Question: REDCLOUD

REDCLOUD, some questions ….

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...-hegemony.html

But it is heavy handed, one sided, and has created a sort of "fourth legal system" all of its own making for which you and I have almost no input. Congress and the courts have chosen to look the other way on the Constitutional issues.

Here you refer to a "fourth legal system" - could you be more explicit?

How is your opinion qualifiable that creating money out of thin air is justified because the courts have legitimized it and congress supports it?

In Rothbard ’s opinion this is outright theft. The banks know from the onset if there is a run on the bank that they can NEVER give everyone their deposits back. Is Rothbard not speaking the truth when he says ‘the bank is already and at all times bankrupt, but its bankruptcy is only revealed when customers get suspicious and precipitate bank runs'?

If that is so .. a bankrupt entity has no authority to operate, let alone impose its will upon others … that being said, it has no authority to make any kind of a claim.

Banks create checking account deposits (part of M1) when they advance money to customers. This is the creating money out of thin air to which you refer. This process was develped during the age of mercantilism when gold was left for storage with jewlers who gave warehouse reciepts in exchange. The warehouse reciepts became tradeable in and of themselves and these warehousemen reliezed they could issue more receipts than they had gold and thus was born the argument that has raged for over five hundred years. The banks have long since won the argument and the process is now regulated with loans made against "reserves" or "equity capital". The Church felt the practice was Unholy. In this sense only is it counterfeiting. The law has completely legitimized it, congress supports it and the courts back it 100%.

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard http://www.mises.org/money/2s12.asp

The bank creates new money out of thin air, and does not, like everyone else, have to acquire money by producing and selling its services. In short, the bank is
already and at all times bankrupt; but its bankruptcy is only revealed when customers get suspicious and precipitate "bank runs." No other business experiences
a phenomenon like a "run." No [49] other business can be plunged into bankruptcy simply because its customers decide to repossess their own property. No
other business creates fictitious new money, which will evaporate when truly gauged. The dire economic effects of fractional bank money will be explored in the
next chapter. Here we conclude that, morally, such banking would have no more right to exist in a truly free market than any other form of implicit theft. It is true that the note or deposit does not actually say on its face that the warehouse guarantees to keep a full backing of gold on hand at all times. But the bank does
promise to redeem on demand, and so when it issues any fake receipts, it is already committing fraud, since it immediately becomes impossible for the bank to keep its and redeem all of its notes and deposits. [15]

Fraud, therefore, is immediately being committed when the act of issuing pseudo-receipts takes place. Which particular receipts are fraudulent can only be discovered after a run on the bank has occurred (since all the receipts look alike), and the late¦coming claimants are left high and dry. [16]

[17 ] Fraud is implicit theft, since it means that a contract has not been completed after the value has been received. In short, if A sells B a box labeled "corn flakes" and it turns out to be straw upon opening, A's
fraud is really theft of B's property. Similarly, the issue of warehouse receipts for non-existent goods,
identical with genuine receipts, is fraud upon those who possess claims to non-existent property.

[REDCLOUD]

But it is heavy handed, one sided, and has created a sort of "fourth legal system" all of its own making for which you and I have almost no input. Congress and the courts have chosen to look the other way on the Constitutional issues.

Here you refer to a "fourth legal system" - could you be more explicit?

The credit reporting industry is really a quasi enforcement branch of the banking industry. They punish you by charging higher rates of industry the lower your score goes, almost like a fine. This is done without your input and with very difficult recourse. This has become a true operating cartel. The biggest ever in world history. It encompasses all people in North America and most in Europe and South America. Once in the system it is almost impossible to get out. Even the IRS does not have this kind of coverage or scope. Either comply or pay. Punishment is instant and electronic. No other product has ever been crammed down the throats of an entire population like this one. Whe yo go to the supermarket your are not told,we see you bought Sinton's milk last week and you must have it again, but that is exactly what happens with credit reports.

How is your opinion qualifiable that creating money out of thin air is justified because the courts have legitimized it and congress supports it?

You described it as creating money out of thin air, I did not. The concept of creating money out of thin air goes back to Mercantilism when goldsmiths would issue warehouse receipts for deposited gold because they were frequently the only ones with large enough vaults to store it in. Sometimes they issued more warehouse receipts than they had gold on deposit, in this sense they created something out of thin air which did not belong to them, which was presented to others for exchangeable value. When early banks did the same thing they were accused of creating moeny out of thin air in the manner similar to the excess warehouse receipt issue. While the argument held true for a bailment for someone else's goods, it is quite another matter when applied to today's banks. For one thing, no bailment exists between the depositors and the bank. In additon, the bank is loaning money against reserve limits that have been granted them by their FED charter. Should the bank fail, the FDIC takes it over and keeps the loans intact, usually transfers them to a solvent bank, and insures deposits up to $100,000, hardly comprably to an uncovered warehouse receipt, which would vanish into thin air. This practice has bothered people for hundreds of years, however courts back it and Congress has legislated it as so.

