It is a mathematical inevitability that the bank will end up with the vast majority of wealth.
Imagine that there is one bank and one person in a country and the bank prints and loans $100 to the person at 10% interest.
In one year the person will owe the bank $110. Where does the extra $10 come from?
Another person must enter the country either by birth or by immigration and take a loan from the bank, which will print more money from thin air.
Then, with two people each having $100, they must compete between themselves to wrestle at least $10 away from the other to pay off the bank. One person ends up with $110 and pays off the loan, the other will end up with $90 and defaults on their loan. The bank then takes all that the loser had as collateral as real material goods (actual wealth).
Now expand this paradigm to a large country and you see that any bank that wants to keep banking needs an ever increasing population to loan money to, or must open the borders to immigration to prop up their pyramid scheme. As soon as a population begins to dwindle the holes in the system become apparent. The pyramid is built from the top down and every level must be larger than the one above it.
Not only is the entire banking structure a pyramid scheme, they need to tax everyone at higher and higher rates to take money out of circulation so that the money the bankers print will be able to buy more, and the borrowers will be able to do less against the bankers. Taxes simultaneously increase bankers wealth, control inflation, and keep the working class in their place. The more money that is in circulation in relation to the number of people in the system must be kept in check or money becomes worthless through inflation and people will stop accepting money for real goods.
Yes, the bankers can and do print money at their leisure and buy things with it. In the end of a country's economy this causes monstrous inflation as the United State is witnessing it now. Other countries have already been through it. Material assets are more valuable than paper.
Digital/Crypto currency will not be allowed on the banker owned Internet unless it one sanctioned by the Rothschild’s. They will create a "whitelist" of allowed servers on the Internet that will require personal identification to do anything. Personal unlicensed servers will be outlawed.
There is a reason that many Christian and Muslim nations of the past and present banned interest based banking. You can see at its' inception that the bank will end up owning everything. The Federal Reserve is the 8th private bank that has inserted itself into the United States and the Rothschild owned mechanism now controls much of the globe. Our ancestors kicked the bankers out 7 times before that, they simply keep coming. Banks are ultimately why most people left Europe in the first place. The USA ceased to be a sovereign nation in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson helped install our current central bank. The banks pick the candidates, or bribe, bully, or blackmail all the politicians. The stock market is rigged in their favor and they'll pull the rug out whenever they have their new digital currency system ready to go online.
The bankers start wars, fund both sides, and determine who the winner will be based on eugenics. They have historically sided with Muslims against Christians.
The solution to this problem lies in the past, and nobody seems to have discovered it in the present. It's so simple, the solution was summed up in one sentence by Thomas Jefferson. "I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
Start chanting the line like a mantra. I have been.
[ - ] drhitler 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 03:24:17 ago (+1/-0)
now replace those two people with niggers, each given $100 by the bank, they promptly spend it on drugs and tell the bank to go fuck itself, then they commit identity fraud and do it again.
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 19:34:44 ago (+1/-0)
Can the same argument be made for farming/ranching?
Not that I don't agree that filthy kike usury is a blight on society, but don't farmers make money out of "nothing"?
Suppose a farmer uses $10k to plant a field for the year, and then at harvest sells it for $20k. Where did the extra $10k come from?
Don't we all exchange time for money - some at significantly higher rates than banks charge.
Banks just exchange money for money - which seems like a dichotomy, because money shouldn't be able to produce money, but time shouldn't be able to produce money either, and the ground shouldn't be able to produce money either.
[ - ] veridic 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 22:57:50 ago (+1/-0)
The ideal currency would not be pegged to gold or silver, but energy. If Energy is nature's currency. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it does experience entropy.
Our sun is the ultimate source of money creation.
If we pegged our money to energy it would be the most natural form of exchange.
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 23:04:09 ago (+1/-0)
Interesting thought.
My initial rebuttal would be that energy can change form, so how is that dealt with?
There would have to be an allotment of money that equals the total energy in order for this idea to work. And a bank to control the payment for energy.
If I run for 3 hours and expend X energy and then eat food to recover Y energy, what happens to the difference?
Are ideas and knowledge energy? LOL.
Energy can be used up in terms of usable work - which could be defined as entropy - and what happens to the pile of money to compensate for that?
Standardize on electrical kWhr. The electric company becomes the "gold window". Each dollar bill represents a certain amount of electrical energy you can buy at a power plant.
