Banking by Donald Trump & Gotham City

Honestly, I feel like people treat the monetary multiplier theory way too loosely—they cling to it like a drunk clings to a lamp post. Everyone loves talking about how it creates positive growth, but they completely ignore the fact that it can actually work in reverse. Plus, nobody ever brings up the crucial role of maturity matching. Let’s be real: nobody takes out a 30-year mortgage just to leave that exact same amount sitting in a savings account for the full 30 years.
When people don't understand how banking actually works, they end up making those tired claims that banks just conjure money out of thin air. That is a total myth. No bank has assets that exceed its liabilities; they are always deploying funds gathered from deposits, loans, or, to a lesser extent, their own capital.
On top of that, banks can tap into the interbank money market where the Federal Reserve plays a role, but we're talking about short-term loans here—you can't just roll those over forever. For instance, looking at the US market, there hasn't been any real creation of extra money through the banking system since February of last year (and even then, that wasn't "new" money created by the Federal Reserve; it was really just swapping one asset class for another—essentially trading bonds and Treasury bills for liquid cash).

It is either the banking system or nothing at all. We have to face the reality that World War III didn't start with soldiers on a battlefield; it began long ago as a full-scale financial war. Our true adversaries—and indeed, the enemies of the entire world—are the banks and the corrupt politicians they pull by the strings. These institutions are nothing less than financial terrorists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ruTUdVfg

Elizabeth Harris11 said:Honestly, I feel like people treat the monetary multiplier theory way too loosely—they cling to it like a drunk clings to a lamp post. Everyone loves talking about how it creates positive growth, but they completely ignore the fact that it can actually work in reverse. Plus, nobody ever brings up the crucial role of maturity matching. Let’s be real: nobody takes out a 30-year mortgage just to leave that exact same amount sitting in a savings account for the full 30 years.
When people don't understand how banking actually works, they end up making those tired claims that banks just conjure money out of thin air. That is a total myth. No bank has assets that exceed its liabilities; they are always deploying funds gathered from deposits, loans, or, to a lesser extent, their own capital.
On top of that, banks can tap into the interbank money market where the Federal Reserve plays a role, but we're talking about short-term loans here—you can't just roll those over forever. For instance, looking at the US market, there hasn't been any real creation of extra money through the banking system since February of last year (and even then, that wasn't "new" money created by the Federal Reserve; it was really just swapping one asset class for another—essentially trading bonds and Treasury bills for liquid cash).

I have a question. From what I can see, I get regular hits on my website from various Banks across the US, so I have a feeling some of you might be directly involved in the banking business.

It’s interesting how easily you dismiss deposit multiplication when it’s taught as standard textbook economics.

The fact that the Federal Reserve doesn't provide classic loans to banks (because that's just the law) isn't just true, it's something worth thinking about. It makes the Federal Reserve look more and more like a common currency exchange.

We aren't getting into the weeds of banking operations here. We are dealing with economic principles that you can't just brush off with fairy tales.

Here is a little calculation:



This calculation comes from an idea to estimate potential bank earnings and the fallout. Every real banker keeps this kind of math in mind. This is a simulation of constant credit growth. Let's say the starting deposit is 1,000. To keep credit growing constantly, a loan has to be taken, then deposited again in shorter and shorter intervals, and then used for another loan. In this scenario, we assume interest must be paid on issued loans. I didn't factor in interest paid on deposits, but you could offset that with lower bank rates. After all, deposit interest is part of the bank's total interest, which can also be viewed as profit shared with depositors.

This is a pretty realistic situation. It shows a bank can redirect 30% of the cash inflow (your savings) over a 2.5-year period into interest earnings (not counting costs or deposit interest). However, there will end up being multiple times more money that interest is applied to. On the small chart, you can see that earnings grow exponentially over time (until they hit a ceiling because there's no more free money left). The money left over is only 9% of the initial deposit, and compared to book deposits, it's only 2% (the bank's reserve). Basically, if a bank maxes out its deposits to issue loans, it has a negligible amount of actual cash in the vault relative to total deposits. See, money from mandatory reserves can only be withdrawn when loans are repaid. And loan repayment is a huge question mark. You have to pay back more than the original amount to cover the bank's profit. That means either money runs out, or the bank has to operate without making a profit. And if they don't make a profit, they shouldn't be paying out dividends or interest on deposits.

