What is Banking?

[benhur]

My first post here.

What's banking? Why do we use paper money, and what are the banking principles involved? I am asking because most people say bankers are unprincipled, and they control the economy, but how do they manage to do that?

Do I assume that banks will be abolished, when socialism is established?

[chicanorojo]

My first post here.

What's banking? Why do we use paper money, and what are the banking principles involved?

Are u referring the practicality or the economic theory?:confused:

[Black Sheep]

Interesting.. i have come across the same 'conspiracy theory' in many documentaries such as zeitgeist and several others,about the banking elite oligarchy ruling the globe.

May i ask a couple more on this thread?

Are banks considered corporations?

What do you think about the banker tyrants theory i mentioned above?

[spice756]

Interesting.. i have come across the same 'conspiracy theory' in many documentaries such as zeitgeist and several others,about the banking elite oligarchy ruling the globe.

May i ask a couple more on this thread?


I believe that is the Federal Reserve who prints and controls money.Not the banks.

The Federal Reserve controls inflation and how much money is printed.

[Black Sheep]

No, it specifically mentioned stuff as i typed above.
An elite of international power-monger bankers.

[spice756]

No, it specifically mentioned stuff as i typed above.

An elite of international power-monger bankers.


The bankers have some control but not the control the Federal Reserve has .

Well just think if you are very rich and can decide who get a loan that is control.

[Comrada J]

Who uses paper money these days!? It's all electric now.


and they control the economy, but how do they manage to do that?
They have all the money; unless you keep your all your wealth in the form of physical assets then chances are all your money is in the bank. Your money, my money, everybody's money. In the 21st century financial capital is incredibly powerful, more so than military, social or political capital.

Under socialism, if we still use money then we'd still need to use a bank or some sort - although it wouldn't be anything like the current banks. The bank would serve the workers instead of filthy rich shareholders.

[Sendo]

go to youtube

watch videos from brendanmcooney

He did "ker-plunk 1 of 2" which mocks Bush's speech last week. Find that video, then check out his other vids.

After that (2 hours or so) check out "Debt as money" it's a free documentary/powerpoint online on google video.

[Kassad]

Well, when it comes to America, the central bank of the Federal Reserve owns all means of currency production, interest rates and inflation. In general, it loans the money to the government. Paper money is the key to American imperialism, honestly. As depressing as it is, since the US government can just print endless amounts of money, they can produce the currency they want to fund their imperialism. In America, if the currency was backed in precious metals or anything with value, we would see a much more steady currency. The US dollar has lost 96% of its value since the Federal Reserve took power and it's only a matter of time before the currency can no longer inflate and kep value at the same time. Now, I can't say I've read enough on Marxism and its sister groups to figure out the use an value of currency.

[Hiero]

Interesting.. i have come across the same 'conspiracy theory' in many documentaries such as zeitgeist and several others,about the banking elite oligarchy ruling the globe.

May i ask a couple more on this thread?

Are banks considered corporations?

What do you think about the banker tyrants theory i mentioned above?
Conspiracy theories are simple ways of trying to understand a complex system. It is quite easier to believe a small group of people actually decide the very minute goings of capitalism to benifit themselves, then to have a sceintific understand of a system system. Conspiracy theory is idealistic and reformist, it assume that if we remove this oligarchy that we will solve all of the words problems.

I think Benhur was asking for the later.

[Kassad]

Well, in all honesty, I'd rather people think too much and come up with incorrect ideas that can be corrected instead of them thinking too little and submitting to masters.

[Demogorgon]

Most money now takes the form of electronic credit rather than paper money (or coins). Banks do get to create this as they can lend out much more than they actually have deposited with them in terms of actual paper money, but this is directed by central banks setting base interest rates.

[spice756]

Most money now takes the form of electronic credit rather than paper money (or coins). Banks do get to create this as they can lend out much more than they actually have deposited with them in terms of actual paper money, but this is directed by central banks setting base interest rates.


Yes but the electronic money is still back on paper money.





