|
On June 06 2011 16:03 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 15:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
What in the fuck is this guy on about. ROFLMAO.
Cash is not the debt of the people. Cash is a debt note of the federal reserve that people hold, AKA Cash = Asset NOT Liability.
His balance sheet is missing equity... I've never seen a balance sheet where equity didn't exist before. This guy is amazingly psycho.
Liability does not = loss of power. It just means how much of your asset is owned by someone other than you.
All you would need to do to mitigate debt is have an asset whose ROI > Interest rate of the liabilities.
What a crock of shit this guy is.
The reason gov't debt increases is because the gov't is corrupt as hell and they make many investments that don't yield a return greater than interest, instead they yield a horrendous loss. It has nothing to do with fiat currency, whose biggest issue is with forex trading, manipulation of inflation/money supply, and basically using money as a commodity. NOT because of the fundamental debt-based nature of the currency -__-. Simply put all cash is owed to the fed reserve, plus interest. On a wide scale it cannot be paid back because all returns on investments must be paid with the very same dollar that is always created with interest attached to it. There are always going to be more losers than winners and the only real winners are the bankers. ...No dude. Cash = The Fed owes YOU. You've got it totally backwards. Simply put, all cash is debt of the Federal reserve and there is absolutely no interest. Unless by interest you mean inflation/deflation, which is derived from basic supply/demand. The interest rate set by the Fed is what they charge major banks and often affects the bond market. In general, you've got it all wrong. Go read basic concept of the Federal Reserve Note and Fiat Currency. Then learn what a balance sheet is and what interest is. Then realize the guy in this video is a moron.
The feds owe you? That is hilarious. They admitted this would never be the case with the end of bretton woods. You guys are putting in more effort into explaining why it's not worth your time to explain, than you are actually explaining anything.
The interest the feds charge is for money they loan to other banks. Where does this money come from?
Once again:
I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go.
|
On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go.
What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem.
Let me explain a simple dynamic to you:
Bank lends you $100
Bank Balance Sheet:
Asset: $100
Liability: $0
Equity: $0
Your Balance Sheet:
Asset: $100
Liability: $100
Equity: $0
You then buy $100 worth of raw cocaine. You turn around and sell the cocaine for $500.
Bank Balance Sheet:
Asset: $100
Liability: $0
Equity: $0
Your Balance Sheet:
Asset: $500
Liability: $100
Equity: $0
You then pay the bank back the $100 + interest. Let's say 100%.
Bank Balance Sheet:
Asset: $200
Liability: $0
Equity: $0
Your Balance Sheet:
Asset: $300
Liability: $0
Equity: $0
You just gained $300. Bank gained $100.
How exactly is this an impossible situation?
|
On June 06 2011 16:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem. Let me explain a simple dynamic to you: Bank lends you $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then buy $100 worth of raw cocaine. You turn around and sell the cocaine for $500. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $500 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then pay the bank back the $100 + interest. Let's say 100%. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $200 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $300 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 You just gained $300. Bank gained $100. How exactly is this an impossible situation?
The $400 you made off selling cocaine is still US dollars which were all created with interest attached to it. Dollars are always created with interest. Which means there is never enough money in circulation to pay back what is owed including the interest. On top of that, banks can loan out 9 times what is on their balance sheet, making it that much further from "possible". Money is really a very simple pyramid scheme.
|
On June 06 2011 16:06 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:03 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
What in the fuck is this guy on about. ROFLMAO.
Cash is not the debt of the people. Cash is a debt note of the federal reserve that people hold, AKA Cash = Asset NOT Liability.
His balance sheet is missing equity... I've never seen a balance sheet where equity didn't exist before. This guy is amazingly psycho.
Liability does not = loss of power. It just means how much of your asset is owned by someone other than you.
All you would need to do to mitigate debt is have an asset whose ROI > Interest rate of the liabilities.
What a crock of shit this guy is.
