There is an interesting explanation of how money actually appear.
It is based on a simple premise that every entity in the world has a balance sheet.
Every transaction is effectively simply one or more transfer(s) from credit side of the balance sheet of one entity to a debit side of the balance sheet of another entity. No matter how many those transaction are performed overall the amount of money stays the same.
Now let's see how money are created. No matter the way of creation of "money as debt", either the fed loan it to some banks on some terms or a bank obtains a signature of a slave on a mortgage paper or any other method of creation of money as debt, the balance sheet representation of this act is always the same. Money magically appear as an asset on credit side of the lender and the same amount of debt appears as a liability on the debit side of balance sheet of the borrower.
No matter how money move afterwards the end result is the same. Those parties in this lunacy that have privilege of seniorage magically get themselves assets to appear on credit side of the BB while the slaves get the same amount to appear on the debit side of their BB.
This does not strike me as fair, at all. I prefer Bitcoin way of money creation.
It also worth adding that lenders in this case bear no risk whatsoever. Most of slaves will take the game seriously and work hard to create wealth and give it to the lender, interest included. And if they don't - no problem. Just take whatever they bought using your funny money, and don't deal with them further. And keep telling people how you don't get something for nothing in life It is based on a simple premise that every entity in the world has a balance sheet.
Every transaction is effectively simply one or more transfer(s) from credit side of the balance sheet of one entity to a debit side of the balance sheet of another entity. No matter how many those transaction are performed overall the amount of money stays the same.
Now let's see how money are created. No matter the way of creation of "money as debt", either the fed loan it to some banks on some terms or a bank obtains a signature of a slave on a mortgage paper or any other method of creation of money as debt, the balance sheet representation of this act is always the same. Money magically appear as an asset on credit side of the lender and the same amount of debt appears as a liability on the debit side of balance sheet of the borrower.
No matter how money move afterwards the end result is the same. Those parties in this lunacy that have privilege of seniorage magically get themselves assets to appear on credit side of the BB while the slaves get the same amount to appear on the debit side of their BB.
This does not strike me as fair, at all. I prefer Bitcoin way of money creation.
Wow, did we go off-topic here...!
Off topic - yes - but: I wish people would talk about debt money, not money as debt. We have base money (notes and coins) and debt money.
The "money as debt" is the ghost of past profligacy coming to haunt us all. It's not currently "real", because the central banks are treating it like a current account overdraft agreement with no terms of repayment. As it stands, nation states can barely afford the interest payments on these loans (aka the euphemistic "sovereign bonds"). But as the conventional wisdom about overdraft facilities goes, what happens when the bank does decide it wants the overdrawn money returned? They are likely to request it whenever they are endangered, and things are looking a little tipping point-ish.
irony: did you just say debt money? /irony
Or did you argue against the naming of the concept?
