Heidi Guedel Now a "Paralegal"

[Pantekhnikon]

Heidi, as has been explained numerous times, even if all transactions were done in gold coins, we would still have the same expansion of the money supply we have now. It would just be slower and more painful (literally) to use. If you have any doubt, look up the history of the Medici, they were doing what we a re doing now hundreds of years ago.

Alan Greenspan disagrees with you... and this interview was relatively recent (judging by his obviously geriatric appearance... {but please try not to call him an "old troll"... oh, wait... that wasn't you who wrote that about Rothbard, was it?}):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5MVsm2cpc0
.

The video has nothing to do with the expansion of the money supply via fractional reserve banking and everything to do with the government literally printing money (and Greenspan's opinion that that is a bad thing). Please try again.

Has it not occured to you that several of your compatriots here have been alleging that banks never create money out of thin air... and that I have been consistently pointing out that they do?

I offered the link to that Greenspan video as proof that the former chairman of the Federal Reserve admitted publicly that under the auspices of the Federal reserve money is created by the "central bank" . Fractional Reserve lending is one of the primary mechanisms for doing so.

Once you accept and acknowledge the fact that in 1913 the Federal reserve was created by Congress and was THEREBY granted the privilege of expanding the nation's fiat money supply under no oversight accept their own, you should have less trouble comprehending their process of creating new money via fractional reserve lending.

[Paul]

But you seem to miss the points that:

1) Banks were already doing that BEFORE the Federal Reserve was created.

2) They (and, originally, the Fed) were doing this with metal-backed currency.

[Judge Roy Bean]

But you seem to miss the points that:

1) Banks were already doing that BEFORE the Federal Reserve was created.

2) They (and, originally, the Fed) were doing this with metal-backed currency.

Please, let us not introduce reality into this discourse. One cannot sustain a diatribe against the all-seeing financial powers if little bits of fact come to light. Without that curious environment a legitimate debt might not be questioned. And yet another victim of a scam might venture forth and be whacked even if the alleged creditor is full of BS. Hey, if you're in a fixed game you should be able to game the game, right?

People like Heidi seem to think all we have to do is say the magic words at just the right moment often enough to get people in financial trouble to rise up. What they don't realize is they're paving the way for the predators who've been in the game for decades to grind newbie victims into the dust.

"Here, drink this, because if enough of us do our problems will go away!" But almost everybody who steps up and buys a bottle of it is actually standing around waiting to see if anyone else survives the first bottle.

Anybody else see how this is nothing more than a situation of history repeating itself?

[notorial dissent]

Has it not occured to you that several of your compatriots here have been alleging that banks never create money out of thin air... and that I have been consistently pointing out that they do?
Quite the contrary. Without exception, everyone here has been flat out saying that banks DO NOT make money out of thin air. You are the one that it has not occurred to that you are flat out wrong.

I offered the link to that Greenspan video as proof that the former chairman of the Federal Reserve admitted publicly that under the auspices of the Federal reserve money is created by the "central bank" . Fractional Reserve lending is one of the primary mechanisms for doing so.
Money is created by the expansion of available money, rather than sitting somewhere in a vault, but it is not created wholesale out of thin air.

Once you accept and acknowledge the fact that in 1913 the Federal reserve was created by Congress and was THEREBY granted the privilege of expanding the nation's fiat money supply under no oversight accept their own, you should have less trouble comprehending their process of creating new money via fractional reserve lending.Strangely enough, no one has denied that the Fed was created by the gov’t, what they are laughing at is your insistence that they are doing anything they are not statutorily ordained to do, or that they are not under the control of the gov’t. In as much as the Fed exists solely at the pleasure of the Congress, and what Congress makes, they can unmake, and that their governors of the Fed are not appointed and confirmed by the very gov’t that created it, or that the Treasury Secretary is still for all intents and purposes in charge of what the Fed does, you are indeed confused. Any money the Fed issues is based upon the corresponding sale of an equal amount of government securities and that anything the Fed does is under statutory authority.

