Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: January 2010

Banker Want to make lots of money for virtually no work and minimal outlay?
Want 100% return on your reserves per annum?
Want someone else to put up all the cash?
Punter Eh?
Banker No, you don’t have to rob a bank, all you have to do is set one up. 

First acquire a suitable building, preferable high rise and made of glass and stainless steel, now install counters, all the latest electronic equipment, automaton staff and a few computers and stick a sign outside that says
The Deposit Your Money Safely Here Bank“.

Next, contact your national central bank and apply to join the International Cartel of Bankers [ICB]. Now, for every dollar the public gives you for safe keeping you can lend it back to the public and charge 10% interest.

You now give the depositor 2% interest and pocket a net profit of 8% per annum.

Punter Yes, that’s all very well, but you said I could make 100%.
Banker Ah, well here comes the clever bit. 

Because you’re now a member of the ICB club you can now lend to the public an amount up to ten times the amount you have received in deposits from the public, in other words 10 times more than your total reserves.

Punter But how can that be possible? Sounds like it must be illegal.
Banker No it’s not illegal and not only is it possible it’s encouraged by central banks and believe it or not it’s also condoned by Governments. It’s called ‘Fractional Reserve Banking’ and it really is a license to ‘print money’.
Punter You mean you actually ‘print’ money?
Banker No, that’s just a figure of speech, we don’t actually print money, the additional money you lend doesn’t actually exist. 

The checks and credit cards transactions your debtors make against the loans you grant them end up being processed by other members of the ICB. Conversely, some checks and credit cards transactions issued on loans set up by other banks end up with you, so at the end of each rolling accounting period all you have to do is swap checks and resolve electronic balances.

No actual money exchanges hands, you just start receiving real money plus interest from your debtors, for the most part on money that never existed. As long as people keep borrowing and spending it’s like a giant ‘funny money’ merry-go-round that spins off ‘real money’ that drops straight in to your coffers.

It’s one of several ways we have of stripping the real wealth from those who create it. And the best part about it is this; they are all so busy creating wealth they don’t see, understand or even care what we’re up to. And because the amount of additional money lent is ten times more than the amount deposited, you net 10% interest on an amount that’s ten times more than what you have in deposit receipts [your total reserves] each year.

In other words, for an absolutely minimal outlay – just rented bank premises, computers, software and staff costs – you can set yourself up to receive an annual income equal to the amount of money deposited at your bank, in other words 100% per annum on money that’s provided in the first place by your depositors.

It’s nothing short of exquisite.

Punter It’s outstanding! 

But wouldn’t that cause intrinsic inflation on all goods and services because an element of interest payments would be an integral part of every product cost. It would be over and above the standard inflation created by government as their own final top-up tax. It would reduce the purchasing power of real money, create a nation of unnecessary debtors and be damaging to the social system overall?

Banker Well yes, but the people who create all the wealth and those who help them are so busy creating it they don’t have the time [or the inclination] to worry about our little scheme. Besides by creating mountains of almost unlimited credit people buy more thus stimulating the economy and we can continue to live in the lifestyle we bankers have become accustomed to.
Punter But what happens if you lend so much money that you say ‘doesn’t actually exist’ and commit so many people to so much debt that they can’t pay and the whole system collapses?
Banker Well, I have to admit this does happen from time to time, but over the years we have developed safeguards that ‘kick-in’ during times of financial meltdown. 

We have ingratiated ourselves into the whole social system to such an extent that a collapse of the banking system would have grave socially unbalancing consequences for society as a whole, so grave in fact that no government would now allow it to happen.

Governments come to our aid with help in the form of bail-out packages and the like that see us through the re-occurring crises. When the economy starts to pick up we just buy back the Governments holdings at knock down prices. It’s win-win all the way to the bank (chuckle).

And the beauty of it all is that Governments borrow the bailout money from the banks using the wealth creation prospects of future generations as collateral, so not only are we stripping the wealth from the current generation we’re now stripping it from future generations.

Punter I’m in.

I’m sorry, but am I missing something here. Didn’t the US government bail out the banks by giving them in excess of one thousand billion dollars? So what’s all this about Barack Obama creating a tax to ‘claw-back’ ninety billion dollars? Wasn’t the intention at the time that the banks would have to pay back the full amount they were ‘lent’?

Now most people know how companies deal with tax hikes, they increase the cost of their products and services, so the actual cost of the new ‘claw-back tax’ on the banks will inevitably be passed on to the public.

As far as I can deduce, the claw-back tax is just the latest smokescreen designed to hoodwink a gullible public into thinking that some sort of banking reform is taking place. Like the amount of publicity given to the tax on bank executive bonuses, in reality the gross amount of all the bonuses paid out in the last five years is an insignificant amount compared to the amount the financial services sector has ‘creamed’ out of the system in order to fuel their gigantic money-go-round.

I think many people will agree that a reform to the fundamental working of the banking system is long overdue; world finance is too important to be left to the banks and private enterprise. By their actions over the last hundred years or so the banks have clearly shown they cannot be trusted with such an important task. [Please don’t think for an instant that the US Federal Reserve or the Bank of England or most so-called central banks are owned by any government].

A bank, as was the original intention, should be no more than a money warehouse that provides a distribution center for transferring visible funds between account holders. All other services are anti-social and should be dismantled. It’s high time banks took their rightful place in society as the lowly warehousemen the are. [No disrespect to all other warehousemen in the world]

With the inauguration of Barack Obama I had high hopes that the US would lead the way with some drastic reforms to the whole financial services sector, spearheaded by fundamental changes to curb the anti-social antics of the banks. Instead we have a president who is tap dancing on the fence, balancing the wrath of the public by feeding them with highly disguised, spin-doctored tidbits against the enormous power [and wrath] of the financial institutions.

I will say it once again just for the record; since the beginning of time there’s not a single financial services institution or bank in the world that has ever created a single cent of real wealth. [I’m not talking about money here].

That abused privilege goes to the billions of people who produce the things virtually everyone judges their wealth by and of course the billions of people who assist them in this laudable task. All the remaining millions of people who create zero wealth are simply parasites living on an already overburdened social system.