The Greatest Scam in History

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#1
I am just a banker "doing God’s work".
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO Goldman Sachs, 2009 Source: Wall Street Journal, May 2010


Banks do not have an obligation to promote the public good.
Alexander Dielius, CEO Germany, Austria, Eastern Europe Goldman Sachs, January 2010, Source: Wall Street Journal, May 2010


The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.
John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, where it went (1975), p. 15


The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled.
John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it came, Where it Went p. 29


The modern banking system manufactures “money” out of nothing; and the process is, perhaps, the most, astounding piece of “sleight of hand” that was ever invented. In fact, it was not invented. It merely “grew”. ... Banks in fact are able to create (and cancel) modern “deposit money”, just as much as they were originally able to create, or call in, their own original forms of private notes. They can, in fact, inflate and deflate, i.e., mint, and un-mint the modern “ledger-entry” currency.
Angas, Major L. L. B. (Lawrence Lee Bazley) (1937). Slump ahead in bonds. Somerset Pub. Co.. pp. 20-21


The actual process of money creation takes place in commercial banks. As noted earlier, demand liabilities of commercial banks are money. ... Confidence in these forms of money also seems to be tied in some way to the fact that assets exist on the books of the government and the banks equal to the amount of money outstanding, even though most of the assets themselves are no more than pieces of paper...
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago; Nichols, Dorothy M (1961). Modern Money Mechanics; a workbook on deposits, currency and bank reserves.. p. 3


Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Friedman, David H. (1977). I Bet You Thought.... p. 19


The 12 regional reserve banks aren't government institutions, but corporations nominally 'owned' by member commercial banks.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, I Bet You Thought... (1977), p. 27


The use of money does not disestablish the normal process of creating credit. Money, it is true, is always being paid into the banks by the retailers and others who receive it in the course of business, and they of course receive bank credits in return for the money thus deposited. But for the manufacturers and others who have to pay money out, credits are still created by the exchange of obligations, the banker's immediate obligation being given to his customer in exchange for the customer's obligation to repay at a future date. We shall still describe this dual operation as the creation of credit. By its means the banker creates the means of payment out of nothing, whereas when he receives a bag of money from his customer, one means of payment, a bank credit, is merely substituted for another, an equal amount of cash.
Economist Ralph George Hawtrey, Currency and Credit (1919), p. 20


And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President, in a letter to John Taylor in 1816



Not long ago, a dyed-in-the-wool Capitalist gets the lesson of his lifetime when I pointed out to him that money is created out debt.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
#2
I suppose thats me youre referring too.

Now Im curious what this topic is good for? Oh wait, let me guess, probably about bitching on the Fractional Reserve Banking system. You know, there is nothing wrong with this system. It works fine as long as people think it works fine. Every economic crisis is not a crisis of the economy not performing well, but people loosing trust in the idea that the economy performs well. Of course, here and there, there are some people who deliberately exploit some of the systems flaws to get really rich. But humor me and come up with a system that is flawless, works in practice and doesnt end up killing off the world economy and the wealth we have today.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#3
Don't be so bitter, Sporty.
Lets hear what other has to say first.
I'm not an economist, but I can answer some basic and fundamental questions regarding our current banking system and how it screw us all - well, except the bankers.

On another note, even if a more socially justifiable and environmentally friendly system were available (of which, several economists has indeed proposed), a change can never be possible without a world wide [and sadly also bloody] revolution, since those who benefit greatly from the current status quo will not go down without a fight.
 

Pimp

Follower of kiyology
#4
Banking isn't the biggest scam ever. Church is the biggest scam ever. Ill get into it more when i have the time.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#6
Actually, no.
I'm asking for a more sane banking system.
If you do some research, you would realize that the current banking system is literally insane.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
#7
Don't be so bitter, Sporty.
Lets hear what other has to say first.
I'm not an economist, but I can answer some basic and fundamental questions regarding our current banking system and how it screw us all - well, except the bankers.
Do tell, how is easy access to money bad for everyone? Sure, the bankers make the most profit out of it, but at the same time, this system allows a lot of persons with some credit to start his own business or finance the house he always dreamed off. Of course, it was really stupid of them to loan money to those who dont have money to begin with, but then again, dont just blame the bankers, but blame the stupid idiots who took out loans they couldnt afford in the first place as well. But that could be fixed with tighter regulation, not with overthrowing the whole system.

