Private banks were given the power to virtually print money and lend it back to us.
I simply want to know WHY did we give that power to them? Why dont we just print the money for free? The last president to stand up to the fed,JFK, was assasinated, hmmm.
A. Do you think fractional reserve lending OK? (there are other ways to make your money work for you that are not harmful, business investment for example)
B. How does this video suggest that capitalism is bad?
C. If the same people owned debt in all "competing currencies" they would have a monopoly and not care who is ditching which currency. They would probably also inflate each one so that it doesnt make much difference.
Wow, I thought you knew what you were fucking talking about until I watched video 4 in this series. WTF? So, now you're saying that capitalism is bad? You're missing one huge problem with the current system. THERE'S AREN'T COMPETING CURRENCIES. There is only one currency, and this is the problem. There should be competing currencies at all times in a free society. This would make it all but impossible to control the world through usury.
Control could still easily be gained if the same fractional reserve lending was put into practice for each currency. It would still be the same monopoly on money. How do you infer that capitalism is bad here? I don't think that's what the message is. The point is simple, money ALREADY IS created virtually out of thin air by the same people who lend it at interest. We should eliminate the middleman (private banks) and get more value out of money created.
@99wins There would be no such thing as fractional reserve lending with competing currencies. You would inflate your currency and it would lose its value and people would ditch it. Furthermore, what's wrong with a private bank? Is currency not in itself a commodity? Interest is nothing more than "buying" currency from someone. If I want a dougnut, I pay you cash for it...if I want cash...I pay you cash for it. What's the diff?
@SuperBillego I will grant you my brother/sister if any of the America president did not do what the banks and CIA told him to do he will face the fate of JFK!!! So electing any body does not matter
@Akuki100 Yes I hear you and partially agree, I do believe that the banks , CIA as you put it are onl are strong as those who blindly enforce their policies, When the Military and police realise that it is their friends and family they are to enforce against, that is when Revolution occurs, it is historical. True one man may make a sacrifice for standing up and speaking the truth, but when millions follow, how is it possible to contain us all, the 99%???
If we keep electing people who become martyrs for our freedom, eventually they will succeed. This country will always be the land of the free, AS LONG as its the home of the brave.
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Funny how a 230 year old document fixed this problem before it existed (after the corrupt congress sold this power to the fed in 1913)
The goal of the venus project would be the result of a successful monetary and educational system. I actually think the ideas posted in this segment would have a good chance of working. The age old question remains, is there a way to keep the new system from being corrupted
*chuckles* New money simply being spent into existance in the video's society. How do you expect people to pay for homes? To start businesses? Do they have to save up their money? Will the gov't lend out interest free money? What the video describes is a stagnant, zero-growth economy.
@every116 I don't see hwy the gove couldnt provide liquidity wherever it is needed. the goal of money should always be to facilitate exchange, not to increase value. i think the video takes that stance although it does it very cautiously because if you come out as explicitly socialist people cant digest it because terms have been poisoned by propaganda.
@nerfmyaccount Do you really want to live in a place where the value of society, the economy, or goods are stagnant? True, money is supposed to facilitate exchange, but if an economy doesn't grow quickly deteriorates into poverty.
@Silentsam7532 - I'd like to see five major leading powers, sort of like the "balance of power" - the ones that look likely are India, China, the US, the EU, and maybe Brazil or Russia.
@gamegeek2 I would like to see the UN given some actual power. The main 5 would have a lot of power still, but it might help third world nations a bit if the UN charter of rights could not be ignored by any nation.
I would like to see more of a global community and for people to not care so much about national boundaries. I wish there was a lot more freedom of movement around the world.
We need the people to be a little more involved in a global community.
Its not about the money the wealthy and elite don't care about the money anymore. Its about power and control. They want a communist one world government were we have no money at all its all on a chip implanted under the skin and the elite are at the top and the rest of us are just slaves. The politicians are being promised top positions in there new world order. So unless we revolt they wont listen to the general public anymore. They will simply say yes to us then do what they want anyway.
Why don't use the Islamic monetary system? Some countries have seen the power of Islamic monetary system. Even some non-Muslim countries like South Korea is following it. It allows money to circulate, so that money never ends, and creating money is unnessecary.
You can’t fix a collectivist system by simply shuffling it with another.
Fixing the current system by introducing totalitarianism is like fixing a monarchy by voting for the king it doesn’t change anything having some one you like with absolute power over you.
Maybe the problem is that every one expects others to provide for them.
A person who wants rights to freedom must also assume responsibility to provide for ones self.
What about allowing all the people and all companies choose their own currency. Wether they would like gold and silver, digital money or trade a car for 20 sheeps and 15 cows doesnt matter. As a currency is a representation of possible commodities.
allowing all people to choose their own currency would make unstable currencies go bankrupt and stable currencies get trusted. And a dollar crisis wouldnt be such a crisis because of the alternatives in the market.
Credit should be given to lend 100.000 dol. and every year, you would pay say, 5000 on the top of it a year, so even after 30 years you would owe 250.000 and not 432,194.24 compared to COMPOUND INTEREST!
in 1910, the world's wealth was almost evenely distributed among people. Today, 1% of the world's population owns 40% of the Earth's wealth. 10% of the population (the richest people) own 85% of the wealth. If this monetary system continues, in 20 years 1% of the pupulation will own 80% of the wealth. Which means 99% of people will be slaves to the 1% richest people in the world. Not to mention that this monetary system (capitalism) is responsible for Global Warming and other shit.
LOL this video is retarded. When a pribate bank makes a loan that is used to buy a house, that is "debt" but when a government bank issues a loan to itself to build a bridge, that is not "debt" that is "Value". How fucking stupid can people people? And then the how bit about "Private banks deciding what industries get loans" What about government deciding what industries get massive public works projects?! At least private banks issue loans to industries wth sound plans, Government doens't.
has little to do with it. This is yet another attempt at distraction to take the focus away from the REAL problem which is America's immature need to live beyond it's means.
@PabloPena108 but isn't the system set up to encourage us to live beyond our means? Have you ever asked a bank to send you an application for a credit card? I understand what you're saying and it makes total sense, but the banks hound people through unsolicited invitations. It's all part of the system, debt servitude, and we're born into it.
...there is no "exponential necessity" for debt. And if everyone paid off their debt that would "end the money supply"?? That's loony. People would still sell goods and services and pocket their profits without the banks needing to get involved. Banks could make money on fees if nothing else or there would be less need for them. If there is any "big monster" it is the "instant gratification" society that wants something today that is hasn't earned until tomorrow and the banking system
is not really their money. Anybody can withdraw at any time. I am not trying to support banking practices or anything but if you listen to these 5 videos closely you'll see there is a great deal of truth but also a lot of sleight-of-hand where leaps in logic and assumptions are being made that make absolutely no sense. There is no "debt monster" chasing a globe...
This video is wrong. If you look at it closely. He says "Then all the banks will have the wealth". Huh?? Banks CANNOT keep the principal on loans created out of "thin air". They have lawful requriements to simply apply the loan payments to the loan amount. They keep the interest but don't they take the risk? And once someone has paid off the loan and is making money at his business how will the banks see that moneY? Maybe in a checking account but...
The real root of the problem is finally mentioned, but quickly glossed over in this part. Population must be controlled and not allowed to expand. Exponential population growth requires continued exponential expansion and credit in a finite world that cannot support exponential population growth unchecked.
Governments taxing us through inflation is a BAD idea. Inflation causes a business cycle, which causes idle resources and destruction of capital. This sort of boom and bust will be blamed on business, and used by politicians as a new excuse for control.
This video was great -- until now. You're simply offering us to go from perpetual collective servitude to BANKS to perpetual collective servitude to an all-powerful GOVERNMENT -- which is, in my opinion, far worse. For, not only does the government control money, it also controls violence (police, military) and is far less desirable, as an overlord, than the banks. Even perpetual debt servitude is preferable to a fascist, all-powerful, unaccountable government.
I agree - good point. Although it does incentivise lending, so the question does boil down to who do you trust to do the least worst job distributing money, the government or private finance. But blaming banks on reflex when money/economies go wrong is a bit like blaming farms for bad weather.
He is so right!!! Just like the money masters film! We dont have to have a gold or silver standard, all we have to do is have the government issue money debt free. Ppl don't realize that the reason the money supply has constantly been expanded over the years is because the Federal Reserve has a monopoly on loaning money to the government.
@jneil2007 You're right - I meant to say the gov't shouldn't control all economic activity as the video endorses. Monetary supply should be controlled by the government - but that's it.
@MyOwnYTAccount That's not a radical idea. Then there could be no interest and banks couldnt become what they are today. Ever notice bank buildings are always the largest in town. And i have no problems with big businuess, but nobody should make that much money off interest. If banking stayed private under a reform, interest rates should be determined by the market and bank reserves would have to be way higher. Like 50% at least.
All politicians have a price tag attached, the highest bidder will always win. The same people that control our gov via the central banking cartels have their savings in gold. Post collapse they will still have all their wealth and will be able to control any gov that emerges. Government is NOT the answer.
I had to stop watching after 8:00 into this. The Gov will never be responsible with their powers. After witnessing how badly they have screwed things up over the past 100 years how can anyone want to give any power to the gov; this is madness.
