Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
alexw

The Debt Can Never Be Repayed

Recommended Posts

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20147.html

Debt Can Never Be Repaid, By Bankster Design

Interest-Rates / Global Debt Crisis Jun 09, 2010 - 02:45 AM

By: Jason_Hamlin

Interest-Rates

Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleYou really have to hand it to the banksters. As was painstakingly detailed in the book Creature from Jekyll Island, the banking elite devised a brilliant plan in November of 1910 on Jekyll Island in which to take over control of the United States, steal the wealth from the taxpayers and the resources from the country.

It was at this meeting that the Federal Reserve was conceived by the banking cartel, as they devised a plan to protect its member banks from competition and convince Congress and the American public that this cartel was an agency of the United States government.

The creation of the Federal Reserve will undoubtedly go down as one of the biggest tragedies in American history. After all, the government handed over the right to print the nation’s currency AND charge interest to a private, for-profit corporation with foreign stockholders. The Federal Reserve was given the right to simply print massive sums of money out of thin air and then charge the American taxpayer interest on that money.

In essence what they did was place the American people into indentured servitude by forcing the people to pay usury on worthless fiat currency (paper money created out of nothing), not to fund the government, but to enrich the bankers and fund wars in which America should never be involved. It has led to the massive unsustainable debt situation and the dollar losing 96% of its purchasing power since 1913. Stop and reflect on that last statistic for a moment. If you held $100 since 1913, it would only be able to buy you $4 worth of goods and services today! Or put another way, it would take $20 in today’s money to match what just $1 would have bought you in 1913. The rest of the value has been absorbed by the banking cartel and government. How on earth we still allow this institution to exist and operate in privacy is beyond comprehension.

Furthermore, It is absolutely unconstitutional, as Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly states that only Congress shall have the power to issue money. This view was confirmed in Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982), in which the Supreme Court ruled:

The Federal Reserve Banks are “independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations”, and there is not sufficient “federal government control over ‘detailed physical performance’ and ‘day to day operation’” of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency.

As the United States debt-to-GDP ratio approaches 100%, the interest owed on the debt has become one of the largest annual budget items. The total U.S. debt according to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ has reached $56 Trillion or $180,000 for every U.S. citizen. This figure does not even include unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare, off-balance-sheet liabilities such as Fannie and Freddie and other liabilities that put the true total debt well over $100 Trillion. But let’s just use the $56 Trillion number for now.

The Federal Reserve conveniently stopped printing the total money supply statistic (M3) back in 2006. But since that date, a number of statisticians have extrapolated the number and come up with estimates that are widely believed to be in the ballpark. Using these numbers, the total amount of U.S. money outstanding is approximately $14 Trillion. If you divide 14 Trillion by the U.S. population of 310 million people, there is approximately $45,000 for every US person.

So, if the debt per citizen is $180,000 ($56 Trillion / 310 million people) and there is only $45,000 per citizen in existence, how can the debt ever be paid off? Even if we use the more conservative estimate of debt which is total public and private debt, we get $29.5 Trillion, which is more than DOUBLE the amount of dollars in existence.

The answer is that the debt CAN NOT be paid off. In fact, this is specifically how the banksters designed the system, so that everyone would eventually be in debt and servitude to them. Think about just how maniacal that is for a moment. But it gets worse…

You see, the government has already pledged all of America’s gold, which is surely no longer at Fort Knox as they haven’t allowed an audit in over 50 years. Even if the gold is still there, it now only represents a fraction of the annual deficit, let alone the total debt. Furthermore, the government will eventually have to pledge what is left of America’s public land, buildings and natural resources, privatizing everything from the Grand Canyon to Manhattan to Yosemite National Park.

On the individual level, since there will never be enough money for everyone to pay back their home mortgages, this means the banks will end up foreclosing on a huge portion of the real estate and housing that hard-working Americans own, a process which has already begun. So not only will the banking elite end up with all of the money, they will also end up with all of the land and resources of the once great United States of America.

