Banks stop loaning money

[UM-Bot]

Phillip Tilley: Don’t get your knickers in a knot, it didn’t happen yesterday. The push for a cashless society has been upon us for some time. Some people believe it is OK for banks to charge high interest on certain individuals because they pose a risk. What does the bank risk that justifies this practice? First a look at Consumer Economics 101. Not so long ago in a land formerly known as a Free America, people prospered and had money left over after their monthly expenses were met. They would deposit that extra money in the Bank for safekeeping. The Bank would loan that money out to individuals or businesses so they could buy a house or expand a business venture.

The Bank charged an interest rate of 4% to the borrower. The Bank then paid depositors 2% interest on their deposited money and kept 2% to cover operating expenses and earn a small profit. It was a good deal for everyone involved. In this system the depositor is an investor and the money in the bank is an investment. The interest they receive is a dividend. The Bank acted as a broker on the deal insuring the safe return of the money loaned out. The borrower was happy to get a loan with a reasonable interest rate.

With a modest interest rate and a modest return there was modest growth. But there was some risk. The investor trusted the Bank not to lose their invested funds. If the borrower defaulted on the loan, which happened less then one half of a percent of the time, the Bank was still responsible to return money to the depositors. Too many bad loans and the Bank wouldn’t earn a profit, or might go out of business entirely. Everyone was risking something and everyone had an interest in the success of all involved.

Then things changed when the banking industry as a whole stopped using “money” and switched to Federal Reserve Note currency. Because it happened slowly, nobody noticed and no one seemed to care. Federal Reserve Notes, in spite of having no value of their own and backed by nothing of value, were declared by the Government to be legal tender and were treated as such. Now the risk factor was gone! Fewer people had leftover funds to deposit in banks and reserves dwindled. So the Government allowed Banks to “extend credit”, which is allowing people to go into debt which is a negative thing. Now credit could be extended to a borrower without the risk of losing depositors money, since depositors no longer had money anyway, only worthless Federal Reserve Note currency. The Government insured the safety of the returned debt through FDIC. This means they would return worthless Federal Reserve Notes to replace any worthless Federal Reserve Notes that were not paid back.

Now the depositor has nothing at risk, the Bank has nothing at risk, and if the borrower defaulted, the Government would extinguish the debt that had been created. Each time someone borrows from a Bank they are not loaned money, they are extended credit. Any banker worth their salt would never say they loan money because that would be a lie. They will say they will extend your credit.

The new system however created a new risk for the Banks. With all of our currency as debt currency, borrowed into existence when someone is extended credit, the funding to pay back the debt has to come from somewhere. This leads to sustained debt to pay an ever increasing debt. This cannot go on forever and it drives up interest rates and default rates until the entire system implodes upon itself.

If you haven’t been paying attention, the implosion point is nearly at hand. Perhaps you are too poor to pay attention. There is no money so Banks stopped loaning money a long time ago. It is one of the mechanisms of the money matrix. Some people are waking up though. In the video game Silent Hill 3, on a stone wall it says: “Thus one’s life turns to riches: What was a bag of silver coins is now the number in a book. Yet faith hath no price… Ah, but do people know this?”

Wake up people, the money matrix has you.

Phillip Tilley is the author of The Money Matrix of the New World Order and other articles.

[SoCrazes]

Phillip Tilley: Don’t get your knickers in a knot, it didn’t happen yesterday.

Fewer people had leftover funds to deposit in banks and reserves dwindled. So the Government allowed Banks to “extend credit”, which is allowing people to go into debt which is a negative thing.

Can you pls substantiate this line from your quote (not that I don't beleive you, it is just a big insertion without substantiation).

[Magnatude]

Can you pls substantiate this line from your quote (not that I don't beleive you, it is just a big insertion without substantiation).

Anyone who has applied for a mortgage or a loan knows (or should) full well, that this statement needs no substantiation.

What will happen is people will finally either default (cant pay the debt they got into) and the whole market will crash. The only thing holding up the economy in the states is the debt (willing of people paying with credit/creditcards). As long as they are paying the cards off its ok, however a large portion of America's are finding themselves deeper in debt until they dont have enough income to pay the bills.

The crash will be happening very soon.

[SparkOfOm]

The Federal Reserve is as Federal as Federal Express.

Has anyone watched the documentary Zeitgeist?

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Everyone should check it out !!!

[SoCrazes]

Anyone who has applied for a mortgage or a loan knows (or should) full well, that this statement needs no substantiation.

What will happen is people will finally either default (cant pay the debt they got into) and the whole market will crash. The only thing holding up the economy in the states is the debt (willing of people paying with credit/creditcards). As long as they are paying the cards off its ok, however a large portion of America's are finding themselves deeper in debt until they dont have enough income to pay the bills.

The crash will be happening very soon.

Tilman asserted, "Fewer people had leftover funds to deposit in banks and reserves dwindled. So the Government allowed Banks to “extend credit”, which is allowing people to go into debt which is a negative thing. Now credit could be extended to a borrower without the risk of losing depositors money, since depositors no longer had money anyway, only worthless Federal Reserve Note currency. The Government insured the safety of the returned debt through FDIC. This means they would return worthless Federal Reserve Notes to replace any worthless Federal Reserve Notes that were not paid back."

