Davidf liked that post, arjay indeed turns a baked meal in to a stew.
And gives Anthoinyve, and just about every one reason to doubt any conspiracy.
However, give me my answers to the questions above.
I re state them, if not conspiracy will naming it crime do?
Rothschild, [red shield], had part ownership of the bank of England [before it was taken over by government], and banks in Holland France Belgium, and still, the American Federal reserve ok so far?
Fed reserve still only 20% owned by government ok?
Banks in the USA can lend nine or is it ten, times the funds they hold ok?
Lending nine times the cash, the cash they do not have, on interest barring loans
What if I did that.
Traded with funds I did not have?
Any chance I deserve an answer?

many people trade with funds they dont got mr bell

much like fractional reserve lending..it leverages..the bet
[as the bet increases..you can top up..but if the bet looses..you must top up your deposited cash reserve..or sell..[stop loss]..

usa makes 50%..of the global war spending
occupies hundreds of countries/states..via thousands of outposts
[military has its own securities agencies..and they do plunder resources in the invaded[depedant dictraiterships..like sad man insane/gadaffi[both of whom had not only huge oil concerns..but GOLD*

and if theres a thing elites love..its gold
heck..they took over the treasury.,.and lets ignore auditing fort knox*

the commies failed by thinking they could keep up to warmongering liars..{but note when THEIR system went bust..THEY ALL GOT FREE $HARES

our capitalist pigs..just got bailout..and money printing..further putting the debts on the under class[get rid of death duties..ignore family trust..taxs havens..[if it wasnt for the drug war cash flow from the worlds ghettos..even legit banking would be bust

we have bar codes on cash..they can follow it from cash point back to deposit at the fed..who destroy it..giving them leverage..that all bankers love..that extra litle bit

greed will kill many
[two thirds will die unless these times are shortend*

cut off city states..that act globally
think local..using their own funds..their own 'treasury'..
plus the real assets..the trust;..the skills talenmts abilities differences..of its people..

govt should be like a loving parent
giving the talented ones oppertuinity to shine

how great a leader to give santuray to such a people
here they get tested..tempted and taught..for thye real game before us all

eternity*

Dear Belly,

It's standard practice for banks to loan more money than they have. The assumption is that all the loans will not be in default, and that depositors will not all withdraw their money simultaneously. If either happens the bank goes bust. I think banks have been operating that way since there have been banks.

During the Depression many banks failed, and depositors lost their money. Under Roosevelt the Federal Deosit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was enacted. FDIC guarantees deposits up to a certain amount - not sure what it is now since it has been raised several times.

I know nothing about the the history of European banks. I do know it was common practice for years for governments not to collect taxes. They gave private entities the right to collect taxes and required them to pay a certain amount to the government for the privilege. As could be expected they squeezed the people. It was a great reform for the government to collect taxes directly. The private entities that collected taxes could also operate as banks.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Bank

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks were established as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system. They are organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about ownership.

... The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally-created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[2]...

Regarding the structural relationship between the twelve Federal Reserve banks and the various commercial (member) banks, political science professor Michael D. Reagan has written that:[4]

... the "ownership" of the Reserve Banks by the commercial banks is symbolic; they do not exercise the proprietary control associated with the concept of ownership nor share, beyond the statutory dividend, in Reserve Bank "profits." ... Bank ownership and election at the base are therefore devoid of substantive significance, despite the superficial appearance of private bank control that the formal arrangement creates.

"However, give me my answers to the questions above."

Sometimes, Belly it can be useful to do a bit of research when you're trying to convince yourself of facts. Fortunately, the Internet makes this task much easier than in the past.

For example, here is where you can start reading the history of Rothschilds according to them and divided into neat 30 year brackets from 1798:

http://www.rothschild.com/our_history/

For spot checking you could compare their version with these statements by The Telegraph's Harry Wilson:

"Established in London in 1811 by Nathan Mayer Rothschild, one of the famous five sons dispatched by their father to Europe’s financial capitals to expand the family's banking business, NM Rothschild made its initial fortune in government bonds.

During the Napoleonic Wars, Rothschild helped the British government sends funds to its allies, while an elaborate network of agents and couriers meant the bank also became responsible for providing money to the Duke of Wellington’s army in Portugal and Spain.

The Rothschild financial power and nouse meant that in 1825 they were able to supply enough coinage to the Bank of England to prevent a financial crisis.

The bank also provided the £15m gilt issue that was needed to pass the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833.

Throughout the rest of the 19th century, NM Rothschild established its pre-eminence, helping Britain buy a controlling stake in the Suez Canal, funding Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa Company, and buying up large holdings in future giants such as mining company Rio Tinto and diamond miner De Beers.

In the 20th century, the bank became increasingly focused on advising others rather than investing on its own account, helping raise the financing for the London Underground.

In the 1980s, Rothschild became the house bank to the Conservative government as it began the massive privatisation of previously state-owned companies.

Today, the bank is tiny in comparison to US rivals, such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, however it is still an adviser of choice for many companies and governments."

For a more complete understanding regarding Europe, you'll need something like the Handbook on the History of European Banks by Manfred Pohl. It has individual entries on 150 of the largest and oldest European banks but is around $500 in hard copy and $45.80 as an e-book.

For the US Federal Reserve Bank start here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri3.htm

And for their purposes and functions:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

No, you can't 'trade' with funds you do not have… But that is different to owning rather than owing some or all of the funds with which you trade.

Dear Belly,

In the US and in other countries there is a bewildering array of financial entities. The prime rate is set by the Federal Reserve and is the rate at which the Fed lends money to the Commercial banks. The commercial banks lend money to each other, finance companies, mortgage companies, ordinary banks, large corporations at higher rates than the rate they borrowed from the Fed. All these entities try to lower their risk by ensuring those loans. I know of an insurance company on the Cayman Islands which ensures loans that the commercial banks make. There are many other entities which insure the lenders against default. Generally the higher degree of risk on the loan the greater the rate of interest demanded.

The loans finance companies and other lending entities make are financed by money they borrowed.

Apparently many banks in the US made very risky mortgage loans which were almost certain to go into default. Securities based on those loans were sold as though they were based on something of solid value. These were the derivatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance) tells you about derivatives. They are a legitimate financial instrument, but they were misused in the case of the mortgage loans.

When enough of the loans default the effect goes right up the chain of financial entities. Depressions don't happen all at once. The crash of 1929 in the US, some think, really started several years before with problems in the agricultural sector. Before the Great Depression, the American banking system was characterised by having many small to medium sized firms. America had over 30,000 banks. The effect of this was that they were prone to going bankrupt if there was a run on deposits. In particular, many banks in rural areas went bankrupt due to the agricultural recession. This had a negative impact on the rest of the financial industry.Between 1923 and 1930 5,000 banks collapsed. Finally the effects hit Wall Street.