Banksters and Printing Money

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There has been a war by the Banksters to wrest the printing of money from the U.S government for ages. It is financial terrorism and they now control the U.S.

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It would take me most of the day to watch that. Slow DSL line

Sorry. I think you can get a pretty good idea of it in about 20 mins TBH.

The Wizard of Oz was a highly political book originally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interpretations_of_The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz

http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html

Here is a small extract, being the type of blackmail they used against the government.

Andrew Jackson 1 In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government deposits from the Second bank and instead had them put into safe banks. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle was quite candid about the power and intention of the bank when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote. "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank."
Nicholas Biddle 1836 By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans he did cause a massive depression, but in 1836 when the charter ran out, the Second Bank ceased to function. It was then he made these two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" and later "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."





Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here is a small extract, being the type of blackmail they used against the government.

Andrew Jackson 1 In 1832 Jackson ordered the withdrawal of government deposits from the Second bank and instead had them put into safe banks. The Second Banks head, Nicholas Biddle was quite candid about the power and intention of the bank when he openly threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered, we quote. "Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank."
Nicholas Biddle 1836 By calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new loans he did cause a massive depression, but in 1836 when the charter ran out, the Second Bank ceased to function. It was then he made these two famous statements: "The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it!" and later "If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..."

Content from External Source

Didn't work though, did it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_War
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Andy Jackson, really? He who increased the use of the spoils system, that relocated native Americans, that was known for winning a battle after the war was over.

Someone that lived in a time when a battle could be fought after the war was over.

Not really applicable to the modern world.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned

Well eventually it worked which is why the Banksters now 'print money for nothing' and then 'lend it to the government at interest', which interest 'is then paid by the people via taxes'.

Here is a bit more of the skulduggery:

Otto von Bismark chancellor of Germany 1876 On the 12th of April 1861 this economic war began. Predictably Lincoln, needing money to finance his war effort, went with his secretary of the treasury to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The money changers wishing the Union to fail offered loans at 24% to 36%. Lincoln declined the offer. An old friend of Lincoln's, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago was put in charge of solving the problem of how to finance the war. His solution is recorded as this. "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorising the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."

Colonel Dick Taylor 1 Lincoln agreed to try this solution and printed 450 million dollars worth of the new bills using green ink on the back to distinguish them from other notes. "The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Abraham Lincoln 2 From this we see that the solution worked so well Lincoln was seriously considering adopting this emergency measure as a permanent policy. This would have been great for everyone except the money changers who quickly realised how dangerous this policy would be for them. They wasted no time in expressing their view in the London Times. Oddly enough, while the article seems to have been designed to discourage this creative financial policy, in its put down we're clearly able to see the policies goodness. "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

Content from External Source
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Sorry, but I don't really see the connection with money in the 1800s and today.

Money is assigned a value by what it will purchase, in some cultures, rocks and shells have been used as money.

If too much money is circulated the value goes down, just like any commodity would.

I don't see the dollar suffering from a lot of inflation, do you?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Sorry, but I don't really see the connection with money in the 1800s and today.

Money is assigned a value by what it will purchase, in some cultures, rocks and shells have been used as money.

If too much money is circulated the value goes down, just like any commodity would.

I don't see the dollar suffering from a lot of inflation, do you?

You don't see a problem with a private bank, (the Fed/ BoE/ IMF/ ECB/ etc), printing money and then lending it to government at interest which the taxpayer has to then pay; when the governments could print their own money at no cost?

The only winners are the banksters... it is a compulsory Ponzi scheme.

The inflation rate is very high. In U.K the 'real' inflation rate is running around 24%. They just don't want to admit it and factor lots of things out of the equation to come up with a BS inflation rate.

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/3725/

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
I salute you with constant friendship and respect.
Th: Jefferson.
Content from External Source
http://theunjustmedia.com/Banking & Federal Reserve/The Federal Reserve is Privately owned.htm

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud
Content from External Source
http://globalistagenda.org/finance.htm
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again...Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit."
- Josiah Stamp, former Governor of the Bank of England during the 1920's

Content from External Source
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So the inflation rate is what someone else says it is, not what it is. Sorry, that sounds like folks using only the number they WANT to use.

