Money As Debt (4 of 5)
Paul Grignon’s 47-minute animated presentation of “Money as Debt” tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. It is an entertaining way to get the message out. The Cowichan Citizens Coalition and its Cheap Cialis “Duncan Initiative” received high praise from those who previewed it. I recommend it as a painless but hard-hitting educational tool and encourage the widest distribution and use by all groups concerned with the present unsustainable monetary …
so youre saying that makes it right.if you or me did that fractoional reserve BS ,wed be in jail.I dont know the answerto fixing our money problem tho.
In other words, the price of sandwiches is affected by supply and demand. But this is also true of the price of capital: There are only so many people who want to borrow money at a given rate, so to attract more borrowers, the bank needs to reduce its rates.
The other point is that in order to exercise any of the power afforded him by his money, the banker needs to pay for things, which puts money back into the hands of people other than himself.
(Perhaps he buys a sandwich for lunch.)
It is by all means likely that the value of items decreases drastically.. ie $1 enabling you to buy a house, if say 95% of the money belongs to one person.. but it still means that one person would have virtual ownership of all things produced in the economy if he/she wanted it.
ur scenario depends on the concept that the value of items such as sandwiches wont decrease with increasing supply, and the likelihood of steady demand.
what if the cost for making sandwiches increases to 1.05 the following year due to the scarcity of one of the ingredients used.
the difference is that currency is always equally valued against itself. Whereas the monetary value of an item if free to fluctuate.
Actually it is ridiculous. An analogy:
Suppose a sandwich costs $1 to make, and can be sold for $1.05. If I start out with $100m, and during the year I make and sell 100m sandwiches, at the end of the year I have $105m. Then next year I use my $105m to make and sell more sandwiches. In just under 50 years, this process will result in me owning *all* of the $1000m in the economy.
So not just money lending, but *any* profit-making activity makes the system unstable.
See the error(s) yet?
You go bankrupt, who gets the assets? The bankers. Corporation goes bankrupt, who gets the assets? The bankers. Government goes bankrupt, who gets the assets? The bankers. When bankers fuck up billions on gambling (derivatives), who gets to bail them out? The people. Banks possess nothing but thin air, why are we letting them enslave the entire world with debt?
“And the population just replaces itself.” Nice explanation. That takes care of that problem.
For a guy who is advocating dismantling fractional reserve system, he is surprisingly reasonable. First part where he explained how money are created he was correct. However in second part regarding debt, and how it has to grow exponentially, he went askew. First – that newly created money is not “fiat”. It’s backed by created wealth. Second – it grows exponentially naturally – population grows exponentially, and so is wealth (houses, cars etc) created exponentially tu support population.
I’m not sure why you find it so ridiculous..
the scenario he presents is an economy with a total amount of money (ie not increasing)
if you have an economy with $1000mil total..
and you have someone who starts out with $100mil and lends at 5% a year, assuming it is paid back, then that person will have $105mil the following year..
compound interest brings this amount to roughly $1000mil in just under 50 years
it’s a perfectly legitimate statement in the scenario
Although this series is a must-watch, it gets a bit loopy at the end. For example, suggesting that perpetually “lending at interest” will result in you owning everything is ridiculous. As long as you are lending something real, interest is perfectly sensible.
This deserves SO MANY more views. That’s why I’m 5 staring this.
You’re absolutely right on the money, no pun intended.
Read your Old Testament again. They used to have a major “year of jubilee” every 50 years (with minor ones every 7 years), in which, all debt would be forgiven, foreclosed homes would be returned to their rightful/ previous owner, and bondservants would be released of their servitude. This type of “jubilee year” was also practiced in ancient Babylon and Sumer. Google “renegade economist” and watch his interview with Dr. Michael Hudson.
At the beginning of this clip, it said every major religion forbade usury. That’s not true. Judaism did not. It’s why you see a lot of Jewish bankers who really got established 17th & 18th century or so. It also made them prime targets in Nazi Germany.
Not to mention, they didnt lend that TARP money, they used the bailout money to aquire other banks, pay back 100% other banks, and manipulate the market, by buying stocks in other banks, and driving prices up, so that when the sideline money jumps on for the ride upward ride, they sell at the overvalued price, then short stocks. thats why banks suddenly turned a profit after being in sooo much trouble.
That’s proof that the bailouts were just plain extortion; because the banks could have bailed themselves out by creating more credit; only thing is, then they would’ve been stuck with some assets for which they would never be paid back, ergo they would’ve taken a loss… and that can never happen. Ha, accountability for risks taken? I don’t think so! Just let the “free citizens” of the USA take on the burden for the bankers mistakes.
Everyone has a choice in what they do, we are all responsible for our own actions. Yes, many people got bad advice, but this is all the more reason to educate yourself – don’t rely on other people to tell you what’s a good idea and whiats not!
Keep up to date, do the research and make informed decisions. No one is right all the time, and it’s worth getting advice – but don’t just trust it blindly, do your own reseach as well.
really? werent the “experts” are the ones that got most of the people into the housing crises.?!!!
The point this video is trying to make is that this system is not capitalism at all, but started as capitalism, and was then warped beyond recognition.
for most people a mortgage is the single biggest financial commitment they will make in their lives. Maiing good financial decisions is the foundation of your future wealth.
Do a little reseacr and make sure your decisions are the right one. Get help from experts. find out what your options are – then act, not before!
mortgageartist . com
keep up to date with the latest mortgage and finance info at no cost to you.
If banks could not “create” money they would never be able to “control” all of the money in the system as alleged at 2:30. The banks have need of services and resources that are supplied by others. They would also lose money to the investors who would want to receive their profits to spend. The last part sounds like communist propaganda, and we see how well the soviet system worked out. The person who made this video has very little knowledge of capitalism and the differing value of services.
There is also a problem of the government creating money by improving infrastructure, because the USA is finite, and eventually there would be no areas that could be improved.
The earth is finite, so we are screwed.
In the 80s I met several Arabs from Egypt.
In their country, they could borrow money from the government at 0% interest, and Egypt did not collapse.
Why can’t our government do that here?
Credit Cards charging up to 25% interest is theft, plain and simple.
At this point you already got me convince that I should go and take a loan.