I'm interested in what numbers Tilman used to make this assertion. His statements allude to the fact that there was a point in time where bank reserves decreased because of fewer deposits. Is there other historical data that he can correlate with this?

I think it has little to do with being on a currency and much to do with spending/saving habits that the we, the herd, have been pursuing. Marketers have the "herd's number." When we spend more, as capitalism requires for growth, we save less and deposits fall. As far as a mortgage, did you buy a home within your means or try to compete with the "Joneses?" If people tried to compete with the "Joneses", then, yes, there will be higer rate of default loans. It all has to do with each of our own habits and we all must take responsibility. The system does work, if we all take responsibility.

[Oen Anderson]

Tilman asserted, "Fewer people had leftover funds to deposit in banks and reserves dwindled. So the Government allowed Banks to “extend credit”, which is allowing people to go into debt which is a negative thing. Now credit could be extended to a borrower without the risk of losing depositors money, since depositors no longer had money anyway, only worthless Federal Reserve Note currency. The Government insured the safety of the returned debt through FDIC. This means they would return worthless Federal Reserve Notes to replace any worthless Federal Reserve Notes that were not paid back."

I'm interested in what numbers Tilman used to make this assertion. His statements allude to the fact that there was a point in time where bank reserves decreased because of fewer deposits. Is there other historical data that he can correlate with this?

I think it has little to do with being on a currency and much to do with spending/saving habits that the we, the herd, have been pursuing. Marketers have the "herd's number." When we spend more, as capitalism requires for growth, we save less and deposits fall. As far as a mortgage, did you buy a home within your means or try to compete with the "Joneses?" If people tried to compete with the "Joneses", then, yes, there will be higer rate of default loans. It all has to do with each of our own habits and we all must take responsibility. The system does work, if we all take responsibility.

If you have not treated yourself to Tilleys book you should ask your local library to order in a copy, it's all explained in the book "The Money Matrix of the New World Order". I've read it four times. You need look no further than the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve was started in 1913 and Tilley claims they orchestrated the stock market crash of 1929. Certainly you can realize bank reserves vanished at that time. In 1933 President Roosevelt declaired a financial emergency, confescated all the nations gold, (further evidence of bank deposits lacking any money), at which point they reopened the banks under a government issued license allowing them to extend credit, creating the debt currency Federal Reserve Notes every time someone "borrowes". Tilley is correct, debt is a negative thing. Our currency is worthless and it gets worth less and less all the time.

[Moon*Ghost]

Seems to me that someone is just trying to start a conspiracy theory that isn't quite taking off.

[War Eagle]

Ahhh yes the good ol Banks.

If ever there were institutions throughout human history that somehow for sore every contingency to blood suck the masses dry in one way or another, it's the Banks.

_{Gimmie Tyra Banks for a deposit any day.}

Edited January 16, 2008 by REBEL

[Oen Anderson]

Seems to me that someone is just trying to start a conspiracy theory that isn't quite taking off.

It took off Kennedys head. After President Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110 ordering the Treasury to print Treasury Notes backed by silver he was murdered. Nope, no conspiracy there you fool.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Oen Anderson

[War Eagle]

Lets not forget Abe Lincoln who in 1865 was given an 'early permanent retirement', and Congress revoked the Greenback Law and enacted in its place the National Banking Act supporting privately owned national banks. The associates of Lincoln's assassin were according to many, on the payroll of the Rothschild's (elite scum).

The Nation was thrown into a state of constant debt, paying interest to ''private'' bankers who created and controlled the cash ever since.

Edited January 16, 2008 by REBEL

[Star_girl]

Why can't we just print/create more 'money'? It is after all just a physical thing that we attribute value to.

[:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:]

Interesting read. I always assumed the number on the paper was an inventory reflection of what is actually stored in a bank. This would be for the purpose of the electronic age, such as checking your statements via online banking.

[Oen Anderson]

Why can't we just print/create more 'money'? It is after all just a physical thing that we attribute value to.

There is no money, there is only Federal Reserve Note currency and the money matrix tricks your mind into believing it has value. You are waking up though. Most of the currency is moving around in computers anyway, they don't need to print very much at all.

[SoCrazes]

Seems to me that someone is just trying to start a conspiracy theory that isn't quite taking off.

Yes, and maybe sell more books while their at it.

[SoCrazes]

If you have not treated yourself to Tilleys book you should ask your local library to order in a copy, it's all explained in the book "The Money Matrix of the New World Order". I've read it four times. You need look no further than the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve was started in 1913 and Tilley claims they orchestrated the stock market crash of 1929. Certainly you can realize bank reserves vanished at that time. In 1933 President Roosevelt declaired a financial emergency, confescated all the nations gold, (further evidence of bank deposits lacking any money), at which point they reopened the banks under a government issued license allowing them to extend credit, creating the debt currency Federal Reserve Notes every time someone "borrowes". Tilley is correct, debt is a negative thing. Our currency is worthless and it gets worth less and less all the time.

