Posts by Nicole Gomez38

You’re all out here attacking Nostrađurus, even though he’s actually on your side—honestly, I thought you guys were smarter than this.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Make up your mind: would a bank run actually be a problem or not? You’re out here playing both sides—one minute you’re rambling about how it wouldn't be an issue if certain conditions were met, and the next, you're acting like those bank deposits are perfectly safe and easy to pay out. Pick a lane.

Regarding those four major banks—I already told you they aren't, so please don't badger me with the same question ten times over—but regardless, they’re all undervalued.

As for a bank run, it would definitely be a problem depending on the level of credit multiplier—from what I gather, based on $33 bank deposits, they can issue $50 in loans. Honestly, I'm dying to know just how much of that "virtual money" is actually out there. So, yes, I think it would be a problem, though I have no clue to what extent since those details are kept under lock and key by the big players. It's definitely something we should dive into eventually, but it's a bit of a tangent right now. I suspect that credit multiplier will always exist; it’s just a matter of how high it goes.

Matthew Evans7 said:I honestly don't get how anyone in the US can actually stick up for big banks. They make insane amounts of money just fueled by pure greed and that whole "because we can" mentality.

Don't go thinking everyone hanging out on this forum is just some random user looking out for credit applicants. Trust me—the big-shot bankers and politicians are keeping a very close eye on these threads too, because this stuff hits them right where it hurts. xD

Jacob White14 said:I wouldn't say they're really on the same level, though. Nobody is forcing you to go gamble, but you pretty much need a bank account just to function in today's economy, right?

Someone spends all night at an Atlantic City casino, passing massive amounts of cash from hand to hand—but at the end of the day, zero actual value is created. It’s no different than what happens at a big commercial bank. Yet, you're forced to deal with the bank when you need to, whereas nobody's required to step foot in a casino—even though the fundamental difference between the two is practically non-existent. Zack, you hit the nail on the head with that comment.

neondriver5 said:It would be fascinating to see just how much physical cash big banks like JPMorgan Chase actually keep on hand to cover all those savings accounts. I’m not suggesting everyone shows up at once—that's obviously not happening—but if you gave them a week to scramble and pull together enough liquid cash to pay out every single depositor, what would that look like?
We also can't forget that savers have every right to pull their money whenever they want; sure, they might take a hit on interest or pay a small penalty for an early withdrawal, but the access is there. Meanwhile, loans are strictly tied to specific maturity dates..

But that’s a conversation for another time.

That is definitely a separate topic, but it’s an absolutely fascinating question. The core issue with credit multiplication is the lack of actual, tangible cash. Most banks probably count quasi-money toward their deposits—money that doesn't even truly "exist" in a physical sense.

"Quasi-money refers to financial assets that aren't cash itself but can be converted into cash quite easily.

The bulk of quasi-money consists of savings deposits; you can't use them directly to buy groceries, but you can request a withdrawal in cash or transfer them to a checking account upon demand."

Carl Foster8 said:They get funneled into investments or spent through loans, I guess.

Sure, deposits are technically "placed," but let's be real—about 93% of the money supply stays tucked away inside the bank at any given time. The cash isn't actually leaving the vault; it's just being shuffled from one checking account number to another.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:If that were true, what would a bank run even be? Why would the term even exist, let alone pose a threat?

That's a great question. A bank run isn't actually an issue if there’s no credit multiplication happening . In other words—if the Federal Reserve prohibits banks from issuing multiple loans against the exact same deposit (basically multiplying debt without increasing the actual money supply).

At the same time, a portion of those deposits—say, $15 billion—is held at the Federal Reserve as required reserves. If things ever get "dicey," the Fed simply lowers the reserve requirement and pushes those same deposits back to the commercial banks
.
From what I gather, though, American banks do engage in credit multiplication (albeit somewhat limitedly). If that's the case, it means they truly don't have a portion of the deposits on hand—but that's a whole other conversation, and you can't blame the government for it; that money was never physically there to begin with, regardless of who owns the bank
.

hollowmoose21 said:Bullshit. It doesn't exist.

So where did all those deposits go—mostly foreign currency ones, too—if they aren't sitting in the banks?

The core issue with this whole credit mess is that debt is ballooning four times faster than the money supply—that’s exactly why we’re seeing this massive credit crunch, all those foreclosures, and frozen accounts.

It all ties back to the way the American Monetary System is structured; basically, the Federal Reserve acts more like a currency exchange than a true central bank, especially since there's no non-credit-based money issuance.

