Money is debt
- Started
- Last post
- 31 Responses
- bliznutty0
Those who control the past control the future.
Those who control the present control the past.- George Orwell
- sikma0
Interesting. Worth watching.
- ifeltdave0
the info presented: meh. the clip art graphics throughout: fucking inspiring.
- horton0
haha paul is my neighbor, 2 doors down, i kid you not.
- ********0
http://research.stlouisfed.org/f…
http://research.stlouisfed.org/f…Ok heres the the chart and data I was referring to earlier, and I misspoke earlier I said it was a graph of people who were pulling there money out of banking institutions, it is a graph of banks borrowing from the federal reserve and you can see the spikes around wars, 9/11, other events, and the huge spike starting from the end of last year
- marchelo0
scary. scary. scary.
- Arkadeas0
The Money As Debt theory is fallacious.
According to the Money As Debt theory, commercial banks create money whenever they loan out money. But this is very misleading, because this so-called created money does not increase the amount of money buyers are able and willing to spend! Here is why.
Let’s say Ms. A has a job that provides her with a net income of $2,500 a month, all of which she is able and willing to spend on goods and services. This means that over the next year she will have $30,000 to spend on purchases. She decides to buy a car for $12,000 for which she is willing to pay $1,000 a month for 12 months. So she goes into a bank to borrow $12,000 to buy a car from Co. B. The bank approves the loan and makes out a check for $12,000 payable to Co. B.
Let’s stop here for a moment and ask where does the bank get the $12,000 to enable it to write the check. The answer is that it doesn’t! The bank has the legal authority to just write the check with little or nothing to back it. Thus the “illusion” of creating money. To see why this is only an illusion of money creation, let’s go back to the story.
Ms. A takes the check and gives it to Co. B in exchange for the car. Co. B deposits the check into its checking account. This increases Co. B’s ability to purchase goods and services. HOWEVER, Ms. A’s ability to purchase goods and services has just gone down!!! She is no longer able to spend $2,500 a month because she must now give the bank $1,000 a month to repay the principle on her loan, which leaves her with just $1,500 a month (or $18,000 over the next year) to buy additional goods and services.
The net results are the same whether Ms. A takes out a loan for the car or pays cash for the car. In both scenarios, Ms. A ends up with the car and has only $18,000 left to buy additional goods and services, and Co. B has the $12,000 to spend on goods and services. Therefore, the amount of money society in total (Ms. A + Co. B) is able and willing to spend on goods and services is exactly the same whether Ms. A borrows the money or pays cash for the car!
In other words, when a bank makes a loan, it is only creating money according to the Fed’s definition of the money supply (M1, M2, or M3). It is not creating money in the sense of increasing the amount of money society is able and willing to spend on goods and services.
This means that the money “created” by banks writing loans is non-inflationary, because it doesn’t increase society’s ability and willingness to spend.
If the bank had just given Ms. A the $12,000 to buy the car without any obligation to repay the loan, then that would be true inflationary money creation. Now we can see why governments choose to borrow money instead of just printing it. Borrowing is non-inflationary, but printing is inflationary.
But let’s not forget about the interest. The video makes a big deal about the interest. It says that banks don’t create the money to pay the interest, it only creates the money to pay the principle. It says the money to pay the interest doesn’t exist. Therefore the only way to get the money to pay the interest (on a society basis, not an individual basis) is to take out more loans, which in turn will require more interest to be paid, which requires more loans, etc., etc. To sustain this, the video claims, requires exponential growth in trade.
But the video’s claims about interest are totally inaccurate. A payment for interest is a payment for a service. And the economic effect of a payment for servicing a loan (interest) is no different than payment for any other kind of service, such as for a haircut or a taxi ride.
When a bank receives an interest payment it is no different than income by any other company or individual. Bank people are just like other people, they too need to buy homes, cars, TV sets, groceries, etc. Therefore, the money just gets circulated back through the economy over and over again. No exponential growth is required to pay the interest.
The video also claims that with a stable money supply, the banks, because they are charging interest, will end up with all of the money. But this is only true if the banks never spend the interest (income) payments they receive. But the same can be said for any service industry. If they never spend their income, but could keep selling their services, they too would, eventually, end up with all the money.
We now have enough to conclude that the Money As Debt theory is false.
- ********0
all's you have to do is look up rothschilds investment history and patterns and you will see what is coming next.
- ********0
That was really good. I would love to pay no interest, those freaks.
- Louno0
I have seen this video and many more on the subject...
Its a very complex issue and thats how we get conned... I STRONGLY advise everyone to learn about these issue because ignorance will only perpetuate the problem... the whole banking/economic system needs to be changed... as well as our understanding of money and our habits/values...
Money should exist, but it should mean more than just being able to exploit the system... people should WORK for their money... not have their money work for them... i know people who make all their money with stocks... wtf is that ? what do they contribute to society ? NOTHING ... they just use their "knowledge" to game the system, put in some numbers in a computer, wait a bit and make some money... of course the more money you get the easier it then becomes to make some more... Oh and why the fuck does a freaking hockey/soccer/football player makes more money that a doctor or a nurse ?
The poor guy who wakes up at 4am every day to make your food grow should fucking get that money... the poor kids in india that make your freaking clothes should get that money... because they deserve it... and if you want some, do something to deserve it...
Money should mean something, and should have somekind of relation to time... time is THE most valuable thing we have, from the day we are born time never stops and you can never "buy some more"
anyways, the whole economic system will need to change... i belive for this change to happen it will take some major revolutions... because the current system is owned by people who do not want change... revolutions have happened throughout time in human history, but this one is by far the biggest .... maybe in 1000 years people will look back and say " oh man, people back then were so ignorant and stupid ahahah what a bunch of slaves... "
- you're sounding dangerous..all socialist and shit...TheBlueOne