Article 104 - MAASTRICHT - The scam of debt

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 08/07/11, 00:59

In fact this forum, reproach the banks, which anyone can do, by buying a property, land, apartment or house on credit, then renting it, to pay the interest with the rents which continue to arrive, even after the total end the loan, thus in perpetuity, to earn much more than the initial value, and even so with this money earned, to be able to buy other goods and to multiply one's possessions, so well managed !!
It is not necessary to be a banker to do this, multiply your property, without making mistakes (Sellier laws and others that invite you), because some by making mistakes, found themselves SDF (reports sent special by example) !!

What is new are the banks that are so huge, which should become homeless, as a result of errors and therefore bankruptcy, who practice blackmail, bail me out, because if I collapse, you do like me, you collapse , because you are sitting on the same branch as me !!

It is : the shock strategy or the rise of the disaster strategy, in paperback by Naomi Klein, Babel ed Leméac 2008 collection !!
Book to read, because it retraces how for almost 30 years, this strategy of disaster has enriched capitalism !!
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Strat%C3%A9gie_du_choc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
http://www.naomiklein.org/main
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrin ... -in-action
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles/2008 ... se-attacks
http://www.lemonde.fr/cinema/article/20 ... _3476.html

This book written in 2007, based on exact facts (corruptions with Bush and Iraq war, for example), was premonitory, because the financial crisis of 2008, confirmed it, with this new financial shock, to better multiply the profits !!

A book from 1950 recounts the same type of financial gain, since 1694, with the history since 1694 of Protestant financiers, the basis of the current global financial economy disapproved of by Catholics:
Tomorrow is the Year 2000! written in 1950
with extracts on:
http://vimeo.com/1711304?pg=embed&sec=1711304

In 1694, William of Orange, who became William III of England, had no more money to pay for his army. This Dutchman, whose success had been financed by the Protestant bankers of his country, will - just return of things - be caught in the spiral of Anglo-Dutch usurers. A syndicate of loan sharks, led by William Paterson, proposed the following combination to him: a) The private syndicate will advance to the government a gold loan of 1 pounds, at the rate of 200%, the principal and the interest being guaranteed by the state and paid in gold; b) as a reward, the private syndicate has the right to be called Bank of England; c) as the syndicate thus deprived itself of all its capital to finance the loan, it had in exchange (?) the right to issue and negotiate promissory notes up to the amount of 000 pounds loaned in gold, in the state.

Until then, only the state had the sovereign right to coin money, it was he who could and should have issued these notes pledged on the gold he had borrowed. The syndicate, abusing its title of Bank of England, had printed banknotes recognized as valid in London, then throughout the country, under the moral guarantee of the king and the material of the gold loan. It was great, the public trusted in papers that the Bank - having no more capital - was unable to repay. Thus was born modern credit in paper money, a veritable counterfeit of Crédo.



By this breach of confidence in the English people, coupled with high treason against the king, says Thomas Robertson (1), the clan of usurers doubled with a stroke of the pen their fortune. It even more than doubled, since it affected not only the interest on his gold loan, but the interest on the paper notes he began to lend - the 6% on the initial capital becoming 12% , in eight years it doubled again (2).

Thus the Bank had created a double debt, one from the government - which, after all, pocketed gold - the other from the English people. The simultaneous indebtedness of the government and the people will only grow constantly, the government obviously making everything fall on the people through the tax system. This is the origin of the English national debt, zero before William III and which reached, in 1948, 24 billion pounds. The mechanism has three stages: usury, debt, taxes, 60% of which are used to pay interest on the debt.


William III continued to borrow from the Bank up to a maximum of 16 million gold pounds. And it issued the same amount in notes. What is more, since banknotes were used in the same way as gold, even abroad, the Bank henceforth advanced to the government paper ... guaranteed by it, and no longer in gold. That's it. It is obvious that at that time the government could have taken back its sovereign right and decided to print the tickets itself; he would thus never have had interest to pay or a national debt in a snowball.

At first, the bank only issued notes up to the amount of gold loaned, and kept a gold reserve intended to cover claims for reimbursement. Little by little, she realized that people preferred to handle tickets lighter than gold, and that one could issue tickets by simply keeping a reserve of 10%.



Put in taste by such a fruitful operation, the banks multiplied like mushrooms. Between 1694 and 1830, there are 684 private banks in the British Isles, each issuing its own banknotes.