The video makes the assertion that a government controlling the monetary system is inevitable. He then offers solutions that hypothesize on different gov actions to have a sustainable system.
The Government IS the problem, it cannot be part of the solution. Any solution to our monetary system post collapse will have to come organically from the people, not from a central gov that doesn't know it's head from its a**
Watched the others and liked them. But then all of thus GREEN BS has to be thrown in. F OFF. You think things are bad with debt? Wait till they start limiting the "EARTHS" resources!!!! If I own land and want to cut down every tree on it just to burn I'll FN do it. Who are you to tell others how much we can use now?!?!!! Stick to money not some environmental whack job crap.
Ok - first 3 parts were good, but going into totalitarian fascism (i.e. - trusting the government to oversee the entire monetary system) as a fix to fix the current broken monetary system is akin to trading the devil you know for the devil you don't.
Unless the populace has every mean to dispose of the government (especially the right to bear arms), such a system would never result in anything other than a tyrannical dictatorship worse than the one we have now.
@MyOwnYTAccount The point is - Money would be created outside the credit system and without the fractional reserve system the money making model of banking is out the window. With profoundly less money to be made in banking it creates a lesser % of corruption. Of course governments are bad but at present the governments are controlled by these bankers anyway so whats the difference?? - we can hold the government to account. P.S you are already under totalitarian fascism my friend. gulp it down
@Jjholdtight In the video, the argument against gold and silver as money are weak and the original reason presented as the reason for the current debt backed fiat currency is easily defeated with the idea that personally and collectively, people live within thier means.
I believe we're at the point where the system unravels. If so there will be either (1) a totalitarian world order abdicated in this video or (2) an order based on individual accountability and limited, responsible government.
This video completely lies about Fed-owned securities when Fed actually hands over 94% of its profits BACK to the govt. We're in debt BECAUSE OF GOVT. Only Congress can issue Treasuries/debt & today, money comes into existence when Fed buys Treasuries so if govt was so wise about money, it'd've only issued so many Treasuries/debt as Fed is willing to buy so that interest to private Treasury-holders can be avoied but govts SUCK, always have & always will so NO to "govt-issued-money"
@lomocan Ok,interesting, to be honest there are many people claiming that the Fed doesnt give the money back, i will have to look more into this. Its dubious that the Fed is so shrouded in secrecy RE auditing. Im English and the Bank of England is the same, they are exempt from freedom of information requests and are owned by the Bank of England nominees limited. For me its the secrecy that leads me to believe the conspiracy theory. Im with you on GOV suck tho for sure.
"totalitarian fascism (i.e. - trusting the government to oversee the entire monetary system) as a fix to fix the current broken monetary system is akin to trading the devil you know for the devil you don't"
"argument against gold and silver as money are weak and the original reason presented as the reason for the current debt backed fiat currency is easily defeated with the idea that personally and collectively, people live within thier means"
@MyOwnYTAccount Really? According to the US constitution controlling the money system is one of the few jobs the government hás to do! Was the early US a totalitarian state? NO. If you have a small govt, with this as one of it's few core tasks, it will work. In fact, it is the only possibility. You sir, are incredibly wrong.
@johnathanyoung100 "he who holds the money holds the power so why not get rid of the money, that way were all on the same level"
Because no society will ever exist where everyone is on the same level. The problem now is the monitary system centralizes too much power with those with the ability ta arbitrarily create money out of nothing - defying the laws of nature,
@MyOwnYTAccount No, I wasn't saying I disagree with you but the you sort of wrote it like a 12 year old who just read 1984. I bet you're a teenager, right?
@robotwarlord I think you'd be hard pressed to find a teenager or even a young adult in the Western world who believes capitalism is the best system of economic governance, given the education systems are taken over by socialists.
Sadly enough, most teenagers and young adults will face the consequences of this corrupt monetary system in the form of perpetual indebtedness and poverty.
@MyOwnYTAccount That makes no sense. What basis do you have for asserting the "government" of bankers preferable to the government of the people? If bankers (Mammon) control the govt anyway, how can there be said to be any meaningful difference, save the huge potential productivity the current system swallows up?
Why can the govt not issue money rather than debt? If what makes the bond good also makes the bill good (faith in the ongoing productivity of the nation), why have govt issue bonds?
@MyOwnYTAccount it is interesting to watch how the views on this documentary are reduced from part 1 to part 5. People are getting bored or they simply cannot understand
@MyOwnYTAccount Well that's true to an extent but remember that most of the corruption in the governments are a result of the influence of banks and bank lobbyists. Regardless of that, though, you should look up the new Zeitgeist movie. I think a resource based economy is a much more supportable system. Better to do away with money entirely.
@djtotalhack The problem with the Zeitgeist movement and the idea of a resource based economy is it's based on a fundamentally flawed assumptions that technology can perfectly do away with undesirable labour, permitting people to work selflessly in the greater interest of both humanity and themselves.
This is a gigantic logical fallacy - as technology will always fail and human beings will ALWAYS act out of naked self interest to the detriment of others.
@djtotalhack The more supportable system is a system where human ability to govern others is severely restrained.
An RBE requires massive, global governance granting individuals unimaginable authority. That system will never last without genocide.
The most sustainable system is one of local empowerment of small communities and abolishment of the global "big state" governments that are too easily manipulated to be an enabler of unfair social manipulations by special interests.
The power to coin money belongs to the people, not private banks. We need to go back to coining our own money. There is NO REASON we should, as a government, borrow money from banks. And lending money should not be a profit making function.
@MyOwnYTAccount You obviously would not like the true answer to the worlds problems it seems. Scrapping the systems in place and creating a global system.
People hate the idea of one world governments etc, but a global world would be a batter world.
@Silentsam7532 Government intervention through preferential treatment of some is the source of the corruption you describe. The solution is less government sticking thier nose into the economy and letting the free market take care of failing ventures. Nothing is "too big to fail."
We re all in this poll now, if you don't loan 100,000for a car,there will be now new money supply , and everyone want to live better than they should, it's inevitably faulty system, human greedy makes it sooner or later to be collapsed.
"We re all in this poll now, if you don't loan 100,000for a car,there will be now new money supply , and everyone want to live better than they should, it's inevitably faulty system, human greedy makes it sooner or later to be collapsed"
NOPE, more money does NOT equal more prosperity; REAL WEALTH is goods/services & their availability; we DON'T consume money, we use to EXCHANGE it for REAL WELATH ie goods/services so money-supply NEED NOT grow to create prosperity.
I'd propose a system where all banks are private & them accepting Gold-Certificates from Treasury worth 1gram, 5gram, 0.5gram etc for depositing gold with Treasury & in turn GCs will become US currency thru banks; people'll use both gold & GCs as universal media-of-exchange; at withdrawl banks will turn in GCs to Treasury for gold at depositors' behest; all the gold with Treasury will be stored at centralized location & "suspension of specie" by banks should be unconstitutional
The argument made against gold-standard are ridiculous as usual, its very easy to pick up "shaving the coin","debasing the metal",etc with gold because its heavier than other metals so any debasing will be manifest in size & shape & can be recognized by most people; that's precisely why gold evolved as a natural choice of currency allover the world As for "hoarding", in the past, bankers/goldsmiths were able to do that due to fractional-reserve-banking, once that's outlawed, no one can hoard it
Banking requires real work! And by creating a means of transaction (money) it increases the value of the 'real' good we make because they can be traded efficiently and their is incentive for mass production. The perpetual growth arguments here are wrong because they fail to understand the role of technology in growth. What constitutes a resource changes as technology drives growth. Interest is necessary to ensure that debt is repaid, it fuels the money cycle and growth.
Banking requires real work! And by creating a means of transaction (money) it increases the value of the 'real' good we make because they can be traded efficiently and their is incentive for mass production. The perpetual growth arguments here are wrong because they fail to understand the role of technology in growth. What constitutes a resource changes as technology drives growth.
"I really liked where they were going here until I heard the government was going to be in control of our money supply! Thank god for bankers! lol"
Yea, they're basically saying "oh, we can't trust the bankers but we can trust our honest, principled, angelic politicians to create money" WTF!
Money should NOT be in the hands of either bankers or govt; a REAL gold-standard (not the phone one we had), with gold-certificates will be the best money we can have.
I have a question. If I'm getting it correctly, is what he is saying that money should essentially retain its value all the time, because no new money is ever created? If more humans are born (increase in population) wouldn't that make there be less money per person in the long run?
@13lackLight They could print more to keep it the same per capita. The real error is, without interest there is no incentive or reason to pay the money back. So everyone borrows and no-one works, faith in money disappears and production collapses. Similar in a sense to the economic problems faced by the USSR
"The real error is, without interest there is no incentive or reason to pay the money back. So everyone borrows and no-one works, faith in money disappears and production collapses. Similar in a sense to the economic problems faced by the USSR"
Agreed, all the people going "interest is evil" don't realize its importance in an economy & we've too many videos on YouTuby preying on uninformed people's ignorance & trying to turn them towards communism ahamm "resource-based economy"
@lomocan The problem would be there is no incentive to lend out money. By law you could still force people to pay back the loan at a given date, thus not everyone could just borrow money withouth paying it back. To solve the problem of a lack of incentives to lend out money, you could make this a task of the government. The government could give out loans for a house and expect the loan to be repayed over a period of 20 years or so. This does require a non-corrupt government, a minor flaw.
