newmercman:
OK so who decided how much money GB has? Or how much it owes?
The question is how can GB PLC supposedly owe more to the world banks than it has supposedly deposited.Same question applies in the case of all the other supposed world debt owed by whatever country.IE debt in this case means you owe more than net assets and net cash reserves ( net wealth ).In which case assuming that applies to all the countries stated as owing more than they are worth we’d have a world economy that’s running in the red and a load of busted banks including the Rosthchilds.Which isn’t the case because the banks cut on the returns on ‘investments’ shows the opposite situation in that the world economy is actually in net credit with deposits and investment funds obviously earning healthy returns for the depositors and the small cut taken by the banks and those returns obviously being just a fraction of the amount on deposit.
So this seems to be how the scam works.‘They’ deposit loads of money earn’t off the backs of the cheap labour global free market economy.Then ‘they’ call the deposits held in the bank account debt instead of credit.Then ‘they’ threaten the bank manager that bad things might happen if he doesn’t play along by showing all those personal ill gotten gains and investments and returns as debt instead of personal wealth.In which case those figures shown as banking profits and revenues seem to be a flaw in the plan.Because they actually give a clue as to the real amounts of money being deposited with the banks being that they are just a small percentage cut of the actual returns on those investments.Those actual returns themselves also obviously being just a relatively small percentage earn’t as interest on the actual Capital investment portfolio.In which case yes follow the money but do the job properly by not being fooled by the diversion of the wealth earn’t by the banks.When the real deal is the supposed world ‘debt’ figures which actually translate as the hidden personal wealth of the depositers which has been thieved out of the economies in question by persons unknown.But it’s a reasonable bet that the bankers are the last place to start looking if you want to know where to start looking.
newmercman:
Good old Gordon Brown, unelected prime minister, now how the [zb] did that ever happen? Oh yeah, I remember Tony Blair promised him the job if he played nicely and did what Tony told him to do.
That whole fiasco adds weight to almost every argument I’ve made so far. I don’t know where the Rothschild connection is, but Tony the phoney has definitely got somebody pulling his strings.
Steady on, you’re starting to turn into Carryfast!
Btw, we don’t elect Prime Ministers in this country, technically we vote for a party not a person.
newmercman:
Good old Gordon Brown, unelected prime minister, now how the [zb] did that ever happen? Oh yeah, I remember Tony Blair promised him the job if he played nicely and did what Tony told him to do.
That whole fiasco adds weight to almost every argument I’ve made so far. I don’t know where the Rothschild connection is, but Tony the phoney has definitely got somebody pulling his strings.
The whole issue of dodgy politicians actually adds weight to my arguments not yours because you’re being fooled by the diversion set up to make it look like the banks are the ones who have taken all the money.
IE the analogy would be that you won’t get a true idea of who actually has all the money,or exactly how much money is involved,or the source of the money,by nicking the Mob’s bank managers and going by what their bank account books show.
I never said banks, I said bankers, there’s a difference. The banks themselves have strict policies and guidelines which are monitored closely, but the bankers are free to do as they wish.
Luke, yeah I know we elect a party, the party elects its leader, but voters are often voting for the figurehead, that’s why a strong leader is the one fronting the party at election time, would Gordon Brown have been charismatic enough to win a general election? I don’t think so.
newmercman:
I never said banks, I said bankers, there’s a difference. The banks themselves have strict policies and guidelines which are monitored closely, but the bankers are free to do as they wish.
Luke, yeah I know we elect a party, the party elects its leader, but voters are often voting for the figurehead, that’s why a strong leader is the one fronting the party at election time, would Gordon Brown have been charismatic enough to win a general election? I don’t think so.
It’s make your mind up time either the trail leads to the politicians ( likely ) or the bankers.It can’t be both and as I said if anyone is looking for dodgy mob money the last place they’d look would be the mob’s bankers and bank accounts.Although no one is saying that those bankers would be whiter than white probably with good reason.
It can be both, it goes to the politicians, then up to the bankers, Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, Zionists, or whatever the hell they are, but something is making things happen, different politics in different countries and the same stuff is happening globally, it can’t be a coincidence.
newmercman:
I never said banks, I said bankers, there’s a difference. The banks themselves have strict policies and guidelines which are monitored closely, but the bankers are free to do as they wish.
Luke, yeah I know we elect a party, the party elects its leader, but voters are often voting for the figurehead, that’s why a strong leader is the one fronting the party at election time, would Gordon Brown have been charismatic enough to win a general election? I don’t think so.
