Red Scare Podcast loves Ray Peat

DeadCatBounce

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
174
Location
West Side
So what is the point I'm trying to make? The "Market" does make the Money. It's not the Government or a Central Authority doing it, but a Parasitic Cartel of Private Banks that manipulate the entire economy to their whim via Usury. So the situation is as bad as you think, or worse, but the focus is on the wrong parties.

Your point is totally wrong that the current "currency" system (not money) comes from the market.

Monopolies cannot possibly exist for long without being protected by the LAW and through Government intervention.

The currency system we have now is protected by the Law in a way that forbids us to use anything else but the DOLLAR/national currency/ for doing business or paying taxes. If you or me use an alternative currency to perform business we can go to jail.

So how "It's not the Government or a Central Authority doing it, but a Parasitic Cartel of Private Banks" when the government is fully involved by sending the guys with the guns to protect the monopoly overseas or the IRS agents at home ? Please explain. Eager to hear an explanation.
 

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
Your point is totally wrong that the current "currency" system (not money) comes from the market.

Monopolies cannot possibly exist for long without being protected by the LAW and through Government intervention.

The currency system we have now is protected by the Law in a way that forbids us to use anything else but the DOLLAR/national currency/ for doing business or paying taxes. If you or me use an alternative currency to perform business we can go to jail.

So how "It's not the Government or a Central Authority doing it, but a Parasitic Cartel of Private Banks" when the government is fully involved by sending the guys with the guns to protect the monopoly overseas or the IRS agents at home ? Please explain. Eager to hear an explanation.
Your perception of it is that the Government ruined what would otherwise be a perfectly reasonable System by using Government Authority. Very common Libertarian view.

So the way I see it, the problem is not the Government or that there is a Central Bank, the problem is that the Usurers and Private Banks got their way with their tremendous money influence and power - rather than the Folk who the Government should ostensibly be serving.

The Answer to this problem was in National Socialism. You need a Strong Government who is dedicated to protecting the Folk's Interests from Parasitic Money Interests and Foreign Entities.
 

Attachments

  • mefobills_usury2.png
    mefobills_usury2.png
    36.9 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
1,380
Your perception of it is that the Government ruined what would otherwise be a perfectly reasonable System by using Government Authority. Very common Libertarian view.

So the way I see it, the problem is not the Government or that there is a Central Bank, the problem is that the Usurers and Private Banks got their way with their tremendous money influence and power - rather than the Folk who the Government should ostensibly be serving.

The Answer to this problem was in National Socialism. You need a Strong Government who is dedicated to protecting the Folk's Interests from Parasitic Money Interests and Foreign Entities.
No you don't. NS was clearly a ***t idea and a total fraud anyway. More generally the idea you need a strong man to look out for you is weak and stupid.

Better to have a competent and engaged electorate who can simply demand a few legislative changes within existing institutional structures to turn the system we have now which is corporatism 🤮 in to the promise of capitalism :cool:. Assume at all times the suits with the pens are a dime away from corruption and watch them like a hawk.

And we can whinge about "usury" and "parasitic money interests" until kingdom come. Banks are always going to have operational costs that need funding, if the interest rates were allowed to float freely and central banks stopped pressing buttons then depositors choice to take their service demands elsewhere would hold them down. Money is always going to be backed fundamentally by the fruits of labour in the past or a bet on its fruits in the future. With available non-human energy sources and apparent scarcity or abundance of resources acting like a magnifying glass.

Things have only gotten so out of hand because we allowed them to. The government didn't ruin it, we did. No matter, it can be fixed.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
No you don't. NS was clearly a ***t idea and a total fraud anyway. More generally the idea you need a strong man to look out for you is weak and stupid.
Why do you think it was a "fraud?" Simply because they ended up losing a war? The German economy of the 30s was absolutely spectacular, especially after the destructive hyperinflation of the 20s. It was a true "economic miracle," especially when you realize that the entire country had been demoralized and bankrupted by the Treaty of Versailles. Besides, the Germans never wanted a war with either Britain or the US in the first place.

Keep in mind too, that the German Autobahn system so impressed Eisenhower, that he ended up creating a similar system in the US, the Interstate system. So, as far as keeping people employed, keeping people happy, keeping people prosperous, and building impressive and huge infrastructure projects, the German government of the 30s was wildly successful.
And we can winge about "usury" and "parasitic money interests" until kingdom come. Banks are always going to have operational costs that need funding, if the interest rates were allowed to float freely and central banks stopped pressing buttons then depositors choice to take their service demands elsewhere would hold them down. Money is always going to be backed fundamentally by the fruits of labour in the past or a bet on its fruits in the future. With available non-human energy sources and apparent scarcity or abundance of resources acting like a magnifying glass.
It's ridiculous to talk about a bank's "operational costs" as justification for the insane amounts of money they rake in, without doing anything except paperwork, nor even lending anything in the first place. Sure, there is some value in paperwork and such, but a fee of around $1,000- $5,000 is more than enough to cover expenses, and leave them with a nice profit. Why should banks get $100,000 to several million and possibly even real, actual property on EVERY mortgage? It's insane. They get about 3X more than builders, architects, plumbers, electricians, and everyone else COMBINED. And all they do is a little accounting.