"The problem would be there is no incentive to lend out money"
INTEREST
"The government could give out loans for a house and expect the loan to be repayed over a period of 20 years or so. This does require a non-corrupt government, a minor flaw"
That's NOT a "minor" flaw, that's a GARGANTUAN flaw lol Govts is about power so it necessarily attracts power-hungry & greedy people & we can't EVER expect these people to not be corrupt, especially with money-power
@TheBDASays "No incentive". Wrong. You could agree on a repayment scedule. If the other does not pay when he is supposed to, you can call for a fine, or create interest as a penalty. You'd have the law on your side. Thus, charging no interest on normal loans is possible.
Of course your gonna pay that money back even without interest because in the loan agreement you clearly have a timeline in which to do so, otherwise the bank will take your house. Interest DOES NOT motivate you in any way to pay your money.
@NForcer211 It encourages faster payment, with 0% interest everyone would choose the longest timeline available and if there is any inflation a 0% interest is really a negative interest. Interest is what also motivates people to lend in the first place. Why else would they?
@TheBDASays Did it ever occur to you that since every banknote in existence comes from either a central bank or a private bank, and all the money they give out needs to be given back with interest, how the hell is everyone suppose to pay back more money than there has ever been created?
@NForcer211 Yes it has occurred to me. Future increases in money supply allow the settlement of past interest liabilities. This is why deflation is so dangerous to an economy that uses fractional lending as a means to generate money supply and some levelof inflation is inevitable. Our society uses banks to produce money. Yes they need regulation, yes they will abuse their position if allowed to... but the same applies to farms and no one is saying that we should shut those down.
@TheBDASays So then, you create more money, which in turn creates more inflation. If you don't, there won't be anymore money to cover up the interest you have to pay for the bank. This monetary system is so aberrant and illogical that anyone with an IQ above 80 should realize that it is complete bull shit. Sadly, thinking is not something promoted to much these days so the banks just continue doing what they have done for centuries...
@NForcer211 The system requires continued inflation... so what? Fractional lending is ingenius as it solves the historic problem of restricted money supply. In a managed environment the money created leads to wealth creation - products and services. Perhaps in the future we'll develop better options but I haven't seen any. The problem isn't the system it is its political implementation. Far too many ties between bankers and politics, an inevitably corrupt network of vested interests.
@TheBDASays So what...so...in order to mantain the system you have to mantain exponencial growth and this comes against finite resources. Meaning we will fuck up the earth so we can mantain this system and then we will all die...that's what. : )
@1984jacr Exponential increase in money supply is required. Technology exponentially increases our resources. For example before industrialism oil had no value. I agree that change is needed, but most reaction against modern banking is knee-jerk and asinine and fails to offer viable solutions or identify the real problems.
@TheBDASays This profit based monetary system holds back everything that's not profitable, including technological progress. If you wont a viable solution search on Resource Based Economy. Cyclical consumption is needed so you can have exponencial growth and cyclical consum ption means wasting resources we cannot afford to waste. Even if technology was not being held back by the monetary system, the waste this system produces would be untenable anyway.
@1984jacr History shows that the current capitalist model does drice technology and innovation to an incredible degree. We see a continuous stream of invention and improved product quality that is ahistorical and not seen in other contemporary economic models. Consumption drives production, waste is inevitable, 'resource based' aka command economies have proved extremely wasteful in the past.
@TheBDASays History shows that technology boosted our standard of living. Capitalism as nothing to do with it since people who invent technology are not money motivated. There's a million examples of this. Waste is not inevitable, and if it is, we will all be fucking dead in a few years, simply because we do not have the resources for this consumary addiction.
@TheBDASays Are you kidding me? So continued inflation has no impact on medium and low wage families when the costs of living go skyrocket each day??? And you dare call this "ingenius"?
@NForcer211 Inflation is acceptable when wage growth and product quality outstrip it. The inflation problems experienced today are not the inevitable consequence of fractional reserve banking. If we scrapped our banking system you'd see even worse poverty. The economic problems we face relate to vested interests, corruption and voter incompetence rather than the innate nature of our banking system.
@TheBDASays If you'd scrap the banking system today absolutely no harm would come to anyone. If you scrap the healthcare , agricultural, industrial, transportation, water&sewage etc. systems, 90% of the people on this earth would die. Banks have zero relevance for society and have contributed with nothing to make our lives better.
@TheBDASays And inflation is not acceptable since the law of supply-demand states that the money supply can only increase when there is an increase in the amount of goods and services produced. Banks just make money out of thin air and circulate them in the economy and this inevitably leads to stagflation: shitloads of money with zero value.
@NForcer211 If you scrapped the banking system today you would be scrapping healthcare, agriculture, industry and services. Money has a crucial function as a store of value and means of exchange. Farms create food 'out of thin air', and it circulates relatively well because banks create money 'out of thin air'. A managed increase in money supply (usually through % rates) increases demand, which in turn increases supply because it creates an incentive to produce.
@TheBDASays Farms do not create food out of thin air, that i assure you. They create food out of a resource called soil and others. You do not need to exchange anything. If you have the resources to do so you can produce the goods needed for a standard of living and deliver them to people. Again i tell you, please research on The Venus Project and Resource Based Economy.
@1984jacr If you're being literal about creating out of 'thin air' - banks don't do it either, they are labour intensive. You do realise that when a bank issues money it does not immediately profit as it issues a debt of equivalent size? They do not print currency per se. Capitalism and the intellectual property laws it created do drive technology, and technology changes resoirce requirements and value. In the past oil was worthless until technological advancement gave it value.
@1984jacr I looked into Venus: No government or corporations and yet with a managed economy? Whose going to be doing the managing? A command economy run by 'the people' - it has a familiar ring to it. Venus also seems to rely on a bizarre conviction that removal of profit motive would lead to ridiculous technological improvements. If anyone bought into this the result would be prompt failure, anarchy, and totalitarianism.
@TheBDASays Ever question you may have as been asnwered by Jacque Fresco, you need to look much further then a mere glance. They do print currency per se, anyway, Capitalism and the intellectual property laws do nothing never solved a single real human problem. if they did then give me just example and I'll show you it is a false one.
@TheBDASays so does that mean when a friend of yours lends you $20.00 you simply refuse to pay him back? No, since when has interest ever been an incentive to pay back a loan? Interest has always been the penalty for borrowing. At the turn of the last century, people in this country were doing so well they stopped borrowing beyond their means and the banksters knew they had to do something fast. The last thing they want is a self-sufficient affluent society that only borrows what it needs.
@TheBDASays USSR problems had more to do to the fact that the world is now globalized. All the people who shoved thumbs up at your coment are all sad slaves. If money was equal to product, you'd only have equivalent to what you produced. The only reason to have money in that scenario is that not everyone would want your fish or software. The value of the money would depend entirely on the fetish on the product.
You are basicly rationalizing your hopeless existence.
" If more humans are born (increase in population) wouldn't that make there be less money per person in the long run?"
For the most part, its an erroneous notion perpetuated by bankers so that they can justify printing & "create" more & more money thru fractional reserve banking; population is mostly an irrelevant issue, money is an issue of trade of goods/services so if money-supply is relatively stable & goods/services are increasing, every unit of money just buys more stuff
@lomocan I don't really get it. I'm assuming if there is a gold standard, then money supply mostly just depends on how much gold we can find, right? So if population grows faster than money supply, would that de-value the dollar. I don't know a lot about this stuff this is why I am asking.
@13lackLight Bigger population, Same amount of gold, yet a higher need for money. Would increase the value of money. More people in general, ceterus paribus, means a bigger economy. The problem is that at the moment, money supply grows faster than population, so the dollar devalues.
@13lackLight It's hard to say whether a stronger dollar is good or bad. You will be able to import goods for less, but with a strong currency your export will decrease, because it's more expensive for foreigners to buy your goods. That's basically why at the moment a lot of countries keep their currency weak, to increase exports. This also means however that people with money on the bank will see their money lose value. If the currency increases in value, people won't spend their money, because
"It's hard to say whether a stronger dollar is good or bad. You will be able to import goods for less, but with a strong currency your export will decrease"
It'd create more of a balance of living standards allover the world, when we've less gold (ie every unit of gold has MORE value inside the country & less outside), our exports go up & gold flows in while when there's high amounts of gold, it'll flow out & a continuous equilibrium will be established between countries.
@lomocan A balance all over the world? You mean everyone equally poor? May I remind you that the West is only rich due to exploitation of the rest of the world? There is no such thing as welfare for all, or a healthy equilibrium for all countries.
"If the currency increases in value, people won't spend their money"
If they're not spending it then they're SAVING it which is good because savings drive the economy while spending bankrupts it of capital. If money's value is high, interest earned on it will be higher meaning more savers will invest it in the economy & drive the economy & here again, market forces will establish an equilibrium of money & interest in a small range.
