PDA

View Full Version : Why Do We Use Banks Anyway?



Serpo
3rd April 2014, 01:29 PM
Why Do We Use Banks Anyway? (http://blog.milesfranklin.com/why-do-we-use-banks-anyway) Author : Bill Holter
Published: April 3rd, 2014


I got to thinking, why do we use banks anyway? I know why there are or should I say “were” banks in the past but why do we use them now? Banks were originally set up as a place to store savings in a “safe place.” They also were used to lend some of the excess savings back out into the community to build it out. Banks were where borrowers could get capital to build houses, manufacturing facilities and equipment. This was good for the community as a whole because savers “savings” could be kept safe while also being used to benefit the community. This at least was the original concept of having a banking system.
In the old days, money itself was also different. Money was either silver or gold and from there, “notes” were issued. These notes were normally “payable” or redeemable in the silver or gold that the bank held in their vault. If too many notes were issued against the metal held, people would figure it out and then panic, this was the original “run on the bank.” If the public for any reason believed that either the gold and silver wasn’t there or there were too many “claims” on the metal, word would spread and people would begin to gather at the banks front door asking for their “deposit” back.
These notes that were issued in the early days were from individual banks. Some notes were “stronger” than others based on the perception of the banks financial position. “Risk” was based on the quality of loans, the amount of loans and whether the community was “saving” and bringing more, new metal in to deposit. This is the way it once was. Then we got our very own central bank that tied the banking system together and issued a national currency, individual banks no longer issued their own regional “money.” Of course banks also act as a “clearing system” for transactions but this task could be performed by an exchange or exchanges without the use of banks.
So why the little history lesson? Because it occurred to me that we don’t really need banks anymore. The government over the years has stepped into this sector and made home loans, business loans, saved companies, entire sectors and even saved the banks themselves. But what has the banking sector morphed into? What are we as “savers” really doing? We put money into a bank and are “guaranteed” to earn less interest than what the inflation rate is. Our deposits are also supposedly “guaranteed” by the FDIC but we have seen legislation (Dodd Frank) where balances can be “used” to save the bank itself. FDIC is as you know hopelessly underfunded to protect even one money center bank were it to go down.
Here is what I’m getting at, what once was your money that the bank was safeguarding is now a “loan” to the bank which is THEIR money that may or may not get paid back to you. You are also lending the bank your money at a rate where you know that the currency will decline in purchasing power far faster than any interest that you might receive. Oh, and you also get to pay taxes on this “lesser than the amount of inflation” interest. Is this a good deal? Also, when (if?) you do get your money back, what will it buy? We know for a fact that it will buy “less,” the only question is how much less.
We all grew up and were taught (still even today) that we should “save” for our future. We were also at the same time taught that we could get stuff today by borrowing today and paying in the future with “cheaper money.” All I’m trying to do here is get you to think about what you are doing from a different angle. This is “their” game, it was not set up to benefit you…it was set up to benefit the banks. If you look at the game from a distance, “saving” is a good thing but you want to save in something that will hold its value. Do you like old cars? Do you like works of art? Or how about old guns? These have proven to hold their values over time. Recently, ammunition has proven to be a far better “store of value” than anything else thanks to the government buying up the supply and creating a shortage. They have also done something else that will support ammo prices, the EPA has effectively shut down the last lead smelter in the U.S. due to environmental reasons (or so they say). We will now either need to import lead to make ammo or we will have to import ammo…which will of course restrict supply even further.
I added the above in as to “why do we use banks anyway” because I wanted to point out that there are other ways to “save” along with of course using gold and silver as your medium. The danger in using banks is not solely due to the fact that they can fail, the dollar itself is what you are using as your store of value. I wrote several weeks back that Russia could refuse to trade and stop trading with dollars (http://www.gold-eagle.com/putin-flushes-us-dollar-russia%E2%80%99s-gold-ruble-payments-system-delinked-dollar) as a response to any sanctions, this is now happening. Russia has announced that they will trade and settle in rubles, not dollars. This is very important news; this will surely strengthen the ruble and initially to a lesser extent weaken the dollar because the trade volumes in Russia will no longer “bid” for dollars to settle.
This also does something else, something far bigger and far more important than lessen Russian demand for dollars. By setting up a clearing system that excludes the use of dollars, Russia is setting a precedent or “blueprint” if you will. China could do (they already are on a deal by deal basis) the same if they wished as could others with less fear of retribution because the precedent is now set. Please understand that Mr. Hussein of Iraq, Qaddafi of Libya and in my opinion Hugo Chavez of Venezuela were ALL “taken out” because they threatened to sell oil for something other than dollars. They each threatened to sell their oil for euros and “presto,” they were quickly invaded and met their maker.
The thought process of “why do we use (American) banks” surely crossed Mr. Putin’s mind and he has apparently now acted. Now we must wonder when the next shoe will drop…when we hear something out of Saudi Arabia. Were they to announce any departure from their 40+ year deal of “oil for dollars” I think it will be a given that the dollar will devalue drastically and at a minimum test the low 70′s versus other currencies. I also believe that you could see the entire fiat complex devalue versus gold and silver and bring the old highs into reach in a very very short time frame.
Russia is being forced into a corner is truly huge news; if you have not given thought to this question of “why do we use banks anyway,” please do so NOW. If you are sitting on large balances, do you feel “safe and secure?” Should you? I ask this because it looks like the rest of the world is starting to ask the same question!