Folks will SEE inflation in ALL the things they buy, from apples to zoo admissions
 

Dave Richards

New Member
Inflation is built into the system of commercial bank money magic because they only create THE PRINCIPAL, leaving us all to pay back both principal AND interest, meaning unless we have an ever expanding supply of loans, the money supply contracts too quickly, causing recession or worse...depression.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So the inflation rate is what someone else says it is, not what it is. Sorry, that sounds like folks using only the number they WANT to use.

Folks will SEE inflation in ALL the things they buy, from apples to zoo admissions

Ok, I can see why you do not wish to engage with: "You don't see a problem with a private bank, (the Fed/ BoE/ IMF/ ECB/ etc), printing money and then lending it to government at interest which the taxpayer has to then pay; when the governments could print their own money at no cost?

The only winners are the banksters... it is a compulsory Ponzi scheme." Far easier to ignore it!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, I can see why you do not wish to engage with: "You don't see a problem with a private bank, (the Fed/ BoE/ IMF/ ECB/ etc), printing money and then lending it to government at interest which the taxpayer has to then pay; when the governments could print their own money at no cost?

What exactly are you referring to here? Printing money? The creation of money via fractional reserve lending?

You know that these private banks (the Fed's central banks) have to give all their profits to the government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[22] This was followed at the end of 2011 with a transfer of $77 billion in profits to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Content from External Source
 

Dave Richards

New Member
Yes, the relationship between the Fed and Treasury is quite unique. In theory they 'swap' bonds for cash, the Fed holding the bonds, which theoretically match the cash borrowed (plus interest, minus profit), so could it be argued that there is, in actuality, no government debt at all?? Or, very little.

However, private debt is something else altogether...private debt is the real beast that must be tamed...and the derivatives markets that TRADE on this massive debt, as Warren Buffet once stated, are the 'real weapons of mass destruction'
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What exactly are you referring to here? Printing money? The creation of money via fractional reserve lending?

You know that these private banks (the Fed's central banks) have to give all their profits to the government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[22] This was followed at the end of 2011 with a transfer of $77 billion in profits to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Content from External Source

Ah yes poor banksters...They have to create money from nothing to only earn a paltry 6% profit.

http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/federal_reserve-qe3/money_printing-2012-2013.html

They have to type in a whole $100Trillion and only get to keep $6 Trillion.

Occupy Wall Street, this time by trucks loaded with cash Welcome to Wall Street, the capital of the free market. It is full of semi trucks today.
$160 Billion of bankers' 2012 bonus (QE3) has arrived from the Federal Reserve by 80 semi trucks, and hoards of fork-lifts are working hard to unload the
2012's $40 Billion / month bank stimulus package (QE3) into headquarters of the biggest banks in America-
JP Morgan Chase, CitiBank, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, State Street Financial and Bank of New York Mellon.
The 2013's stimulus package (QE3) of $1020 Billion Dollars has been nicely stacked on the far right side, awaiting 2013.
Each economic boost through money printing (QE1, QE2, QE3) has diminishing effects, that appear to follow the Fibonacci equation. This implies that the Federal Reserve is now caught in a perpetual cycle where it has to print near exponentially more money just to maintain same stock market performance level, not mentioning inflation. .
Verdict: Truck drivers and fork-lift operators on Wall Street have good job security as QE4 is now a certainty.

The money printed by the Federal Reserve does not end up the hands of the people, but goes directly to the banks, though whom it ends up in the stock market in order to inflate asset values. This pushes the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P higher, but does NOT increase hiring and above all consumer spending, which is one of the main drivers of the US economy.

