CIA-KGB propaganda - Re: On the need for banks

Zig the N.g ziggerjoe at
Mon May 4 05:14:35 PDT 2020

On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 04:25:53AM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 10:15:52 +1000
> "Zig the N.g" <ziggerjoe at> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 03:29:14PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> > > On Sun, 3 May 2020 21:03:22 +1000
> > > "Zig the N.g" <ziggerjoe at> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > One of the ways to reinforce a nation against such predatory oligarchical financial rule, is a state-run development bank,
> > > 
> > > 	fascist spam, like the rest of Z.g's spam
> > 
> > 
> > It's a possible transition step, in the context of the existence of a government, rather than anarchist rule.
> > 
> > Another possible step is printing your own currency rather than borrowing every dollar from private banks - JFK tried this, 
> 	dollars are created by the US government and 'backed' by the US military. What else do you do apart from spreading misinformation? 

This is a misunderstanding/misnomer, and one of the greatest deceptions successfully perpetrated on the majority, by the Federal Reserve Banking system.

Yes, US dollars are 'backed' by the US military.

No, dollars are not created by the US government.

A few (2 billion?) dollars were actually created by JFK's government, but not since.

Prior and subsequent to JFK's brief (re)printing of US dollars by the US government, and since the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, what we think of sa "US dollars" have only been created as debt instruments "of the Fed" - in other words, each dollar "created" was only created by literally borrowing those dollars from the Fed, and not by creating those dollars.

Yes, we can cut a fine hair and say that the Fed created those dollars and then loaned them, but that is the creation of a loan (and issuing the dollars arising from that loan), and those loan dollars are supposed to be repaid, WITH INTEREST - and the dollars for the payment of the interest do not get created at the time the loan is issued, and so gradually over the years, the loans vs actual dollars in existence (M1 vs M0 etc) gets further and further out of balance, and eventually the Fed/the other private banks, pulls the pin by raising interest rates and causing a recession or (great) depression.

When a (privately held) bank creates a loan, it creates a ledger - with two entries: the debt to the bank on one side, and the credit in the recipient's bank account on the other side.

Because of the two sides of this ledger, it looks like the 2 sides cancel each other out - and from various accounting perspectives they do, since the "debt owed to the bank" is cancelled out by the "credit in the loan recipients account, which he eventually must repay".

Now, when the loan recipient makes repayments, this "wipes out" a certain amount of the loan - in the "debt to the bank" side of the ledger (it's another bank account, but it's a "balanced" ledger).

The fact the loan --capital-- repayments cause the "debt to the bank" side of the ledger to be cancelled out (that is, zeroed out), it sort of looks "fair and reasonable".

But in fact is is incredibly unfair, as follows:

   - the ledger entries were created by the bank - the debt, and the credit sides of the ledger

   - no one's deposit in the bank ever reduced, so the bank creates this ledger-pair, out of nothing, just the click of a computer button

   - so the bank literally created the "credit" side of the ledger, which appears "as money" in the borrower's account - this is what is effectively "money" in this debt based federal reserve system

   - BUT, not only does the borrower promise to repay the loan, the borrower promises to repay the interest AS WELL

   - and that interest is not created at the time the loan ledger entries are created

   - and so, fundamentally (multiplied across millions of such loans), the system is unbalanced, and people may be able to repay the interest, but it is systemically (mathematically) not possible for all loans to be repaid by everyone

We see that the banks receive not only the "repayment" of the original loan capital amount (which was created from nothing - essentially fraud or counterfeiting), but ALSO, and most importantly, the loan interest.

And the banks get paid this interest for no reason whatsoever, other than that they have a monopoly on creating loan ledger entries.

And each loan that's created, has the repayments (of capital AND interest) --guaranteed-- by the borrower.

So the borrower does all the hard work of finding and paying the interest, and the bank just clicked a couple buttons on the computer.

Now, this is just the smallest part of the unfairness:

   - not only do the banks have all their loan ledger entries guaranteed by the borrowers

   - not only do the borrowers do all the work of repaying all the interest, AND (theoretically at least) all the capital (in reality, at a collective view, the can always gets kicked further and further down the road, since it's not possible for everyone to ever repay all loans, since much of the capital amounts were used to make interest payments)

   - : the banks IGNORE the "debt (to the bank)" side of the ledger, and (essentially) account for the "credit deposit into the borrower's account" as though that's a "capital deposit" for the bank - in other words, the borrower e.g. uses his loan to buy a house, and immediately transfers his loan money from his account, to the house seller's account, and voi la, the money is now in someone else's bank account - STILL as a credit for the bank

   - so every loan, at the initial moment of issue, appears as a credit in one or another bank's accounts - this is "new money" even though there's a corresponding debt/debit account ledger entry somewhere

   - all this new money, being deposits, is "capital" --- against which the bank "issues new loans"!