So, I honestly have no clue what you were actually trying to pull with that post. Were you just trying to look uninformed? Or maybe you're out here defending the banking industry like it’s some kind of noble, honest business?🤷

The bottom line is this: even if the Bank's profit—which is 7.3% of total deposits—wasn't paid out but instead moved straight into reserves, it wouldn't fix the liquidity issue. That deposit reserve would only sit at 9.3%.😕 This is a reality check for anyone pushing the idea that government ownership of banks is the magic solution. Regardless of who owns them, this entire money-creation model is unsustainable in the long run. It’s basically a scam, and there isn't any way to justify it.

Maria Thomas48 said:I have a question. From what I can see, I get regular hits on my website from various Banks across the US, so I have a feeling some of you might be directly involved in the banking business.

It’s interesting how easily you dismiss deposit multiplication when it’s taught as standard textbook economics.

The fact that the Federal Reserve doesn't provide classic loans to banks (because that's just the law) isn't just true, it's something worth thinking about. It makes the Federal Reserve look more and more like a common currency exchange.

We aren't getting into the weeds of banking operations here. We are dealing with economic principles that you can't just brush off with fairy tales.

Here is a little calculation:



This calculation comes from an idea to estimate potential bank earnings and the fallout. Every real banker keeps this kind of math in mind. This is a simulation of constant credit growth. Let's say the starting deposit is 1,000. To keep credit growing constantly, a loan has to be taken, then deposited again in shorter and shorter intervals, and then used for another loan. In this scenario, we assume interest must be paid on issued loans. I didn't factor in interest paid on deposits, but you could offset that with lower bank rates. After all, deposit interest is part of the bank's total interest, which can also be viewed as profit shared with depositors.

This is a pretty realistic situation. It shows a bank can redirect 30% of the cash inflow (your savings) over a 2.5-year period into interest earnings (not counting costs or deposit interest). However, there will end up being multiple times more money that interest is applied to. On the small chart, you can see that earnings grow exponentially over time (until they hit a ceiling because there's no more free money left). The money left over is only 9% of the initial deposit, and compared to book deposits, it's only 2% (the bank's reserve). Basically, if a bank maxes out its deposits to issue loans, it has a negligible amount of actual cash in the vault relative to total deposits. See, money from mandatory reserves can only be withdrawn when loans are repaid. And loan repayment is a huge question mark. You have to pay back more than the original amount to cover the bank's profit. That means either money runs out, or the bank has to operate without making a profit. And if they don't make a profit, they shouldn't be paying out dividends or interest on deposits.

So, I honestly have no clue what you were actually trying to pull with that post. Were you just trying to look uninformed? Or maybe you're out here defending the banking industry like it’s some kind of noble, honest business?🤷

The bottom line is this: even if the Bank's profit—which is 7.3% of total deposits—wasn't paid out but instead moved straight into reserves, it wouldn't fix the liquidity issue. That deposit reserve would only sit at 9.3%.😕 This is a reality check for anyone pushing the idea that government ownership of banks is the magic solution. Regardless of who owns them, this entire money-creation model is unsustainable in the long run. It’s basically a scam, and there isn't any way to justify it.

So, now that you’ve started poking the bear regarding the banks... how much do you think our current financial system actually resembles a Ponzi scheme? Just a thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

@Nostrađamus

Regarding your spreadsheet:

1. Your asset calculations are off throughout the whole thing. It definitely shouldn't start at zero—that would imply the bank has negative equity. Plus, you’re consistently underestimating assets because you aren't accounting for the cash needed for mandatory reserves, the vault, or interest income already earned. Once you get the actual asset totals, you'll see the earnings-to-assets ratio is actually lower than what you have listed.