What I’m getting at is that the only real way to save people drowning in debt is to overhaul the entire monetary model while simultaneously scrapping the indexation clauses—you simply can't do one without the other.

And let's be honest: you can't pull off that first step without a devaluation, because the dollar only maintains its "strength" by pumping up external debt. I'll say it again—the Federal Reserve is acting like a mere exchange house, which means we're stuck with a derivative-heavy model similar to the one that sent Argentina into a tailspin.

http://zelenapolitika.wordpress.com/...veo-u-propast/

Harold Nelson6 said:The way you're describing lending and cumulative deposits is just... off—it completely misses the whole concept of value creation. If we're looking at things today— $33 If we can pull this off across the whole country—and actually hit our targets by the end of the year—we'll have managed to create plenty of new jobs. $1.75 Please do not print any new ones. $1.75 It’s not just about borrowing—it’s about actually creating value by producing new goods that match that worth. $1.75If we had actually used that money wisely, paying back any debt wouldn't be an issue at all—but instead, we just borrowed funds to waste on total nonsense rather than investing it to create actual value. Of course, now we're stuck in this loop of borrowing more just to cover old debts. That isn't some fundamental flaw in the system; it’s just us being irresponsible and blowing our cash on complete garbage.

I don't know the exact numbers, so I won't comment on those—but doesn't this whole way they’re selling off banks just show how poorly the government is handling things? Tell me—if you personally owned a bank, would you really sell it for... $3.25 If she were actually worth 50? No way—not a chance. But when the government holds all the cards, it’s just business as usual—some politician is bound to greenlight selling off state assets for pennies on the dollar. $3.25 And he walks away with another couple of bucks in his pocket—just what we needed.

The whole situation with the banks isn't exactly black and white—even if you agree they were sold off for pennies on the dollar. Honestly, the wave of bank acquisitions over the years actually did some good; it acted as a stabilizer for the entire economy. Just imagine if Sanders & Co. had treated JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America like their own personal piggy banks—kind of like how some people treated Wells Fargo.

What I'm trying to get across is that we don't have non-credit issuance here—even when new value is generated, it isn't covered by non-credit issuance. You're essentially creating new capital while the system creates new debt—external debt that bleeds into internal debt because the Federal Reserve acts as the exchange.

hollowmoose21 said:How exactly do you see that working? You're basically calling for nationalization, but then who's supposed to pay back the savers—the bank owner? Which owner would that even be?

The issue isn't actually about paying back the savers—that money is sitting right there in the bank—it's the impossibility of disabling foreign exchange clauses for loans while still allowing them for savings at the same time.

Ideally, the owners should just become employees and clients themselves. After all, a bank operates just like a casino—it doesn't actually create any real value; it just shuffles the chips (the cash) around in a circle so that the house always wins and everyone else loses.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:You’ve misspoken more times than I can count in just this one day you've been here. 😁

Look, I asked you a very specific question: which of the major banks was sold for less than its bailout cost? It's easy to throw around slogans about how banks were handed over to shady foreign interests for pennies on the dollar after being rescued, but I'm asking for hard data. You brought up the Bank of Los Angeles—which controls less than 7% of the market—so tell me, exactly how much money was poured into its bailout?

The heavy hitters—JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Hypo Real Estate—account for over 75% of the total banking market. That is a massive majority. So, which one of them was actually bailed out for more than its sale price? 🙂

The top three were all sold off for peanuts (Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase). Wells Fargo was never even state-owned to begin with, and as for Hypo—they're just expanding using US dollars that the Republican Party squeezed out of the country, all while paying off bribes to Sanders & Co. for those little favors.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Which specific banks are you talking about being sold to foreigners for less than their bailout costs?
Start with the big four here in America: ZABA, PBZ, RBA, and Erste Group.

I misspoke—what I meant was they were bailed out and then immediately sold off for pennies on the dollar. We all know who pulled the strings on that.

"Banks bailed out with 15 billion, sold for one, while they're worth 40 billion today"

He claims that 15 billion was spent on the FDIC bailout, yet they were sold for just a billion, even though their current value sits at 40 billion. As a specific example, the Libertarian Party points to the Bank of Miami, which was first sold to an Italian for 84 million, then flipped to an Austrian for 136 million, and finally ended up in the hands of a Frenchman for a whopping billion.

