) than the difference..between that amount and the asset's balance sheet value is processed through the P&L*.""

profit/loss..plus accounting fees charges and anything extra they can plie on

"" A lower amount causes a loss, a higher amount causes a profit to be recorded...In either case, the asset disappears from the balance sheet.""

so lets see
is the change of terms relivant

""balance sheet""
''processed through the p&l*"

or just to baffle the peons with bull

the thing is we shouldnt be bailing out the money stystem
by borrowing it at intrest from the money system

a bond IS MONEY
its the only lawfull legal tender there is

govt dont need cash
its got something much better bonds

the bankers get away with murder
cause their bluebloods..culling the serfs
cause they are good at muddying up the factoids#1
cause they can spin the spin [lies]..of the faceless men

yes men
and their defenders
defending that morally offending

Oh.

>...or just to baffle the peons with bull<<

If you don't even understand what a profit and loss account is for, one under god, then for goodness' sake stop making ridiculously uninformed statements about bankers and banking.

Sheesh.

It's not rocket science. It is just common sense. You don't need a degree in accounting to understand it. Just... follow the money.

http://www.youtube.com/user/chunkymark#p/u/13/MH8iq6lvL78

When the government... takes public money and gifts it to the banks,
so the banks can turn around LOAN it back to us then,
what is that called?

it is called THEFT

because everyone knows the bank does not lend money.
Banks extend credit.....by kiting a cheque in your name.*

So..."in absence of evidence to the contrary"....
the banks, kept the "public's money" for bonuses.

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

Corporate kiting

Corporate kiting involves the use of a large kiting scheme involving perhaps millions of dollars to secretly borrow money or earn interest.

While limits are often placed on an individual as to how much money can be deposited without a temporary hold, corporations may be granted immediate access to funds, which can make the scheme go unnoticed.

This was the case with E. F. Hutton & Co. in the early 1980s
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewforum.php?f=43

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12106
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=12055&start=20

One tiny flaw, one under god.

>>When the government... takes public money and gifts it to the banks,<<

Public money is not "gifted".

Therefore, no theft. Or THEFT, as you describe it.

>>...everyone knows the bank does not lend money<<

My bank lends me money, which they require that I pay back. I know of many others who have taken advantage of the same service.

>>Corporate kiting involves the use of a large kiting scheme involving perhaps millions of dollars to secretly borrow money or earn interest. <<

Can't be particularly secret, if you know about it.

Your link didn't take me to the E F Hutton story, by the way. Do you have any other examples, or is this thirty-year-old scandal the only one?

All in the Name of Liquidity
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/3226/pulling-back-the-curtain-on-the-wall-street-money-machine/

quoted from link
What is this need for “liquidity” that justifies such extraordinary measures on behalf of the banks? Why do banks need cheap and ready access to funds? Aren’t they the lenders rather than the borrowers of funds? Don’t they simply take in deposits and lend them out?

The answer is no. Today when banks make loans, they extend credit FIRST, then fund the loans by borrowing from the cheapest available source. If deposits are not available, they borrow from another bank, the money market, or the Federal Reserve.

Rather than loans being created from deposits, loans actually CREATE deposits. They create deposits when checks are drawn on the borrower’s account and deposited in another bank.

These deposits can then be borrowed back at the Fed funds rate—currently a very low 0.25%. A bank can thus create money in the form of “bank credit,” lend it to a customer at high interest, and borrow it back at very low interest, pocketing the difference as its profit.

If all this looks like sleight of hand, it is. The process has been compared to “check kiting,” defined in Barron’s Business Dictionary as:

[An] illegal scheme that establishes a false line of credit by the exchange of worthless checks between two banks.

For instance, a check kiter might have empty checking accounts at two different banks, A and B. The kiter writes a check for $50,000 on the bank A account and deposits it in the bank B account.

If the kiter has good credit at bank B, he will be able to draw funds against the deposited check before it clears, that is, is forwarded to bank A for payment and paid by bank A.

