Tampering with definitions:
Counterfeiting is passing off and exploiting as money what is not money, hence it is founded on the definition of what is counterfeit and exploited: money. Therefore at this point it is worth to pay some additional attention to the definition of money, because how it is handled and by whom reveals the existing and tolerated ambiguity on what is money and what is not money, and how this ambiguity serves the purpose of the counterfeiter: passing off and exploiting as money what is not money. Examining the so−called “money aggregates” or “Ms” exemplifies this very good: you learn that “the total amount of monetary assets available” is called “money supply” or “money stock”, and this whole is classified as M0, M1, M2, M3, etc. At first you find yourself bothering about the subdivision: what set of that “money supply” thing is in M0? What set in M1, M2, M3? Do these Ms overlap or not? Is a same set contained in more than one M or not? To hell with subdivision; the point is, what is being subdivided, exactly? If you go through these Ms from this point of view you may get the idea that the definition of money gets intentionally watered down, crumbled, dismembered, and that all this is there to the exact purpose of blurring the scene, so as to sneak in and legitimate as money what is not money. To the benefit of legalised counterfeiters. By the way, in doing so you start learning about the counterfeiters’ masterpiece, too: call it as you please, scriptural money, commercial bank money, checking accounts, credit multiplier, non−cash money, dematerialised currency, cashless society, regardless of the label attached, it consists of passing off and exploiting as money something that not only is not money, but that does not even exist in the first place. And of surrendering to the counterfeiters, even at zero cost, the ultimate control of money.

Turning fraud into an institution:
Since fractional reserve is a crucial component to understand, in order not to take anything for granted I will suppose you were incredulous and start approaching it from there. So you believe that bankers only lend the money you deposited with them, and no more than that. After all, you say, one can’t use something that does not exist. To better unravel the knot, I’ll temporarily move you to Example Island: there, you give 10 units of money to the banker, whom as a consequence of your deposit cannot lend to other people more than these 10 units of money. Seen from here, fractional reserve apparently means that the banker is even required to retain a given percentage of your 10 units as reserves; the reason is that any depositor like you may want to withdraw some units at any time, and the required percentage of reserves is calculated to cover the amount of units that may be withdrawn.
If you observe carefully, already at this early stage something begins not to add up. It’s: debt or bailment, debtor or bailee? That is the question.
It all starts with conveniently blurring under the label of “banking” two distinct and separate functions: investment and deposit. On Example Island, you entrust your money to the investment banker – from the very definition – for the explicit purpose of lending it and returning a yield against the risk intrinsic to the loan; instead, you entrust your money to the deposit banker – again, from the very definition – for the quite distinct and different, though once again explicit, purpose of guard it at a fee, and protect it against any and all risk whatsoever. Further services such as transfers come obviously under deposit banking rather than investiment banking because they are intended to be safe against a fee, not gambles against a yield or a loss.

These two purposes could hardly be more diametrically opposed. And blurring their differentiation does have consequences – two of them, at the very least. One consequence is conspicuous, and it is en vogue since the last decade, that is, since it reduced to penury scores of people. The other consequence is inconspicuous, and is even more lethal, because in addition to be inconspicuous it is deeper and more basic, though unnoticed because it is deceptively taken for granted as “just the way it is”. It could be said that the conspicuous consequence too, amongst other troubles, stems from the inconspicuous basic consequence; and this is certainly true in terms of relative importances.
The conspicuous consequence has been the removal of the separation between investment banks and savings banks deliberately carried out a few decades ago. Savings banks share the aim of, and thus come under, deposit banking, certainly not investment banking; for the very good reason that when it comes to one’s savings people favour protecting them rather then endangering them. But once stripped of their restraints, savings banks became investment banks in disguise, gamblers dressed up as guardians, wolves in sheep’s clothing. So much the better to gobble us up with… They sold high−risk investiments to money savers under false pretenses, and the money savers got screwed as planned. Bankers do so for various forms of personal profit: as intermediaries they want anything sold, and to hell with what gyp is sold to what victim; as accomplices too they want anything sold, but in this case, as they share in the loot snatched from the victim, the worse the scam, the fatter the loot. All this ends up in stoking the monstruous pyramid scheme of the global financial drift I will discuss later in itself as it deserves; suffice it to say here that bankers close cycle with securitisation: dumping on the injured party the compensation for the damage. When investment becomes speculation, someone’s profit is someone else’s loss, and that someone shall get screwed is the prerequisite for setting up the “deal” in the first place: no sucker, no deal.