Money print QE3 is equivalent to 20.4 million jobs paying $50,000 / year. Instead the money goes to Wall Street and the stock market.
Content from External Source
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
I agree with Dave. The bigger issue is the perceived need for more and more private credit. The banks and lenders keep pushing for the average person to take on more.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
a financial asset is not a 'real' asset. Real is used to describe something you can touch like land or gold

efinition of 'Real Asset'
Physical or tangible assets that have value, due to their substance and properties. Real assets include precious metals, commodities, real estate, agricultural land and oil. They are appropriate for inclusion in most diversified portfolios - with their proportion dependent on the investor's risk tolerance and preferences - because of their relatively low correlation with financial assets, such as stocks and bonds. They are particularly well-suited for inflationary times, because of their tendency to outperform financial assets during such periods.
Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains 'Real Asset'
Real assets are a separate and distinct asset class from financial assets, whose value is derived from a contractual claim on an underlying asset, which may be real or intangible. For example, commodities and property are real assets, but commodity futures and ETFs, as well as real estate investment trusts, constitute financial assets whose value depends on the underlying real assets.

Higher carrying and storage costs, increased transaction fees and lower liquidity, are some common drawbacks of real assets in relation to financial assets.
Content from External Source
 

Dave Richards

New Member
a financial asset is not a 'real' asset. Real is used to describe something you can touch like land or gold

efinition of 'Real Asset'
Physical or tangible assets that have value, due to their substance and properties. Real assets include precious metals, commodities, real estate, agricultural land and oil. They are appropriate for inclusion in most diversified portfolios - with their proportion dependent on the investor's risk tolerance and preferences - because of their relatively low correlation with financial assets, such as stocks and bonds. They are particularly well-suited for inflationary times, because of their tendency to outperform financial assets during such periods.
Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains 'Real Asset'
Real assets are a separate and distinct asset class from financial assets, whose value is derived from a contractual claim on an underlying asset, which may be real or intangible. For example, commodities and property are real assets, but commodity futures and ETFs, as well as real estate investment trusts, constitute financial assets whose value depends on the underlying real assets.

Higher carrying and storage costs, increased transaction fees and lower liquidity, are some common drawbacks of real assets in relation to financial assets.
Content from External Source

Yes, putting fractional reserve banking aside for a moment, one the biggest worries for the system, is debt, repackaged for innocent investors, as an asset. Its a time bomb when the debt is carried by people who are at a high risk of default.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No they don't. They get 6% of the net profits from the central banks as a dividend. That amounts to around $4 Billion.

But it isn't as simple as that is it.

We all know that the banks are using the money to generate more money which gets sidelined into massive payouts/bonus' and tax haven accounts. It is a very complex fraud but not to worry, the watchdogs and politicians are bought off so there will be no comeback on the real fraudsters.

The fact is the web of money laundering and tax evasion is so massive that these Banksters operate with impunity, setting up shells within shells within shells and and fabricating expenses, (just look at Starbucks U.K, buying coffee at inflated prices from it's own shell company simply to avoid 'showing a profit in the UK and thus never having to pay tax in the UK).

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/fi...lained-so-simply-even-congressman-will-get-it


1. Enable trillions of dollars in mortgages guaranteed to default by packaging unlimited quantities of them into mortgage-backed securities (MBS), creating umlimited demand for fraudulently originated loans.

2. Sell these MBS as "safe" to credulous investors, institutions, town councils in Norway, etc., i.e. "the bezzle" on a global scale.
3. Make huge "side bets" against these doomed mortgages so when they default then the short-side bets generate billions in profits.
4. Leverage each $1 of actual capital into $100 of high-risk bets.

5. Hide the utterly fraudulent bets offshore and/or off-balance sheet (not that the regulators you had muzzled would have noticed anyway).

6. When the longside bets go bad, transfer hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal guarantees, bailouts and backstops into the private hands which made the risky bets, either via direct payments or via proxies like AIG. Enable these private Power Elites to borrow hundreds of billions more from the Treasury/Fed at zero interest.
7. Deposit these funds at the Federal Reserve, where they earn 3-4%. Reap billions in guaranteed income by borrowing Federal money for free and getting paid interest by the Fed.