Since the clearing process usually takes a few days, the kiter can use the $50,000 for a few days and then deposit it in the bank A account before the $50,000 check drawn on that account clears.

and if you think this dont relate to you
http://www.tomatobubble.com/id39.html
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Shocking_Charts_And_Statistics_That_Prove_That_America_Is_No_Longer_A_Wealthy_Nation/16922/0/38/38/Y/M.html

why cant you comprehend?
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december082011/academic-freedom-mk.php

to quote the tomato link

""To feed the insatiable debt monster,
and to maintain confidence in his notes,
Mortimer""..[the fed reserve banker]..must have a perpetually growing GDP..(ever more tomatoes).[by promise of ever more paper tomatoes]..fiat money

""If not,..runaway debt and inflation
will cause the economy..to implode..sooner,rather than later.

GDP growth is fueled by "consumer spending"(consumption)..
and the constant borrowing*..which enables it...

This is why economists, politicians,..and other assorted lunatics..are so obsessed..with constant GDP growth.

""The tomato .[[real money;coin]..must no longer serve as the backing for our currency...To meet the liquidity needs..of our new exclusive money franchise/system,..it is imperative that we get this town..off of that antiquated,"barbaric fruit" Standard"">.(hard money)

""and transition..to my expertly managed
paper currency."..(fiat money)..and then virtual cyber..lol credit

"As far as the poker markets go,
now is the time to play even more aggressively..(buy low).

We'll meet again next month...In the meantime,
work harder and bring more tomatoes..to the next game,..[;real assets..mortgauged to the bank]..

I'll print more notes to increase liquidity
and induce the banks..to loosen up credit..
once again..(pump priming,
quantitative easing)

"If the local banks..need to make more loans,
I'll lower their reserve requirements..''

[real asset
that underpins their acces to 'credit']

''so that they can lend..(create)..money that they don't have.
[to get real assets they want..that we hold kortgauge over]

As long as too many depositors..don't make withdrawals ..""

[or pay off all their debt..PLUS
take back..their real assets]..

''they'll be none the wiser."
(fractional reserve banking)

Even if there is a bank run,
or if the bank's loan demand exceeds it's reserve requirement,..""I'll act as the "lender of last resort"

(Federal Reserve,..established in 1913..[sold for a measdily 44 billion]..BUT ABLE TO BE BOUGHT BACK FOR THE SAME AMMOUNT...

and lend..(create money for)..to
the local bank..*at interest(Bank takeover,Discount Window).

recalling we hold inflation to devalue assets

but only put in money..[with debt attatched]
the intrest must come
from others defaulting

as govt show..only their promise of value..[asset/bond]
gets them the money..but with ursury/intrest added...
plus only paying the intrest..the debt stays at trillions

[one third usa tax take goes just to intrest]

I will also lend to (create money for) the Mayor's office (Open Market Operations, purchase of T-Bills, stimulus) , and bail out (create money for) the Tomato Street Brokerage houses that I deem to be "too big to fail" (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan bailout package).

Let the good times roll!





I continue: "Finally, I will organize an emergency meeting of the Mayors, Finance Ministers, and Note Printers of the European towns (G-20, "world stage").

Now is not the time for isolationism...(independence, sovereignty)Global problems demand global solutions!..(IMF, World Bank, WTO, UN)."

lol govt serrvuing the people
now govt serves the dead inc-corperated..system

"We will recover...So keep spending,
secure in the knowledge that the best
and the brightest of the world community are on the job.

taking what they want
and leaving the nuthin for the rest of you

We have nothing
thus have left..to loose
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Shocking_Charts_And_Statistics_That_Prove_That_America_Is_No_Longer_A_Wealthy_Nation/16922/0/38/38/Y/M.html

Sorry, one under god.

What point are you trying to make?

Instead of just cut'n'pasting from sites that take your fancy, start trying to understand the system from the bottom up. For a start, reconsider this cut'n'paste of yours:

>>Today when banks make loans, they extend credit FIRST, then fund the loans by borrowing from the cheapest available source. If deposits are not available, they borrow from another bank, the money market, or the Federal Reserve.<<

Explain to me the difference between a) borrowing funds at 12:01, and lending them at 12:02, and b) lending funds at 12:01, and borrowing them at 12:02.

Where b) is concerned, the amount of funds lent cannot exceed their requirement for prudential reserves anyway, so in terms of bank risk management the situation is substantially identical in both examples.