The reason gov't debt increases is because the gov't is corrupt as hell and they make many investments that don't yield a return greater than interest, instead they yield a horrendous loss. It has nothing to do with fiat currency, whose biggest issue is with forex trading, manipulation of inflation/money supply, and basically using money as a commodity. NOT because of the fundamental debt-based nature of the currency -__-. Simply put all cash is owed to the fed reserve, plus interest. On a wide scale it cannot be paid back because all returns on investments must be paid with the very same dollar that is always created with interest attached to it. There are always going to be more losers than winners and the only real winners are the bankers. ...No dude. Cash = The Fed owes YOU. You've got it totally backwards. Simply put, all cash is debt of the Federal reserve and there is absolutely no interest. Unless by interest you mean inflation/deflation, which is derived from basic supply/demand. The interest rate set by the Fed is what they charge major banks and often affects the bond market. In general, you've got it all wrong. Go read basic concept of the Federal Reserve Note and Fiat Currency. Then learn what a balance sheet is and what interest is. Then realize the guy in this video is a moron. The feds owe you? That is hilarious. They admitted this would never be the case with the end of bretton woods. You guys are putting in more effort into explaining why it's not worth your time to explain, than you are actually explaining anything. The interest the feds charge is for money they loan to other banks. Where does this money come from? Once again: I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go.
Or I guess I can just do the most simple process of all.
Fed creates $100
Bank Balance Sheet:
Asset: $100
Liability: $100
Equity: $0
Oh look. They have $100 in Cash Assets. But they have $100 in Liabilities too. AKA they gained 0.
Then they lend it to a bank at 3%.
Oh look, they printed $100 then made $3 on it after a year of lending it to a bank. Oh god, they're making money off interest! How evil!
Do you think the Fed runs the banking system of this country for free? Ofc they're going to charge interest. And of course they're the ones in power if they get to print money. A monkey could figure this out.
The question is why is this a problem? Do you seriously expect a currency system that's not for profit?
|
On June 06 2011 16:22 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem. Let me explain a simple dynamic to you: Bank lends you $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then buy $100 worth of raw cocaine. You turn around and sell the cocaine for $500. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $500 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then pay the bank back the $100 + interest. Let's say 100%. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $200 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $300 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 You just gained $300. Bank gained $100. How exactly is this an impossible situation? The $400 you made off selling cocaine is still US dollars which were all created with interest attached to it. Dollars are always created with interest. Which means there is never enough money in circulation to pay back what is owed including the interest. On top of that, banks can loan out 9 times what is on their balance sheet, making it that much further from "possible". Money is really a very simple pyramid scheme.
no wonder my bank account gets smaller and smaller every day its cuz the bank is taking interest from my account
im going to hide in under my mattress lets see how they get their interest then, they'll have to get it from my cold dead hands
|
On June 06 2011 16:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:06 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 16:03 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
What in the fuck is this guy on about. ROFLMAO.
Cash is not the debt of the people. Cash is a debt note of the federal reserve that people hold, AKA Cash = Asset NOT Liability.
His balance sheet is missing equity... I've never seen a balance sheet where equity didn't exist before. This guy is amazingly psycho.
Liability does not = loss of power. It just means how much of your asset is owned by someone other than you.
All you would need to do to mitigate debt is have an asset whose ROI > Interest rate of the liabilities.
What a crock of shit this guy is.