Those big four were also sold way under market value. It’s pretty obvious the government ended up drowning in debt while being stripped of its assets—all while claiming they were selling stuff off specifically to stay out of the red.

rustywalker82 said:Nah, that’s not what I’m saying. I'm saying things are going to be a grind in the short term, which is why restructuring makes sense. You essentially push a portion of that Swiss Franc debt down the road. If the Swiss Franc ever swings back to historical levels, you can just walk away from that restructuring plan then.

Average wages have jumped about 68% in Euros over the last decade, and honestly, that kind of growth is exactly what encouraged households to go into debt—even though, by the way, household debt is actually trending down right now, not up.
Regarding wages or the Swiss Franc, I'm obviously not claiming they'll rise indefinitely. I'm just looking at the actual duration of the loan.
If the US economy stabilizes or we see real growth here in America, restructuring won't have helped anyone anyway, and the "smoking" crowd will just spread their influence to everyone else in the country, whether they owe money or not.

True, but look at the numbers—back in December '99, the national debt was only $9.9 billion, and today it’s sitting at $47 billion. That means the debt has ballooned by 450%, while wages only saw a 68% increase. Since external debt always trickles down to the domestic level, it’s obvious citizens are drowning in much more debt than their raises can cover. That’s exactly why we hit a credit crisis; you simply cannot pay off what you owe if the debt outpaces your actual cash flow.

On top of that, people are spending less, yet they're forced to rely even more heavily on credit just to maintain that lower level of consumption. I've laid this out before, so I'll just copy-paste it again.

The real culprit here is "compound interest." Picture a country with a million working-age adults. Suppose they all take out a loan from $333 for one year (carrying a 10% interest rate) which they then have to repay $367. After that year, they collectively owe $1.1 billion. The bank walks away with $100 million in profit, leaving everyone with $33 less than they started with. To compensate, they take out another loan, but this time it's for $367. Using $33, the bank covers its losses and hands them $333 in credit. However, they now have to pay back $403. After two years, everyone ends up with $70 less than their initial starting point. Meanwhile, the bank has cleared an additional $110 million, totaling $210 million in profit. By repeatedly taking out larger loans, this cycle just repeats itself with even deeper losses—you end up trapped in an ever-expanding mountain of debt without any extra cash to show for it.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Where exactly are you pulling these numbers from? The idea that bank deposits are split perfectly 50/50 between Dollars and foreign currency sounds like a guess.

Actually, the situation is even better—banks hold most of their deposits in foreign currency, which means if the dollar fluctuates against the local currency, citizens wouldn't lose much.

"According to the Associated Press, total foreign currency and local currency deposits at banks reached $173.1 billion by the end of May, with foreign currency accounts making up nearly 80 percent, according to Federal Reserve data."

However, a portion of those "foreign currency deposits" actually refers to local currency accounts tied to exchange rate clauses—basically, people save in dollars, but the bank holds the local currency instead. If they didn't, banks would need to keep 80% of their cash in actual foreign currency, which would make daily operations a nightmare because they wouldn't have enough liquidity in local cash.

In other words, just because Americans are saving in foreign denominations doesn't mean the banks are physically sitting on piles of dollars; as I mentioned, they hold the local currency equivalent.

The Federal Reserve's own tables give us the real answer regarding how much foreign currency is actually held by banks. Data from the Fed from March 2011 shows that total foreign currency deposits at banks sit at $142.5 billion. This means there is more foreign currency than local currency in the banks, though still less than that 80% mark.

To put it simply: while 80% of deposits are categorized as foreign, part of that is actually local currency protected by exchange rate clauses.

"Table D8: Foreign currency deposits at banks"

142,502.6

Here’s the kicker: without nationalizing the banks, it's impossible to protect both debtors and savers at the same time. You can't selectively cancel exchange rate protections just for loans. The whole point of nationalization is to resolve the issue of foreign debt for borrowers while minimizing the sting of devaluation for savers.

For the record, I am strictly against communism and I'm all for lower tax rates. I'm talking about nationalizing banks because it's the only way to shield private property from these macro-level thieves—not because I want the government seizing assets one day. Quite the opposite, actually; my family lost everything to communists, and now the banks are doing the exact same thing to us, except they call it "foreclosure" instead of nationalization.

http://zelenapolitika.wordpress.com/...reza-na-dobit/

Harold Nelson6 said:People with this kind of mindset—the type who would totally justify the government seizing private assets through bank nationalization—wouldn't take long to find a new "problem" once they've made an absolute mess of everything by nationalizing the banks...