Apart from any moral consideration, the production loan is enough to unbalance any economy which is not purely agricultural or pastoral, that is to say the only economy where "biological growth", a gift of God, eternally renewed, fear of exceeding the "money grows" when the rate is low. Industry only transforms and, through extraction, depletes.


First of all, it is inflation. There are ten times more legal currency signs in 1836 than in 1694. However, this paper money is not only loaned but spent directly by the banks, which thus play the role of traders. They can thus run their business, with only 10% of real capital, while manufacturers who want to launch a factory or build up a stock borrow from the banks, at the rate of 6%, banknotes which represent almost nothing and mortgage their means. real production for wind. This explains the few bankruptcies of the banks and the vampirization of industries and commerce by "investment banks".

However, in 1836, the British government became aware of the danger. After a secret investigation, Chancellor Robert Peel took the initiative in the Bank Charter Act of 1844. This law took away from some 600 private banks the right to issue banknotes, recognizing only the -Only- Bank of England, this time obliged to have a 100% gold cover - which lasted until 1914 ...— Today, the cover is only symbolic.


Poor government! The 600 bankers united in a new syndicate, the Joint Stock Banks- and - replaced the issue of banned notes by the issuance of checks facilitating the bank advance, that is to say the opening of credit in current account. It was only a camouflaged issue of banknotes, and all the more advantageous since it would serve mainly to swell the production of large borrowers and not to facilitate the consumption of small ones, like legal tender.

It was a new stroke of genius. This time, it is no longer the king who will endorse the issue, it is the depositors, as a result of a skillfully maintained confusion.




The secret of banking omnipotence around the world, says Robertson, lies in the following fact: "When an individual deposits £ 1 in cash in the bank today, the bank does not lend that £ 000. to another client, but keeps them in reserve, and lends by bank advance, or by check, £ 1, which is nine times the amount of the deposit she received ". It is the first customer who constitutes the reserve of 000% ... whereas the good public believe that any Bank is only an intermediary which advances the money placed with it in deposit, that is to say 9 for 000 £. This is moreover what is declared in all the orthodox treatises, and which was officially inscribed in the Encyclopaedia Britanica until 10; but in the 1 edition, you read that "the banks lend by creating credit, they create their means of payment ex nihilo" specifies Mr. R. Hawtrey, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury.

In general, the borrower has posted collateral. If he cannot repay his loan, the bank seizes the guarantees and makes an absolute profit while the borrower goes bankrupt. If he repays, the bank receives 6% of £ 9000, or 54% of the £ 1 that had been deposited in the past, nice profit for having made a simple writing game. The operation is canceled, the amount entered is entered in the Credit column, it cancels the amount carried out in the Must column. The £ 000 dissolve in the wind, where they came from! ...


Hence the almost magical power of banks. They not only create and destroy money, but business. They cause booms, artificial crises, periods of overactivity or unemployment, depending on whether - like a coquette - they grant or not their favors, that is to say current account credits. They are masters of the "trade cycle". Their power is invincible, whatever party triumphs temporarily. They gradually concentrate everything in their hands, on the ruin of nations.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 08/07/11, 08:32

dedeleco wrote:In fact this forum, [b] reproaches the banks, which anyone can do, by buying partially on credit a real estate, land, apartment or house, then by renting it, to pay the interests with the rents which continue to arrive,


First, anyone can do this only if a banker grants credit: it is an economic life and death power without democratic control.

Second, not everyone can rent the same apartment 10 times, because that is money creation. And it is this counterfeit right that is exorbitant from ordinary law for banks.

Finally, with respect to the quoted text, if a bank has 1, it can lend 10 to a "friend" who deposits these 10 in the bank. The bank can then lend 100 and continue the tumble.

The bankruptcy of the banks of Iceland gave rise to a parliamentary report, a true one, which showed that 80% of the credits granted by the Icelandic banks were granted ...

bank owners and their friends.

By the way, I learned about it because Eva Joly talked about it one morning on the radio. Which reporter went to verify the information and disseminated it?

Do you think the situation is different in France, in Europe and in the world? The only difference is that in Iceland, the deputies sold the wick.
0 x
See you soon !
pb2488
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 837
Registration: 17/08/09, 13:04




by pb2488 » 08/07/11, 08:40

bernardd wrote:(...) The bankruptcy of the banks of Iceland gave rise to a parliamentary report, a true one, which showed that 80% of the credits granted by the Icelandic banks were granted ...

to bank owners and their friends.
Are you sure this is it?
0 x
"The truth can not be defined as the majority opinion:
The truth is what follows from the observation of facts. "
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 08/07/11, 09:55

pb2488 wrote:
bernardd wrote:(...) The bankruptcy of the banks of Iceland gave rise to a parliamentary report, a true one, which showed that 80% of the credits granted by the Icelandic banks were granted ...

to bank owners and their friends.
Are you sure this is it?


Yes, after the interview with Eva Joly, I looked for her email in the European Parliament and she answered me via her parliamentary attaché, which is already a very good sign of listening. She sent me the link to some translations in English, because Icelandic is quite foreign to me.

For example:
http://www.guengl.eu/upload//KynningEnsku-fmb.pdf

Page 5:
Leveraging of the banks' owners
The Special Investigation Commission is of the opinion the owners of all three big banks had an abnormally easy access to loans in these banks, apparently in their capacity as owners
• The largest exposures of Glitnir, Kaupthing Bank and Landsbanki were the banks' principal owners.
...
• Examination of the investments made by money market funds operated by the management companies of the three banks reveals that their prime investments included securities and deposits connected to the bank's largest owners.


The google translation slightly corrected (any other correction welcome!):
Leverage of bank owners
The Special Commission found that the owners of the three large banks have abnormally easy access to loans from these banks, apparently in their capacity as owners.
• The largest exposure of Glitnir, Kaupthing and Landsbanki Bank were the owners of the main banks.
...
• An examination of the investments made by the money market funds managed by the management companies of the three banks reveals that their largest investments included securities and deposits linked to the big owners of the bank.


Page 6:
• The Special Investigation Commission is of the opinion that the financing of owners' equity in the Icelandic banking system had in such a large portion been based on borrowing from the system itself that its stability was threatened
• An overestimation of equity in a bank increases its capacity to grow. The bank's capacity to deal with setbacks decreases at the same time, thereby increasing the risk of bankruptcy


Which gives via the corrected google translation:
• The Special Commission of Inquiry believes that equity financing in the Icelandic banking system was largely based on borrowing from the system itself that its stability was threatened
• An overestimation of a bank's capital increases its growth capacity. The ability of the bank to deal with setbacks decreases at the same time, increasing the risk of bankruptcy.


And also this document: http://sic.althingi.is/pdf/RNAvefKafli2Enska.pdf

2 page:
The largest owners of all the big banks had abnormally easy access to credit at the banks they owned, apparently in their capacity as owners.
The examination conducted by the SIC of the largest exposures at Glitnir, Kaupthing Bank, Landsbanki and Straumur-Burðarás revealed that in all of the banks, their principal owners were among the largest borrowers.
At Glitnir Bank hf. the largest borrowers were Baugur Group hf. and
companies affiliated to Baugur. The accelerated pace of Glitnir's growth in lending to this group just after mid-year 2007 is of particular interest. At that time, a new Board of Directors had been elected for Glitnir since parties affiliated with Baugur and FL Group had significantly increased their stake in the bank. When the bank collapsed, its outstanding loans to Baugur and affiliated companies amounted to over ISK 250 billion (a little less than EUR 2 billion). This amount was equal to 70% of the bank's equity base.


Which gives via the corrected google translation:
The largest owners of all the big banks had abnormally easy access to credit in the banks they owned, apparently in their capacity as owners.
A review by the Special Commission of Inquiry into the greatest risk exposures of Glitnir, Kaupthing Bank, Landsbanki and Straumur-Burdaras revealed that in all banks their main owners were among the largest borrowers.
At Glitnir Bank hf. the largest borrowers were Baugur Group hf. and affiliates of Baugur. Of particular interest is the accelerated pace of Glitnir growth in lending to this group just after mid-2007. At that time, a new board of directors had been elected for Glitnir since the parties affiliated to Baugur and FL Group considerably increased their participation in the bank. When the bank collapsed, its outstanding loans to Baugur and affiliates amounted to more than 250 billion Icelandic kronor (just under 2 billion euros). This amount was equal to 70% of the bank's equity.


I'll let you read pages 3 and 4, with the descriptions of the main little things with friends. When a single owner reaches 70% of his bank's credits, and taking into account the other "assisted" loans described without amounts in this summary, the figure of 80% indicated by Eva Joly (who had access to all the documents) seems to sum up the situation well.

Can we say that this is the cause of the bank's fall? No, this is normal business, they just didn't have a chance that the rest of the market had collapsed by this time, and since they were "small" they didn't resist, and it all came out.

But in normal times, it is normality, and also legality. The report says it was hard to accept: it doesn't say it was illegal.

This is the "normal" course of business ... Does that remind you of what happened around Woerth / Bettencourt / ...?

But of course, no media takes care of translating all the documents into English, and even less into the other European languages ​​...
0 x
See you soon !
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




by bernardd » 08/07/11, 10:45

I would remind you that throughout the Euro zone we are talking about 13 billion euros in credits to the non-financial sector. see column 478 of http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=100000141

In France alone, it is 1873 billion euros.
http://www.fbf.fr/web/Internet2010/Cont ... redits.pdf

Go find some vulgar billions in there ...
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
Capt_Maloche
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 4559
Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
Location: Ile-de-France
x 42




by Capt_Maloche » 12/07/11, 00:11

Deldeco wrote: no, cited
The secret of banking omnipotence around the world, says Robertson, lies in the following fact: "When an individual deposits £ 1 in cash in the bank today, the bank does not lend that £ 000. to another client, but keeps them in reserve, and lends by bank advance, or by check, £ 1, which is nine times the amount of the deposit she received ". It is the first customer who constitutes the reserve of 000% ... whereas the good public believe that any Bank is only an intermediary which advances the money placed with it in deposit, that is to say 9 for 000 £. This is moreover what is declared in all the orthodox treatises, and which was officially inscribed in the Encyclopaedia Britanica until 10; but in the 1 edition, you read that "the banks lend by creating credit, they create their means of payment ex nihilo" specifies Mr. R. Hawtrey, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury.

In general, the borrower has posted collateral. If he cannot repay his loan, the bank seizes the guarantees and makes an absolute profit while the borrower goes bankrupt. If he repays, the bank receives 6% of £ 9000, or 54% of the £ 1 that had been deposited in the past, nice profit for having made a simple writing game. The operation is canceled, the amount entered is entered in the Credit column, it cancels the amount carried out in the Must column. The £ 000 dissolve in the wind, where they came from! ...


Hence the almost magical power of banks. They not only create and destroy money, but business. They cause booms, artificial crises, periods of overactivity or unemployment, depending on whether - like a coquette - they grant or not their favors, that is to say current account credits. They are masters of the "trade cycle". Their power is invincible, whatever party triumphs temporarily. They gradually concentrate everything in their hands, on the ruin of nations.


this is true!
The base is there
Article 104 loops the circuit: we pay our own money and interest !!
Last edited by Capt_Maloche the 12 / 07 / 11, 21: 02, 2 edited once.
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 12/07/11, 01:36

I have not written !!
I cited a 1950 book cited on:
http://vimeo.com/1711304?pg=embed&sec=1711304

The old book cited is:
Tomorrow is the Year 2000! written in 1950

It is not certain that everything is correct !!

Anyway, when a tenant rents an apartment for 50 years he pays 2 to 3 times to his owner, and we all find it normal, that he never owns it by enriching the owner !!
0 x
User avatar
Capt_Maloche
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 4559
Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
Location: Ile-de-France
x 42




by Capt_Maloche » 12/07/11, 21:12

yes, well, but when I put [quote] I don't choose the intro :D

50-year-old tenant, apart from the military or civil servants, I don't see
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79118
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 12/07/11, 21:26

Capt_Maloche wrote:50-year-old tenant, apart from the military or civil servants, I don't see


You laugh?

I believe that only about 60% of the French are owners and the remaining 40% are not only soldiers or civil servants ... the rest pays rent ... for life ... whether in the same accommodation or others ...

I know a specialist doctor who is a tenant and who is approaching 60 ... yet she has made a good living!

Everything is a question of managing his life / his budget, his desires, his professional career (less and less stable) ... and then the property does not "hard" everyone ...

Also given the current crazy prices, one can wonder how the young generation will manage to find accommodation ... The State will palpate as many inheritance costs as it has never touched in the next 20 years !!! : Evil: : Evil:
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 12/07/11, 22:26

Christophe wrote: ...
I know a specialist doctor who is a tenant and who is approaching 60 ... yet she has made a good living! ....:


I confirm. My brother specialist doctor at the hospital in Paris. He is 54 years old. Tenant. Real estate to buy in Paris is overpriced.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 136 guests