Check out these two books by David Icke - you may or may not agree with his spiritual views but his take on the Banking system is absolutely spot-on. It puts what is happening now in complete perspective vis-a-vis the stock market, banking and Y2K. Highly recommended.

Robot's Rebellion http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1858600227/r/002-1046380-8743039

And The Truth Shall Set You Free http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0952614715/artbell00/002-1046380-8743039

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 11, 1998

Answers

Yes Andy, the banks can create money from nothing. And it has been that way for a long long time. They used to be more open about it - each bank printed its own money.

And have YOU ever noticed the folks who don't like banks always have a religous axe to grind? Some will hide it and you have to look closely at what they are saying - but a little research in a good library will usually turn up their other writings. At least your guys are honest about it.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 11, 1998.

Ok so whats the alternative to the fractional reserve system. A bigger reserve?

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 11, 1998.

Outlaw Usury, that's the basis of the con, but it's being going on for so long that it has become systemic. Let's see, what have we got, up to %30 interest rates on credit cards, income tax, state tax, VAT in the UK, death tax, capital gains tax, taxes ad infinitum - it's all a form of usury. I know Mr. Icke is subject to ridicule in the UK, but he does have ideas in his books for possible alternatives/solutions. At any rate events are proceeding apace - it will be interesting to see just what happens in the next 15 months!

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 11, 1998.

"%30 interest rates on credit cards"

Anyone who pays that much in credit card interest is getting what they deserve as far as I am concerned. I am sorry, but do even a little research and you can find a MUCH lower rate. If you can't get accepted for a lower rate, here's a shocked, YOU DON'T NEED IT!

Or, you could do what I do...pay off your card each and every month and never accumulate $.01 in interest and I don't pay an annual rate. My card company is itching to get rid of me I can tell, but it makes mail order SO much easier.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 11, 1998.

I'm not ridiculing David Icke, will try to get hold of his books. I detest taxation and high interest rates as much as anyone. Nb the Labour government are increasing govt expenditure by #50 bn in spite of the fact that the economy is contracting (by borrowing), this is typical. Is he suggesting a more conservative approach to lending, currency backed by precious metals, I agree it is too easy to acquire credit. But 30%, not even in the UK long a high inflation high interest rate economy.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 11, 1998.

Of course you are right Richard but believe me (and the Bank Credit Card Issuers) you are few and far between. It's not uncommon to own several credit cards and of course the temptations is there to use them - this is what the banks want - then you are hooked into their game. We are all bombarded every day in the USA with pre-approved credit cards. The first thing kids get at college is a credit card along with their student "loan" - good business for the Banks - hooked for life most of them. Bankruptcies are at their highest rates ever in the USA as is credit card fraud. Yet despite this loss of "money" (not theirs) to the Banks it is *still* enormously profitable for them to issue hundreds of millions of them every year. These companies that advocate credit card counselling to help you pay off your credit cards are financed by VISA and MasterCard - they don't WANT you to go bankrupt - they want you to "develop a sensible repayment plan" for x number of years into the future at ridiculous interest rates. If any good at all comes out of Y2K it will be the collapse of these blood-sucking institutions!

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 11, 1998.

Shucks Andy, you don't even mention the really high interest rates. They don't come from banks but from the 'friendly' dude at the local title loan place. They run about 275% a year. The 'hold a check till payday' folks are even higher. Big local scandal - since Mississippi decided to allow a bunch of casinos to be built just across the line from Memphis, these jokers have multiplied like maggots on dead meat locally. And surprise surprise - Memphis has the highest bankrupt rate in the nation. BUT - no one has ever been forced to borrow from these kinds of jerks - and if they are above the ground at least it keeps the real loan sharks down to a smaller number - you know - the guys who will cut you up and break your legs to make an example to the rest of the 'customers'. Those guys charge upwards of 1000% a year - I try to avoid thinking about them because when I do I have this impulse to go out and kill a few of them just to improve the human race.

BTW - the lovely local 'rent to own' joint has interest rates on their 'rent to own' stuff that are hard to figure but usually around 50 to 80% per year.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 11, 1998.

* Ok so whats the alternative to the fractional reserve system. A bigger reserve? *

Swiss Frank is backed by a minimum of 25% gold. At this time it is over 100% gold backed.

Look at a historical chart of the value of the dollar. You can pick the exact year that the US Federal Reserve System was created. Up to that time the value flucted up and down but maintained its long term value. Since 1913 the dollar value has been falling; in other words, at that date someone started stealing from the public. Guess what year the Fed was created.

