After reading the above, then read a recent reply to questions I put to Finance Minister Bill English, those poor bastards that have just been foreclosed upon might want to pay special attention to question No 9 re mortgages being created as debt book entry as part of the underwriting processes of modern banking, your in a whole lot of pain for something they created with a few strokes on a keyboard.

Then read the answers to the same questions put a little earlier to RBNZ, remembering it is inferred that the control and the buck re monetary policy stops with them?

Office of Hon Bill English
Deputy Prime Minister Minister of Finance
Minister for Infrastructure
1 8 JAN 2010
lain Parker
372 Brookes RD Stratford
TARANAKI 4700
Dear lain Parker
Thank you for your Official Information Act request, received on 27 November 2009. You asked a"number of questions about the nature of government bonds; as well as about the nature of money and the banking system.
1. Could you please tell me what a Government Bond is and what role it plays in our economy?

As you point out on page 7 of your submission, New Zealand government bonds are wholesale, New Zealand dollar denominated, fixed-term debt securities. They are secured by a charge upon and are payable out of the revenues of the Crown.
Cash received by government bond issuance is used to fund goods and services provided by the government, e.g. roading, hospitals and welfare payments. Government bond yields provide an indication of the "risk free" rate of return in an economy and provide companies and households a benchmark with which to compare returns against those of alternative investments.

2. Could you please tell me who in the world of high finance, as Primary Bond Dealers, has the right to buy or monetise government debt bonds before they decide if they do or don't on sell them on the secondary bond market?

New Zealand does not have "Primary Bond Dealers." The term "Primary Bond Dealers" refers to institutions that, for example, trade directly with the United States Federal Reserve, where they are required to participate when the Federal Reserve holds securities auctions. In New Zealand, the nearest equivalent institutions are called registered tender counterparties. The main difference between the US and New Zealand is that registered counterparties are eligible but not required to participate in government securities tenders.
To qualify for registration as a tender counterparty, an institution must have a minimum credit rating of A-/A3, or have their obligations guaranteed by a parent entity with a minimum credit rating of A-/A3, or be a Crown financial institution.
Tender counterparties are primarily either New Zealand or Australian incorporated banks.

3. Are the Primary Bond Dealers private or publically owned institutions? That is not those that buy bonds on the secondary bond market, but the Primary Bond Dealers?

Tender counterparties are primarily private sector banks.

4. Could you please tell me what they use to buy our government bonds and if that medium of exchange existed before we pledged to pay it back with attached interest out of the future taxes of the nation or was it an electronic debt book entry, not anyone's existing savings, but an electronic book entry that brings into circulation new money?

People purchasing government bonds must do so with New Zealand dollars. Settlement of the transaction between the purchaser and the Crown is by electronic cash transfer rather than physical cash. All else being equal, bond purchases result in a reduction in settlement cash balances of the banking system (either at commercial banks, the Reserve Bank or both) as cash is transferred to the Crown.
An explanation for how this cash may originally be created is included in the answer to question 5 below.

5. Is it true that in excess of 90% of the money supply in circulation in New Zealand entered circulation as interest bearing debt owed to the banking network?

It is correct that most of the money supply in New Zealand has been created by the banking sector. This is done through the process of financial intermediation. Commercial banks, and other financial institutions, take deposits from members of the public and firms who wish to hold cash in the form of bank deposits. They then lend to individuals and firms who want to borrow "” in the form of mortgages or business loans. This process serves to channel funds between savers and borrowers. It also shifts the risk of lending from individual savers to the banks, thereby reducing the risk of lending.
This process of intermediation involves the commercial banks lending a greater value of funds than the cash they reserve to meet expected deposit withdrawals. This is done because at any one time only a fraction of depositors will want to withdraw their funds. Banks therefore need to keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve in order to meet those demands. Because the banks lend more than the total amount of cash held in reserve in the system, credit is created "“ thus increasing the money supply.
The exact proportion depends on the definition of the money supply. Using the most common definition of the money supply as M2 (i.e. currency held by the public + balances in cheque accounts + all other business or personal deposits that are available on demand), the October 2009 data show that the part not accounted for by currency held by the public is 95%.
Data on money aggregates can be found on the RBNZ website at: http://www.rbnz.govt. nzlstatistics/monfin/cl /data.html.

