The Monetary System is Fleecing You

[phattonez]

Almost all of our money is created by banks, tied to debt, and the banks get paid interest for this creation. All of the money that you use, it's all debt. It enriches the financial sector and leeahes from the real, productive part of the economy. You're being robbed every day and you don't even know it.

Banks shouldn't be making money. The government should, and it should benefit all of us, not just wealthy bankers. Oh you think it's inflationary? And the banks creating trillions of dollars isn't?

 

[phattonez]

 

[azgreg]

[YouTube]CvH66fz9nyU[/YouTube]

Use the page URL.

 

[phattonez]

Use the page URL.

Odd. It worked fine in Tapatalk.

 

[azgreg]

Odd. It worked fine in Tapatalk.

It's working now.

 

[PirateMk1]

Almost all of our money is created by banks, tied to debt, and the banks get paid interest for this creation. All of the money that you use, it's all debt. It enriches the financial sector and leeahes from the real, productive part of the economy. You're being robbed every day and you don't even know it.

Banks shouldn't be making money. The government should, and it should benefit all of us, not just wealthy bankers. Oh you think it's inflationary? And the banks creating trillions of dollars isn't?

Wealth should be backed by assets and have stable long term worth neither rising nor falling in value over time.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Almost all of our money is created by banks, tied to debt, and the banks get paid interest for this creation. All of the money that you use, it's all debt. It enriches the financial sector and leeahes from the real, productive part of the economy. You're being robbed every day and you don't even know it.

Banks shouldn't be making money. The government should, and it should benefit all of us, not just wealthy bankers. Oh you think it's inflationary? And the banks creating trillions of dollars isn't?

I think this is very complex subject. I also think that if we don't like our current system we need to experiment with other systems. We have to approach this scientifically and test our theories. Are their countries with better systems that we should emulate?

It's possible that the system is bad but the alternatives are worse.

 

[phattonez]

I think this is very complex subject. I also think that if we don't like our current system we need to experiment with other systems. We have to approach this scientifically and test our theories. Are their countries with better systems that we should emulate?

It's possible that the system is bad but the alternatives are worse.

This system is designed to be about as bad as it can be. Our interests are put last.

 

[phattonez]

Wealth should be backed by assets and have stable long term worth neither rising nor falling in value over time.

Why assets? Why not based on the productive capacity of a nation?

 

[joko104]

Why assets? Why not based on the productive capacity of a nation?

If so, the USA is screwed. The leftwing destroyed the USA's productivity over the last half century to where little is left of it.

 

[phattonez]

If so, the USA is screwed. The leftwing destroyed the USA's productivity over the last half century to where little is left of it.

The monetary system is backed by a bipartisan consensus.

 

[trouble13]

Wealth should be backed by assets and have stable long term worth neither rising nor falling in value over time.

Why?
Money is nothing but a convenient way to quantify or give a value to our labor and our assets. Essentially its an abstract concept.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

I think this is very complex subject. I also think that if we don't like our current system we need to experiment with other systems. We have to approach this scientifically and test our theories. Are their countries with better systems that we should emulate?

It's possible that the system is bad but the alternatives are worse.

I believe a decentralized cypto currency is going to be the next evolution for our monetary system. Its still in its infancy stage but it seems to be the direction the world is headed.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Slavister]

This is a myth. If you want to understand it, here is a simpler explanation.

I'll try to summarize:

If there were no banks...

Mr B enters into an agreement with Ms S who owns a house and wishes to sell it. The price of the house is $1m. Mr B does not have the $1m in cash money available and therefore must come to some debtor arrangement with Ms S.

Mr B offers to pay off the $1m in monthly instalments over 20 years. In the absence of a bank, this is the best that Ms S can expect.

This transaction would take place whether banks existed or not, because a need exists for the managed exchange of property.

With banks...

The bank will thereafter acquire an obligation to the depositor. By issuing the guarantee, it will authorise a deposit (bank money) to the account of the depositor (seller), obviating the need for any cession.

The obligation to the depositor (the seller) is matched by an outstanding liability on the buyer’s account (a bank asset), if not within a single bank, then within the larger banking system.

To an outsider, it appears as if by recording an asset account entry connected to the buyer and by recording a corresponding deposit entry, the bank has created money out of nothing; this is the illusion of the bank having created money.

But this is only the prima facie appearance and not the truth of the matter because the outside observer has neglected to acknowledge that the deposit value records the value-for-value exchange conducted through an underlying transaction. In reality, the seller no longer has a house and the buyer now has a house.

In short, the "new money" is matched with obligation by another party to PAY for it over years. The bank is an intermediary recording that transaction and getting fees for convenience.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

This system is designed to be about as bad as it can be. Our interests are put last.

What's the alternative? Has anyone tried it?

 

[phattonez]

What's the alternative? Has anyone tried it?

The alternative is for the government to issue its own currency. Lincoln did it during the Civil War. Those Greenbacks are still in circulation.

 

[phattonez]

This is a myth. If you want to understand it, here is a simpler explanation.

I'll try to summarize:

If there were no banks...



With banks...



In short, the "new money" is matched with obligation by another party to PAY for it over years. The bank is an intermediary recording that transaction and getting fees for convenience.

It only works if the bank gets paid what it expects to be paid. What happens when it doesn't? A bank failure, which is a logical necessity of lending money that you don't have and demanding interest. When nearly all of the money comes into the system through the banks, and the banks demand interest on top of all of the money that they issue, then where is the extra money supposed to come from to pay the interest?

