 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars.
Anyone (or no one),
Numbers are important, accurate numbers more important to some, false numbers more important to others.
If a bank, state run or not state run, has published, for public access, numbers, and the numbers are accurate, then that can be a case of lawful, moral, human conduct.
If a bank, state run or not state run, has published, for public access, numbers, and the numbers are false, false on purpose, then there is a person, or persons, involved in criminal conduct.
The enormity of the numbers involved in banking suggest to me a need to be diligent in the process of judging the accuracy of the numbers, because chances are that someone somewhere, or a group of people somewhere, are falsifying the numbers so as to gain at the expense of the people who are hoodwinked by those numbers.
When, it seems to me, the people running the bank, state run or not, refuse to provide accurate numbers, the cat is out of the bag, and the people who refuse to provide accurate numbers confess by their refusal that they are criminals, and they know it, I know it, and the only ones who don't know it, obviously, are the people called the mark, the victims, the targeted market.
Let us be very clear about this report by the people running The Real News: The Federal Reserve people are criminals, they refuse to publish accurate numbers, even when congress people demand those accurate numbers, and that supposed Bank is a monopoly bank, a state protected bank (if not run by "The State" per se), and a competitor exists in the form of a separate and sovereign State Bank in North Dakota.
A. The Federal Reserve
B. State Bank in North Dakota
Numbers are important.
A. The Federal Reserve:
Cost - Income = Profit
B. The Bank of North Dakota
Cost - Income = "over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars"
Got that?
How about a better perspective on the scale of the numbers involved in this banking business, state run or not state run, criminal or not criminal, legal crime or not legal crime?
I do this often enough to empower me with a sense of scale, a knowledgeable point of view, a way of seeing the forest, so to speak, an not the trees.
America is home to about three hundred million people.
300,000,000
American people live in houses, and suppose one third of Americans will someday seek and then gain a mortgage for a home.
100,000,000
That is One Hundred Million Mortgages.
Now suppose that the average home mortgage is One hundred thousand dollars.
100,000
Now there can be a simple way to know the scale involved in this banking business by knowing that each home mortgage transfers at least one extra home price from the borrower to the lender as interest payments or the cost of the mortgage. In other words the borrower works to pay off the cost of 2 houses, the borrower keeps one house worth of money, the actual house, and the borrower sends another whole house worth of money, interest payments, to the people running the bank.
Now we can use math to find out how much money can transfer from American home borrowers to the people running the banks that lend the money to the American home borrowers.
People borrowing = 100,000,000 = One Hundred Million people
Power flowing to the Bankers per person = 100,000 = One Average Home Price
100,000,000 x 100,000 = Total Interest Payments sent to the people running the banks
Math is easy when working with zeros: just add up the zeros.
100,000,000 = 8 zeros
100,000 = 5 zeros
100,000,000 x 100,000 = 13 zeros
10,000,000,000,000
Back to the relevant quote:
Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. And that's a state- -remember, North Dakota has a very small population. It's only got 600,000 people. So it's actually provided a surplus on a very regular basis to the state and has served as a very productive channel for development.
What is half a trillion?
500,000,000
That is Five Hundred Million: half a trillion
Here is the 30 year income stream going from The People in America to the bankers:
10,000,000,000,000 <------American mortgage target market
-------500,000,000 <------Half of a trillion
Readers can now know the scale of the numbers being discussed as people discuss the differences between a criminal fraud being perpetrated by the people running The Federal Reserve and the competition running against that fraud.
A. The Federal Reserve crime spree
10,000,000,000,000
B. The Bank of North Dakota
500,000,000
All the reader has to do is connect the dots and ask: what if?
What if the National government regained control over the legal money business?
What would the people running the National government do with all that power to purchase?
How about making the scale of this power even more understandable by using a neat math trick called percentages. What is the percent difference between the power sent to The Bank of North Dakota compared to the power sent to The Federal Reserve criminals - power sent to them, from The People (borrowers sending interest payments).
What percent of 10,000,000,000,000 is 500,000,000?
The web has a neat Calculator page
.005%
In other words: Small Potatoes
The target market in North Dakota is .005, small potatoes, compared to the target market in The Nation as a whole.
That is only measuring (by very rough average) the National home mortgage market relative to this report on the measure of "profits" gained by The Bank of North Dakota after expenses.
Now there is a very real need to quantify the measure known as expenses, or costs.
How much does it cost to run the Bank of North Dakota?
If it is a "not for profit" venture, then all income above cost is returned back to The People - yes or no?
Back to the relevant quote:
Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. And that's a state- -remember, North Dakota has a very small population. It's only got 600,000 people. So it's actually provided a surplus on a very regular basis to the state and has served as a very productive channel for development.
Income - expenses = net profit profit
If the separate and sovereign state of North Dakota people can generate more power than they consume why can't other separate and sovereign states do the same thing?
A Republic is designed to work competitively as each separate and sovereign state exemplifies how best to provide effective government to The People, and then The People can vote with their feet, and move to the better separate and sovereign state, within the Republic.
Since this Nation, U.S.A. Inc. LLC, is a National government, not a Republic, the money power encompass all the Unionized states, and no state is separate, and no state is sovereign, within the National State, as designed by Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, and others. The idea then, and the idea now, is to create and maintain one monopoly banking power, and from that power all legal money is produced by specific people given the legal license to produce and maintain the National supply of legal money.