6. Prime Minister Key, could you please describe your activities as a member of the Advisory Board of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the US Federal Reserve between 1999-2001?

I refer you to the reply from the Office of the Prime Minister.

7. Could all please advise me if the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are privately owned institutions that sit within their respective governments or publicly owned institutions within their governments?

I refer you to the following pages on the websites of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England respectively for this information:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Qf/pf. htm http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/leciisIation/leciis.htm

8. Could you please explain to me the role and relationship of the American Financial institution "” Northern Trust "” in regard to it being appointed custodian of our own NZ Debt Management Office?

The New Zealand Debt Management Office (NZDMO) has appointed Northern Trust as global custodian for NZDMO fixed income assets The appointment foflowed a competitive tender exercise which was completed in 2008. Custodian duties provided by Northern Trust for the NZDMO are standard for financial institutions and include: the provision of trade settlement services; safekeeping of assets; and other administrative functions.

9. Could you please tell me if in New Zealand, a "new" mortgage at issuance, before it becomes tradable, is loaned to a borrower by a registered bank, is that mortgage created as a debt book entry account, not anyone's existing savings, but an electronic debt book entry creating "new money"?

The creation of a new residential mortgage will generally result in new money (bank deposits) being created. The bank grants a new loan to a purchaser, who uses the cash to buy property from a vendor. The vendor then may spend or save the proceeds boosting deposits in the financial system.

You also ask for a list of the names of the officials who contributed to this reply. I am withholding these names in full under s.9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act "” to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions.
You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision.
This fully covers the information you requested. I hope you find this information useful
Yours sincerely
Bill English
Minister of Finance

then consider the banker mantra from the RBNZ reply to the same questions, especially funny is the statement that only the RBNZ can create new money!:

RESERVE BANK
OF NEW ZEALAND
21 December 2009
Mr lain Parker
372 Brookes Road RD21
STRATFORD 4391
Dear Mr Parker
Your Official Information Act request of 25 November, sent to a number of addressees by email, has fallen to the Reserve Bank to answer. Below we have quoted ealan of your questions, with our answer following.
In general, the questions are not clearly stated making it difficult to answer them However, we have attempted to provide information that we think addresses the subject matter of the queries.

I "“ Could you please tell me what a Government Bond is and what role it plays in our economy?

A government bond is a government issued debt security, ie a form of borrowing money by the government. Issuing government bonds enables the Government to borrow money for fiscal purposes.

2- Could you please tell me who in the world of high finance, as Primary Bond Dealers, has the right to buy or monetise governments debt bonds before they decide if they do or dont on sell them on the secondary bond market?

This question is not clear and is unable to be answered. In particular it is not known what you mean by Primary Bond Dealers. However, the issuance of government debt is governed by the Public Finance Act 1989 and in almost all cases is the ultimate responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

3-Are the Primary Bond Dealers private or public owned institutions? That is not those that buy bonds on the secondary bond market, but the Primary Bond Dealers.

This question is not understood and therefore not able to be answered. However, both privately owned and government owned entities buy government bonds on the primary market.

4- Could you please tell me what they use to buy our government bonds and if that medium of exchange existed before we pledged to pay it back with attached interest out of the future taxes of the nation or was it an electronic debt book entry, not anyones existing savings, but an electronic debt book entry that brings into circulation new money?

This question is not understood and therefore not able to be answered. However, as a bond is a borrowing transaction by the Government it would only issue a bond to someone who advanced to it the price of the bond.

5- Is it true that in excess of 90% of the money supply in circulation in New Zealand entered circulation as interest bearing debt owed to the banking network?

As the meaning of the question is not understood, we are unable to confirm that statement.