@lomocan I don't believe I stated whether it was good or bad, merely trying to explain to someone what effect inflation/deflation had to someone. Your reasoning here is partly true, partly false. A lot of savers will not participate in investments, because they only save small amounts of money. Also, when the economy decreases due to less spending, there will be less demand for investments as well. It is a vicious circle and it is a fact that our current economy runs entirely on spending, sadly.
"I don't really get it. I'm assuming if there is a gold standard, then money supply mostly just depends on how much gold we can find, right? So if population grows faster than money supply, would that de-value the dollar. I don't know a lot about this stuff this is why I am asking"
"Creation" of more money de-values it, just like when there're more tomatoes on the market, their value is less & when there's a shortage, their value is high, same is true for money.
There was a time when oil was a barrel for an oz of gold, today you can buy 10s of barrels of it for one oz of gold, that's a generic example & of course oil-prices fluctuate & so too of gold as it's NOT being used as money right now but it just gives you an example. Why is it so? Because increase in oil has outstripped increase in gold so when when gold's supply grow slowly compared to goods/services (& population) mean value of money INCREASES as in your savings are worth MORE.
everyone should just pull their money out of the banks. then the whole system would be undone. Pull investments as well. then power would be back in the hands of the people.
Now it's clearer to me why they killed the former dictator Ceausescu of Romania.He has succeeded,through the biological exhaustion of all Romanian citizens,to pay the entire national debt.He intended to switch on an economy based on resources,resources that Romania has more than plenty,unfortunately not democratically handled. Now with all the national resources handled by greedy selfish people,our national debt it greater than ever,the goods which we can produce inside are brought from outside.
Well, I'm Canadian and the level of protection we get from our banking system is higher than what you would get in the U.S... however there's really no reason to believe that a credit union or cooperative bank is any less safe, it's really just the same as a bank, except with no one at the top pocketing the profits.
Most Canadian provinces have a major credit unions, if not under the Desjardins banner under some other name...
Just search for the terms "Credit Union" or "Cooperative Banking"
But we do have non-profit banks... financial coops...
My money is a Desjardins Financial Group and I get money back from them (on top of regular interest) yearly based on it's profits after expenses (salaries)... Money I can put back in the economy by buying more stuff...
If people were to move there money to financial coops they'd get richer AND help save the economy in the process.
@TheGreekOdysseus Ah well I believe that the De Nederlandsche is government owned so you're not in the same mess the Americans are. Also you have a major Credit Union... the Rabobank.
The "De Nederlansche Bank" is government owned yes, but we have the Euro now, and I'm not entirely sure who owns the European Central Bank (or who, unofficially, holds the power there). As for the Rabobank, it's a cooperative bank, but it's still a bank. No stockholders, but other than that, it's similar to a bank.
@TheGreekOdysseus Wikipedia says it's the federation of multiple credit unions under the same banner... I would not get too hung up on the semantics here... it's still a credit union... which there for means there is no syphoning of profits to some faceless sharehodlers... the profit is still just redistributed back to it's users... so it keeps the money in circulation.
Well, partially I agree with you yes. The profits don't go to nameless shareholders, but the customers don't get anymore profit either. The interest rates for deposits and loans are the same as for the other banks.
"I'm not entirely sure who owns the European Central Bank (or who, unofficially, holds the power there)"
Unelected members & shadow government controls its money, interests & everything else, monetary union is equivalent to national union since money controls EVERYTHING else, EU is going to be the USSR, I don't know how EU countries can be so foolish to consider that they'll be able to keep their national sovereignty with a unified money; I hope they wise up & leave EU
@TheGreekOdysseus I am all for a growing economy. Both theory and history (empirical evidence) shows a stable (constant) money supply lead to the biggest growth.
The definition of inflation is the growth of the money supply. Deflation is the shrinking of the money supply. With a constant money supply, prices would go down because of increase productivity. We have observed this phenomenon in computer and electronics... and it is a good thing for everyone.
@TheGreekOdysseus I would love to send you links, however YouTube does not allow them. I suggest to use Google to search. My favorite is the Mises Institute (Mises.org) where you can download the PDF of all those books, or if you want buy them. Use the Search box to read articles about deflation and other topic of interest. This website has changed my life and today I have a more optimistic outlook on life.
The film mixes to many facts with goofy conclusions and conspiracy like assumptions to create an illusionary image of the banking world. The longer I'm watching, the more weird conclusions are stacked on top of each other. People who dont know how the financial market work should not believe to much of what is presented here. The system is flawed, but this film is just way to fairytale like.
This has been flagged as spam show
REJECT THE POLITICAL SYSTEM
there all in for the business,scams(E.T.C)
all these politicians are doing is brainwashing us to VOTE so they can make them self rich, and you don't even notice.
focus on working to dissolve the outdated system of politics in favor of technological redesign.
MAKE THIS WORLD A SECOND GARDEN OF EDEN by joining the zeitgeist movement,watch the documentary and lets ALL STAND FOR WHAT IS THE TRUTH.
thezeitgeistmovement. com
daryps03 4 weeks ago
@munkyusm
Also, in response to your reply.
Private banks were given the power to virtually print money and lend it back to us.
I simply want to know WHY did we give that power to them? Why dont we just print the money for free? The last president to stand up to the fed,JFK, was assasinated, hmmm.
99wins 1 month ago
@munkyusm
Please respond to all parts of my replies.
A. Do you think fractional reserve lending OK? (there are other ways to make your money work for you that are not harmful, business investment for example)
B. How does this video suggest that capitalism is bad?
C. If the same people owned debt in all "competing currencies" they would have a monopoly and not care who is ditching which currency. They would probably also inflate each one so that it doesnt make much difference.
99wins 1 month ago
where is "Money As Debt (5 of 5)"?
tubebility 3 months ago
Wow, I thought you knew what you were fucking talking about until I watched video 4 in this series. WTF? So, now you're saying that capitalism is bad? You're missing one huge problem with the current system. THERE'S AREN'T COMPETING CURRENCIES. There is only one currency, and this is the problem. There should be competing currencies at all times in a free society. This would make it all but impossible to control the world through usury.
munkyusm 4 months ago
@munkyusm
Control could still easily be gained if the same fractional reserve lending was put into practice for each currency. It would still be the same monopoly on money. How do you infer that capitalism is bad here? I don't think that's what the message is. The point is simple, money ALREADY IS created virtually out of thin air by the same people who lend it at interest. We should eliminate the middleman (private banks) and get more value out of money created.
99wins 1 month ago
@99wins There would be no such thing as fractional reserve lending with competing currencies. You would inflate your currency and it would lose its value and people would ditch it. Furthermore, what's wrong with a private bank? Is currency not in itself a commodity? Interest is nothing more than "buying" currency from someone. If I want a dougnut, I pay you cash for it...if I want cash...I pay you cash for it. What's the diff?
munkyusm 1 month ago
if banks did not charge interest then they have no money to spend on kept up of a bank.
spark300c 5 months ago in playlist Money As Debt
there always be growth because there are always recension and depression.
spark300c 5 months ago in playlist Money As Debt
Wake up America! Vote Ron Paul if you are angered by this video!
Turn off the news and election campaigns and debates and all that shit.
Ron Paul is the man , the establishment are scared of him, declare the winner now and rebuild, the world will follow.
SuperBillego 5 months ago 5
@SuperBillego I will grant you my brother/sister if any of the America president did not do what the banks and CIA told him to do he will face the fate of JFK!!! So electing any body does not matter
Akuki100 5 months ago
@Akuki100 Yes I hear you and partially agree, I do believe that the banks , CIA as you put it are onl are strong as those who blindly enforce their policies, When the Military and police realise that it is their friends and family they are to enforce against, that is when Revolution occurs, it is historical. True one man may make a sacrifice for standing up and speaking the truth, but when millions follow, how is it possible to contain us all, the 99%???
Thanks brother, Peace to you.:)
SuperBillego 3 months ago
@Akuki100
If we keep electing people who become martyrs for our freedom, eventually they will succeed. This country will always be the land of the free, AS LONG as its the home of the brave.
99wins 1 month ago
Wake up America! Vote Ron Paul if you are angered by this video!
SuperBillego 5 months ago
00:15 "(..) any form of making money from simply having money was regarded as the act of a parasite, or of a thief."
...and with those words, the author of this video not only has attacked the basis of banking, but of CAPITAL itself.
Even the moral argument used to justify the parasitism of the bankers (that they were "taking a risk") is identical to that of CAPITALISTS generally.
Capitalism itself is USURIOUS.
RemoveYourChains 6 months ago
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution: "The Congress shall have power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Funny how a 230 year old document fixed this problem before it existed (after the corrupt congress sold this power to the fed in 1913)
bacheweychomper 6 months ago
1:11 that's almost the prediction of the money situation inc credit crunch we have today, and this is 4 years old!!
ManlySlut 6 months ago
THE ANSWER IS THE VENUS PROJECT
[The Zeitgeist Movement]
TZMUnchosenOne 6 months ago
Comment removed
99wins 1 month ago
@TZMUnchosenOne
The goal of the venus project would be the result of a successful monetary and educational system. I actually think the ideas posted in this segment would have a good chance of working. The age old question remains, is there a way to keep the new system from being corrupted
?