2. In your 'earnings/cash inflow' column, you're just measuring cumulative interest against that initial $1,000 deposit—but that’s not right, since you mentioned a new deposit is made at the end of every cycle. To get an accurate earnings/inflow figure, you need to divide the 'bank earnings' column by the 'total deposits' column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly, and you'll see there's no such thing as exponential growth here.

3. I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at with the 'free cash' column. Isn't that exactly why mandatory reserves exist? To prevent a bank from lending out the same deposit infinitely?

Look, I'm the only one who actually took the time to sit down and study your math, so I’d appreciate it if your replies were short and to the point—and honestly, I'd prefer we leave out the Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusations that I'm a Satanist or some big-shot banker.🙂

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

For crying out loud—you can't just redefine standard industry terms to suit your own vocabulary; you're just creating confusion. And honestly, this "asset" concept of yours doesn't actually explain anything—it's just a made-up term that leaves us right where we started.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

If we assume all those deposits—aside from the very first one—are "unreal," then every cent of interest the bank earned (except for that first bit) is also "unreal." In other words, the bankers effectively scammed themselves with their own system... 😁

The same goes for the bank; they have to pay interest on all those other deposits just like they do on the first one. Does interest on savings only exist for the person who provided the original deposit? And who, exactly, provided that original deposit? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

You’ve rigged the setup to make it look like banks have exponential profit growth, but once someone points out your math is based on flawed assumptions, you pivot to saying everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Look, I can actually agree with your critique of fractional reserve banking, but I definitely can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed specifically to impoverish everyone.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

Look, reserves aren't just free cash sitting around—it’s money tied up at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until that loan is paid back.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

There's no scam here—that's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links, since I assume you can find plenty of debunking videos for them on Google.

P.S. No need for the formal tone with me—it's standard practice on this forum to keep things casual. Besides, I'm probably younger than you, so let's just stick to being friendly.

Harold Nelson6 said:For crying out loud—you can't just redefine standard industry terms to suit your own vocabulary; you're just creating confusion. And honestly, this "asset" concept of yours doesn't actually explain anything—it's just a made-up term that leaves us right where we started.

If we assume all those deposits—aside from the very first one—are "unreal," then every cent of interest the bank earned (except for that first bit) is also "unreal." In other words, the bankers effectively scammed themselves with their own system... 😁

The same goes for the bank; they have to pay interest on all those other deposits just like they do on the first one. Does interest on savings only exist for the person who provided the original deposit? And who, exactly, provided that original deposit? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

You’ve rigged the setup to make it look like banks have exponential profit growth, but once someone points out your math is based on flawed assumptions, you pivot to saying everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Look, I can actually agree with your critique of fractional reserve banking, but I definitely can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed specifically to impoverish everyone.

Look, reserves aren't just free cash sitting around—it’s money tied up at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until that loan is paid back.

There's no scam here—that's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links, since I assume you can find plenty of debunking videos for them on Google.

P.S. No need for the formal tone with me—it's standard practice on this forum to keep things casual. Besides, I'm probably younger than you, so let's just stick to being friendly.

I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

Exactly—it’s completely irrelevant what the actual assets are; it’s much "better" to assume they are smaller just to get a more sensationalized return on assets figure.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

There's no wordplay here—I'm just looking at your claims from a different angle.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

So, we have unrealistic deposits being put into the bank, but the interest on those unrealistic deposits is somehow real? Brilliant. 😁

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

My bad—I was being too vague there. But regardless, both mandatory reserves and those "ordinary" reserves are tied up under orders from the Federal Reserve.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

Citing Engdahl as a serious source... honestly, what can I even say to that?

Anyway, it's an interesting read when I have the time, but I really don't have the energy for endless debates—so, let's just leave it at that. This conversation ends here for me. 😁

@ Maria Thomas48
Maybe you should try comparing those earnings to the primary money supply.