Unfortunately, cartoon bombs have a downside: a burning fuse; so they must be dumped on someone else before they explode. Better yet if sold well. And that’s what securitisation is all about: you set up a pyramid scheme and you dump its burning fuse on someone else before it goes boom!, so it blows in the face of anyone but its instigators. In practice, securitisation is a further scam: you made profit by extending a loan that will hardly be repaid, so hardly anyone would take over your credit as such, isn’t it? Then you scramble the rotten eggs together with some good eggs and assorted spices et voilà, isn’t this new delicacy a bargain at that price? If you think the price we pay for the impunity provided by securitisation is intolerable, brace yourself for the order of magnitude it is going to reach thanks to central banking.

So much for now as to the conspicuous consequence of blurring, or plainly and simply removing, the distinction between investment banking and deposit banking. Now let’s dig underneath it into the inconspicuous consequence: debt or bailment, debtor or bailee? That is the question.

Back on Example Island, you deposit 10 units of money in your bank account. Your money, your account: emphasis added on the adjective: yours. Even though still conforming to the incredulous viewpoint, as soon as your money is into your account, the banker takes it and loans it. And the point is, you take that for granted: “everybody knows” bankers avail themselves of your money and that’s just the way it is. Wait a moment: did the banker have you undersign an investment for that money? No? Then it’s not investment banking; it’s deposit banking. And the money is yours; not the banker’s.

The key to the deceit here is comparing a deposit bank with any other storage; for example, comparing a money warehouse to a grain warehouse or a personal belongings warehouse. And I mean comparing them from a legal point of view, too.

So you deposit 10 units of money in your bank account, 10 units of grain into a grain warehouse, 10 personal belongings into a self storage. Again, emphasis added to the fact that all of them are yours. Once your grain and your personal belongings are in their respective warehouses, they remain yours, which sounds quite obvious. The owners of those warehouses are bailees: should they ever dare to use your property as theirs, this would be a criminal offense. Lend or use in any other way your property without your consent? Return you something different than your property? Enter in their balance sheet, therefore as their property, the value of your property? These are criminal acts; their name is: embezzlement.
Not so with your money; quite the contrary. As soon as your money is in your bank account, it is not yours anymore. The crucial point is here: what did take place when you deposited your money in your bank account, exactly? What was exchanged for what, exacly? When you deposited your grain into the grain warehouse, you exchanged it with a claim ticket for that specific grain, attesting that that specific grain belongs to you. When you deposited your personal belongings into the self storage, you exchanged it with a claim ticket for those specific items, attesting that those specific items belong to you. When you deposited your money into your bank account, you exchanged it with an I Owe You for that amount: you were taken away the property of your money and you received in exchange a credit for that amount.
This is no small thing. This means that the banker enters your money into his or her bank’s balance sheet; this means that the banker now owns that money and is entitled to any profit from its use; and this means as well that should the banker be unable to return you a corresponding amount, that would be just an unfortunate case of insolvency, and not a criminal case of embezzlement. It’s banker versus warehouseman, loan versus safekeeping, bank credit versus warehouse receipt, legitimate entrepreneurial action versus embezzlement, banking law versus bailment law, unlucky entrepreneurial failure versus criminal act.

Any other warehouse owner embezzling your property goes to jail, while the banker embezzling your money is protected by law; in spite and to disprove the bedtime story that everyone is equal before the law, the legislative and the judiciary powers connived with the banker to play along him and hold him his bag, reserving to him the special privilege to be, unlike anyone else, debtor instead of bailee. It has been said that the entire system of fractional reserve banking is built on deceit, a deceit connived at by the legal system.
Speaking of increduluosness, if you think this is incredible, well, I totally agree. But it has been said that two of the most effective ways to hide something are putting it in plain sight, and make it appear incredible.