If you have a problem with moneylending in general, then no system in the world is going to feel comfortable to you. But to pick on this one aspect of today's financial engineering as being somehow relevant or noteworthy, seems to indicate a lack of knowledge, rather than evidence of wrongdoing.

quote]
''Where b) is concerned, the amount of funds lent
cannot exceed their requirement for prudential reserves anyway,[/quote]

mate govt servants working for pennies
in the hope to eventually get into the big money

dont ask questions
its like moodies rating stocks
it they rate right..its a self fullfilling prophecy

so they delibweratly rate wrong

so we get AAA+
from b grade fact

its become so complicated..even expert's
got no idea..who is next in line..its just process
and knowing that govt isnt watching..cause it's workers..want in

"""..so in terms of bank risk management
the situation is substantially identical in both examples."""

nuthing new under the sun
its been done before..by better and worse than you

boom is followed by bust
in the end its who's captial the capitalista play with?

your incvestment..your pensions..your savings

and that ol boy isnt any worry
because they are too small to protect from failing
much better we protect the thieves..much too big to fail

well ol mate
the ones with the most to loose
will loose the most..

so put your savings/pension.. on the line
to get less..than the cost of inflation

cause they
who think to have the most...have the most to loose

im over it

hope you buy up big
on the eu pew bailout

its clever how you ignore posts
till you got a point..to try to refute
in the end criminal treason..has its paybacks

Yes indeed, one under god. How tricky is that...

>>its clever how you ignore posts
till you got a point<<

I find it saves a lot of time, ignoring the posts that don't deserve comment. Or indeed, those that are so truly incomprehensible, an answer would consequently be equally meaningless.

Your style, in contrast, is to keep very quiet when your assertions are shown to be incorrect, while carefully ignoring any questions that might take you beyond your level of comprehension.

An example of the latter would be my last post, where I asked that you...

"Explain to me the difference between a) borrowing funds at 12:01, and lending them at 12:02, and b) lending funds at 12:01, and borrowing them at 12:02."

The only reason I asked the question was - not to show up your lack of understanding, that would be cruel - but to illustrate to you how dumb are the people from whom you seem to draw your views. It is, after all, the crux and core of the argument that you linked us to - banks lending before they fund the loan. Which they have been doing for decades, by the way.

Have a great - and worry-free - day

Rich bankers can today be exposed as a ­huge drain on society... ­costing the rest of us £8.40 for every £1 they produce.

http://www.facebook.com/KeiserReport

"" A study by think-tank the New Economics Foundation found the average banker destroys ­£42million a year in value while creating just £5million.

Meanwhile hospital cleaners on £6.26 an hour are worth £10 for every £1 they cost because they prevent superbugs, saving the economy a fortune.

The shock figures fly in the face of claims that bankers like Barclays boss Bob Diamond – paid £4.4million in 2010/11 – are worth vast ­bonuses because of their ­contribution to the economy.

Their drain on the country is caused by the cost of bailing out banks brought to their knees by the credit crunch and the ­devastating impact of the ­crisis their recklessness caused.

NEF found that tax ­accountants who help the rich cut their bill were even worse value, ­costing us £47 for every £1 they create.

Meanwhile low-paid public sector workers like nursery ­workers and bin men were found to more than earn their wages.

Helen Kersley from the NEF said: “We get a huge tax ­contribution from the City but it pales into insignificance next to the damage from the financial crisis in terms of unemployment, bailing out banks and leaving us with a massive public debt.”

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/12/11/bankers-cost-each-one-of-us-8-40-for-every-1-they-produce-study-shows-115875-23626708/#ixzz1gMEqe1pP

he ridicules reply thefirst 8 minutes of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eforYw3mdL0&feature=youtu.be

geitner confirming..govts role in money
[what happend to sepperationm of powers?]

let capitalists run capitalism

not capitalistic communism...
where govt bails out bankers.
.[by borrowing AT INTREST..from banks...lol

the fiat currency is on its way out
japan..[who holds little actual gold
is promising to underwrite... their bonds..*with gold..[half ounce]

this means..89,000 yen instead of 15,000 yen
see the future?

uk has 1000% gdp..
[according to morgan stanley]
debt in the main...created..by bailing out the banks
lent from the banks/plus ursury]...stop sleeping and wake up

and were worrying about the pigs plus?

thats just in the first 5 minutes

plus heaps more to catch up on
http://www.facebook.com/KeiserReport

BUT BEWARE...!
if facebook tells you you need an 'update'
go directly to the *you tube link option
...do not get their upgrade

my computers acting funny
and the upgrade even didnt allow the vidio to play

so dirty trickster's
want to keep secrets

oh well stuff em
they are going to 'get theirs'
both here now plus in eternity

Classic bank-bashing stuff, one under god. And totally meaningless, whichever way you look at it.

