IMF Economist Says Banks’ Key Function Is To CREATE Money

9 Aug

Cross-posted from (my bold added) –

Today I made the mistake of going to a Georgist website where there was a sentence which made me mad. It said that in New Zealand, banks like finance companies can only lend out deposits made with them. Well I rarely get mad these days but I don’t like untruths being perpetrated. So I thought the best way to recover would go and transcribe the first seven minutes of a talk Michael Kumhof, economist from the IMF made to a seminar in January 2013.  It is on youtube here and here is my transcript, give or take the odd aside I left out.

“Virtually all money is bank deposits.

The key function of banks is money creation not intermediation. The entire economics literature that you see out there today is that it is intermediation, taking the money from granny, storing it up and then when someone comes and needs it I can lend it out to them. That is complete nonsense. Intermediation of course exists, but it is incidental and secondary and it comes after the actual money creation. Banks do not have to attract deposits before they create money. I’m a former bank manager. I worked for Barclays for five years. I’ve created those book entries. That is how it works. And if a leading light economist like Paul Krugman tries to tell you otherwise, he does not know what he is talking about.

When you approve a loan, as a bank manager you enter on the asset side of your balance sheet the loan, which is your claim against this guy and at the exact same time you create a new deposit on the liability side. You have created new money because this gives this guy purchasing power to go out and buy something with it. Banks have created money at that point. No intermediation, because the asset and liability are in the same name at that moment. What happens afterwards is that that guy can spend it somewhere else later but it is still in the banking system. I care about the aggregate banking system. Looking at the microeconomy and transferring the logic to the macroeconomy is really wrong. Someone will accept that payment.


What that means is that it becomes very, very easy for banks to start or lead a lending boom even though policy makers might not, because if they feel that the time is right, they simply expand the money supply. There is no third party involved, just the bank and the customer and I make the loan. The only thing that is required is that someone else will accept that deposit, say as payment for a machine, and he knows that is acceptable because it is legal fiat.

There is an important corollary to this story. A lot of loans are not for investment purposes, in physical capital. Loans that are for investment purposes are a small fraction. The story that is often told in development economics is that first you need to have savings, then once you have the savings, you can have investment. So a country needs to have sufficient savings in order to have enough investment. Nonsense too – at least for the part of investment that is financed through banks because when a bank makes a new loan it creates new purchasing power for the investment to go ahead. The investment goes ahead. Then the investor takes his new bank deposit and gives it to someone else In the end someone is going to leave that new deposit in the bank. That is saving.  The saving is created along with the investment. It’s not that saving has to come before investment. Saving comes after investment, not before. This is important for development economics.

The deposit multiplier that is taught in economics textbooks is a fairytale. I could use less polite terms. The story goes that central bank creates narrow money and there is a multiplier because banks can lend out a fraction. It is actually exactly the opposite. Broad monetary aggregates lead the cycle and narrow monetary aggregates lag the cycle.”


As we have oft-repeated here at, while this power to “create money” ex nihilo (out of nothing) is a key problem, it is not THE root problem.

The power to create “money” (in the form of debt) out of nothing, simply gives banks leverage.

What they leverage, is Usury.

The “net interest income” — that is, the difference (or “spread” or “margin”) between the interest % they give on deposits, and the interest % they take on loans — is the heart of the banks’ profit (and power) business model.

The power to create more and more money (“credit”), simply allows them to magnify (or leverage) their “returns” (profits) on that difference between usury paid, and usury taken.

It deeply saddens your humble blogger that there are so many highly intelligent (far moreso than I), sincere, well-meaning, altruistic men and women in the world who are keenly interested in reforming the financial system for the betterment of humanity … and yet, almost none have yet recognised that usury is the root problem.

One that must be dug up entirely, and killed off, else all other “reforms” are a waste of time.

The evil tree will simply regrow.

38 Responses to “IMF Economist Says Banks’ Key Function Is To CREATE Money”

  1. arnoldthecat August 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

    Hallelujah!!! Finally a true statement from an insider that is CURRENT. Jan 2013.

    I’ve had to work off all of these ancient historical quotes to date while hearing from MSM commentators that deposits are lent and “wholesale borrowing” makes up the difference.