99wins 1 month ago
*chuckles* New money simply being spent into existance in the video's society. How do you expect people to pay for homes? To start businesses? Do they have to save up their money? Will the gov't lend out interest free money? What the video describes is a stagnant, zero-growth economy.
every116 7 months ago
@every116 No we can still grow our knowledge. God speed
H4RM0N1C5 6 months ago in playlist Money As Debt
@every116 I don't see hwy the gove couldnt provide liquidity wherever it is needed. the goal of money should always be to facilitate exchange, not to increase value. i think the video takes that stance although it does it very cautiously because if you come out as explicitly socialist people cant digest it because terms have been poisoned by propaganda.
nerfmyaccount 5 months ago
@nerfmyaccount Do you really want to live in a place where the value of society, the economy, or goods are stagnant? True, money is supposed to facilitate exchange, but if an economy doesn't grow quickly deteriorates into poverty.
every116 5 months ago
Noooo....Keynesian economics is shit....Fuck this video
shotsky94 8 months ago
The system does need to be replaced. You can be sure though that any nation trying will face a lot of pressure to stop from America.
Maybe China will change it and fix the world. They seem to be the worlds only hope of stoping America from burning the world.
Silentsam7532 8 months ago
@Silentsam7532 - Right, your solution is censorship and repression?
gamegeek2 7 months ago
@gamegeek2 No, I do not condone the actions of China's government, but I do like that America will no longer be the leading power in the world.
America can not be allowed to continue as it has if the world is to have hope of making it into the future in a world worth living in.
Silentsam7532 7 months ago
@Silentsam7532 - I'd like to see five major leading powers, sort of like the "balance of power" - the ones that look likely are India, China, the US, the EU, and maybe Brazil or Russia.
gamegeek2 7 months ago
@gamegeek2 I would like to see the UN given some actual power. The main 5 would have a lot of power still, but it might help third world nations a bit if the UN charter of rights could not be ignored by any nation.
I would like to see more of a global community and for people to not care so much about national boundaries. I wish there was a lot more freedom of movement around the world.
We need the people to be a little more involved in a global community.
Silentsam7532 7 months ago
Started plausibly - then degenerated into daft eco-facist commy nonsense.
MMGWsceptic 8 months ago
rodger hayse, british constitution groupe, have figured out a way of creating a new monetarty system, it sounds awsome.
search it up, i recomend it
RYANREEN 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Our growing population is the biggest barrier to making this model a reality.
TeeClover 10 months ago
Controlling population growth is our biggest barrier to making this model a reality.
TeeClover 10 months ago
So... They've discovered a communism. Congrats.
neserge 10 months ago
Its not about the money the wealthy and elite don't care about the money anymore. Its about power and control. They want a communist one world government were we have no money at all its all on a chip implanted under the skin and the elite are at the top and the rest of us are just slaves. The politicians are being promised top positions in there new world order. So unless we revolt they wont listen to the general public anymore. They will simply say yes to us then do what they want anyway.
jartherp 10 months ago
Why don't use the Islamic monetary system? Some countries have seen the power of Islamic monetary system. Even some non-Muslim countries like South Korea is following it. It allows money to circulate, so that money never ends, and creating money is unnessecary.
girocraz 10 months ago
Change of systems is soo hard because it demands disipline; so no one is willing to do it until it is too late.
kristian64 10 months ago
You can’t fix a collectivist system by simply shuffling it with another.
Fixing the current system by introducing totalitarianism is like fixing a monarchy by voting for the king it doesn’t change anything having some one you like with absolute power over you.
Maybe the problem is that every one expects others to provide for them.
A person who wants rights to freedom must also assume responsibility to provide for ones self.
See individualism vs. collectivism
darkblood626 11 months ago
Venus Project now.
tcorp 11 months ago
What about allowing all the people and all companies choose their own currency. Wether they would like gold and silver, digital money or trade a car for 20 sheeps and 15 cows doesnt matter. As a currency is a representation of possible commodities.
allowing all people to choose their own currency would make unstable currencies go bankrupt and stable currencies get trusted. And a dollar crisis wouldnt be such a crisis because of the alternatives in the market.
Terje1337 11 months ago
The root of all evil is COMPOUND INTEREST.
Not even "interest" but compound!
Credit should be given to lend 100.000 dol. and every year, you would pay say, 5000 on the top of it a year, so even after 30 years you would owe 250.000 and not 432,194.24 compared to COMPOUND INTEREST!
PawelKolasa 11 months ago
Continued...
Nature gave us a beautiful planet, and we fucked it up. Save mankind, save Mother Earth, save life, destroy the monetary system.
highlander985 11 months ago
in 1910, the world's wealth was almost evenely distributed among people. Today, 1% of the world's population owns 40% of the Earth's wealth. 10% of the population (the richest people) own 85% of the wealth. If this monetary system continues, in 20 years 1% of the pupulation will own 80% of the wealth. Which means 99% of people will be slaves to the 1% richest people in the world. Not to mention that this monetary system (capitalism) is responsible for Global Warming and other shit.
highlander985 11 months ago
LOL this video is retarded. When a pribate bank makes a loan that is used to buy a house, that is "debt" but when a government bank issues a loan to itself to build a bridge, that is not "debt" that is "Value". How fucking stupid can people people? And then the how bit about "Private banks deciding what industries get loans" What about government deciding what industries get massive public works projects?! At least private banks issue loans to industries wth sound plans, Government doens't.
AK49Gunner 11 months ago
this reminds me of zeitgeists format lol
johnathanyoung100 11 months ago
has little to do with it. This is yet another attempt at distraction to take the focus away from the REAL problem which is America's immature need to live beyond it's means.
PabloPena108 1 year ago
@PabloPena108 but isn't the system set up to encourage us to live beyond our means? Have you ever asked a bank to send you an application for a credit card? I understand what you're saying and it makes total sense, but the banks hound people through unsolicited invitations. It's all part of the system, debt servitude, and we're born into it.
gman100 11 months ago
...there is no "exponential necessity" for debt. And if everyone paid off their debt that would "end the money supply"?? That's loony. People would still sell goods and services and pocket their profits without the banks needing to get involved. Banks could make money on fees if nothing else or there would be less need for them. If there is any "big monster" it is the "instant gratification" society that wants something today that is hasn't earned until tomorrow and the banking system
PabloPena108 1 year ago
is not really their money. Anybody can withdraw at any time. I am not trying to support banking practices or anything but if you listen to these 5 videos closely you'll see there is a great deal of truth but also a lot of sleight-of-hand where leaps in logic and assumptions are being made that make absolutely no sense. There is no "debt monster" chasing a globe...
PabloPena108 1 year ago
This video is wrong. If you look at it closely. He says "Then all the banks will have the wealth". Huh?? Banks CANNOT keep the principal on loans created out of "thin air". They have lawful requriements to simply apply the loan payments to the loan amount. They keep the interest but don't they take the risk? And once someone has paid off the loan and is making money at his business how will the banks see that moneY? Maybe in a checking account but...
PabloPena108 1 year ago
The real root of the problem is finally mentioned, but quickly glossed over in this part. Population must be controlled and not allowed to expand. Exponential population growth requires continued exponential expansion and credit in a finite world that cannot support exponential population growth unchecked.
ESPMV300 1 year ago
Governments taxing us through inflation is a BAD idea. Inflation causes a business cycle, which causes idle resources and destruction of capital. This sort of boom and bust will be blamed on business, and used by politicians as a new excuse for control.
fluff125 1 year ago
This video was great -- until now. You're simply offering us to go from perpetual collective servitude to BANKS to perpetual collective servitude to an all-powerful GOVERNMENT -- which is, in my opinion, far worse. For, not only does the government control money, it also controls violence (police, military) and is far less desirable, as an overlord, than the banks. Even perpetual debt servitude is preferable to a fascist, all-powerful, unaccountable government.
ComradeMorshu 1 year ago
I agree - good point. Although it does incentivise lending, so the question does boil down to who do you trust to do the least worst job distributing money, the government or private finance. But blaming banks on reflex when money/economies go wrong is a bit like blaming farms for bad weather.
TheBDASays 1 year ago
Good point
TheBDASays 1 year ago
He is so right!!! Just like the money masters film! We dont have to have a gold or silver standard, all we have to do is have the government issue money debt free. Ppl don't realize that the reason the money supply has constantly been expanded over the years is because the Federal Reserve has a monopoly on loaning money to the government.
jneil2007 1 year ago
@jneil2007 You're right - I meant to say the gov't shouldn't control all economic activity as the video endorses. Monetary supply should be controlled by the government - but that's it.
MyOwnYTAccount 1 year ago
@MyOwnYTAccount That's not a radical idea. Then there could be no interest and banks couldnt become what they are today. Ever notice bank buildings are always the largest in town. And i have no problems with big businuess, but nobody should make that much money off interest. If banking stayed private under a reform, interest rates should be determined by the market and bank reserves would have to be way higher. Like 50% at least.
jneil2007 1 year ago
All politicians have a price tag attached, the highest bidder will always win. The same people that control our gov via the central banking cartels have their savings in gold. Post collapse they will still have all their wealth and will be able to control any gov that emerges. Government is NOT the answer.
swoldier1016 1 year ago
I had to stop watching after 8:00 into this. The Gov will never be responsible with their powers. After witnessing how badly they have screwed things up over the past 100 years how can anyone want to give any power to the gov; this is madness.
swoldier1016 1 year ago
The video makes the assertion that a government controlling the monetary system is inevitable. He then offers solutions that hypothesize on different gov actions to have a sustainable system.
