BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS

[Danke]

BANKERS TELL IT LIKE IT IS
TOP 10 QUOTES THAT REVEAL THEIR CRIMES
Posted on March 4, 2014 by Liberty Staff


BankerExecRunningThe alternate financial media has been abuzz of late with bizarre stories of the alleged suicides of prominent members of world banking and finance. Over recent weeks, between eight and twelve (some say as many as twenty) successful traders and managers involved with FOREX trading and other derivative currency speculation, have conveniently “decided” to throw themselves from the roof tops of a variety of JP Morgan Chase banks in London, Hong Kong, and New York. Another top banking official, William Broeksmit, former executive at Deutsche Bank, was found hanged in his London home.

And others with strong connections to investment banking and the Federal Reserve itself have likewise met unusual deaths. Michael Dueker, former vice president of the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve, was found at the bottom of a fifty foot embankment below where he had just parked his car in Tacoma, Washington. The cause of death is still undetermined. The strangest of these deaths was Richard Talley, a former investment banker with Drexel Burnham Lambert who was alleged to have shot himself with a nail gun at least ten times in his Centennial, Colorado, home.

The keen observer will note that a great number of these deaths have occurred in tandem with the extensive multinational regulatory agency investigations of egregious fraud, price fixing, and “front run” trading in the FOREX markets and in the LIBOR index. These markets are gigantic and it is hard for the novice to comprehend the magnitude of money that is involved in daily transactions for both of these. The weekly volume on the FOREX market alone is excess of $20 trillion.

As of two weeks ago, no less than ten global banking giants including JP Morgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Lloyds Banking Group, and others, have found themselves the object of a litany of criminal probes that undoubtedly have created tension and fear, bordering on “flight or fight” panic within these banking conglomerates. Only the extremely naïve could find it hard to believe that the banking world, in order to cover up and protect itself from prosecution of the greatest financial crimes and frauds in history, would not resort to measures of extreme prejudice to eliminate potential material witnesses.

The key point to understand here, however, is that this is not at all a new phenomenon. The history of banking in the modern era (since the establishment of the Bank of England in the late 17th century), has been nothing but an ugly cavalcade of theft of sovereign national treasuries too vast to calculate. From the beginning, these large private central banks (the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, etc.), were intentionally designed to operate freely above the rule of law in their respective nations. They have been the financiers of most of the conflicts and wars in the last two centuries and are continuing to do so unabated to the present. Countless millions have died in these bankers’ wars in service to the unbridled greed of these financiers.

Through the massive inflation of each nation’s currency they dominate, the bankers have robbed the citizens of the purchasing power of their money and with it, their life savings. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, for example, the purchasing power of the US dollar has been eroded to nearly 1/100th of its original value. This has not been accidental. This was planned from the beginning. Private fractional reserve central banking is the greatest criminal conspiracy that continues to this day to hide in plain sight.

But please, don’t just think this is only our opinion. Fascinatingly, the bankers themselves have throughout the decades, clearly revealed their purpose and intent. At this juncture, we would like to offer some quotes for you by the highest ranking members of the banking elite, past and present.

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”
William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

“If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”
Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”
Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain

“When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”
From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, “Putting it Simply.”

“Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.”
“Modern Money Mechanics Workbook” – Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

“I am just a banker doing God’s work.”
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009

“Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good.”
Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010

So there it is in their own words. The arrogance, elitism, and condescension of bankers towards the common citizen are starkly revealed. These brilliant criminals have created the Ponzi scheme of all Ponzi schemes and so far, protected it from any form of criminal prosecution. However, that might be about to change. Awareness of their criminality is growing throughout the world at a rapid pace but never doubt that this group will fight tenaciously and be willing to go to any extremes to protect their centuries’ old scam. We predict there will undoubtedly be more strange banker deaths ahead of us in the ensuing weeks, months, and years.

The next time you walk into your local bank, please ask yourself this question, “Do I really want to entrust my hard earned wages and savings to a centuries’ old criminal scheme?” If you don’t, please consider gold and silver for protection of your wealth.”



© Copyright 2013 Liberty Gold and Silver, All rights Reserved.
Written For: Liberty Gold and Silver News Blog

http://www.libertygoldandsilver.com/GoldandSilverBlog/?p=385

 

[DFF]

The world needs a new financial system in the worst of ways. One which will benefit the people, instead of robbing them. Bitcoin is intriguing because of it's lack of centralization. But it too like fiat money has no intrinsic value and it's unstable. Gold and silver are stable, and have intrinsic value. They best meet the criteria for an honest, rock solid monetary system.