On another note, even if a more socially justifiable and environmentally friendly system were available (of which, several economists has indeed proposed), a change can never be possible without a world wide [and sadly also bloody] revolution, since those who benefit greatly from the current status quo will not go down without a fight.
A) Fractional Reserve Banking is socially and environmentally neutral. It just allows for easier money creation.
B) Fractional Reserve Banking is very very very easy to nuke. As was demonstrated in 2008. However, your revolution will come at the cost of the global economy. Its not so much the people who have an interest in the status quo who will cause a massive bloodshed, but the chaos following the bankruptcy of almost everyone world wide that will get people killed.
 
#8
Do tell, how is easy access to money bad for everyone? Sure, the bankers make the most profit out of it, but at the same time, this system allows a lot of persons with some credit to start his own business or finance the house he always dreamed off. Of course, it was really stupid of them to loan money to those who dont have money to begin with, but then again, dont just blame the bankers, but blame the stupid idiots who took out loans they couldnt afford in the first place as well. But that could be fixed with tighter regulation, not with overthrowing the whole system.
Well they wouldnt do that. In the current economy trading your wealth for debt is bad. In this banking system Paper exchanging for paper is now 20 times greater than exchanges of paper for real commodities. Which makes you more dependent on the system and drive up your debt up but the value of it down and because of that down your actual wealths value goes. That person putting his wealth on the line for this new business or home...will not get the same value to handle in debt or anything close. actually he will be putting up something of greater value and paying a larger amount of debt for a longer span of time. And for all of this he will get a loan to start another business that yet again is of less value then it should be.

Actually, no.
I'm asking for a more sane banking system.
If you do some research, you would realize that the current banking system is literally insane.
Yes our current banking system encourages debt , competition , scarcity and unequal distribution of wealth. but this goes back to a more ethical system..
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
#9
Well they wouldnt do that. In the current economy trading your wealth for debt is bad. In this banking system Paper exchanging for paper is now 20 times greater than exchanges of paper for real commodities. Which makes you more dependent on the system and drive up your debt up but the value of it down and because of that down your actual wealths value goes. That person putting his wealth on the line for this new business or home...will not get the same value to handle in debt or anything close. actually he will be putting up something of greater value and paying a larger amount of debt for a longer span of time. And for all of this he will get a loan to start another business that yet again is of less value then it should be.
What? Youre not trading your wealth for debt. You have money, you need more money to start a business. You go to the bank, hand in a plan, convince the bank that your business will turn out a nice profit, the bank loans you money, you start your business, you make a profit, pay off your debts and everyone is happy. The current system allows easy loaning because banks dont have to keep all the money clients have on accounts actually in their safes. Instead they only have to keep a rather small percentage of it in their safes and the rest is free to be reinvested again into new loans.

This system works perfectly under two conditions. One is that the people you give your money too actually pay back. As long as you loan your money to people who have a stable income and property that is worth something, its safe to loan out a bit of cash so they can potentially increase in value. This is what went wrong in 2008 when it became clear that banks had been lending money to people who should never ever have gotten such a loan, and suddenly couldnt pay back. Coupled with the housing bubble bursting driving down real estate value, banks suddenly no longer got their money back. Money that wasnt actually their money, but their clients money.

The second condition is that people have faith in the banks. If they loose faith, they withdraw their cash. But banks only have about 15-20% of their clients money in their safes, at least, in cash. So, when a lot of people suddenly withdraw their cash at the ATM or bank counter, the safes are depleted rather easily and way before everyone has their money. Bank looses its value on the stock market, investors panic and the bank topples over and a lot of people get screwed. This is also what happened in 2008 when people discovered that certain large banks had a lot of customers defaulting on their loans, causing the banks to not get their money back. People panicked and you got a bank run.

