Groups

    Fraud Becomes Legal

    Just waking up to the Fractional Banking scam, and I'm absolutely furious about it. How do the banks get away with this? What on Earth are our governments playing at?

    This is a must watch YouTube video for anyone who doesn't know where our money comes from!

    youtu.be/Job…cfA

    21 Comments

    This is a must watch YouTube video for anyone who doesn't know where our … This is a must watch YouTube video for anyone who doesn't know where our mine comes from!



    What's yours is mine!

    Your text here

    UK isn't known for bringing anything into the economy, take a look around cars, oil, electronics everything comes from somewhere else. So they have to make their own economy from the people.

    Edited by: "MR1123" 17th Apr

    As the video said, only 3% of money is physical cash. Do you think everyone who wants a mortgage to buy a house could get a mortgage with that 3%?

    The poor only have a chance to become wealthy by acquiring things which increase in value like property, by having access to that fake money.

    If the banks didnt do what they are doing, you would see a lot more poor people complaining.

    fps_d0minat0r

    As the video said, only 3% of money is physical cash. Do you think … As the video said, only 3% of money is physical cash. Do you think everyone who wants a mortgage to buy a house could get a mortgage with that 3%?The poor only have a chance to become wealthy by acquiring things which increase in value like property, by having access to that fake money.If the banks didnt do what they are doing, you would see a lot more poor people complaining.



    It's fake economy though, if 3% is physical cash this means house prices along with everything else is only worth estimate 3% of what they are selling for. But this is how they make money.
    Edited by: "MR1123" 17th Apr

    Original Poster

    fps_d0minat0r

    As the video said, only 3% of money is physical cash. Do you think … As the video said, only 3% of money is physical cash. Do you think everyone who wants a mortgage to buy a house could get a mortgage with that 3%?The poor only have a chance to become wealthy by acquiring things which increase in value like property, by having access to that fake money.If the banks didnt do what they are doing, you would see a lot more poor people complaining.



    The government can issue all the currency the economy needs - free of interest.

    The current system ensures that some people will FAIL: there is not enough money in the system for EVERYONE to pay back what is owed.

    MR1123

    It's fake economy though, if 3% is physical cash this means house prices … It's fake economy though, if 3% is physical cash this means house prices along with everything else is only worth estimate 3% of what they are selling for. But this is how they make money.



    Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the government decided to wipe the other 97%.
    The ratio between the rich and poor would still remain the same, the only difference would be that the numbers would be lower and significantly fewer buyers would be able to get a mortgage. This would decrease spending power, making it even harder to compete with foreign investors, as well as the rich who have most of the 3% available to spend.

    fps_d0minat0r

    Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the … Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the government decided to wipe the other 97%.The ratio between the rich and poor would still remain the same, the only difference would be that the numbers would be lower and significantly fewer buyers would be able to get a mortgage. This would decrease spending power, making it even harder to compete with foreign investors, as well as the rich who have most of the 3% available to spend.



    "The poor" couldn't compete with foreign investors regardless of whether "the rich" had their 3%, or not.

    Curlyman83

    The government can issue all the currency the economy needs - free of … The government can issue all the currency the economy needs - free of interest. The current system ensures that some people will FAIL: there is not enough money in the system for EVERYONE to pay back what is owed.



    1) No they cant because that would lead to uncontrollable inflation.
    When the banks do it, they make sure people can afford to pay it with their wages.

    2) That is how democracy works. People have the freedom to trade. Sometimes it works out sometimes it doesnt. If you want everyone to have the same resources regardless of the decisions they make in life you are effectively asking for communism.

    fanpages

    "The poor" couldn't compete with foreign investors regardless of whether … "The poor" couldn't compete with foreign investors regardless of whether "the rich" had their 3%, or not.



    Right now they can get a mortgage to compete.
    If banks couldnt create money to lend to the poor (which is what people have a problem with here), they cant compete.

    In a world where only physical cash existed, banks wouldnt lend all of the money they have because they wouldnt know if someone popped in asking them to transfer £2m somewhere else for example. They couldnt do that if they have lent it to someone.

    fps_d0minat0r

    Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the … Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the government decided to wipe the other 97%.The ratio between the rich and poor would still remain the same, the only difference would be that the numbers would be lower and significantly fewer buyers would be able to get a mortgage. This would decrease spending power, making it even harder to compete with foreign investors, as well as the rich who have most of the 3% available to spend.

    fanpages

    "The poor" couldn't compete with foreign investors regardless of whether … "The poor" couldn't compete with foreign investors regardless of whether "the rich" had their 3%, or not.

    fps_d0minat0r

    Right now they can get a mortgage to compete.If banks couldnt create … Right now they can get a mortgage to compete.If banks couldnt create money to lend to the poor (which is what people have a problem with here), they cant compete.In a world where only physical cash existed, banks wouldnt lend all of the money they have because they wouldnt know if someone popped in asking them to transfer £2m somewhere else for example. They couldnt do that if they have lent it to someone.