It’s make your mind up time either the trail leads to the politicians ( likely ) or the bankers.It can’t be both and as I said if anyone is looking for dodgy mob money the last place they’d look would be the mob’s bankers and bank accounts.Although no one is saying that those bankers would be whiter than white probably with good reason.
Neither it leads to powerful dynasties.
You seem to be using the bloke who works in your local Lloyds branch as what a banker is.
newmercman:
It can be both, it goes to the politicians, then up to the bankers, Bilderbergs, Rothschilds, Zionists, or whatever the hell they are, but something is making things happen, different politics in different countries and the same stuff is happening globally, it can’t be a coincidence.
You still seem to be making the mistake of confusing bank ‘deposits’ with bank assets/revenues/profits.
The fact is the bankers can only take a cut from the ‘returns’ made from the deposits.The big money is in the Capital held in deposits not the relatively small cut made on the returns.By that comparison I’d guess that the type of money stated as being made out of the scam by the bankers is probably close to the truth.In which case exactly how much deposit capital would it take to produce the returns which would provide such figures.As I’ve said if you turn the figures around,by regarding what’s shown on the books as the world’s debt,as actually being personal wealth held ( nicked ) by a relatively elite few ‘depositors’ that would probably explain everything on the basis of follow the money.
newmercman:
I never said banks, I said bankers, there’s a difference. The banks themselves have strict policies and guidelines which are monitored closely, but the bankers are free to do as they wish.
Luke, yeah I know we elect a party, the party elects its leader, but voters are often voting for the figurehead, that’s why a strong leader is the one fronting the party at election time, would Gordon Brown have been charismatic enough to win a general election? I don’t think so.
It’s make your mind up time either the trail leads to the politicians ( likely ) or the bankers.It can’t be both and as I said if anyone is looking for dodgy mob money the last place they’d look would be the mob’s bankers and bank accounts.Although no one is saying that those bankers would be whiter than white probably with good reason.
Neither it leads to powerful dynasties.
You seem to be using the bloke who works in your local Lloyds branch as what a banker is.
No I’m using basic accounting in that if the banks are showing a massive profit and assets then the bank deposits have to reflect that on the basis that the profits and assets in question can only at best be a relatively small percentage made from the returns of the ‘deposits’ held by the ‘depositors’.In which case it’s actually the depositors,not the bankers,who hold all the really big money.In which case how can the banks be flooded with deposits in a world economy that’s showing massive debt on the books.The answer seems like the oldest scam in the book just account credit as debt on the books to hide the money.
Geoffrey, you surprise me here, you often have some weird and wonderful ideas, but it’s not often that you appear stupid.
We’re talking about central banks here, the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Deutsche Bank etc.
99% of the world’s wealth is held by 1% of the population (give or take, but just accept it for argument’s sake) and that 1% don’t pop down to the local branch of Barclay’s very often.
These are banks that lend hundreds of billions to countries, they wouldn’t even deal with a company the size of GM, which is why the US government had to step in and lend them their bail out money.
Very sad story. These are humans not fictional characters. When did people become so desensitised to these horror stories?
This thread Is going to take more than 45 mins to absorb, but what a development. TNUK openly debating the Rothschild banking dynasty. Iirc they’re officially worth £500 trillion (or $■■) What’s the gap of UK plc?
CF - Fractional reserve lending Is only one financial strategy used to create money out of nowhere.
£100 reserve allows £1000 to be lent. Plus interest. Wtf does the other £900 come from?
Scale this up to merchant or national levels. Scary ■■■■.
newmercman:
Geoffrey, you surprise me here, you often have some weird and wonderful ideas, but it’s not often that you appear stupid.
We’re talking about central banks here, the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Deutsche Bank etc.
99% of the world’s wealth is held by 1% of the population (give or take, but just accept it for argument’s sake) and that 1% don’t pop down to the local branch of Barclay’s very often.
These are banks that lend hundreds of billions to countries, they wouldn’t even deal with a company the size of GM, which is why the US government had to step in and lend them their bail out money.
It doesn’t matter how big the banks in question are the the basics of banking remain the same.The banks don’t ‘own’ the deposits the depositors do.The banks only make money from moving that money around either in the form of loans or transaction charges.In which case referring to banking revenues doesn’t provide a true picture of who actually ‘owns’ all the money that’s being moved around.That’s the depositors not the bankers.As I’ve said there’s no way that the banks of whatever size could be making the types of figures in question without massive deposits providing those figures.In which case as I’ve said it would probably take the transposition of world debt figures into personal wealth figures of the depositors,not their bankers,to explain it.As for stupid I could say the same about anyone who disagrees with me but I’d prefer to just argue the points on the evidence.
Goaty:
Very sad story. These are humans not fictional characters. When did people become so desensitised to these horror stories?