It would be like if you could sell an apple ten times, but every single time you resell it at a higher price than what you paid for it—basically just playing with the interest rate spread.

Carl Foster8 said:@ Maria Thomas48
Maybe you should try comparing those earnings to the primary money supply.

It would be like if you could sell an apple ten times, but every single time you resell it at a higher price than what you paid for it—basically just playing with the interest rate spread.

If you're interested, I can try to clear things up a bit. We all have some basic idea of how fractional reserve banking works, but nobody really knows all the fine details. To dig deeper, I pulled up an Excel sheet and ran some numbers on money production based on that fractional reserve principle. I made sure to factor in interest payments on issued loans, too. My main goal was just to see if I could estimate the actual quantitative impact on the money supply.

The money being discussed here as an initial deposit can come from just about anywhere. It doesn't matter. The government could issue it by taking on debt abroad and then converting that into US dollars through various means. Or someone could invest it because exports are outperforming imports. Even the primary issuance from the Federal Reserve, like when they provide credits to a bank, counts. It all flows into the system somehow.

So, here’s how the whole fractional reserve banking thing actually shakes out in the end. You take real money, and most of it just gets sucked into mandatory reserve deposits. A good chunk of it turns into pure bank profit, and a tiny little slice ends up sitting there as a treasury reserve. But on the flip side? You suddenly end up with this massive mountain of deposits that basically have zero coverage—we're talking like 2% at most. That's just how it works.

When banks tweak interest rates, they’re basically just adjusting how much profit they squeeze out of that initial deposit. But here is the reality: whether those deposits go up or down, they're still only ever backed by a measly 2% reserve. It's just how it works. If you actually wanted to kill off monetary multiplication in a system like this, the only way would be to jack that reserve requirement up to 50%. If that happened, the system would essentially turn most deposits into mandatory reserves, and you wouldn't be able to issue more in loans than what was originally deposited in the first place.

The only real way forward for the country is for the government to issue money in exactly the amount that’s actually needed. Right now, banks just print whatever they want based on their own interests, and we need to stop them from creating this parallel money supply. It's a huge deal if we want to actually stabilize the value of our currency. If we take away the ability to create money from the banks, things change. Debts could finally be paid off—provided the banks' earnings don't outpace what the government brings in—and then financial crises and those constant business cycles would just become things of the past. The state shouldn't have to issue bonds just to manufacture money. They should just do it directly. But instead, they're stuck issuing debt to pay back even more money to the very banks that control the money supply. It's all structured as debt. Honestly, it feels like a law was written specifically to cheat the entire nation.

Harold Nelson6 said:Exactly—it’s completely irrelevant what the actual assets are; it’s much "better" to assume they are smaller just to get a more sensationalized return on assets figure.

There's no wordplay here—I'm just looking at your claims from a different angle.

So, we have unrealistic deposits being put into the bank, but the interest on those unrealistic deposits is somehow real? Brilliant. 😁

My bad—I was being too vague there. But regardless, both mandatory reserves and those "ordinary" reserves are tied up under orders from the Federal Reserve.

Citing Engdahl as a serious source... honestly, what can I even say to that?

Anyway, it's an interesting read when I have the time, but I really don't have the energy for endless debates—so, let's just leave it at that. This conversation ends here for me. 😁

Yeah, sure. It's probably best to just turn your brain off and take everyone's word for it. Just look at some real-world examples and see how that works out.

There's an impossible task here: Try to model a financial system (imports vs. exports) involving any number of actors—a nation, the Central Bank, and a bank expanding the money supply via the Federal Reserve Board—and prove that this system remains sustainable year after year. Prove it can actually prosper if any of them are making a profit (because the whole point of capitalism is capital growth). An Excel spreadsheet would be best. Let me know once you've solved it! 😂

This whole discussion feels a bit too abstract and theoretical for my liking. It would be much more productive if we focused on actual banking principles—specifically how following those rules impacts a bank's bottom line. We should also look at how this hits people's wallets, whether you're a saver earning interest or someone borrowing from the bank and paying it. There’s a massive amount of other fees being passed down to borrowers, too, which really blurs the picture of what a bank is actually taking home.