   - the ratio of capital to loans is the "reserve ratio", which was around 15% but years ago got reduced to 3% and from memory even lower

   - various websites define this ratio in the wrong way as follows:

         Its simply the portion of a bank's total deposits that it should keep as cash.
         If a bank has 100 Million as total deposits and the Central Bank has recommended a 10% Reserve Ratio, then a bank should keep 10 million as cash. Here cash means either as Vault Cash or as deposits with the Central Bank.

         The reserve ratio is the portion of reservable liabilities that commercial banks must hold onto, rather than lend out or invest. This is a requirement determined by the country's central bank, which in the United States is the Federal Reserve. It is also known as the cash reserve ratio.
         U.S. commercial banks are required to hold reserves against their total reservable liabilities (deposits) which cannot be lent out by the bank. Reservable liabilities include net transaction accounts, nonpersonal time deposits and Eurocurrency liabilities.

         The reserve requirement (or cash reserve ratio) is a central bank regulation that sets the minimum amount of reserves that must be held by a commercial bank. The minimum reserve is generally determined by the central bank to be no less than a specified percentage of the amount of deposit liabilities the commercial bank owes to its customers. The commercial bank's reserves normally consist of cash owned by the bank and stored physically in the bank vault (vault cash), plus the amount of the commercial bank's balance in that bank's account with the central bank.

   - The deception in these definitions is that they leave us with the sense that if a bank "has $100 million in deposits/credit etc" on its ledger, then if it has a reserve ratio requirement of 10% it is only allowed to lend out $90 million.

     In reality, the reserve ratio percentage is applied to the ratio of total loans, to total deposits, meaning that a bank that has $100 million in deposits, and has a reserve ration requirement of 10% can loan out up to $900 million in loans, since that leaves their $100 million as a resulting 10% of the total amount "loans PLUS deposits"!

So why is this all so unfair?

   The bank has say $100 million in deposits, and gets to loan out $900 million, AND charge interest on those $900 million in loans!

   So because their loan to deposit ratio is actually leverage, a 3% interest rate, and maximizing 'allowed' loans, means that "on deposits of $100 million" this bank gets to collect 3% interest in the $900 million of loans (per year), which is 0.03 * 900 million which = 27 million.

   AND, we can now see that 27 million / 100 million, is not a 3% return on capital, but actually a 27 % return on capital!

   Because of leverage.

   And with bail outs, Too Big To Fail and QE infinity, these banks carry essentially zero risk.

In reality, the banks just keep leveraging up, year after year, as fast as they can find schmucks to sign the contracts to promise to pay the loans back WITH INTEREST, and collect incredible, and incredibly extortionate, "profits" on everybody else's efforts.

> 	So, you're advocating US nationalism and US 'national banks' - as if the US central bank hadn't already been created 100 years ago. 

Hopefully it should now be clear that since 1913, there is no US central bank, only a highly extortionate Federal Reserve banking system, where the Federal Reserve is neither federal, nor a government reserve bank, since it is literally owned by private interests (other, also private, banks).

Yes, an actual federal or government owned and controlled bank, would be a hell of a lot better for America.

It may not be a Star Trek utopia, but it would be much better than what we have now.

This is why the word "transition" is the way to think of this, in the context of aiming for an anarchist utopia - "first ditch the super leaches".

But as Cari pointed out, perhaps this is a false dichotomy, where we should really be aiming straight for some better utopia, free of banks at all or something...

> 	And you're advocating for the 're-industrialization' of the biggest technofascist state on the planet. 
> 	are you insane, retarded, trolling or what 

A "reversion to something resembling nationalism", rather than a globally dominant uni-power, is arguably better than the globalist utopia that the globalist bankers were very close to achieving, which in fact appears to be (albeit only marginally) beginning to unwind.

Cari might (again) call this (and possibly correctly) another false dichotomy.  What it is is a comparison of globalist, vs nationalist.

To get out of that dichotomy, we say "no sorry, try anarchist".

To which the pragmatist replies: please present your a step to help us move toward anarchism.