    It is my view that Banking operates on two completely separate levels. First is the Deposit and Settlement area and second is the lending area. They operate independently of each other.

    Lending creates money which is demand driven and Deposit/Settlement handles transactions.

    So Banks are licensed to create credit in A$ and charge interest on it and in return they must run the Deposit/Settlement system. The hundreds of billions of profit across the banking industry would suggest that this licensing is a LITTLE generous. Me Thinks.

    Steve Keen proved statistically that money creation is Endogenous. Demand driven.

    “This first major paper on this approach, “The Endoge­nous Money Stock” by the non-orthodox econ­o­mist Basil Moore, was pub­lished almost thirty years ago.[4] Basil’s essen­tial point was quite sim­ple. The stan­dard money mul­ti­plier model’s assump­tion that banks wait pas­sively for deposits before start­ing to lend is false. Rather than bankers sit­ting back pas­sively, wait­ing for depos­i­tors to give them excess reserves that they can then on-lend,
    “In the real world, banks extend credit, cre­at­ing deposits in the process, and look for reserves later”.[5]
    Thus loans come first—simultaneously cre­at­ing deposits—and at a later stage the reserves are found.”
    – See more at:

    So People demand a loan, banks lend, deposits are created, deposit spent, money circulates and interest AND taxes are skimmed. Other transnational corporations skim surplus money because we must have latest X or Y or Z.

    Cow gets hungry, eats grass, gets moved to milking shed, shifted to next paddock, sun sets, sun rises, hey grass looks nice.

    Holy S@#T is this my life???

    Trophy to you BI on discovering this seminar. Many Hit Tips

    Cheers Phil

    • The Blissful Ignoramus August 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm #

      Not all such quotes are “ancient”. The Federal Reserve had a booklet out in the 60’s which openly admitted it — I’ve quoted from it before. Various Fed papers, and central bank officials, have confirmed it more recently than that.

      “Holy S@#T is this my life???”

      Yes. Deeply disturbing, isn’t it. To quote The Matrix — “I imagine that right now you feel a bit like Alice … tumbling down the rabbit hole?”

      I call this system “Trickle UP economics” — ie, the exact opposite of what “capitalism” is claimed to offer (trickle down…).

      Usury means that all the real wealth — ie, title/ownership of all the real assets such as land, etc — is slowly but surely (via bankruptcy, in the so-called “cycles” of boom/bust, growth/recession) taken away from the masses, and UP to the money-lenders at the top.

      • arnoldthecat August 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm #

        I was at a wedding reception a couple of years ago and later in the evening discussion moved in a banking direction. i was speaking with an accountant (KPMG) and an ex farmer entrepreneur. Both early 40’s. i mentioned that banks do not lend deposits they extend new credit.

        These two completely dismissed my proposition with normalcy bias arguments. I think today i would be able to stand my ground more convincingly.

        They were good agents of the matrix. I should have run for the nearest ringing phone. 🙂

  2. Kevin Moore August 9, 2013 at 1:11 pm #

    Sometimes I have trouble getting my head around my own thoughts –
    How is it that money money created out of thin air is issued as a debt?
    The way I see it “money” is issued when a signed promissory note pledging the result of ones own productivity is exchanged for tickets or tokens.
    Why is it that the value of tickets/tokens have to be payed back to a Bank when they have already been paid for with a promissory note? But then again why does one have to pledge their productivity for something that doesn’t exist? How can anyone claim ownership of a means of exchange?
    If I purchase a ticket to ride on a bus; at the end of the journey I don’t give the value of the ticket to the bus company again plus interest – the ticket has served its purpose and is invalid.
    How come Bank tickets are issued as a debt while the ticket issuer has nothing and produces nothing but tickets that are accepted as the value of the buyers pledge of productivity. A contract is an exchange of value for value.
    Matthew 5:37 “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
    We should not even deal in such contracts nor with such type of people –
    The General Epistle of Barnabus chapter 9 “………wherefore it is not the command of God that they should not eat these things; but Moses in the Spirit spake unto them, …….neither says he, shalt thou eat the eagle, nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the crow; that is thou shalt not keep company with such kind of men as know not how by their labour and sweat to get themselves food; but injuriously ravish away the things of others; and watch how to lay snares for them; when at the same time they appear to live in perfect innocence………so these birds alone seek not food for themselves, but sitting idle seek how they may eat of the flesh others have provided; being destructive through their wickedness……..”
    Luke 6:34-35 “And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive what thanks is there to you? For the sinners lend to sinners, so that they may receive the same. But love your enemies, and do good and lend, hoping for nothing in return and your reward will be much; and you will be sons of the most high, because He is kind to the unthankful and evil ones”.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus August 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm #

      “The way I see it “money” is issued when a signed promissory note pledging the result of ones own productivity is exchanged for tickets or tokens.”