6- Prime Minister Key, could you please describe your activities as a member of the Advisory Board of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the US Federal Reserve between 1999-2001 ?

The-Reserve Bank-Is unable-to artswer this question

7- Could all please advise me if the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are privately owned institutions that sit within their respective governments or publicly owned institutions within their governments?

The Bank of England was nationalised by the UK government in 1946, meaning it is publicly owned.
The Federal Reserve banks in the US are essentially public organisations but private banks also own stock in them.

8- Could you please explain for me the role and relationship of the American financial institution "“ Northern Trust "“ in regard to it being appointed custodian of our own NZ Debt Management Office?

Northern Trust is responsible for the provision of core custody and related services to NZDMO's book of Fixed Income assets. This means Northern Trust is holding the securities on the NZDMO's behalf.

9- Could you please tell me if, in New Zealand, a "new" mortgage at issuance, before it becomes tradable, is loaned to a borrower by a registered bank, is that mortgage created as a debt book entry account, not anyones existing savings, but an electronic debt book entry creating "new" money?

We are not entirely sure of the meaning of this question. However, it is worth noting that only the Reserve Bank has the ability to create "new money".

This question is unclear and needs to be rephrased if it is to be answered.
Yours sincerely

pp Mike Hannah
Head of Communications
Ref #3855680 v1.0
2 The Terrace, Wellington 6011
PO Box 2498 Wellington 6140, New Zealand Telephone +64 4 472 2029 Fax +64 4 473 8554

The RBNZ have since refused to disclose who wrote the reply and John Key has refused to give insight into his role as advisor to the New York branch of US Fed 1999-2001.

GST going up is going to cause a lot of businesses pain, espeically online NZ businesses. People will just buy goods from overseas (under $400) as they can then avoid paying that tax.

@Iain, Matt, as we can all see comparing the responses, it's not about RBNZ's lack of understanding. Don't think for one minute that they do not, did not understand. It is as you say, 'tis a bit of a worry, a very, very big bit that they responded in this way.

Suggestion, send the response you received from Bill English's office, to RBNZ, for verification. It'll be interesting to see what response that draws, more worrying, or will they do a Heatley, and front up?

@Iain: Yes, interesting the difference between the two replies...

Maybe put them side by side...

Bill E: "The creation of a new residential mortgage will generally result in new money (bank deposits) being created. The bank grants a new loan to a purchaser, who uses the cash to buy property from a vendor. The vendor then may spend or save the proceeds boosting deposits in the financial system."

In effect the loan comes into creation before any deposit.....which I think is what Steve Keen(?) says?....yet the reply is sort of trying not to say that. Now generally I like that reply....its been answered I think by someone(s) who understands, even if its isnt BE's words / knowledge, his advisor(s) seem switched on.

Or this bit in 5) "It is correct that most of the money supply in New Zealand has been created by the banking sector." so is this within context....it seems further paragraphs make in murky...

Unknown moron at the reserve bank: "We are not entirely sure of the meaning of this question. However, it is worth noting that only the Reserve Bank has the ability to create "new money"."

um.......thats frightening....such an answer from the reserve bank....I wonder why they consider that answer so touchy....honesty isnt their strong point or ideological blinkers one wonders? It stikes me that its been answered by a PR moron and nothing more.

regards

I think the problem is caused by ignorance of or confusion about the words "money" and "credit". The Banks can create "credit" ie access to money, but only the Central Banks can creat "money". They may seem to be the same but are actually different and behave differently.

Wally, that is the most articulate post of yours I have read - less rant, more substance. More please!

The whole financial system is fragile currently, and that is probably why the government was reluctant to do what BH and some others on this website were pressing for with tax change, especially concerning property.
Would have caused a collapse which unfortunately would affect us all, not just property owners/investors. Government knows this and is treatedng carefully on eggshells at present.