8. As profits pile up, start buying boatloads of short-term U.S. Treasuries. Now the taxpayers who absorbed the trillions in private losses and who transferred trillions in subsidies, backstops, guarantees, bailouts and loans to private banks and corporations, are now paying interest on the Treasuries their own money purchased for the banks/corporations.
9. Slowly acquire trillions of dollars in Treasuries--not difficult to do as the Federal government is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year.
10. Stop buying Treasuries and dump a boatload onto the market, forcing interest rates to rise as supply of new T-Bills exceeds demand (at least temporarily). Repeat as necessary to double and then triple interest rates paid on Treasuries.
11. Buy hundreds of billions in long-term Treasuries at high rates of interest. As interest rates rise, interest payments dwarf all other Federal spending, forcing extreme cuts in all other government spending.
12. Enjoy the hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments being paid by taxpayers on Treasuries that were purchased with their money but which are safely in private hands.
Content from External Source
The thing is, Company Law was not designed for companies which have finances the size of sovereign nations.

The proof is in the pudding. Money supply is being sucked up into the accounts of the super super rich to an unprecedented degree.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
Wealth or income classMean household incomeMean household net worthMean household financial (non-home) wealth
Top 1 percent$1,318,200$16,439,400$15,171,600
Top 20 percent$226,200$2,061,600$1,719,800
60th-80th percentile$72,000$216,900$100,700
40th-60th percentile$41,700$61,000$12,200
Bottom 40 percent$17,300-$10,600-$14,800

From Wolff (2012); only mean figures are available, not medians. Note that income and wealth are separate measures; so, for example, the top 1% of income-earners is not exactly the same group of people as the top 1% of wealth-holders, although there is considerable overlap.
[h=3]The Wealth Distribution[/h] In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 2 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think wealth inequality is a major problem. But you argument was about "banksters" getting rich by "printing money", then you use Starbucks as an example?

The mortgage backed securities thing, you're going to have to back up the claims there with a little more than an anonymous article. Point 7 for a start.

Most billionaires are not bankers. Most billionaires make money by selling actual products to millions of people, and making a small profit each time they sell something. Here's a list, you can filter it by industry. Try "Finance" and "United States", there's only nine.

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

Filtered:
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/...inance_filter:United States_filter:All states
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think wealth inequality is a major problem. But you argument was about "banksters" getting rich by "printing money", then you use Starbucks as an example?

The mortgage backed securities thing, you're going to have to back up the claims there with a little more than an anonymous article. Point 7 for a start.

Most billionaires are not bankers. Most billionaires make money by selling actual products to millions of people, and making a small profit each time they sell something. Here's a list, you can filter it by industry. Try "Finance" and "United States", there's only nine.

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

Filtered:
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/...inance_filter:United States_filter:All states

And that is a nonsense and a lie by forbes. Rothschilds are hardly even mentioned on there, let alone their true worth. There are many who are similarly hidden, the Rockefellers are just one.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/how-rich-is-the-rothschild-family/

As for specific members of the modern family, Sir Evelyn De Rothschild the British financier has a net worth of $20 billion. Jacob Rothschild another British investment banker has a net worth of $5 billion. As a modern day an empire, the family's total net worth and assets combined have been pegged in the $300 – $400 billion range.

Related Articles


Content from External Source
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-team-up-for-some-extra-wealth-creation.html

He said the two firms planned to capitalise on current market conditions where banks, like SocGen in this instance, are selling non-core assets to rebuild capital ratios. “At a time when big banks are destabilised, there may well be opportunities,” he said. “We could buy an asset management company or grow one. Rockefeller already has $34bn (£21.9bn) assets under administration.”
Content from External Source
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/billionaires-worth-1-9-trillion-seek-advantage-in-2013.html

[h=2]Hidden Billionaires[/h]Batista’s former title as the richest Brazilian is now held by 73-year-old banker Jorge Paulo Lemann, who ranks 37th on the index with an $18.8 billion fortune.
Content from External Source
BTW, I used Starbucks to demonstrate because they are easily proven but thebanksters 'process' is the same but harder to prove
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The power of Banksters

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/acton_quote_b723
Lord Acton: "The issue which has swept down the centuries
and which will have to be fought sooner or later
is the people versus the banks."
Content from External Source
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/james_madison_quote_b37f
James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