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 23:31:23 ago (+1/-0)
And if I make my own?
In my life, my electric bill is maybe 1/10 of my total expenditures for the year.
Food and gas never travel through the electrical wires.
How much am I to charge when I come up with an innovative solution to a client's problem?
How much is the experience of the old maintainer worth? A favorite story: A machine is on the fritz and the last person to work on it retired. The company called the old-timer back to fix it. He walked in, grabbed a mallet and gave it a good whack - good as new in less than 5 minutes.
Sends the boss a bill for $50,005.
Boss is outraged. What are the charges for. Old-timer provides an itemized invoice: Hitting with mallet: $5 Knowing where to hit: $50,000
It would, but how do you measure knowledge in kwh?
How do you account for profit?
Are you saying that an innovation measured at 0.01kwh of energy, that will save the company 5MWHr every year is only worth 0.01kwh?
If I own land, and the government wants to buy it, how much is it worth for the new highway that saves each driver 100 miles of travel?
It isn't the rate of exchange, it is the valuation of goods which have no energy equivalent.
For the road, should I be able to continually charge the government for the energy savings of each car that passes? Should I make an estimate of the total cars to the end of time? If that estimate is off?
If I estimate that my innovations would save $5million, I might charge 10% as my fee. I don't need to get into the nitty gritty of knowing their energy use per process, how efficient the system is, etc. I know from their books that this operation used up $63million last year. I can cut that down to $58million this year - a saving of $5million. Boom, done.
Give me some examples of energy equivalents then.
How much is a carrot? A banana? (for scale LOL) An orange? How much is a bucket of clay worth? How much is carrying that clay a) from point A to point B in a wheelbarrow? b) across the ocean? c) in a truck/train, etc?
What happens when I need to run for work? Does that energy become income for me? What happens when I run after work for exercise?
In a perfect world, any currency can be made a standard. Unfortunately we exist in a very imperfect world.
Edit to add:
Also, money was created long before energy was even discovered/controllable, let alone set up for distribution and consumption.
With that in mind, there would have to be a time when the energy standard was created, using some currency.
And whose energy prices would be used? Germany has the highest prices in Europe - due to their abysmal energy policies, while some energy in North America is 6cents per kwh.
This creates another system where things are arbitrarily assigned. If the price was set at 14cents per kwh, German producers would get screwed, and the old hydro plants power the NW of North America would be getting double their value.
No, producing work for currency is the answer to the problem. Private bankers having a monopoly on printing is the problem. The farmer producing real goods is the opposite of the banker. The farmer isn't printing money, he's producing something real that people will trade money for. Somebody else borrowed that $10K from the bank for some other reason that they will trade for the farmers goods.
If there is a finite monetary supply, the ability to trade real money for non-tangible things implodes.
Notice that at the same time the dollar started losing value, the "service industries" kicked into high gear.
Explain to me how someone trading their time for money by talking on the phone all day produces real goods?
Hasn't Britain transformed into something like a 70% service economy? Lots of that is finance, which is just bankers doing funny money transactions, but a lot of the current western countries have moved away from a production economy to a service economy.
Service economies, by definition, try to produce money from intangibles.
A production economy can actually shift back and forth from fiat trading to bartering pretty easily. Service economies can't - because one side has zero to barter for (other than services and time).
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 01:57:44 ago (+1/-0)
There are different types of services, to be sure.
Some of the big ones are financial services where people put money to be invested.
Technology services, as you mention.
But there are also customer services, where a shop attendant waits around 90% of the time for the customers to ask questions. And phone support services, where customers call up for random and often dumb questions. And retail service, which is just a matter of shifting goods around, stocking shelves, etc.
All those minimum wage jobs, are they really making the world better than it was when a country was a manufacturing economy?
Your whole point is that trading money for money shouldn't be allowed.
I agree that having a central bank issuing money will lead to corruption, but if I have $1million that I want to give out to people - invest in them - I want a fair return on that money.
Yes, the way the banks are dealing with certificates and fractional reserve banking (if 0% can even be called that) is obscene, but before the greed took over, banks served a useful purpose.
In another post somewhere I mentioned that banks should be "not for profit", so the depositors in the bank make the majority of the interest in any loans. That seems like a fair trade to me.