Bank credit, or real money, what is difference? Many seem to think that there is (eg fractional reserve = bad). There really is no distinction. Bank created credit money is only as good as the investment that backs it, and if it is a good investment it's good money in circulation. The same with Government printed money, it will only be as good as what it's spent on. Bad investment decisions by either party are as inflationary (destructive of the value of money) as the other. A white elephant is a white elephant.

very interesting piece from the Herald:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=1062...

listings surging but buying activity subdued - that only means one thing.....

But Iain is still incapable of understanding the true nature of money creation dispite my best efforts. Only the RBNZ can create NZ dollars. The private banks create most of the money used in NZ because they also create the savers deposits. A private bank cannot create money that exists outside the banks own accounts. You get new money issued as a loan and you spend it and the seller has savings. If the seller is in a different bank then NZ dollars have to be borrowed or found. Only if the seller is in the same bank can you meaningfullly talke about credit creation and in this case the bank has created the loan money and the savers savings.

But try explaining this to Iain! Instead he wants to beat you up for being some criminal working at the RBNZ

However to be fair the RBNZ answers were dishonest or incompetant.

Mind you, you do have to wonder who is behind all comments posted online or in the media. Who's to say that the people posting on this site are not all incompetant or dishonest? ;)

Who is the real expert? I get swayed by all the comments on this site and incorporate those comments and pieces of information that align with my thinking. Just because it was posted elsewhere [or reponded to by the Janitor] does not make it right, or factual, no matter how many people, or sites repeat it.

I need to keep telling myself that because I read it, does not make it true.

Andrew, Fred - the RBNZ paper I link to here is worth a read. Essentially it describes the accepted(?) money multiplier method mentioned in the first part of 'Roving Cavaliers of Credit'. As mentioned above, I found RBNZ staff quite helpful with some questions I had, read down a bit after the comment on the end of this link:

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/top-10-10-gareth-morgan-targets-rbnz-refo...

While on Steve Keen's site, search for an joint artcile with Mike Shedlock about 'fictional reserve banking'. Also have look at Greg Pytels blog.

As some of us have been learning, all is not as it seems ...... hence the instability.

Well, were does a busy hampster start?

I reckon all of the above are relevant to "factions" groups or individuals within a recognised group.

There are the banking factions that run the defence for the current system, those that like a cult believe that chants or a risen hand will defend them against bullets, or in the case of banking, ever unfolding facts, they try and confuse with the argument that modern money does not mostly equal electronically created credit in an electronic transfer system, They claim that the private incorporated investment banks cant literally control the level of credit money in circulation via their ability to underwrite with created credit the housing market, stockmarket, bond market. To much proof has gone under the bridge from the very mouths of sources from within their own recognised group to anylonger have their defense taken seriously.

"Money is now increasingly not in tangible form, but consists of balances in accounts at banks, exchange being by means of cheques, credit-cards or charge-cards, and by credit-transfer, where one account is reduced (debited) and another increased (credited) by the same amount electronically. Modern systems are reducing the dependence on cash, hence the emergence of the phrase, the "˜cashless society'."
http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/15328/money.html

Wally, who could be Bob Jones father with his seeming hatred of Socred, not that he appears to have a handle on just what Socred or Public Credit is, I see Public Credit as the recognised group under which the different factions or types of public credit used or thought of throughout history, Colonial Scrip, Greenback, NZ Promissory Notes etc I have currently distanced myself from the most prominent faction of Public Credit in NZ -Democrats for Social Credit - due to seemingly irreconcilable differences between factions advocating a direct issue of large amounts of public credit to the population or issuing it into circulation with out interest attached to build public assets such as sustainable energy plants etc. As for being able to trade across borders, we would have to find other nations with what we need, needing what we have and being similarly pissed of with curent private banking commercial pyramid scam looking to start a trade credit system on more civil terms, do ya think there might be a couple out there?:
http://moneyaswealth.blogspot.com/2009/01/hyperinflation-zimbabwe-myth-a...