 

[Danke]

yo

 

[econ4every1]

But please, don’t just think this is only our opinion. Fascinatingly, the bankers themselves have throughout the decades, clearly revealed their purpose and intent. At this juncture, we would like to offer some quotes for you by the highest ranking members of the banking elite, past and present.

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”
William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694

Would you consider yourself educated on the banking system in England in 1694? I'm not. I'm wondering if you know how loans were securitized in 1694?

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

Well, it's a good thing that the Fed does not issue the nation's money.

Now, this will create an enormous amount of consternation here and will undoubtedly earn me -rep for having the audacity to disagree with the consensus of some of this forums fiercest Fed haters.

I could be wrong which is why I came to places like this. Perhaps someone will explain something I don't know. I'm happy to lay out my evidence and evaluate the arguments of others. I hope the Fed haters will tell me, with facts and evidence why they are right or why I'm wrong.

“If my sons did not want wars, there would be none.”
Gutle Schnaper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and mother of his five sons

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.”
Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain

There are varying amounts of truth in these statements mostly because the money system at the time was much different.

“When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”
From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, “Putting it Simply.”

There is some truth to this, however, the unspoken implication of this quote seems to say that the Fed is "writing checks" and acquiring things of value that benifit some wealthy banker somewhere.

“Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.”
“Modern Money Mechanics Workbook” – Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975

This is, so far the single most truthful statement that you've quoted yet.

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

When I go into a bank to take out a loan...What happens? What are the steps?

Let's say I want to buy a car.

I think most here are one step ahead of most people who believeve that the bank lends from other customers deposits. We know this isn't true.

So how does it happen? Where does a bank get money?

When I fill out an application for a loan (let's say a car loan) if it's approved I fill out loan docs promising to repay the amount of the loan plus interest. The docs as some of you probably know, are called a "promisory note". A "note" in fiscal parlance is something of value. What is the value? The value is equal to the interest.

So the "note" and the money are created simultaneously. Thus:

Bank

Asset=Note
Libility=Money created

Borrower

Asset=Money
Libility=Note

So does the money create the justification for the note or does the note create the justification for the money?

Clearly, the money the bank creates can only be created as a result of the asset that the borrower created when they signed the note.

Thus, banks cannot create money without depositing an asset of equal (or greater) value.

In the event that the borrower doesn't repay, are the banks still responsible for their liabilities? Yes.

If I don't repay the first step is for the bank to attempt to collect any collateral.

The collateral collected isn't something that belongs to the bank. They must sell it and use the proceeds to repay the unpaid portion of the loan.

What if the collateral is worth more than the unpaid payments? Does the bank get to keep the difference?

No, the bank can only keep the money to repay the loan and recover any costs (like legal fees). If there is any money left, the rest goes to the borrower.

Because the bank created the money from nothing when it's repaid it returns to nothing.

So I borrow $10k for car:

Bank

Asset=Note worth $10k (+ interest)
Libility=Money created -$10k

Borrower

Asset=Money $10k
Libility=Note -$10k (+ interest)

When the loan is taken and spent the economy is +$10k

The economy loses money each month equal to the amount of each payment until the loan is repaid and the original $10k is removed from the economy. The interest is not removed from the economy (because the bank earns the interest as an income and spends it paying for its expenses and as profits)

Now you may still disagree with this system, I'm not attempting to defend it, I'm just asking, would you agree this is how bank loans work?

If not, please explain.

“I am just a banker doing God’s work.”
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs, 2009

The commercial financial sector has become incredibly parasitic and there is a lot that should be changed. For those the beleive that "sound money" will solve this problem, can you explain?

“Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good.”
Alexander Dielius, CEO, Germany, Austrian, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, 2010

That was the original intent, but I agree with the cultural changes that have happened over the last 40 years, there is no expectation that companies, including banks have any moral responsibility to anyone but their investors.

Again, I'm a little curious to know, how do Libertarians see this improving under Libertarian leadership?

Respecfully,

E4E1

 

[devil21]

^^^^^^
I stopped reading when you said a bank loaned you money to buy a car. All of your words are inaccurate and misleading and if you actually believe what you are writing then you are no less brainwashed than the next guy, regardless of how long-winded your posts are.