Your whole argument of not having enough money to pay back the bank falls apart when you start including other non-tangible transactions, such as knowledge for money. Where did the money come from to pay for that knowledge?
I would say that your initial argument would be more along the lines of "unregulated banking creating interbank loans with fractional reserve banking" is the problem.
I would have to spend a decent amount of time thinking about how a finite money system would work if there were no banks/interest.
The whole idea starts to fall apart very quickly.
The idea that there is only a fixed amount of money (capital) in the world does not account for knowledge - as you just said.
In order to figure out if money is being magically created, you have to look at the value of every possible action and knowledge from here to the end of time.
You just said that trading knowledge for currency is beneficial - but now that new knowledge required new money, because all of the old money is already tied up in the current commodities.
Every second of every day, people are creating new "money" just by going to work....
Singling out the usury of banks isn't the cause of the new money - but the corruption inside the banking industry robs people and over saturates the "new" money by several orders of magnitude.
Lol I was trying to simplify it for people. I don't think I said anything about trading money for money. The value of a good or service should be priced and fixed justly. Greedy bankers are the major problem with the world, that is my point.
I absolutely agree that the current crop of bankers in the world are the problem - and bankers make up a sizeable chunk of the reason for the mess we are in due to so many things - the least of which is the measly 3% interest on loans.
Bankers making money from wars is a "money to goods" transfer - not just imaginary money.
But in the grand scheme of things, making money from money is not a bad thing, because the new money is really just changing from one form of new capital (such as new knowledge, and time) into currency.
As a made up example, suppose the value of all money and goods in the world in 1900 was $1 trillion.
In 2020, the world value was now $500 trillion.
Did the money supply create that? or did the money supply just catch up to the non-tangible new capital that was realized?
Taking gold out of the ground is the oldest from of making new money... is that bad?
I would agree that the problem with the banking industry is greed, and lack of proper oversight. This is most likely by (((design))) so that all this funny money can be hidden from anyone trying to figure things out.
Making banks not-for-profit can fix a lot of problems.
but the biggest (((problem))) only has one solution.
The person just has to do $110 of work and pay that to the bank. That to me isn't really the central issue. The central issue is that the bank prints that money out of thin air (maybe they only need $10 in deposits to do so), then EARNS INTEREST on it. They faked the money but then get paid to do that. This currency inflation devalues all the currency everyone is holding. In effect, they're stealing money from everyone to make this loan, and profiting off it until they get paid back and the fake currency disappears to where it came from. And The Fed does this of course when they print money.
Interest just makes sense, but only if the person is lending money they already have, not creating it from nothing.
[ - ] allahead [op] 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 15:58:20 ago (+1/-0)
The bank is the only place from which to get money, and they are corrupt, and as you also pointed out, don't do any real work for the interest, and yet profit from the interest on money. They also steal money on the side and through government taxes, which they control directly. The bankers and the interest system are the problem.
One solution would be, instead of charging the borrower interest for doing work, reward them with "interest" for doing work that yields actual goods or services. This is opposed to a pyramid scheme where multiple borrowers compete for fiat currency.
Where money is real, i.e. the money IS something with value for its material (gold, silver) and not merely because it has numbers printed on it, people lending money would be like lending anything else. There is a cost to the owner to not have the thing available. Presumably there is a benefit to the borrower, like getting tools sooner so they can get more work done, and giving some of the profit back to the lender. Free market transactions always leave both parties better off. Each trades for something worth more to them than what they gave up. If the state didn't force its money on people, their fiat bucks would be put in their place.
I mostly agree with you. I wouldn't say that free market transactions always leave both parties better off, not everyone is a completely logical/capable/rational actor.
Money doesn't have to be rare metals. I'm even ok with paper money as long as it is brought into existence based on some type of productivity and not just a bankers whim. Have you watched Bill Still's "Money Masters" documentary. It's well worth it. One of the longest used currencies that was non-metal was wooden "tally sticks".
What we really need is an open, honest, transparent arbiter that is somehow incentivized to make things as fair as possible. A nationally socialized bank that is non-profit and capable of agilely responding to market demands, and sometimes if necessary, destroying money to prevent inflation.
[ + ] AlexanderMorose13
[ - ] AlexanderMorose13 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 09:31:30 ago (+1/-0)
Start chanting the line like a mantra. I have been.