They don't even put up anything in of value in the transaction. If you doubt this, go read the Affidavit of Walker Todd, or read "Modern Money Mechanics," or look up the Credit River Decision-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roi3iefqtLA
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 15, 2021
Messages
147
Location
Canada
Goethe’s classic play Faust is replete with alchemical allegories, and the main title character is indeed an alchemist, seeking, with the Devil’s help, the mysteries of creation. In one of the story’s subplots, Faust and his teacher, the demon Mephistopheles, gain the favor of the emperor by offering him the secret of alchemy: how to create wealth by printing paper money. They convince the emperor to issue promissory notes based on gold to be mined in the future. Soon the emperor presides over a robust economy and a licentious, materialistic people. But the currency eventually collapses, just as all the Devil’s creations turn out, in this play, to be illusions.
This is the alchemy that underpins our modern economy.
The global economy has become a gigantic pyramid scheme built for channelling the life-energy of the many into the hands of the few. Through an alchemical transmutation process, in a giant machine where we work the levers, we produce wealth for them to enjoy. When we work at our jobs, pay our taxes, consume goods and services, deposit our paychecks at the bank, register for selective service, for Social Security, or for welfare, we are feeding the beast. The true energy source, the true prima materia from which the alchemical gold is produced is, in this instance, our blood, sweat and tears: our youth, and that of our descendants. Our faith in the system is what allows the magical transformation to occur that changes our sacrificed energy into gold for the benefit of our corporate government overlords. We know that we will eventually be consumed in the belly of Moloch, but to stave off that day as long as possible, we throw our babies into the fire as a substitute for the full price that is required of us.
from Money Grows on the Tree of Knowledge by Tracy R. Twyman
 

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
1,380
as justification for the insane amounts of money they rake in
That's not what I did Mr Horse, read it again. That fee you cooked can easily be spread as a market set interest rate. The amount you mentioned is probably a gross underestimation but you can have it. The point being that there is a cost and it must be funded, in the current paradigm with a bet on the fruits of labour in the future.

I have a handle on money mechanics so I'll give the tube a miss here. They're underwriters, in the current paradigm the money must be removed from circulation and destroyed when a loan's payed down or it would screw up the stock and velocity. Obviously the concept is distorted beyond recognition but the intent is sound. It could be changed if you like but we're not going to have a money for nothing UBI situation in any sane system.

As for your NS endorsement, endorsement of 30s Germany as a model for sound, sustainable economic policy. :laughing: Cringey sir. Thank you for the laugh this morning. I'll be back :grinning:
 
Last edited:

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
That's not what I did Mr Horse, read it again. That fee you cooked can easily be spread as a market set interest rate.

I have a handle on money mechanics so I'll give the tube a miss here. They're underwriters, in the current paradigm the money must be removed from circulation and destroyed when a loan's payed down or it would screw up the stock and velocity. Obviously the concept is distorted beyond recognition but the intent is sound. It could be changed if you like but we're not going to have a money for nothing UBI situation in any sane system.

As for your NS endorsement, endorsement of 30s Germany as a model for sound, sustainable economic policy. :laughing: Cringey sir. Thank you for the laugh this morning. I'll be back :grinning:
The irony is that you're claiming we shouldn't have a money for nothing system, but you are running cover for exactly that. Banks operate at very little risk when real assets are offered as Collateral for their Usury Schemes, which are mathematically guaranteed to work in their favor when the entire Economy is dependent on their Loans for Capital. But why? The Banks have not actually created anything, other than run the same cunning schemes in the past. If that is your idea of "the Market in Action" then the Market is nothing but a group of vultures fighting over streams of Wealth produced by actual ingenuity and Labor.

The Solution to problems like this is a Sovereign Money system, Banks shouldnt be allowed to create new Money, that is insane. They are getting all the benefits of Seignorage on top of a guaranteed profit by having the entire Economy operating on their Loans at Interest. The Private Banks only seem "needed" because the Government has been neutered in their favor. The Government is perfectly capable of shifting the Balance back towards Work instead of Speculation by taking some steps - ones the "Market" would never do because they benefit from Parasiting off productive Labor.