The Government IS the problem, it cannot be part of the solution. Any solution to our monetary system post collapse will have to come organically from the people, not from a central gov that doesn't know it's head from its a**
swoldier1016 1 year ago
Watched the others and liked them. But then all of thus GREEN BS has to be thrown in. F OFF. You think things are bad with debt? Wait till they start limiting the "EARTHS" resources!!!! If I own land and want to cut down every tree on it just to burn I'll FN do it. Who are you to tell others how much we can use now?!?!!! Stick to money not some environmental whack job crap.
ryanburbridge 1 year ago
nobody can tell you what to do. THe idea was that cutting down all of the trees is insustainable.
natritious1 1 year ago
@natritious1 this is a lie! trees grow back!
ryanburbridge 1 year ago
Ok - first 3 parts were good, but going into totalitarian fascism (i.e. - trusting the government to oversee the entire monetary system) as a fix to fix the current broken monetary system is akin to trading the devil you know for the devil you don't.
Unless the populace has every mean to dispose of the government (especially the right to bear arms), such a system would never result in anything other than a tyrannical dictatorship worse than the one we have now.
MyOwnYTAccount 1 year ago 13
@MyOwnYTAccount The point is - Money would be created outside the credit system and without the fractional reserve system the money making model of banking is out the window. With profoundly less money to be made in banking it creates a lesser % of corruption. Of course governments are bad but at present the governments are controlled by these bankers anyway so whats the difference?? - we can hold the government to account. P.S you are already under totalitarian fascism my friend. gulp it down
Jjholdtight 1 year ago
@Jjholdtight In the video, the argument against gold and silver as money are weak and the original reason presented as the reason for the current debt backed fiat currency is easily defeated with the idea that personally and collectively, people live within thier means.
I believe we're at the point where the system unravels. If so there will be either (1) a totalitarian world order abdicated in this video or (2) an order based on individual accountability and limited, responsible government.
MyOwnYTAccount 1 year ago
@Jjholdtight
This video completely lies about Fed-owned securities when Fed actually hands over 94% of its profits BACK to the govt. We're in debt BECAUSE OF GOVT. Only Congress can issue Treasuries/debt & today, money comes into existence when Fed buys Treasuries so if govt was so wise about money, it'd've only issued so many Treasuries/debt as Fed is willing to buy so that interest to private Treasury-holders can be avoied but govts SUCK, always have & always will so NO to "govt-issued-money"
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan Ok,interesting, to be honest there are many people claiming that the Fed doesnt give the money back, i will have to look more into this. Its dubious that the Fed is so shrouded in secrecy RE auditing. Im English and the Bank of England is the same, they are exempt from freedom of information requests and are owned by the Bank of England nominees limited. For me its the secrecy that leads me to believe the conspiracy theory. Im with you on GOV suck tho for sure.
Jjholdtight 1 year ago
@MyOwnYTAccount
"totalitarian fascism (i.e. - trusting the government to oversee the entire monetary system) as a fix to fix the current broken monetary system is akin to trading the devil you know for the devil you don't"
"argument against gold and silver as money are weak and the original reason presented as the reason for the current debt backed fiat currency is easily defeated with the idea that personally and collectively, people live within thier means"
Completely agree on that.
lomocan 1 year ago
@MyOwnYTAccount Really? According to the US constitution controlling the money system is one of the few jobs the government hás to do! Was the early US a totalitarian state? NO. If you have a small govt, with this as one of it's few core tasks, it will work. In fact, it is the only possibility. You sir, are incredibly wrong.
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@MyOwnYTAccount he who holds the money holds the power so why not get rid of the money, that way were all on the same level
johnathanyoung100 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnathanyoung100 "he who holds the money holds the power so why not get rid of the money, that way were all on the same level"
Because no society will ever exist where everyone is on the same level. The problem now is the monitary system centralizes too much power with those with the ability ta arbitrarily create money out of nothing - defying the laws of nature,
MyOwnYTAccount 11 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount *sigh*
robotwarlord 11 months ago
@robotwarlord sigh what?
You believe in the dillusional, unrealizable socialist utopia where everyone is forced to be "equal?"
MyOwnYTAccount 11 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount No, I wasn't saying I disagree with you but the you sort of wrote it like a 12 year old who just read 1984. I bet you're a teenager, right?
robotwarlord 11 months ago
@robotwarlord Guess again - I never read 1984 either (though I vaguely remember the premise).
MyOwnYTAccount 11 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount So you are a teenager?
robotwarlord 11 months ago
@robotwarlord I'm 27
MyOwnYTAccount 11 months ago
@robotwarlord I think you'd be hard pressed to find a teenager or even a young adult in the Western world who believes capitalism is the best system of economic governance, given the education systems are taken over by socialists.
Sadly enough, most teenagers and young adults will face the consequences of this corrupt monetary system in the form of perpetual indebtedness and poverty.
MyOwnYTAccount 11 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount That makes no sense. What basis do you have for asserting the "government" of bankers preferable to the government of the people? If bankers (Mammon) control the govt anyway, how can there be said to be any meaningful difference, save the huge potential productivity the current system swallows up?
Why can the govt not issue money rather than debt? If what makes the bond good also makes the bill good (faith in the ongoing productivity of the nation), why have govt issue bonds?
thespacialone 11 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount sounds like the argument of a teenager
vantangler 10 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount it is interesting to watch how the views on this documentary are reduced from part 1 to part 5. People are getting bored or they simply cannot understand
butcer83 10 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount Well that's true to an extent but remember that most of the corruption in the governments are a result of the influence of banks and bank lobbyists. Regardless of that, though, you should look up the new Zeitgeist movie. I think a resource based economy is a much more supportable system. Better to do away with money entirely.
djtotalhack 10 months ago
@djtotalhack The problem with the Zeitgeist movement and the idea of a resource based economy is it's based on a fundamentally flawed assumptions that technology can perfectly do away with undesirable labour, permitting people to work selflessly in the greater interest of both humanity and themselves.
This is a gigantic logical fallacy - as technology will always fail and human beings will ALWAYS act out of naked self interest to the detriment of others.
MyOwnYTAccount 10 months ago
@djtotalhack The more supportable system is a system where human ability to govern others is severely restrained.
An RBE requires massive, global governance granting individuals unimaginable authority. That system will never last without genocide.
The most sustainable system is one of local empowerment of small communities and abolishment of the global "big state" governments that are too easily manipulated to be an enabler of unfair social manipulations by special interests.
MyOwnYTAccount 10 months ago
I like bitcoin.
ekpil2000 8 months ago
Comment removed
atty1chgo 8 months ago
Comment removed
atty1chgo 8 months ago
Comment removed
atty1chgo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The power to coin money belongs to the people, not private banks. We need to go back to coining our own money. There is NO REASON we should, as a government, borrow money from banks. And lending money should not be a profit making function.
atty1chgo 8 months ago
@MyOwnYTAccount You obviously would not like the true answer to the worlds problems it seems. Scrapping the systems in place and creating a global system.
People hate the idea of one world governments etc, but a global world would be a batter world.
Silentsam7532 8 months ago
@Silentsam7532 Funny - every time a one world government has been tried, it has resulted in unimaginable horror.
MyOwnYTAccount 8 months ago 4
@MyOwnYTAccount Don't confuse corporations with the government. Its the corrupt system that makes the government so bad right now in most nations.
The governments, when done right, are the people. Private corporations never represent the interests of the world.
Silentsam7532 8 months ago
@Silentsam7532 Government intervention through preferential treatment of some is the source of the corruption you describe. The solution is less government sticking thier nose into the economy and letting the free market take care of failing ventures. Nothing is "too big to fail."
MyOwnYTAccount 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Срочно нужны деньги?
Кредит 17%. М МО. Без справок и поручителей. Консалтинг 25%. Другие варианты. (495)2200660 2200660@mail.ru
tiblon1 1 year ago
We re all in this poll now, if you don't loan 100,000for a car,there will be now new money supply , and everyone want to live better than they should, it's inevitably faulty system, human greedy makes it sooner or later to be collapsed.
lustring 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lustring
"We re all in this poll now, if you don't loan 100,000for a car,there will be now new money supply , and everyone want to live better than they should, it's inevitably faulty system, human greedy makes it sooner or later to be collapsed"
NOPE, more money does NOT equal more prosperity; REAL WEALTH is goods/services & their availability; we DON'T consume money, we use to EXCHANGE it for REAL WELATH ie goods/services so money-supply NEED NOT grow to create prosperity.
lomocan 1 year ago
I'd propose a system where all banks are private & them accepting Gold-Certificates from Treasury worth 1gram, 5gram, 0.5gram etc for depositing gold with Treasury & in turn GCs will become US currency thru banks; people'll use both gold & GCs as universal media-of-exchange; at withdrawl banks will turn in GCs to Treasury for gold at depositors' behest; all the gold with Treasury will be stored at centralized location & "suspension of specie" by banks should be unconstitutional
lomocan 1 year ago
The argument made against gold-standard are ridiculous as usual, its very easy to pick up "shaving the coin","debasing the metal",etc with gold because its heavier than other metals so any debasing will be manifest in size & shape & can be recognized by most people; that's precisely why gold evolved as a natural choice of currency allover the world As for "hoarding", in the past, bankers/goldsmiths were able to do that due to fractional-reserve-banking, once that's outlawed, no one can hoard it
lomocan 1 year ago
Banking requires real work! And by creating a means of transaction (money) it increases the value of the 'real' good we make because they can be traded efficiently and their is incentive for mass production. The perpetual growth arguments here are wrong because they fail to understand the role of technology in growth. What constitutes a resource changes as technology drives growth. Interest is necessary to ensure that debt is repaid, it fuels the money cycle and growth.