Although the globalists did destroy Libya and the pan-Arab gold backed currency project Qadhafi was promulgating, they failed to get Iran and North Korea to join their IMF/BIS federal reserve banking system.  Courtesy Putin.  Which might possibly be why Soros and the rest of (((his tribe))) are still screaching loudly at "the evil Putin":

[ when reading the following, remember that Putin's mother is Jewish, making Putin also Jewish :) ]

   Europe is under attack!’ George Soros’ chilling Russia warning in Putin swipe 2020-02-04
      VLADIMIR PUTIN has angered Western leaders and politicians with his country's aggressive foreign policy and chilling arms race with the US. However, one of the most vocal critics of the Russian President in recent years is billionaire investor George Soros, who delivered a chilling warning that "Europe is under attack from Russia".

   Soros Pledges $1 Billion To Battle 'Would-Be, Actual Dictators,' Blasts Trump, Putin 2020-01-24

   Soros' Plan To Overthrow Putin & Destabilise Russia 2019-03-02
      .. That Putin would name-check Soros in his press conference with Trump is no accident. Putin has sounded the dog whistle on anti-Semitism before, when on the spot about hacking. Now he’s doing it again, reaching the far right the world over.

   Putin: George Soros is Meddling in Elections, NOT Russia 2018-07-17
      .. When asked about accusations that he attempted to manipulate, Putin explained that Russian individuals do not represent the whole of Russia, just as George Soros meddling in US elections isn't representative on the rest of the United States.

   Putin’s reference to George Soros was a dog whistle to far-right anti-Semites 2018-07-16

   Soros Blames Putin & Russia for Italy’s New ‘Anti-EU and Anti-immigrant’ Coalition Government 2018-06-06
      As the Russiagate conspiracy theory continues to disintegrate in the US, other globalist anti-Russian voices remain strong, including George Soros who is busy scape-goating Moscow for all of the EU’s problems and structural failures.

   Vladimir Putin CRUSHES George Soros for all western “leaders” to see (Video) 2018-06-06
   Soros perpetuates myth of Russian bogeyman, blames Putin for Italian anti-immigrant party 2018-06-05

   George Soros attacks Vladimir Putin | CNBC International 2016-10-06
      Twelve months ago President Putin banned Soros' charities in Russia as a 'security threat'. Now the billionaire has condemned Putin's bombing of Syrian civilians and hospitals in Aleppo.
      [REMEMBER: Putin bombs his allies hospitals and children ... or something.]

   Leaked Memos Show George Soros Plotted to Oust Putin, Destabilize Russia 2016-08-27

   Soros and his ‘226 EU friends’ thrust into spotlight by Farage – so who are they? 2017-11-17
      “We even had last week Mr. [Guy] Verhofstadt lobbying on behalf of Mr. Soros at the Conference of Presidents in a battle that is going on with Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary,” Farage said, pointing directly at Verhofstadt as he spoke.
      “I wonder,” Farage continued, “when we are talking about ‘political collusion,’ I wonder if we are looking in the wrong place.”
      Farage described Soros’s influence in Strasbourg and Brussels as “truly extraordinary.” And that influence looks set to increase dramatically now that Soros has donated the bulk of his wealth - $18 billion - into his Open Society pet project, which campaigns for open borders and supranational structures such as the European Union.

   ‘Obama has been too Soft on Putin,’ Said Soros as he Called the Shots on Ukraine 2016-08-20

   Vladimir Putin to George Soros: Thank God we kicked you out of Russia 2016-08-17
      .. Russia kicked Soros out of the country last year for good reasons.[1] It was Soros who helped ruin the Russian and Polish economy in the early 1990s.[2] Like the great white shark who can forcibly copulate with a female, Soros moves around and looks for his prey virtually everywhere. Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone said of Goldman Sachs six years ago:
      “The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

   US government, Soros funded Panama Papers to attack Putin – WikiLeaks 2016-04-06

   George Soros’ Anti-Kremlin Info Laundering Backfires on Clinton, Cameron 2016-04-05

   George Soros: A psychopath’s psychopath 2016-02-13
       According to Soros, Russia’s strategy is to “avoid collapse by making the EU implode first – by exacerbating the migration crisis and stoking Islamophobia”.
       On February 11, the Guardian ran an article by George Soros which had run a day earlier here entitled “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than Isis.”

   Soros: 'Putin aims at EU disintegration, threat from Russia bigger than from jihadi attacks' 2016-02-11

   It's Been Fund: Russia Sends Soros Speculating His Way Out the Door 2015-11-30

   Soros Flaring Flames of Ukraine War to Force Regime Change in Russia 2015-06-05

   George Soros: Russia poses existential threat to Europe 2014-10-23
      Investor [George SOROS] says Vladimir Putin’s aggressive nationalism challenges values and principles on which the EU was founded

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list