1. Implement a Sovereign Money System where Private Banks cannot create new Money. Private Banks can only loan out Reserves they actually have - rather than being the main Seignors of the Nation's Money.
2. Introduce new Money into the Economy in other ways than Usury. An example would be spending the Money into the Economy on Work Projects, Grants for Cultural and Scientific Endeavors - etc.
3. Decrease Taxes for Working Incomes
4. Increase Taxes on Passive Incomes

As of now, everything is designed to work against the average Man who goes to work, pays his taxes and comes home. What is rewarded today is not Hard Work nor even actual Ingenuity. What is rewarded is Cunning - the Cunning to most efficiently and securely steal Resources from others.

We also need something of a Eugenics or Selective Breeding - along with an Idealism and Appreciation of genuine Beauty - something that sterile Economic thinking and "The Market" pays zero attention to. This is why I advocate for National Socialism as the ONLY Solution to arrest the decay of the Modern World. If it were not for the lie of the Holocaust and "6 Million Dead", I would be able to have this discussion more often.

For example something that you might have never heard of is that Hitler made it illegal for Government Officials to have conflicting interests with Companies that were awarded Government Contracts, even after they left public service.
 

Attachments

  • Hitlers_Revolution1.png
    Hitlers_Revolution1.png
    28.6 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
1,380
We also need something of a Eugenics or Selective Breeding - along with an Idealism and Appreciation of genuine Beauty - something that sterile Economic thinking and "The Market" pays zero attention to. This is why I advocate for National Socialism as the ONLY Solution to arrest the decay of the Modern World. If it were not for the lie of the Holocaust and "6 Million Dead", I would be able to have this discussion more often.

For example something that you might have never heard of is that Hitler made it illegal for Government Officials to have conflicting interests with Companies that were awarded Government Contracts, even after they left public service.
I might have considered countering your ridiculous economic ramblings but for this.

You're insane 🤮
 

DeadCatBounce

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
174
Location
West Side
Your perception of it is that the Government ruined what would otherwise be a perfectly reasonable System by using Government Authority. Very common Libertarian view.

So the way I see it, the problem is not the Government or that there is a Central Bank, the problem is that the Usurers and Private Banks got their way with their tremendous money influence and power - rather than the Folk who the Government should ostensibly be serving.

The Answer to this problem was in National Socialism. You need a Strong Government who is dedicated to protecting the Folk's Interests from Parasitic Money Interests and Foreign Entities.

I understand your stance that the Government is not the Source of this banking cartel issue and that there is something BEHIND the Government that is the real source. But Government is the main enabling tool for this scheme to exist.

Wonder what your view is about the mechanism how those Usurers and Private Banks can get into power, build and maintain the system without a centralized powerful Governmental structure ?

What are they going to do if they could not use force on us ? Advertise themselves 24/7 on the TV until we start using the dollar or the euro ? Send agents door to door like an evangelical preachers to convince us to use their currency ? How are they going to force you into the system without the Government ? How are they going to stop any new alternative market money system to keep their monopoly without the threat of jail or violence ? The Government is nothing but an instrument for control. And they have created a false perception through education and movies etc that it is there to "help" us/save the world from asteroids/comets/aliens/russians and we need it. This is a childish perseption. In reality all governments are literally run by idiotic lying psychopathic ************* bought by even bigger psychopaths.

Government can do good in some instances and be useful but it ALWAYS gets corrupted and used for nefarious purposes by evil. If the opportunity to corrupt and steal is there - you can bet the farm that some group of people will try to do it. It is a fact of life unfortunately proven by thousands of years of history. This is why any leftist system relying on a strong BUT MORAL Government will never ever succeed. Its an unrealistic dream that goes against human nature.

And speaking of libertarian views - I've read them all - Ludvig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul etc. I am not a libertarian as there are a few issues with their ideas that I've found especially Monetary theory but still are 100x better than what we have today.

So how does a banking cartel force us into their system without a Government to force us legislatively ?
 
Last edited:

DeadCatBounce

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
174
Location
West Side
The irony is that you're claiming we shouldn't have a money for nothing system, but you are running cover for exactly that. Banks operate at very little risk when real assets are offered as Collateral for their Usury Schemes, which are mathematically guaranteed to work in their favor when the entire Economy is dependent on their Loans for Capital. But why? The Banks have not actually created anything, other than run the same cunning schemes in the past. If that is your idea of "the Market in Action" then the Market is nothing but a group of vultures fighting over streams of Wealth produced by actual ingenuity and Labor.

The Solution to problems like this is a Sovereign Money system, Banks shouldnt be allowed to create new Money, that is insane. They are getting all the benefits of Seignorage on top of a guaranteed profit by having the entire Economy operating on their Loans at Interest. The Private Banks only seem "needed" because the Government has been neutered in their favor. The Government is perfectly capable of shifting the Balance back towards Work instead of Speculation by taking some steps - ones the "Market" would never do because they benefit from Parasiting off productive Labor.