Well, when it comes to America, the central bank of the Federal Reserve owns all means of currency production, interest rates and inflation. In general, it loans the money to the government. Paper money is the key to American imperialism, honestly. As depressing as it is, since the US government can just print endless amounts of money, they can produce the currency they want to fund their imperialism. In America, if the currency was backed in precious metals or anything with value, we would see a much more steady currency. The US dollar has lost 96% of its value since the Federal Reserve took power and it's only a matter of time before the currency can no longer inflate and kep value at the same time. Now, I can't say I've read enough on Marxism and its sister groups to figure out the use an value of currency.


And this is all true but why will the US government not pay off their debt? Is some one else controlling them?

Keep printing money is not good you have inflation.

[Demogorgon]

Yes but the electronic money is still back on paper money.

Only very indirectly. Like I say, banks can lend out many times what they have in paper money by creating new electronic money. That is how the money supply grows.

[spice756]

Ya I'm having very hard time understanding how a bank give you $100 electronic money but not having $100 paper money.

[Decolonize The Left]

My first post here.

What's banking? Why do we use paper money, and what are the banking principles involved? I am asking because most people say bankers are unprincipled, and they control the economy, but how do they manage to do that?

Do I assume that banks will be abolished, when socialism is established?

Perhaps I can help. This is a basic outline of the banking/monetary structure of the US.

Trade:
Gift economy - everything is freely given by anyone who wishes to give.
Trade/barter - individuals negotiate on the exchange between two goods/services.
Monetary - a medium of exchange is introduced whereby one can exchange a good/service for X amount of said medium. This medium can then be later exchanged for another good/service.

Capitalism is based upon a monetary economic system. Currency, in the form of dollar bills, is the medium of exchange.

Why dollar bills?
Originally gold was the medium of exchange. Gold is rare, pretty, and by extension - valuable. But there is only so much gold (it is a finite resource). Hence as populations grew and more people need to trade goods/services, gold became harder to use as a medium of exchange.
Hence the dollar bill was created. Originally, one dollar was worth X amount of gold (this means that the dollar was backed by gold). I.e. it was worth something tangible (gold). These dollars allowed individuals to trade goods/services without dealing with the rare resource of gold.
But such a system is very unstable. After all, one dollar is worth X to you, and Y to me (and Z to another person). There needed to be some stability. The Federal Reserve was created to monitor and control the money supply (the amount of dollar bills in circulation). The Federal Reserve is not connected to the government - it is a private institution. All the gold was recalled by the government, and the dollar bill was backed by the government. This means that the dollar bill is no longer worth anything tangible, rather, it is legal tender.
The Federal Reserve has a monopoly on the production of dollar bills. This means that it can effectively control the economy by restricting the money supply (calling in debt and reducing the amount of dollars in circulation), or flooding the money supply (printing dollar bills and increasing the amount in circulation).
Having dollar bills be legal tender allows the money supply to grow and grow as there is no backing for it (in terms of tangible value - gold). Hence the economy can continue to increase and expand without any direct, immediate, repercussions.

This is why we use dollar bills.

Banks (note: this does not apply to credit unions):
A bank is a for-profit institution which holds one's money. It then lends this money to other banks/corporations/institutions/people or invests it in stocks/bonds. The goal of the bank is to make a profit off the money you let them hold for you.
The bank backs your money with other people's money. In other words, a bunch of people put a bunch of money in the bank, and the bank manages this money.

The reason why people say "bankers are unprincipled, and they control the economy" is mainly because they are uninformed. Bankers are highly principled, but they are capitalists. They are solely concerned with profit. They do not control the economy, but they do play a large role within investment and money circulation.

I hope this helps.

- August

[Lynx]

Now explain the fractional reserve system!

[Demogorgon]

Ya I'm having very hard time understanding how a bank give you $100 electronic money but not having $100 paper money.

Banks find that people do not withdraw all of their money at any one time and that most money is left with them over considerable periods of time. This means that they can lend out more than they have as people will not demand all the money back at once.