And now for something completely different about fractional reserve: time has come to question the very incredulous viewpoint in itself. Back to Example Island, let’s assume for the purpose of simplicity that the lending capacity of all the banks is currently saturated, that is, they cannot lend further unless further deposits get in. You go to your bank with a friend; first, you provide your bank with these further deposits by depositing 10 units of your money into your account, then you friend saturates again the bank’s lending capacity by borrowing all the corresponding further credit, say, 9 units of money on account of the fractional reserve, supposing it is currently set at 10 percent. On leaving the bank, a question arises: is there any difference between the amount of money that existed before you deposited it into the bank and the amount that exists now? Since the poet said, “look, don’t think”, you both empty your pockets and look. The mainstream version says that the fractional reserve deposit bank lends the money to the borrower, and that at the same time it maintains the availability of that same money for the depositor, and that at which point “it is as if by the loan new money were created”.

“As if”? You hold a bank statement saying that you have 10 units on your account; and indeed you can at once go back into the bank and withdraw them in cash, or make a wire transfer, or write a cheque, or these days make an online payment: it’s money, to all intents and purposes. At the same time, your friend holds another bank statement saying he has 9 units on his account, and indeed he can dispose of his 9 units very much as you can dispose of your 10: it’s money, to all intents and purposes, too. You look at each other, perplexed. Wait a moment… how much money did exist before you entered the bank? You had 10 units, you friend had none. Since you are a bit incredulous, you go and spend it; result? It’s money, to all intents and purposes: all those 19 units get accepted as money having purchasing power in exchange for goods and services. In the actual fact, in the real world, that mainstream “as if” does work so much like a straightforward “it is”, it is so indistingushable from it, that you both wonder which adjective would do to describe the mainstream version, and if hypocrite would seem just a tad too indulgent and, in the final analysis, naive.
But your incredulity dies hard, so you decide to repeat the test. Out of your legitimate blissful innocence, you merely wished to double−check the fact that rather magically your units of purchasing power nearly doubled in the pockets of the bankers, so you wouldn’t ever imagine you’d better brace yourself; you’re about to meet the most amazing facet of fractional reserve: recurtion… Your friend gets hold of a second friend, and they go to a bank; first, the friend who borrowed 9 units of money provides the bank with further deposits by depositing them into his account, then, the second friend saturates again the bank’s lending capacity by borrowing all the corresponding further credit, say, 8.1 units of money, again on account of the fractional reserve currently supposed at 10 percent. You look at each other, even more perplexed than before; there’s something that just doesn’t add up, but you can’t put your finger on it; so you decide to repeat the test to the bitter end, until you hopefully grasp it.

So the second friend gets hold of a third friend, who gets hold of fourth friend, who gets gold of a fifth friend, etc., and each couple goes to a bank; same number every time: one provides the bank with further deposits by depositing into his account the money just borrowed, the other saturates again the bank’s lending capacity by borrowing all the corresponding further credit according to the current fractional reserve.
By the time the fractional reserve has used up all its multi−level spell and you run out of friends, when your head stops spinning, you ask yourself the original question again: is there any difference between the amount of money that existed before you deposited it into the bank and the amount that exists now? So once again you put all the bank statements together and begin adding them up; on every ride on the merry−go−round the previous amount minus the fractional reserve was added: 10 + 9 + 8.1 + 7.29 + 6.56 + 5.9 + 5.31 + 4.77 + 4.29 + 3.86 + 3.47 + 3.12 + 2.8 + 2.52 + 2.26 + 2.03 + 1.82 + 1.63 + 1.46 + 1.31 + 1.17 + 1.05 + 0.94 + 0.84 + 0.75 + 0.67 + 0.6 + 0.54 + … Your head starts spinning again.

What fractional reserve or money multiplier is, is rather easily found almost anywhere, from mainstream sources, too; however, its real core and how it really works are less easily found out and understood. If you were a drummer and played a drum score by carefully ignoring or scrambling all accents – each piano, mezzoforte, forte, etc. played with any other accent but the intended one – hardly anyone, no matter how connoisseur, would be able to identify the song. Highlighting that fractional reserve binds the banker to keep as reserve a fraction of what he or she receives in deposit, while neglecting, ignoring, omitting, turning a blind eye to the facts that a) the banker embezzles that money, b) the embezzlement process results in the creation of further purchasing power out of nothing in the banker’s pocket, and c) such process is even as recursive as a merry−go−round, gotten to this point, is most definitely a criminal masterpiece, and not only of mere hypocrisy, but of genuine conspiracy of silence.

