DR dANIE theron

Ek is oortuig dat baie Blankes in hierdie land nie die vaagste benul het hoe banke opereer nie. Meeste dink dat ‘n bank gewoon die geld wat by hom op deposito is uitleen aan ander. Dit is egter baie ver van die waarheid af.

Ek wil ter aanvang die geval van die Joodse swendelaar Bernie Madoff in Amerika in herinnering roep. Hy het mense oortuig om geld in sy skema te investeer en hulle uitstekende opbrengste belowe. Op papier (op hulle state) was dit dan ook so. Die syfers het baie goed gelyk. Te goed. Van hulle het hulle geld onttrek en het al hulle geld gekry. Daar was nog genoeg om hulle mee te betaal. Daar was ook nuwe investeerders. Die groot probleem het ontstaan toe die ekonomie begin swak vertoon en investeerders in groot getalle hulle geld wou onttrek. Daar was nie geld nie! Madoff is uitgevang en moes tronk toe gaan.

Waarvan praat mens hier? Dit word ‘n Ponzi Skema genoem. Dit is ‘n piramiede skema genoem waar jy die een belegger betaal met ‘n ander belegger se geld. Die skema kan net oorleef indien daar die hele tyd nuwe beleggers toetree. Die destydse kubus skema van Adriaan Niewoudt het op dieselfde beginsel gewerk. Charles Ponzi was ‘n oud-gevangene wat in die 1920’s sowat ses miljoen dollar (baie geld in daardie tyd!) van investeerders gesteel het deur aan hulle 400% rente te belowe. Dit was uiteraard nie volhoubaar nie en hy het 10 jaar tronkstraf daarvoor uitgedien.

Nou sal u verbaas wees om te hoor dat banke ook ‘n soort van piramiede skema bedryf. Hulle doen dit al vir honderde jare en dit is nogal gewettig. Maar as banke in ‘n probleem beland dan help die sentrale bank hulle uit hierdie dilemma soos ons in 2008 gesien het toe Amerikaanse banke deur die Federale Reserwe uit hulle verknorsing gehelp is. Die bedrag ter sprake? $8,5 triljoen!

Wikipedia som die proses van die banke, genoem “fractional reserve” soos volg:

Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve (as cash and other liquid assets) with the choice of lending out the remainder, while maintaining the simultaneous obligation to redeem all deposits immediately upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking. . . .The nature of fractional-reserve banking is that there is only a fraction of cash reserves available at the bank needed to repay all of the demand deposits and banknotes issued. . . . When Fractional-reserve banking works, it works because:

*       Over any typical period of time, redemption demands are largely or wholly offset by new deposits or issues of notes. The bank thus needs only to satisfy the excess amount of redemptions. 

*       Only a minority of people will actually choose to withdraw their demand deposits or present their notes for payment at any given time. 

*       People usually keep their funds in the bank for a prolonged period of time. 

*       There are usually enough cash reserves in the bank to handle net redemptions. 

If the net redemption demands are unusually large, the bank will run low on reserves and will be forced to raise new funds from additional borrowings (e.g. by borrowing from the money market or using lines of credit held with other banks), and/or sell assets, to avoid running out of reserves and defaulting on its obligations. If creditors are afraid that the bank is running out of cash, they have an incentive to redeem their deposits as soon as possible, triggering a bank run.

Banke leen dus baie meer geld uit as wat by hulle gedeponeer is. Hulle kry toestemming van die sentrale bank om dit te doen. Soos enige Ponzi skema het banke dus nie werklik die geld om al sy verpligtinge na te kom, indien deposante skielik hulle geld sou eis nie. Die direkteur van die Institute for International Monetary Research, Elgin Groseclose, het in 1934 opgemerk:

A warehouseman, taking goods deposited with him and devoting them to his own profit, either by use or by loan to another, is guilty of a tort, a conversion of goods for which he is liable in civil, if not in criminal, law. By a casuistry which is now elevated into an economic principle, but which has no defenders outside the realm of banking, a warehouseman who deals in money is subject to a diviner law: the banker is free to use for his private interest and profit the money left in trust. . . . He may even go further. He may create fictitious deposits on his books, which shall rank equally and ratably with actual deposits in any division of assets in case of liquidation.

Hoe het hierdie praktyk dan ontwikkel?

Dit dateer terug na die 17e eeu toe handel gedryf is in goud en silwermunte. Die Chigaco Federale Reserwebank verduidelik dit soos volg:

It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money. 

Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment. 

Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could spendby writing checks, thereby printing their own money.

As ‘n verhuurder sy huis aan vyf persone tegelyk verhuur sal hy verseker in die tronk beland. Die banke se skema word egter “fractional reserve” genoem en is heeltemal wettig, of laat ek liewers sê gewettig.

Roger Langrick beskryf die banke se skema soos volg:

[I]magine the first bank which prints and lends out $100. For its efforts it asks for the borrower to return $110 in one year; that is it asks for 10% interest. Unwittingly, or maybe wittingly, the bank has created a mathematically impossible situation. The only way in which the borrower can return 110 of the bank’s notes is if the bank prints, and lends, $10 more at 10% interest . . . . The result of creating 100 and demanding 110 in return, is that the collective borrowers of a nation are forever chasing a phantom which can never be caught; the mythical $10 that were never created. The debt in fact is unrepayable. Each time $100 is created for the nation, the nation’s overall indebtedness to the system is increased by $110. The only solution at present is increased borrowing to cover the principal plus the interest of what has been borrowed.

Die feit is dus dat die banke geld skep deur die lening wat hulle maak en wat niks anders is as ‘n blote boekinskrywing nie. En omdat hulle geld skep is banke die oorsaak van inflasie want dit is hulle wat meer geld in omloop plaas wat dan styging van pryse veroorsaak.

Maar soos gesien kan word skep banke net die kapitale gedeelte van die lening en nie ook die rente nie. Ten einde die rente terug te betaal wat nie in sirkulasie is nie, moet geld voortdurend uitgeleen word. Indien ‘n bank byvoorbeeld 5% rente vra op ‘n R1 wat uitgeleen word dan sal daardie R1 na 14 jaar verdubbel. So deur middel van rente verdubbel die geldvoorraad ongeveer elke14 jaar.

Sir Josiah Stamp, voormalige president van dieBank of England, het in 1927 die volgende te sê gehad:

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 inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a 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, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.

Robert H. Hemphill, Kredietbestuurder van die Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta skryf in 1934:

We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.

En Robert B. Anderson, Sekretaris van die Skatkis onder president Eisenhower sê in 1959:

[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.

Daar is dus in praktyk geen verskil tussen vervalsing van geld deur ‘n privaat indiwidu (“counterfeiting”) en dit wat die bank doen nie. Dit wat die bank doen is net gewettig. Om geld onwettig te skep is ‘n vorm van diefstal en wat banke doen is niks anders nie.

Hierdie wins wat banke maak, word opgeslurp deur die aandeelhouers van ‘n bank wat private individue is. Hulle maak dus geld ten koste van die burgers van ‘n staat. Daarom is private banke en ‘n private sentrale bank ‘n onding omdat hulle inflasie veroorsaak, geldvoorraad beheer en ‘n bevolking van ‘n staat kan wurg net soos hulle wil.

Dit is ‘n onderwerp wat net nooit in hierdie land onder bespreking kom nie. Het u al gedink waarom nie?