[ + ] drhitler
[ - ] drhitler 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 03:24:17 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 16:03:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 19:34:44 ago (+1/-0)
Not that I don't agree that filthy kike usury is a blight on society, but don't farmers make money out of "nothing"?
Suppose a farmer uses $10k to plant a field for the year, and then at harvest sells it for $20k. Where did the extra $10k come from?
Don't we all exchange time for money - some at significantly higher rates than banks charge.
Banks just exchange money for money - which seems like a dichotomy, because money shouldn't be able to produce money, but time shouldn't be able to produce money either, and the ground shouldn't be able to produce money either.
[ + ] veridic
[ - ] veridic 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 22:57:50 ago (+1/-0)
Our sun is the ultimate source of money creation.
If we pegged our money to energy it would be the most natural form of exchange.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 23:04:09 ago (+1/-0)
My initial rebuttal would be that energy can change form, so how is that dealt with?
There would have to be an allotment of money that equals the total energy in order for this idea to work. And a bank to control the payment for energy.
If I run for 3 hours and expend X energy and then eat food to recover Y energy, what happens to the difference?
Are ideas and knowledge energy? LOL.
Energy can be used up in terms of usable work - which could be defined as entropy - and what happens to the pile of money to compensate for that?
[ + ] veridic
[ - ] veridic 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 23:24:54 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 23:31:23 ago (+1/-0)
In my life, my electric bill is maybe 1/10 of my total expenditures for the year.
Food and gas never travel through the electrical wires.
How much am I to charge when I come up with an innovative solution to a client's problem?
How much is the experience of the old maintainer worth?
A favorite story: A machine is on the fritz and the last person to work on it retired. The company called the old-timer back to fix it. He walked in, grabbed a mallet and gave it a good whack - good as new in less than 5 minutes.
Sends the boss a bill for $50,005.
Boss is outraged. What are the charges for. Old-timer provides an itemized invoice:
Hitting with mallet: $5
Knowing where to hit: $50,000
[ + ] veridic
[ - ] veridic 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 23:52:35 ago (+0/-0)
If you found some novel solution to a clients problem, in 1880, or 1990, or 2022, would be the same dollars?
Wouldn't it be nice to have a consistent rate of exchange?
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 00:00:51 ago (+0/-0)
How do you account for profit?
Are you saying that an innovation measured at 0.01kwh of energy, that will save the company 5MWHr every year is only worth 0.01kwh?
If I own land, and the government wants to buy it, how much is it worth for the new highway that saves each driver 100 miles of travel?
It isn't the rate of exchange, it is the valuation of goods which have no energy equivalent.
For the road, should I be able to continually charge the government for the energy savings of each car that passes? Should I make an estimate of the total cars to the end of time? If that estimate is off?
[ + ] veridic
[ - ] veridic 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 00:08:00 ago (+0/-0)
Dollars change. Energy doesn't.
Therefore Energy is the better dollar.
To say that "goods" don't have an energy equivalent is nonsense. Energy is the perfect and natural measurement of acquiring goods.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 01:01:07 ago (+0/-0)*
If I estimate that my innovations would save $5million, I might charge 10% as my fee. I don't need to get into the nitty gritty of knowing their energy use per process, how efficient the system is, etc. I know from their books that this operation used up $63million last year. I can cut that down to $58million this year - a saving of $5million. Boom, done.
Give me some examples of energy equivalents then.
How much is a carrot?
A banana? (for scale LOL)
An orange?
How much is a bucket of clay worth?
How much is carrying that clay a) from point A to point B in a wheelbarrow? b) across the ocean? c) in a truck/train, etc?
What happens when I need to run for work? Does that energy become income for me?
What happens when I run after work for exercise?
In a perfect world, any currency can be made a standard. Unfortunately we exist in a very imperfect world.
Edit to add:
Also, money was created long before energy was even discovered/controllable, let alone set up for distribution and consumption.
With that in mind, there would have to be a time when the energy standard was created, using some currency.
And whose energy prices would be used? Germany has the highest prices in Europe - due to their abysmal energy policies, while some energy in North America is 6cents per kwh.
This creates another system where things are arbitrarily assigned. If the price was set at 14cents per kwh, German producers would get screwed, and the old hydro plants power the NW of North America would be getting double their value.