It’s hard to find more complete an overturning between seabed and surface than the one put in place on fractional reserve. And it’s definitely worthwhile to underline now that, in order to sift the subject more carefully, we have not asked here the consequential question: what about the source of the first money which later on gets embezzled and on which further purchasing power out of nothing is created? Let us set aside for the moment that that first money too gets created out of nothing by someone which pockets its purchasing power created out of nothing, and let’s remain focused on this facet called fractional reserve or money multiplier. Behind the curtains of shifted accents, fractional reserve is legalised crime on a global scale: it is not only the legalised practical implementation of counterfeiting on a global scale, but it is also the legalising of the very concept of counterfeiting, and furthermore as a privilege. It bestows to the banker alone the incredible privileges of embezzling and counterfeiting money legally, even hiding them behind the paradoxical fig leaf of its provision that the banker shall not embezzle and counterfeit beyond the limit – self−imposed, by the way – of, say, 90 percent each ride on the merry−go−round. At which point you and your friends look at each other wondering who did bestow it, and why.

Specious argumentations, better known as fake pretexts:
By means of the fig leaf of an hypocrisy that I leave it to you to judge how ironic, fractional reserve banking defines the creation of purchasing power out of nothing in the banker’s pocket, in the form of money at the same time counterfeit and non existent, not only as the right of the banker to guarantee the availabilty of the same money simultaneously to its real owner and to its borrower, but also as his or her duty to do so. Not only are the privileges of embezzlement and of counterfeiting legal for the banker alone, but they are also his or her duty. The argument that committing a crime would be a duty, and in fact at this point a social and thus a civic duty of the privileged, is undoubtedly interesting, but it is as much undeniable who has a vested interest in promoting such argument.

What excuses can be ever made for such a “duty”? First comes of course the whole usual palette of manipulation: the awe resulting from the conspiracy of prestige and authority built around bankers and banking to the very aim of preventing people from seeing that the banker has less clothes than the king; the lack of information or of understanding of information resulting from the conspiracy of silence and the smokescreens of disinformation and red herring. Those who make it through this first barrage will be faced with the thesis that society needs sufficient media of exchange to operate like a body needs sufficient blood to live, and as usual a truth is exploited as a Trojan horse: the more the Trojan horse is plausible from the outside, the more effective the stratagem.
So let’s not mince words: that sufficient media of exchange are needed is sufficient a reason to provide them regardless of who and how? Now that we are fully aware that the core is who is the owner of the purchasing power of the medium of exchange the moment it gets born, we can look at the whole scene from there and see through it. Hence, our answer is an unmistakable NO: we’re nobody’s fools, and we’re perfectly aware that pressing need in whatever form is a standard crowbar to unhinge supervision and supervisors. The truth is, there are many ways to provide society with sufficient media of exchange, as many as honesty, freedom of thought and freedom of initiative can devise without having to get screwed as an indispensable requisite. It has been said that the fact that bankers aren’t treated like common bailees is the result of politics rather than of justice, and that if they were this would lay an unbearable burden upon banking business. To which it has been pointed out that any fraudulent profit comes to an end when fraud is cracked down on, so why wouldn’t genuine bailment banks ever be able to remain in business under the same honest conditions of any other deposit business?

The crux of the matter is: since we are using a medium of exchange devoid of intrinsic value, who controls its existence and amount and is the owner of its purchasing power the moment it gets born? The producers and legitimate owners of the products whose exchange those means have to facilitate, or rather some criminals – maybe privileged oligo−monopolistic ones? And the sacrosanct necessity of society to have an adequate supply of media of exchange is exploited as the Trojan horse to take away our monetary sovereignty and hand it to the public monopolies of governments which in turn hand it to the private cartels of bankers.

Fractional reserve, inherently bankrupt and inherently fraudulent:
As under the fractional reserve our confront of facts undergoes a crescendo that shows no signs of abating, it will be prudent to restart once again from the solid foundation of incredulity. You and your friends stare at the bank’s façade and its awesome colonnade makes it impossible for you to take into consideration the hypotesis that the banker behind it has less clothes than a king with no clothes and that awesome colonnade is but a house of marked cards. Well, then let’s return to Example Island, to witness two facts proving how you’d definitely better take that hypothesis into consideration.
On the island, all the customers of a bank are your friends; some of them deposited their money, some others borrowed it, and as we have seen the bank certifies the same money as available more and more times on various accounts. So you and your friends decide to take your bank statements to their words and go to the till to demand to withdraw your money – make no mistake: all of you together, all your money at once, and cash on the nail –. You’ve just become one of the worst nightmares that took the sleep of bankers until they set up the final solution we’ll discuss right after that; a nightmare they call: bank run. Those who deposited their money say, “It’s my money, you certify it’s there, I want it; get it out, now!” Those who borrowed it say, “It’s my money until due, you certify it’s there, I want it; get it our, now!” The banker screams, “Politicians! Judges! Police! Come to my rescue! What did I buy you for?” While you flee in search of a bulletproof shelter from the treatment of injured parties, some questions remain stuck in your throat: “Where? How? Who?”. So let’s see to it that each of these questions gets answered.

