Thursday, 14 August 2014 16:53

A Conversation with a Loans Officer

Written by Wallace Klinck
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Some time ago, I had the following conversation with a loans officer from a major Canadian bank:

Wally: When you issue these loans to borrowers you create the money out of nothing, don't you?

Banker: (with slight hesitation) Yes, that is true.

 

Wally: You do not actually take the money from anyone’s account?

Banker: No, we don’t.

 

Wally: And you say that you own the credit that you issue--correct?

Banker: Yes that is correct.

 

Wally: You must because you want it paid back.

Banker: Yes.

 

Wally: And you want interest paid on the outstanding principal--another claim of ownership. Right?

Banker: Yes, that is correct.

 

Wally: And furthermore, if we should ……………

Banker: (anticipating my next words) Yes, if you default on your loan we will foreclose on your assets.

 

Wally: Did you create those assets?

Banker: (perceptively at unease) No, we did not.

 

Wally: Do you return these foreclosed assets to the Community?

Banker: (visibly troubled and hesitating as having encountered a disturbing denouement) No, we do not.


On a subsequent encounter this same person asked me with obvious concern: “What can we to do about it?"

Last modified on Saturday, 10 February 2018 23:00

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.

Latest Articles

  • An Introduction to Social Credit - animated video
    Introducing the first-ever animated presentation of the Douglas Social Credit economic diagnosis and remedial proposals. Please spread wide and far!
    Written on Friday, 16 November 2018 04:01 Read more...
  • Social Credit and Democracy: The Problem - Part Four
    "If one wishes to do full justice to reality – regardless of the topic that is being investigated - it is of the gravest importance to neither underestimate nor overestimate the phenomenon in question. Accordingly, whenever this particular question of ‘conspiracy’ becomes the subject of reflection, the thoughtful individual will seek to follow a sensible middle-path in accordance with the available evidence and in full knowledge of his cognitive limitations. This will allow him to scrupulously avoid the error of those who become irrationally suspicious, i.e., paranoid, while, at the same time, avoiding the mistake of those who, by preferring to be complacently sceptical, refuse to call a spade a spade. To deny the reality and indeed even the possibility of conspiracy as an explanatory factor behind much of our socially-induced discontent is just as irrational, therefore, as to think that every negative thing that occurs in the world must…
    Written on Thursday, 08 November 2018 02:23 Read more...
  • Social Credit and Democracy: The Problem - Part Three
    Thus far in this series of articles exploring the relationship between Social Credit and democracy, we have seen that conventional ‘democracy’ suffers from a large number of design faults which vitiate it and render it ineffective. That would be bad enough, but Douglas goes one step further and claims that the ineffective mechanisms of conventional ‘democracy’ provide the best possible cover for the operations of a hidden dictatorship. Not only do they provide the best possible cover, but the same mechanisms which are ineffective from the point of view of fulfilling the true purpose of political association can be rendered most effective (by being cleverly manipulated) for the purpose of fulfilling an alternative policy-objective, one that is imposed by an agency that is external to the elected ‘government’.
    Written on Tuesday, 18 September 2018 22:58 Read more...