Will Y2K cause a depression? NO, the elite moneyed bankers will cause the depression, like they did in the 1930's.

..."this process of reducing the money in circulation and causing a depression can be seen all the time. The economists and their poodles, the politicians and economic correspondents, call all this part of the 'economic cycle'. Baloney. In the 1930's that terrible depression, in which men, women and children starved in a world of plenty, was caused by the banks withdrawing money from circulation by refusing loans. It wasn't that people didn't want to eat; they simply could not afford to buy the food because money had been artificially taken out of circulation...there was no money, people were told, to build houses and feed the population. But suddenly, when it was time for the Globale Elite's war, the money available to finance Hitler, Japan and the war effort in the U.S. and Great Britain was limitless."

David Icke, 'And the Truth Shall Set You Free'

Robert H. Hemphill, a credit manager at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, said:

"This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commerical banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample sythetic money we are prosperous, if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse, unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."

Sheldon Emery, 'Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the people'

-- (mass@delusions.com), February 09, 1999

Answers

check out
http://www.e-gold.com
for alternative

-- a (A@AisA.com), February 09, 1999.

Mass, that's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it would behoove the bankers to cause depression. Inflation is the enemy of a fixed interest rate loan, at least from the bankers point of view. Deflation is the bankers friend for the same reason, but, especially in a service and information economy, I don't see where an actual depression and a staggering evaporation of societal wealth would make a banker's life more pleasurable. I don't buy any theory that any of this problem was engineered by some mastermind to unfold like this. So, I disagree with the theme in your post, but I'll add that it was very interesting and I look forward to reading more.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 09, 1999.

1) Deflation -- a decrease in money supply -- causes a general decline in prices and wages. (though some things can go up in price.)

2) The secret of getting and maintaining wealth is to buy low and sell high. This can be done in either order (buying long [at a low price] and selling [at a high price], or selling short [at a high price] and buying back [at a low price]).

Most people and businesses are in debt. Say someone owes $1M dollars on a loan. He took on that debt with the expectation that his cash flow (due to wages,fees, or sales) would cover that. What happens if sales prices and wages/fees go down? He doesn't have sufficient cash flow. He defaults on the loan. Who gets the COLLATERAL? Bottom line, the banking system. (Not your local bank, but the banking owners of the Federal Reserve System.) They have lost some/most of the "dollars" they created, but they've now GOT THE GOODS, THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL WEALTH.

In every boom, wealth is created by the people, and in every bust, the bankers get a big hunk of it. Then -- strong hands -- they hold it as necessary and maybe sell later at a high price.

-- A (A@AisA.com), February 09, 1999.

Puddingtame, what do you think the IMF is doing loaning billions and billions of dollars to 3rd world countries that absolutely have no hope of paying it back? It goes far beyond ordinary economic logic, and that is why most people don't get it. Also, change your concept of a banker being a "money lord" into "employee" subject to the direction of his/her employer and it gets a little easier to comprehend.

There is indeed a very enticing reason for bankers to manipulate the money supply, and A has hit on part of it.

-- (mass@delusions.com), February 09, 1999.

The IMF seldom makes loans to other countries without the agreement that the countries rulers increase the taxes on the citizens of that country, in order to pay back the money loaned. In many cases the IMF will force money on countries for that reason. The international money changers have extracted the wealth and bankrupt countries throughout history. How many success stories have we heard as a result of this? Name one. How much of the money actually goes to the securing of said countries infrastructure? Is Mexico better off after the 50 billion we loaned when our government shut down because it was bankrupt>

As you have heard we are now seeing the greatest redistribution of wealth the world has ever seen.

-- moose (thk@earthlink.net), February 09, 1999.

Moose and Why2k, I can't comment on whether Mexico was well served by the 50 billion bailout, but it's clear that Secretary Rubin's buddies at Goldman Sachs were well served since they and others would have been left holding the bag. Instead, the US government paid off Wall Street. Such practices have led to the now familiar phrase "Privatize the profits and socialize the losses." Heads I win, tails you lose. I posted a thread last week about a "loss socialization." In Slick's 2000 budget, he seeks permission to sell $1.5 Billion of gold from the IMF holding to pay down the debt of undeveloped countries.

Hey, if you were aarguing that everything is rigged for the bankers, I'd agree. But I'm still very sure that the banks would not foment a depression intentionally. Look, a lot of this stuff is pretty basic. An income producing property is valued based on its expected profit in the relevant future. A collapsed economy collapses the collateral value because there is no profit. Why2k are you arguing that banks were in better shape after the 1930s depression than they were before?