"History records that the money changers have used
every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible
to maintain their control over governments
by controlling the money and its issuance."
Content from External Source
http://rense.com/general79/tril.htm

[SIZE=+1]Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
Letter written from London by the Rothschilds to their New York agents introducing their banking method into America: "The few who can understand the system will be either so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while, on the other hand, that great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that Capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint and, perhaps, without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Nathan Rothschild said to the Commons Secret Committee on the question early in 1819: "In what line of business are you? - Mostly in the foreign banking line. "Have the goodness to state to the Committee in detail, what you conceive would be the consequence of an obligation imposed upon the Bank [of England, which he owned] to resume cash payments at the expiration of a year from the present time? - I do not think it can be done without very great distress to this country; it would do a great deal of mischief; we may not actually know ourselves what mischief it might cause. "Have the goodness to explain the nature of the mischief, and in what way it would be produced? - Money will be so very scarce, every article in this country will fall to such an enormous extent, that many persons will be ruined." [/SIZE]
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Hidden billionaires: Or is it all a conspiracy theory?

Here are just a few

http://images.businessweek.com/slideshows/20110726/bloomberg-markets-hidden-billionaires
Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor says he never wanted the world to know how rich he is. "I don't see what the big deal is," says the Peruvian mogul, who amassed a fortune by selling financial services in South America's burgeoning economy through his IFH Peru. Rodriguez-Pastor and seven other global billionaires have kept low profiles as they created their fortunes—until now. Bloomberg Markets Magazine has uncovered these eight tycoons whose names haven't yet appeared in any international wealth rankings.
Content from External Source
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/w...ed-in-leaked-records.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[h=1]Data Leak Shakes Notion of Secret Offshore Havens and, Possibly, Nerves[/h]BRUSSELS — They are a large and diverse group that includes a Spanish heiress; the daughter of the former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos; and Denise Rich, the former wife of the disgraced trader Marc Rich, who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. But, according to a trove of secret financial information released Thursday, all have money and share a desire to hide it.
Content from External Source
http://www.ventures-africa.com/2013...illionaire-ranks-with-billion-dollar-fortune/
Last year, Mark Mobius, a renowned emerging markets investor and Executive Chairman of Templeton Emerging Markets Group announced that there may be up to 200 hidden billionaires in Africa. He’s probably right. VENTURES AFRICA’s Intelligence unit is on a mission to traverse the continent and uncover some of these billionaires you’ve never heard about. VENTURES AFRICA – There’s a new dollar-billionaire on the block, and he’s Nigerian.

Content from External Source
http://www.icij.org/offshore/billio...s-indonesians-found-secret-offshore-documents
Owners of corporations registered in tax havens include some linked to regime of the late dictator, Suharto.

Nine of Indonesia’s 11 richest families have found shelter in tropical tax havens, holding ownership of more than 190 offshore trusts and companies, secret records obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists show.
The nine families, worth an estimated $36 billion among them, are at the top of a wealthy class that dominates Indonesia’s politics and economy.
Six were closely tied to the late dictator Suharto, who helped a special circle of Indonesians grow rich during his 31-year rule by granting economic fiefdoms to family and friends.

Content from External Source
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ep-grandchildren-are-hidden-billionaires.html
Nazi Goebbels’ Step-Grandchildren Are Hidden Billionaires

Quandt was released from captivity in 1947. Seven years later, he and his half-brother Herbert -- Harald was the only remaining child from Magda Goebbels’ first marriage -- would inherit the industrial empire built by their father, Guenther Quandt, which had produced Mauser firearms and anti-aircraft missiles for the Third Reich’s war machine. Among their most valuable assets at the time was a stake in car manufacturer Daimler AG. (DAI) They bought a part of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) a few years later
Content from External Source
.
 

Grieves

Senior Member

http://www.globalresearch.ca/american-dream-food-loaded-into-dumpsters-while-hundreds-of-hungry-americans-restrained-by-police/5329966

Just thought I'd share this, given the topic.