It is absolutely ridiculous that we have become so apathetic and brainwashed to be allowing this to happen right under our noses. This charade is going to end badly, either by default or hyperinflation and most likely with a high level of social unrest. Either way, the banksters have created a fiat money system that is absolutely destructive to this country, our freedoms and our way of life. If you are outraged, there are fortunately some things that you can do.

1) Move your money out of the big banks and into local community banks or non-profit credit unions. Because of fractional reserve banking, every dollar that you remove deprives the banks of $9 or more used for risky derivatives gambling where its heads they win, tails you lose.

2) Support a full audit of the Federal Reserve, sign the petition and write or call your local congressman. Voter action has already led to a partial one-time audit that recently passed the Senate, which is a good first step. But we need periodic full audits of exactly what the Fed is doing with taxpayer funds. The more the awareness is raised about the Fed, the better chance we will have of eliminating this institution one day and returning the right to print money to the Congress, INTEREST FREE!

3) Get out of debt and live within your means. We’ve had it good for a very long time and have been able to live beyond our means due to the dollar’s status as world reserve currency and easy credit. Those days are coming to an end, so you should do everything within your means to get our of debt while interest rates are still low. They will need to shoot dramatically higher one day, and you don’t want to have an adjustable rate loan of any type when they do. Establish your freedom from the banks and deprive them of their revenue (interest on your debt).

4) Invest in precious metals. The government’s most likely response to the debt issue and slowing economy is going to be to print money on a scale the world has never seen before. This will undoubtedly lead to hyperinflation, destruction of the U.S. dollar and skyrocketing prices for gold and silver, real money. In addition, the banks and their government bed buddies hate gold because it is out of their control. They can’t print gold or silver out of thin air and it is a threat to their fiat currency system and their very power structure. You should consider owning physical gold and silver first (guide to buying physical) and if you are enjoying the leveraged gains provided by mining stocks, make sure to occasionally convert those paper profits into more physical metal stored outside of the banking system.

5) Lastly, continue to learn and share this information with as many people as possible. We can take our country back and end debt enslavement, but we have to move beyond the two-party system and stop bickering over marginal issues. Both parties are completely corrupt and in the pockets of the banksters and megacorporations. None of this will change until we eliminate the Fed and eliminate money from our political system. The mainstream media is not going to tell everyone this, because they are owned and funded by the banksters and elites. The information must spread via the Internet at a grassroots level.

To that end, here are a series of highly recommended documentaries covering the Federal Reserve, fiat money and our unsustainable debt crisis. Critical viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if the debt per citizen is $180,000 ($56 Trillion / 310 million people) and there is only $45,000 per citizen in existence, how can the debt ever be paid off? Even if we use the more conservative estimate of debt which is total public and private debt, we get $29.5 Trillion, which is more than DOUBLE the amount of dollars in existence.

The answer is that the debt CAN NOT be paid off.

Bob owes me $10. I owe the bank $10. Bob takes a $10 bill and gives it to me, I give it to the bank.

$20 of debt extinguished with $10.

So $45,000 per capita could pay off $180,000 per capita, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True in the main but some small errors. Congress has the right to "coin" money as per the Constitution which has led to the arguments as to meaning. Some argue that coining and printing are the same thing as at the time of the Continental Congress there was only coin in existence. Not true either, as the "Continental" was used in Boston before the Revolution and was, in fact, one of the reasons for the Revolution. The sneaky Brits flooded the country with fake "continentals" and thus made it worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob owes me $10. I owe the bank $10. Bob takes a $10 bill and gives it to me, I give it to the bank.

$20 of debt extinguished with $10.

So $45,000 per capita could pay off $180,000 per capita, surely?

Bob can't take $10, he has to borrow it.

When you give it to the bank, it goes into someone elses account and then the bank owes another $10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob owes me $10. I owe the bank $10. Bob takes a $10 bill and gives it to me, I give it to the bank.

$20 of debt extinguished with $10.

So $45,000 per capita could pay off $180,000 per capita, surely?