To put it in way of example, imagine a bank finds that for every ten dollars deposited, people only seem to withdraw one, preferring to use cheque books or cards for the other nine or else save them. Now imagine that a hundred dollars is deposited with them. The bank knows that ten dollars is liable to be withdrawn so they can't lend that out, but they can lend the other ninety. They lend someone the ninety dollars and though they are legally obliged to give this ninety in cash should the customer ask for it, customers are usually happy to take it in electronic credit or through a chequing account. Such things being more convenient.

Anyway the customer might then spend this ninety dollars and the business that the ninety is given to might also has an account with the bank, meaning that ninety dollars of electronic money is credited to the businesses account. Now the bank knows that only nine dollars is likely to be withdrawn so those nine are added to the ten already reserved so that the bank now has nineteen dollars kept in reserve. However it still has eighty-one dollars of the hundred paper dollars not in reserve and so can lend out a further eighty one. The process will go round again meaning they have to add another eight dollars and ten cents to the reserve pool so that twenty seven dollars and ten cents are in reserve but can still lend out another seventy two dollars and ninety cents. At this stage they will now have lent out two hundred and forty four dollars and ninety cents on the basis of the hundred dollars they actually have and the process will continue to go on until the entire hundred must be kept in reserve.

Banks make extraordinary profits in this manner, so do not believe them when they claim they need to impose additional charges in order to turn a profit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Well, when it comes to America, the central bank of the Federal Reserve owns all means of currency production, interest rates and inflation. In general, it loans the money to the government. Paper money is the key to American imperialism, honestly. As depressing as it is, since the US government can just print endless amounts of money, they can produce the currency they want to fund their imperialism. In America, if the currency was backed in precious metals or anything with value, we would see a much more steady currency. The US dollar has lost 96% of its value since the Federal Reserve took power and it's only a matter of time before the currency can no longer inflate and kep value at the same time. Now, I can't say I've read enough on Marxism and its sister groups to figure out the use an value of currency.

The Federal Reserve usually doesn't loan money directly to the government. It first "gives" that money to private banks, who loan it back to the government. We then have to pay for that interest.

It's a cartel.

[Sendo]

Now explain the fractional reserve system!

"Money as Debt" is better at explaining this.

Basically fractional reserve, in the US, allows for a bank with $1 of deposits to make $10 worth of loans which can then be deposited as credit in another bank and count toward a $10 deposit, with a $0.90 cash equivalent. That $0.90 of "real cash" can make $9 in loans. That $9 in credit can be itself invested in another bank for $9 with an $0.81 cash equivalent. That $0.81 can generate $8.10 in loans. These new debts can be deposited at yet another bank for $8.10 and a $0.73 cash equivalent........At the end you can make about $90 of wealth from only ONE physical paper dollar (fiat), which itself is only a partial "share" in that economy. So, from that greatly devalued $1 we have $90 floating around on computer screens. Yay!

Extrapolate that for the whole economy.

Not only do banks get rich from useless labor (risk), they risk other people's money. But wait, under fractional reserve, they get rich off of risking money that doesn't EVEN EXIST!

The whole system can only pay itself off with ever growing loans. Unless the whole economy grows fast enough to pay off the collective debts of society. But that's impossible given capitalism's internal (cyclical) and external (conditions,environment,space) contradictions. Hence foreclosures and crashes.

[trivas7]

Zeitgeist: Addendum IMO is a peculiar smorgasbord of ideas that mixes anarcho-capitalism and New Ages spirituality into a noxious brew. According to it i.e.: "Only God can create something from nothing"; money is illegitimate b/c it is ungodly, not b/c it is a tool of class division. Money is debt, and debt is what enslaves society (Moloch?), not capitalism. History is a conspiracy of bankers (code for Zionist conspiracy, anybody?), not a rational subject of study meant for human liberation. Ron Paul's constitutionalism is good, corporatism is bad, etc. At least it mentions a few examples of US involvement to subvert and corrupt governments that don't do its bidding.