If the reader can quantify the power involved here, with my illustrations of math, then the reader must also account for the fact that The Bank of North Dakota, is inferior, and subject to, the higher power, where the dollar is produced, and therefore The Bank of North Dakota must send a portion of its earnings to that higher power in the form of interest.
It will be interesting, to me, to see if something is done, or what is done, by the people running The Federal Reserve, as The Bank of North Dakota example gains currency by this exposure, this Real News Report, and other avenues of information flow, as Real News travels from person to person in due time.
Back to the report for me.
Hold on, I see something very important.
Ask:
Do the people running The Bank of North Dakota create and maintain a business cycle by which The People are alternately feed too much purchasing power (by way of loose monetary policy, liar loans, etc.) and then not enough purchasing power (by way of tight monetary policy, excessive interest rates, etc.) so as to BOOM, and then BUST, the natural flow of economic activity, and thereby know, on schedule, when the boom will turn bust, and when the bust will turn boom, and therefore when to know when to sell at top dollar, and when to buy at bottom dollar?
yes
no
If they do that, if they do create and maintain a business cycle then they, the people running the bank, can move all titles to all wealth to them.
In order to do that, it seems to me, the people doing that have to have the power to create money out of thin air, not just accumulate sufficient wealth and then operate a banking monopoly whereby a business cycle is created and maintained.
I think that the power to create and maintain a business cycle must follow the seizure of a power by which a person or a group of people can add to or subtract from a legal money supply.
The Bank of North Dakota has to get dollar from either The People (tax payers) or The Federal Reserve (people with the legal license to add to or subtract from the total dollar supply), The people running The Bank of North Dakota, as far as I know, do not have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total supply of dollars.
That is possibly a very important point to consider.
Middle men don't get to bail themselves out, and middle men don't get to raise their own salaries, and middle men don't get to give themselves bonuses, since middle men don't have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total number of dollars - the one and only unlimited credit card.
This one:
U.S.A Inc. LLC
Compare that to this:
Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars.
Know the scale, and by that means know the stakes.
Words are powerful, false words only have power over the people who believe in lies.
Well, they like to say that they go a very fine line between competing and cooperating.
Competition forces quality up and price down. People can know this fact, and know it well, or fail to know this fact, and by that failure they can pay higher cost for lower quality stuff - be my guest.
In the money business there are many examples of competitors who have provided higher quality money at lower costs and I will relink one:
Negative Interest Money
When a competitor provides the very highest possible quality money, what will that money be - exactly/
When a competitor provides the very lowest cost money, what will be that price - exactly?
Competition forces the answer into being real, not theory.
Banking frauds, the legal ones, can't allow money competition, it can't be allowed, because that force would then force banking frauds out of business on the very first day that the consumers have a choice.
Why is this not easy to see, and why is this not common knowledge - common sense?
I think that it must be understood, accurately, that knowledge of this sort is against the law. Law has been taken over by the criminals, what else explains reality here?
There is no Crisis. All the suffering, all the destruction, all the torture, and all the mass murder perpetrated by law is crime, by law, man made, on purpose, for profit, and if the victims are asking for permission to know these facts, they will be suffering for a long, long time.
This is a very good report, from my view, worth the effort to view it.
So the critique that would come from the sort of libertarian side, I guess, would be governments just don't know how to run banks, and this will end up being something- -you know, a boondoggle of one form or another.
I ran for congress as a libertarian in 1996. I can speak from a libertarian viewpoint.
The argument against state run banks is such that the person doing the arguing is wanting to point out to anyone who will listen that the people running the state are people who will abuse their power in such a way as to make competition illegal.
If the people running the state don't abuse their power then it is easy to measure that fact.
How?
If you want to know, then I can provide the answer, and the answer comes from a libertarian perspective, not a quasi, or pretentious, or false libertarian perspective.
Libertarians are moral people, or they aren't libertarians - do no harm.
From that position, as a do no harm libertarian position, the force of competition remains in force, as people voluntarily avoid using force to do such things as: make competition illegal.
When competition works there will be a measurable increase in the quality of stuff, anything imaginable, and the higher quality stuff will be less expensive, less costly, sold, or even given, at a lower price.
That is how someone can know, with an accurate measure, if the people running The State, are abusing their power: just ask:
Is the quality of things going up?
Is the price of things going down?
If The State Bank of North Dakota is providing a higher quality banking service, at a lower price, compared to the competition then competition is in force, despite all efforts to outlaw competition.
All things are relative.
A. The Federal Reserve example
B. The State Bank of North Dakota example
C. The City Bank of Worgle Austria (1930s)
D. The State Bank of China
Where is quality going up, where is price going down, why is quality going up, and why is price going down?
If a State Bank is run by people who allow competition, adapt to new and better methods of providing the best for the least, then whose to say that is bad, and compared to what?
If a State Bank is run by people who make competition against the law, they can then use their power over money to transfer wealth from everyone who creates it to only them, only the few of them inside that network of legal criminals, and there is a score board for such things, and it isn't a crisis, it is exactly what it is by design. It is working exactly as it is designed to work.
How can that be a crisis?
The score board:
Low quality very high cost for many, high quality low cost for very few
All things are relative - dependent upon ones unique perspective.
I do not represent every libertarian. I do know the base of libertarian ideals - do no harm.
It really isn't complicated.
What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Complication serves a specific interest.