Correct. What the article says is "the debt cannot be repaid". True if the money supply stays the same but incorrect if you increase it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has led to the massive unsustainable debt situation and the dollar losing 96% of its purchasing power since 1913. Stop and reflect on that last statistic for a moment. If you held $100 since 1913, it would only be able to buy you $4 worth of goods and services today! Or put another way, it would take $20 in today’s money to match what just $1 would have bought you in 1913.

How much (in terms of hours worked) would it have cost to purchase a radio back in 1913?

How many hours work do you now have to complete to purchase a radio?

Despite the apparent fall of the $, living standards have continued to increase over time when using sensible metrics.

The author also (deliberately) fails to take into acccount compound interest, which renders his statement meaningless. Like the rest of the essay.

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob can't take $10, he has to borrow it.

When you give it to the bank, it goes into someone elses account and then the bank owes another $10

What if Bob steals it from an old lady's handbag? The total debt in the economy doesn't increase.

When I give it to the bank, they cross out the fact that I owe them $10, then have an extra $10 in their tills.

I don't see why paying back two $20 debts in this way increases the debt.

A three way example without a bank may be clearer:

I owe Injin £100. Injin owes RealistBear £100. RealistBear owes me £100.

RB is a lucky bear, and finds two £50 notes down the back of his settee. He gives them to me to settle his debt, I give them to Injin to settle our debt, then Injin gives them back to RB to settle the final debt. RB decides for safety he'll store them down the back of his settee.

£300 of debt extinguished with £100 of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if Bob steals it from an old lady's handbag? The total debt in the economy doesn't increase.

She had to borrow it.

When I give it to the bank, they cross out the fact that I owe them $10, then have an extra $10 in their tills.

No they don't

I don't see why paying back two $20 debts in this way increases the debt.

A three way example without a bank may be clearer:

I owe Injin £100. Injin owes RealistBear £100. RealistBear owes me £100.

RB is a lucky bear, and finds two £50 notes down the back of his settee. He gives them to me to settle his debt, I give them to Injin to settle our debt, then Injin gives them back to RB to settle the final debt. RB decides for safety he'll store them down the back of his settee.

£300 of debt extinguished with £100 of money.

You can't find money down the back of the settee, you have to borrow it.

Or someone else does before you get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much (in terms of hours worked) would it have cost to purchase a radio back in 1913?

Marx laboutr theory of value?

Puh-lease.

How many hours work do you now have to complete to purchase a radio?

nothing to do with anything.

Despite the apparent fall of the $, living standards have continued to increase over time when using sensible metrics.

And they'd have increased a lot more if the dollar hadn't fallen.

The author also (deliberately) fails to take into acccount compound interest, which renders his statement meaningless. Like the rest of the essay.

Compound interest just increases the amount of debt that has to be gotten into uin the future.

Cheer up thoug it IS all repayable.

£15tn

There you go, sorted.

Stick it on a piece of paper and mail it in, someone - preferably with the words "****** off and die" on the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marx laboutr theory of value?

Puh-lease.

Nice try. Market wages I'm talking about, not values that people make up in their heads.

nothing to do with anything.

Well it's to do with wages and purchasing power. Does it matter what a $ could purchase back in 1913? Not really. The author is scraping the barrel to try and make reality fit with his theory, which is a bit dishonest.

And they'd have increased a lot more if the dollar hadn't fallen.

But people earn more $'s which cancels it's depreciation out. The U.S economy is far more productive now than it was in 1913, so it's not unreasonable to expect an increase in the amount of $, fixing it at a certain amount 'to hold it's value' amounts to price fixing.

Compound interest just increases the amount of debt that has to be gotten into uin the future.

Cheer up thoug it IS all repayable.

£15tn

There you go, sorted.

Stick it on a piece of paper and mail it in, someone - preferably with the words "****** off and die" on the back.

Sorry, I though you wanted the $ to hold it's value, you've changed your mind now? Fair enough.

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try. Market wages I'm talking about, not values that people make up in their heads.

You seem to think there is a link between hours worked and market value.

There isn't, never has been.

Well it's to do with wages and purchasing power. Does it matter what a $ could purchase back in 1913? Not really. The author is scraping the barrel to try and make reality fit with his theory, which is a bit dishonest.