These ideas remind me of stories in my youth told by my conservative Christian father as he railed re the evils of the TriLateral Commission and spouted the quirky ideas of Chestertonian distributivism and Henry George's economic policies as rational responses against the evils of unbridled capitalism. Somehow the good Book provides besides spiritual liberation an economic way forward. And just as goofy in some, em -- fundamental(ist) sense.

[DesertShark]

How do banks start?

Who regulates/controls the Federal Reserve?

How did this fractional reserve system start?

-DesertShark

[Decolonize The Left]

Zeitgeist: Addendum IMO is a peculiar smorgasbord of ideas that mixes anarcho-capitalism and New Ages spirituality into a noxious brew. According to it i.e.: "Only God can create something from nothing"; money is illegitimate b/c it is ungodly, not b/c it is a tool of class division. Money is debt, and debt is what enslaves society (Moloch?), not capitalism. History is a conspiracy of bankers (code for Zionist conspiracy, anybody?), not a rational subject of study meant for human liberation. Ron Paul's constitutionalism is good, corporatism is bad, etc. At least it mentions a few examples of US involvement to subvert and corrupt governments that don't do its bidding.

These ideas remind me of stories in my youth told by my conservative Christian father as he railed re the evils of the TriLateral Commission and spouted the quirky ideas of Chestertonian distributivism and Henry George's economic policies as rational responses against the evils of unbridled capitalism. Somehow the good Book provides besides spiritual liberation an economic way forward. And just as goofy in some, em -- fundamental(ist) sense.

I think you're reading a bit too much into the movie... While I found it to indeed be a 'smorgasbord' of many different ideologies/theories/philosophies, it was very clear and easy to understand.

It is for this reason that I have linked it in my sig: it provides a very easy and simple explanation of international banking, the monetary economic system, wage slavery, capitalism and free trade, and possible alternatives including the well-explained 'resource-based economic system.'

I didn't see it as 'anarcho-capitalist' in any sense and I believe you're placing a bit too much emphasis on the one line whereby a member of the Supreme Court spoke about God in that fashion... I didn't find the movie pro-religious in any sense, quite the contrary - there are repeated instances where religion is railed against. Did you miss those parts?

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

How do banks start?

When, exactly? Originally? At this moment?


Who regulates/controls the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve is a private institution, it is unregulated by the government.


How did this fractional reserve system start?

It was introduced in the 20th century, I forget when exactly (but the Federal Reserve was created in 1913).

How did it start? Think about it.
- Originally gold was the medium of trade. People put gold in a bank for safe keeping and received a note to let them know that they had X amount of money there.
- But bankers realized that folks usually left most of their gold in the banks, so they began to take parts of the reserve and invest it (namely, to give loans and buy bills).
- Hence banks became profit generating institutions. The fractional reserve is but the most modern development of a way for banks to generate profit from other people's money.
- Now, if banks had loaned most of their reserve out, and there was a run on the bank, they wouldn't be able to cover this run and would go under (bankrupt). This is where the fractional reserve comes in. It allows banks to secure the money of their patrons (your money) by loaning a certain amount of your money plus another amount of money which they create out of thin air.

So basically:
You deposit $1000 in Bank of America (BoA).
BoA secures 10% if that money ($100) and loans out 90% ($900).
But BoA doesn't actually give out your $900, it creates that money and loans that new money away at interest. Hence is gets profit from the interest of the newly-created money while at the same time being able to lend out the original $900 as well - all the while 'securing' your 10%.

It's no wonder why over two thirds of the money in the US is digital...

- August

[DesertShark]

When, exactly? Originally? At this moment?
At any time. Originally and now.


The Federal Reserve is a private institution, it is unregulated by the government.

It was introduced in the 20th century, I forget when exactly (but the Federal Reserve was created in 1913).
I realize that it is not regulated by the government, but there is no one else ensuring that they don't rip off everyone? What's stopping the federal reserve from taking control of America?