To recapitulate what has previously been said, you are totally ignorant of banking and monetary history, and continue to prove it, you have no factual understanding of what the Fed is or how it works, your view of finance is so far beyond simplistic as to be non-existent. You have found a fantasy to latch on to to justify your own excuses for why it is not your fault. Well, enjoy your fantasy, because no one here, or anyplace else other than sui, is buying it.

[Pantekhnikon]

Greenspan says the Fed is above the law.
He says it at 7:40:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3mEe8TH7w

It amazes me that some of you can presumably listen to the Greenspan interview I posted earlier and actually fail to hear that a "fiat currency" can be expanded to the point where inflation damages the economy... and that the Fed supposedly controls the rate of expansion in order to supposedly avoid economic collapse. If you missed that information, I suggest you listen to that interview again until it sinks in. After it (finally) sinks in, ask yourself how well the Fed has managed to prevent economic collapse lately.

Once you manage to grasp that fact, you might also deduce that the expansion of fiat currency amounts to the creation of "money". Once you finally admit to yourself that the Fed creates money (AKA "deposit creation"), we might be able to advance this discussion beyond the basics.

One of you has actually managed to state that new loans were based upon the sale of gov't securities. At least you were half right. Look at that Fed Res chart again:

http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/ ... eation.pdf

It says clearly at the top:

"Federal Reserve purchases $10,000 in U.S. Government securities from an individual..."

And at the top of the left-hand column, it clearly says: "Fed buys $10,000 T-Bill from N1, who deposits proceeds in B1".

Now follow the chart.

N1 now deposits the $10,000 in B1, and B1 creates a new loan BASED UPON that $10,000 deposit. Notice that the $10,000 remains exactly where it is - on deposit at B1. It is that INTACT DEPOSIT which is considered "reserves".

B1, as an authorized Fed Res banking institution entitled to loan out funds which never existed before, it THEN loans out 90% of that reserve deposit AS NEW MONEY ... which, as the chart clearly describes, creates a new deposit.

That is why the chart is entitled: "Multiple Deposit Creation".

NONE of the $10,000 deposit EVER disappears from B1 when the money for the new loan is created and lent.

On the contrary, WHILE the original $10,000 remains right where it is, (deposited in B1), ANOTHER $9,000 is loaned out to N2, who then spends it to purchase a car from N3.

N3 then deposits the $9,000 in B2, where it is then used as a reserve BASIS for ANOTHER 90% loan.

This means that $9,000 in newly created money moves into circulation, is deposited in another bank and then becomes the basis for another 90% loan of $8,100.

Can you people finally manage to follow that process to the end of the chart and finally recognize the fact that new "money" AKA "dollars", AKA "deposits" have been created?

"Out of thin air" is simply a figure of speech... as is the term "vapor money" (another descriptive phrase you apparently dislike).

So what HAS that "new deposit" been created out of, then? YOU come up with an appropriate label. Since it never existed prior to being BASED upon an existing deposit which remains completely intact, WHAT was it created out of, or created from, or made out of then?

Portions of existing deposits have NOT been removed from the banks in order to create the new money for those loans.

As long as you people stubbornly refuse to grasp that fact, you will all appear increasingly ignorant to anyone reading these threads who HAS actually been ABLE to follow that chart.
.

[Pantekhnikon]

Earlier, someone asked about suggestions for a workeable alternative to the present fiat monetary system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG5WJNMpCzk

Bear in mind that Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr has a Juris Doctorate and a Phd. Does anyone posting here have comparable credentials?

http://www.fame.org/HTM/Edwin%20Vieira.htm

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. http://www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. http://www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary

He can be reached at:

P.O. Box 3634,

Manassas, Virginia 20108

.............................................

Dr. Vieira has FAR more personal accountability and impressive credentials than any anonymous tool arguing with me here on quatloos ... and that includes Demosthenes, whose personal info I managed to ferret out four years ago.
.

[Pantekhnikon]

One of Murray N. Rothbard's lectures -- he describes the origin of the Federal Reserve:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xt39w3IrKw

You will recognize his voice from the earlier video I posted in which we actually see him speaking... and there are a few nice photos of him that were taken when Dr. Rothbard was still relatively young (for the Q-tool asinine enough to discount a person's intelligence and education based upon his age and/or physical appearance, and call him an "old troll").

[jg]

Can you people finally manage to follow that process to the end of the chart and finally recognize the fact that new "money" AKA "dollars", AKA "deposits" have been created?

Yes, they have. And that is a good thing.

The money that was created at first by the lending is now paid back with the value of the earnings from provision of goods or services of the borrower. It is not, as you might have been lead to believe, that there is no economic production that ultimately is the value for which that money was created. The money comes first and the value comes later is all it is.

That money does not forever remain only entries on a balance sheet; but when repaid it has just as much blood, sweat and tears to be created as any other money. That is the completion of the process which seems to have been omitted from what you have learned or been told.

The money that was lent has allowed that borrower to be more liquid, to have credit available when it was desired, and to be able to afford now what likely would not have been able to be afforded until later, or to obtain immediate full use of the purchased item (such as a house) and to later pay as funds become available.

This is the system we have decided to use in this country and culture. There are costs, as in most things. We may be seeing, in recent events, some of the costs of not having had enough fiscal responsibility or of living too far beyond our means. There may or may not be better systems; but I see no secret cabal or hidden process or conspiracy of the elite in any of it.

I am not an economist; but I hope my comments can help you to see that imagining there is not any value of good or services ever expended for that money (that was allowed to be created by fractional reserve banking) is wrong or incomplete understanding of the entire process.

Happy Turkey Day !

[Gregg]

I, as it turns out, in addition to being able to rebuild an engine, design drivetrain components and make a tolerable batch of peanut butter cookies, am by training an Economist (London School of Economics, where I, a conservative American went to learn about economics from near communists in England) and explaining it to some people is not hard, but to people who have listened to enough half truths and demagogues and drank the kool aid, it's a little tricky. Hard to penetrate the ones with the fingers in their ears going "Nah Nah Nah, I can't hear you!"

The easiest way to explain it is simply this

Joe works for Big Company X and is paid $1000 a week. During the course of that week he takes $1000 of raw materials, invested capitol and expenses and converts it to $3,000 worth of salable product. The $1000 is the amount of money Joe has "created out of thin air" and a portion of it goes to pay the loan Big Company X borrowed to build the plant, buy the materials etc.... that he did the creating from. In the US there are hundreds of millions of Joes and the object of the Federal Reserve System (aside from helping the Illuminati control the galaxy, of course) is to match the expansion of the money supply at a rate that approximates the amount of money all those Joes "create out of thin air". There is a VERY LONG list of rules and procedures of how they do it, but that's the backing of the currency all these nutcakes complain about. The government gets the new money back in a combination of tax revenues and the Federal Reserve actually makes a profit that is returned to the Treasury. It works, believe it or not. There are some bumps in the road, and there is an inevitable if unpredictable series of fluctuations in how close they get, but it beats the heck out of only allowing the money supply to expand as one entity or another accumulates big rooms full of gold.

[Pantekhnikon]

Can you people finally manage to follow that process to the end of the chart and finally recognize the fact that new "money" AKA "dollars", AKA "deposits" have been created?

Yes, they have.

FINALLY. Thank you for that rational dose of honesty, jg.

And that is a good thing.

Well THAT is a matter of opinion... and I am pleased to discuss that.

The money that was created at first by the lending is now paid back with the value of the earnings from provision of goods or services of the borrower.

AGREED. I've said that before, although from a different perspective, as I will reiterate below.

It is not, as you might have been lead to believe, that there is no economic production that ultimately is the value for which that money was created. The money comes first and the value comes later is all it is.

AGREED... although I would restate that as follows:

A privileged class of entrepreneurs (bankers) is allowed to create and lend fiat (unbacked) currency out of nothing except their privilege to do so. A borrower utilizes this loan for purposes of production and hopefully makes a living... or perhaps he purchases items he desires and passes on the new 'money' to the makers of those products. Over time the borrower is able to repay this loan out of his own blood, sweat and tears... with interest.

Some of us have noticed that there is a bothersome difference between the privilege to create money out of nothing in order to make a living at lending it out, and the responsibility to spend one's own blood, sweat and tears to repay it.

That money does not forever remain only entries on a balance sheet; but when repaid it has just as much blood, sweat and tears to be created as any other money.

YES... when REPAID, just as you say.

That is the completion of the process which seems to have been omitted from what you have learned or been told.

What has been omitted is some acknowledgment of the DIFFERENCE between the effort required to enjoy a profit from the creation of money out of nothing, and the effort required to repay it out of one's own blood, sweat and tears.

The money that was lent has allowed that borrower to be more liquid, to have credit available when it was desired, and to be able to afford now what likely would not have been able to be afforded until later, or to obtain immediate full use of the purchased item (such as a house) and to later pay as funds become available.

VERY TRUE. And, as someone said earlier (perhaps Notorial Dissent), this has all happened prior to the Federal Reserve Act... and, (as that someone neglected to mention), the results have been quite similar to the economic problems we are presently having:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTcWYgMCPBM

This recent (Nov. 1st 2008) lecture by Doug French (who earned his Masters in Economics under Dr. Murray N.Rothbard) lasts almost 30 minutes, and covers earlier incidents of fractional reserve banking ("creation of money out of nothing") which also resulted in economic bubbles and eventual deflation with severe losses to the stock markets.

It is all explained quite clearly. Especially interesting are the achievements of the 18th Century banking entrepreneur John Law (not a Jew) beginning in the year 1716 in France... where the gov't was talked into borrowing newly created fiat currency to pay for it's extremely expensive warfare and mounting deficits (sound familiar???)

This is the system we have decided to use in this country and culture. There are costs, as in most things. We may be seeing, in recent events, some of the costs of not having had enough fiscal responsibility or of living too far beyond our means.

YES. And such fiscal irresponsibility was actively ENCOURAGED by those privileged enterprises which stood to earn the best living by fostering it: the Fed Res chartered banks and credit card companies.

There may or may not be better systems; but I see no secret cabal or hidden process or conspiracy of the elite in any of it.

Well, jg, I respect your right not to realize that establishing a privileged class of bankers/lenders with exclusive permission to create money and lend it at a profit cheats both private lenders (who cannot adequately compete and would be arrested for counterfeiting) and private citizens, who suffer rising prices and interest payments to the privileged banking class as "a tax on the people, less felt" (quoted in Doug French's lecture soon after time mark 18:00).

I am not an economist; but I hope my comments can help you to see that imagining there is not any value of good or services ever expended for that money (that was allowed to be created by fractional reserve banking) is wrong or incomplete understanding of the entire process.

I am not an economist either... but I... as have you... obviously studied the subject.

I thank you very much for such a fact-based, respectful, and rational discussion. It is good to share differences of opinion without rancor.

Happy Turkey Day !

Same to you, jg. (Turkeys are awfully expensive this year...)

[grixit]

There was also the demand for silk among the aristocracy who had become enriched as Rome took over Carthage's trading interests. This caused roman money to migrate to China.

[Demosthenes]

FYI, Heidi passed away on December 1, 2010 in Glendale, CA.

[Nikki]

Leaving how much in unpaid, evaded bills behind her?

My sympathy to her family, but no great loss to humanity.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Leaving how much in unpaid, evaded bills behind her?
...

On a scale that includes Roland Arnall, she doesn't even show up.