TheBDASays 1 year ago
Banking requires real work! And by creating a means of transaction (money) it increases the value of the 'real' good we make because they can be traded efficiently and their is incentive for mass production. The perpetual growth arguments here are wrong because they fail to understand the role of technology in growth. What constitutes a resource changes as technology drives growth.
TheBDASays 1 year ago
Jim Corr sent me
oaklegh 1 year ago
I really liked where they were going here until I heard the government was going to be in control of our money supply! Thank god for bankers! lol
brandonliimatta 1 year ago
@brandonliimatta
Are you really that stupid?
MaiaRikae 1 year ago
@brandonliimatta
"I really liked where they were going here until I heard the government was going to be in control of our money supply! Thank god for bankers! lol"
Yea, they're basically saying "oh, we can't trust the bankers but we can trust our honest, principled, angelic politicians to create money" WTF!
Money should NOT be in the hands of either bankers or govt; a REAL gold-standard (not the phone one we had), with gold-certificates will be the best money we can have.
lomocan 1 year ago
I have a question. If I'm getting it correctly, is what he is saying that money should essentially retain its value all the time, because no new money is ever created? If more humans are born (increase in population) wouldn't that make there be less money per person in the long run?
13lackLight 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@13lackLight
Um, no.
Did you watch the video?
MaiaRikae 1 year ago
@13lackLight They could print more to keep it the same per capita. The real error is, without interest there is no incentive or reason to pay the money back. So everyone borrows and no-one works, faith in money disappears and production collapses. Similar in a sense to the economic problems faced by the USSR
TheBDASays 1 year ago 12
@TheBDASays
"The real error is, without interest there is no incentive or reason to pay the money back. So everyone borrows and no-one works, faith in money disappears and production collapses. Similar in a sense to the economic problems faced by the USSR"
Agreed, all the people going "interest is evil" don't realize its importance in an economy & we've too many videos on YouTuby preying on uninformed people's ignorance & trying to turn them towards communism ahamm "resource-based economy"
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan The problem would be there is no incentive to lend out money. By law you could still force people to pay back the loan at a given date, thus not everyone could just borrow money withouth paying it back. To solve the problem of a lack of incentives to lend out money, you could make this a task of the government. The government could give out loans for a house and expect the loan to be repayed over a period of 20 years or so. This does require a non-corrupt government, a minor flaw.
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGreekOdysseus
"The problem would be there is no incentive to lend out money"
INTEREST
"The government could give out loans for a house and expect the loan to be repayed over a period of 20 years or so. This does require a non-corrupt government, a minor flaw"
That's NOT a "minor" flaw, that's a GARGANTUAN flaw lol Govts is about power so it necessarily attracts power-hungry & greedy people & we can't EVER expect these people to not be corrupt, especially with money-power
lomocan 1 year ago
@TheBDASays "No incentive". Wrong. You could agree on a repayment scedule. If the other does not pay when he is supposed to, you can call for a fine, or create interest as a penalty. You'd have the law on your side. Thus, charging no interest on normal loans is possible.
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheBDASays
Of course your gonna pay that money back even without interest because in the loan agreement you clearly have a timeline in which to do so, otherwise the bank will take your house. Interest DOES NOT motivate you in any way to pay your money.
NForcer211 1 year ago
@NForcer211 It encourages faster payment, with 0% interest everyone would choose the longest timeline available and if there is any inflation a 0% interest is really a negative interest. Interest is what also motivates people to lend in the first place. Why else would they?
TheBDASays 10 months ago
@TheBDASays Did it ever occur to you that since every banknote in existence comes from either a central bank or a private bank, and all the money they give out needs to be given back with interest, how the hell is everyone suppose to pay back more money than there has ever been created?
NForcer211 9 months ago
@NForcer211 Yes it has occurred to me. Future increases in money supply allow the settlement of past interest liabilities. This is why deflation is so dangerous to an economy that uses fractional lending as a means to generate money supply and some levelof inflation is inevitable. Our society uses banks to produce money. Yes they need regulation, yes they will abuse their position if allowed to... but the same applies to farms and no one is saying that we should shut those down.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@TheBDASays So then, you create more money, which in turn creates more inflation. If you don't, there won't be anymore money to cover up the interest you have to pay for the bank. This monetary system is so aberrant and illogical that anyone with an IQ above 80 should realize that it is complete bull shit. Sadly, thinking is not something promoted to much these days so the banks just continue doing what they have done for centuries...
NForcer211 9 months ago
@NForcer211 The system requires continued inflation... so what? Fractional lending is ingenius as it solves the historic problem of restricted money supply. In a managed environment the money created leads to wealth creation - products and services. Perhaps in the future we'll develop better options but I haven't seen any. The problem isn't the system it is its political implementation. Far too many ties between bankers and politics, an inevitably corrupt network of vested interests.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@TheBDASays So what...so...in order to mantain the system you have to mantain exponencial growth and this comes against finite resources. Meaning we will fuck up the earth so we can mantain this system and then we will all die...that's what. : )
1984jacr 9 months ago
@1984jacr Exponential increase in money supply is required. Technology exponentially increases our resources. For example before industrialism oil had no value. I agree that change is needed, but most reaction against modern banking is knee-jerk and asinine and fails to offer viable solutions or identify the real problems.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@TheBDASays This profit based monetary system holds back everything that's not profitable, including technological progress. If you wont a viable solution search on Resource Based Economy. Cyclical consumption is needed so you can have exponencial growth and cyclical consum ption means wasting resources we cannot afford to waste. Even if technology was not being held back by the monetary system, the waste this system produces would be untenable anyway.
1984jacr 9 months ago
@1984jacr History shows that the current capitalist model does drice technology and innovation to an incredible degree. We see a continuous stream of invention and improved product quality that is ahistorical and not seen in other contemporary economic models. Consumption drives production, waste is inevitable, 'resource based' aka command economies have proved extremely wasteful in the past.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@TheBDASays History shows that technology boosted our standard of living. Capitalism as nothing to do with it since people who invent technology are not money motivated. There's a million examples of this. Waste is not inevitable, and if it is, we will all be fucking dead in a few years, simply because we do not have the resources for this consumary addiction.
1984jacr 9 months ago
@TheBDASays Are you kidding me? So continued inflation has no impact on medium and low wage families when the costs of living go skyrocket each day??? And you dare call this "ingenius"?
NForcer211 9 months ago
@NForcer211 Inflation is acceptable when wage growth and product quality outstrip it. The inflation problems experienced today are not the inevitable consequence of fractional reserve banking. If we scrapped our banking system you'd see even worse poverty. The economic problems we face relate to vested interests, corruption and voter incompetence rather than the innate nature of our banking system.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@TheBDASays If you'd scrap the banking system today absolutely no harm would come to anyone. If you scrap the healthcare , agricultural, industrial, transportation, water&sewage etc. systems, 90% of the people on this earth would die. Banks have zero relevance for society and have contributed with nothing to make our lives better.
NForcer211 9 months ago
@TheBDASays And inflation is not acceptable since the law of supply-demand states that the money supply can only increase when there is an increase in the amount of goods and services produced. Banks just make money out of thin air and circulate them in the economy and this inevitably leads to stagflation: shitloads of money with zero value.
NForcer211 9 months ago
@NForcer211 If you scrapped the banking system today you would be scrapping healthcare, agriculture, industry and services. Money has a crucial function as a store of value and means of exchange. Farms create food 'out of thin air', and it circulates relatively well because banks create money 'out of thin air'. A managed increase in money supply (usually through % rates) increases demand, which in turn increases supply because it creates an incentive to produce.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@TheBDASays Farms do not create food out of thin air, that i assure you. They create food out of a resource called soil and others. You do not need to exchange anything. If you have the resources to do so you can produce the goods needed for a standard of living and deliver them to people. Again i tell you, please research on The Venus Project and Resource Based Economy.
1984jacr 9 months ago
@1984jacr If you're being literal about creating out of 'thin air' - banks don't do it either, they are labour intensive. You do realise that when a bank issues money it does not immediately profit as it issues a debt of equivalent size? They do not print currency per se. Capitalism and the intellectual property laws it created do drive technology, and technology changes resoirce requirements and value. In the past oil was worthless until technological advancement gave it value.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@1984jacr I looked into Venus: No government or corporations and yet with a managed economy? Whose going to be doing the managing? A command economy run by 'the people' - it has a familiar ring to it. Venus also seems to rely on a bizarre conviction that removal of profit motive would lead to ridiculous technological improvements. If anyone bought into this the result would be prompt failure, anarchy, and totalitarianism.