By the time the people showed up for the food, what was left inside the premises—as with any eviction—came into the ownership of the property holder, SunTrust Bank. The bank ordered the food to be loaded into dumpsters and hauled to a landfill instead of distributed. The people that gathered had to be restrained by police as they saw perfectly good food destroyed. Local Sheriff Richard Roundtree told the news “a potential for a riot was extremely high.”
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I wonder why some are SURE that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are STILL some of the richest folks in the world, when there is NO evidence of that.

During the 1800s, when it was at its height, the Rothschild family is believed to have possessed by far the largest private fortune in the world as well as by far the largest fortune in modern world history.[2][3][4] The family's wealth is believed to have subsequently declined, as it was divided amongst hundreds of descendants.[5] Today, Rothschild businesses are on a far smaller scale than they were throughout the 19th century, although they encompass a diverse range of fields, including: mining, banks, energy, mixed farming, wine, and charities.[6][7]
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wonder why some are SURE that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are STILL some of the richest folks in the world, when there is NO evidence of that.

During the 1800s, when it was at its height, the Rothschild family is believed to have possessed by far the largest private fortune in the world as well as by far the largest fortune in modern world history.[2][3][4] The family's wealth is believed to have subsequently declined, as it was divided amongst hundreds of descendants.[5] Today, Rothschild businesses are on a far smaller scale than they were throughout the 19th century, although they encompass a diverse range of fields, including: mining, banks, energy, mixed farming, wine, and charities.[6][7]
Content from External Source

Indeed, and Celebrity Net Worth does not seem to be a reliable source, seemingly just making up random number with no sources.

What exactly do the Rothschilds own that makes them so rich?
 

Dave Richards

New Member
Indeed, and Celebrity Net Worth does not seem to be a reliable source, seemingly just making up random number with no sources.

What exactly do the Rothschilds own that makes them so rich?

simply by browsing 'Rothschild' you'll end up on their very own website. They are a private investment house.

There's an interview with the top Rothschild in an excellent documentary which can seen on You Tube, on the history of Money. The series is called 'The Ascent Of Money' and it's well worth a look.

The bottom line really is that there is always someone out there with money to loan, and the world is addicted to borrowing!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
simply by browsing 'Rothschild' you'll end up on their very own website. They are a private investment house.

There's an interview with the top Rothschild in an excellent documentary which can seen on You Tube, on the history of Money. The series is called 'The Ascent Of Money' and it's well worth a look.

The bottom line really is that there is always someone out there with money to loan, and the world is addicted to borrowing!

But where the evidence that they own "$300-400 billion"? Or that any individual in the family is a multi-billionaire?
 

Dave Richards

New Member
But where the evidence that they own "$300-400 billion"? Or that any individual in the family is a multi-billionaire?

Sorry Mick, I can't provide any evidence of the family's wealth, however, they are one the oldest banking dynasties, and assuming they havn't lost a large part of their fortune, they'd surely be very wealthy.

I'm with you on this topic - Although our money supply is governed by borrowing, most loans ARE paid back and disappear, providing the balance of the supply - any profit made by banks is slow in growing, but steady, and probably eventually spent back into the economy, to a large degree.

Shareholders of large banks are though, onto a winner in terms of large income.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
They are an OLD family and that means LOTS of folks. For ease say I have $1000 to pass down, say that everyone only has 2 children to inherit.
1st gen 500 each
2nd 250
3rd 125
4th 62.50
5th 31.25
6th 15.26
7th 7.81
8th 3.90

Then you have losses to figure in, with a family based in the middle of 2 world wars and then the Iron curtain (did they have property or holdings in eastern Europe)

While I doubt that they are as poor as churchmice, they lost the ultra rich tag a long time ago.

Most of your evidence is from over a 100 years ago. The Bourgia's were early bankers and they were very powerful, why are you not looking at them?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They are an OLD family and that means LOTS of folks. For ease say I have $1000 to pass down, say that everyone only has 2 children to inherit.
1st gen 500 each
2nd 250
3rd 125
4th 62.50
5th 31.25
6th 15.26
7th 7.81
8th 3.90

Then you have losses to figure in, with a family based in the middle of 2 world wars and then the Iron curtain (did they have property or holdings in eastern Europe)

While I doubt that they are as poor as churchmice, they lost the ultra rich tag a long time ago.