1. Implement a Sovereign Money System where Private Banks cannot create new Money. Private Banks can only loan out Reserves they actually have - rather than being the main Seignors of the Nation's Money.
2. Introduce new Money into the Economy in other ways than Usury. An example would be spending the Money into the Economy on Work Projects, Grants for Cultural and Scientific Endeavors - etc.
3. Decrease Taxes for Working Incomes
4. Increase Taxes on Passive Incomes

As of now, everything is designed to work against the average Man who goes to work, pays his taxes and comes home. What is rewarded today is not Hard Work nor even actual Ingenuity. What is rewarded is Cunning - the Cunning to most efficiently and securely steal Resources from others.

We also need something of a Eugenics or Selective Breeding - along with an Idealism and Appreciation of genuine Beauty - something that sterile Economic thinking and "The Market" pays zero attention to. This is why I advocate for National Socialism as the ONLY Solution to arrest the decay of the Modern World. If it were not for the lie of the Holocaust and "6 Million Dead", I would be able to have this discussion more often.

For example something that you might have never heard of is that Hitler made it illegal for Government Officials to have conflicting interests with Companies that were awarded Government Contracts, even after they left public service.

From what I can gather about you - you are basing your views on the idea that Hitler was not the monster they are now portraying him to be. That he tried to fight the bankers and the jews. That he went against Russians communism run by the jews who killed the Monarch and his family etc etc. Read all that and even though the holocaust official story is exaggerated and full of inconsistencies and the people behind the Russian communist coup were Jews - Hitler was not a good person fighting the banking cabal. I will recommend to research Who financed Hitler. See for yourself that the money came from the same people who later helped Russia with military and financial aid to defeat Germany /American bankers and industrialists financed both sides/. There are a few sources , one of them is a book showing all evidence that exists as to who his financiers were with real historical documents.

In the same line of thought - research who the biggest sponsor of the USSR was. While USA and USSR are in a cold war for some reason the USA banks were the biggest loaners for big projects in USSR to keep the system going. The us Government even canceled the ww2 debt by Russia in the 70s as the communist regimen was about to collapse under the weight of all the debt and bad economic system. So the US helped prop up the communist system several times. Why help your" biggest enemy" ? Because they are not enemies. Its all a show for the masses.

Hitler was one side of the same coin fighting each other to create a problem big enough to justify big changes in the World Order. Just a useful tool for the bankers. He was no different. Its all a joke. Don't get sucked in this low level view of a "savior" leader that decided to fight the cabal. It's nonsense. National Socialism is just another collectivist scam.
 
Last edited:

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
1,380
From what I can gather about you - you are basing your views on the idea that Hitler was not the monster they are now portraying him to be. That he tried to fight the bankers and the jews. That he went against Russians communism run by the jews who killed the Monarch and his family etc etc. Read all that and even though the holocaust official story is exaggerated and full of inconsistencies and the people behind the Russian communist coup were Jews - Hitler was not a good person fighting the banking cabal. I will recommend to research Who financed Hitler. See for yourself that the money came from the same people who later helped Russia with military and financial aid to defeat Germany /American bankers and industrialists financed both sides/. There are a few sources , one of them is a book showing all evidence that exists as to who his financiers were with real historical documents.

In the same line of thought - research who the biggest sponsor of the USSR was. While USA and USSR are in a cold war for some reason the USA banks were the biggest loaners for big projects in USSR to keep the system going. The us Government even canceled the ww2 debt by Russia in the 70s as the communist regimen was about to collapse under the weight of all the debt and bad economic system. So the US helped prop up the communist system several times. Why help your" biggest enemy" ? Because they are not enemies. Its all a show for the masses.

Hitler was one side of the same coin fighting each other to create a problem big enough to justify big changes in the World Order. Just a useful tool for the bankers. He was no different. Its all a joke. Don't get sucked in this low level view of a "savior" leader that decided to fight the cabal. It's nonsense. National Socialism is just another collectivist scam.
🎯 ish, ish is fine
 

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
From what I can gather about you - you are basing your views on the idea that Hitler was not the monster they are now portraying him to be. That he tried to fight the bankers and the jews. That he went against Russians communism run by the jews who killed the Monarch and his family etc etc. Read all that and even though the holocaust official story is exaggerated and full of inconsistencies and the people behind the Russian communist coup were Jews - Hitler was not a good person fighting the banking cabal. I will recommend to research Who financed Hitler. See for yourself that the money came from the same people who later helped Russia with military and financial aid to defeat Germany /American bankers and industrialists financed both sides/. There are a few sources , one of them is a book showing all evidence that exists as to who his financiers were with real historical documents.