Yes, we all know that debt is represented as a negative item when you borrow. Additionally, how can our currency, which you say has no value, gets worth less and less all the time? You may want to read another book.

[darudedope]

For thous who think this is just another conspiracy nut idea, and actually believe in the current money system, please take your time and look at these films .It is off most importance that we wake up and do something about this before it's too late. I relay do believe that with the current fiat monetary system we have know, America is heading in a very bad direction.

Fiat Empire

Aaron Russo's : Freedom To Fascism

[War Eagle]

Cool docos darudedope, seen em before.

I'm already 'sold' on the idea that the global monetary system is controlled by the power elite.

* I owe I owe it's off to work we go... ...*

Edited January 19, 2008 by REBEL

[Oen Anderson]

Yes, we all know that debt is represented as a negative item when you borrow. Additionally, how can our currency, which you say has no value, gets worth less and less all the time? You may want to read another book.

You agree debt is a negative thing. Our currency is a debt based fiat currency, therefor it is negative, and more currency is only created when more debt,(a negative thing) is created. Scientists tell us our universe is expanding. When the economy expands farther into debt it is inflating in a negative direction so the currency you have becomes, believe it or not, worth less and less all the time. Not to be negative my friend but the truth is relentless. By the way, how is your wife getting on with her leg?

[War Eagle]

Well put Oen.

It's almost like they're trying to keep the honest working class in a constant enslaved matrix of debt(?)

to top it all off...

Edited January 19, 2008 by REBEL

[SoCrazes]

Why can't we just print/create more 'money'? It is after all just a physical thing that we attribute value to.

Yes, we could print more currency; however, the laws of supply and demand apply to it as well as any other wants/needs (i.e., the more supply of something while demand stays the same the price decreases). For example, if a gallon of milk costs $3.00 today (USD), and the supply of USD is increased twofold while the demand for it (and milk) stays the same, then that gallon of milk (theorhetically) will cost $6.00. Increasing the money supply, with all other things staying the same, usually results in inflation.

[SoCrazes]

You agree debt is a negative thing. Our currency is a debt based fiat currency, therefor it is negative, and more currency is only created when more debt,(a negative thing) is created. Scientists tell us our universe is expanding. When the economy expands farther into debt it is inflating in a negative direction so the currency you have becomes, believe it or not, worth less and less all the time. Not to be negative my friend but the truth is relentless. By the way, how is your wife getting on with her leg?

To be more specific in my answer, debt is a negative thing if you are the borrower and positive when you are the loaner. If our currency is a debt, then who is the borrower and who is the loaner? Yes, I understand how the "house of cards" fell in 1929 because of the lack of the "controls" and see similarities to the 1929 pre-crash in the past few year's economy. Yes, the banks are notorious for making big mistakes that bring the economy to its knees. But, I beleive a floating currency is needed in a capitalistic society for it to expand. I beleive capitalism, with proper controls, is the best game in town. Just compare GDPs or GNPs and standards of living of all the economies in the world - capitalistic oriented economies win by a long shot.

My wife is doing better every day...I must watch for the swift crashing end of a crutch to my head now and then though. Thanks for asking.

PS I promise I will check out Tilley's book when summer is here, until then, pls entertain yourself with my rudimentary knowledge of economics.

[Oen Anderson]

Cool docos darudedope, seen em before.

I'm already 'sold' on the idea that the global monetary system is controlled by the power elite.

* I owe I owe it's off to work we go... ...*

So few of us really get it. I was blind to it for so long I just can't quit screaming I see it now!

[Oen Anderson]

To be more specific in my answer, debt is a negative thing if you are the borrower and positive when you are the loaner. If our currency is a debt, then who is the borrower and who is the loaner? Yes, I understand how the "house of cards" fell in 1929 because of the lack of the "controls" and see similarities to the 1929 pre-crash in the past few year's economy. Yes, the banks are notorious for making big mistakes that bring the economy to its knees. But, I beleive a floating currency is needed in a capitalistic society for it to expand. I beleive capitalism, with proper controls, is the best game in town. Just compare GDPs or GNPs and standards of living of all the economies in the world - capitalistic oriented economies win by a long shot.

My wife is doing better every day...I must watch for the swift crashing end of a crutch to my head now and then though. Thanks for asking.

PS I promise I will check out Tilley's book when summer is here, until then, pls entertain yourself with my rudimentary knowledge of economics.

On the contrary my friend, I hardly believe your knowledge of economics is rudimentary. I fully agree with your example of currency inflation.

[Oen Anderson]

I see in the financial section of my local paper that "Profits plummet at key banks". Bank of America Corp., the nations largest consumer bank reported earnings fell 95% last quarter while Wachovia Corp., the nations fourth largest bank reported earnings fell 98% last quarter. Hummmm!

[War Eagle]

Hold it Oen! ... wait a second! ... i think i hear my wallet scream'n...aww my heart bleeds for em.

Maybe they should declare themselves bankrupt?

Also i think you can almost hear their share holders running in a frantic mad rush to sell off only to have the banks rear end em shortly & bitter sweetly thereafter...

lol!

Edited January 24, 2008 by REBEL