Yes, it matters.

But people earn more $'s which cancels it's depreciation out. The U.S economy is far more productive now than it was in 1913, so it's not unreasonable to expect an increase in the amount of $, fixing it at a certain amount 'to hold it's value' amounts to price fixing.

No clue what you are gibbering about here. Adding to the money supply steals value from everyone who already has a unit of currency. Given that being part of the currency is not optional, this is a form of theft and is therefore EVIL.

Sorry, I though you wanted the $ to hold it's value, you've changed your mind now? Fair enough.

It will hold it's value.

It's completely and utterly valueless now and it'll be completely and utterly valueless when that's been handed in.

All that need happen is that force ceases to be used and the problem will go away immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't find money down the back of the settee, you have to borrow it.

Or someone else does before you get it.

You don't have to borrow central bank currency? Well OK if you must, example re-clarified:

I owe Injin £100. Injin owes RealistBear £100. RealistBear owes me £100. Total debt £300.

RB goes to the bank and borrows £100. (Total debt now up to £400). He gives the £100 cash to me to settle his debt with me, I give it to Injin to settle our debt, then Injin gives them back to RB, who settles his debt with the bank.

£400 of debt extinguished with £100 of cash.

It doesn't matter whether there was £100 debt to generate the £100 cash in the first place, or £100 debt left over at the end. The point is that due to the velocity of money, it can circulate and clear more debt than its face value. I could extend the above example to clear interconnected debts of many people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to borrow central bank currency? Well OK if you must, example re-clarified:

I owe Injin £100. Injin owes RealistBear £100. RealistBear owes me £100. Total debt £300.

RB goes to the bank and borrows £100. (Total debt now up to £400). He gives the £100 cash to me to settle his debt with me, I give it to Injin to settle our debt, then Injin gives them back to RB, who settles his debt with the bank.

it doesn't settle the debt. it doubles it every single time.

£400 of debt extinguished with £100 of cash.

Nope.

It doesn't matter whether there was £100 debt to generate the £100 cash in the first place, or £100 debt left over at the end. The point is that due to the velocity of money, it can circulate and clear more debt than its face value. I could extend the above example to clear interconnected debts of many people

No it can't.

Think about it some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No clue what you are gibbering about here. Adding to the money supply steals value from everyone who already has a unit of currency. Given that being part of the currency is not optional, this is a form of theft and is therefore EVIL.

In other words; having a common currency is evil. The utility of a currency reduces if people are denied access to it, it puts even more power into the hands of the financiers, who will naturally demand higher payments in return for this scarce resource.

It doesn't matter what it is; land/currency/potatoes/labour etc it's price will be determined by market forces. Ringfencing the currency for special protection is highly illiberal, and is something that we've gradually moved away from over the decades, fortunately.

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words; having a common currency is evil.

No, a common currency is a good thing.

However, people are forced to use dollars at gunpoint, which is evil.

The utility of a currency reduces if people are denied access to it, it puts even more power into the hands of the financiers, who will naturally demand higher payments in return for this scarce resource.

SO what?

****** em, it's not liek dollars bills are hard to make or PC numbers are in short supply.

Remove the legal tender laws and taxation.

It doesn't matter what it is; land/currency/potatoes/labour etc the it's price will be determined by market forces. Ringfencing the currency for special protection is highly illiberal, and is something that we've gradually moved away from over the decades, fortunately.

Don't be retarded, currency is a monopoly and banking is a cartel.

Remove the legal tender law, end taxation, cease all bank licensing. Stop attacking other human beings to force currency on them.

Anything less is pussying around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to borrow central bank currency? Well OK if you must, example re-clarified:

I owe Injin £100. Injin owes RealistBear £100. RealistBear owes me £100. Total debt £300.

RB goes to the bank and borrows £100. (Total debt now up to £400). He gives the £100 cash to me to settle his debt with me, I give it to Injin to settle our debt, then Injin gives them back to RB, who settles his debt with the bank.