"How can we bring back to you $1080 when there is only $1000 on the entire island?”

“That's because of the interest, my friends. Did your production not increase?"

“Yes, but the money hasn't. And it is money you're asking for, not our products. You are the only one who can make money. But you made only $1000, and yet you ask $1080. This is not possible!”

The Money myth exploded - The financial enigma resolved

 

[phattonez]

I believe a decentralized cypto currency is going to be the next evolution for our monetary system. Its still in its infancy stage but it seems to be the direction the world is headed.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

It certainly could be, so I have a small holding just in case.

Still a government issuing its own currency is far better. It can manage the money supply relative to production to keep stability better than crypto can.

 

[PirateMk1]

Why assets? Why not based on the productive capacity of a nation?

Because the value of assets especially if there is a wide ranging basket of them tend to be fairly stable over time and therefore a fairly defined value within the marketplace. Productivity can be screwed with much more easily than the price of commodities especially a large diverse basket of them. The idea is a stable currency such that saving and investment is encouraged rather than discouraged as it is right now. The idea is encourage the routine accumulation of wealth via saving and investment. Investment becomes a not just a way to stay ahead of inflation.

 

[PirateMk1]

Why?
Money is nothing but a convenient way to quantify or give a value to our labor and our assets. Essentially its an abstract concept.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Actually no it is not, at least until recently. Our money was backed by gold until the 1970's. Money used to literally be a script able to be exchanged for the underlying commodity. Fiat currencies are more able to be manipulated, which is something you dont want. The current system the US employs is simply a way for the connected to steal value over time as they always get to spend the value FIRST before inflation begins to devalue the currency. In many ways our currency has become similar to a perpetual options contract with a perpetual loss of value over time. The dollar you have today is worth less tomorrow and that loss compounds over time.

 

[Slavister]

It only works if the bank gets paid what it expects to be paid. What happens when it doesn't?

Normally, what happens is that the bank eats the loss. Which is the reason the bank is motivated to do all the background and credit-worthiness checks. In Great Recession, part of the issue (and there were MANY MANY parts) was the CDOs that banks would package and sell to other banks thus reducing the motivation here. When banks own money is on the line, the bank will be quite careful about its loans.

A bank failure, which is a logical necessity of lending money that you don't have and demanding interest.

Bank failures happen. In most cases, other banks pick up the tab. In some cases, unfortunately, taxpayer does. In all cases, bank owners suffer, as they should.

When nearly all of the money comes into the system through the banks

It does not. That statement is misleading as already shown. For all that money coming into the system through the banks there are corresponding cash flows on the other side.

, and the banks demand interest on top of all of the money that they issue

That's total BS. You cannot add interest to "money that they issue". It's not their money that you claim that they "issue" AND they don't issue money in the way you pretend that they do. They SHOULD get interest for both providing service AND taking on the very same risks you are discussing.

then where is the extra money supposed to come from to pay the interest?

From the borrowers that want to live in the houses for which they don't have the money.

 

[phattonez]

Normally, what happens is that the bank eats the loss. Which is the reason the bank is motivated to do all the background and credit-worthiness checks. In Great Recession, part of the issue (and there were MANY MANY parts) was the CDOs that banks would package and sell to other banks thus reducing the motivation here. When banks own money is on the line, the bank will be quite careful about its loans.



Bank failures happen. In most cases, other banks pick up the tab. In some cases, unfortunately, taxpayer does. In all cases, bank owners suffer, as they should.



It does not. That statement is misleading as already shown. For all that money coming into the system through the banks there are corresponding cash flows on the other side.



That's total BS. You cannot add interest to "money that they issue". It's not their money that you claim that they "issue" AND they don't issue money in the way you pretend that they do. They SHOULD get interest for both providing service AND taking on the very same risks you are discussing.



From the borrowers that want to live in the houses for which they don't have the money.

If a banking system has $100 in cash as deposits and a 10% reserve retirement, it can lend out $1000 if the money lent stays deposited. Do you disagree?

 

[phattonez]

Because the value of assets especially if there is a wide ranging basket of them tend to be fairly stable over time and therefore a fairly defined value within the marketplace. Productivity can be screwed with much more easily than the price of commodities especially a large diverse basket of them. The idea is a stable currency such that saving and investment is encouraged rather than discouraged as it is right now. The idea is encourage the routine accumulation of wealth via saving and investment. Investment becomes a not just a way to stay ahead of inflation.

But with this stable currency the value of money relative to production goes up over time, especially if it's pegged to something like gold. Again, why is that a good thing? Is hoarding money a productive activity? No, it's not like investment.

 

[Slavister]

If a banking system has $100 in cash as deposits and a 10% reserve retirement, it can lend out $1000 if the money lent stays deposited. Do you disagree?

They don't just lend the money. The money is normally backed up by something. E.g. banks really own the house until it's paid up.

 

[Luther]

Almost all of our money is created by banks, tied to debt, and the banks get paid interest for this creation. All of the money that you use, it's all debt. It enriches the financial sector and leeahes from the real, productive part of the economy. You're being robbed every day and you don't even know it.

Banks shouldn't be making money. The government should, and it should benefit all of us, not just wealthy bankers. Oh you think it's inflationary? And the banks creating trillions of dollars isn't?

This is good stuff

Thanks for sharing