      Only partly right, hence your confusion. There is no exchange of a promissory note for a token — the signed promissory note IS the “ticket” or “token”.

      (Perhaps though, I’m misunderstanding your choice of words? If by “signed promissory note” you mean “loan document”, then yes, you are signing a document pledging the results of your productivity in exchange for an agreed sum of tokens. Of course, this brings us to the matter of usury — you are only given a ‘principal’ sum of tokens, but not the interest/usury component that must be paid as well. You have to acquire that from someone else, who in turn must get it by either borrowing (again, at usury) or from someone else, who in turn … etc etc etc … hence, the ceaseless “competition” for money of our wonderful “capital-ist” system)

      How it should be, IMO, is that every working age individual should be allowed to issue their own promissory (ie, “promise to pay”) tokens — based on the “full faith and credit of ME”. Indeed, this is really the central idea of my Jubileeus system.

      Instead, what we have are “legal tender” laws, whereby the banks have an exclusive licence to create these tokens. If anyone else does it, it’s illegal/counterfeiting.

      Once upon a time, these tokens were literally printed paper, and backed by gold/silver; next, backed only by the “full faith and credit” of the government (ie, its ability to extract taxes); nowadays, they are 97% digital tokens.

      “How come Bank tickets are issued as a debt while the ticket issuer has nothing and produces nothing but tickets that are accepted as the value of the buyers pledge of productivity”

      Legal tender laws. That is why the “tickets” are accepted as “value” — because the government orders it to be so. Or more correctly, the banksters made it so, by getting the sovereigns into debt, hundreds of years ago, then “obliged” them to pass legal tender laws. Hence Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s famous quote re “give me control of a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws”, (or words to that effect).

  3. Richo August 9, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

    A bit off topic but did you today’s article on the MRRT? I guess that’s what happens when a “world’s greatest treasurer” allows 3 multi national companies to write their own tax laws.

    Mining tax embarrassment as Rio funds returned

    • The Blissful Ignoramus August 9, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

      Ha ha ha … thanks Richo, I would’ve missed this.

      • mick August 9, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

        If I were not laughing so loud I’d be crying as we will all be making up the difference.

        When I look at the witch hunt and media campaign from the big miners I have to understand that they got what they wanted. Australia is the loser. So why is Tony Abbott stated that one of the first things he intends to do is to scrap the mining tax? Is it because these companies will indeed make money in future and have to do the unthinkable and pay a few dracmas of tax? And how much money have the big miners put into the Liberal Party election campaign? So many questions and so few answers.

  4. mick August 9, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    I need a bit of education on the specifics here as it is a bit confusing:

    If a bank lends to a client then the loan is neither an asset nor a liability is it? If anything perhaps an ASSET as the bank will in theory get these funds back. But if the borrower defaults then this loan becomes a LIABILITY.

    So how can you have entries on both sides of the ledger because this does not make sense? And as you said by doing this the money loaned would certainly come from nothing.

    Maybe you can shed a bit more light on the process and the justification behind this.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus August 9, 2013 at 3:50 pm #

      “If a bank lends to a client then the loan is neither an asset nor a liability is it?

      Actually, it’s both.

      If anything perhaps an ASSET as the bank will in theory get these funds back.”

      Correct – the loan is considered an “Asset” of the bank. The (customer) deposit — which was created by the act of extending a new loan — is a “Liability” of the bank.

      “So how can you have entries on both sides of the ledger because this does not make sense?”

      It’s what’s called “double-entry” accounting, or bookkeeping. It’s been standard practice since (AFAIK) at least the days of the Medici banking dynasty — from whence came Pope Leo X, and the Roman Catholic Church’s (thus, Europe’s) weakening then outright renunciation of laws banning the practice of usury.