In Rothbard ’s opinion this is outright theft. The banks know from the onset if there is a run on the bank that they can NEVER give everyone their deposits back. Is Rothbard not speaking the truth when he says ‘the bank is already and at all times bankrupt, but its bankruptcy is only revealed when customers get suspicious and precipitate bank runs'?

If that is so .. a bankrupt entity has no authority to operate, let alone impose its will upon others … that being said, it has no authority to make any kind of a claim.

Mr. Rothbard is grossly deficient in the concept of bankruptcy. By this defintion above not only are all banks bankrupt but all businesses of any kind would be bankrupt. No business has ever existed that could liquidate all of its debts on demand. ( Well, maybe a few). Besides, this is not how bankruptcy is determined anyway. His point is meaninless in this context.

[17 ] Fraud is implicit theft, since it means that a contract has not been completed after the value has been received. In short, if A sells B a box labeled "corn flakes" and it turns out to be straw upon opening, A's
fraud is really theft of B's property. Similarly, the issue of warehouse receipts for non-existent goods,
identical with genuine receipts, is fraud upon those who possess claims to non-existent property.

The money being issued by banks are not reciepts and they are definitely not warehouse receipts. This comparison is fraudulent.


I, for one, find the cartel aspect of the banking system most objectionable.I also believe that Congress has really bailed on this one and has turned over the management of the money system to private industry settling for periodic reports to uninformed banking committe members. However, I am also not sure full government management is the answer either. Just look how well the IRS is managed and if the Soviet Union is any guide to government mangement, not pretty.

There are other examples of products having intangible value under government regulation. Electricty is one. Gambling is another. Both are created out of thin air and are government regulated. The sale of water is another. Why should such a basic human need be controlled and regulated? As long as it rains and snows it replenishes naturally.

Money has become a man-made product distributed and sold by extensive government regulation and manipulation. Just like many products. And, just like many products it is subject to the law of supply and demand. As long as demand is high it will continue to be supplied. The pervasivness and unfairness of the system is what many object to. However, just like any product, the first to invent a workable substitute will become a very wealthy person.

Redcloud: I love your signature line. IMHO, it should be the credo of every man, woman, and child.

Jerry

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by REDCLOUD

This practice has bothered people for hundreds of years, however courts back it and Congress has legislated it as so.

I can prove that otherwise. I will do so later today on another thread. I have not quite decided on a catchy title. Otherwise I can agree with REDCLOUD from the craven posture he has chosen for himself here on suijuris.net. However it pretty much stands on the false premise he states quoted herein this post.

Originally Posted by a graphic email

Re: http://72.28.0.110

In December 1913 while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and was later signed by President Wilson. At a later date, Wilson admitted with remorse, when referring to the Fed."I have unwittingly ruined my country"!!!!

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...e-secrets.html


Regards,

David Merrill.

What you say about money appears to make sense and appears to be logical, on the surface but ... BUT where does the rubber meet the road ... ?

What say you about the Jekyl Island research ... ?http://www.suijuris.net/forum/banks-...ighlight=jekyl

I somewhat asked this question of Shoonra but have been mulling it over.

Money of exchange = gold silver, oxen, seashells, toilet seats ... Anything of substance and of value e.g. Labour workman is worthy of his hire and being paid
Money of account = credit, backed by good faith and acceptance of the people

It is said that the law [public policy or whatever it is construed to be] does not require impossibilities.

The etymology of the word paper is GHOST, paper money = GHOST MONEY. How many times have we heard that the law is nothing but procedure? Lawyers are taught – to conFORM with procedures in the spirit of the [public policy] law – the spirit-FORM which is the GHOST-MONEY.

The substance of law, is money of just weight measure, gold, silver; the spirit-form of the law is ghost-money.

Which is why $$$ -ink on piece of paper -- con-FORM to the spirit of the law because it has no substance/value to be seen, felt or touched or is measurable in anyway. So when you fill out a paper form, you are con-FORMing to the spirit of the law. Which is why there is an over-lay to the system, with the implied NAME-TRUSTS. As the spirit of the law can have no impact upon substance unless there is a nexus, which is the PUBLIC TRUSTS and the GHOST-MONEY.

Now, the spirit of the law is ghost-money – ink on a piece of paper. How is it possible to ‘pay’ with substance of the law [money of just weights and measures, gold, silver] when it does not exist? Has not the law aka public policy just required impossibility?