Pretty much. One bank borrows from another bank. The Fed being the ultimate bank. Eventually the treasury gets it's bonds covered but it's more or less as you describe. Out of thin air and back in.

Thin air.

Actually it's correct sir. It's called Fractional Reserve Banking. Look it up. And it's been going on since at least the days of the bible's writing.

That is really good question, I haven't never thinked it that way. I have always thinked it just double accounting wise (from bank to customer).

No, fractional reserve doesn't mean that. The fraction refers to the money the bank has left from the money it has got from (deposits, loans, what ever).

The 1/10 means that if bank gets 100 $ as a deposit, it can lend 90 $ from it, and it has to leave 10 $ for reserve.

Then what does it mean considering it says it right there in it's name "fractional reserve"

Fractional-reserve banking is the practice whereby a bank holds reserves (to satisfy demands for withdrawals) that are less than the amount of its customers' deposits. Reserves are held at the bank as currency, or as deposits in the bank's accounts at the central bank. Because bank deposits are usually considered money in their own right, fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying reserves of base money originally created by the central bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

If you take all of the cash you have and put it into the bank that bank gets to multiply that amount by a minumum of 10% and not only lend it to others but it actually lends your money back to you. When you sign a check or use a debit card in reality you are borrowing your money back. Your cash went into their reserves. It use to be set at 10x but since the crisis no one really knows what it is now considering so many were so overleveraged. How in the hell do you think they get to buy the largest building in town?

You fucking quote it yourself and don't even get it.

should probably read that again..

You my friend are the one who is not getting it. What do you not understand about this "ractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying reserves of base money originally created by the central bank"

How exactly are they going to grow the money supply if they aren't leveraging their reserves? Do you really think your local banks is backing up your house or car note with cash on hand?

Okay, here is my very drunken explanation about the subject.

As stated in that wiki, the money amount grows as the deposits too are considered as money.

You deposit 100, bank lends 90 of it, keeps 10. So, your deposit + the loan is 190. There you have it, the amount of money has grown (x1,9 times) as both are considered as money.

I hope that's good enough for you as I can barely write anymore, seriously.

We are all.......?

You are basicly saying the same thing. Only they were loaning out into the 100s and likely still are. As I said earlier part of their trickery is to loan you back your own deposit and keep your cash in reserves. Only when you withdraw actual cash does it affect their reserves.

No, I wasn't saying the same thing. Lending from what you have got is totally different thing than lending from what you don't have.

But yeah, bank can lend 90 % of your deposits to you and keep 10 % in reserves. Although, not very useful practice regarding the customer, as you have to pay interest. So, no motive to do so.

drunk posting is bad form!

So where did the extra $90 come from in your scenario. Also what if instead they put your entire $100 into reserves and loaned it back to you (without interest) what happens to your scenario then? I'll tell you, your $100 turned into $1000 only $900 of which they draw interest. And thats if they stay within the 10x perameters. As I said some were leveraged out into the 100s.

The extra 90 came from lending it. You owe 100 for the depositor and the loan taker ows to you 90.

You can't put all in reserve and at the same time put it into action, it's against the whole definition or reservers. I have done military service, so I explain this military wise: you have 100 soldiers, if you put them all into action at the same time, you have zero reserves. If you keep 30 of them out of the fight, you have 30 % reserve. Same with money, but in banking lending or investing is the "action".

You are wishfully thinking banks have enough scruples to do things one way and not another. Why would they do it your way and not mine? Because they are good and honest people? Don't you think governments are salivating over the time when they can have a soldier sitting back in a room doing the work of 10 others? Oh wait, there's drones.

It's about the law and double accounting. That's for tonight. Bye, bye.

There is no law. Night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g32ObW8PoOg



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk

FedEx is a Government Entity

Kiyosaki says it's owned by the richest european families (at 1:25)

While he makes a few good points he has a really big head and for the most part incorrect on ownership.. Most shares are held by the obvious big banking players, BOA anyone?. Sure there are families receiving benefits but again its the corporation which owns the shares... There's only one company I'm aware of in history very likely associated to ever go down. I'd guess they voted no on the current plan of action and became the fall guy. .. That would be Lehman Brothers. The other key to it all is the end of contract. 1933 was the end of the original Federal Reserve contract. This is the real reason behind the depression. 2013 was the end of the next.. See a pattern?

yup, saw an expose on the whole thing, its a huge Scam !:2 cents:

He has got a big head and a tendency to answer people's questions from his own "rich ass" standpoint rather than by empathizing with the person asking the question. However, nothing wrong with be proud of his achievements..... I always though that kind of bravado is the American way and something others admired about America.