Maria Thomas48 I didn't catch what was said—it looks like you missed the actual message there. Drop the text and I'll get to work on it.
Yeah, sure, why not? Just turn your brain off, put it on cruise control, and take everything everyone says at face value. It’s a great plan—really. Honestly, just look around at how things actually work in the real world and try to make sense of it for once.

So, you guys are doing the exact same thing—you’re just swapping out your info for different flavors of nonsense. You're leaning on stuff like Engdahl, those Money Masters types, or that whole "The Secret of Oz" rabbit hole... which, let's be honest, aren't exactly gold standards. Most of that stuff has been thoroughly torn apart and debunked by people who actually know what they're talking about, usually with some pretty heavy-hitting arguments.

Maria Thomas48 said:Yeah, sure. It's probably best to just turn your brain off and take everyone's word for it. Just look at some real-world examples and see how that works out.

There's an impossible task here: Try to model a financial system (imports vs. exports) involving any number of actors—a nation, the Central Bank, and a bank expanding the money supply via the Federal Reserve Board—and prove that this system remains sustainable year after year. Prove it can actually prosper if any of them are making a profit (because the whole point of capitalism is capital growth). An Excel spreadsheet would be best. Let me know once you've solved it! 😂

Look, we’ve already established that your whole model is basically just a massive oversimplification—it's clearly been rigged from the jump to fit whatever thesis you're trying to push. I mean, sure, the math might technically hold up on paper, but there's this glaring, obvious lack of understanding here regarding what a mathematical proof actually represents versus what an actual model is supposed to be. It's all just... well, it's missing the point entirely.
I mean, honestly... it’s kind of hard to take someone seriously when they think they can map out the entire global economy just by messing around with a few Excel spreadsheets. It’s a bit much, don't you think?

The whole concept that the government should just print whatever amount of money they think we "need" is honestly pretty bizarre—especially when you look at history and see exactly what happens once the state takes over such a massive, critical role in the economy. I mean, really? The notion that some bureaucrats could actually pinpoint the exact right amount of cash required, combined with the wildly naive assumption that politicians will stay uncorrupted and perfect... it’s almost laughable. We really ought to be aiming for a system that doesn't have these kinds of massive, single points of failure.

I think we need to talk about how banking itself needs to change. We should be turning the financial system into a service for society, rather than letting it act as this arbiter of life and death just because people don't understand how it works. Basically, the way our banking laws and the Federal Reserve operate creates a kind of economic servitude to money.

I've actually felt this fight against bank pricing personally. The Federal Reserve basically gives banks a free pass to do whatever they want under the guise of "business policy." It’s constant—overcharging on fees, billing you for services that don't even exist, or hitting you with massive penalties just for trying to pay off a loan early.

silentmaker78 said:

Maria Thomas48 I didn't catch what was said—it looks like you missed the actual message there. Drop the text and I'll get to work on it.
Yeah, sure, why not? Just turn your brain off, put it on cruise control, and take everything everyone says at face value. It’s a great plan—really. Honestly, just look around at how things actually work in the real world and try to make sense of it for once.

So, you guys are doing the exact same thing—you’re just swapping out your info for different flavors of nonsense. You're leaning on stuff like Engdahl, those Money Masters types, or that whole "The Secret of Oz" rabbit hole... which, let's be honest, aren't exactly gold standards. Most of that stuff has been thoroughly torn apart and debunked by people who actually know what they're talking about, usually with some pretty heavy-hitting arguments.