Most of your evidence is from over a 100 years ago. The Bourgia's were early bankers and they were very powerful, why are you not looking at them?

Grieves has already made the case clear by providing this link http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rothschild2.html
Later posters obviously have not read it or they would not be making up baseless conjecture which is evidently wrong.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Grieves has already made the case clear by providing this link http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rothschild2.html
Later posters obviously have not read it or they would not be making up baseless conjecture which is evidently wrong.

A link that simply estimates their wealth as between $1.9 trillion and $491,409 trillion. (vastly higher than your link, so whose links are we to trust?)

All it says it that they were rich once, and so because of compound interest they must be a lot richer now. It provides zero actual evidence for this.

Compount interest does not mean that every family that had £1 in 1613 now has £13,253,973,743 (400 years @ 6%)
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
A link that simply estimates their wealth as between $1.9 trillion and $491,409 trillion. (vastly higher than your link, so whose links are we to trust?)

All it says it that they were rich once, and so because of compound interest they must be a lot richer now. It provides zero actual evidence for this.

Compount interest does not mean that every family that had £1 in 1613 now has £13,253,973,743 (400 years @ 6%)

Are you suggesting that:

In a July 1997 edition of the Globe and Mail another rare report of another important Rothschild enterprise was made (see Rothschilds holding company fiscal year profit up 66%): The article referred to the Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG, parent of N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd, "a Swiss holding company for the Rothschild merchant banking business worldwide ...(with) operating profits rising to 179 million Swiss francs ($122.4 million U.S.) in the year ended March 31 from 108 million francs the previous years." A 66% profit increase is no small feat especially when you consider their line of business. In the article, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, chairman of Rothschild's Continuation, noted "We've got a good balance of businesses and on the whole we've had a pretty good run." Sir Evelyn also noted that the company has three global business lines "treasury and bullion trading; resource banking, or banking for the mining industry; and investment banking." Such stupendous returns on a supposedly barbarous relic, gold, make even George Soros's Quantum Fund returns seem meagre. It is important to note that this rare exposure of the family business coincides with the recent rare exposé by the LBMA that the equivalent of between 30-42 million ounces of gold per day are traded in London
The more significant cousin of RCH AG is in fact N.M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd, named after Nathan Mayer Rothschild, one of the five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who operated the London-based house of the family merchant banking enterprise in the latter part of the 18th and early 19th century. The Rothschild business enterprise has changed little in over 200 years. But why change a good thing when such large and sustained profits can be made by trading currency, treasuries, and gold plus gold leasing, financing of gold mining operations, and investment banking?
Content from External Source
counts for nothing?

or that:

In the words of the autobiographer Frederic Morton "the family grooms the inaudibility and invisibility of its presence as a result, some believe that little is left apart from a great legend - and the Rothschilds are quite content to let legend be their public relation" Today, their historical ingenuity and financial acumen is undoubtedly at work building new wealth regardless of a bear or bull stock, bond, or gold market. They undoubtedly revolve in circles that include the LBMA, and possibly every important central bank board of directors, including the IMF. While even by conservative accounting, they are undoubtedly the wealthiest family in the world, though you will never see them listed in Fortune magazine.
Content from External Source
is erroneous?

Obviously this counts for nothing as well...

To this day, N.M. Rothschild & Sons of London still lists as its primary business the selling and buying of treasuries and gold bullion. N.M. Rothschild helps fix the price of gold in London each day through the LBMA. A recent London Times articles explained that the gold price fix ceremony where five men (including a Rothschild) talk on their phones for 10 minutes, then lower tiny Union Jacks sitting on their desks, thereby fixing London's gold price each day. This ceremony takes place at 10:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., like clockwork, the same way, in the same place, and with mostly the same firms participating since the first gold fixing was enacted at Rothschild in St. Swithin's Lane on Friday Sept. 12, 1919. The company's name is also associated with many gold mining companies (e.g. Trillion Resources Ltd. and other Canadian mining companies).
Content from External Source
or this

Rothschild interests touch virtually every aspect of our lives. They helped found and finance Royal Dutch Shell and De Beers. Following World War II they invested in vast areas of resource rich properties in Canada, possibly gold rich deposits. Joey Smallwood, premier of Newfoundland, Canada, described the 50,000 square mile land purchase by Rothschild as the biggest land deal in Canadian history. Their influence extends to the Bank of England, Bank of France and most likely the U.S. Federal Reserve, and possibly the IMF. They thus have enormous influence on the world's monetary policy.
Content from External Source
If you choose to argue this is untrue then on what basis do you argue?