A bank doesn't do anything. A bank is a piece of paper. That is all. Loans from banks do not exist. The "loan" is actually the imaginary bank issuing you your own credit, which is something you can do on your own without the "help" of a bank legal entity. That is why it always needs your signature. You are authorizing the bank entity to issue you your own credit (your own labor, really) but with the bank's rules, and jurisdiction, attached. You do not "buy" a car with a loan. You rent the car, since the piece of paper that designates who has legal ownership of the car, called "Certificate of Origin", is filed with another piece of paper legal entity called a "State Government". You never see or touch that paper and thus never "buy" the car, therefore you never "own" the car, either. Guess who owns it? Money is not exchanged since money, by definition, has value. Currency, however, has no value. So, in essence, you are authorizing a piece of paper to issue you valueless currency in exchange for your valuable labor to obtain a good that you never own. Get it?

 

[econ4every1]

^^^^^^
I stopped reading when you said a bank loaned you money to buy a car. All of your words are inaccurate and misleading and if you actually believe what you are writing then you are no less brainwashed than the next guy, regardless of how long-winded your posts are.

Yes, I used terms that most people are familiar with. If you understand that banks don't loan money. Congratulations, you are smarter than the average bear.

I admit you are correct, banks don't "loan" anything because in order to loan something you have to have it in the first place. This is why "loan" documents (when you borrow from a Fed member bank) don't actually say "loan" on them. They say "promissory note", thus banks don't make loans, they create credit by expanding their balance sheets.

The credit they create is their liability and the note is the asset.

How's that?

A bank doesn't do anything.

This is incorrect. Banks, at least when our system functions as intended, do something.

If I take credit from a bank, tell me, do you know what happens if I don't repay?

Let's say I "borrowed money" (again using familiar terms) to buy a car.

Let's say I don't get insurance as I should and I set the car on fire and move to Costa Rica and I don't repay the $25k.

Tell me, do you know who pays?

The economy now has $25k more than it had before I took the loan. That $25k is indistinguishable from any other money because banks are allowed to create my credit in the government's unit of account.

Obviously, if bad loans were allowed to continually pile up and remain in the economy this could create a problem. It would also create an incentive for banks to create money and simply not repay if no one were responsible.

So tell me, do you know who pays in the event I do not? If you know the answer then you know that banks "don't do nothing".

Loans from banks do not exist. The "loan" is actually the imaginary bank issuing you your own credit, which is something you can do on your own without the "help" of a bank legal entity.

I wrote the above without reading through your entire response....Yes, in some sense you are correct and I agree. And I would agree you can issue your own credit. People do it all the time. The difference is that when we create credit via a bank our credit is created in a standard unit of account. This makes it a lot more likely that people that don't know us will accept our credit because they can use to buy anything priced in that unit of account.

In other words, I have no use for stuffed animals. If someone offered me credit and all I could buy was stuffed animals, in real terms those toys have value to someone, but unless buyers and sellers can meet, transactions don't happen.

What you're really talking about is barter, a form of trade that, despite belief, hasn't happened in thousands of years on a large scale. Yes, barter may have taken place on a smaller scale, but in the world's more populated areas (cities) barter hasn't been a useful form of trade in thousands of years. Even in England several hundred years ago when gold and silver were rare they used sticks (called tally sticks, perhaps you are familiar?). There is evidence in ancient Sumeria they used money.

That is why it always needs your signature. You are authorizing the bank entity to issue you your own credit (your own labor, really) but with the bank's rules, and jurisdiction, attached. You do not "buy" a car with a loan. You rent the car, since the piece of paper that designates who has legal ownership of the car, called "Certificate of Origin", is filled with another piece of paper legal entity called a "State Government".

This is why you shouldn't be so smug in your answers because you are wrong about this.

When you buy a car, you own the car.

When you lease a car you rent it.

There are several pieces of evidence to this fact.

First, when you lease, you cannot make changes to the car. It's considered the damage and will be taken from your security deposit. When you buy the car you can do whatever you want to it. You can paint it, you can cut the roof off, you can do whatever you want to it. If it is repossessed, they cannot collect damages because when you made the changes, the car belonged to you.

When you examine the balance sheet of the bank, They cannot "own" the car because they would have to carry the car as an asset. The problem with that is they would have twice as many assets for every liability. The car and the note would be assets and the credit created is the bank's liability. That doesn't work.

Furthermore, when buying the car, the bank doesn't purchase the car. It cannot because banks can only facilitate the purchase which is why the check has your name on it. The bank doesn't write the check in its name and then sell the car to you.

