Banking in America April 17, 2012
Placing the banks in receivship as this would be a necessary prerequisite to prevent taxpayers being forced to guarantee overvalued bonds to the benefit of unsecured foreign creditors. In reference to your article this is what the FDR administration did in conjunction with the HOLC, that is it put the entire US banking system through chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, (what we call approximately call receivership). In addition, and which was crucial to make the changes work, the US financial system was placed under new regulation, popularly known as Glass-Steagall, in which its functions where strictly separated. That is, there was a strict separation imposed between the insurance business, commercial banking and investment banking. An institution had to choose the type of business it wanted to be, it couldn’t engage in more than one. This had the advantage of preventing the newly cleaned up commercial banks from speculating with the liquidity they received from the HOLC. Consequently they could only make commercial loans to those parts of the economy which were physically productive, otherwise without the Glass-Steagall regulation, they would have been free to engage in unbridled speculation with the newly created HOLC funds which would only have resulted in destructive hyperinflation. Investment banks could still speculate all they wanted if they chose to continue in that role, but they could only do so with their own capital, there was no central bank discount windows are access to personal deposits of ordinary folks to gamble in the casino economy.
Our banks as they currently lack any similar type of regulation, would continue to speculate on the commodity markets and play the carry trade game with any newly created central bank money. We first need regulation reflecting the principles of strict separations as expressed in the Glass Steagall legislation, before we can create credit, if we wish that the issuance of that credit to reach the physically productive part of the economy. Otherwise the effect of creating money will be destructive hyperinflation, as we are currently seeing play out with the ECB trillion dollar bailout.
Obfuscation of Currency April 8, 2012
Is the banking system a criminal operation which has sandwiched itself between all business and wealth creation by hijacking the paper people use to do transactions.
Each person in a transaction carries the sovereign right to use their own paper to make a promise on a transaction with another individual.
Is it not the case the banking system has not only removed this essential facet of paper use for making wealth out of the hands of the masses, BUT, also, like D’s article describes above the banks have built a hall of mirrors to obfuscate the use of currency / paper because the banks need the masses in the dark in order to continue with their criminal enterprise of hijacking the paper used to do business but then charging interest on their paper they issue to everyone else who makes wealth all the while as the banks which produce NO wealth yet manage to transfer most of the wealth made by masses and remove it to the powers at be who own the banking system.
The loans the banks have issued to the loanees are debts the banks made out of nothing.
So it is a win – win situation for the banks.
The banks either get the asset the person put on the line as collateral OR the banks get the interest repayment on the loan.
Or the banks rob the Treasury for cash to refill the depositers accounts because the deposits of their customers are robbed too by the banks to use to stretch the FRB ratios to the furthest point possible in the making of money out of thin air.
The greatest bluff in history is underway and the hall of mirrors in which D’s article above covers really illustrates the scope of the deception the criminal banking system is engaging in to keep their making money out of thin air to get their paws on real asset wealth produced by the feudal class who the banks tricked into indentured servitude by playing the game.