http://blog.milesfranklin.com/why-do-we-use-banks-anyway

Hatha Sunahara
3rd April 2014, 08:18 PM
Most of us who use banks use them because it's how we get paid, and how we pay for what we buy. Our employers deposit our pay in our bank accounts, and we pay for stuff with credit cards, checks, cash, or some other bank related payment service. If we need more money than we have, we go to a bank and get a loan. Only one or two in a thousand who use banks have any idea what the banks do, but everybody else thinks they know all they need to know about money.

The big problem with banks is that they are collectively, an unregulated monopoly that provides a public service--the issuance of money--or rather credit, because all money they issue is debt. The owners of banks are oligarchs. Our politicians are as dumb as their constituents, and equally ignorant about the nature of banks and the dynamics associated with 'money'. The bankers have convinced our politicians, and most of us, that they are 'too big to fail'. I think this idea is based on our dependence on their clearing system for cash transfers. If I live in Los Angeles, and I order a truckload of tires from Toledo, how would I pay for it without a bank transfer? Too big to fail conjures up images of what would happen if that transfer system no longer worked. So, why haven't we developed an alternative system to use if the banks fail? We have an internet. We have adequate technology to perform the task. But neither the banks nor the government will tolerate an alternative payment transfer system. The banks are too big to fail because they won't allow any competition. They think like all other monopolies. Their service is minimal, and their rates are excessive. Because you have no alternative but a different bank in the same system. And they are, for all practical purposes--unregulated. This is because they are a major source of 'campaign funds' for politiciams. So, the politicians no longer represent the people who vote for them, bu they represent the people who finance their careers.

The banks are at the heart of the corruption in our entire system--political, economic, media, education--everything. We need them about as much as we need the corruption they foist upon us. What we really fear is the short term disorder we would have to endure while we develop an alternative payment transfer system. If we were smart, we would shut down all the banks, and support replacement institutions that would issue interest free loans and provide a payment transfer system. We shouldn't call thes institutions "Banks'. We should call them 'Money Utilities' and they should be heavily regulated so they they cannot engage in fraudulent practices and remain in business. We do this for other public utilities--why not for banks?


Hatha

Glass
3rd April 2014, 08:40 PM
yes banks are now transaction facilitators not wealth protectors. Their services are in fact wealth destroyers by forcing an artificial velocity on peoples money. For us the act of barter is still a taxable event. For nations it can be a different story.

Sparky
4th April 2014, 09:18 AM
I agree that people largely use banks for facilitation of transactions, especially since it allows those transactions to be executed remotely.

One other reason people use banks: People view that it protects their stored assets from "physical loss". They feel that if they were to hold personal possession of these assets (either in the form of paper currency or precious metals), they would be vulnerable for taking a loss in the event of theft or fire. Ever since the Depression, the banks (and the government through FDIC) have done an excellent job in convincing people that assets are "safe" from these risks if held in the bank.

So far, their track record in this regard has been excellent. Now, here at GSUS, we are wary that this may no longer hold true in the future. We cite what happened in Cyprus, or that the FDIC is woefully underfunded to cover losses. But the perception is that these risks remain very low here in the United States.

As long as the USD remains the world's reserve currency, the risks probably are extremely low. This is because in the event of a financial disaster, the Government/Treasury has unlimited printing power to restore order, and in the minds of the general population, their is no preferred alternative to the USD, even if it were to be greatly diluted by a printing event. If you hold your currency as paper at home, it is just as vulnerable to inflationary loss as if you held it in the bank.

So, these remain legitimate reasons for people to use banks. Now, we know that bankers are corrupt, and we know that precious metals are a protection against inflationary events. However, there is not sufficient evidence in the current landscape to think otherwise.

Frankly, I think that the banks could survive one major crisis event and the risk prior to then is extremely low. Such an event, while it is taking place, would be considered by most as a "one off" event, i.e. an aberration. After that, things would probably be restored to normal, but the difference is that a second such event would change the minds of the population that the risk may be systemic rather than a one-time event. Paper money is all about faith. I think faith would be maintained through one loss-inducing crisis, but not a second one.

Remember, the 2008 financial crisis has yet to lead to any significant losses on the part of those holding bank assets or bonds, nor has it led to rampant inflation resulting from the money printing that prevented such paper losses. So we still have not experienced that first catastrophic event. When it happens, it will become the great "warning" for the masses. The immediate effects will be masked as people will be able to recover assets in the short term, and "buy time" for those who see it as a warning and are able to re-position themselves. It's the follow-on crisis for which the risk of not getting your money back will be high.