However, having said all of that, the bank owns the legal right to take possession of your property as collateral in the event you fail to repay. But as the last bit of evidence to the fact that banks don't own the car or house or whatever, is when your property is sold, if the value of the property is more than the outstanding balance + fees to facilitate the sale, the borrower get's the remainder. For example. If you defaulted on your home in the last year of a 30 year "loan", the bank doesn't get to keep all of the money in the sale of your home. Just what it needs to cover your losses.

You would get the rest and pay CG tax on your profits.

You never see or touch that paper and thus never "buy" the car, therefore you never "own" the car, either. Guess who owns it? Money is not exchanged since money, by definition, has value. Currency, however, has no value. So, in essence, you are authorizing a piece of paper to issue you valueless currency in exchange for your valuable labor to obtain a good that you never own. Get it?

Again, all the evidence says otherwise, though I am aware that the title of a car represents ownership and in some states they have some odd systems that allow the bank to hold the title (rather than the state as is the case in many places)> I admit this may make it appear that the bank is holding ownership, however, check the banks books. They don't have a pile of assets in the cars they own that people are paying on. I assure you there are laws that you are unaware of that, despite the fact the bank is allowed to hold the title, they don't own the car. They just own the legal right to take possession in the event you fail to repay as agreed.

 

[devil21]

I don't have the inclination or the time to school you much longer, however no you never own the car. The title you receive is a use title, entitling you to possession of the car (the 9/10 of the law thing....it's that last 1/10 that matters though) but never ownership. Why do you think a cop can tow your car away for a violation of motor vehicle code? Because the STATE is the owner of the car, not you. The state holds the ownership title, called Certificate of Origin. You get a use title that allows for your possession and you register the car so the state knows where to find the state's property! All you're really doing with your posts is attempting, with some points accurate and others inaccurate, to explain the financial/legal Matrix that has been set up around us. If you own something, why do you need permission from the state to use it? If you need permission then it's not yours. Very simple. Banks, governments, etc are nothing more than pieces of paper. They are comprised of similarly brainwashed people that also believe, like you, that a "bank" is something more or a "government" is something more. Nope, sorry, just groups of brainwashed people carrying out duties that they usually don't understand past procedures they're trained to carry out.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This is why you shouldn't be so smug in your answers because you are wrong about this.

Maybe you should take your own advice. My perception of you is a smug guy who busted into the forum with the intention of schooling everyone without listening. Okay fine; that's just the nature of forums sometimes, but I am guessing you're here for purpose, aren't you? If so, then what is the purpose? Are you running for some DNC 2020 leadership position as suggested by Dennis Tate in your video interview with Steve Grumbine? Or, are you just someone who does this as a hobby?

I think the questions are important because it speaks of trust. I see trust as being part of this issue. An example would be the aforementioned discussion between you and Devil21 on the difference between getting credit versus creating your own credit.

I trust what [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION] says, although I don't always understand what he is talking about. The same with [MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION]. That's why I think this could be a good discussion. I don't really have problem with your posting here because it doesn't look to me (so far) like you're paid to post. Some might not care what I think because I'm just some guy on the internet; however, you might care what people think because you're, of course, trying to reach people with some kind of message.

I always filter what someone says through a lens of trust. ZippyJuan and TheCount are paid to post here. They converse about economics, but what they say is met with skepticism because of their motivations. There is a good reason why they are not trusted. It really doesn't matter how much they "know." In other words, it's not what they post, but why they post it. I'm not going to forever listen with bated breath to someone whose purpose is to undermine.

So, I want to know why someone speaks. Are they trying to persuade me? Are they trying to inform me? If so, then why? Maybe they just like to mix it up because it has some personal or ego appeal. That's fine.

I think it's been a decent and civil discussion so far. These discussions are good because I have to work extra hard to wrap my head around some economic concepts. I would like to hear from Devil21, ACPTulsa, or others on this issue.@;

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I own the shirt on my back. I say that because I don't pay perpetual taxes on it. I don't think I own my car or my house because I have to keep paying for them with taxes. Am I right or not?


Definition time!


Owner. Noun. 1. A party that possesses the exclusive right to hold, use, benefit-from, enjoy, convey, transfer, and otherwise dispose of an asset or property.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/owner.html

 

[devil21]

I own the shirt on my back. I say that because I don't pay perpetual taxes on it. I don't think I own my car or my house because I have to keep paying for them with taxes. Am I right or not?