“Where is my money?” I’m afraid it is where everything that does not exist is: nowhere. Because scriptural money is so utterly counterfeit that it doesn’t even exist in the first place. Oh, well, yes, in actual fact a part of it does “exist” – provided we keep on considering it real money, instead of questioning and inspecting it, too –: it is that initial “existing” fraction which started the whole merry−go−round of fractional reserve. If you ever cared to calculate the shares of it that each one of you would get, as a division of the extant as a partial compensation of the “disappearance” of the due that never existed in the first place, just complete the previous exemplification of the fractional reserve. The one when your head was spinning. You look up the definition of “bankrupt”, and it reads something along the lines of “insolvent, in the sense of unable to meet its obligations”. Since you and your friends hold in your hands a pile of bank statements in which the bank states, “I owe you this money”, since the bank is in possession of only a small fraction of that money, and since it is never going to get hold of that money for the very good reason that it does not exist in the first place, this state of things most definitely fits the definition of “bankrupt”: “insolvent, unable to meet its obligations”.
But you haven’t yet finished to take this in that suddenly you feel caught off guard from a further angle, too. You always took for granted that the spirit of the law as intended by the legislator was that being bankrupt is the exception, not the rule; a final state of affairs, not the ordinary operating condition. Blissful ignorance, and blissful innocence… This bankrupt per definition state of affairs is on the contrary the very normal and permanent operating condition of the bank.
“How is that possible?” Subjecting yourself to a police interrogation, you ask yourself, “When was the last time that you saw your money?” “Well, when I deposited them into the bank, the first deposit which started the merry−go−round.” “And what did you handle from then on, as a matter of fact?” “Oh, well, wire transfers and checks, online payments and bank statements.” “Any cash?” “No.” “So how was that possible? Come on, it’s just right in front of you…”

“What the hell! What is not money gets accepted as if it were money! Promises of money are seen and taken as valid money!”
“Who did it?” The police interrogation continues: “Who accepts what is not money as if it were? When you receive that fake money, where does it ends up?” “In a bank account…” “Indeed… So who plays along your bank and hold it its bag?” “What the… the other banks!” “Then I consider your questions about where, how and who as answered, right?” “Yep: the fake money continues to circulate from hand to hand indefinitely as if it were money because it actually circulates from bank account to bank account, seamlessly and without interruptions of its fiction along all the lines, that is, without anyone demanding it in cash, and at both ends of all the lines there are always banks that accept it as genuine. And so we ingenuous and credulous subjects do the same.”
Once again in the field of banking we have a textbook case of such strong a position that people don’t even realize it, and sees a mere oligo−monopoly as an “everybody knows that’s just the way it is”, instead of questioning the hell out of it until one and all realize that the banker has less clothes than the king. Hence, we don’t even realize bankers have usurped the oligo−monopoly of possession and circulation of money. It’s not that “money” is “dematerialized” that counts; it’s that it’s born in their pockets and that it is under their fraudulent, profitable and intrinsically totalitarian control that counts. So here’s one of the reasons why bankers’ troops are permanently mobilised in the war against cash: the less cash, the more fake “money” out of nothing in their pockets and under their control.

