Search the Community

Bolshevim was funded by Wall Street. We all know that, so no news there. But, that is not all that Communism and Capitalism have in common. Those on "The Left" AND those on "The Right", point-blank refuse to accept the further FACT, that banks NEVER "lend" money to any purported "borrower", ever! Instead, banks merely fraudulently claim to be "lending money" to the defrauded "borrower", who in fact, is THE SOLE "creator" of the money used for the purported "bank loan". If a bank ever did "lend out money" to any client, they would certainly demand a "receipt" for the sum they loaned out, no? But no such "contractual" documentation is ever required or mutually signed. Instead of a "bi-lateral contract", the purported "borrower" is asked only to sign a "uni-lateral agreement" to repay a demanded sum of money each month. No bank of course even CAN insist a "borrower" sign a "contract", accepting the money that the bank has "loaned to them" ("$xxx.xxx") because to do so, would be fraudulent, because bank know, that banks NEVER LEND OUT MONEY! How can that assertion be proved? By the fact that both the FED and The Bank of England insist that all "loans" are "brand new money", that has never been in circulation before, prior to it being created (BY THE PURPORTED BORROWER!) for the loan! The fact is, that money can never be "loaned into existence" anyway! As I like to say "A bank can't loan, what it doesn't first own!" You can't steal your neighbors lawn mower, and then "lend" it to your neighbor on the other side of you. That would be fraud. But that is precisely what banks do to their loan clients. They wait until the "borrower" has signed an "agreement", which empowers the loan, which was merely "a figure on paper" until that "money-creating" signature was applied to the agreement. Secondly, a Bank's "reserves", despite what Stefan keeps on insisting, are NEVER used to "loan to borrowers". That is simply untrue! A banks' reserves are only a notional figure, used to calculate the "fig leaf" limit that a bank can theoretically "lend out", even though they never "lend out money", and will keep stealing as much money as their clients qualify to borrow ... from themselves. Thirdly, we come to the unavoidable consequence of these first two fraudulent deceptions. Becase banks take NO RISK in NOT lending any money to anyone, they then have ZERO justification in charging ANY interest on the sums involved !! The entire specious argumant that banks are somehow "justified" in demanding under threats, and extracting usury/interest from clients, utterly fails, when it is understood that they "TAKE NO RISK", because they "MAKE NO LOAN !! This truth of course, is what the entire Libertarian and Mises.org Austrian School of Economics do NOT want you to focus on! Why? Because in reality, as much as they make great arguments for personal choice, they simultaneously also "provide covering fire" for the banks, aiding and abetting them in defrauding the world, via every single loan and mortgage that are fraudulently transacted. As an aside, I have several times left comments on some of Stefan's videos, whenever he repeats the lie that "banks lend money from deposits", but they are never replied to. Now I know that is perhaps to be expected, but hopefully someone on the forum here, can show me the error in my assertions. Thank you in advance.

I was listening to an old podcast about “how would we deal with … in the free society”, and then, this piece of news pops up (i.e. “we deal with theft so well now”)… http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/crown-suggests-four-year-prison-sentence-for-ex-quebec-vice-regal-thibault/article24567724/ Basically, this person pleaded guilty to defrauding government of $430K. But… she is a former Quebec lieutenant-governor (sort of like an appointed state governor). So, her punishment will likely be 12 mons of community service and have to repay $372K (no word on the $58K difference) with $272K coming from her foundation for disabled. Basically, they are going to force a bunch of handicapped people to pay for her theft. Figures.

Good Evening FDR!This is my first time writing here mainly becuase i didn't know what to start writing about.But now I have a problem that need some philosophy applied.I inherited money when my grandfather passed away, about 20 years ago, the money was placed in a trustfund.In mid 2009 my stepfather faked my signature and managed to get the money wired to his account.I noticed this 3 weeks ago.The bank now tells me that they are not responsible for verifying signatures or control who's account is being listed and that i should contact the police and press charges.I feel that they have a responsibility to me, as their customer, and that they should restore the funds by the value that they would have today.What I need help with is to sort out who is actually responsible and why.And if is the trustfund then i could use some strong logical arguments that can help me battle the suits.I can definitely provide you with more information if you need it.I'm not sure what information is relevant so this is just what I think is essential.Thanks in advance/L