Definition time!


Owner. Noun. 1. A party that possesses the exclusive right to hold, use, benefit-from, enjoy, convey, transfer, and otherwise dispose of an asset or property.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/owner.html

You should check definitions of words on Black's Law website instead of generic dictionary sites. You'll often find that the definition of words, legally (and that is the 1/10 that matters since it's the 1/10 that's enforced by people with guns), is different than the definition of a word according to generic dictionary websites.

Black's Law definition of "owner"
https://thelawdictionary.org/legal-owner/

Entity with an asset’s or property’s enforceable claim or title. Lawfully recognized. For example, a person or company owning a property will be a lender with legal ownership who can lease or mortgage the property as collateral for loan payment. A borrower, renter, lessee retains only the right of redemption in it as its legal possessor.

Legal possessor....guess who that is?

Btw, if you default on a credit card and a legal judgment is obtained against you, a sheriff can auction that shirt on your back. That tells you who really owns that shirt. You are only the renter of the shirt. The legal possessor. The owner of the shirt is who can force it to be sold without your permission. By purchasing something with privately owned currency (Federal Reserve Note), the owner of the currency is the owner of the merchandise purchased with that currency.

eta: good link about Certificates of Origin and how you CAN NOT obtain it. The DMV will issue you the "title" (it's permission to possess the car) all day long but the state will NEVER give you the Certificate.
https://govbanknotes.wordpress.com/...o-return-manufacturers-certificate-of-origin/

 

[econ4every1]

I don't have the inclination or the time to school you much longer, however no you never own the car. The title you receive is a use title, entitling you to possession of the car (the 9/10 of the law thing....it's that last 1/10 that matters though) but never ownership. Why do you think a cop can tow your car away for a violation of motor vehicle code? Because the STATE is the owner of the car, not you. The state holds the ownership title, called Certificate of Origin. You get a use title that allows for your possession and you register the car so the state knows where to find the state's property! All you're really doing with your posts is attempting, with some points accurate and others inaccurate, to explain the financial/legal Matrix that has been set up around us. If you own something, why do you need permission from the state to use it? If you need permission then it's not yours. Very simple. Banks, governments, etc are nothing more than pieces of paper. They are comprised of similarly brainwashed people that also believe, like you, that a "bank" is something more or a "government" is something more. Nope, sorry, just groups of brainwashed people carrying out duties that they usually don't understand past procedures they're trained to carry out.

Could I, if I wanted too, put my car, that has no lien against it, on a boat and take it to another country or my own private island?

 

[econ4every1]

You should check definitions of words on Black's Law website instead of generic dictionary sites. You'll often find that the definition of words, legally (and that is the 1/10 that matters since it's the 1/10 that's enforced by people with guns), is different than the definition of a word according to generic dictionary websites.

Black's Law definition of "owner"
https://thelawdictionary.org/legal-owner/



Legal possessor....guess who that is?

Btw, if you default on a credit card and a legal judgment is obtained against you, a sheriff can auction that shirt on your back. That tells you who really owns that shirt. You are only the renter of the shirt. The legal possessor. The owner of the shirt is who can force it to be sold without your permission. By purchasing something with privately owned currency (Federal Reserve Note), the owner of the currency is the owner of the merchandise purchased with that currency.

I guess my first question is, why do you think its ok to make a promise to repay and then not meet your obligations and responsibilities?

And if you are right, why are people able to declare bankruptcy and allowed to exempt some or all of their property?

What you are defining is really part of a social contract. Whithout it, the risk of lending would be much higher and growth would be lower as higher risks would result in higher costs. This would stifle growth and innovation.

 

[devil21]

I guess my first question is, why do you think its ok to make a promise to repay and then not meet your obligations and responsibilities?

And if you are right, why are people able to declare bankruptcy and allowed to exempt some or all of their property?

What you are defining is really part of a social contract. Whithout it, the risk of lending would be much higher and growth would be lower as higher risks would result in higher costs. This would stifle growth and innovation.

Stay on topic. No one brought up anything about "responsibilities" except you. Turning it into a moral discussion instead of a factual discussion shows you're not serious about learning.