Look, we’ve already established that your whole model is basically just a massive oversimplification—it's clearly been rigged from the jump to fit whatever thesis you're trying to push. I mean, sure, the math might technically hold up on paper, but there's this glaring, obvious lack of understanding here regarding what a mathematical proof actually represents versus what an actual model is supposed to be. It's all just... well, it's missing the point entirely.
I mean, honestly... it’s kind of hard to take someone seriously when they think they can map out the entire global economy just by messing around with a few Excel spreadsheets. It’s a bit much, don't you think?

The whole concept that the government should just print whatever amount of money they think we "need" is honestly pretty bizarre—especially when you look at history and see exactly what happens once the state takes over such a massive, critical role in the economy. I mean, really? The notion that some bureaucrats could actually pinpoint the exact right amount of cash required, combined with the wildly naive assumption that politicians will stay uncorrupted and perfect... it’s almost laughable. We really ought to be aiming for a system that doesn't have these kinds of massive, single points of failure.

Yeah, okay. Someone’s out there claiming that’s not true, and now we’re all just repeating it like parrots. I really feel like I already suggested this: read my articles first—which weren't even based on those videos, by the way—and then, only after you've finished those, go watch the videos and the other pieces. If you actually followed that order, you’d see right away if any potential denials even hold water or not. But instead, everyone's just switching their brains off.

We’ve already established that your model is way too oversimplified. It feels like it was basically engineered just to fit your own theories. Sure, mathematically speaking, it might hold up on paper, but there’s clearly a misunderstanding here about what a mathematical proof actually is and what a model even represents in the first place.
It’s just hard to take someone seriously when they think they can map out the entire world using nothing but a few Excel spreadsheets.

Budget spreadsheets don't lie. That’s why I rely on them. Even the last idiot out there can grab a calculator and verify that every single step is accurate. Look, I'm not trying to build some grand economic theory here. I am just explaining how they pull off this fraud by pumping money into the system solely through credit.

Doesn't it strike you all that everything I’ve written lines up perfectly with the current reality? It explains most of these economic headaches and exactly why the Government's measures just aren't working. I wasn't out here guessing anything. I just ran the numbers and calculated that there simply isn't any way for a country like America to maintain financial stability under these conditions.

The whole idea that the government should just print whatever amount of money they think is necessary is honestly bizarre. History has already shown us exactly what happens when the state takes on such a massive, critical role in the economy. Thinking that politicians can actually determine the "correct" amount of money needed—and assuming they’ll be incorruptible or perfect at it—is incredibly naive. We really ought to be striving for a system that doesn't have these kinds of single points of failure.

So, what you're saying is that because politicians can be bought, we should just stick with this entire system that was built on bribing them in the first place. That's your argument.

I really don't get who brainwashed everyone into thinking the government shouldn't play a key role in the economy. It’s wild. Even Keynes proved that things actually work when there's state initiative involved. He just messed it up because the whole setup was built on this foundation of debt-based money. He had to have known that.

Anyone who actually believes an economy can run like some standard corporation managed by the government is just plain wrong. If a government doesn't issue its own money, it’s basically at the mercy of whoever does. You end up completely dependent on someone else's currency—specifically, on whoever holds the actual power over money creation. This addiction isn't your run-of-the-mill kind of thing because there’s this specific relationship at play here. And honestly, it’s more than just twisted. The Government can't just print cash out of thin air, but they can issue paper promising they'll pay back even more than what was originally lent. The logic is just completely insane: how does that operation actually multiply enough money to cover those repayments? Through new loans? We’ve already seen that when banks multiply money, they aren't creating actual wealth; they're just creating fake deposits. So, if a bank takes whatever tiny percentage of profit they make from a loan and tries to use it to grow their capital, it becomes impossible to pay back the debt. Interest keeps piling up on top of that debt, and it's really just a matter of time before everything sinks under a mountain of debt that far outweighs the value of all the assets.

Just look back at how they framed the narrative: "We aren't overleveraged, so we have plenty of room to invest in growth." Once I actually saw the repayment figures, I knew right then this was headed for a crash.

The very first question you have to ask when trying to build a sustainable system is: Where does the money actually come from to cover retained earnings ?