And that new "problem" could easily be private owners of precious metals, which would then need to be seized and handed over to the state. The logic is that doing so would allow the benefits of holding gold to "trickle down" to everyone (just like they currently claim that nationalizing banks will make their profits "trickle down" to the masses).

Let's call a spade a spade: these banks are thieves. The owners bought them up for way less than what it actually cost to bail them out. This isn't really nationalization; it's just reclaiming stolen goods. Even Slavko Kulić, the former director of the economic institute, has made this exact point.

We're headed for bankruptcy by the end of 2011! The only way out is to nationalize what was stolen from us.
http://e-kastela.com/novosti/american...ji-pokradenog/

Kenneth Nelson20 said:Good morning, everyone—looks like the Dollar is sliding a bit this morning, and honestly, based on what I'm seeing, I'd say we might be looking at a downward trend throughout the day.☕

It’s either the banks or us—someone has to blink. Personally, I say screw the banks. Call me a Marxist if you want, but my stance is simple: we need to stop them to actually protect private property from being swallowed up by bank foreclosures.

The current model is fundamentally corrupt, and frankly, those debts are just never getting paid back.

hollowmoose21 said:Well, here's the deal. 😁 Pernar is gearing up for a revolution where they just print money like crazy to tank the value of those loans. Only thing is, he hasn't told me who's footing the bill—because the damage is already done and there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Here's your answer: You're paying for it with your life savings. 😉

The whole goal here is to protect people with deposits at the expense of the bank owners. A devaluation is inevitable at this point; trying to prop up the Dollar as artificially strong by pumping external debt while the Federal Reserve acts like nothing more than a glorified currency exchange is simply unsustainable in the long run.

It’s also worth noting that total debt (loans issued) exceeds deposits by about $600 billion, whereas actual cash on hand (in vaults, registers, or even under mattresses) is only around $100 billion.

As of late 2010, total loans sit at roughly $1.8 trillion, while the total money supply—deposits plus physical cash—is only about $1.3 trillion. Because of how this monetary model works, the gap between debt and the money supply is widening fast; basically, debt is ballooning four times faster than the money supply. (That's exactly why we're seeing so many freezes, foreclosures, and liquidity crises).

Since half of all bank deposits are held in foreign currency, if the Dollar were to devalue by 20%, those deposits would effectively lose 10% of their value since only half are held in domestic currency. (And that’s assuming the government actually chooses to protect citizens over the bank owners, which is my ultimate goal).

If I were thinking ahead, I’d suggest citizens hit the banks hard and start swapping their Dollars for foreign currency before any major devaluation hits.

At the end of the day, the only question that really matters is whether the government stands with its people or with the banks—everything else is just technicalities.

rustywalker82 said:If we actually want to fix the root of this mess, we need massive, deep-seated reforms. Just patching things over with some reprogramming or talking about eventually scrapping the voucher system isn't going to cut it. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg; you aren't actually fixing the bone, you're just hiding the pain for a minute. We need to go much bigger if we want real change.

What’s the actual real-world value of 100k Swiss Francs going to be in 20 years? What about 30? I’m trying to wrap my head around what salaries look like right now versus what they'll actually buy us two or three decades down the road when you factor in all the price hikes.
It’s pretty basic math, honestly. It only makes sense to stretch out your loan if you think the Swiss Franc is going to tank compared to what it is right now. You also have to look at whether real interest rates here in the States are going to be lower down the road than they are today. If both those things happen, you're winning.

The currency will definitely lose value, sure, but people will be crushed by much higher debt loads. In a model without non-credit money issuance, the money supply grows way slower than the total debt—I actually broke this down during my segment on Capital Network. On top of that, the credit crisis is only going to get worse because the gap between total debt and the money supply widens every single day.

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

I don't know if you caught this part... in a debtor inflation model, once that short-term credit expansion ends, prices skyrocket while wages stay flat. That's your classic stagflation scenario.

One thing is certain: the mere passage of time works against people due to cumulative interest in a model lacking non-credit money issuance. It puts everyone in a worse spot, not a better one.

Also, who told you that wages and prices would just keep climbing indefinitely? Look around—real estate is worth less than it was five years ago, wages have stagnated, and mortgage payments are through the roof. Your theory only holds water if a credit crisis (an inability to service the debt) doesn't happen. But a credit crisis is an inevitable feature of any system where debt outpaces the money supply. Even those claiming the Euro will solve our problems are being misled; many countries that adopted the Euro are actually in the tightest spots right now.