In the same line of thought - research who the biggest sponsor of the USSR was. While USA and USSR are in a cold war for some reason the USA banks were the biggest loaners for big projects in USSR to keep the system going. The us Government even canceled the ww2 debt by Russia in the 70s as the communist regimen was about to collapse under the weight of all the debt and bad economic system. So the US helped prop up the communist system several times. Why help your" biggest enemy" ? Because they are not enemies. Its all a show for the masses.

Hitler was one side of the same coin fighting each other to create a problem big enough to justify big changes in the World Order. Just a useful tool for the bankers. He was no different. Its all a joke. Don't get sucked in this low level view of a "savior" leader that decided to fight the cabal. It's nonsense. National Socialism is just another collectivist scam.
You are right about the USA and the USSR, but not Hitler. Hitler received a few contributions from German Industrialists like Fritz Thyssen, but that was for a legitimate reason since the NSDAP was the main opposition to Communism in Germany - which nearly took over (Communism that is) in the fallout of WW1.

There is zero proof that "Bankers" or American Industrialists financed Hitler. The most commonly cited source is the Warburg Document, which is not legitimate. Most of the funding the NSDAP received came from small contributors and Party Fundraisers. Larger Donors came later AFTER the NSDAP was in power - with a few exceptions like Fritz Thyssen - as I mentioned, who was a German Industrialist.

I have posted before about this topic here - Klaus Schwab: Fascist and Nazi Heir and here Cultural Marxism, Reds Against (W) Freedom

And the Holocaust is not simply "exaggerated", there was no system for the intentional killing of Jews in Concentration Camps at all. These are separate, important topics but I wanted to make my position more clear
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
That's not what I did Mr Horse, read it again. That fee you cooked can easily be spread as a market set interest rate. The amount you mentioned is probably a gross underestimation but you can have it. The point being that there is a cost and it must be funded, in the current paradigm with a bet on the fruits of labour in the future.
If anything, a fee of $5000 is a gross overestimation to do a little paperwork. Again, banks don't lend money, they create it with accounting entries. They do very little of value (as compared to construction workers, architects, electricians, plumbers, and such), and take over 70% of the money in a home transaction via a "mortgage," which they didn't even fund in the first place.
I have a handle on money mechanics so I'll give the tube a miss here.
I don't think you do, and I offered several sources that weren't on youtube that you could look up. Although I am speaking about the Federal Reserve System, and based on your spelling of labor, I'm guessing you might be under a different one. Regardless, no country seems to be using money of exchange, it's all pretty much money of account, so the same principles would apply.
They're underwriters, in the current paradigm the money must be removed from circulation and destroyed when a loan's payed down or it would screw up the stock and velocity.
Since debt is being used as money (debt offsets other debt), a reduction of debt would remove money (of account) from an economy. But seeing as total debt figures just keep on going up, that doesn't seem to happen, at least not on a mass scale.
Obviously the concept is distorted beyond recognition but the intent is sound. It could be changed if you like but we're not going to have a money for nothing UBI situation in any sane system.
I have said nothing about UBI, but we already do have "money for nothing." It can be created by opening a line of credit, issuing a bond, or printing some Federal Reserve Notes. It isn't backed by anything, except maybe a "promise." But even that promise is in the future, and hasn't been fulfilled within my lifetime (in regard to FRNs). It's all various forms of debt instruments, commercial paper. While you may be right in your quote, no one who even has a rudimentary understanding of the current system would think it "sane."
As for your NS endorsement, endorsement of 30s Germany as a model for sound, sustainable economic policy. :laughing: Cringey sir. Thank you for the laugh this morning. I'll be back :grinning:
Why is it "cringey?" And on what point was I "wrong?" You've offered no reason why it was a "fraud." Why don't you detail a few reasons why you think it is, rather that just repeating yourself?

There's no doubt it was a more sound policy than anything the US has had since March of 1933.
 

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
1,380
If anything, a fee of $5000 is a gross overestimation to do a little paperwork. Again, banks don't lend money, they create it with accounting entries. They do very little of value (as compared to construction workers, architects, electricians, plumbers, and such), and take over 70% of the money in a home transaction via a "mortgage," which they didn't even fund in the first place.

I don't think you do, and I offered several sources that weren't on youtube that you could look up. Although I am speaking about the Federal Reserve System, and based on your spelling of labor, I'm guessing you might be under a different one. Regardless, no country seems to be using money of exchange, it's all pretty much money of account, so the same principles would apply.

Since debt is being used as money (debt offsets other debt), a reduction of debt would remove money (of account) from an economy. But seeing as total debt figures just keep on going up, that doesn't seem to happen, at least not on a mass scale.