The reason gov't debt increases is because the gov't is corrupt as hell and they make many investments that don't yield a return greater than interest, instead they yield a horrendous loss. It has nothing to do with fiat currency, whose biggest issue is with forex trading, manipulation of inflation/money supply, and basically using money as a commodity. NOT because of the fundamental debt-based nature of the currency -__-. Simply put all cash is owed to the fed reserve, plus interest. On a wide scale it cannot be paid back because all returns on investments must be paid with the very same dollar that is always created with interest attached to it. There are always going to be more losers than winners and the only real winners are the bankers. ...No dude. Cash = The Fed owes YOU. You've got it totally backwards. Simply put, all cash is debt of the Federal reserve and there is absolutely no interest. Unless by interest you mean inflation/deflation, which is derived from basic supply/demand. The interest rate set by the Fed is what they charge major banks and often affects the bond market. In general, you've got it all wrong. Go read basic concept of the Federal Reserve Note and Fiat Currency. Then learn what a balance sheet is and what interest is. Then realize the guy in this video is a moron. The feds owe you? That is hilarious. They admitted this would never be the case with the end of bretton woods. You guys are putting in more effort into explaining why it's not worth your time to explain, than you are actually explaining anything. The interest the feds charge is for money they loan to other banks. Where does this money come from? Once again: I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. Or I guess I can just do the most simple process of all. Fed creates $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 Oh look. They have $100 in Cash Assets. But they have $100 in Liabilities too. AKA they gained 0. Then they lend it to a bank at 3%. Oh look, they printed $100 then made $3 on it after a year of lending it to a bank. Oh god, they're making money off interest! How evil! Do you think the Fed runs the banking system of this country for free? Ofc they're going to charge interest. And of course they're the ones in power if they get to print money. A monkey could figure this out. The question is why is this a problem? Do you seriously expect a currency system that's not for profit?
Why is it a problem that a certain group of bankers are paid billions of dollars plus interest for printing ink on paper and adding numbers electronically? If this isn't self evident to you, then I kind of envy your naivety. I say that with complete sincerity, I wish I wasn't as bothered by getting screwed as I am.
|
On June 06 2011 16:24 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:22 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 16:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem. Let me explain a simple dynamic to you: Bank lends you $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then buy $100 worth of raw cocaine. You turn around and sell the cocaine for $500. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $500 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then pay the bank back the $100 + interest. Let's say 100%. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $200 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $300 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 You just gained $300. Bank gained $100. How exactly is this an impossible situation? The $400 you made off selling cocaine is still US dollars which were all created with interest attached to it. Dollars are always created with interest. Which means there is never enough money in circulation to pay back what is owed including the interest. On top of that, banks can loan out 9 times what is on their balance sheet, making it that much further from "possible". Money is really a very simple pyramid scheme. no wonder my bank account gets smaller and smaller every day its cuz the bank is taking interest from my account im going to hide in under my mattress lets see how they get their interest then, they'll have to get it from my cold dead hands
The interest you get from a savings account does not come anywhere come close to keeping up with inflation, any investor will tell you this.
|
On June 06 2011 16:22 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem. Let me explain a simple dynamic to you: Bank lends you $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then buy $100 worth of raw cocaine. You turn around and sell the cocaine for $500. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $500 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then pay the bank back the $100 + interest. Let's say 100%. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $200 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $300 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 You just gained $300. Bank gained $100. How exactly is this an impossible situation? The $400 you made off selling cocaine is still US dollars which were all created with interest attached to it. Dollars are always created with interest. Which means there is never enough money in circulation to pay back what is owed including the interest. On top of that, banks can loan out 9 times what is on their balance sheet, making it that much further from "possible". Money is really a very simple pyramid scheme.
Dollars are not created with interest. Dollars are circulated into the system with interest through loan instruments. Creation and circulation are two different things.
And yes, I know they can loan out 9x. 10% reserve ratio in US on big banks.
Yes, money is a pyramid scheme. That's the entire point of fiat. That's the entire point of a DEBT based society.
What blows my mind is that you are just now realizing that the US economy runs on debt. I guess to laymen the concept of debt has a negative connotation. In economics/banking/finance that's just the name of the game. There are plenty of ways you can make money so that you never live in debt. Is there a chance for every citizen in America to be out of debt? No. There is not. But there never has been in the history of the world. So I don't see why you'd cry about it now.
Does this youtube explain any of that properly? No.
|
On June 06 2011 16:27 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 16:06 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 16:03 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
What in the fuck is this guy on about. ROFLMAO.
Cash is not the debt of the people. Cash is a debt note of the federal reserve that people hold, AKA Cash = Asset NOT Liability.
His balance sheet is missing equity... I've never seen a balance sheet where equity didn't exist before. This guy is amazingly psycho.