The term "social contract" is actually a legal contract, not some ethereal bond between people. By partaking of the private Federal Reserve System you are entering into a legal contract. The terms of the contract are not disclosed but it is what is called an "adhesion contract". To reserve your rights against terms not disclosed when entering into an express or implied adhesion contract, the Uniform Commercial Code of each state and country (the statutes that govern all business) has a remedy included. It's in your state's UCC section as 1-308, with some state specific code section. In NC, it is GS 25-1-308. Why do you think you sign things like driver's licenses, social security cards and bank signature cards? You're entering into a contract. Social contracts, all of them.

Could I, if I wanted too, put my car, that has no lien against it, on a boat and take it to another country or my own private island?

We're reaching the point of rather ridiculous scenarios. Your private island, perhaps. You still wouldn't own it but you'd have final possession of it, not realistically subject to seizure, and have some freedom. Congrats on having a private island and a car to drive around on it. To remove it to a different country requires much customs approvals and legal paperwork. I don't know whether the Certificate of Origin is transferred to the new country or if a new one is issued once the car reaches the new port. Since 99% of countries are controlled by Rothschild central banks, it's easy to assume the same processes are in place in each one. eta: the link I posted above about MCOs covers some of that topic.

 

[econ4every1]

Stay on topic. No one brought up anything about "responsibilities" except you. Turning it into a moral discussion instead of a factual discussion shows you're not serious about learning.

While morality is certainly a factor, nothing in my response had anything to do with morality. The fact that you can't see that speaks volumes.

Without the socialized enforcement of debts, the risk of borrowing would increase making borrowing more expensive slowing economic progress. That's not a moral issue, that's an economic one.

The term "social contract" is actually a legal contract, not some ethereal bond between people. By partaking of the private Federal Reserve System you are entering into a legal contract. The terms of the contract are not disclosed but it is what is called an "adhesion contract". To reserve your rights against terms not disclosed when entering into an express or implied adhesion contract, the Uniform Commercial Code of each state and country (the statutes that govern all business) has a remedy included. It's in your state's UCC section as 1-308, with some state specific code section. In NC, it is GS 25-1-308. Why do you think you sign things like driver's licenses, social security cards and bank signature cards? You're entering into a contract. Social contracts, all of them.

Definition of social contract

an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each. -Merriam Webster

We're reaching the point of

rather ridiculous scenarios. Your private island, perhaps. You still wouldn't own it but you'd have final possession of it, not realistically subject to seizure, and have some freedom.

Ok, you don't like my "private island" scenario, what if I drove my car to live in Canada, would any entity in the US still have "ownership"? Would I be stopped at the border and told I had no right to leave with the car because it didn't belong to me? Nope, not in any meaningful sense of the term. You corrupted the meaning of ownership (or lack thereof) for ideological reasons.

Congrats on having a private island and a car to drive around on it. To remove it to a different country requires much customs approvals and legal paperwork. I don't know whether the Certificate of Origin is transferred to the new country or if a new one is issued once the car reaches the new port.

This statement is completely inconsistent with your claims.

Since 99% of countries are controlled by Rothschild central banks, it's easy to assume the same processes are in place in each one. eta: the link I posted above about MCOs covers some of that topic.

Conspiracy nonsense.

 

[devil21]

Thanks for exposing yourself with that last post. You'll earn your title as Baby Big Red Stick (lol) here soon enough.

 

[econ4every1]

Thanks for exposing yourself with that last post. You'll earn your title as Baby Big Red Stick (lol) here soon enough.

Ad Hominem saves the day!!!

Well, at least you don't have to debate.

Look if you can't have an adult conversation just say you aren't interested. I'll add you to my slowing growing list of people who would rather call names and leave negative rep than address the topic.

Respectfully,

E4E1

 

[econ4every1]

Another person that can't talk like a big boy and instead leaves me -rep.

And would you be allowed to enter Canada in a rented car...?

Sure, because rental cars are secured by your credit.

If I leave the US with my car, that I bought and move to Canada (or any another country or my own private island), no one would stop me (for taking my car) because it's mine. My credit, after I left the US, would be the same as it was when I left assuming that I paid, or was paying pursuant to the promissory agreement I signed to obtain the car.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Thanks for exposing yourself with that last post. You'll earn your title as Baby Big Red Stick (lol) here soon enough.

LOL

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Another person that can't talk like a big boy and instead leaves me -rep.

Maybe you need to start answering questions instead of trying to lecture people. Capturing flies with honey and all that.

 

[econ4every1]

Maybe you need to start answering questions instead of trying to lecture people. Capturing flies with honey and all that.

Please post a list of question's I've failed to answer.

Respectfully,

E4E1