I have said nothing about UBI, but we already do have "money for nothing." It can be created by opening a line of credit, issuing a bond, or printing some Federal Reserve Notes. It isn't backed by anything, except maybe a "promise." But even that promise is in the future, and hasn't been fulfilled within my lifetime (in regard to FRNs). It's all various forms of debt instruments, commercial paper. While you may be right in your quote, no one who even has a rudimentary understanding of the current system would think it "sane."

Why is it "cringey?" And on what point was I "wrong?" You've offered no reason why it was a "fraud." Why don't you detail a few reasons why you think it is, rather that just repeating yourself?

There's no doubt it was a more sound policy than anything the US has had since March of 1933.
Sir, if you don't think I have a handle on money mechanics can you tell me which part of my statement about it below isn't true?

You say they create it with accounting entries which is obviously true. But you're missing the point where loan contracts are effectively securitised to do so. There has to be a demand for it in a particular place from a particular individual (or other entity, I have ideas to reign this bit in) meeting particular status requirements at a particular point in time. And there's a requirement to return the money at some point in the future so it can be removed from circulation and destroyed. That assumes you labour to get it in future. In an ideal world at least.

"Money is always going to be backed fundamentally by the fruits of labour in the past or a bet on its fruits in the future. With available non-human energy sources and apparent scarcity or abundance of resources acting like a magnifying glass."

As for Germany. Mr Horse. The entire thing was organised around the creation and expansion of a war machine. Sure, that's one way to give people something to do and return value for it. Not one I can endorse though.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Sir, if you don't think I have a handle on money mechanics can you tell me which part of my statement about it below isn't true?

You say they create it with accounting entries which is obviously true. But you're missing the point where loan contracts are effectively securitised to do so. There has to be a demand for it in a particular place from a particular individual (or other entity, I have ideas to reign this bit in) meeting particular status requirements at a particular point in time. And there's a requirement to return the money at some point in the future so it can be removed from circulation and destroyed. That assumes you labour to get it in future. In an ideal world at least.
Obviously, the expectation that it will be "removed and destroyed." If $100,000 is created, why does $300,000 have to be "returned" and "destroyed?" Also, why do you assume that the "borrower" should "labor" to get that money, when the bank just created it with accounting entries in the first place? Why can't the "borrower" just issue their own promissory note or bond in the same amount, and discharge it? There is a massive disparity between banking employees doing a few hours of paperwork, and someone else putting in 30 years of labor, 50 weeks a year, at 40 hours a week. Clearly, this isn't a fair exchange, and anyone can see it, if they bother looking.

Of course, this is just assuming a single transaction. While the bank is awaiting the "return" of the money from this creation, it continues to create money by giving out loans and lines of credit to others. So, the amount of money just expands and expands.
As for Germany. Mr Horse. The entire thing was organised around the creation and expansion of a war machine. Sure, that's one way to give people something to do and return value for it. Not one I can endorse though.
Really? Even assuming this is true for a moment, if you think an economy based on "expansion of a war machine" is fraudulent, by the same logic, you have to agree that the current economy of the US (and the same economy, dating back to 1940 or even 1917) is far, far more fraudulent. No one has created bigger and more destructive war machine than the US in that period, at least not in recorded history, and it's not even close. It absolutely dwarfs the military of Germany of the 1930s. Even the US military of the 30s dwarfed the German military. The US is also the aggressor in pretty much every war since WWI, or the acts "justifying" war were not of the same scale. Germany never attacked the US in WWI or WWII until the US joined the war effort both times. And without a significant amount of aircraft carriers, there is no conceivable way that Germany ever could have mounted a serious effort against the US in North America.
 

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
1,380
Obviously, the expectation that it will be "removed and destroyed." If $100,000 is created, why does $300,000 have to be "returned" and "destroyed?"
Yes, the asset prices and interest rates are currently ridiculous because you have a central bank pressing buttons (and other batshit social/economic policy decisions that hinder real price discovery). Things would be much saner if you didn't, which was my point sir.

Also, why do you assume that the "borrower" should "labor" to get that money, when the bank just created it with accounting entries in the first place?
I don't assume they should labour to get it because they don't. They demonstrate status and promise to return it which assumes they labour in future to do so and it's the speculative fruits of that labour (and the force of law) that lends confidence to the value while it circulates.

Why can't the "borrower" just issue their own promissory note or bond in the same amount, and discharge it?
Shrewd as I know your cognitive faculty is for your conduct in this place, I still wouldn't have confidence in promissory issued by you. I'd want a bank or other established institution to underwrite it.