    What makes you think foreign investors need to borrow funds to buy property within the UK?

    The whole thing is an illusion designed to subjugate the masses. Money the new religion

    fps_d0minat0r

    Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the … Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the government decided to wipe the other 97%.The ratio between the rich and poor would still remain the same, the only difference would be that the numbers would be lower and significantly fewer buyers would be able to get a mortgage. This would decrease spending power, making it even harder to compete with foreign investors, as well as the rich who have most of the 3% available to spend.

    fanpages

    "The poor" couldn't compete with foreign investors regardless of whether … "The poor" couldn't compete with foreign investors regardless of whether "the rich" had their 3%, or not.

    fps_d0minat0r

    Right now they can get a mortgage to compete.If banks couldnt create … Right now they can get a mortgage to compete.If banks couldnt create money to lend to the poor (which is what people have a problem with here), they cant compete.In a world where only physical cash existed, banks wouldnt lend all of the money they have because they wouldnt know if someone popped in asking them to transfer £2m somewhere else for example. They couldnt do that if they have lent it to someone.



    I didnt say foreign investors need to borrow money. I said poor people need to borrow in order to compete with the rich which includes forgeign investors.

    fps_d0minat0r

    I didnt say foreign investors need to borrow money. I said poor people … I didnt say foreign investors need to borrow money. I said poor people need to borrow in order to compete with the rich which includes forgeign investors.



    You may have meant to say that, but you didn't post it above:

    fps_d0minat0r

    Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the … Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the government decided to wipe the other 97%.The ratio between the rich and poor would still remain the same, the only difference would be that the numbers would be lower and significantly fewer buyers would be able to get a mortgage. This would decrease spending power, making it even harder to compete with foreign investors, as well as the rich who have most of the 3% available to spend.




    fps_d0minat0r

    I didnt say foreign investors need to borrow money. I said poor people … I didnt say foreign investors need to borrow money. I said poor people need to borrow in order to compete with the rich which includes forgeign investors.

    fps_d0minat0r

    Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the … Yes, but most of that 3% would still belong to the rich even if the government decided to wipe the other 97%.The ratio between the rich and poor would still remain the same, the only difference would be that the numbers would be lower and significantly fewer buyers would be able to get a mortgage. This would decrease spending power, making it even harder to compete with foreign investors, as well as the rich who have most of the 3% available to spend.



    Sorry, I meant 'as well as the rich within Britain'.

    Original Poster

    fps_d0minat0r

    1) No they cant because that would lead to uncontrollable inflation.When … 1) No they cant because that would lead to uncontrollable inflation.When the banks do it, they make sure people can afford to pay it with their wages.2) That is how democracy works. People have the freedom to trade. Sometimes it works out sometimes it doesnt. If you want everyone to have the same resources regardless of the decisions they make in life you are effectively asking for communism.



    Only if we're using a fiat money system backed by valueless money.

    Plus, it's not democracy, it's capitalism.

    Valuations aren't always accurate and sometimes banks lose money on the cash they lend.
    To expect banks to hold all cash they lend in case all debts turn bad would be ludicrous and hamper investment.
    It would mean people and companies couldn't borrow in so many technically viable cases because of a lack of liquidity.

    Better off using bitcoin

    What on Earth are our governments playing at?



    They are playing at convincing you of the lie that the general public are in control of what is actually a corporatocracy, so you don't become belligerent and interfere with their corrupt little system.

    treble99

    Better off using bitcoin


    How do you assess the value of your Bitcoin btw - USD perhaps?

    davewave

    How do you assess the value of your Bitcoin btw - USD perhaps?


    all crypto currency value is tied to FIAT which makes it no better than paper money

    Considering the whole topic is about making money out of nothing digitally, I find the mention of bitcoin as a better alternative humorous

    Edited by: "StevenBrown" 19th Apr

    $ is king with everything so yeah.
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Samsung Note 8914
      2. Surprise! The HUKD Summer Flamedeer Hunt 2017 **OFFICIAL THREAD** (trading …4562124
      3. Surprise the Miles136 summer burning caribou comp1122
      4. Back to school: what's your views on your kids uniform and piercing rules e…27120

      See more discussions