Liability does not = loss of power. It just means how much of your asset is owned by someone other than you.
All you would need to do to mitigate debt is have an asset whose ROI > Interest rate of the liabilities.
What a crock of shit this guy is.
The reason gov't debt increases is because the gov't is corrupt as hell and they make many investments that don't yield a return greater than interest, instead they yield a horrendous loss. It has nothing to do with fiat currency, whose biggest issue is with forex trading, manipulation of inflation/money supply, and basically using money as a commodity. NOT because of the fundamental debt-based nature of the currency -__-. Simply put all cash is owed to the fed reserve, plus interest. On a wide scale it cannot be paid back because all returns on investments must be paid with the very same dollar that is always created with interest attached to it. There are always going to be more losers than winners and the only real winners are the bankers. ...No dude. Cash = The Fed owes YOU. You've got it totally backwards. Simply put, all cash is debt of the Federal reserve and there is absolutely no interest. Unless by interest you mean inflation/deflation, which is derived from basic supply/demand. The interest rate set by the Fed is what they charge major banks and often affects the bond market. In general, you've got it all wrong. Go read basic concept of the Federal Reserve Note and Fiat Currency. Then learn what a balance sheet is and what interest is. Then realize the guy in this video is a moron. The feds owe you? That is hilarious. They admitted this would never be the case with the end of bretton woods. You guys are putting in more effort into explaining why it's not worth your time to explain, than you are actually explaining anything. The interest the feds charge is for money they loan to other banks. Where does this money come from? Once again: I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. Or I guess I can just do the most simple process of all. Fed creates $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 Oh look. They have $100 in Cash Assets. But they have $100 in Liabilities too. AKA they gained 0. Then they lend it to a bank at 3%. Oh look, they printed $100 then made $3 on it after a year of lending it to a bank. Oh god, they're making money off interest! How evil! Do you think the Fed runs the banking system of this country for free? Ofc they're going to charge interest. And of course they're the ones in power if they get to print money. A monkey could figure this out. The question is why is this a problem? Do you seriously expect a currency system that's not for profit? Why is it a problem that a certain group of bankers are paid billions of dollars plus interest for printing ink on paper and adding numbers electronically? If this isn't self evident to you, then I kind of envy your naivety. I say that with complete sincerity, I wish I wasn't as bothered by getting screwed as I am.
I'm not naive. You're the naive one. If you think it's wrong they're making that much money, then why don't you propose an alternative industry that can handle all the functions of the banking/finance industry and find enough capable people to staff it for a much lower sum of money.
The fact of the matter is the vast majority of citizens either don't care, are incapable, or don't understand enough about finance/banking to do the job. So, a few experts are paid vast sums of money to take care of everyone else's money. It's a simple concept. Maybe when half the population wants to be financial experts and take care of all the minutiae of capital flows and investments and day-to-day economic transactions, then you can hope for an industry that's not vastly overpaid for what they do.
|
On June 06 2011 16:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:22 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 16:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem. Let me explain a simple dynamic to you: Bank lends you $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then buy $100 worth of raw cocaine. You turn around and sell the cocaine for $500. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $500 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then pay the bank back the $100 + interest. Let's say 100%. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $200 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $300 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 You just gained $300. Bank gained $100. How exactly is this an impossible situation? The $400 you made off selling cocaine is still US dollars which were all created with interest attached to it. Dollars are always created with interest. Which means there is never enough money in circulation to pay back what is owed including the interest. On top of that, banks can loan out 9 times what is on their balance sheet, making it that much further from "possible". Money is really a very simple pyramid scheme. Dollars are not created with interest. Dollars are circulated into the system with interest through loan instruments. Creation and circulation are two different things. And yes, I know they can loan out 9x. 10% reserve ratio in US on big banks. Yes, money is a pyramid scheme. That's the entire point of fiat. That's the entire point of a DEBT based society. What blows my mind is that you are just now realizing that the US economy runs on debt. I guess to laymen the concept of debt has a negative connotation. In economics/banking/finance that's just the name of the game. There are plenty of ways you can make money so that you never live in debt. Is there a chance for every citizen in America to be out of debt? No. There is not. But there never has been in the history of the world. So I don't see why you'd cry about it now. Does this youtube explain any of that properly? No.