  5. pheno August 9, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    Don’t the banks take as collateral the fractional reserve requirements via the 10% deposit you pay them to get a mortgage? Even if you default on your mortgage payments the banks have already made money plus interest and lose nothing. Whatever happened to equal consideration? *

    • mick August 9, 2013 at 11:16 pm #

      True as long as house prices never go down. But then the bastards chase you for the rest of your life. Don’t know if one could declare bankruptcy in this sort of situation. I would imagine that the casino would have to win but wait to be informed otherwise.

  6. mac3 August 10, 2013 at 2:09 pm #

    BI Thanks so much for your website on the Bail Ins coming ready or not as there is very little on Australia’s position in the world.
    One site that I have found that a little comforting in that it gives a historical aspect to the rise and fall of countries, kings and emperors, and method of calculating the time of the coming fortunes of Japan Europe and USA. A great read – the whole site – He was a top market maker of gold in USA and also advised on the Eur before he fell into disfavour. He has moved to Switzerland and runs a blog for the public to educate them on the changes coming….

    • The Blissful Ignoramus August 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm #

      Cheers mac3 — I’ve read some of Armstrong’s work; always thought provoking. His thoughts on cycles (from that historical perspective you mention) I find particularly of interest.

      • mick August 10, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

        Nice article. If believable it begs the question as to whether or not there is still anywhere in the world where the assets of populations are not fair game to corrupt government crooks.

  7. Ross Johnson August 10, 2013 at 8:26 pm #

    There is nothing wrong with the creation of new money so long as it distributed equally amongst those who created the wealth, since money is just a symbol of achievement and the medium through which that achievement is expressed.

    Real wealth has always been in an a motivated ,educated population that has a sense of fairness and integrity. We’ve made money our master and it is destroying our civilisation.

    The Roman Empire prospered under a cheap money supply of bronze coins until Caesar created a gold coin with his face on it. Their real economy was starved of the medium of exchange thus ceased to function.

    Today debt sucks the medium of exchange from our economies and our Govts have not a clue how to fix it.

    • mick August 11, 2013 at 8:17 am #

      Maybe I am being old fashioned or am missing something but I was always of the opinion that money only had value as long as everybody had some and it went around the loop. Once it is all in the hands of very few then what value does it have? Even those who have it all would not be able to utilise it as money then becomes an asset rather than a mechanism for exchanging assets from one type to another: property, goods, services, food, etc.

      There appear to be 2 schools of thought from what I can see: capitalism (its all mine) and communism (it belongs to all) and clearly one end of the spectrum is as bad as the other. When you have a balance the system seems to work.

      Your observation is bound to get Blissful going about usury and he has a point, but perhaps our problems are far more complex. I don’t know. But it appears to me that western nations of all persuasion have lived not only way above their means but way above the means of the planet which is alter all a finite place which economic models fail to understand and whose resources are not endless. And of course we are now borrowing off the third world to continue our privileged lifestyle.

      We live in interesting times.

      • Ross Johnson August 11, 2013 at 5:28 pm #

        mick, this is not just about raising wealth and living standards. It is more so about creating awareness and giving people freedom to determine their own destinies. Without monetary sovereignty there is no democracy or freedom.

        You are alluding to the taxing of the Earth’s energy/resources by our blooming populations, perhaps thinking like some, that oppressive monetary policies of usury is going to stop consumption and save the planet.

        Nothing could be further from the truth. See ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’ by John Perkins.Our system of Usury has kept the masses on this planet poor and ignorant, thus propagating like rabbits. To quote Dr Rima Laidbow and her husband Major General Albert Stubbine,” Give women an education and the power to control their fertility, and populations will fall.” They have done so in the West but not in poor countries.

        It is the raising of living standards and education that will save the planet, and the not the oppression of an elite few who use the ideal of totalitarianism as the deception that will save the environment. The truth is these elite few care little about the environment but more about their absolute power.

        • The Blissful Ignoramus August 11, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

          Well said Ross. I try wherever possible to make this key point — all persons holding any doubts or anxieties regarding environmental and/or population issues, should be the most vocal usury abolitionists. Because, it is usury that drives the “endless growth” economic model (ie, “GDP” obsession), and the “competition” for profit that results in natural resource depletion, willful environmental degradation/pollution, etc etc etc.

