Money as Debt from Paul Grignon

[knight22]

Here some videos explaining how the banking and the monetary system works. You'll understand how politics is just a show.

Money as Debt I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8&feature=related
Money as Debt II: promises unleashed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk

[1713568640]

1713568640

[1713568640]

1713568640

[paraipan]

They could be talking about bitcoin there?  

http://youtu.be/lsmbWBpnCNk?t=1h5m25s

[knight22]

I Agree but this video was released in 2008 just before the first bitcoin block was mined...

[paraipan]

I Agree but this video was released in 2008 just before the first bitcoin block was mined...

Damn, didn't know that 

[ralree]

Here some videos explaining how the banking and the monetary system works. You'll understand how politics is just a show.

Money as Dept I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8&feature=related
Money as Dept II: promises unleashed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmbWBpnCNk

I think you meant "Money as Debt".

[knight22]

Oops, corrected.

[ralree]

The part about lending money around 32:00 seems totally wrong to me.  They're saying if people are allowed to charge interest when lending sound money (like gold or BTC), that they will "inevitibly end up with all the money."  I have no idea how they came to that conclusion.  When you lend money to a business venture, and that business venture fails, the money doesn't disappear - it goes to the other successful businesses that feed the unsuccessful business.  This is why the interest is charged - to compensate for this risk.  Lenders provide a service even with sound money, and they charge for it.  After someone pays off their business debt, their business doesn't die - it continues to make money as long as the market supports it.  An economy could definitely function with sound money and lending, but people wouldn't be able to take on massive amounts of debt for pennies on the dollar as they can with a fiat currency and massive government debt.  Buying a house would be much more difficult, but house prices would fall to compensate since that's how the market works; no sales mean prices go lower.

I think the video makes some fair points, but leaves out pretty seriously important details about the discussed topics.  If you like sound money, you'll like it, since it's directed at you, but go read more after watching on the topics discussed.

[knight22]

I think the video makes some fair points, but leaves out pretty seriously important details about the discussed topics.  If you like sound money, you'll like it, since it's directed at you, but go read more after watching on the topics discussed.

A good start would be the Modern Money Mechanics from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. This document is the main reference of these movies and explain the whole money creation process pretty well.

http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

[knight22]

The part about lending money around 32:00 seems totally wrong to me.  They're saying if people are allowed to charge interest when lending sound money (like gold or BTC), that they will "inevitibly end up with all the money."  I have no idea how they came to that conclusion.  

This was true with gold because gold have physical limitation but not for fiat money created unlimitedly out of loans or bitcoin that can be highly divided.

[ralree]

Also, the David Rockefeller quote is disputed, as it has no reputable source.  It's touted by conspiracy theorists everywhere, and its origin is explained well on wikiquote:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller#Disputed

Here are some real quotes from him about world government:

I don't recall that I have said — and I don't think that I really feel — that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood — or even that it would be desirable — to have a single government elected by the people of the world.
In an interview with Benjamin Fulford (13 November 2007)

There have been people — ever since I've had any kind of position in the world — who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crack pots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't true, and won't be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible.
In an interview with Benjamin Fulford (13 November 2007)

Of course, conspiracy theorists rarely like to find actual reputable sources for anything people say as long as it supports their theory.  Anyone who strays into "the Bilderbergers/Rothchilds/Rockefellers/jews control everything" conspiracy fantasy land loses me immediately.

[ralree]

The part about lending money around 32:00 seems totally wrong to me.  They're saying if people are allowed to charge interest when lending sound money (like gold or BTC), that they will "inevitibly end up with all the money."  I have no idea how they came to that conclusion.  

This was true with gold because gold have physical limitation but not for fiat money created unlimitedly out of loans or bitcoin that can be highly divided.

OK so it's 1630 and you lend me 100 gold coins at 3% interest for my sheep farm.  I gamble the 100 coins away and die a pauper.  How did you end up with all the gold?

[myrkul]

The part about lending money around 32:00 seems totally wrong to me.  They're saying if people are allowed to charge interest when lending sound money (like gold or BTC), that they will "inevitibly end up with all the money."  I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. 

It's a common fallacy. People forget that bankers need to eat - and drive around in their cars, and buy houses, etc. - money doesn't just sit, it moves around. In a sound currency, there's a maximum amount of currency in circulation, so someone trying to gather up all of it will find it increasingly difficult to get more of it, and increasingly hard to keep a hold of it, as prices of everything denominated in that currency rise.

In order to concentrate as much real value as possible, you need to be able to make purchasing power appear out of thin air, and use it before the rest of the world realizes that you've debased their currency. Used to be, you'd actually have to debase the currency - alloy and re-mint coins, or "clip" them, shave some of the metal off and pass them off as full weight. Then came the idea of fiat currency, and it became as easy as firing up the printing press. Of course, the Weimar Republic showed pretty clearly the problem with that: with paper money, it's too easy for people to figure out that you're printing more. Now, it's even easier to do, and to get away with. You just enter some numbers in a spreadsheet, and bam, new money.