Les,
You imply my releasing publically the babblings of the RBNZ "is not helpful", that it might in someway erode your relationship with some in RBNZ who have treated you nice, once again factions, I presume you are referring to (from memory) Gillian Anderson? the author of credit creation article in bulletin 71 March 2008, for Gillian to have written that article shows she is of different charactor to a majority that inhabit RNNZ, similar to the likes of Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, Michael Hudson etc the RBNZ is a shop front to the NZDMO who handles the real business, who in turn is now overseen to a certain extent by US incorporated investment bank subsidiary - Northern Trust Custodial Bank - into which collateral such as mortgages and NZ super fund stocks must be depositted in order that they will continue to monetise NZ bonds as debt. If Gillian gets ousted, maybe you could replace your current paid economist with her, that way when you ask for indepth research on the US FED, BOE etc she wont just cut and paste the FAQ sections, cause that aint where the info about the nominee trust accounts and securities commission exemptions is going to be shown, you got go looking for it.

http://moneyaswealth.blogspot.com/2009/04/key-document-from-us-treasury....

http://moneyaswealth.blogspot.com/2009/02/caution.html

http://moneyaswealth.blogspot.com/2008/12/tip-of-iceberg.html

http://www.privatecontract.info/uploads/Quotes_About_Banks_Controlling_T...

Monetarist Duke box that is, they have a collection of them, ex PM Mike Moore is another.

Fred

NZD is a particular kind of money created by the RBNZ only.

NZD is NZ banknotes and coins or RBNZ deposits held by the commercial banks at the RBNZ

Paul (the Young)

>>Who is the real expert? I get swayed by all the comments on this site and incorporate those comments and pieces of information that align with my thinking.

You are demonstrating the foolishness of youth. Nobody can tell you anything that does not already align itself with your existing thinking.

Wisdom comes from seeing those things that do not align themselves with your current thinking.

Unfortunately by the time this happens you will probably be Paul (the old)

Iain - I guess the counter to your arguement is that we could say such people are accountable via ministers that we democratically elect. However, I can see your point, as officials and officialdom does not necessarily change as much when governments change and so pretty much the same body of thinking etc, stay in place, having similar influence on decision making. Anyway, I still think it'd be worthwhile flicking the English response to RBNZ and ask em' to add to it. Give em' a second chance as it were. If they don't change their position, that might indded be quite telling. Why would they not want to help you in the same way English's people did? Cheers, Les.

Les,
it states clearly in the State Services Act that once a CEO of a Govt ministry is appointed they become independent of the Minister and are responsible for all hiring and firing below them. The process is supposed to be part of the check and balances, the seperation of powers to try and prevent tyranny that has plagued most every administrative system thus far in history.
If these people get out of control you will often find a dimwitted minister put in the gun as a sacrificial lamb, taking one for the team to keep confidence in the system.

I have confirmed via OIA answer the hiring and firing structures behind the diplomatic curtain:
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/03/18/just-who-does-the-hiring-a...

The State Services Commissioner basically hires global executive recruitment agencies to appoint CEOs of local and national govt, the minister basically rubberstamps these appointments. The current state services commissioner is one Iain Rennie, of whom Ruth Richardson said this in her book - Making A Difference - 1995:

Pg 55-6 "“ "To help me acheive this new softer persona I was sent to charm school under the guidance of former United States image-maker Jack Byrum - the man who had reputedly turned Richard Nixon from losing Presidential candidate into President"¦"¦"¦ Late in 1989 I had an intensive two day session with Jack Byrum. He analysed me relentlessly, stripping me down and gradually building me up again, making some extremely acute points along the way. Towards the end, thoroughly brainwashed, I was ready to do almost anything he asked. Unfortunately at that point Jack got his hands on the speech I was due to deliver the next day. The speech was to the Mont Pelerin Society - a pretigious worldwide association of market liberals which was having its first ever conference in New Zealand. It was one of the most intellectually high-powered audiences I would ever address - precisely the wrong audience to try out Jacks touchy-feely approach. However, by this stage I"¦"¦..
pg 56
was past resistance. My speech was completely rewritten. Out went all the boring economics and in went some heart and soul.
The next day I stood up before an audience that included a Nobel prize winner and other luminaries, treated them to my coquettish new smile, and delivered a speech of numbing emptiness. Still under the influence, so to speak, I thought I had gone down rather well. I little knew that over morning tea a dozen converations were going on to the effect of: "˜what has got into Ruth'? My philosophical allies had intended the conference to be a symbolic handing over of the torch from Roger Douglas to me. Over subsequent days, as I gradually became myself again, various people quietly broke the news to me that my speech had in fact been less than a roaring success. The moral of this story is not that I should have made no attempt to soften any image - only that I should have picked the right audience.
At the same time Anna came on board, I also managed to persuade Jim to have a Treasury economist seconded to his office - something had had always been entitled to do. The economist who came, Iain Reenie, would do an outstanding job in helping to educate Jim, and steadying him at crucial times. Jim even became considerably attached to Iain, who, when we eventually took office, for a short time went into the Primeministers department. Those of a paranoid disposition, who believes treasury has its tentacles everywhere and secretly runs the country, would of had their theories further reinforced had they observed Iain Rennies influence on Jim."
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/10/07/ruth-richardson-takes-the-...

Upfront legislation with all manner of structured backroom exemptions is little more than a confidence trick, I allege it is hard not to conclude that we have not had a true change of government since we were put into the hands of the bankers international receivership agency, IMF, in 1961, at which time we had imposed upon us a foreign or foreign trained Monetary and Economic Council, later becoming known as the Treasury, as told by Rob Muldoon -The New Zealand Economy, A Personal view, by Rob Muldoon - 1985:

Page 33-34;
I well remember Keith Holyoake coming into Caucus in February or March of 1961 and the shock that it gave a brand new backbencher when he told us that the honeymoon was over and that we were faced with a serious situation, in respect of both Government accounts and our overseas transactions"¦"¦"¦"¦..
In May 1961 we raised a sterling loan of 20 million pounds, a substantial sum for those days. In February we had gone on the domestic market for 10 million pounds and taken 13.7 million. We were on the market again in June for 15 million pounds. In March the Reserve Bank moved to reduce the level of bank overdrafts. We brought in hire purchase regulations and restrained public expenditure to the greatest possible extent. We put a restriction on the allowances for overseas travel and we tightened up import licensing. If the figures sound small today then the March deficit, which continued to increase for sometime, was a record at that particular time.
We announced that we would be joining the International Monetary Fund and the WorldBank and a principal reason was that it would give us access to drawing rights. Although this had not been in our election policy, we carried out our policy by appointing various advisory bodies in the economic field, the principal one being the Monetary and Economic Council, a three member council with supporting staff which had the task of advising the Government on matters of economic policy, but most importantly, the right to publish its advice, in various forms, with various amendments to its composition and order of reference, the Monetary and Economic Council and its successors have continued up until the present time. "
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/05/30/rob-muldoon-made-a-scapego...

I put it to you that we remain in conditions of receivership, that those appointed as our receivers told us that as we were incompetent of running our economy, they would have to take over and trade us out of trouble, but infact what they have done, with assistance of locally recruited co-operatives, is trade us deeper into trouble with a strategic plan to get ownership of even more of our necesities of life and our resources.

Les, thats why transparency is required at every step, at the moment they are able to have the allocation of public funds go unchecked by the house of representatives by simply stating that the information is commercially sensitive, that simply aint good enough.

Andrew,
You can be rest assured it is a diplomatic revival of common decency that I advocate, a revelation of facts, never a violent revolution. I believe the pen is mightier than the gun when in comes to acheiving lasting stability.

