Topic: The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind - Hidden Secrets of Money - page 3. (Read 9165 times)

They did add a lot of stability. The continual loss of value has been extremely stable ever since they have been in charge.

Wow, its surprising how much a dollar's worth varied before the Federal Reserve was created. 

Ty knight, and also another great great old school vid that will shed some light into your eyes on the fed and its roots is money masters-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfpO-WBz_mw

Of course they don't, each account statement is kept intact. But what happened behind the scene is: Money from all the accounts are added together, there is no label on their money saying that this is Alice's money and this is Bob's money, they are all bank's money and they are all moved into a single large account, and bank constantly withdraw from this account to deal with each customer's withdraw request and loan out to other customers

A similar example is an exchange: There are many people deposit money into the exchange, but they all deposit to the same bank account. The exchange never separate those money they received, they just show corresponding balance (a number) on your account, so that you can start to trade using their platform. When you withdraw, they send corresponding money from their account to your bank account and reduce the number (account balance) that you see on your account

This is precisely why the money loaned from a bank account into another is "duplicated": "anytime" both depositors can "request a withdraw and the bank has to pay" them, simply because "legally" they still "have ownership" of their money.

Put more simply: the bank does not withdraw money from any of its accounts to loan part of its balance.

It depends on how do you define the word "ownership"

You loaned your money to the bank, legally you still have the ownership, because anytime you can request a withdraw and bank have to pay you

But as soon as you deposited your cash into the bank, you have physically lost the control (physical ownership) of those money and there is a risk of default on bank's side. If the banks default, you can go to a court and sue them, but it is not a guarantee that you can get your money back. (That's the reason there is a FDIC to further protect savers) This is the same as sending your money to exchange and that exchange were hacked and shutdown

+1

However, I would like to point out that any fraud only takes advantage of a mistake people already make before the fraud is devised. In this case, the mistake is the confusion between monetary value and its representation inherent in any commodity-based form of money.

You must make up your mind: either the money I deposited into the bank still belongs to me or it no longer does: it cannot be both.

He says:

Gold is good money because it has intrinsic value: No, that is at best a reason for it to start to have a value in ancient times.

Fiat has value because the actors agree upon it: No, it has value due to reservation demand.

The system is unsustainable because of the interest: No, it is unsustainable due to  government overconsumption that is paid by sucking the guts out of the money system by printing and credit expansion.

But it is hard to get everything right, (especially when I define what is right  ), overall a nice video.

Dealer:


No, this wrong. This is like saying Bernie Madoff's scheme was sneaky, smart but not a lie.

The system is a fraud and the levels of deception that are employed to hide it from the people are disgusting. They use the full weight of their lackeys in the mainstream media to obfuscate and sometimes the weight of the paid off justice system to keep the level of fraud out of criminal courts by paying token fines (using their very same funny monies).

It is one huge fucking fraud, up and down the river, no matter which way you look at it ... you apologists (mostly economists and academics) for such a massive scam are more part of the problem than the solution, you have been there in one form or another since 1913 egging it on and apologising for it while poor people are getting ripped off and their savings eroded and while driftless shysters and Wall St. banks who do no work for millions get away scot free.

You cannot stand before your creator and claim ... it is not a lie, IT CLEARLY IS A GIANT LIE AND A FRAUD PERPETRATED AGAINST ALL WHO USE IT ... and most of them are coerced to use through threat of violent force of the State.

Take your medicine and fess up, you have been willing accomplices in ripping of huge swathes of the populace from their hard earned savings. You are part of the evil until you denounce it.