Still, this could have been easily prevented, namely by tightening regulation about who can get a loan. If banks hadnt been so greedy to give out loans to people who couldnt pay for a loan, this wouldnt have happened. Its not the fault of the system, its the fault of greedy bankers. Greedy bankers do not require a system overhaul, only tighter rules to prevent greedy bankers from letting their greed cause to much damage.
 
#10
What? Youre not trading your wealth for debt. You have money, you need more money to start a business. You go to the bank, hand in a plan, convince the bank that your business will turn out a nice profit, the bank loans you money, you start your business, you make a profit, pay off your debts and everyone is happy. The current system allows easy loaning because banks dont have to keep all the money clients have on accounts actually in their safes. Instead they only have to keep a rather small percentage of it in their safes and the rest is free to be reinvested again into new loans.



This system works perfectly under two conditions. One is that the people you give your money too actually pay back. As long as you loan your money to people who have a stable income and property that is worth something, its safe to loan out a bit of cash so they can potentially increase in value. This is what went wrong in 2008 when it became clear that banks had been lending money to people who should never ever have gotten such a loan, and suddenly couldnt pay back. Coupled with the housing bubble bursting driving down real estate value, banks suddenly no longer got their money back. Money that wasnt actually their money, but their clients money.

The second condition is that people have faith in the banks. If they loose faith, they withdraw their cash. But banks only have about 15-20% of their clients money in their safes, at least, in cash. So, when a lot of people suddenly withdraw their cash at the ATM or bank counter, the safes are depleted rather easily and way before everyone has their money. Bank looses its value on the stock market, investors panic and the bank topples over and a lot of people get screwed. This is also what happened in 2008 when people discovered that certain large banks had a lot of customers defaulting on their loans, causing the banks to not get their money back. People panicked and you got a bank run.

Still, this could have been easily prevented, namely by tightening regulation about who can get a loan. If banks hadnt been so greedy to give out loans to people who couldnt pay for a loan, this wouldnt have happened. Its not the fault of the system, its the fault of greedy bankers. Greedy bankers do not require a system overhaul, only tighter rules to prevent greedy bankers from letting their greed cause to much damage.
Dont you think it would be better if the power to create money was in the hands of someone else instead of for profit commercial banks? This would stop them from succumbing to greed and trying to loan money into existence at every chance they get. It only gives them profit and hurts us when they give into their greed.

Although I dont know much so Im asking your opinion on the matter.
 

-lexus-

Visions of Hell
#11
Dont you think it would be better if the power to create money was in the hands of someone else instead of for profit commercial banks? This would stop them from succumbing to greed and trying to loan money into existence at every chance they get. It only gives them profit and hurts us when they give into their greed.

Although I dont know much so Im asking your opinion on the matter.
Lets see, give money making powers to commercial banks who stand to go bankrupt if they screw up, or give it to politicians who at best get voted out of office when they hyper-inflated the economy in order to pay off the debt. Yeaaaah, Im gonna go for commercial banks.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#12
Except that in the REAL WORLD - big banks cannot go bankrupt (too big to fail) without dire consequences for the society (therefore the bailout in the US and EU).
But hey, have you ever thought of writing a fantasy novel?
 

Core

Fascinating...
#14
Can I just point out, for the sake of pointing out, that despite all its flaws the current system is irreplaceable as long as capitalism is the norm.

Mostly due to the fact that people require the ability to dream and more importantly the assurance that what they have in their hands is worth something. It may seem completely ridiculous to you. But its those simple things that make alot of things irreplaceable in this world. I suppose it could be done over a long period of time if you truly want to save capitalism... But I dont really see the point. Maybe 1 in 100 people actually rises above their "station"(Capitalism promises things like that).

Is it because the other 99 are lazy? Of course not but most companies only use capitalism when it benefits them, most business arent run with the same ideals in mind certainly not if it costs money.
Capitalism unlike other ideals allows the rich to get richer, and the poor to dream of becoming rich. Things like communism just level the playing field... but.. without promise of growth.. and therefore no dreams.. and without that illusion of freedom that capitalism provides it just is not good enough.

But im drifting: point is: We cant change the system now, no matter how messy it is, only when the system falls completely or the system can be made obsolete(I vote bottlecaps!), can we move on from the current system.