[ralree]

The part about lending money around 32:00 seems totally wrong to me.  They're saying if people are allowed to charge interest when lending sound money (like gold or BTC), that they will "inevitibly end up with all the money."  I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. 

It's a common fallacy. People forget that bankers need to eat - and drive around in their cars, and buy houses, etc. - money doesn't just sit, it moves around. In a sound currency, there's a maximum amount of currency in circulation, so someone trying to gather up all of it will find it increasingly difficult to get more of it, and increasingly hard to keep a hold of it, as prices of everything denominated in that currency rise.

In order to concentrate as much real value as possible, you need to be able to make purchasing power appear out of thin air, and use it before the rest of the world realizes that you've debased their currency. Used to be, you'd actually have to debase the currency - alloy and re-mint coins, or "clip" them, shave some of the metal off and pass them off as full weight. Then came the idea of fiat currency, and it became as easy as firing up the printing press. Of course, the Weimar Republic showed pretty clearly the problem with that: with paper money, it's too easy for people to figure out that you're printing more. Now, it's even easier to do, and to get away with. You just enter some numbers in a spreadsheet, and bam, new money.

Cheers thanks for the good explanation!

[Pteppic]

What I find interesting is that in a fractional reserve banking model, you can print money without increasing the broad money supply.

So as a simple approximation, broad money = base money * banking money multiplier

So if banks are holding 5% reserves, the money multiplier is 20 and broad money is 20 * base money

In the credit crunch, the money multiplier fell, reducing broad money supply. Let's say the money multiplier fell to 10. In this situation, the central bank can double the base money supply without any increase in broad money supply relative to the initial position.

If there was no fractional reserve banking, then increasing the base money supply (and releasing the money into the economy) would increase the overall money supply and lead to runaway inflation. When there is fractional reserve banking, that is not necessarily the case.

[knight22]

Anyone who strays into "the Bilderbergers/Rothchilds/Rockefellers/jews control everything"

You're right, they don't control everything but you can be sure they work hard to make it happen and NO they will not tell you even if you ask them (would you if you were in the same position?). You just have to watch the financial system evolve and sucking up everything to realize it.

you should read "The Creature from Jekyll island" and "Memoirs" of David Rockefeller instead of closing your eyes on evidence.

[Akka]

This videos are what got me really hooked up at Bitcoin.

I refuse to feed this system, designed to fail.

[mobodick]

The part about lending money around 32:00 seems totally wrong to me.  They're saying if people are allowed to charge interest when lending sound money (like gold or BTC), that they will "inevitibly end up with all the money."  I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. 

It's a common fallacy. People forget that bankers need to eat - and drive around in their cars, and buy houses, etc. - money doesn't just sit, it moves around. In a sound currency, there's a maximum amount of currency in circulation, so someone trying to gather up all of it will find it increasingly difficult to get more of it, and increasingly hard to keep a hold of it, as prices of everything denominated in that currency rise.

In order to concentrate as much real value as possible, you need to be able to make purchasing power appear out of thin air, and use it before the rest of the world realizes that you've debased their currency. Used to be, you'd actually have to debase the currency - alloy and re-mint coins, or "clip" them, shave some of the metal off and pass them off as full weight. Then came the idea of fiat currency, and it became as easy as firing up the printing press. Of course, the Weimar Republic showed pretty clearly the problem with that: with paper money, it's too easy for people to figure out that you're printing more. Now, it's even easier to do, and to get away with. You just enter some numbers in a spreadsheet, and bam, new money.

Yeah, that's nice and all, but concider this.
Someone in the future has a stack of 50.000 BTC. BTC is worth $2000 at that time.
Because of the high demand such a person can easily indefinitely lend a small fraction of their coins at an interest rate that alows them to live a good life.
There are people with even more that this amount of bitcoin and all they have to do is keep them and just live their lifes in our normal fiat economy.
If bitcoin use explodes their btc will become immensely valuable and they will be in this position.
Even better, by not putting their coins back into the economy they drive the price up even more.

In this 'sound' currency situation like you describe you can increase the value of your coins by not spending them.

[myrkul]

In this 'sound' currency situation like you describe you can increase the value of your coins by not spending them.

You say that like it's a problem.

[mobodick]

In this 'sound' currency situation like you describe you can increase the value of your coins by not spending them.

You say that like it's a problem.

The problem is that the early adopters can have a very big (and potentially destructive) stake in the future bitcoin economy and all they have to do is wait.

[Wekkel]

If Money as Debt stroke a chord with you, please have a look at the book: Rothbard - What has government done to our money (also as free PDF download)