You are just using different words for created. Not created "circulated". Since you are saying they are different things, then explain how they are different. You cannot circulate without first creating. I realized that money was a pyramid scheme a few years ago, if you want to be mind blown at stupid timing of me realizing this then that is fine. People have always been screwed over by money, it's nothing new, you are certainly correct there.
|
On June 06 2011 16:31 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 16:23 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 16:06 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 16:03 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:53 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:48 StorkHwaiting wrote:
What in the fuck is this guy on about. ROFLMAO.
Cash is not the debt of the people. Cash is a debt note of the federal reserve that people hold, AKA Cash = Asset NOT Liability.
His balance sheet is missing equity... I've never seen a balance sheet where equity didn't exist before. This guy is amazingly psycho.
Liability does not = loss of power. It just means how much of your asset is owned by someone other than you.
All you would need to do to mitigate debt is have an asset whose ROI > Interest rate of the liabilities.
What a crock of shit this guy is.
The reason gov't debt increases is because the gov't is corrupt as hell and they make many investments that don't yield a return greater than interest, instead they yield a horrendous loss. It has nothing to do with fiat currency, whose biggest issue is with forex trading, manipulation of inflation/money supply, and basically using money as a commodity. NOT because of the fundamental debt-based nature of the currency -__-. Simply put all cash is owed to the fed reserve, plus interest. On a wide scale it cannot be paid back because all returns on investments must be paid with the very same dollar that is always created with interest attached to it. There are always going to be more losers than winners and the only real winners are the bankers. ...No dude. Cash = The Fed owes YOU. You've got it totally backwards. Simply put, all cash is debt of the Federal reserve and there is absolutely no interest. Unless by interest you mean inflation/deflation, which is derived from basic supply/demand. The interest rate set by the Fed is what they charge major banks and often affects the bond market. In general, you've got it all wrong. Go read basic concept of the Federal Reserve Note and Fiat Currency. Then learn what a balance sheet is and what interest is. Then realize the guy in this video is a moron. The feds owe you? That is hilarious. They admitted this would never be the case with the end of bretton woods. You guys are putting in more effort into explaining why it's not worth your time to explain, than you are actually explaining anything. The interest the feds charge is for money they loan to other banks. Where does this money come from? Once again: I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. Or I guess I can just do the most simple process of all. Fed creates $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 Oh look. They have $100 in Cash Assets. But they have $100 in Liabilities too. AKA they gained 0. Then they lend it to a bank at 3%. Oh look, they printed $100 then made $3 on it after a year of lending it to a bank. Oh god, they're making money off interest! How evil! Do you think the Fed runs the banking system of this country for free? Ofc they're going to charge interest. And of course they're the ones in power if they get to print money. A monkey could figure this out. The question is why is this a problem? Do you seriously expect a currency system that's not for profit? Why is it a problem that a certain group of bankers are paid billions of dollars plus interest for printing ink on paper and adding numbers electronically? If this isn't self evident to you, then I kind of envy your naivety. I say that with complete sincerity, I wish I wasn't as bothered by getting screwed as I am. I'm not naive. You're the naive one. If you think it's wrong they're making that much money, then why don't you propose an alternative industry that can handle all the functions of the banking/finance industry and find enough capable people to staff it for a much lower sum of money. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of citizens either don't care, are incapable, or don't understand enough about finance/banking to do the job. So, a few experts are paid vast sums of money to take care of everyone else's money. It's a simple concept. Maybe when half the population wants to be financial experts and take care of all the minutiae of capital flows and investments and day-to-day economic transactions, then you can hope for an industry that's not vastly overpaid for what they do.
You honestly think the federal government is open to alternative to the federal reserve? What makes you think this?