[ + ] veridic
[ - ] veridic 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 01:26:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 16:00:26 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 20:09:47 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 20:17:34 ago (+0/-0)
Notice that at the same time the dollar started losing value, the "service industries" kicked into high gear.
Explain to me how someone trading their time for money by talking on the phone all day produces real goods?
Hasn't Britain transformed into something like a 70% service economy? Lots of that is finance, which is just bankers doing funny money transactions, but a lot of the current western countries have moved away from a production economy to a service economy.
Service economies, by definition, try to produce money from intangibles.
A production economy can actually shift back and forth from fiat trading to bartering pretty easily. Service economies can't - because one side has zero to barter for (other than services and time).
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 01:53:27 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 01:57:44 ago (+1/-0)
Some of the big ones are financial services where people put money to be invested.
Technology services, as you mention.
But there are also customer services, where a shop attendant waits around 90% of the time for the customers to ask questions.
And phone support services, where customers call up for random and often dumb questions.
And retail service, which is just a matter of shifting goods around, stocking shelves, etc.
All those minimum wage jobs, are they really making the world better than it was when a country was a manufacturing economy?
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 21:18:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 22:05:02 ago (+0/-0)
I agree that having a central bank issuing money will lead to corruption, but if I have $1million that I want to give out to people - invest in them - I want a fair return on that money.
Yes, the way the banks are dealing with certificates and fractional reserve banking (if 0% can even be called that) is obscene, but before the greed took over, banks served a useful purpose.
In another post somewhere I mentioned that banks should be "not for profit", so the depositors in the bank make the majority of the interest in any loans. That seems like a fair trade to me.
Your whole argument of not having enough money to pay back the bank falls apart when you start including other non-tangible transactions, such as knowledge for money. Where did the money come from to pay for that knowledge?
I would say that your initial argument would be more along the lines of "unregulated banking creating interbank loans with fractional reserve banking" is the problem.
I would have to spend a decent amount of time thinking about how a finite money system would work if there were no banks/interest.
The whole idea starts to fall apart very quickly.
The idea that there is only a fixed amount of money (capital) in the world does not account for knowledge - as you just said.
In order to figure out if money is being magically created, you have to look at the value of every possible action and knowledge from here to the end of time.
You just said that trading knowledge for currency is beneficial - but now that new knowledge required new money, because all of the old money is already tied up in the current commodities.
Every second of every day, people are creating new "money" just by going to work....
Singling out the usury of banks isn't the cause of the new money - but the corruption inside the banking industry robs people and over saturates the "new" money by several orders of magnitude.
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 22:24:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 20, 2022 22:34:27 ago (+0/-0)
Bankers making money from wars is a "money to goods" transfer - not just imaginary money.
But in the grand scheme of things, making money from money is not a bad thing, because the new money is really just changing from one form of new capital (such as new knowledge, and time) into currency.
As a made up example, suppose the value of all money and goods in the world in 1900 was $1 trillion.
In 2020, the world value was now $500 trillion.
Did the money supply create that? or did the money supply just catch up to the non-tangible new capital that was realized?
Taking gold out of the ground is the oldest from of making new money... is that bad?
I would agree that the problem with the banking industry is greed, and lack of proper oversight. This is most likely by (((design))) so that all this funny money can be hidden from anyone trying to figure things out.
Making banks not-for-profit can fix a lot of problems.
but the biggest (((problem))) only has one solution.
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 01:51:23 ago (+0/-0)
Interest just makes sense, but only if the person is lending money they already have, not creating it from nothing.
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead [op] 1 point 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 15:58:20 ago (+1/-0)
One solution would be, instead of charging the borrower interest for doing work, reward them with "interest" for doing work that yields actual goods or services. This is opposed to a pyramid scheme where multiple borrowers compete for fiat currency.
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 21, 2022 23:55:58 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] allahead
[ - ] allahead [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMar 22, 2022 17:01:49 ago (+0/-0)
Money doesn't have to be rare metals. I'm even ok with paper money as long as it is brought into existence based on some type of productivity and not just a bankers whim. Have you watched Bill Still's "Money Masters" documentary. It's well worth it. One of the longest used currencies that was non-metal was wooden "tally sticks".
What we really need is an open, honest, transparent arbiter that is somehow incentivized to make things as fair as possible. A nationally socialized bank that is non-profit and capable of agilely responding to market demands, and sometimes if necessary, destroying money to prevent inflation.