| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] insurance premium? | | Date: | Sunday, August 28, 2005 09:55:17 (-0700) | | From: | Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2611 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
Hello Ken,
I'm not at all enamoured with the way the banks conduct themselves, Ken. We
switched all our personal and business banking from the Bank of Montreal,
(where I had done all my banking since I was a kid, and old enough to have
my own bank account), to the local Credit Union several years ago.
The various practices engaged in here by BMO, and decline in their service
levels in recent years as banking regulations have been changed in this
country, were nothing short of deplorably disgusting. Have you ever heard,
for instance, of a "Mortgage Application Fee"? In case not, that's the $
100 charge BMO extracts from their unwitting customers, BEFORE they'll even
deign to DISCUSS your getting a home mortgage with them through their
'Mortgage Loans Officer'. At her convenience, on one of the two days a week
she's available. Obviously a valued employee, who gives new meaning to the
old phrase 'Banker's Hours'.
Now I'm all for our entering the 'Age of Leisure', but that's a bit much.
To me, it's like a restaurant charging you to look at the menu. And then
telling you the chef doesn't feel like cooking your selection until next
Wednesday. Come back then if you want to eat. The only difference is, the
restaurant would never get away with it. The Bank of Montreal did, and
probably still does.
How about having to "make an appointment" to open a kid's account? In the
pre-computer age that used to be accomplished 'on demand', in about ten
minutes max. But nowadays, junior and his mom can come back next Tuesday,
when the (largely empty of staff) Bank might be able to, "Squeeze you in."
That, for us, Ken was the 'straw that broke the camel's back'. Fortunately
we didn't need an 'appointment' to move our money elsewhere. Though the
local 'Credit Union', caught up in the urge to merge with other Credit
Unions, seems to me to be getting more and more 'banklike' these days. As
it launches itself steadily towards emulating the Big Bank's worst features.
I could go on. And on. And on.
But this is not a ''slang the banks'' chat room. No matter how much they
need 'slanging'. Which, in my view, is a lot.
We are here to discuss something far more important. "Social Credit". And,
since we know by its proper definition, ("the power of people in
association, or society, to produce an intended result, as measured by their
satisfaction.") it exists, how it can be better applied and increased.
Now that brings us to the matter of 'fraud' in regards to the operation of
the Banks. The 'fraud', as Douglas noted, was that the fractional reserve
banking system could not do as it was promising for centuries it could do.
''Pay the bearer'', in gold, (though it was only 'implied' that that's the
way payment would be made), "on demand". They didn't collectively have a
tenth of the gold necessary to meet ALL their obligations if ALL, or even
more than a tenth, of those obligations were called upon to be met that way.
That was clearly illustrated in your country at the onset of World War One
when there was an unprecedented 'run' on the Banks as Britons sought what
they believed would be the 'security' of 'hard currency'. In a matter of
days the British banks were technically BANKRUPT. That was the 'fraud' ~
the pretence that 'money' itself was still only an invariable ''medium of
exchange", based on it being some immutable standard of value, (which it
never had really ever been anyways), when it very clearly had evolved into
something else. That was the 'fraud', Ken. And to the extent that people
fail to realize that we are dealing with an entirely 'creditary' concept,
which most of us still do, it continues in our minds.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] insurance premium?
> In-Reply-To: <003001c5a989$82efe260$bad44246@cc.shawcable.net>
> Hi Joe.
>
> Though I have no wish to enter into a slanging match with you, or anybody,
> The very idea that "shareholders" are in any way effected by what the
> trading banks create and lend, and wether they "loose" it or not, is a
> bit of bank created mythology. And an attempt to divert criticism from
> their fraudulent behaviour.
>
> The truth was realised by many a very long time ago. And I have to admit
> that I have not heard the defence you have offered for some time :-)
>
> Ken.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
>
> X-Envelope-From:
> socialcredit-return-2574-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
> q4.elistas.net (q4.elistas.net [216.66.20.202]) by mta05.mx.cix.co.uk
> (8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7PFSkj1005534 for
> <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:28:46 +0100Received: (qmail
> 11050 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2005 17:36:40 +0200Received: from
> mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206) by 192.168.0.152 with EMQP; 25 Aug 2005
> 17:36:40 +0200Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
> X-No-Archive: yes
> List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
> Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
> Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
> Received: (qmail 15768 invoked from network); 25 Aug 2005 17:47:05 +0200
> Received: from unknown (HELO pd4mo1so.prod.shaw.ca) (24.71.223.10)
> by mail.egrupos.com with SMTP; 25 Aug 2005 17:47:05 +0200
> Received: from pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca
> (pd5mr3so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.144]) by l-daemon
> (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004))
> with ESMTP id <0ILS00LFVATNZ3E0@l-daemon> for socialcredit@elistas.com;
> Thu,
> 25 Aug 2005 09:24:59 -0600 (MDT)
> Received: from pn2ml3so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.147])
> by pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built
> Mar
> 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0ILS004R2ATNYU50@pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca> for
> socialcredit@elistas.com; Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:24:59 -0600 (MDT)
> Received: from default (S010600e02995b7b5.cc.shawcable.net
[70.66.212.186])
> by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28
2003))
> with SMTP id <0ILS0003OAT8IU@l-daemon> for socialcredit@elistas.com; Thu,
> 25 Aug 2005 09:24:59 -0600 (MDT)
> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 08:27:31 -0700
> From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Message-id: <003001c5a989$82efe260$bad44246@cc.shawcable.net>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> References: <memo.854118@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] insurance premium?
> X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
> X-UIDL: _mWB.vOeDDB.mta05.mx
>
> >
> (Ken Palmerton wrote:-) > If the loan was created out of nothing, which
the
> vast majority of loans
> > are. and If the loan is lost, what was "risked"?
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Joe replies:-) The Bank's shareholder's equity in the Bank, Ken. It
> wouldbe reduced by the amount of the loan loss in their books. Even
> though theconcept is 'creditary', there is still a loss in that all the
> 'credit' theBank may have built up in retained earnings, various reserves,
> etc. is nolonger available to its owners. If it has to be paid out to
> cover the loss,it reduces their equity by that amount.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message