        • mick August 11, 2013 at 11:07 pm #


          “The truth is these elite few care little about the environment but more about their absolute power.”

          I am in total agreement. Those who own the game are for the most part happy to plunder the planet and they view the population as cattle for their exclusive use. The call for a large population in Australia is but one instance where decisions have been made by the masters of the universe. A decision which avoids the political process and avoids what awaits us down the track.

          Whilst education does give people a better perspective those who hold the reigns of power never reveal the truth, will not publish it where the masses can read for themselves and ensure that the game never changes. Although every journey begins with the first step I have to admit that (unfortunately) I am a glass half empty person and I cannot see the oppressed even seeing their place in the world let alone understanding that they are in bondage. This is the irony and one which those who own the game work hard to maintain. It took me 60 years to wake up and I am by no means an average citizen. So what hope does the average Joe have?

          • Ross Johnson August 12, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

            Mick until 5 yrs ago I knew nothing of the fractional reserve system of banking. I thought banks got all their money from depositors or investors.

            The system has to change or our humanity is doomed.The first step here should be to re-establish a Govt Bank and that will only happen at a grass roots level.

            • mick August 12, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

              I believe that you are addressing the legal Ponzi scheme. But like everything in our society the movers and shakers will not intervene until it collapses and average Australians pick up the pieces and pay for the results, both financially and with imposts on their own existence.

  8. David August 11, 2013 at 3:44 pm #

    This procedure is explained quite succinctly in a 2011 report by KPMG on “The Future of Australian Bank Funding” as follows;

    “Third, banks often accommodate borrowers by origination and/or guarantee of capital market instruments. Bank accepted bills are one instance where banks take on exposure to customer default risk, but do not ultimately provide the funds,

    With this explanatory note;
    “Banks may initially provide the funds to the customer by discounting the bill for the customer, but then typically sell (rediscount) the bill into the market.”

    This is only one of the variety of funding options available to our banksters. The full report makes an interesting read and can be found at this link;

    Click to access The-future-of-Australian-bank-funding.pdf

  9. David August 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    I neglected to add this “clincher” also from the KPMG report… sorry 😉

    “…. do not ultimately provide the funds, but which accounting standards cause to be displayed as a liability on bank balance sheets (a source of funds) matched by the equivalent customer liability as an asset.”

  10. David August 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    Wish I could apply some accounting standards like that to my business hey… haha

  11. David August 12, 2013 at 9:08 am #

    Just a further point; the small one off discount our bankster must forgo when he sells the bill into the market, is handsomely rewarded by a lifetime of interest (usury) plus repayment of alleged principal being multiples of the original funds allegedly loaned.

    Hence massive profits from this activity alone, allowing all the other “commercial” and “normal” funding arrangements to exist as a convenient smokescreen to the observer.

  12. Kevin Moore August 12, 2013 at 11:09 am #

    Click to access Coalition-2012-13-MYEFO-Charts.pdf

    “It would take Labor 131 years to pay off its record net debt, based on Swans tiny surplus in 2012-13 of $1.1 billion”.

  13. Kevin Moore August 12, 2013 at 7:08 pm #
    “In 1924, the chairman of the board of the Midland Bank said, “…banks can and do create money… And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.”
    ……….”The powers of financial capitalism has another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole….
    “The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank… sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards….”

    • mick August 12, 2013 at 9:45 pm #


      What do they say (repeatedly) in the US? “Land of the free”? “God bless America”. Soothing words to keep the cattle calm.

      Thanks for the quote. It tells a story and paints a picture. Kev will I have no doubt fill you in on the number of the beast.