Sure, so I guess he's saying its the wealthy who own the shares in the banks which own a share in the FED. Are you saying that 2013 is the end of the recent ie 2008 depression?

It took at least 10 years and a World War for us to "recover" from their financial terrorism of the Great Depression. The difference between now and then is they are fighting for their existance because more and more people are becoming aware of what it is that they really are. During the "great depression" it allowed for many financial blows to the American citizen. All of which we were told to be for one good or another but the reality is they were actions that would dicimate us for many years to come. All of which benefitted those who created it along with the politicians/US Government. Just to name a few: The seizure of everyone's gold, income tax, social security.

Let's just talk about one of those. Gold. The original contract was, to put it simply, our gold for their paper. Nearing the end of the contract and all by design the US government was out of gold to back the paper. So what did they do to fulfill the contract? Seized the peoples gold to back more paper.

"He who has the gold makes the rules." The US government gave up their gold many years ago. Someone else has been making the rules since. That being the Fed.

Never heard about black money? :1orglaugh

http://media.masslive.com/breakingne...fc964b0180.jpg

Yup, youre right. They seized the gold from all American people. They then doubled the price of the gold, making the loss even greater but NEVER EVER should private property be taken away from people for ANY REASON.

They conned the people into go along with it because it was an executive measure and people had no choice.... I hope they wont do the same thing again when the dollar goes bust.

The FED was made way before WWII and it is owned by the biggest money cartel in the world. they own a nation at this point.

I am not talking about WWII.

The rabbit hole goes much deeper. Seizing of the gold pales in comparison to one other move they made during that time. But talking about it begins to shut people down because they can't fathom our government going along with it. Let's just say the US government as we know it has been bankrupt (all by design) since 1933 operating in bankruptcy receivership and in one State of Emergency or another since then, Roosevelt was far from the saint he is made out to be and he was doing the Feds work from day one.

As far as what will they do if the dollar goes bust? Well, they've already covered their ass. As one video mentions in this thread they are sitting on trillions in "securities." The video says they won't tell us what those securites are but they have told us. They are sitting on nearly every mortgage note in the entire US. Even in that video they say it was tied to bad real estate debt. But that bad debt is attached to something real, real estate.

Federal Reserve

Its not Federal

And it has no Reserve

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/07...deral-reserve/

President Andrew Jackson got rid of the bank.

What? You're suggesting they could seize people's homes? Or at least everyone who's home goes bad? Well as bad as Gold theft was I can't see the US government doing something that extreme and in any case I guess people do lose their homes if they cannot repay their mortgage. However, if things turn that sour the real estate market would crash.

They'd be sitting on a pile of totally illiquid real estate stock that would be impossible to encash.

There is no real estate "stock." People are always going to need a place to live and they quit making land on Earth anyway billions of years ago.

Yep but its not liquid. Im sure it's possible but I seriously doubt they would stoop to such levels in the USA even in an extreme situation. Everthing seems to be chugging along nicely though - do you think a dollar collapse is going to happen soon?

I think it was more of a safety net for them more than anything. If they lost their contract with the US government they all of a sudden become the largest home lender in the US. What happened this time around is similar to the gold seizure. Here they crashed the market and bought up all of this so called bad debt. Then they drop interest rates to an all time low which in turn reinflates the bubble increasing their portfolio's value. Either way you look at it they control the future of the US even more so now because they literally own it. When the contract was up all they had to say was you can't do anything to us now or we will call all of these loans. Nearly everyone in the US would have had to refinance or lose their home. Doubting the government would do this is irrelevant because they aren't the government. Once again this pales in comparison to one other move they made in the 30s.

They won't allow the dollar to collapse. Not as long as they are in charge anyway. If it did it would be very beneficial to the people actually. If you have any debt you can pay it off faster as it decreases which is why they won't let that happen. The whole idea behind fiat currency is to make you a slave to debt.

makes me think of all those mortgages without actual documentation..

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/12/your...ents_are_fake/