The moment you deposit your $1000 into your bank, they are not yours anymore, you are only left with a certificate that they belong to you.  (your account statements). What really happened is that you loaned these money to the bank, and now bank take over the ownership, leave you with an IOU statement. If the bank shut down the second day, you lose all your money, but that risk fall upon you as soon as you put your money in the bank, not when bank shutdown (comparing this with depositing your money to MTGOX  )

And then banks loaned those money to another people. When you try to spend your money, they will provide you with corresponding base money to spend

Since they always have a base money buffer with millions of dollars to deal with the daily transaction, so you might have an impression that both of you can spend the same money at the same time (In fact both of you are just spending a small part of a large base money pool that grows and shrinks with each custom withdraw/deposit). Since banks usually put a daily withdraw limit on each account, this pool will handle the daily variation very well. Normally 500 customers will make this pool very stable

But if all those 500 customers spend at the same time, things will be different. In financial crisis, people were panic selling assets and billions of money are requested to be withdrew from a certain bank, and they just don't have enough base money to deal with it

So, FRB is like insurance, as long as majority of people feel confident with their money in bank, there is no problem, but if there is a panic and all the people start to withdraw at the same time, they will find out there is only 10% of their account deposit in the bank that can be withdrew

Of course banks are pushing all-electronic banking so that all the money never left this large base money pool. I'm still studying the possible consequence of this move

Money was debt-based from the beginning. When the tax debt to the state mafia was payable in barley, then barley was money. When it was payable in a specific metal, than this specific metal was money. The interest rates in ancient mesopotamia were much higher then today.

Exactly. Only, since the moment we started debasing the $ only the Federal Reserve was authorized to control the money supply. Since they're in it for profit, they'll obviously never make enough money for the USG to get out of debt.

Actually after you say M0, it makes more sense. So basically if the debt was still below M0, we'd still have hope, but now, there's no turning back?

He believes gold can be money without eventually producing a debt-based monetary system: his being aware of how history repeats itself should make him know better.

Um, no.

The government =/= the Fed. So the debt can only go higher, and that debt is constantly to the Fed.
The debt wouldn't be paid off because there isn't enough M0 in existence to do so. The only way inwhich the government could pay off its debts in the form of taxes is by passing that same amount of debt to the citizens.

You don't seem to understand how the system actually works.

I watched all 4 episodes and it sums up things pretty nicely, but I thought two claims in the 4th episode didn't make too much sense. He claims that Fed buying bonds from banks via check (from account of balance 0) is essentially money popping into existence. Then he goes on to say that the govt's debt can only get higher because they always have to borrow more to pay off debt because money can't be created. Isn't that a bit contradictory?

In addition, the gov't can in fact balance the budget to start having profit in order to start paying off the principle on the debt. Suppose the govt shut down all together and continued to collect same amount of taxes, the debt would be paid off in 7-8 years right?

True, but that's not really what I'm trying to say. I'm saying the system itself isn't a scam or a lie. You are right about the unpayable debt, but that the debts are unpayable isn't the fault of the system: it's the fault of the banks abusing the system to create more money for themselves (=> people trying to achieve personal gains). About the scam part, I think it's quite discussable what you want to call the fractional reserve banking amount, but it's a result of, once again, the people going for personal gain.

Now, it's in a humans nature to do everything for personal gain, so I won't say I'm surprised by it. A bank is a commercial enterprise with just 1 goal: profit. So it's obvious they'll do anything for personal gain. It's the stupid decision of the people (government="the people") to let banks regulate the financial sector on earth.

So all by all, it's not a lie in my eyes: it's just a few people playing the game extremely smart, and a lot of people being blatantly stupid. The ones playing it smart (the banks) are open and quite transparant about it, people just don't understand it. I repeat, it's sneaky, under-the-belt and mean, but not a lie.

Only, there is a "lie" and there is a "scam." One such lie being inherent in the concept of unpayable debt, because, of course, an IOU is a promise to pay someone a specific amount, and when that IOU is inherently unpayable you are lying. The scam, of course, is fractional reserve banking with a M0 of effectively 0.

Not really. He never actually states what "intrinsic worth" is, other than "a store of value." Obviously Bitcoin is a store of value. So, IMO, his definition is accurate, albeit vague.