There is a massive disparity between banking employees doing a few hours of paperwork, and someone else putting in 30 years of labor, 50 weeks a year, at 40 hours a week. Clearly, this isn't a fair exchange, and anyone can see it, if they bother looking.
You appear to be mischaracterising what happens (or at least should be happening) by framing it as an exchange. The only thing the bank should be getting is the interest, at a market discovered rate, sufficient to cover operational costs and make a modest profit that doesn't raise alarm and deter future custom. The principal of the loan should go to the debtor before being returned and destroyed.

I assure you sir I did bother looking. I spent some time volunteering for a certain money reform campaign here many many years ago. It was the behaviour of others involved that caused me to look again, and again. Much of the demonisation of the current paradigm hinges on central bank intervention and "regulatory frameworks" cooked by corporate lobby, and yet it seems the very concept of private banking takes all the flak.

Of course, this is just assuming a single transaction. While the bank is awaiting the "return" of the money from this creation, it continues to create money by giving out loans and lines of credit to others. So, the amount of money just expands and expands.
It should expand in response to service demand from customers who can meet status requirements. And contract in periods where return exceeds demand. Without central banks pressing buttons, and assuming a competent and engaged electorate, I don't think we'd have a problem. We screwed it up by letting them screw it up.

Really? Even assuming this is true for a moment, if you think an economy based on "expansion of a war machine" is fraudulent, by the same logic, you have to agree that the current economy of the US (and the same economy, dating back to 1940 or even 1917) is far, far more fraudulent. No one has created bigger and more destructive war machine than the US in that period, at least not in recorded history, and it's not even close. It absolutely dwarfs the military of Germany of the 1930s. Even the US military of the 30s dwarfed the German military. The US is also the aggressor in pretty much every war since WWI, or the acts "justifying" war were not of the same scale. Germany never attacked the US in WWI or WWII until the US joined the war effort both times. And without a significant amount of aircraft carriers, there is no conceivable way that Germany ever could have mounted a serious effort against the US in North America.
Yes, really. And yes, I do agree with that. It wouldn't be possible without your central bank screwing around because there'd be no way to fund it without the consent of the governed. God bless America. And apologies for my countries hand in your current situation.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
Yes, the asset prices and interest rates are currently ridiculous because you have a central bank pressing buttons (and other batshit social/economic policy decisions that hinder real price discovery). Things would be much saner if you didn't, which was my point sir.


I don't assume they should labour to get it because they don't. They demonstrate status and promise to return it which assumes they labour in future to do so and it's the speculative fruits of that labour (and the force of law) that lends confidence to the value while it circulates.
In these statements, you seem to be conflating what "should be" with "what is."
Shrewd as I know your cognitive faculty is for your conduct in this place, I still wouldn't have confidence in promissory issued by you. I'd want a bank or other established institution to underwrite it.
Unless you are a bank, I wasn't suggesting such a thing. In a transaction involving a seller, a buyer (who is also the "borrower") and the bank (also "lender"), the seller would get promissory notes from the bank, underwritten and all. I am suggesting the "borrower" be able to "repay" the bank with another such "promissory note."
You appear to be mischaracterising what happens (or at least should be happening) by framing it as an exchange. The only thing the bank should be getting is the interest, at a market discovered rate, sufficient to cover operational costs and make a modest profit that doesn't raise alarm and deter future custom. The principal of the loan should go to the debtor before being returned and destroyed.
You seem to be the one mischaracterizing what what happens, as you immediately pivot to what "should" happen, as opposed to what actually happens. As far as the "exchange" I was referring to, it was between the borrower and the bank. There is no "market discovered" interest rates in the current framework.
I assure you sir I did bother looking. I spent some time volunteering for a certain money reform campaign here many many years ago. It was the behaviour of others involved that caused me to look again, and again. Much of the demonisation of the current paradigm hinges on central bank intervention and "regulatory frameworks" cooked by corporate lobby, and yet it seems the very concept of private banking takes all the flak.
But there really isn't any "private banking" in the current framework. All banks and credit unions and such in the US deal in Federal Reserve Notes, and are "licensed" to do so. They let you know they are "Member FDIC" or "NCUA." It doesn't matter if they are a local bank with one or two branches, mid sized, or huge mega corp like Chase. You don't have banks that deal strictly in gold and silver, or other privately issued currency, or at least, there are very few of them.
 

ThinPicking

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
1,380
It's not clear what you're arguing at this point sir but I'll respond none the less.

In these statements, you seem to be conflating what "should be" with "what is."
The first statement is a response to your gripe about the amount returned. It gives you the reason for it and the systemic change to fix it, which was my original point.

The second statement is a response to your misinterpretation that I'd assumed "the 'borrower' should 'labor' to get that money". I then explained what happens and why it lends confidence to the value. The central banks and government policy distort that value to whatever end they like, because we let them.

