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.

Lawrence White spoke at MTSU on December 2, 2013. The title of the talk was 'The Federal Reserve System at 100: Success or Failure?"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/china-bars-banks-from-handling-bitcoin-in-new-setback-for-cyber-currency/article15778732/ Chinese Central Bank moved to prohibit country's banks from handling Bitcoin. This comes weeks after the government issued a number of informative videos helping people understand the virtual currency (in somewhat positive light). What does it all mean? Are they for or against it, or just trying to confuse their populace? Most importantly what does it mean for Bitcoin - would the Central Bank's endorsement actually have made it weaker? What are your thoughts?

Time is our ultimate resource not money. Utilizing a system already in place to record our earnings we can tweak it to account for time rather than earnings. Currently, during your working years, earnings covered by Social Security are posted to your Social Security record and you earn credits based on those earnings. Using time as a measure of one's earnings over money can be an easy transition. Hours are already being recorded by most employers. Who then report those hours to the Social Security Administration (The SSA). The SSA currently measures the amount of earnings in credits to determine eligibility for social security. Therefore, little needs to change to effect implementation of a record keeping program for validating hours accomplished. Example of the model: People work (or study, community service, etc) and have their hours posted to their Social Security record. You earn credits for time worked. For illustration, let's say 20 hours of work = 1 credit. There can be several levels of benefits for the credits accumulated such as: Level 1 Benefit (2 credits) = Food Level 2 Benefit (3 credits) = Clothing Level 3 Benefit (5 credits) = healthcare Level 4 Benefit (10 credits) = car Level 5 Benefit (15 credits) = home Level 6 benefit (20 credits) = 1 additional credit Level 7 benefit (30 credits) = vacation We can add that missing work would subtract 1 credit for every x hours missed. There can be many variables that can be tweaked to make it a fair system. Bean counters would have a field day working this out. This wouldn't be nearly as complicated as our current system is now with how we handle compensation packages, taxes, entitlement programs, etc.. The logistics aren't important right now so I don't need go into any further details on that. Once you reach a level, you have the choice to procure the goods or services that come with that benefit at no additional cost to you. We as consumers are free to choose where we take our business. This is no different than our current system. Only now we prove this with a social security card that tells the business what level benefit we have reached. For example, you go to a restaurant show them your card, they swipe it to verify and provide you with the service and food. If you don"t like the food or service, you don"t return to that business. If no one returns, they go out of business. The owners may or may not be allowed to start a new business. That will be up to either the Small Business Administration or the Fairness Review Board or both. Conversely, business failure will be reduced because of proper preparation for success and the ability to hire business managers and mentors will have increased. Nonetheless, there is still a risk of failure and a reward of success, although not as devastating when a loss in our current system is experienced. check out the debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Abolishing-and-Eliminating-Currency-is-a-viable-proposal./1/ http://thenewsocialsecurity.org/blog.php #thenewssa