How did it start? Think about it.
- Originally gold was the medium of trade. People put gold in a bank for safe keeping and received a note to let them know that they had X amount of money there.
- But bankers realized that folks usually left most of their gold in the banks, so they began to take parts of the reserve and invest it (namely, to give loans and buy bills).
- Hence banks became profit generating institutions. The fractional reserve is but the most modern development of a way for banks to generate profit from other people's money.
- Now, if banks had loaned most of their reserve out, and there was a run on the bank, they wouldn't be able to cover this run and would go under (bankrupt). This is where the fractional reserve comes in. It allows banks to secure the money of their patrons (your money) by loaning a certain amount of your money plus another amount of money which they create out of thin air.
Why do we allow them to pull money out of nowhere, but no one else can? I don't understand how a system like this could have continued unchecked and why anyone would allow it to continue now.

-DesertShark

[Decolonize The Left]

At any time. Originally and now.

Banks started originally because people needed a place to keep their valuables other than their home. A bank is more secure than a home...

Now banks are created as for-profit institutions - i.e. they are made to make money.


I realize that it is not regulated by the government, but there is no one else ensuring that they don't rip off everyone? What's stopping the federal reserve from taking control of America?

The Federal Reserve already effectively controls the economy. The economy controls everything.


Why do we allow them to pull money out of nowhere, but no one else can? I don't understand how a system like this could have continued unchecked and why anyone would allow it to continue now.

-DesertShark

It is widely accepted capitalist practices. Likewise I could ask why we allow employers to pay their employees less than their labor is actually worth? But this happens everywhere - it is accepted practice. Similarly, capitalist banking and fractional reserve banking is commonplace.

A Marxian analysis might claim that this system allows capitalism to perpetuate it's inherent contradiction (for fractional reserve banking cannot continue infinitely...).

- August

[DesertShark]

Banks started originally because people needed a place to keep their valuables other than their home. A bank is more secure than a home...

Now banks are created as for-profit institutions - i.e. they are made to make money.
I was asking how they started (originally and now), not why they started.


The Federal Reserve already effectively controls the economy. The economy controls everything.
Can anything be done to end that monopoly?


It is widely accepted capitalist practices. Likewise I could ask why we allow employers to pay their employees less than their labor is actually worth? But this happens everywhere - it is accepted practice. Similarly, capitalist banking and fractional reserve banking is commonplace.

A Marxian analysis might claim that this system allows capitalism to perpetuate it's inherent contradiction (for fractional reserve banking cannot continue infinitely...).

- August
That doesn't really answer my question: "Why do we allow them to pull money out of nowhere, but no one else can?" Is it because a majority of the people do not know it is happening?
Why does it have to be that way? Just because something is commonplace does not mean we need to allow it to happen or to continue.

-DesertShark

[Decolonize The Left]

I was asking how they started (originally and now), not why they started.

That's a big question which I can't answer with enough confidence. You might consider exploring an encyclopedia on this topic.

You may find the wikipedia article on Banks here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank).


Can anything be done to end that monopoly?

Most certainly not within a capitalist economic system, and most likely not within a monetary economic system.


That doesn't really answer my question: "Why do we allow them to pull money out of nowhere, but no one else can?" Is it because a majority of the people do not know it is happening?
Why does it have to be that way? Just because something is commonplace does not mean we need to allow it to happen or to continue.

-DesertShark

Good question and my apologies for not answering earlier.

Perhaps the largest reason for this absurd system is ignorance. People simply don't know, and for a large part, don't care. We live in a materialistic, consumerist, society - this means that people are distracted by consumption and stuff and falsely believe this to be of absolute value to their lives.

Another reason is lack of alternatives. Globalization has effectively limited the ability of nation-states to set up alternative economic systems with any lasting success. Therefore change must come from within, and this is difficult for two reasons:
1) Noted above: ignorance.
2) Repression: the government exists to protect and further the interest of the ruling class. The ruling class is the capitalist class. The capitalist class controls the economy. The have absolutely no reason to hand over anything to the people, and they won't.

It must be taken. But that's why we're revolutionaries...

- August

[benhur]

Thanks for the replies.

How do banks create money, if it's not backed by gold, then what's the basis of fiat currency? How does it get value? If they can simply create money without a basis, then wouldn't everyone do that? What gives them the authority?