>>"A study by think-tank the New Economics Foundation found the average banker destroys ­£42million a year in value while creating just £5million."<<

You like sensational headlines, we know that. But I've noticed that you never like to refer to the source document.

Well, I myself always prefer to use the source material. Here it is, in all its "glory", in .pdf form.

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/A_Bit_Rich.pdf

The methodology they use is not particularly scientific, which is hardly surprising.

"Our model assumes that the financial crisis and recession would not have happened were it not for highly paid City bankers and traders engaging in extremely risky, opaque and complex transactions. We attributed the entire measurable loss to the UK’s economy and public finances to an elite few thousand very highly paid financiers"

For a start, the study does not claim that these are "average bankers". In fact, they specifically call them "the elite". It then proceeds to allocate "the entire measurable loss to the UK’s economy and public finances" to these folk.

Sounds very much like a beat-up to me. They chose a particularly loss-laden timeslice, and a small subset of the banking profession among whom to divide those "losses". And then pretended to be shocked at the result.

And you buy into it. Hook, line, sinker, rod and copy of "Angling Times"...

>>The shock figures fly in the face of claims...<<

Of course, the numbers would be far more "shocking" if they had attributed all the losses to Gordon Brown. Makes just as much sense, statistically. And probably much closer to reality.

It's all designed, quite clearly, to appeal to anyone who is happy to accept at face value anything that they are too lazy, or simply disinclined, to examine for themselves.

Ring any bells, one under god?

Over the past month we have been closely documenting a major funding squeeze in the all important shadow economy - the "synthetic liquidity" conduit which far more than traditional sources of cash, has become all important for proper bank functioning over the past decade. Courtesy of adverse development in Europe, one by one various components of this unregulated funding scheme have become frozen necessitating the first of many central bank interventions on November 30 to provide liquidity to global banks, primarily to offset such shadow conduits as locked up commercial paper, repo and money markets.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/did-fed-quietly-bail-out-bank-tuesday

real gold
real silver
not paper promises

why?
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/12/attempt-to-seize-and-liquidate-customer.html

Keep working on it, one under god. Enlightenment will no doubt arrive at some point.

Your note on gold and silver deserves some attention. Here's your mate Mises on the subject:

http://mises.org/money/2s12.asp

But as your link points out, what happens when the warehouse goes bust? Present laws say that the bankrupt assets are pooled, which puts the gold into the same bucket as the real estate, the office furniture and the computers. The "receipts" for x ounces of gold represent a share of that pool, and not the gold itself.

Oh dear.

The only answer would be to keep the gold yourself, I guess. How truly convenient that would be, eh.

But there is a deeper problem with Mises gold fantasy.

So the price of gold today is, say, $1,590 an ounce. Gold boosters say "hey, you ain't seen nuthin'; it's going to $2,000...!!"

Let's say it did. Would this be a good thing, or a bad thing?

If I price my product today at one ounce of gold, would you be prepared to pay that when the price of the metal reaches $2,000? As the supplier, how keen would I be to reduce the amount of gold I ask for my product?

The answer of course is that the $1,590 and the $2,000 are both notional prices, as solid and as reliable as the paper currency that you despise so much - which in fact is what the $1,590 and the $2,000 are actually translated into, for the purposes of the transaction.

As I have said many times, one under god, if you want to understand... follow the money. And in the case of gold, try starting at the gold mine, and working forwards.

oh peri..i do love your loyalty
but mate if i give you a bar of gold or silver
[or ten golden rings]..to protect AND [keep safe]..for me

we have created an act of bailment
formed a trust...[if i give you 10 gold rings to mind for me
i expect you will in time..JUST give me back my rings..