£400 of debt extinguished with £100 of cash.

It doesn't matter whether there was £100 debt to generate the £100 cash in the first place, or £100 debt left over at the end. The point is that due to the velocity of money, it can circulate and clear more debt than its face value. I could extend the above example to clear interconnected debts of many people

I beleive the figures refer to one party owing the debt...the US government.

If RB is the government, all cuddly and fluffy, owes £200, the total debt is £400.

RB borrows £100 to pay you and you pay injin...total debt is now £300, all still owed by RB.

What Im trying to say is that the velocity argument fails when one entity owes more than any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO what?

****** em, it's not liek dollars bills are hard to make or PC numbers are in short supply.

So in your stateless utopia we'd all have to perform every task ourselves?

It doesn't sound v.appealing.

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in your stateless utopia we'd all have to perform every task oursleves?

We already do, idiot.

It doesn't sound v.appealing.

That's because you are a cretin.

Edited by Injin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already do, idiot.

That's because you are a cretin.

:rolleyes:

You've tied yourself in knots on this one. Either we do it all ourselves, which would amount to a barter economy and be crap. Or we allow bankers to do it but it becomes an immoral fraud cartel.

Sounds like a bit of a pickle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

You've tied yourself in knots on this one. Either we do it all ourselves, which would amount to a barter economy and be crap. Or we allow bankers to do it but it becomes an immoral fraud cartel.

Sounds like a bit of a pickle.

The bankers and the state are part of "us."

They aren't a seperate lifeform or anything. This is why I called you a cretin, because only people who have been repeatedly dropped on their heads as children can miss stuff that obvious.

You've completely ignored methodology

Two ways to do something

1) On a take it or leave it basis - if peopel refuse, you accept with good grace and do something else with your time.

2) Force people to do what you want

We currently have a banking system which operates on principle 2) Force others to do what you want

And this is why it is evil. make the whole thing voluntary and it would be moral. While it's force,d it's evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bankers and the state are part of "us."

They aren't a seperate lifeform or anything. This is why I called you a cretin, because only people who have been repeatedly dropped on their heads as children can miss stuff that obvious.

You've completely ignored methodology

Two ways to do something

1) On a take it or leave it basis - if peopel refuse, you accept with good grace and do something else with your time.

2) Force people to do what you want

We currently have a banking system which operates on principle 2) Force others to do what you want

And this is why it is evil. make the whole thing voluntary and it would be moral. While it's force,d it's evil.

A minute a go you were saying that creating more currency was evil because it devalued all the other units of currency.

It seems wherever you look you see evil, I don't think that this is a money supply issue.

People can use their own currency anyway: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6692755.stm

Edited by Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beleive the figures refer to one party owing the debt...the US government.

If RB is the government, all cuddly and fluffy, owes £200, the total debt is £400.

RB borrows £100 to pay you and you pay injin...total debt is now £300, all still owed by RB.

What Im trying to say is that the velocity argument fails when one entity owes more than any other.

I don't see how that follows. An entity owing the most in a system in this case will always be owed money because it can tax by force. Even if the entity in question wasn't the govt l don't see any argument given that makes the velocity point inapplicable. I would ask Injin to explain with a nice example but he seems to be at home to mr insulty tonight, so l wont bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realised the debt would never be repaid the first time I looked up at the US National Debt clock in Times Square.

It can never be repaid - and the rest of the world has decided to get in on the act before the fat lady sings.

Hillarious if not Serious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how that follows. An entity owing the most in a system in this case will always be owed money because it can tax by force. Even if the entity in question wasn't the govt l don't see any argument given that makes the velocity point inapplicable. I would ask Injin to explain with a nice example but he seems to be at home to mr insulty tonight, so l wont bother.

well, it seems governments have been reluctant to TAX for their debts for nearly 100 years.

they seem to think lowering tax is good and borrowing a bit more to spread the wealth, or rather, gain the votes is the way forward. It could only end in a time when the World is all borrowed out.

I think we are at that time now. Money, like the concept of infinity, doesnt necessarily reflect the reality of a nations wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 260 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.