Carl
4th April 2014, 03:55 PM
Wow Sparky, where did you get that information?

Carl
4th April 2014, 04:13 PM
Here's a few figures on "money" supply:

$1.22Trillion FRNs
$270Billion USDs
$40Billion US Coin

That's all the US legal tender in circulation around the globe.

All the rest is bank manufactured credit.

Credit as no legal status as a currency even though it is used as such.

The Fed is under no legal obligation to convert your credit into FRNs.

If your bank don't have the FRNs or the means to buy FRNs from the Fed, you are SOL if the demand exceeds it ability to supply.

And the notion that the 2008 financial crisis has yet to lead to any significant losses on the part of those holding bank assets or bonds, is a big fat lie.

Horn
4th April 2014, 04:39 PM
Sparky and Carl also dig the pyramid power inherent within the great seal.

http://www.light-of-truth.com/images/SonnetsPyramidTiers.jpg

http://www.light-of-truth.com/Freemasonry/Bacon911.htm

Sparky
4th April 2014, 07:40 PM
I think you missed my point, Carl. So long as the USD can be created at the drop of a hat while maintaining it's dominant world status, there is little risk that the gov't won't be able to produce whatever FRNs are necessary to keep the lie going.

The only thing that keeps this game going is the Fed perpetuating the idea that the U.S. financial system is indestructible. They've done everything necessary to keep people faithful to it. They have a lot of tools at their disposal to continue this. I'm saying they could even survive one crisis, so long as they immediately flood the system with liquidity. After that, the risk increases dramatically.

Who has taken big losses holding bank assets or bonds? I know credit has contracted, but who has realized losses in this regard? Certainly not the Average Joe. That's why he still believes in this false paper system.

P.S. Please don't mistake me as someone defending the current system. I'm simply answering the question from the OP, which asks why people continue to use banks. I'm not saying I'm an advocate.

Carl
4th April 2014, 10:24 PM
I think you missed my point, Carl. So long as the USD can be created at the drop of a hat while maintaining it's dominant world status, there is little risk that the gov't won't be able to produce whatever FRNs are necessary to keep the lie going.

The only thing that keeps this game going is the Fed perpetuating the idea that the U.S. financial system is indestructible. They've done everything necessary to keep people faithful to it. They have a lot of tools at their disposal to continue this. I'm saying they could even survive one crisis, so long as they immediately flood the system with liquidity. After that, the risk increases dramatically.

Who has taken big losses holding bank assets or bonds? I know credit has contracted, but who has realized losses in this regard? Certainly not the Average Joe. That's why he still believes in this false paper system.

P.S. Please don't mistake me as someone defending the current system. I'm simply answering the question from the OP, which asks why people continue to use banks. I'm not saying I'm an advocate. No, no, I don't believe you're defending the system at all, but you did get some stuff wrong.

Neither the FRN or the USD can be printed at the drop of a hat without unencumbered asset backing as that would make both instantly worthless.

There are only 1.22trillion FRNs in circulation around the globe, that hardly constitutes printing with wild abandon. But the Fed has expanded credit (liquidity) by some 17trillion to feed a global system that saw over 40trillion in credit go POOF!.

Look up the fall of Lehman Brothers, or the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble and what about the millions that thrown out of work. Millions of people in the U.S. and around the globe have realized losses.

It's not the faith of the average Joe that keeps the false paper system going, it is necessity.

Sparky
4th April 2014, 11:24 PM
Carl, by losses, I mean losses associated directly with holding assets in banks or in bonds, per the OP.

And printing at the drop of a hat only renders FRNs worthless if everyone believes they are worthless. That day may come, but I think no time soon. People are not yet smart enough about our money system to fear it. When they can't take money out of the bank or can't buy anything with it, then they will finally start to fear it. During the high inflation of the 1970s, people were taught that inflation occurs naturally, and they believed it. So I'm just saying we can probably withstand one large crisis before the people wise up. Until such time, people will continue to use banks for the reasons stated above.

For that matter, you'd think people would fear the stock market after it lost 2/3 of it's value in 2008-09. And yet here it is establishing new all-time highs, a mere 5 years later. It's incredible how much faith people put in the system, and paper money is all about faith.

(Admittedly, as you say, some of the "faith" is fueled by necessity.)

Horn
5th April 2014, 03:48 PM
It's not the faith of the average Joe that keeps the false paper system going, it is necessity.

That and possible drop strikes from robot drone aircraft, when trying to subvert it.

Hatha Sunahara
5th April 2014, 04:10 PM
That and possible drop strikes from robot drone aircraft, when trying to subvert it.

To that, I would add a lack of alternatives. What other way is there to get paid ant to pay for stuff?


Hatha