I'll admit I am probably naive for hoping this could change.
|
On June 06 2011 16:32 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 16:28 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 16:22 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 16:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem. Let me explain a simple dynamic to you: Bank lends you $100 Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then buy $100 worth of raw cocaine. You turn around and sell the cocaine for $500. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $100 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $500 Liability: $100 Equity: $0 You then pay the bank back the $100 + interest. Let's say 100%. Bank Balance Sheet: Asset: $200 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 Your Balance Sheet: Asset: $300 Liability: $0 Equity: $0 You just gained $300. Bank gained $100. How exactly is this an impossible situation? The $400 you made off selling cocaine is still US dollars which were all created with interest attached to it. Dollars are always created with interest. Which means there is never enough money in circulation to pay back what is owed including the interest. On top of that, banks can loan out 9 times what is on their balance sheet, making it that much further from "possible". Money is really a very simple pyramid scheme. Dollars are not created with interest. Dollars are circulated into the system with interest through loan instruments. Creation and circulation are two different things. And yes, I know they can loan out 9x. 10% reserve ratio in US on big banks. Yes, money is a pyramid scheme. That's the entire point of fiat. That's the entire point of a DEBT based society. What blows my mind is that you are just now realizing that the US economy runs on debt. I guess to laymen the concept of debt has a negative connotation. In economics/banking/finance that's just the name of the game. There are plenty of ways you can make money so that you never live in debt. Is there a chance for every citizen in America to be out of debt? No. There is not. But there never has been in the history of the world. So I don't see why you'd cry about it now. Does this youtube explain any of that properly? No. You are just using different words for created. Not created "circulated". Since you are saying they are different things, then explain how they are different. You cannot circulate without first creating. I realized that money was a pyramid scheme a few years ago, if you want to be mind blown at stupid timing of me realizing this then that is fine. People have always been screwed over by money, it's nothing new, you are certainly correct there.
Fed can print 100 trillion dollars and bury it in a vault. They can even announce that it is now part of the money supply but then raise their interest rate to 100%. Nobody would then borrow from the Fed. The Fed would have created 100 trillion, but they would not have circulated it. As long as banks do not borrow from the Fed, then money can be created without any interest attached. You do understand that interest only gets attached once the Fed loans it out right?
And if the Fed drops their interest rate to 0%, they can then create AND circulate money without any interest attached. So basically this gigantic horrifying dynamic that you think is impossible to stop could actually be put to a halt tomorrow morning if the Fed chairman decided he wanted to.
Except if the Fed dropped the interest rate to 0% it would make money virtually FREE to borrow. What would happen then is a massive frenzy of borrowing, speculating, and investing into all sorts of things like stocks, dotcoms, and housing.
You know... Kind of like the giant economic crash that hit the entire world just recently?
The Fed uses interest as a tool to control economic growth. When they raise interest, they're trying to curb growth and slow inflation. They are trying to INCREASE the costs of using money. When they decrease interest, they are trying to stimulate growth and also risk higher inflation. This is due to DECREASE in the cost of using money.
It is hilarious to see someone worried that the Fed might be making money off of all this. Since the Fed can literally just print the shit, why would they give two sloppy fucks about how much money their interest makes? They could print their own money until the ink runs out. The profit they get from interest means absolutely nothing to them.
|
Realistically they are constantly lending it out, to say that they "could" print it and not circulate it does not happen. Yes they don't likely care much about their profit in terms of dollars, it is much bigger than that, assets and power is what they care about. Yes the fed chairman could theoretically stop it, that is how powerful they are. Compare the things average people use loans to purchase now and 100 years ago, that difference is the result of all of this and the visible sign of the banks buying up the whole country, or in other words, gaining power over it.
|
So apparently there are balance sheets that don't actually have to balance. Apparently it's possible to have a liability without a corresponding asset to show for it. Like I can take out a loan for a car and not actually get the car, just the loan...
And apparently government debt isn't the result of the government simply spending more than they take in as revenue, but rather the symptom of a national machiavellian scheme to put the whole nation in debt. Nevermind that in the past the government has actually run a surplus and reduced the debt which is supposed to forever grow exponentially.
