I believe I still had to prove I could fill the position, which I did. The success that we have been having here, while other banks are doing pretty bad, also speaks for itself.
that statement had absolutely nothing to do with what i wrote. anyway, congrats on being an assistant branch manager, but when you can describe the fundamental underpinnings and pricing of a structured note, swap, collar, and options perhaps i'll listen to something you say about finance because being an ABM requires almost no understanding of finance. Even if you don't agree with the philosophy (i.e., the pricing of derivatives, which many people say is the cause of the economic crisis) you should understand it so that you can intelligibly disagree with it and argue intelligently. I used derivative pricing as just an example; it had nothing to do with our discussion other than to point out that you know nothing about finance.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by DOOMBOT
But they get paid a lot of money. :stongue:
Apparently a few Trillion dollars of the country's money.
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
DOOMBOT
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Apparently a few Trillion dollars of the country's money.
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
No big deal, they can just print a few trillion to make up for what they lost.
This was a very good thread. Let's do it again some time! :D
culorut
I know it has been posted already but for sakes watch this FED bitch crumble under pressure when asked where the Trillions of dollars of the USA's money is.
Originally posted by culorut
I know it has been posted already but for sakes watch this FED bitch crumble under pressure when asked where the Trillions of dollars of the USA's money is.
how about - the fed didn't print money and hand it out to banks that submitted applications (the 'trillions' weren't simply handed out as bills to banks requesting money). instead, the fed credited the bank's reserve accounts for the sale of government treasuries previously owned by the banks, which means banks had the ability to lend more money (i.e., crediting reserves means the banks have more money to lend) without the fed actually exchanging cash for those treasuries. thus, the money can't be traced easily by paper, and the consequences of the multiplier effect must be accounted for. that's not an easy task at all.
culorut
It could be a possibility but when the FED's own Inspector General (Elizabeth Coleman) cannot answer to where the money is someone must be held accountable. We are talking about Trillions of dollars which should be in the USA's hands, not lost somewhere on paper transactions or more likely lining the pockets of the private bankers.
One of the duties of The Office of Inspector General is to conduct audits to prevent abuse and fraud which they clearly have not done. Either this was not done accidentally or deliberately, I am willing to go with the latter. The numbers are too massive to over look. As per the FED's 2008 Annual report the spike from September to December was over 700% over the previous years.
"The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts independent and objective audits, inspections, evaluations, investigations, and other reviews related to programs and operations of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board). OIG efforts promote integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; help prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and strengthen accountability to the Congress and the public. The OIG’s work assists the Board in managing risk and in achieving its overall mission to foster the stability, integrity, and efficiency of the nation’s monetary, financial, and payment systems so as to promote optimal macroeconomic performance."
This proves without a doubt that the USA needs HR 1207 (Federal Reserve Transparency Act) pushed through as soon as possible. If you leave it in the FED's hands it will continue to rob the system.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
It could be a possibility but when the FED's own Inspector General (Elizabeth Coleman) cannot answer to where the money is someone must be held accountable. We are talking about Trillions of dollars which should be in the USA's hands, not lost somewhere on paper transactions or more likely lining the pockets of the private bankers.
you don't seem to understand that this isn't money that would be in the pockets of americans if it wasn't "given" to banks. this is money created by crediting reserve accounts. there isn't a don't-credit-bank-reserve-accounts-and-give-to-the-taxpayers option.
do you even understand how the reserve requirement and the multiplier effect work?
Originally posted by jerZ07002
you don't seem to understand that this isn't money that would be in the pockets of americans if it wasn't "given" to banks. this is money created by crediting reserve accounts. there isn't a don't-credit-bank-reserve-accounts-and-give-to-the-taxpayers option.
do you even understand how the reserve requirement and the multiplier effect work?
Yes I understand it, the FED's are creating as much credit reserves as they want when they want to get US Treasury bills just like ******** just mentioned. They in turn get real money dollar for dollar on the US Treasury bills and charge interest to everyone on it through their member banks once it is transferred to these member banks reserves.
The huge problem also is they cannot account for the Trillions of dollars they collect from this interest. It is supposed to go back to the US government, these Trillions of dollars are not their operational cost which they use as the loophole in this scam.
It's the most important financial lesson of your life!
THE MANDRAKE MECHANISM . . . What is it? It is the method by which the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing; the concept of usury as the payment of interest on pretended loans; the true cause of the hidden tax called inflation; the way in which the Fed creates boom-bust cycles.
In the 1940s, there was a comic strip character called Mandrake the Magician. His specialty was creating things out of nothing and, when appropriate, to make them disappear back into that same void. It is fitting, therefore, that the process to be described in this section should be named in his honor.
In the previous chapters, we examined the technique developed by the political and monetary scientists to create money out of nothing for the purpose of lending. This is not an entirely accurate description because it implies that money is created first and then waits for someone to borrow it.
On the other hand, textbooks on banking often state that money is created out of debt. This also is misleading because it implies that debt exists first and then is converted into money. In truth, money is not created until the instant it is borrowed. It is the act of borrowing which causes it to spring into existence. And, incidentally, it is the act of paying off the debt that causes it to vanish. There is no short phrase that perfectly describes that process. So, until one is invented along the way, we shall continue using the phrase "create money out of nothing" and occasionally add "for the purpose of lending" where necessary to further clarify the meaning.
So, let us now . . . see just how far this money/debt-creation process has been carried -- and how it works.