[no extra rings..just the ten
i paid fees to you..to protect

look richard says it better than i can
in only 350 word limiations

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/private-property-now-subject-to-seizure.html

but i know why you must defend tricky thieves
[the gold is gone][so they go arround the globe killing anyone who has tonnage of it..[like sadam insane..and gadafi...and like the gold 'lost' in building 7]

but heck mate
what wont they do to keep the scam going
[jfk got his when he went and signed into law pres order 11,110
so did ceaser when he issued his own gold coin;..with his face on it]

but mate more...too clever by half tricks...here
now its paypal..not trusting banks..!

january the bank runs begin
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/stocking-up-for-doomsday-as-economists.html

but
who knows...right
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

its only paper..they can print off by the kilometer
for less than 7 cents a note[regardless of its face values]

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/153474/how_pay-pal_squeezes_merchants_with_unfair_and_likely_illegal_business_practices/

but mate..change the key word here
to bankers..

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/climate-sceptics-might-just-be-captive-to-basic-emotions-20111219-1p2hl.html

owning/controlling a heck of a lot of the globes assets
what they got to gain..IF YOU LOSE?

I'm not sure, but I think you are agreeing with my diagnosis, one under god.

If you give me your furniture to store in my warehouse, and I charge you a fee for holding it, then it should be reasonable to assume that you are entitled to your furniture when you want it back.

If my warehouse goes bankrupt, I should absolutely not be entitled to sell off your furniture to pay my debts. And it should be the same with gold bars, I reckon.

However - and you might know more about this than I - were these people warehousing actual gold bars, or were they simply making a deposit that they believed was "backed" by gold?

If the former, then I agree, the physical gold bars that were being stored should be kept separately from other assets - as in my furniture example. However, if they simply had a receipt with a dollar value inscribed upon it, then the gold "backing" is just another asset of the brokerage. And consequently, on bankruptcy, legitimately gets lumped in with all the other liquidated assets.

I did actually point this out earlier:

>>The only answer would be to keep the gold yourself, I guess<<

Or warehouse it in a closed box along with your furniture.

But that is just one of the many insurmountable problems associated with having a personal "gold standard". I notice you didn't offer an opinion on the question of the changing "value" of gold.

>>If I price my product today at one ounce of gold [at $1,590], would you be prepared to pay that when the price of the metal reaches $2,000? As the supplier, how keen would I be to reduce the amount of gold I ask for my product?<<

Gold, per se, is no longer a viable exchange medium.

It is an investment vehicle, sure. But as an investment, exhibits all the characteristics of other minerals.

we arnt talking about your product
but heck lets include that

if you promise your 'product'
can i take you to court to produce the product contracted

seee mate gold futures
or wheat futures are contracts.,.to supply gold/wheat
heck every product can be sold by future promise to deliver

so we have a market for promises
any promise..but onions..[cause the law was specificly reacting at the time to attemopts to buy up[corner]..the onion market

and when them clever brothers tried to corner the silver market
silver didnt get added...and when the bust bubble burst on the web boom that wasnt added...and when the finance bubble/boom busted..nor was finance..when the mining bom bust..when the silver boom busts..when the gold iron ore bubbles burst

people will finally see all they hold is a [promise
if your not holding the real thing
you got nuthing

how did this happen

''"My agency, in promoting the passage of the National Bank Act, was the greatest financial mistake of my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country.

It should be repealed; but before that can be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side and the banks on the other, in a contest such as we have never seen before in this country." -- Salmon P. Chase

but heck its not secret
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

its just the way things go
booms busts..bailouts
thieves stealing

mugs savings..paying for it
you ask for source material
i give it to you
it disapears

chalange the posters who's link i put up
or lets just have it out in our own words

pers quote..""were these people warehousing actual gold bars""

yes they were

"",or were they simply making a deposit that they believed was "backed" by gold?""

others bought gold promises off them
that when cashed in was cashed in with OTHERS GOLD
[after they allready on sold their owwn gold..but its not just gold mate]

""I agree, the physical gold bars
that were being stored should be kept separately from other assets""

well,mate they arnt/wernt
and now the lies are catching up
you xcan only 'cash in to gold..if over 250 ounces
must pay abouive market rate and wait two months..for paper work
3 more for the gold

its the same scam as paypal is currently doing
see previous link

""if they simply had a receipt with a dollar value inscribed upon it, then the gold "backing" is just another asset of the brokerage.""

it was for gold
and i do hold my own

""But that is just one of the many insurmountable problems associated with having a personal "gold standard"...I notice you didn't offer an opinion on the question of the changing "value" of gold.""

none needed
the paper undervalues the real thing
speculaters gamble on the paper promise..not the real thing

the paper flood...is a scam
even if you buy shares today
you cant own the physical shares
only a promise for them

[the house of intyernational settlements hold the shares[or rather holds their use..cause their shares are mortgauged...to other banks who hold actually them..[and vote using them]

day trading is gambling
just keep doubling up...and used to be..you cant loose
[a rising tide..raises all boats]but[wait for the sunami]

mate..by trading in promises..
everyday...3 times MORE..than all the gold ever found can be traded

but in the end it only worked in paper
less value than the theory

you ask for proof
then disect...that it was based on..a strict time period
but never reacted to the accountants hiding value..[loosing 47 times more than they 'create']

if you hold a promise
you hold nuthin

That makes it even more puzzling, one under god.

>>pers quote..""were these people warehousing actual gold bars"" yes they were<<

If so, why on earth did they entrust their gold bars to a broker? Why did they not simply walk them down to Storage King? As I said before, Storage King would not be allowed to sell the contents of their lockers if they hit financial troubles.

So why, do you think, brokers are allowed to do just that?

I suspect - and you might be able to correct me by linking to some factual material on the subject - that the depositors were simply issued with a receipt that indicated the notional value of their deposit. Therefore, the gold in the broker's vault - while real - was simply another asset that backed the promise to repay. Hence, they were perfectly entitled to sell it in order to meet - albeit only partially - their commitments to depositors.

The reason that I am fairly confident that my version is accurate, is that I don't see people walking into the broker's office with a gold bar under their arm, saying "please look after this for me".

By the way, you still haven't offered an opinion on the question of the changing "value" of gold. It has nothing to do with paper "undervaluing" the real thing. I am simply pointing out some issues with the concept of using gold - or any other metal for that matter - as the basis for a currency.

Let us imagine that you go into Harvey Norman, and ask the price of a Samsung 51" Full High Definition Smart Plasma 3D TV. You are told "for you, my friend, one ounce of gold", whose street price at that time is $1,590.

You go back in a month, when the gold price has reached - say - $2,000 an ounce. You again ask the price, and are told "for you, my friend, one ounce of gold"

Are you getting a better, worse or identical deal?

pericules
lets forget the gold thing
i got the real thing so couldnt care less
about the mugs holding paper

sure you go ahead and store your hoard
in one of them lock up garages...lol

you wouldnt be that dumb
so why even suggest it

never the less some have reciepts..for gold
these reciets sell for the same prices as gold
because they should be deposit slips for real gold

but mate they are just promises
its the old gold scam all over again

money used to be gold/silver
a bank note was a stict promise of gold from the commonwealth bank

this pound not is exchangable
for one pound sterling grade silver

heck a penny is a promise of copper by weight
but origonally pennies we silver[the size of a three pence piece]

but people dont like coin
so much more promises of silver coin
was issued via bank note...and bankers were the first to realise it

so they began a run on the fed reserve[punderwriting]..the common wealth..infact tyook the bank over via doggy deals..stole the gold by cleverly RENTING it/leasing it[the real stuff]..to bankers

who paid dicount rent
in lue of a fixed price..[the pice fixed was 44.4..[or 33.3]
per ounce..[no idea what its rent was]..but the leasies sold the real gold..and its now gone

how about we talk of inbuilt obsolesance..or consumerism
or you explain to me

how do i follow the money
why isnt someone doing that
audit the fed..who has our silver gold copper coin

how about them two bankers..[did they know]...
dying in that light plane 'accident'
just yesterday,..eh?

reminded me of them fly in fly out aid agencies
talked about this moring on the bbc..you know that lot that adminester the 95%..or the aid money...lol..into admin..not actual aid

anyhow its an old topic now percules ol mate
so will let it die...[with a few extra thoughts and i final link]
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/3909-plan-b-how-to-loot-nations-and-their-banks-legally

just in case you will to correct it

anyhow with the euro central bank giving away euro credit/debt
and the us fed giving away credit/debt...im sort of sick of the lot of it

been trying to find a seance..number 6
done by a dd home...finding heaps of other reading[i find far more intresting than trying to expiose materilistic complicity]

im chasing number six..cause its edited out of
http://www.spiritwritings.com/AdareExperiences.pdf

in fact much the proof [actual events
seem censored out of it completly

its basicly a gutted intro now

[the thought occurs wether sherloc holmes
was created to hid this amasing guy from histry..[yet i found his reading..the old fashond way..[came across it in a real book i bought for $1..

heck i got over 30,000 books..and wouldnt
trade any of them for cash nor credit]

anyhow i know your eyes..have glazed over
[and ol mate mine too]..let the fake fiat promise[paper play money]
do what fiat-systems..

and too much promised paper..do
that..in in the end ALLWAYS do..

so back to..the next page
http://www.archive.org/stream/ddhomehislifemis00homeiala/ddhomehislifemis00homeiala_djvu.txt

no seance 6
aint there
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301061.txt

nope not there either
[google books..highjacked me onto its page..to end my search]

anyhow im over wbankers..[not you
you have a mind]..but mate how do i find number six..to point out what its saying..for that matter what of 1-5..and the rest..sure i read 30 and 40 and 41...but how many more?

anyhow now you know..im nuts
but number 6 tells how spirits..get control over the mindless
as much as the obsexxive[greedy]

using their..vile ways..to lord it..over the ever needy

i know exorsizim...works...
static electicty hurts invader spirits
and maybe the naturally greedy..then..wont get..so insanely greedy

so we should/exersize
all..who get too much power

if they pass..the test
dd homes suggests

but heck
im over trying to explain it
let the dead..tend the dead

the greedy..must support the needy
not just the needy...bailing out the guilty

in the US there has been a media blackout and in Europe very light coverage. The banks simply do not want anyone to know what they are up too. As we display these numbers it should be kept in mind that all these countries are loaded with unpayable debt, so what they are doing is going further into debt to pay off existing debt.

This approach is generally recognized as a Ponzi scheme - we might also add all the derivative exposure these banks and government have.

The privately owned Central Bank of the US, the Federal Reserve, has absolutely no authority to bailout Europe, which they have been doing for three years and no one says a thing about it.

Less than a month ago, Fed Chairman Bernanke said he has no authority to bailout Europe..and he had no intention of doing so.....lol

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-globalists-have-destroyed-free.html

signs of the time

http://dailybail.com/home/tale-of-the-tarp-two-years-later-how-the-elite-media-perpetu.html

http://dailybail.com/home/judge-rules-against-bank-of-america-for-harassment.html

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/35-million-homeless-and-185-million-va

http://dailybail.com/home/ralph-nader-ron-paul-kucinich-chomsky-end-the-left-right-del.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd4xApTggL0
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/zionists-funded-both-hitler-churchill.html

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/beware-corporate-psychopaths-they-are.html

http://dailybail.com/home/like-a-crock-how-the-hell-did-gm-pay-back-its-loans-in-full.html

http://www.blacklistednews.com/28_Signs_That_US_Public_Schools_Are_Rapidly_Being_Turned_Into_Indoctrination_Centers_And_Prison_Camps/17231/0/38/38/Y/M.html

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-fabric-of-industrialized-society.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/gm-foods-touted-benefits-are-actually.html

http://www.blacklistednews.com/New_Asian_Union_Means_The_Fall_Of_The_Dollar/17241/0/38/38/Y/M.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/8984184/FTSE-loses-90bn-over-year-but-eurozone-fares-worse.html

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/10-new-years-re-solutions-for-non.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080571/Tainted-New-Year-Honours-Knighthood-Tory-donor-millions-credit-crunch-CBE-jailed-tycoon.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17112

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2011/12/30_Stephen_Leeb__Expect_%245_Gas%2C_%2460_Silver_%26_%243%2C000_Gold_in_2012.html

http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/30/2012-predictions-prognostications-and-prophecies/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyIVZqWm50

That's some reading list, one under god.

If I may make a suggestion for a New Year's resolution for you, it would be that you apply the same critical, analytical - even cynical - standards to all of your reading matter, not just the mainstream stuff.

It will provide you with just as much mental exercise, and it will also enable you to learn about the facts themselves, rather than just the - somewhat biased - interpretations of those facts that you choose to read. For they all have their unique row to hoe, not just Murdoch.

And at all times... follow the money.

Ignore all the emotional distractions about "bailouts" and "trillions in derivatives" and "new world order", and just focus on the money. Where it comes from. Where it goes to. And what happens to it in between. Once you have that under your belt, you will stand a chance of working out who is feeding you the bigger line.

You will enjoy it, I promise. Have a great 2012.