And somehow I've managed to come across all of these assets and yet I don't have a penny of debt to my name... Wait, how did that happen? How can I have assets and no debt if all money I get has to come from debt? Am I a part of the secret banking elite and I don't even realize it?!
Mind = Blown.
|
On June 06 2011 16:14 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 15:59 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 15:57 Caller wrote:If you actually knew what you were mouthing off about, it would be easy for you to comment on it intelligently. well that explains a lot of things The video itself does a decent job explaining what I am talking about and no one in this blog has shown a solid argument against it, or even an argument at all. Just insults and strawmen. I'll make this very simple for you naysayers: Name one situation where money is created NOT as an asset to a bank's balance sheet. One. Shouldn't take long, right? Limited to US dollars. Go. What? Cash is always an asset. It's completely liquid. There's no way cash can NOT be an asset. The question here is why you would think this is a problem. Ok I'm a complete economic newbie. So please bear with me. I understand I'm probably missing something and I honestly wanna learn better, so please tell me where I got this wrong.
When we create money. The government don't create money itself. But the central bank (private in most countries, so it's money does not belong to the government) creates this money and loans to the government with interest. So if the government needs $100, the central bank creates $100 + $10 (interest) but only gives $100 to the government. So there's always this debt deficit when the government creates money. That is mathematically impossible to pay. Then I see on tv economists saying "but we don't never need to pay all the debt. We just keep rolling the dept over to the next generations infinetly. We just pay small parts of it every year. It's not a zero sum game etc"
The problem I see here is
1) that we do pay small parts of this debt every year, this debt money is going from government to private banks, so not being used to help the people
2) this debt didn't need to exist in the first place, why can't government create money themselves instead of borrowing it?
So basically when the guy in the video puts money in the liability side for the government. He's just trying to say that the government gets in debt every time it creates money. But I think he explains bad and makes it seems like he's ignoring equity. But if he would put equity there it would just look like this:
-------------
100 | 100 (money equity vs money debt)
000 | 010 (interest)
So if you sum it, you still are in debt bigger than your assets (100 vs 110) every time you create capital.
Am I missing something?
|
Not much, it's mathematically impossible to pay like you said.
|
Hiss, people think money is a conspiracy\pyramid scheme lol.
I don't see why people are hung up on the idea not all debts can be paid back at once
|
On June 06 2011 17:09 Romantic wrote:
Hiss, people think money is a conspiracy\pyramid scheme lol.
I don't see why people are hung up on the idea not all debts can be paid back at once
Being a perpetual debt slave bothers me sometimes. At least there is starcraft to pacify me.
|
On June 06 2011 17:11 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 17:09 Romantic wrote:
Hiss, people think money is a conspiracy\pyramid scheme lol.
I don't see why people are hung up on the idea not all debts can be paid back at once Being a perpetual debt slave bothers me sometimes. At least there is starcraft to pacify me.
Debt isn't a bad thing. You'd have to demonstrate why debt is a bad thing.
People need loans for school, buying a home, buying a car, starting a business. People have capital and you are in need of it; people who are willing to pay the interest rate probably do it because they are doing something productive with it.
An economy with no debt would be an economy without lenders.
|
On June 06 2011 17:15 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2011 17:11 Treemonkeys wrote:On June 06 2011 17:09 Romantic wrote:
Hiss, people think money is a conspiracy\pyramid scheme lol.
I don't see why people are hung up on the idea not all debts can be paid back at once Being a perpetual debt slave bothers me sometimes. At least there is starcraft to pacify me. Debt isn't a bad thing. You'd have to demonstrate why debt is a bad thing. People need loans for school, buying a home, buying a car, starting a business. People have capital and you are in need of it; people who are willing to pay the interest rate probably do it because they are doing something productive with it. An economy with no debt would be an economy without lenders.
The banker is just a middle man, it isn't needed, it's just a way to leech wealth. At the top level the capital is created from things that are intrinsically worthless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