-- foo@bar (foo@bar. com), November 11, 1998.

IMHO the fundamental problem with the fractional reserve system is that depositors must become lenders in order efficiently participate in the payment system (use a checking account). An excellent presentation of an alternative can be found at www.e-gold.com

As for the "greedy banks", why not just buy their stock and enjoy that 30% return instead of complaining about the systemic oppression? BTW, last time I looked Bank of America was down about 45% from their high, so maybe their is some RISK associated with that "usury".

-- Dave (dwood@southwind.net), November 11, 1998.

To all:

Individual banks may lose "money", but the OWNERS of the system (the Federal Reserve System [Fed]) make out like the bandits they are, regardless of what happens to individual banks or the economy.

Inflation is "built in" to the system, and is implemented by the Treasury in cahoots with the Fed. Inflation is an increase in money supply, NOT an increase in prices. The inflation of the money supply is necessary so YOU can pay the 18% on your credit. A great way to gain control of more and more of world's assets.

-- mr. guru (moneyguru@gold.com), November 11, 1998.

Putting a "Y2K perspective" on this:

I think the main point to be gleaned is that the fractional reserve system, regardless of its other qualities (or lack thereof), is a very fragile system. If people lose confidence, and decide that they want their money, all of it, in cash, right now, then its Game Over.

Y2K will do this.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 11, 1998.

>>Individual banks may lose "money", but the OWNERS of the system (the Federal Reserve System [Fed]) make out like the bandits they are, regardless of what happens to individual banks or the economy.

>>Inflation is "built in" to the system, and is implemented by the Treasury in cahoots with the Fed. Inflation is an increase in money supply, NOT an increase in prices. The inflation of the money supply is necessary so YOU can pay the 18% on your credit. A great way to gain control of more and more of world's assets.

Thanks for getting right to the point, Mr. Guru.

No one here mentioned the fact that governments borrow from private, central banks. These banks are all part of an international cartel of centralized banks, controlled by the same families. As (I believe it was) Mayer A. Rothschild said, "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who controls the government." This situation is never, ever, analyzed in the media, and academia dutifully steers clear of any historical study of international banking, yet information can be found if you really dig. David Icke, in his book "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" does a magnificent job of sketching the broad outlines.

Paul Davis said: >>And have YOU ever noticed the folks who don't like banks always have a religous axe to grind?

This vulgar bigotry is unworthy of comment, except that it illustrates one of the main principles that Icke would draw our attention to: the use of differing belief-systems - religious, political, racial, cultural - to "divide and conquer." Icke especially addresses the utterly specious, anti-semetic "jewish banking" theories which are a disinformational smokescreen to prevent researchers from even approaching the subject.

For anyone interested in globalism, banking, or the concentration of wealth, you couldn't do better than to start with David Icke's "And the Truth Shall Set You Free." And yes, he has some unusual spiritual beliefs, but they are innocuous and his research stands on its own. He is, by the way, a former reporter for the BBC, a very smart fellow. I think his new-agey beliefs are no more strange than most other religions, frankly, and to cast aspursions on someone's research, a priori, because of their faith, is underhanded and cowardly. You should be ashamed of youself, Paul Davis.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 11, 1998.

And you don't find it curious that virtually every book written that finds fault with the banking system is written by someone who has 'odd spiritual beliefs'? Or who believes that interest is wrong because "the Bible says so". I am not prejudiced, but I do not ignore the obvious. The simple fact is that religions and banks have had documented problems with each other for at least 2000 years as recorded in the Christian Bible - Christ and the moneychangers - remember. But I have a reasonably open mind. Please cite the works of those who are atheists or agnostics who cry usury at the banking system.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 17, 1998.

Every word that Jack wrote is right on the money... or should I say fiat currency.

-- Robert Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), November 17, 1998.

E. Coli has it right!

>>And you don't find it curious that virtually every book written that finds fault with the banking system is written by someone who has 'odd spiritual beliefs'? <<

So, Paul, what are you implying? On whom are you attempting to apply the tar? How do you separate 'odd spiritual beliefs' from "regular" spiritual beliefs?

You've introduced this rather outrageous assertion. Instead of challenging someone to cite agnostic/atheistic sources, prove your own statement. There are a LOT of books condemning banking out there.

And this is followed by the obligatory post script to a prejudiced statement...

>> I am not prejudiced, but I do not ignore the obvious. <<

How's this for obvious: If an individual uses money as his standard of success, and there is no higher standard, he is much less likely to condemn the system. However, if an individual holds to a different standard where "money-changing" may be at best a means to an end and at worst the root of all evil, then his view toward the banking system may be somewhat less positive. And that person might be more likely to see the shortcomings of the system as well.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), November 17, 1998.

It will be interesting to see Mr. Davis try to defend this turf. Others are more competent to address the specifics of his charge of religious motivation behind criticism of the modern banking system. However his claim that Jesus Christ's move to cast the moneychangers out of the Temple was primarily an attack on a "banking system" is silly. Our Lord was angry at the desecration of a holy place; their specific actions were more or less secondary. Just read the account; it says nothing whatsoever about the relative morality of money- changing. If they had been selling snow cones he would have reacted in the same way on account of the desecration involved.

Also, the Bible does not condemn interest; that too is a silly contention (not that Mr. Davis made it). The Old Testament allowed Israelites to charge foreigners (but not their kinsmen or naturalized aliens) interest and Jesus Christ tells parables in which he mentions interest-taking in a perfectly favorable light. Both examples show that interest-taking is not intrinsically morally wrong under a Judeo- Christian ethic.

Contrary to popular understanding, usury is not synonymous with interest-taking. Usury is charging interest on the loan of a fungible good, that is, a good which is entirely consumed by its use. For example, it would be usurous to charge interest to a man who borrows food from you. Here is the definition of usury from the Fifth Lateran Council of the Catholic Church (Session 10):

For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.

Joseph Rickaby puts it this way:

"It is usury to take any interest at all upon the loan of a piece of property, which (a) is of no use except to be used up, spent, consumed: (b) is not wanted for the lenders own consumption within the period of the load: (c) is lent upon security that obviates risk: (d) is so lent that the lender forgoes no occasion of lawful gain by lending it" (Moral Philosophy. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1929, 261).

Hope this helps.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), November 17, 1998.

So, what I get from all this is; Knowledge is power and money is control. Has it ever been any different in history and any culture?

Paul is right in the sense that, IMVHO, Christians have been opressed by powerful/controling governments and as a whole resist thier banking/tax systems. On the other hand "odd beliefs" is subjective, any theological belief is "odd" to someone of differing belief or atheist. Usury is objectively defined in the dictionary as "charging of excessive interest rates", which IMO, applies to any religious belief equally; wether you believe charging interest rates for a lent loaf of bread is amoral or 20-30% on credit cards.

People holding the money and knowledge have always been the ones who rule the masses directly or indirectly, elected or not. But individuals have always had the means of power, by educating themselves.

Just felt like ranting.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), November 17, 1998.

Paul,

Let's cut through the religiousity.

Bankers take in one dollar, "deposit," and loan out ten, at interest. Great. This supercharges the economy, just like when my neighbor's kid spikes himself with methadrine. Everything hunky-dory so far (we're not even talking about the ecological wisdom of a perpetually "expanding" economy, or whether this scheme has any kind of future). But suppose I object to the fact that A) the dollar is unconnected to any real commodity (such as gold) and therefore is a mere debt-instrument, the debt instrument of A PRIVATE BANK, without value as a medium of exchange, and B) Because 11 non-existent, purely electronic "dollars" are loaned out for every real (paper!) or fictional dollar deposited, THE BANK SIMPLY DOES NOT HAVE MY MONEY TO RETURN TO ME ON DEMAND. Like a Ponzi scheme, it takes from the most recent depositors to pay me. And suppose I make my objection public. Well then, I am a "disruptor," a "religious nut" (I'm not religious, btw), an "anarchist" (etc., etc.). Journalists and academics claim that a critical mass of people such as me would "cause" a bank-run. I claim that the "system" is an enormous crap-shoot, designed to make enormous profits, and is inherently risky and unstable. A mere rumor can topple it! The question is not what my kooky beliefs are - the question is why do you put your faith in a system that is built on the (painstakingly cultivated) ignorance and blind faith of the masses?

I am being asked to "believe in" banks, just like religious people claim I must "believe in" God. Really, the "irrational faith" angle isn't going to take you anywhere in this debate.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 17, 1998.

E. makes a wonderful point.

The talk in the media about Y2K "self-fulfilling" prophecies vis a vis bank runs is born of massive non-understanding of the immorality of the current banking system. When somebody talks about Y2K preparers "causing" a bank run the simple question in reply is, "Why is the money I gave to the bank not still in the bank?" The simple answer is that the bankers spent (i.e. stole) it. The only way a bank run can occur is if the peoples' money is no longer there. If it were there, people would breath a sigh of relief and go home without removing their money. Bank runs are only possible under a fractional reserve system.

It's incredible to me how so many people (even your average "man on the street") can acknowledge the objective possibility of a bank run while failing to ask themselves why such a thing is possible in the first place. Why does it never occur to them to ask, "Why isn't my money still in the bank?"

I have learned a lot from you, E. Thanks.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), November 17, 1998.

E. coli you know how the system works. Lets issues our own funny money, with picture of index finger,

-- Creature (animal@zoo.net), November 17, 1998.

Since the system isn't likely to be replaced by the time bank runs become fashionable, what do you think the chances are that a bank which runs out of cash could offer depositors a substitute--- say, cashier's checks in denominations of $5, $10, $20... wouldn't this have a chance of working, at least locally? (that is, as long as they had a generator cranked up to run the equipment) Like Paul mentioned, back in the old days American banks printed their own money; one of the reasons was that any kind of coin was in short supply and commerce required something to function with.

-- Max Dixon (Ogden, Utah USA) (Max.Dixon@gte.net), November 17, 1998.

The alternative to fractional reserve banking? HONESTY and HONEST MONEY. For an HONEST alternative, check out the site .

Check out their pages on fractional reserve banking and also their Y2K page.

Should you open an account, use my account number 101034 as a referral number.

dab

-- dab (spamnot@free.com), November 18, 1998.

ok, so let't talk about that evil that is the fractional reserve banking system. A lot of you, not all of you, seem to have a real problem with the concept of interest. Well think about this for awhile, small businesses. I am talking mom and pop stores, that by recent estimates coming from a lot of Y2K sources, account for 50% of the employment in this country. Well how do you think a lot of them got started?

Again, I use the example of my friend Sean who owns two companies, has 6 employees (he does a lot of work himself as he is an admitted control freak), has been around for 13 years now in business, is the largest customer for two of his suppliers and deals with around 40 some others. How did he get started? *GASP* HE BORROWED MONEY! There was no other way he could have started his business, which was obviouslly based on some sort of sound basis. He needed money to pull it off though, so he went to a bank and used the fractional reserve banking system.

Now I am not saying this system is not perfect, it's not, but if he had not been able to get that loan, there would be 6 people possibly without jobs, there would be suppliers not doing as much business as they are and so on. He paid off his entire loan, he has paid off the buidling his retail business is in and on and on and on. He has never made another loan in his life, but that one provided him the ability to contribute to the economy in a meaningful way. Never mind the fact the number of employees that have come and gone over the years, the number of high school students he let have their first job ever with him and so on.

Think about it for awhile. It does work in some aspects. And do keep in mind folks, I am someone who earned so little last year that I got a full refund from the IRS. (Journalism...glamour at its best) So I am not one of the "haves" singing the praises of the system.

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 18, 1998.

Fractional Reserve banking doesn't sound right. It doesn't sound ideal, and this once-in-a-lifetime event known as Y2K will test it and probably fail. Granted. But...

I'd like to ask a few questions here so I can come to a pragmatic view on fractional reserve banking.

How long has it been used in the U.S.? Did we ever use fractional reserve banking while we were on the gold standard? Are the two always mutually exclusive?

Did banks at the turn of the century always have 100% of the deposits of customers available for customer withdrawal?

Yes, I'm driving at something here, but I am trying to ask a serious question too. Fractional reserve banking does not sound like the way to do things, but has it worked for a lengthy period of time? What does the rest of the world do?

I know that a money supply not backed by gold can be easily inflated. My impression from the news in the last (?) 25 years is that the Fed is often tight with money and credit when it thinks it needs to be, even when the public or government wants a looser monetary policy. Even without gold backing, any country that continually creates money will ruin its reputation in the international community.

If Y2K had happened in 1900, 13 years before the Fed, could everyone have gone to the banks and taken their money out?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 18, 1998.

Just a quickie for Rick - do try and read either of the two books I mentioned. The Robots' Rebellion explains the con very well.

I brought the subject up as it has *EVERYTHING* to do with y2k...

The FRBS is built on confidence. Confidence and ignorance. Look at the world economy, confidence is fast running out. Ignorance, as regards the y2k situation, *should* decrease as we get nearer d-day. I hope the confidence remains long enough for me to cash out. This will be in January - but if there are bank runs before then I am personally in deep merde and will be, uh, rather ticked off...

Jack put it pretty well earlier -

"Putting a "Y2K perspective" on this:

I think the main point to be gleaned is that the fractional reserve system, regardless of its other qualities (or lack thereof), is a very fragile system. If people lose confidence, and decide that they want their money, all of it, in cash, right now, then its Game Over.

Y2K will do this."

Cheers, Andy

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 18, 1998.

To Kevin et al - read the books, they are about $12 a pop and will open your eyes. Check out the links for details.

Cheers, Andy

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 18, 1998.

Kevin - "How long has it been used in the U.S.? Did we ever use fractional reserve banking while we were on the gold standard?"

I can answer this one for you, Andrew Jackson, our 7th President (I use this to qualify as I do not have the exact years of his Presidency in front of me), was the first ever President to be censured due to his strong oppostion to the FRBS. How ironic he is on the $20. His censure was later removed from the books.

Andy - I would love to read the books, and I hope to at some point, but to be honest, right now they would hit the bottom of a stack of books about as high as my knees. Considering I am 6'4" that's a pretty good stack. (the top of the stack right now is books on edible plants)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 18, 1998.

Look, I do agree that Y2K being the all-at-once, everywhere-at-the same time systemic problem that it is could very easily take down the fractional reserve banking system.

I know Andrew Jackson in the 1830s balanced the federal budget and was opposed to a central bank for the U.S.

I know that paper money is supposed to be no more than a convenient way to certify that an equivilant amount of gold is stored somewhere.

The Fed's creation in 1913 was not in accordance with the consitution. I know that too.

I was someone who, in the early 1980s, was worried a lot about deficit spending, 13% inflation, and the economy collapsing. I seriously considered relocating then. I've read all this stuff years ago--I know this is not the ideal way of doing things, nor is it in agreement with the way the Constitution says it has to be done.

I'm just more pragmatic now. So again I ask, would a majority of the public been able to take their money out of the bank if Y2K had happened in the pre-Fed year of 1900?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 18, 1998.

For those interested some of Mr. Ickes views, not particularly y2k related but interesting nonetheless, can be heard on the 11th of November issue of the Art Bell show:-

Realaudio needed...

http://ww2.broadcast.com/artbell/archive98.html#nov98

Regards, Andy

-- Andy (andy_rowland@msn.com), November 18, 1998.

Also read " The Secret World of Money " by Andrew Gause ( if you can find it)

Short, informative.

Good explanations for alternative systems that have been tried and worked.

" Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. The bankers own the world. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money and control ober that money, and they will create that money right back again. Take this power away from bankers and all great fortunes will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this then would be a better world to live in. My sons should not object; they are well educated and should be willing to take their place in the business world. But if you want to continue to be slaves to the banker and pay the cost of your own enslavement, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit. However, as long as government will legalize such things, a man is foolish not to be a banker." --- Josiah Stamp, former president of the Bank of England in an informal talk in the late 1920s at the University of Texas

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), November 18, 1998.

You don't have to be a religious wacko or a new age airhead -- just intelligence and minimal research -- to become aware of the "evils" (to use a religious term) of central banking and fractional reserve banking. Of course, it is not evil for the owners, just for the 99.9999% of the rest us.

I am a "devout atheist" but in some cases I find the religious right to be right on -- money, banking, and credit is one such case. So read what they have to say, and just line out references to the bible, god, and jesus, and get yourself an education.

-- Mr. Guru (moneyguru@gold.com), November 24, 1998.

"Also read The Secret World of Money by Andrew Gause ( if you can find it) "

Will: its at www.usgoldcoins.com (his site). Click on the newsletters link on his homepage. I agree, great book. BTW, he has a Y2K book coming out soon.

Secret World of Money

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), November 24, 1998.

Kevin;

"So again I ask, would a majority of the public been able to take their money out of the bank if Y2K had happened in the pre-Fed year of 1900?"

No.

And we even had bank runs, and bank failures too.

Granted, they were more of a local thing, but there none the less. Normally, tar & feathers, or a rope, and the thing was over.

And even a gold standard won't cure us, ( the Prez just changes the price of gold - and poof you're screwed again).

Gold does provide "some" of the store of value function of a money, but it isn't perfect.

The problem, as does most all of our ills, devolves down to the simple basic truth that we, as a people, are no longer a moral and just nation.

As such we cannot trust anyone to do the "honorable" thing in any given event, our "word' is no longer our bond, this is extended even into our money system.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), November 24, 1998.