More importantly, if banks can create money out of thin air, why would they need to give out loans in order to create that money?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thanks for the replies.

How do banks create money, if it's not backed by gold, then what's the basis of fiat currency? How does it get value? If they can simply create money without a basis, then wouldn't everyone do that? What gives them the authority?

Fiat's value is based on the confidence you have that it works. It's not based in anything. It's fiction (but all money is anyway).

There's different types of money. Banks don't create notes. They create loans, which extend outwards. Say you put $100 into a bank. You think it's still there, but they're loaning $90 out to someone else, who in turn may give it to a bank, and that bank will loan it out for $60. Money is being created.

Here's a dilemma, however. When you create more money, you're diluting the market. People are perceiving this money to account for growth, and it might - if these loans are put up for use - but a lot isn't. Money starts to lose its own value. If you ban this type of banking practice, investments would ground to a halt and you would see interest rates jump fivefold.

[Decolonize The Left]

How do banks create money, if it's not backed by gold, then what's the basis of fiat currency?

The basis of currency is that it is legal tender. It is backed by the government - that is all.


How does it get value?

It gets value through the individual who uses money to purchase or sell something.


If they can simply create money without a basis, then wouldn't everyone do that? What gives them the authority?

The can't create money without a basis (banks that is, the Federal Reserve can), they must have an input of money to make more money. Everyone can't do that because everyone can't own and manage a bank.

The government gives them the authority.


More importantly, if banks can create money out of thin air, why would they need to give out loans in order to create that money?

Because the money which is created out of thin air isn't actual money - it's virtual money. Furthermore they need a base of money to make more money.

- August

[benhur]

Two questions:

# how does it benefit the bankers?
#woudn't bankers suffer losses, if borrowers cannot pay them back?

So what's the use in doing any of this?

[cleef]

Two questions:

# how does it benefit the bankers?
#woudn't bankers suffer losses, if borrowers cannot pay them back?

So what's the use in doing any of this?

thats when they send the repo men round!

the money they have created may have been false but your car/house is something of actual value...

[cleef]

Surely if everyone was to withdraw there money all at once though the bank would collapse or at least be exposed...

im assuming there would be laws in place to prevent this from happening however

[DesertShark]

Surely if everyone was to withdraw there money all at once though the bank would collapse or at least be exposed...

im assuming there would be laws in place to prevent this from happening however
That's what happened on Black Tuesday. The stock market crashed and there was a run on the banks. There's no laws in place to prevent it and the economic crisis that is occurring right now would be extremely worse if there was a run on the banks.

From Wikipedia:

A bank run (also known as a run on the bank) occurs when a large number of bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank) customers withdraw their deposits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_accounts) because they believe the bank is, or might become, insolvent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolvency). As a bank run progresses, it generates its own momentum, in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy): as more people withdraw their deposits, the likelihood of default increases, and this encourages further withdrawals. This can destabilize the bank to the point where it faces bankruptcy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-Diamond2007-0)
A banking panic or bank panic is a financial crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis) that occurs when many banks suffer runs at the same time. A systemic banking crisis is one where all or almost all of the banking capital in a country is wiped out.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-imf2008-1) The resulting chain of bankruptcies can cause a long economic recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_recession).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-Wicker-2) Much of the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)'s economic damage was caused directly by bank runs.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-Bernanke-3) The cost of cleaning up a systemic banking crisis can be huge, with fiscal costs averaging 13% of GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP) and economic output losses averaging 20% of GDP for important crises from 1970 to 2007.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-imf2008-1)
Several techniques can help to prevent bank runs. They include temporary suspension of withdrawals, the organization of central banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank) that act as a lender of last resort (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lender_of_last_resort), the protection of deposit insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit_insurance) systems such as the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation),[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-Diamond2007-0) and governmental bank regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_regulation).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-Heffernan-4) These techniques do not always work: for example, even with deposit insurance, depositors may still be motivated by beliefs they may lack immediate access to deposits during a bank reorganization.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run#cite_note-WaMu-LAT-5)


-DesertShark