      • Kevin Moore August 13, 2013 at 10:53 am #

        MYSTERY BABYLON, religious and economic
        Physical slavery requires people to be housed and fed, economic slavery requires people to feed and house themselves.
        Ham also fathered Cush [Chaos], Genesis 9:18 who fathered Nimrod, the founder of Mystery Babylon. Ham, the son of Noah, BROTHER of Shem and Japheth.
        “After the Flood, in the days of Eber and Phaleg, when the first city and the tower were built, Nembroth [Nimrod] was the first to gather people together and exercise dominion over them.” [S.Epiphan.Hares.,lib.i,c.i,p.6.]
        New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on C-Span that “New York City was the capital of the World” and he was correct.
        (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart 422.103 (b) (2) (2)
        The Popes Palace [Pope from Latin papa, literally “father”, Matthew 23:9] is built on Vatican Hill, an old grave yard called a necropolis.
        ‘Vatican Hill’ in english gematria = 666 as does ‘New York’, the home of the Jewish owned United Nations. [Jeremiah 51:42-44] [ a = 6; b = 12; c = 18 and so on]
        Vatican Hill in Jewish gematria =911 , in simple gematria =111
        Revelation 13:18, “Here is wisdom. The one having reason let him count the number of the brutish man for belonging to man the number is. And the number of himself is 666.” [ literal Greek ]
        It is not by Christs authority that those who claim to be descended from Shem, call themselves Jews and universal Popes and assume the right to have dominon over all other peoples and nations.
        Mark 10:42-45 — It is Nimrods usurped authority!

        Matthew 20:25-28, “But having called them, Jesus said, You know that the rulers of the nations exercise lordship over them, and the great ones exercise authority over them, but it will not be so among you, but whoever would become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave; even as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life in place for the many.”
        Nimrod was set up in opposition to Shem, as the representative of Noah, and the great enlightener of the world and so began the pagan creed of the SUN god. Canon law is the Popes law. Note the Sun halos around the “saints” heads.
        Lateinos and Saturn are synonymous. TTB p.270
        Saturn/Nimrod, is the name of the SNAKES visible head. [The Two Babylons, pages 239 and 274-77]
        Teitan is the name of the invisible head of the SNAKE [Strongs 2342, a venomous dangerous animal Revelation 13:4, Revelation 12:9 ]. Teitan is just the Chaldean form of Sheitan, the very name by which Satan has been called from time immemorial by the Devil-worshippers of Kurdistan;…..”
        “The dragon of the Greeks says Pausanius was only a large snake.” TTB p226 [translated variously as a whale, a beast, a fiery serpent, a jackal, a sea monster etc]
        “………Thus was the Sun, the Great Fire – god, identified with the serpent. But he also had a visible human representative, and that was Tammuz, for whom the daughters of Israel lamented, in other words NIMROD.” TTB p.228
        (Protocol 4)”………Gentile masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects, but the plan of action of our force, even its very abiding place, remains for the whole people an unknown mystery…. Who and what is in a position to overthrow an invisible force?”
        Isaiah 9:15 “The elder and the lifted of face, he is the head; and the prophet teaching lying, he is the tail.”
        Revelation 9:19 “For their authority is in their mouth and in their tails, for the tails of them have heads like snakes and together being violate law.” [a literal translation]
        From “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” excerpt from Protocol 3. “Today I tell you that our goal is only a few steps off. There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolise our people.”

        • mick August 13, 2013 at 12:07 pm #

          Sorry to get you wound up Kev as that was not the intention mate.

          One has to be careful about Revelations as it is very cryptic. Just like the coming of Jesus nobody expected this to be what it ended up being and everybody was expecting a conquering hero. The part of revelations which is clear is:

          Revelation 13:18, “Here is wisdom. The one having reason let him count the number of the brutish man for belonging to man the number is. And the number of himself is 666.”

          The key is the “666” and one needs to be vigilant to see where it turns up. Will it be the account number of the organisation which eventually controls all of the central banks? Who knows? But when the pieces all fall into place it will stand out. And given that populations have all but abandoned God and see faith as irrelevant this would be written off as one of those things. The bible says that “those with understanding” should take note at this time.

          Whilst we ain’t gonna agree on climate change any time soon we do share the most important connection on the planet – the love of God. Cheers.

  14. Kevin Moore August 30, 2013 at 12:27 pm #

    Guess What: You are an UNSECURED Creditor! Your Money Is Not Safe in the Big Banks from a Confiscating Government

    “The plans for confiscation have been developed. They have been approved, and are awaiting the next crisis.”

