What Communism and Capitalism Have In Common

[Oceanwave1]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

6 minutes ago, Oceanwave1 said:

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". 

Banks have the statutory right to create money via Congress. The Fed is also a creature of Congress and is bound to do what Congress tells it. The Fed creates money that doesn't need to be paid back. "Private" banks should simply be viewed as money-extension arms of the government.

8 minutes ago, Oceanwave1 said:

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!

It's not fraudulent, it's the way the banking system works according to law. Banks are able to extend (create) money, however they do so by creating an opposing liability. This liability needs to be paid back by the borrower, because if the bank gets too many bad liabilities, they will get liquidated by the government.

11 minutes ago, Oceanwave1 said:

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!

Yes they can. In fact, that's exactly what they do. By law. The Fed is the single source of money within the US, and when it spends the money, it spends it into existence. There is no other way to create US dollars than for the Fed to spend it into existence. Money created by private banks is balanced out by an opposing liability (a debt that needs to be paid back). Fed money doesn't need to be paid back. It just floats out there.

 

13 minutes ago, Oceanwave1 said:

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.

Regardless of whether or not you like to say it, banks can in fact do that. By law.

You can't steal a lawn mower then lend it back, because the lawn mower actually exists. Money doesn't actually exist in the same physical sense as the lawn mower, so the government (and private banks via the government's permission) are able to create money out of nothing and use it. So yes, a private bank can loan what it doesn't own. The Fed doesn't loan, it just spews the money out there.

16 minutes ago, Oceanwave1 said:

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.

Yup, but they are required to get that money back. If they don't and there books don't balance, the government will liquidate them.

17 minutes ago, Oceanwave1 said:

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 !!

They take MASSIVE risk by loaning out/creating money. Like I said, if they can't balance their books at the end of the day: LIQUIDATION. End of bank. Regarding interest: because the money a private bank "lends out" is balanced by an opposing liability, as the principle of the loan gets paid back, the two cancel each other out. The money which represented the principle disappears. The only thing left the bank gets to keep is the interest. So yes, they absolutely have justification for charging interest. A bank's ability to "create" money like this is one of the reasons why they can a.) make such long-term loans (30 year mortgages) AND b.) have such low interest rates (4%-ish right now on mortgages). Go to a hard money lender and you'll never hear of a loan longer than 2 years and lower than 12% plus two points--that money comes from people's actual savings accounts and they can't afford the massive risk of lending out so long.

 

Unfortunately, Stef, the libertarians, and mises.org have absolutely bombed it when it comes to the nature of money. Learn Modern Monetary Theory and look up Nima's posts on this board about the subject.

 

 

 

[ofd]

Quote

 

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". 

 

Is that you Humpty Dumpty?

 

Quote

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

 

[Goldenages]

On 8.10.2017 at 7:50 AM, Oceanwave1 said:

Bolshevim was funded by Wall Street. We all know that, so no news there.

Yes.  But the money came from the FED, a central bank, with the monopoly for (this so called) money.

This is not capitalism, its the opposite.

regards

Andi

[Worlok]

wtf are you talking about?

Let's pretend government does not exist and "money" refers to a currency that the local bank prints and will trade silver for. The bank says x amount of money is worth x amount of silver. People invest silver in the bank since it's heavy as all hell and the bank gives them money. When doing so, the bank and the customer both receive receipts and documentation as well as require mutual signing of a document stating that the bank can loan out said silver or money worth that silver to other people on the basis that the bank will be paid back including interest and the person storing the silver will receive a portion of that interest. So, lets say 100 people put in all of their heavy silver for paper money and they all buy everything with paper money that could be bought with silver and thus the silver is no longer inherently necessary to the value of the money because it now has value to trade for anything else as well. The amount that the bank will loan out may very well exceed the amount of silver in it's possession. However, the amount it loans will be what they project that they can safely loan out and still have enough silver to give to people that want the silver instead. Once the money is in circulation and commonly used, only a small amount of silver has to be held because the money at that point has value to other items and basically nobody will want the silver. Money exists as a medium for trade. Once it is defined as a medium for trade, it holds value as such until something replaces it. Current USD is based on this sort of value. We used to have a gold standard. The gold standard technically isn't required because the money has its own value. The issue with money with no standard, is that you can print more money and people can't just trade your worthless money for the standard, such as gold or silver, which would make you not print money because you would go broke as a bank.

In this scenario, which is how banks DO work, you have banks lending actual money to actual borrowers at the behest and to the benefit of people storing money in said bank and there are receipts. Your actual argument is that banks don't lend out their own money, which is also false. If a bank takes interest from loans exceeding interest paid to those holding money in the bank, the bank then has made its own money. Once a bank accumulates enough, it can itself loan its own money. Banks lend out the money of other people. The other people sign contracts allowing the bank to do this and people taking out loans signing contracts that they will pay back a loan with interest. Banks can and do loan other people's money as well as loaning the bank's money.

Let's pretend that there is an unconstitutional central bank and money is subject to absurd laws and the government does a great many things that aren't capitalist. Wait, you're just bitching about how the government sucks and ruins everything and that that means that the economic facts that I just presented aren't capitalism because that isn't what the government is doing. Yeah, the US government is not capitalist and stifles capitalism at seemingly every point. Government definitions are BS and your entire argument about how banks actually work and what they actually do is completely false.

The issue isn't that I don't know wtf you are talking about. The issue is that you don't know wtf you are talking about.

[ofd]

Quote

In this scenario, which is how banks DO work, you have banks lending actual money to actual borrowers at the behest and to the benefit of people storing money in said bank and there are receipts.

What is your evidence that this is the case?

[Jsbrads]

Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t fraud. Fiat currency is fraud. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Redestributive actions are theft. Much of campaign contributions are legal bribery. 

[barn]

Thanks @Oceanwave

@Oceanwave1

for the clarifiers/examples, I like when people are trying to be clear.

Barnsley

[barn]

On 10/08/2017 at 7:50 AM, Oceanwave1 said:

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.

I can see why you would like to have heard it corrected...

'The beginning of true wisdom is calling things by their proper names.'

However I am having trouble coming up with good enough reasons as to why he would miss such an important definition.

Is he 'stream-lining', maybe?

Is it perhaps because it is rather technical and doesn't matter a great deal when seeing the whole argument put forth in his presentations?

Is it possible that he willfully chooses to not do it...

perhaps because it would make things more complicated?

Barnsley

[ofd]

Quote

perhaps because it would make things more complicated?

It would contradict the Austrian theory of Boom and Busts according to which Central Banks play a huge role. If you look at reality however, fiat money creation from private banks via credit plays a much larger role.

[Jsbrads]

Also Fiat currency has nothing to do with capitalism! Fiat currency is a tool of an expansive and growing government.