Obviously Cairenn's analysis that the wealth 'just evaporated through dilution should be viewed with serious scepticism.

The financial acumen of Mayer and his five sons became legendary. The acumen and the accumulated wealth of Mayer has been continually passed down to the next male generation of Rothschilds, without dilution. Their market worth has never been audited or accounted for, following from Mayer's clever accounting practices and the keeping secret books and subterranean vaults which were never the privy of auditor, legal counsel or state taxmen. Their mastery in financing both economic growth and war in Europe with both gold and fiat currencies undoubtedly continues unabated into the 20th century, though romantic auto-biographical accounts might lead you to believe that "that was history."
Content from External Source
It is laughable that Rothschilds and Rockefellers hardly raise a blip on Forbes or such like.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm arguing there's no actual evidence that they are mega-billionaires. All your links seem to say is that they are rich and powerful. But you they five no actual estimates of their net worth.

Perhaps they don't raise a blip because they are not really that big. Have you ever considered it might just be a bit of an urban legend? Sure, they are rich and powerful people in the banking world, but a bunch of guys saying they rule the world does not actually mena that they do.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'm arguing there's no actual evidence that they are mega-billionaires. All your links seem to say is that they are rich and powerful. But you they five no actual estimates of their net worth.

Perhaps they don't raise a blip because they are not really that big. Have you ever considered it might just be a bit of an urban legend? Sure, they are rich and powerful people in the banking world, but a bunch of guys saying they rule the world does not actually mena that they do.


There are a lot of people would disagree with that. And that is just one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Philip_Rothschild
In 2000, The Observer wrote that, in addition to Nathaniel's then declared inheritance of £500 million, his actual inheritance "hidden in a series of trusts in Switzerland is rumoured to be worth £40bn".[6] Via NR Investments Ltd., his principal investment company, Nathaniel Rothschild was a cornerstone investor in the United Company Rusal initial public offering in January 2010. At the same time Rothschild bought $40 million of Glencore bonds convertible into shares upon an IPO.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There are a lot of people would disagree with that. And that is just one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Philip_Rothschild
In 2000, The Observer wrote that, in addition to Nathaniel's then declared inheritance of £500 million, his actual inheritance "hidden in a series of trusts in Switzerland is rumoured to be worth £40bn".[6] Via NR Investments Ltd., his principal investment company, Nathaniel Rothschild was a cornerstone investor in the United Company Rusal initial public offering in January 2010. At the same time Rothschild bought $40 million of Glencore bonds convertible into shares upon an IPO.


The actual Observer article there says:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2000/mar/12/rich.life1
The Rothschild inheritance is difficult to quantify - not just because of the value of their internet interests. Nathaniel Rothschild will have to share his father's enormous wealth with his three older sisters. However his direct inheritance will include art, land, family companies and institutions plus his father's stake in Rothschild Continuation, the Swiss-based holding company for the Rothschild interests which has stakes in many of the family enterprises, including the bank NM Rothschild.

His father has further stakes in three quoted companies: RIT Capital Partners, Value Realisation Trust and St James Place Capital. But behind this wealth there is the actual Rothschild family fortune hidden in a series of trusts in Switzerland and rumoured to be worth £40bn. This will prove to be a conservative valuation of what Nathaniel Rothschild inherits, especially if some of the family's new media investments start to pay off.

Content from External Source
Which suggest that the entire Rothschild family fortune is £40bn. There's a lot of people in the family, and that's just a rumor. The only actual figure there is the £500M.
 
Top