The reality is that people who took out loans followed your exact logic—thinking it would get easier to pay them back over time—but life showed them the exact opposite. Thinking things will just "fix themselves" without changing the entire monetary system is pure fantasy.

Pure debtor inflation paired with rising tax rates is going to wreck both individuals and the economy. That's the biggest secret the financial elite is hiding.

Again, the issue is this "cumulative interest" trap. Picture a country with a million productive citizens. They all take a one-year loan from a $333 at 10% interest. After a year, they collectively owe $367. They have to pay back $1.1 billion. The Bank walks away with $100 million in profit. Consequently, everyone is $33 than when they started. To cover it, they take out a new loan, but this time it's $367. With $33, they try to offset the loss, leaving them with $333 in debt. But now, they owe $403. After two years, everyone is $70 than their starting point. Meanwhile, the Bank has pocketed an extra $110 million, totaling $210 million. As they keep taking larger and larger loans, the cycle repeats with even greater losses; you end up drowning in debt with zero cash left.

So, do you still honestly believe that paying off debt gets easier over time?

Joseph Carter7 said:Declaring the currency clause unconstitutional is our best shot at salvation—that's the absolute truth here... but honestly, what are the odds the Supreme Court actually rules that way?
From a legal standpoint, this clause is definitely unconstitutional; the real question is whether justice will actually prevail over political maneuvering.

Declaring the currency clause unconstitutional is our only way out. However, the Supreme Court is essentially under the thumb of the ruling party, and both they and the opposition (Democratic Party) are firmly aligned with the banks. In other words, the entire system—the banks, the media, everyone—is controlled by both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The only real solution is for citizens to vote for candidates who actually oppose this currency clause. Right now, that would be the Reform Party and Donald Trump's labor supporters—though I worry those labor folks are just as tied to the status quo since they haven't mentioned changing the monetary model. Without fixing the underlying monetary model, getting rid of the currency clause is impossible.

I break down the whole situation in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zplkkuwQpcQ

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Why?

The banks didn't go out and borrow in Swiss Francs—they borrowed in Euros. But since they knew the Euro was unstable and headed for a dip, they offered people interest rates that were 1% or 2% lower just to lure them in. They knew exactly what they were doing; they anticipated the Euro would drop at least 20%, allowing them to rake in massive profits once those currency clauses kicked in against the Swiss Franc.

They’ve finally realized how strong the Swiss Franc is—and more importantly, they've caught wind that it might actually drop back to its baseline value. Because they're terrified of taking that hit, they aren't willing to gamble anymore; they're strictly issuing loans in Euros now.

A buddy of mine—he’s a banker with a PhD in economics and used to advise the board at a major Wall Street firm—once told me how the higher-ups would constantly pressure him to push those Swiss Franc-denominated loans on people. It wasn't even because the bank itself was heavily leveraged in Swiss currency (I mean, Switzerland's economy is tiny compared to the Eurozone, right?), but rather because they saw a massive opportunity. They knew the Franc was far more stable than the Euro, and they figured if the Euro tanked, they'd end up with fat wallets and a trail of financially ruined clients whose assets they could then just swoop in and seize.

If you were to look at the Swiss Franc right now—and I mean really look at it—it's a whole different story. $2.00 I took it. $205 Taking out loans in Swiss Francs was such a gamble—once the Franc dropped to 5.15, those folks were suddenly looking at much smaller repayments. Talk about a lucky break! $172 If you factor in the principal plus interest, the bank would be looking at a total loss.

The Euro is fundamentally unstable because the European Central Bank refuses to allow for non-debt-based money issuance—instead, every single cent entering circulation is tied to debt. In this model, thanks to the compounding effect of interest and constant debt accumulation, the total debt swells much faster than the actual money supply. Eventually, that leads straight into a credit crisis where nobody can actually pay back what they owe—which is exactly what we’re seeing unfold in the Eurozone right now. Check out this video if you want to grasp the core of the problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zplkkuwQpcQ

Robin Bailey7 said:There was a time when we actually owned our banks, and back then, even through periods of recession or high unemployment... if we had just possessed the expertise to manage them ourselves, there wouldn't have been any reason to sell them off in the first place.

You forgot to mention that the Republican Party was in power back then—and we were at war, too. Honestly, one was just as bad for the economy as the other!