Les,
the latest from Ellen Brown:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17881

"Better yet would be to either nationalize or abolish the Fed and fund the government directly with Greenbacks as President Lincoln did. What the Fed does the Treasury Department can do, for the cost of administration. There would be no shareholders or bondholders to siphon earnings, which could be recycled into public accounts to fund national, state and local budgets at zero or near-zero interest rates. Eliminating debt service payments would allow state and federal income taxes to be slashed; and the public managers of this money, rather than hiding behind a veil of secrecy, would be opening their books for all to see."
"What is really going on behind the scenes may have been revealed by Prof. Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University. An insider groomed by the international bankers, Dr. Quigley wrote in Tragedy and Hope in 1966:

"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had 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. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
If that is indeed the plan, it is virtually complete. Unless we wake up to what is going on and take action, the "powers of financial capitalism" will have their way. Rather than taking to the streets, we need to take to the courts, bring voter initiatives, and wake up our legislators to the urgent need to take the power to create money back from the private banking elite that has hijacked it from the American people. And that includes waking up the President, who has been losing sleep over the wrong threat."

Les, if we cant awaken some young Labourites who don't the baggage of having been involved in the gutting and hollowing of the nation, to Labours founding ideals of monetary, banking and credit reform, maybe we should look at attracting the likes of Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, Michael Hudson to become a NEW Monetary and Economics Council promoting a NEW Net Economic Welfare measurement of prosperity.

Iain

For the record i seem to recall that Bernard previously intervened to point out that Andrew the investment banker in Australia and Andrew in NZ had different IP addresses and were not the same person talking to each other as you were claiming at the time.

The issue for you to deal with is that anybody who talks about banking is going to sound like the same person because they are going to say the same thing to each and every claim you make about banking.

If when faced with the same knowledge you instead imagine the person is the same enemy you will learn nothing about banking.

Anybody can create their own valueable private money. But for that to be possible the privately created money has to be a genuine liability upon the resources of the person or organisation creating the money.

Why do you think I have advocated for an address verified forum on this site to try and ensure open and honest debate with everyone knowing exactly what everyones slant is. I don't leave anyone wondering what Im about, and anyone one that wants to verify Im a sane sound family man without any cult religious believes can come visit me anytime.
I gotta get some sleep some I can stay awake at the hampster wheel so I can go get a pittance of the nearly 3x the principal I will pay back your banking buddies for a loan they typed up on the computer.

Don't sweat it , Andrew , Iain is spoiling for a fight since us " bumper-sticker-boys " gave up trying to understand his long winded posts .

Iain , if you can't keep it short and simple , we can't grasp it [ something I also told the missus on our wedding night , as she gazed at me in amazement . ] It ain't the length that counts , 'tis the power within wot matters .

Roger

Iain cant get past the fact that private banks create most of the money in the economy, and i suppose you can create a small army of followers who can be outraged by that.

That is his power perhaps?

If you were able to educate him he would have no power other than his own ability to create his own life and get what he wants.

But all he has is 'banks are creating money!!!'

KW John

For all i know the Queen is an alien lizard and i am hooked up to a machine to produce electricity.

However it would be normal and standard practice for private fractional reserve banks to produce most of the private money available in an economy so that their customers can buy and sell things in the money market that each bank creates for its customers.

There is no scam involved in specifically that.

The following is the problem:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/01/2833639.htm?site=melbourne

"Obviously it was sheer madness to allow the banks to operate on the flimsiest of capital margins," Mr Hoogervorst said.

But even when a person says that you still have to know what that means before you can talk about it objectively. And as soon as you throw up your hands in horror about the banks creating money you have already lost the plot. Of course they create money!!!! But what does that mean?

Iain...how goes the Elephant feeding..."so I can go get a pittance of the nearly 3x the principal I will pay back your banking buddies for a loan they typed up on the computer"...serves you right for borrowing the imagined money!....of course inflation will reduce the real repayment bill over time...best bank on (pardon the pun) 20% inflation for the next 20 years Iain. Why did you borrow and not save Iain?

Andrew "“ Ponder this:

The combined profits of the "˜big four' Australian owned banks now exceed the combined profits of all other companies listed on the stock exchange NZX 50 series.

The private banking sector is an unnecessary middleman that maximises gains at our expense.