The first fact that needs to be considered is that our money today has no gold or silver behind it whatsoever. The fraction is not 54% nor 15%. It is 0%. It has traveled the path of all previous fractional money in history and already has degenerated into pure fiat money. The fact that most of it is in the form of checkbook balances rather than paper currency is a mere technicality; and the fact that bankers speak about "reserve ratios" is eyewash. The so-called reserves to which they refer are, in fact, Treasury bonds and other certificates of debt.
Our money is "pure fiat" through and through.
The second fact that needs to be clearly understood is that, in spite of the technical jargon and seemingly complicated procedures, the actual mechanism by which the Federal Reserve creates money is quite simple. They do it exactly the same way the goldsmiths of old did except, of course, the goldsmiths were limited by the need to hold some precious metals in reserve, whereas the Fed has no such restriction.
The Federal Reserve is candid.
The Federal Reserve itself is amazingly frank about this process.
A booklet published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York tells us:
"Currency cannot be redeemed, or exchanged, for Treasury gold or any other asset used as backing. The question of just what assets 'back' Federal Reserve notes has little but bookkeeping significance."
Elsewhere in the same publication we are told: "Banks are creating money based on a borrower's promise to pay (the IOU) . . . Banks create money by 'monetizing' the private debts of businesses and individuals."
In a booklet entitled Modern Money Mechanics, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago says:
In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount.
What, then, makes these instruments -- checks, paper money, and coins -- acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and real goods and services whenever they choose to do so. This partly is a matter of law; currency has been designated "legal tender" by the government -- that is, it must be accepted.
In the fine print of a footnote in a bulletin of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, we find this surprisingly candid explanation:
Modern monetary systems have a fiat base -- literally money by decree -- with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as reserves. The decree appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
While no individual could refuse to accept such money for debt repayment, exchange contracts could easily be composed to thwart its use in everyday commerce. However, a forceful explanation as to why money is accepted is that the federal government requires it as payment for tax liabilities. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollars.
Money would vanish without debt.
It is difficult for Americans to come to grips with the fact that their total money-supply is backed by nothing but debt, and it is even more mind boggling to visualize that, if everyone paid back all that was borrowed, there would be no money left in existence.
That's right, there would not be one penny in circulation -- all coins and all paper currency would be returned to bank vaults -- and there would be not one dollar in any one's checking account. In short, all money would disappear.
Marriner Eccles was the Governor of the Federal Reserve System in 1941. On September 30 of that year, Eccles was asked to give testimony before the House Committee on Banking and Currency. The purpose of the hearing was to obtain information regarding the role of the Federal Reserve in creating conditions that led to the depression of the 1930s.
Congressman Wright Patman, who was Chairman of that committee, asked how the Fed got the money to purchase two billion dollars worth of government bonds in 1933.
This is the exchange that followed.
Eccles: We created it.
Patman: Out of what?
Eccles: Out of the right to issue credit money.
Patman: And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our government's credit?
Eccles: That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money.
It must be realized that, while money may represent an asset to selected individuals, when it is considered as an aggregate of the total money supply, it is not an asset at all. A man who borrows $1,000 may think that he has increased his financial position by that amount but he has not. His $1,000 cash asset is offset by his $1,000 loan liability, and his net position is zero. Bank accounts are exactly the same on a larger scale. Add up all the bank accounts in the nation, and it would be easy to assume that all that money represents a gigantic pool of assets which support the economy. Yet, every bit of this money is owed by someone. Some will owe nothing. Others will owe many times what they possess. All added together, the national balance is zero. What we think is money is but a grand illusion. The reality is debt.
Robert Hemphill was the Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta. In the foreword to a book by Irving Fisher, entitled 100% Money, Hemphill said this:
If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is.
With the knowledge that money in America is based on debt, it should not come as a surprise to learn that the Federal Reserve System is not the least interested in seeing a reduction in debt in this country, regardless of public utterances to the contrary.
jerZ07002
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Yes I understand it, the FED's are creating as much credit reserves as they want when they want to get US Treasury bills just like ******** just mentioned. They in turn get real money dollar for dollar on the US Treasury bills and charge interest to everyone on it through their member banks once it is transferred to these member banks reserves.
the treasury bills acquired by the fed are longer term bills, so the fed hasn't received the principal from any of those bills. The interest from those bills is not significant enough to constitute trillions of dollars. Lastly, would you require interest to be paid on money you keep on deposit at a bank? More importantly, the purpose of paying interest on reserves is so the fed can more easily achieve its target rate.
Originally posted by jerZ07002
the treasury bills acquired by the fed are longer term bills, so the fed hasn't received the principal from any of those bills. The interest from those bills is not significant enough to constitute trillions of dollars. Lastly, would you require interest to be paid on money you keep on deposit at a bank? More importantly, the purpose of paying interest on reserves is so the fed can more easily achieve its target rate.
The FED banks own roughly half of the National debt which is equal to 25 Trillion dollars. At average 5% interest rate they earn around 2 Trillion dollars a year easily including their transaction fees and actual higher interest rates. How exactly do you not figure this is not enough to equal Trillions of dollars?
Let me guess, because they told you so on their website right?
More importantly they cannot account for these Trillions of dollars both on and off their balance sheets. They are raping the USA of Trillions of dollars, the only returned 500 billion back to the US Treasury as per 2008. Where is the rest of the money? All 1.5 Trillion dollars of it to be exact, prove me wrong.
:stongue:
culorut
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