At this point your incredulity, even though seriously hit, still lingers on a perplexity raised by this very picture: how come banks get along so wonderfully? After all, humans aren’t famous for effectiveness in cooperation, and shady humans are even less so…

Let’s save for a little while the answer to this question, and take the cue from this perplexity to move back to Example Island and witness the second of the two facts proving how you’d better take into consideration as something more than just a mere hypothesis that the awesome colonnade of the bank’s façade is but a house of marked cards and the banker behind it has less clothes than a king with no clothes.
Suppose there are ten banks on Example Island, happily counterfeiting non−existing money, but all of them abiding by their self−imposed limit expressed as the “fractional reserve” ratio, say, 90 percent. Every day bank customers exchange non−existing money by bank transfers, cheques, online payments, etc., so the money created out of nothing by each bank ends up in the other banks, too, because exchanges occur between customers of all banks. Let’s draw the journey of any unit of money, in stop−motion and substantially rather than formally: Mr. A has one unit of money in his account in Bank 1, whose statement attests: “I, Bank 1, owe Mr.A one unit of money.” Mr. A writes a cheque and gives it to Mr. B, and the cheque attests: “I, Bank 1, owe Mr. B one unit of money.” Mr. B endorses that cheque to Bank 2 and deposits it in his account in it, whose ensuing statement attests: “I, Bank 2, owe Mr. B one unit of money.” Bank 2 keeps the endorsed cheque which now attests: “I, Bank 1, owe Bank 2 one unit of money.” As a result, all banks pile up claims against the other banks, whose equivalent parts get cancelled in a so−called clearing house: one unit of money owed by Bank 1 to Bank 2 and one owed by Bank 2 to Bank 1 cancel each other. The inbalances of credits and debts among banks tend to be negligible and temporary, so bankers accept them as such. Indeed if only they wished, bankers may demand that their fellow bankers paid all their debts in cash instead of clearing them, but they favour abstaining from such a demand because in doing so they would commit collective suicide.

Then one fine day one of the bankers decides to cut some corners… Unbeknownst to anyone, his or her bank begins to counterfeit significantly more non−existing money than its fellow banks. Since fake money can only survive among accomplices pretending it was real money, that surplus fake money inevitably ends up in other banks, and it causes the clearing house to unbalance and overflow. When the fellow bankers decide that banker pushed it too far, they demand him or her to settle accounts. Cash. They’ve just become the other worst nighmare that took the sleep of bankers until the final solution discussed ahead: a bank run by fellow bankers.

So why bank runs, be them by customers or by fellows, are the nightmare of bankers? If all the customers of a bailee withdrew all their deposits simultaneously, the poor bailee would probably take a last disconsolate look at the empty warehouse before closing the business, but that would be the end of it: he or she would be facing new business challenges, not criminal charges. So why are bank runs so much of a nightmare that bankers plotted for decades to achieve their final solution discussed next? Because the banker could never return the customers the deposits they would more than legitimately claim back, for the very good and conclusive reason that they do not exist nor did ever exist; not in his or her vaults nor anywhere else under the sun.
For instance, a typical pretext used to gain acceptance for the further swindle known as central banking is that it would protect from bank runs, and particularly from those on the weakest banks spreading to other banks, but obviously enough the truth is quite the opposite: bank runs are the bankers’ worst nightmare for the very good reason they’re intrinsic in the very fraudulent nature of fractional reserve banking; despite the deception of their promoted almightiness, as it’s been said, all banks are in a state of permanent insolvency, and the bankers have no clothes, never had, and never will.

The essential propellant that keeps any swindle in the air, particularly pyramid schemes, is the victims’ confidence. To the degree bankers can’t count on the weapons of oligo−monopoly to force people to be their customers – which is increasingly often the case these days, by the way –, customers’ confidence is their treasure to snatch up and defend. Speaking of incredulousness, the degree of such customers’ confidence and therefore of bankers’ success in this may look incredible to us, but only because now we know something about it; hence, this confirms that knowledge is the antibody for deceptions. So finally, as an introduction to their final solution, or rather, their final weapon, let’s discuss briefly the subject of customers’ confidence from a certain viewpoint.

If people knew as we now know that bankers have less clothes than the king behind the houses of marked cards of their banks’ colonnades, and if they weren’t forced to do so at gunpoint by banker’s monopoly of money deposits and flows, would they avail themselves of bankers’ “services”? Let’s have a look at it from the viewpoint of a free and well−informed prospective customer:
Would you spontaneously and knowingly consign your hard−earned and real money in exchange for a banker’s promise to pay you an equal amount in non−existing money?
Would you do that knowing that in doing so you fuel the very scheme the banker uses to plunder you and everyone else?
Would you do that knowing that you’d get caught in a pyramid scheme that inherently holds toghether only as long as you and your fellow customers do not demand back what is yours?
Would you do that knowing that you and every single one of your fellow customers are fully aware from top to bottom of each and every point above? That each one of you consigns hard−earned and real money in exchange for banker’s promises to pay back non−existing money? That you fuel the scheme the banker set up to plunder you all? That you’re getting caught in a pyramid scheme that holds together only as long as you all pretend not to know and do not demand back what is yours, that you’ll never have back?