I don't know how you could interpret that in the way you have so I'm not sure you interpreted it at all.

Unless you are a bank, I wasn't suggesting such a thing. In a transaction involving a seller, a buyer (who is also the "borrower") and the bank (also "lender"), the seller would get promissory notes from the bank, underwritten and all. I am suggesting the "borrower" be able to "repay" the bank with another such "promissory note."
This doesn't make sense. If you have a seller and a buyer they need a medium of exchange to trade unless they're bartering. You're saying the seller gets the medium from the bank and the buyer gives the medium to the bank.

What is the seller getting medium from the bank in exchange for? What is the buyer repaying the bank for? And whatever it is, what would the bank do with your horse headed note, give it to the seller? If that's the case how is the bank giving the seller confidence in your horse headed note? If I was selling I wouldn't give you the product for that. Terribly sorry.

You seem to be the one mischaracterizing what what happens, as you immediately pivot to what "should" happen, as opposed to what actually happens. As far as the "exchange" I was referring to, it was between the borrower and the bank. There is no "market discovered" interest rates in the current framework.
If you read it again sir you'll see I didn't immediately pivot to that, the phrase "or at least" just prior and the whole thing in brackets is another reference to central banks and policy distorting the values. Subsequent use of the word "should" is speaking to your original mischaracterisation that banking employees do a few hours of paperwork in exchange fruits of 30 years of labour, 50 weeks a year at 40 hours a week.

I assume you don't have a problem with the idea that you have to work to get anything in life.

But there really isn't any "private banking" in the current framework. All banks and credit unions and such in the US deal in Federal Reserve Notes, and are "licensed" to do so. They let you know they are "Member FDIC" or "NCUA." It doesn't matter if they are a local bank with one or two branches, mid sized, or huge mega corp like Chase. You don't have banks that deal strictly in gold and silver, or other privately issued currency, or at least, there are very few of them.
Your first sentence there is a fair statement and exactly why I preceded mine with "the very concept of". As for issuance of notes or the brand that digits fall under, I'm an advocate for "free banking" but that's beyond scope of my original statement which you took issue with. Further, gold and silver are 'fruits of labour in the past', in the current paradigm they're commodities, not money, unless you want to use them in barter privately which you're free to do. And why would a bank deal with your horse headed 'privately issued currency', it wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
This doesn't make sense. If you have a seller and a buyer they need a medium of exchange to trade unless they're bartering. You're saying the seller gets the medium from the bank and the buyer gives the medium to the bank.

What is the seller getting medium from the bank in exchange for? What is the buyer repaying the bank for? And whatever it is, what would the bank do with your horse headed note, give it to the seller? If that's the case how is the bank giving the seller confidence in your horse headed note? If I was selling I wouldn't give you the product for that. Terribly sorry.
But again, you aren't a bank in the Federal Reserve System. Tom Schauff and others have said this is exactly what happens in banking. Again, in the current system, banks don't lend anything. Basically, the "borrower" funds the transaction. A promise is "payment."

I know you won't watch the following video, since you basically said you already have a full understanding of the system, but here is a CPA breaking down this concept-

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVlh-v1ZESM&t=1s


If you read it again sir you'll see I didn't immediately pivot to that, the phrase "or at least" just prior and the whole thing in brackets is another reference to central banks and policy distorting the values. Subsequent use of the word "should" is speaking to your original mischaracterisation that banking employees do a few hours of paperwork in exchange fruits of 30 years of labour, 50 weeks a year at 40 hours a week.
True, it's not a direct exchange. The bank doesn't actually force you to do anything, so you aren't working "directly" for the bank. But, this is basically what happens in practice in regards to mortgages and other debts. Banks do a little accounting, which probably amounts to a few hours, "create" money through accounting entries, and then proceed to collect roughly three times the value of the "loan," if it's paid all the way to maturity. Not an equal exchange, not even close.
I assume you don't have a problem with the idea that you have to work to get anything in life.
Not at all. I have a problem with rigged systems. And the system is most certainly rigged. It's designed to cause defaults.

Although this is just as much due to the ignorance of the people. Most people don't even bother to read their mortgage contracts. Nor do they know how to defend themselves in court if facing a foreclosure (banks don't foreclose on a property, courts do). They don't demand that only original contracts be put into evidence, nor object to bank officials who weren't at the closing table offering testimony (as those officials can only speculate). Probably 90% of foreclosures could be stopped cold if people knew to do these two things in court. But, they don't. So about 90% goes in favor of the banks.
And why would a bank deal with your horse headed 'privately issued currency', it wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.
Why do they deal with Federal Reserve Notes, then? The exact same logic applies. They're worthless securities. Albeit, easily negotiated ones.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom