Banking Is Not Evil

[Slutter McGee]

Tired of your pricks telling me I am evil for supporting banks. You should go screw yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Fractional reserve usury is.

 

[Carson]

Banking is no longer even banking. It is broken in both directions.

You can't keep up with inflation with a savings account.

You can't make loans and ever expect to compete with the counterfeiters false front banks. If you were able to make it past the liability of having to outguess and stay ahead of inflation you would still lose real money if you made a bad loan. The counterfeiters criminal organization will just bail themselves out and shift they losses onto the population still trying to bank on the dollar.

Tired of your pricks telling me I am evil for supporting banks. You should go screw yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

As for you being evil? Sounds to me like your just one of us.

P.S. And I suppose we are. Big time!

 

[phill4paul]

Tired of your pricks telling me I am evil for supporting banks. You should go screw yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[DamianTV]

Oh boy, potential for fighting here.

Modern Banking = Legal Counterfeiting and Theft

 

[Acala]

Tired of your pricks telling me I am evil for supporting banks. You should go screw yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

You are not evil for supporting banks. You are evil because your heart is three sizes too small. But banking is the biggest, most destructive scam in the history of the planet

 

[ctiger2]

Fractional reserve usury is.

I agree. Banking, as in lending out money on deposit with market interest rates is completely legit and necessary.

Fractional reserve banking is legalized counterfeiting, immoral & should be illegal in a just society.

 

[Petar]

Central banking is evil and so is your shitty dad the prosecutor. Prick.

 

[oyarde]

Tired of your pricks telling me I am evil for supporting banks. You should go screw yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

What is it you love about your bank Slutter?

 

[amy31416]

Tired of your pricks telling me I am evil for supporting banks. You should go screw yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Nobody gives a shit.

Where's the "comic" newsletters?--the next one should mention Danke.

 

[erowe1]

Tired of your pricks telling me I am evil for supporting banks. You should go screw yourself.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

+rep

Understand that the ones calling you evil probably don't really hate banks per se, just Jews.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

+rep

Understand that the ones calling you evil probably don't really hate banks per se, just Jews.

Yawn.

Or they hate people loaning out more money than they have on reserve and collecting interest on thin air.

 

[erowe1]

Fractional reserve banking is legalized counterfeiting, immoral & should be illegal in a just society.

Why?

 

[Cap]

Drinking this early in the day?

 

[MRoCkEd]

I agree. Banking, as in lending out money on deposit with market interest rates is completely legit and necessary.

Fractional reserve banking is legalized counterfeiting, immoral & should be illegal in a just society.

If the customers agree to the terms when they choose to deposit money in a bank, what's the problem?

 

[dannno]

If the customers agree to the terms when they choose to deposit money in a bank, what's the problem?

I'm pretty sure people in concentration camps in Germany agreed to a lot of 'terms'. Why should they complain about their bunk? They were first in line to choose which bunk they wanted, right?

When you live under tyranny just because you agree to something that doesn't make it 'free market'.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Why?

If the customers agree to the terms when they choose to deposit money in a bank, what's the problem?

Consider this:
Excerpted from: It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano. All rights to the author and publisher. I actually just finished Chapter 12 which is entitled: A Dime Isn't Worth a Penny Anymore: The Right to Sound Money.

To illustrate the actual effects of inflation as caused by the Fed, consider that what cost $25,000 in 1913 would cost about $536,000 in 2010. If a person had $25,000 in 1913 and did not keep it in a bank or a (risky) investment account, by 2010 he would have lost 93 percent of his money's purchasing power, or the amount of goods or services that can be purchased per unit of currency. Even if someone had saved $25,000 in a savings account at the average interest rate yield of 1.3 percent over the same ninety-seven-year period, he would have $87,500 in the bank. He would still need an additional $339,000 to buy in 2010 what his $25,000 would have purchased in 1913. Thus, even by saving his $25,000 for ninety-seven years, he would have lost 83 percent of the money's purchasing power at the end of the ninety-seven years.

Massive increases in the money supply, or inflation, by way of fractional reserve banking and a fiat-based monetary system (or a monetary system that has currency which is not backed by any intrinsic value and is considered money just because the government says it is; oddly reminiscent of legal Positivism) causes prices to rise as well as the boom-and-bust cycle. The people who benefit from this inflationary system are the ones who get their hands on the money first, the banks. The banks get to make their investments before the prices of assets rise in response to the increase in the money supply. By the time the money trickles down to the rest of the people in the economy, the symptoms of inflation will have begun to settle in and devalued money will mean the money has less purchasing power, which will cause the phenomenon of rising prices.

This inflationary system robs people of their savings. Every time the Federal Reserve expands the money supply through this system, all money that was already in circulation loses purchasing power, and the people who get their hands on the money first gain that lost purchasing power. Normally, the banks loan money to the government by purchasing treasury bills. Treasury bills have been one of the safest investments in the past since the federal government debt is guaranteed to be repaid with interest, by you and me, the taxpayers. The government can now decide what to do with this money, say, funding any one of its special interest projects, or even our collective welfare, if it feels so ambitious.

It is immoral. It is dishonest. And it shouldn't exist in a free society. One hundred percent reserve rates and a gold standard would effectively stop this leviathan in its tracks.

 

[erowe1]

Consider this:
Excerpted from: It is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano. All rights to the author and publisher. I actually just finished Chapter 12 which is entitled: A Dime Isn't Worth a Penny Anymore: The Right to Sound Money.





It is immoral. It is dishonest. And it shouldn't exist in a free society. One hundred percent reserve rates and a gold standard would effectively stop this leviathan in its tracks.

How is it either immoral or dishonest?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

How is it either immoral or dishonest?

They are loaning money which they do not actually have while collecting interest on it and they are destroying the store of value money should retain.

How is it not immoral or dishonest? The money I am paid today, that is, mandated to be paid in, (US dollars), is worth less tomorrow than it was when I received it.

When I said it [fractional reserve banking and fiat money] shouldn't exist in a free society I actually misspoke. People should have the option of being paid in whatever they wish to agree to. Whether that be Chuck E. Cheese tickets or a gold backed currency. The problem is that they have outlawed transacting in gold with the Emergency Banking Act of 1933. At the least, they need to repeal that abhorrent legislation and allow for competing currencies. I think you'd find, when given a choice, people would choose a currency that was backed by gold over a piece of paper, which is inherently manipulatable, deemed valuable by government decree.

 

[erowe1]

They are loaning money which they do not actually have while collecting interest on it and they are destroying the store of value money should retain.

How is it not immoral or dishonest?

As MRocked said, if that's what the agree to, then I don't see how it is either.

Let's separate out the fiat currency aspect of it, which you bring up. Say the government didn't issue fiat currency. You still think there should be laws requiring banks to hold 100% reserves?