Such a scam may be so immense that the conspiracy of silence alone is not enough to conceal it beyond reach of its victims’ eyes and thus preserve their confidence; and so to this aim a solution has been hatched, worth being called “final weapon”, considering the depth and scope of its effects. In fact, it enables bankers to, at the same time, both usurp the confidence of their victims and betray it, more deeply and more easily.

And to think that confidence, in an intrinsically bankrupt and thus fraudulent system such as fractional reserve banking, is paradoxical. In actual fact, as a direct consequence of the intrinsic nature of fractional reserve, any scheme to “guarantee” it and “preserve” that confidence, perhaps by “insuring” customers is intrinsically bankrupt, fraudulent and paradoxical, as well. In fact, the very foundations of insurance are: knowing statistically the percentage of adverse events that will occur, ignoring to whom they will occur, assuming such events are involuntary and uncontrollable by their victims, hence pooling resources to assist those. While in the case of “insuring” fractional reserve customers, such foundations are: either knowing that the percentage of adverse events is 100 percent – to say the least, if not millions percent, considering it more realistically –, hence knowing they will occur to each and everyone, knowing the bankers are consciously and deliberately exploiting the system and laying the foundations for such events to occur in the first place, so knowing from the start that the resources to be pooled to assist those will always by hopelessly insufficient, and that therefore they will have to be stolen from someone; otherwise, knowing that the percentage of adverse effects can be reduced only by deceiving or forcing those insured to… ensure that they themselves won’t trigger such millions percent events by demanding what is their own legitimate property and right, because if only they knew what it’s all about…

In view of the fact that all this is now clear to us, then it must be far clearer to its instigators and promoters, and the actual purposes of such an “insurance” have to be in bad faith in the first place; the customer’s confidence thus capitalized has to be inherently a betrayal, aimed at of looting both people and the insuring bodies whatever their kind, be them public, private or mixed, while relieving the criminals of the consequences of their crimes. “Deposit insurance” and such schemes are not “insurance”; they are redistributive rackets designed to allow their exploiters to plunder their victims more thoroughly. And, finally and additionally, such racket can also serve monopolistic criminal aims: deposit insurance is usually provided by legally and economically monopolistic bodies, whether public or not; as such, they will be under the control of the big fishes, hence any bank will be faced with the choice of toeing the big fishes’ line, with all that this entails, or be doomed through the competitive disadvantage of being not “insured”, and maybe “inevitably” more prone to the “unpredictable” adverse events of the “free market”.

And compared to “honest” fraud by “simple” counterfeiting, fractional reserve banking also coerces the robbed individual to pay back to the robber, with as much fraudulently borrowed interest, what both the individual and the community were robbed of in the first place. An inherently bankrupt and inherently fraudulent pyramid scheme of enslavement through plunder. I think that we can, finally and definitively, call things with their name, and rename “fractional reserve banking” as “bankers counterfeiting and appropriating money out of nothing behind the fig leaf that they won’t exaggerate that counterfeiting beyond the arbitrary limit they themselves establish”.

Finally, it is informative to compare creation of purchasing power out of nothing as practiced by governments usurping your monetary sovereignty and issuing fiat money, to the creation of purchasing power out of nothing as practiced by bankers usurping your monetary sovereignty, issuing fiat money from the central banks, and issuing credit “money” from the other banks through fractional reserve: Governments are hopefully somewhat democratically elected and accountable to people; bankers do not. Governments’ mandate is the public’s sake; bankers’ mandate is their own sake – and may well be anyone else’s doom as well –. Governments create straightforward money in relatively plain sight, so when inflation occurs they are relatively easy to spot, blame and vote out; bankers create blurred, deceptive, insidious “money” by as much blurred, deceptive and insidious means, so when inflation occurs they are rather impossible to spot and blame, and absolutely impossible to vote out anyway. If the monopoly of monetary sovereignty of governments is a problem, well, the monopoly of monetary sovereignty of bankers is far more of a problem; certainly not a step in the right direction out of economic slavery, but rather a step in the opposite direction: from the frying pan into the fire.