So, I’d really love for the big defenders of this credit-based system to explain it to the average person: Where does the actual profit for every single firm and bank come from—the part that is pure, liquid cash available for payout?

Think about it. I start a business with $1,000 (created out of thin air, somehow) and where does the profit originate? Let's say there are 7 billion people, each with $1,000 in capital, and everyone jumps into a business to grow that capital. Everyone works hard and stays productive. Let's pretend they are all under one almighty entity, like the United States.

I want a concrete answer on how everyone creates real, profitable cash flow indefinitely—like people saving money under their mattresses—to reach this supposed capitalist nirvana.

You can make your economic models as complicated as you want, but it's all just a way to show that—there, right there—that's where the money multiplies.

Look, I’m not saying we should just cling to the status quo like it’s some holy relic, but I am definitely not arguing that the government needs a bigger seat at the economic table. If we go down that road, things are just going to get messier—we'll end up with even more corrupt politicians holding way too much leverage, and when they start playing with that kind of power, the damage to everyone else is going to be massive.

At the end of the day, any amount of cash works as long as it functions as a medium of exchange. Prices for everything you buy or do just shift to match whatever the money supply looks like.
We really need to scale back how much the state interferes in the economy and just get those politicians to stop digging their hands into our hard-earned cash.

silentmaker78 said:Look, I’m not saying we should just cling to the status quo like it’s some holy relic, but I am definitely not arguing that the government needs a bigger seat at the economic table. If we go down that road, things are just going to get messier—we'll end up with even more corrupt politicians holding way too much leverage, and when they start playing with that kind of power, the damage to everyone else is going to be massive.

At the end of the day, any amount of cash works as long as it functions as a medium of exchange. Prices for everything you buy or do just shift to match whatever the money supply looks like.
We really need to scale back how much the state interferes in the economy and just get those politicians to stop digging their hands into our hard-earned cash.

The current mess is exactly what happened when politicians tweaked the laws to basically turn us into economic slaves. What we all really need to push for is separating money creation from lending once and for all. We should probably write that directly into the Constitution.

Any amount of money works as long as it serves as a medium of exchange. Prices for goods and services just adjust based on how much money is out there.

A lot of people argue that point, too. I might be speaking out of ignorance here, but that logic falls apart easily because it assumes the supply of goods stays constant. You have to consider the first factor, which is the increasing quantity of goods. Then there's population growth. Third is the existence of cash profits—savings. Fourth is the deflationary issue, which leads straight into a recession. And so on.

Quote:We need to shrink the government's role in the economy and get politicians' hands off our hard-earned money. There is no such thing as "hard-earned money." That money is just someone else's even larger debt. You should look at the laws governing currency, like the Federal Reserve statutes. Your good fortune is just someone else's misfortune. Every bank acts as a middleman making fools out of us. And when we eventually get tangled up in a debt crisis, those same bankers are the ones proposing solutions that don't actually work (Silicon Valley).😂

- Are banks actually working for us—or are we just working for the banks? 😕

Standard stuff
-------------------
1. managing business accounts
2. handling personal accounts
3. lending money from savings
4. currency exchange booths

Things that aren't actually banking
--------------------------------------
1. Creating money

If you take the Federal Reserve and combine it with every single commercial bank into one giant entity, you end up with a corporation that just conjures money out of thin air. They lend it out and build their entire profit model on that. To keep people from noticing the scam through massive inflation—since the debt always outweighs the actual cash issued—they have to choke the economy with restrictive monetary policies. It’s how they hide the fact that costs are outpacing the supply.

Most of the money circulating in accounts is just credit. Real physical cash is mostly sitting there as required reserves, with only a tiny fraction kept in a bank vault. There's basically no way to pay interest on almost all the money in circulation because any new money being introduced is created as debt itself. There isn't a real source for this money. Everything is just credit, except for those tiny bits of interest on the reserve funds, which the bank ends up pocketing anyway.