This thread Is going to take more than 45 mins to absorb, but what a development. TNUK openly debating the Rothschild banking dynasty. Iirc they’re officially worth £500 trillion (or $■■) What’s the gap of UK plc?
CF - Fractional reserve lending Is only one financial strategy used to create money out of nowhere.
£100 reserve allows £1000 to be lent. Plus interest. Wtf does the other £900 come from?
Scale this up to merchant or national levels. Scary [zb].
That’s what I’m saying.The ‘other £900’ is the hidden deposits of personal wealth that’s been nicked out of the world’s economies and shown on the books as national debt.IE the banks can’t make money out of lending and moving money that doesn’t exist.
newmercman:
Luke, yeah I know we elect a party, the party elects its leader, but voters are often voting for the figurehead, that’s why a strong leader is the one fronting the party at election time, would Gordon Brown have been charismatic enough to win a general election? I don’t think so.
Yes Brown could have won an election. In fact after being seen to lead the world in the financial crisis that struck as he took over if he had called an election early 2008 he would have won, the polls were well in his favour. His biggest mistake was hanging on too long. And lets face it, after 13 years of Labour he still ran it close enough in 2010 to kill the Tories hopes of a majority government. And besides, we all voted in 2005 in the knowledge that Blair would give way to Brown before the next election. So we sort of did vote for him. I’m no fan of Brown btw.
Goaty:
Very sad story. These are humans not fictional characters. When did people become so desensitised to these horror stories?
This thread Is going to take more than 45 mins to absorb, but what a development. TNUK openly debating the Rothschild banking dynasty. Iirc they’re officially worth £500 trillion (or $■■) What’s the gap of UK plc?
CF - Fractional reserve lending Is only one financial strategy used to create money out of nowhere.
£100 reserve allows £1000 to be lent. Plus interest. Wtf does the other £900 come from?
Scale this up to merchant or national levels. Scary [zb].
Can the records please show I opened up this Rothschilds can of worms
The banks do own the money though, again we’re not talking about Barclay’s here, but the central banks. The banks that actually print and issue the bank notes themselves.
Look at who own or control those banks, then you’ll find the bankers.
Take the time to research both sides of the story, don’t just copy and paste things that support your theory, there are thousands of articles on the internet about it all. Read them with an open mind (you never know, it could happen!) and forget all your notions of a beyond the grave conspiracy by Reagan and Thatcher with the Chinese and you may be shocked at what you find. The Central Bank of China is controlled by…
I’d be more inclined to have my opinions on these things changed if links were forthcoming, and not just links to angry conspiracy theorists spouting off but to small little facts and pointers as to why people believe this sort of stuff. I know your post was addressed to Carryfast but I’ve read lots of these articles and they all have one thing in common, lots of opinion little fact
newmercman:
The banks do own the money though, again we’re not talking about Barclay’s here, but the central banks. The banks that actually print and issue the bank notes themselves.
Look at who own or control those banks, then you’ll find the bankers.
Take the time to research both sides of the story, don’t just copy and paste things that support your theory, there are thousands of articles on the internet about it all. Read them with an open mind (you never know, it could happen!) and forget all your notions of a beyond the grave conspiracy by Reagan and Thatcher with the Chinese and you may be shocked at what you find. The Central Bank of China is controlled by…
The Rothschild Dynasty.
The Rothschild dynasty has been involved in China since at least the 19th century.The question being what changed in the western economies between 1970 to date that made China,or at least it’s Communist Party cronies,so rich compared to then mostly as a result of the transfer of wealth from west to east.Bearing in mind that Nixon,Reagan and Thatcher were most certainly on this side of the grave during the crucial part of that change.
As for an open mind yes the banks might have the power to print money ( when called on by governments ).But the fact remains it’s the depositors who ‘own’ the money.The banks just take a cut out of that money by moving it around in whatever form either loans or transactions for those ‘depositors’.Sorry if the inconvenient facts don’t suit the tin foil hatter conspiracy theories.Which in themselves are just likely to be part of the diversionary tactics being used by the ‘depositors’ to hide the money they’ve nicked from the worlds’ economies and just how much of it they’ve managed to nick.
As for the Rothschild’s ‘dynasty’ banking seems to involve a disproportionate risk of unexplained ‘suicide’ amongst it’s members for ‘some’ reason,who would be expected to have everything to live for for,.
Meanwhile it seems that the Commies are busy making the real money and you can bet that those figures provided for public consumption are just the tip of the iceberg of what they’ve really got sitting in the bank.It’s just the the bankers understandably wouldn’t dare want to admit it.So personal wealth gets written down as national debt to hide it.
