ID Theft Victim Fights Back

I suspect that some banks have great difficulty in telling the difference between a client and a thief.

As an old ditty would have it: "It takes one to know one (a thief)"!

And banks are thieves for the simple reason that anyone who profits from something not owned or in legal possession of, is a thief.

The interest the banks charge on money loaned out is theft because the money loaned out DOES NOT EXIST! Hard for many individuals to believe but absolutely true!

Consequently, if it doesn't exist the bank cannot own it or be in legal control of it. Thus interest charged on this 'non-existent' money is theft.

The prerogative to create money without interest is the legal government's job, which can do this, interest-free, through the national bank, just by printing the stuff.

It is, of course, vitally important to keep the money in circulation under close control and bearing a definite relationship to the goods and services produced in the country. Get this relationship out-of-whack and two conditions will result: 1) Too much money in circulation results in inflation, ie. rising prices. 2) Too little money in circulation results in depression, as experienced during the dirty thirties and the nasty eighties.

Admittedly this is a very simple view of things. Complications arise, for example, through heavy borrowing by governments, which also screws-up the monetary system.

But the essence of the foregoing is correct.

H.F. Wolff

Ya gotta give credit where credit is due. The banks try protect their own as in "honour among thieves"!

And banks are thieves for the simple reason that anyone who profits from something not owned or in legal possession of, is a thief.

The interest the banks charge on money loaned out is theft because the money loaned out DOES NOT EXIST! Hard for many people to believe but absolutely true!

Consequently, if it doesn't exist the bank cannot own it or be in legal control of it. Thus interest charged on this 'non-existent' money is theft.

The prerogative to create money without interest is the legal government's job, which can do this, interest-free, through the national bank, just by printing the stuff.

It is, of course, vitally important to keep the money in circulation under close control and bearing a definite relationship to the goods and services produced in the country. Get this relationship out-of-whack and one of two conditions will result: 1) Too much money in circulation results in inflation, ie. rising prices. 2) Too little money in circulation results in depression, as experienced during the dirty thirties and the nasty eighties.

Admittedly this is a simple and extreme view of things. Complications arise, for example, through heavy borrowing by governments, which also screws-up the monetary system.

But the essence of the foregoing is correct.

H.F. Wolff

Doggone it!

Please ignore my first post. The second one is better worded.

Stupid computers. Ya'd think they knew what one wanted to say.

A good craftsman always blames his tools, right? )

H.F. Wolff

Some years ago a scientist friend of mine was in China on business and on his way out had to stay in Bangkok for one night, staying in a hotel while waiting for his plane, paying the hotel with his VISA card.

After he arrived back home in the Vancouver area, he got a bill from his Royal Bank VISA for something like $30,000. all from Bangkok. He went to see his bank manager, and while he was sitting in the office, another bill for several thousand came in.

In that case the bank immdiately cancelled all the debts, but I can't help wondering, how much do these credit card companies have to write off every year to fraud, passing the costs onto their good customers? The figure must be astronomical and we can rest assured that, like insurance companies, they don't absorb the losses, but spread the damages across the whole spectrum.

People always complain about "taxation", but never the hidden forms of taxation caused by crime and insatiable profit demands.

It is most unfortunate to read what this lady had to go through, but how many similar cases are there the public never hears about, just pays the transferred costs and bills?

Ed Deak.

In getting to "know" you I
see you are not with out grand humour

Good stuff on Banks, Too!


---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

In getting to "know" you I
see you are not with out grand humour

Good stuff on Banks, Too!


---
[juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

lex ferenda

LOL

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

I first became aware of how the banks charge interest on money that they don't actually own from a former Royal Bank manager. At the time I was amazed to learn about it, and from that point forward, whatever respect I had for banks as representing a valid business went down the toilet.

The point I think Ed made about government borrowing is notable, because it's a form of massive theft when a few higher ups in government get away with entering "we the people" into binding contracts without our consent. These contracts amount to selling off the people into decades of servitude, paying off an unseen master for next to, if not nothing in return.

So I hear slavery was abolished long ago ...

It makes no difference whether it is government, or private industry that borrows, the payments and service charges all come out of the public's pocket.

We have a perfectly good, 19 year old, old people's residence in nearby Williams Lake the Health Authority wants to close down and put the residents into a private facility, opened under the BCLib government. There's a huge outcry against it, with mass signatures and delegations to Victoria etc.

I'm enclosing a letter I had in the paper a week ago on this subject:
------------------------------------------------
The Editor, Williams Lake Tribune. February 15, 2007


Dear Mr. Editor,


Quoting from your Feb.13 front page story on the Deni House: “...Neuner said he didn't have the $1.6 million operating capital to keep it running”. How much is government paying to the private facility, what are long term costs and comparisons, and what kind of contract does the government have with them to remove public choice and competition ?


On Page 3, “He explained that by having private investors build facilities like the Seniors Village, it frees up health care dollars for other uses”.


Mr.Neuner either has no idea of elementary business economics, or as a political appointee, is instructed to spread this nonsensical propaganda.


As an independent business owner in BC since 1957, and a long term student of economics, I do have pretty good idea how businesses operate and finance. Businesses can't afford to have “deep pockets”, and usually borrow for large capital projects, because the service costs are tax deductible business expenses. Which means they come out of the taxpayers' pockets. Therefore it makes no difference whether the loans are made to private companies, or the government. However, businesses must make profits and pay shareholders, therefore the long term costs of government services, and investments in infrastructure, are lower.


Every penny a business spends, either on capital projects, or on wages, stocks and services, comes out of the public's pocket. Investors don't “bring” anything to a community, their purpose is to “take” and it is always the public that pays for everything. Investment in any project is the same as the priming of a pump with a bottle of borrowed water. The first water that will come out of the spout is always the borrowed water and then a continuous flow, until the well runs dry. The costs of investment are also the first to be repaid by the public.


Should this bottle of borrowed water entitle the loaner the ownership of the well ? Some ideologues believe so, others question how far public largesse should apply?


Experience around the world, and also the example of our own privatized road, railway, etc. services show, that they are not “savings”, but increased and transferred costs on the public. Just as the so called “free trade agreements” have been and are increasing our living costs every day.


The only reason for privatization is the wish by governments to escape the responsibility of providing needed services and accountability for quality , which they call , “reducing the size of government”. More silly, ideological propaganda , because public ownership, control and the provision of services are not “government” and their sale is not “savings” .

Ed Deak,

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Banks & Credit card companies charge interest rates that at one time was considered profiteering. I discovered that a phone call to these establishments can save you considerably in interest. They would sooner make good interest rather then none. They won't lower the rate unless you demand it. This women discovered that a bank won't volunteer anything without aggression.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.