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@TheBDASays Ever question you may have as been asnwered by Jacque Fresco, you need to look much further then a mere glance. They do print currency per se, anyway, Capitalism and the intellectual property laws do nothing never solved a single real human problem. if they did then give me just example and I'll show you it is a false one.
1984jacr 9 months ago
@TheBDASays so does that mean when a friend of yours lends you $20.00 you simply refuse to pay him back? No, since when has interest ever been an incentive to pay back a loan? Interest has always been the penalty for borrowing. At the turn of the last century, people in this country were doing so well they stopped borrowing beyond their means and the banksters knew they had to do something fast. The last thing they want is a self-sufficient affluent society that only borrows what it needs.
gman100 11 months ago
@TheBDASays hence money is the problem
johnathanyoung100 11 months ago
@TheBDASays USSR problems had more to do to the fact that the world is now globalized. All the people who shoved thumbs up at your coment are all sad slaves. If money was equal to product, you'd only have equivalent to what you produced. The only reason to have money in that scenario is that not everyone would want your fish or software. The value of the money would depend entirely on the fetish on the product.
You are basicly rationalizing your hopeless existence.
TheSkcusasu 10 months ago
@TheSkcusasu Basically what you wrote is gibberish, you'll have to be clearer to save me from the product fetishes of my hopeless existence
TheBDASays 9 months ago
@13lackLight
" If more humans are born (increase in population) wouldn't that make there be less money per person in the long run?"
For the most part, its an erroneous notion perpetuated by bankers so that they can justify printing & "create" more & more money thru fractional reserve banking; population is mostly an irrelevant issue, money is an issue of trade of goods/services so if money-supply is relatively stable & goods/services are increasing, every unit of money just buys more stuff
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan I don't really get it. I'm assuming if there is a gold standard, then money supply mostly just depends on how much gold we can find, right? So if population grows faster than money supply, would that de-value the dollar. I don't know a lot about this stuff this is why I am asking.
13lackLight 1 year ago
@13lackLight Bigger population, Same amount of gold, yet a higher need for money. Would increase the value of money. More people in general, ceterus paribus, means a bigger economy. The problem is that at the moment, money supply grows faster than population, so the dollar devalues.
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus oh crap i messed up what I meant to say. I meant the dollar would increase in value, but is that still a good thing for an economy?
13lackLight 1 year ago
@13lackLight It's hard to say whether a stronger dollar is good or bad. You will be able to import goods for less, but with a strong currency your export will decrease, because it's more expensive for foreigners to buy your goods. That's basically why at the moment a lot of countries keep their currency weak, to increase exports. This also means however that people with money on the bank will see their money lose value. If the currency increases in value, people won't spend their money, because
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus
"It's hard to say whether a stronger dollar is good or bad. You will be able to import goods for less, but with a strong currency your export will decrease"
It'd create more of a balance of living standards allover the world, when we've less gold (ie every unit of gold has MORE value inside the country & less outside), our exports go up & gold flows in while when there's high amounts of gold, it'll flow out & a continuous equilibrium will be established between countries.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan A balance all over the world? You mean everyone equally poor? May I remind you that the West is only rich due to exploitation of the rest of the world? There is no such thing as welfare for all, or a healthy equilibrium for all countries.
Mistololify 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus
"If the currency increases in value, people won't spend their money"
If they're not spending it then they're SAVING it which is good because savings drive the economy while spending bankrupts it of capital. If money's value is high, interest earned on it will be higher meaning more savers will invest it in the economy & drive the economy & here again, market forces will establish an equilibrium of money & interest in a small range.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan I don't believe I stated whether it was good or bad, merely trying to explain to someone what effect inflation/deflation had to someone. Your reasoning here is partly true, partly false. A lot of savers will not participate in investments, because they only save small amounts of money. Also, when the economy decreases due to less spending, there will be less demand for investments as well. It is a vicious circle and it is a fact that our current economy runs entirely on spending, sadly.
Mistololify 1 year ago
@13lackLight
"I don't really get it. I'm assuming if there is a gold standard, then money supply mostly just depends on how much gold we can find, right? So if population grows faster than money supply, would that de-value the dollar. I don't know a lot about this stuff this is why I am asking"
"Creation" of more money de-values it, just like when there're more tomatoes on the market, their value is less & when there's a shortage, their value is high, same is true for money.
lomocan 1 year ago
@13lackLight
There was a time when oil was a barrel for an oz of gold, today you can buy 10s of barrels of it for one oz of gold, that's a generic example & of course oil-prices fluctuate & so too of gold as it's NOT being used as money right now but it just gives you an example. Why is it so? Because increase in oil has outstripped increase in gold so when when gold's supply grow slowly compared to goods/services (& population) mean value of money INCREASES as in your savings are worth MORE.
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan ok but doesn't that also mean that if you are in debt that you will have to pay more?
13lackLight 1 year ago
everyone should just pull their money out of the banks. then the whole system would be undone. Pull investments as well. then power would be back in the hands of the people.
MrKooL92 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrKooL92
They would just be bailed out.
MaiaRikae 1 year ago
Now it's clearer to me why they killed the former dictator Ceausescu of Romania.He has succeeded,through the biological exhaustion of all Romanian citizens,to pay the entire national debt.He intended to switch on an economy based on resources,resources that Romania has more than plenty,unfortunately not democratically handled. Now with all the national resources handled by greedy selfish people,our national debt it greater than ever,the goods which we can produce inside are brought from outside.
artmanrom 1 year ago
Well, I'm Canadian and the level of protection we get from our banking system is higher than what you would get in the U.S... however there's really no reason to believe that a credit union or cooperative bank is any less safe, it's really just the same as a bank, except with no one at the top pocketing the profits.
Most Canadian provinces have a major credit unions, if not under the Desjardins banner under some other name...
Just search for the terms "Credit Union" or "Cooperative Banking"
HarfangX 1 year ago
But we do have non-profit banks... financial coops...
My money is a Desjardins Financial Group and I get money back from them (on top of regular interest) yearly based on it's profits after expenses (salaries)... Money I can put back in the economy by buying more stuff...
If people were to move there money to financial coops they'd get richer AND help save the economy in the process.
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX
I might be wrong, but don't you take on a certain in risk in those financial coops? Or am I confusing it with something else?
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus "Navy Federal Credit Union" would be the largest Credit Union in the U.S. ...presuming you are American...
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX
No, actually I'm dutch ;)
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus Ah well I believe that the De Nederlandsche is government owned so you're not in the same mess the Americans are. Also you have a major Credit Union... the Rabobank.
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX
The "De Nederlansche Bank" is government owned yes, but we have the Euro now, and I'm not entirely sure who owns the European Central Bank (or who, unofficially, holds the power there). As for the Rabobank, it's a cooperative bank, but it's still a bank. No stockholders, but other than that, it's similar to a bank.
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus Wikipedia says it's the federation of multiple credit unions under the same banner... I would not get too hung up on the semantics here... it's still a credit union... which there for means there is no syphoning of profits to some faceless sharehodlers... the profit is still just redistributed back to it's users... so it keeps the money in circulation.
HarfangX 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus It's also supposed to be recognized as a very safe institution so that also adresses you fears of credit unions being riskier...
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX
Well, partially I agree with you yes. The profits don't go to nameless shareholders, but the customers don't get anymore profit either. The interest rates for deposits and loans are the same as for the other banks.
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus
"I'm not entirely sure who owns the European Central Bank (or who, unofficially, holds the power there)"
Unelected members & shadow government controls its money, interests & everything else, monetary union is equivalent to national union since money controls EVERYTHING else, EU is going to be the USSR, I don't know how EU countries can be so foolish to consider that they'll be able to keep their national sovereignty with a unified money; I hope they wise up & leave EU
lomocan 1 year ago
Growing economy = More trade = More real world value.
With a constant money supply, wouldn't that lead to deflation?
Also, do you have a link perhaps, as to what you want me to read, rather than just a name.
TheGreekOdysseus 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus I am all for a growing economy. Both theory and history (empirical evidence) shows a stable (constant) money supply lead to the biggest growth.
The definition of inflation is the growth of the money supply. Deflation is the shrinking of the money supply. With a constant money supply, prices would go down because of increase productivity. We have observed this phenomenon in computer and electronics... and it is a good thing for everyone.
DanMorin007 1 year ago
@TheGreekOdysseus I would love to send you links, however YouTube does not allow them. I suggest to use Google to search. My favorite is the Mises Institute (Mises.org) where you can download the PDF of all those books, or if you want buy them. Use the Search box to read articles about deflation and other topic of interest. This website has changed my life and today I have a more optimistic outlook on life.
DanMorin007 1 year ago
The film mixes to many facts with goofy conclusions and conspiracy like assumptions to create an illusionary image of the banking world. The longer I'm watching, the more weird conclusions are stacked on top of each other. People who dont know how the financial market work should not believe to much of what is presented here. The system is flawed, but this film is just way to fairytale like.
Kiniatha 1 year ago