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 09, 1999.

Puddintame

I think it goes beyond the money issue. The powers that be already have all the material wealth anyone could imagine, Bill Gates is but a pimple in comparison. Yes they lust for money and will continue to play the game, but power, absolute power and controll is the goal, thats the only thing left.

-- moose (tkh@earthlink.net), February 09, 1999.

The IMF, like the aggregation of privately-owned central banks that it is, loans "money" for the sole purpose of extracting wealth via taxation-based interest payments on that loaned "money". The "money" that is lent is contributed by various privately-owned central banks that created that "money" out of nothing. If not a penny of principal is ever paid back (and most of it won't be), it is ultimately of little consequence. The goals of this game are to gather interest payments forever, and short of that, seize whatever has been pledged as collateral.

Of course, rather than go through all this "effort" for "nothing", the IMF attempts to ensure for its Masters, the private owners of the world's central banks, that the interest payments will be, in fact, forthcoming, regular, and long-term. Hence the requirements to raise taxes, slash social spending, and step up exports from the countries to whom the "money" is lent. The IMF's Masters WANT THAT INTEREST, NOW! After all, they went through all the trouble to create those bookkeeping entries. No matter that someone loses his job, house, future, and dignity.

The IMF is a scam to indirectly appropriate the taxing authority and the central bank function in those countries that don't belong to the "Club".

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), February 09, 1999.

If you arent already depressed, theres somthing wrong with your mindset!

-- ed (edrider007@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

a depression by the banks? get real...no one causes a depression...it is a cycle of a free market economy...I hate to say it..but a natural one as well....banks lend when they think they're gonna get it back.. period. They aren't in the gambling business..and they aren't sitting around planning our demise.. The banks are not the problem...the problem is a combination of too much product..too much debt, lack of demand... a correction from high prices (stock market)....many forces at work...no one in control... granted...alan greenspan can control the interest rates...but remember....he can't raise them much...the US is 5.6 trillion dollars in debt...if the rates go up..then the government..in borrowing the money required to pay on the 5.6 trillion dollar debt (45% of the current taxes we pay now only service that debt...)will have to borrow more..since the interest rate is higher...eventually, the bills have to get paid....a recession filters out bad business...a depression is a cycle of about 60-70 years....the reason we haven't had a depression? Japan...the computer industry....and lower interest rates...expect 5.5% on houses in a year or so... Y2K however...may be the catalyst that brings the chickens home to roost..... here's the point.....when people realize that the U.S. can't pay its national debt....that is when "blood will be in the streets" and your money too. that is when silver and gold is king....that day is nearer than you think....

-- rick shade (Rickoshade@aol.com), February 09, 1999.

There is a flaw in your arguments. Does anyone remember the S&L crisis? If the banks and S&L's want your "assets", why did the government have to bail them out and sell these prized "assets" at auction? S&L's lost billions, and you and I bailed them out. The banks don't want your assets anymore than the government does, they want their money back with interest.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 09, 1999.

Something I often find myself wondering about, when it comes to banking, is the Rothschild dynasty and what happened to it. Even conventional academic historians say that the Rothschilds' were immensely wealthy beyond anything seen previously, and they say that the R's used their wealth to play off governments against each other, encourage wars etc. They were pretty much THE power of Europe in the nineteenth century, in partnership with a stable of supportive likeminded banking dynasties. Well, what happened to them???? If they managed to fritter and lose their immense wealth and power then this would make a hell of a story, and , wellll, if they didn't, then they must still be quite the movers und shakers, right? I'm sure someone on this site must have a clue or two about this - in general I've been very impressed and heartened by the knowledge displayed here (yourdonfors') about the nastiness that is banking. So spill the beans on the five arrows please.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), February 11, 1999.

The Rothschilds. Why didn't I think of them?

What DID happen to those guys, anyway? I always assumed they simply lost heavily in WW1 and then in the Depression, and what they had left was destroyed in WW2..but looking back on that, it seems implausible. These people would have invested outside the US, after all..

Anyone?

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 11, 1999.

To mass: I think the answer is: Yes. I think we're 16 months away from it. Sustained downward momentum to hit depression from recession will take 6 months. I wish it wasn't so, but I'm resigned to it.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), February 11, 1999.