  15. Kevin Moore September 1, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

    Click to access australia011110-schb-incoming.pdf


    Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549 Attention: Michael Coco, Esq. Office of International Corporate Finance Division of Corporation Finance
    Re: The Commonwealth of Australia
    Dear Mr. Coco:
    We are writing on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia (the “Commonwealth”) to request an interpretive letter allowing the Commonwealth in connection with offerings in the United States of its guarantee of(a) debt securities of eligible Australian deposit-taking institutions and (b) the liabilities of Australian States and Territories in respect of eligible debt securities of such States and Territories, (i) to file voluntarily with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) Annual Reports on Form 18-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), (ii) to amend from time to time such Annual Reports by filing Form 18-K/As under the Exchange Act and
    (iii) to incorporate such filings into the registration statements on Schedule B described in this letter, filed by the Commonwealth with the Commission for the purpose of complying with the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).

    In November 2008, the Commonwealth instituted a scheme (the “ADI Guarantee Scheme”) under which it guarantees certain obligations of qualified Australian banks, referred to as “Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions” [ ………………………………………….]”

  16. Kevin Moore September 1, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

    Still Report 95 Hungary

  17. Phil September 2, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    Steve Keen today pointed to this paper by James Tobin.
    Commercial banks as creators of Money.

    Click to access p0205.pdf

    The more you look the more you find.

    Kevin Moore that is a great vid on Hungary by Bill Still.

    • Kevin Moore September 2, 2013 at 3:54 pm #
      This has given me a good understanding –
      “………………………………….In court, you cannot use the Constitution, or say they lent you credit so you do not have to repay the money. The banker and judge w i l l try and get you to agree that you have a signature on the agreement, that the bank lent money to you and therefore you must repay the money. If the judge says, is that your signature, some people say, “It looks like a masterful forgery. I do not understand what this document is. Can you stipulate if this promissory note acts like money or money equivalent used to give value to a bank check? Can you stipulate all of the material facts about the promissory note or what the agreement is so I know what it is that my alleged signature is validating as to the agreement. I do not understand in the agreement if I provide the capital or if the banker does to fund the check. I cannot testify if something is my signature if I do not know what is agreed to in the alleged document.” When the judge demands that you say yes or no, some people say they will answer when you explain what the agreement is. How can you testify to something that you do not understand and they refuse to explain? Some respond saying it looks like a forged document to me with concealed materials. If you agree that it is your signature, you lost the court case. Your signature means you agree that the bank lent you their money and that you owe them your money. The judge may demand that you say that the bank lent you money that resulted in your purchase of a house or car. But, if you agree that the bank lent their money to “purchase” your promissory note, then you are testifying that the bank violated the law—GAAP. Per G A A P and Federal Reserve publications, two loans were exchanged. You lent the promissory note to the bank that funded the loan back to you. The loan from you to the bank is the deposit of the promissory note. G A A P requires that the bank “match” a new bank liability with your name on it showing that the bank owes you for the deposit they accepted from you just like they do when you deposit cash into your checking account. The banker knows as well as the judge that when you deposit cash into your checking account, you lent the bank your money. If you withdraw your money, the bank lent you nothing. The form—contracsays that the bank lent you money, but the substance—bookkeeping entries—say that the bank accepted your promissory note as new money as a deposit just like depositing cash into your checking account. Your signature cannot testify that the bank lent you the bank’s money to purchase your promissory note, but the bookkeeping entries prove that they lent no money to purchase your promissory note. If you lent the bank money as a deposit, the bank accepted money from you, the bank never gave up one cent of the bank’s money. The bank accepted money from you and deposited it, which is the opposite of lending you money. If you lent the bank money and they returned the same value back to you, two loans were exchanged or they stole your money. The bank charter requires the bank to follow the law—GAAP. You can presume the bank must follow the law or the contract is an illegal contract. The contract said interest, which is defined as the charge for the use of borrowed money. We can presume that the party who funded the loan is to be repaid the money. The bank claims that the form says that the bank funded the loan and should be repaid the money but the bookkeeping entries prove the opposite. D i d the agreement say that the bank was to steal the promissory note, alter it to become money, and then return the stolen money as a loan or did the bank use their money to purchase the promissory note from you without the economics similar to stealing and counterfeiting and swindling? The bankers hate it if you claim that the note was stolen and forged…………..”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: