World Enslavement - On the fly.

[Paisley]

Its been a while since there has been a discussion

First of all lets go into some history about monetary theory... stuff you aren't taught in school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU - Money as Debt.
This explains the history of banking on how the private banks print money out of nothing / using fractional reserves In layman's terms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs - The money makers.
Goes through the history of banking... From the banking families and how events like war have been exploited for their own gains. Then focuses on America and in particular various note worthy events when their has been a struggle for supremacy for control of the money supply.

A quote That can be applied to the above.
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. - Edmund Burke

What is your thoughts / comments?

I'll wait a day or 2 to allow discussion before I proceed with the next part.

[Zeyi]

I'm going to watch these and get back to you as this is an issue I have a lot of thought on, I have some questions/ideas but I think it's best to make sure I watch these before i accidentally repeat something or say something already answered.

Posted now so you wouldn't think this would get zero attention.

[Killeah]

In general I´m a big fan of what statecrafters would term realism - or well more neorealism these days, as the old-school realism is somewhat outdated in international politics.

So to answer your quote: I belive that despite the fact that we (ppl in power, or mankind) experience Wars, economic recess, various diseases, etc. we will continue to repeat the mistakes and mechanisms that spurred them earlier.

This is mainly due to the anarchic nature of the human being, and especially that of independent states.

Take a look at UN, in thought it was meant to be a place where everything could be settled, institutions like the world bank and other finacial - between states - elements were ment to have a likewise purpose.

The general idea was to make a big happy agreement on everything across the globe. What it turned out to be was just a figurehead - a toothless old lady incapable of getting anything done but diplomatic talks. All while States independently runs their own agenda.

I am for one not suprised at the current state of the world economy. But I´m also positive that after a downturn the tides will change for the better, history have shown that such events are part of a cycle that repeats itself.

Nice vids btw, they do a good job telling the story straight up.

[Paisley]

Next part is understanding our prison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcBsg...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6u...el_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptHQu...eature=related

Is your birth certificate a legal fiction used as commodity?
How does your strawman tie you into contract on your behalf?

[Tietäjä]

Anyone with a degree in economics can't do much else but giggle and yawn when watching these zeitgeist -spirited clips of gloomy debt slavery.

Now now.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Anyone with a degree in economics can't do much else but giggle and yawn when watching these zeitgeist -spirited clips of gloomy debt slavery.

Now now.

The videos are suppose to explain it in layman's terms...
However are you saying that there are inaccuracies?

No flame/troll bait intended, just interested in your perspective.

[Tietäjä]

Religion mentioned in an economic debate. Paging Jesus to thread #199501 to tell us about economics.

Originally Posted by Paisley

The videos are suppose to explain it in layman's terms...
However are you saying that there are inaccuracies?

No flame/troll bait intended, just interested in your perspective.

Honestly, I didn't watch them through. I looked for maybe ten minutes, and at that point it was more or less a copy of Zeitgeist. I watched both Zeitgeists.

While I fully acknowledge the weaknesses of a monetary economy (as opposed to a trade economy which was very widespread in 12,000 years before Christ), I keep coming down with the question of what's better. One bottom flaw in this line of thinking is that debt must somehow equate wealth, or that there needs to be a total amount of debt that must be capped by an arbitrary amount of 'existing wealth'. This is not so. Debt is not only against current wealth, and current productivity, but future wealth, and future productivity.

Debt enslavement is one of the things people fling around and it tends to have to do with the cycle where someone illustrates how picking up a mortgage and a bunch of consumer credit yields you a lifetime of slavery. It does not, however, spend a second of commenting just why this happens, on a macroeconomics or global level (see: Warren Buffet, Squanderville vs. Thriftville). For each Squander, there needs to be a Thrifter. On surface, yes, credit expansion is an evil monster after your mum. Claiming, however, that the amount of money created is only limited by an amount of debt is over simplifying a crucial statement: debt does not exist without a creditor. Squanderville can't squander without Thriftville thrifting.

An argument that strikes from the same credit expansion -critical side has to do with gold standard, and because gold has never crashed in value over the history of humanity it can never happen. In order for more gold or silver money, seriously? The fact that the whole argument, seems to rely on the constant yap on how gold this and gold that, is simply astounding. Gold is as worthless as your fiat money to an average consumer: in fact, it has less valuable practical applications aside from vanity goods than silver has.


It's becoming a bit messy by now, but I will summarize a little:

- Credit expansion: the argument that debt is only limited by the amount of debt issued, or some similar logical fallacy. Debt is limited by the amount of willing creditors. Creditors typically issue debt not only in 'collateral' for current wealth, but future wealth increases.

- Yes, Aristoteles said it. Money is dead, it can't have more than face value. However, Aristoteles may have ignored the temporal component of the function. Briefly: if you were a starting up farmer, it would be surely faster to lend money (with an interest) to buy 10 cows and 2 corn fields, than buy 1 corn field - maybe by retirement you'd have 5 cows and 1 and a half corn fields. Subsequently, you are borrowing towards expected future gains (you expect your gains from more cows and corn fields to be able to repay - I will return to this later). While certain aspects of the monetary system are flawed, there is a very simple rational explanation as to how higher savings sectors in the economy need to be able transfer resources to those (growing) sectors that need it. It's in the heart of our growth (along with imperialism and colonialism, which is effectively theft).

- Gold standard: everyone keeps arguing how 'back in the age of the Roman empire gold was valuable currency'. Reality check: how is gold (or insert 'arbitrarily valuable over-priced metal') any less fiat money than printed money? Because you can eat gold coins? (in fact, the cows and cornfields mentioned in the goods economy of the 12,000 BC would in fact be the only directly valuable resources. in a very gross simplification.)

- While there are liabilities in the monetary system which have to do with it's inherent tendency to overheat (a behavioral economist along the lines of Shiller and Akerlof might argue that, this is because people are on the habit of being overly optimistic about their future), this is endogenous. What is really in the argument that questions why the monetary system is built on an expectation of permanent growth is a question of human fundamentals. The expectation of permanent ("perpentual") growth is realistic if you believe this prediction to be 'most likely true'. Much of the current western societies are and have been built on vastly overshooting expectations of growth. Due to selfishness and human greed, this has resulted in perverse situations where for example in Finland pensions are not only tied to inflation but to wage indexes (what this says, is that: not only consumption level of the pension needs to remain stable, but also if the rest of the economy becomes more efficient, pensioners who are not in a position to produce any of this growth are to receive parts of it - Squanderville, anyone?).

- There seems to be little viable options. Whilst it is joyful to read and learn about the demons of the monetary system, Zeitgeist's solution to this was to proceed to introduce a resource economy. An economy where there... is no scarcity. While this obviously solves all problems and removes the need for any kind of economic activity (since there is no scarcity), it's somewhat difficult to see how this could happen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU - 30 minutes onwards is just hilarious garbage).

Some retard friend of a retard ex-girlfriend once asked me what I think about capitalism. I countered it by asking what he thinks the alternatives are. He mentioned socialism. I said, that while (monetary) capitalism seems to have it's flaws, it isn't like socialism has had a great track record. We can spend our lives painting utopias on how this and that could be better on a different system, but I'm yet to see a video of someone realistically telling how that would happen in practise.

I have a really good suggestion on how to rehab western economies: cut wages by 30% - dig it off the currency. Reasonable (it has to do with "Baumol's disease")? Now, can you find me the nation that is willing to accept this. The argument about bla bla sustainability this that, does hilariously enough ignore the fact that we do not have such resources at our disposal, we have five billion people with a tenth or less of the resources an average western has; to reach a 'sustainable bla bla stable population' bit would require cutting income by a denizen.

Now you all are crying, that, because you can't steal it from the negroes anymore, you'd now actually have to earn it, and the evil bankers are doing you in the ass (not that I agree with a lot of the creative re-financing being done during in this crisis, but this is a different subject altogether). (edit. yes, this last bit is meant to acknowledge that there is a tint of 'colonization' or 'imperialism' (however, not through credit expansion, and the direction of this might be more surprising than you'd initially think - as per, Buffet's paper mentioned) in the financial system. however, it's not like this is fresh news: just that, the negroes are no longer slaves)

There is one more crucial question I'd like to present.

On the premises that an economy would be healthy if it only consumed what it produces: why are so many civilians in debt? Because someone forced the debt onto them? Or because they wanted to obtain something currently outside their means?

[Tietäjä]

ps.

suggested reading if you're genuinely interested in the subject outside zeitgeist movement:

On the subject of expectations and their role in the monetary system:
Akerlof, Shiller: Animal Spirits
Shiller: Irrational Exuberance

On the subject of western wealth:
King (Stephen D.): The Emerging Threats to Western Prosperity.

Also, the Warren Buffet piece on debt (macro-level global involved)
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf


If these aren't in 'layman enough' terms for you then it's perhaps best if you do not even try participate in a discussion on the subject. I don't try build boats or nuclear reactors either.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

On the subject of expectations and their role in the monetary system:
Akerlof, Shiller: Animal Spirits
Shiller: Irrational Exuberance

On the subject of western wealth:
King (Stephen D.): The Emerging Threats to Western Prosperity.

Also, the Warren Buffet piece on debt (macro-level global involved)
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf

I will take the time to read up on your suggestions ... however I would ask that you can watch the money makers video, especially on the history of the rothschilds and how they would loan at interest countries to fight wars and in some cases prolong them.... anything to make more profit.

to quote Sun Tzu
- If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.-

Also how the rothschilds we able to clean up on the London stock exchange with the outcome of the battle of waterloo ...
http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/money-...cripts-part-14

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

If you're to blame this on the banking system you're barking on the wrong tree.

reading through your posts I couldn't see anything with any mention of issuing any interest free currency.

I have to ask if you are aware of this concept?
examples of this the tally stick system in england from 1293 that lasted over 500 years.
Colonial scrip of america
The lincoln's greenbacks
whilst these were fiat currencies ... they were issued interest free.
Unlike the US$ of today.

The banksters don’t want you discovering historical examples of “fiat” currencies because they demonstrate that a middle-man who lends money out at interest is not only unnecessary, but a direct cause of booms and busts. Also, such examples impinge on their cyclical plan of presenting the gold standard as a false solution for a return to “stability” and “honest money,” after their debt-money system has inevitably reached its end in the current cycle.

So are you saying that it isn't possible to engineer an economic/stock market crash via boom and bust .... Jeso just look at the 1920' and early 1930's
All through the federal reserve.... which is about as federal as federal express.
Its a private corporation.

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

On the premises that an economy would be healthy if it only consumed what it produces: why are so many civilians in debt? Because someone forced the debt onto them? Or because they wanted to obtain something currently outside their means?[/i]

It has gotten to the stage where some countries have debt secured against direct taxation as a result of debt (from interest issusing the currency) from yesteryear that hasn't been paid off.

Your mum and dad sign your birth certificate ... creating your strawman for tax liability.
In some countries birth certificates are tradable commodities on the stock exchange.

With boom and bust, what might be affordable 5 years ago is no longer the case due to the circulation of money.
When the circulation of money was restricted eg. The credit crunch
There was going to colaterial damage to families and their incomes.
You can still say that there are certain folk who take out credit irresponsibility
however this would be vastly reduced if there wasn't this interest applicable debt money.

[Mzyxptlk]

I think you'll like this, Keiz: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1445

[Judge]

Get rid of the banks, get rid of Politicians and let Anarchy Reign Supreme

[Tietäjä]

Case Finland.

Most of our domestic debt is household mortgages. Varying estimates go between 60 and 70% debt rations. In short, this means, that households have elected to live beyond their means (by taking a debt to purchase an asset they cannot afford at current time). They are expecting a) the value increase of the property to cut some slack, and b) they are expecting their income level to remain stable.

Current account deficits, however, imply that we're leaking money. This means, we're being Squanderville. We're lending money from abroad to cover our current living standards. We're neglecting the possibility not to purchase above our income, while the possibility is there. People are expecting their future to be brighter than it perhaps is. The banking system isn't systematically to blame of this - it's ultimately the people's fault for being overly optimistic. If, and a pessimist might say when, the inevitable convergence hits, things will go dire.

Here's how things will go dire: the presumption that property values never go down is a strange one. It hasn't got anything to do with anything but false expectations and herd psychology (Akerlof and Shiller discuss this to an extent in relation to bubbles). Property, house prices, have been on rise because people are willing to take more extensive debt to purchase a house where they want it - they're expecting to be able to pay it back. In this fashion, it's a systematic illness not only inherent to banking system but to the people in general.

If, suddenly, people's incomes fall, they will become increasingly unable to deal with their interest payments and debt repayments. Banks will start drawing back their property. House prices will probably bust, due to the fact that reduced incomes reduce the demand for excessively expensive houses bought with debt money on high expectations on future income.

This will leave people with debt - and debt 'slavery'. Why? Because they had unrealistic expectations of a) their future income, and b) the value of their assets.

If you're to blame this on the banking system you're barking on the wrong tree.

Accumulating national debt has more to do with factors like the pension scheme, poor productivity in terms of wages (cuts exports, cuts employment, latter of which causes public costs - again, an attempt to live above our means. baumol's disease is very closely related to this; the lack of means to converge through inflation, currency cuts, or wage cuts, is causing 'violent convergence' through other applicable methods: convergence is however somewhat inevitable - briefly stated in Buffett's paper, more broadly discussed in King's book).

Yes, the trigger would be the lending facility. But the underlying problem isn't the lending facility: it's people's expectations. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't remember these anonymous authors presenting their videos before the internet age, e.g. say during the savings and loan crisis in US.

Different asset markets will function a lot like housing markets when they're debt leveraged: buying a house with a debt leverage isn't much different from buying a financial asset with a debt leverage. You're expecting your ability to pay the debt and the asset's value to work so that it's a good plan: if this is false, why are you blaming someone other than yourself over it?

Lending facility, credit expansion, do allow it: but, given that they also allow positive things to happen (like investments in actually profitable projects), why should the messenger be shot?


Here's ultimately what I think.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Case Finland.

I would need to look into finland's history of money to comment.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Paisley

I would need to look into finland's history of money to comment.

Are you in fact able to go into any other 'history of money' except for that presented to you in the youtube videos by an anonymous author who sells his conspiracy theory products anonymous on his website?

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Here's ultimately what I think.

I think she would have better luck if she said...
Don't masturbate shag me instead xD

I see your dry sense of humour is still going strong Mz
-edit to the comic link you have posted.
I just noticed the above post youve done I'll take the time to read it.

[Tietäjä]

Also, it's not exactly 'news' that boom-bust cycles typically favour smart people over stupid people. God alone can help this, maybe.

Blaming stupidity of the general public on the banking system is just hilarious.

You speak of history repeating itself: yes, dumb people are on the habit of being shit on by smarter people. The scale seems to vary, but the trend seems quite stationary.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Blaming stupidity of the general public on the banking system is just hilarious.

I do not wish to attack you as it will make you more defensive and less open to explore new ways/ideas.

If you can't get past this you will continue to be dominated by the banking elite.

[Mzyxptlk]

What annoys me is this.

Partly, what you say is true. Yes, rich people want poor people to remain poor. Yes, globalization as it's currently being implemented is not actually good for most people. You hide it so deep in the anus of conspiracy theory, I'm shoulder deep and can barely get them out, but when you hint at that part, I agree with you.

But then you get to the crazy stuff. Shady backrooms where our corporate overlords plot our demise, ready to murder whoever stands in their way, keeping the sheeple down by poisoning their minds with commercials and war and sports and nationalism in a giant plan to take over the world. That's where you lose me. Because it just isn't true.

How do I know it isn't? Because there's no need for them to go underground and plot and scheme. The horrible things that are being done are out in the open and very well documented. The British East India Company, the Dutch one, United Fruit, the military-industrial complex in general; these things are not secrets, because they don't need to be.

So when you echo far out conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK (which in any case was a fairly minor event), the only thing I can think of is this. When otherwise intelligent people go on and on about how 9/11 was an inside job, I can only roll my eyes and wish they'd spend their effort dealing with the real problems.

And in closing, just a bit of advice: when you act like everyone who disagrees with you is just a fool who's buying into the party line (as you're doing here), you're just going to end up looking like an elitist prick; if your goal is convincing people of the terrible danger, then that might not be the way to go. Do with that what you will.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

What annoys me is this.

Partly, what you say is true. Yes, rich people want poor people to remain poor. Yes, globalization as it's currently being implemented is not actually good for most people. You hide it so deep in the anus of conspiracy theory, I'm shoulder deep and can barely get them out, but when you hint at that part, I agree with you.

But then you get to the crazy stuff. Shady backrooms where our corporate overlords plot our demise, ready to murder whoever stands in their way, keeping the sheeple down by poisoning their minds with commercials and war and sports and nationalism in a giant plan to take over the world. That's where you lose me. Because it just isn't true.

I now see your point of view

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

How do I know it isn't? Because there's no need for them to go underground and plot and scheme. The horrible things that are being done are out in the open and very well documented. The British East India Company, the Dutch one, United Fruit, the military-industrial complex in general; these things are not secrets, because they don't need to be.

Aye, Some folk can see It (as you described above) and some can't ... currently there isn't enough folk who can see It for the staus quo to change.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

So when you echo far out conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK (which in any case was a fairly minor event), the only thing I can think of is this. When otherwise intelligent people go on and on about how 9/11 was an inside job, I can only roll my eyes and wish they'd spend their effort dealing with the real problems.

I agree ... I really don't want JFK and assassination in this thread in any major detail. I don't want to get compartmentalised.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

And in closing, just a bit of advice: when you act like everyone who disagrees with you is just a fool who's buying into the party line (as you're doing here), you're just going to end up looking like an elitist prick; if your goal is convincing people of the terrible danger, then that might not be the way to go. Do with that what you will.

Totally get what you are saying, What would be your suggestion to continue?
(open question to all and would like to hear your thoughts)
You are right Mz I don't want to look like an Elitist prick, I am hoping to learn from this myself as I don't have all the answers.

edit -

/me reads up on Zeyi's posts

[Zeyi]

I don't want to create any _more_ hostility but retorts like this;

If these aren't in 'layman enough' terms for you then it's perhaps best if you do not even try participate in a discussion on the subject. I don't try build boats or nuclear reactors either.

Come off as incredibly condescending, especially when it's laughable you preach economics with sources like it means anything compared to a sound scientific study. I'm immensely glad you'll never try to build nuclear reactors either.

Since you tried to fend off anyone who isn't well read up on the subject from discussing it I can see you are very much trapped by this whole idea. I reiterate a question mentioned in one of the videos "Why isn't monetary theory taught in schools or colleges?" Like them, you seem to be protecting it from anyone you can - despite the fact it's actually quite straightforward to understand. (..and since money effects all of us, it seems to me like a subject we should be well educated on..)


Mz, that comic would be appropriate if there wasn't the underlying irony of him praying to God

I mean really, I hate how "conspiracy" get's thrown around as a word and society has programmed us to assume people who speak of these things are crazy (whilst religion still reigns supreme.. what!?.. different debate I guess).

you're just going to end up looking like an elitist prick

Funny because that's not true of this thread at all is it. Quite the opposite.

I also agree with what you say about most of it being in the open but believe that this is the case for everything is surely a naive approach? Have we already forgotten wikileaks?

EDIT: I'm not trying to defend belief in conspiracy theories, I dismiss the vast majority of them as any sane person would. It doesn't need to be organised by a bunch of shady bankers in a room somewhere, just requires greedy men to take advantage of uneducated people and a century or two later, here we are!

If I could pose a question with slightly more forward looking direction though - is this situation at all rectifiable? - by this I mean throughout history governments and civilizations have drastically changed. There is an overwhelming arrogance of democratic perfection these days, but democracy as it is really hasn't succeeded - mainly because of the underlying problems of greed and corruption. It would surely be wrong too assume more changes aren't to come. I just fear they would be for the worst.

[Mzyxptlk]

P.S. Sorry, making massive edits of my posts is one of my bad forum habits.

[Zeyi]

I'm also terribly for making edits, so rather than add this to my previous post:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/fl...l_Reserve.html

I was doing some digging, but I'm now going to have to try and double check the validity of the above link as well.

[Tietäjä]

By the way, if you're interested in doing more research on the subject 'money as debt' and world enslavement, the author of the youtube films has a variety of products he's willing to sell you for the price of an average hollywood film DVD.


Which one's the author though, tsiporah or 'artist and videographer Paul Grignon'?

I had the time to actually watch the first video in full.

"The four big questions":

1. Why governments borrow money from banks instead of printing money?
Robert Mugabe alone knows.

2. Why create money as debt?
The temporal component.

3. About perpetual growth?
Yes, it's mad. I've probably spoken about over-optimistic expectations already.

4. Are we dependent on it?
No. However, if we've borrowed heavily - exchanged a lot of future income for current spending (this is the temporal component of debt), and assumed our future income will rise fast enough to cover this debt, then yes, we get reasonably assed by lack of growth.

The key problem here is: if lending was against reasonable expectations of future income, what would it mean in terms of this 'debt enslavement'? Surely it would become nigh impossible. The only way to 'debt enslave' yourself is to live heavily over your means through the temporal component of debt, or heavily misjudge your future ability to pay your debt. Even the second video (money as debt II) starts up with neglecting the temporal component. It does however ponder how people (who never had the "real coins" in the first place) who bought their houses err lost them!

[Zeyi]

Honestly, what else are these youtube videos but preaching something that has nothing to do with 'a sound scientific study'? The first signal of it not really being sound scientific study is that the author's doing a lot to retain anonymity. Probably because the banking elite would assassinate him should they find it out.

Well that's the point of discussing them is it not? It's economics, this isn't a science. No-one is right or wrong (presuming we don't make absurd claims ) Of course I don't need to tell you this, it seems as though you've spent considerable time studying it.

I didn't mean to say what you were saying was any less valid than these youtube videos, simply that I am very much a skeptic so I will take everything with a pinch of salt. To me an article claiming to be written by a PhD is no more valid than a youtube video. It depends on the content and sourcing. Not to mention the fact that I've never been impressed by people claims of higher education when books and daily study can easily achieve the same level of knowledge (but that's just me I guess).

Why don't people simply settle it out before taking a massive loan for a house? You could try teach it in schools, but, probably, most people still wouldn't care.

Agreed but this is the problem. Why do people not care? If they were brought up to care they would - therefore teaching monetary theory in school could make people care. (As a child you are open to far more concepts, hence why most children are religious until they learn to think for themselves -some never do though heh). The way I see it we are alsmost taught not to care, it's never brought up in education, and when you leave school for university/college you're pretty much forced into student loans, continuing the debt trend into the next generation. Your thoughts on this?


In regards to the author selling his DVDs, it's debatable what view to take on that. He releases his videos free on the most popular network for getting videos out there so that's understandable, being on youtube doesn't make it any less valid. Neither does selling it, to make a living.
It does however raise some concern.

So from an economists point of view what are your thoughts on the alternative systems suggested?.. and do you know of any better ideas or concepts as I can't see how anyone would defend the current system as the best choice (other than maybe to say it's too late to change to anything else).

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Zeyi

Well that's the point of discussing them is it not? It's economics, this isn't a science. No-one is right or wrong (presuming we don't make absurd claims ) Of course I don't need to tell you this, it seems as though you've spent considerable time studying it.

It's a science in the fashion that it uses tools of such, and the vision of such, but ultimately, every economist will admit that they're not as good at predicting things as the media likes to believe.

To me an article claiming to be written by a PhD is no more valid than a youtube video. It depends on the content and sourcing

It was actually pretty well cited (in terms of sources). Actually a decent read on the myths mentioned on it.

Agreed but this is the problem. Why do people not care? If they were brought up to care they would - therefore teaching monetary theory in school could make people care. (As a child you are open to far more concepts, hence why most children are religious until they learn to think for themselves -some never do though heh) Your thoughts on this?

Why people don't care? In a modern western world, it probably has a lot to do with complacency. People get things so easily they don't really consider the effort, and they're really bad at perceiving the possible negative (personal) growth path. They simply don't think anything bad can happen to them, and they don't think of contingency plans.

He releases his videos free on the most popular network for getting videos out there so that's understandable, being on youtube doesn't make it any less valid.

I'm reasonably convinced that music industry also releases a lot of videos on free on the most popular network for getting videos out there but it doesn't change the fact that their intention is to earn through this. Advertising?

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Zeyi

So from an economists point of view what are your thoughts on the alternative systems suggested?.. and do you know of any better ideas or concepts as I can't see how anyone would defend the current system as the best choice (other than maybe to say it's too late to change to anything else).

Here's the thing: I don't see anything wrong in the current monetary system. It's not problematic to me. I don't understand the ultimate evil in it. In fact, I think it's a really good a system.

The system's vulnerabilities lie in the users, not the system. Why are people on a habit of living above their means? Because they think they're worth more than they are. More supervision might do good (and as a hindsight, this was probably the key problem with the 'shadow banking system' - lack of supervision). But that's communism.

A simple analogue can be derived from offshore outsourcing: functions are shored because the poor negro making Apple phones in the China factory does it for a fraction of the American worker, hasn't got laws to settle with the work environment, and will happily breathe lead gas. Production costs for especially labor-intensive products would soar if they'd have to be produced on white man's wage levels. This would put upwards pressure on price levels, and reduce spending power through it. I'd probably need to think this more to explain this in a more understandable fashion. This yields downwards rigid wages: which yields unemployment on short run. Companies adapt, local workers don't. The understanding that a lot of our past excesses have been built on slavery and theft through force of arms (explained extensively in Stephen D. King's book) that are no longer possible in the extent they were is key. If our excesses have come from there (and spread around the economy through Baumol's disease -like mechanisms), and the source of excesses dries out, and we've borrowed against our future income assuming we're really that good, or that the source of excesses will never dry out then...?

The short term unemployment causes systemic failure on debt payments (moreso than it's done so far)? Tosses half the system into poverty? Cutting the external value of the currency, or inflating it, all these are really artificial taxes that hit the poor and dumb. The rich and smart have means to avoid these. However, it's not going to shit on anyone who either a) has a realistic belief of his own worth, own capability on the labor market, and b) doesn't have moronic debts on future earnings.

You'd probably at some point argue why and how exactly are companies able to pull out significant profits while I'm here saying the workers in west are worth far less than they think they are? It's mentioned: the rat race between trade unions and companies. Companies are able to offshore things to China where there's no legis on it, where the workers are willingly treated like shit: as long as these opportunities are there, there will be abuse. But then again, why would a white american care what happens to a yellow chinese person.

Digital coin? Right. A very, very complicated system where you'd wind up with what accounts to millions and millions of different currencies (credit coin) the value of which is dependent on a bunch of factors (including something no less volatile and vulnerable to speculation than spot demand) and that have a limited life span? While these really complicated networks can be fascinating do you expect the general public to be able to behave any more rational than they do under the current - relatively simple in compared to the suggestion - system?

edit

Basically, we should concentrate on the credibility of the contents rather than credibility of the author or the means by which it is presented to us (otherwise we stray off topic which I have a feeling I may have done)

But how can we even discuss them when what essentially is neglected is the fact that loans are not only about current wealth or current ability but also about future? It's an essential component. Debt yes is a promise, and it's made against not thin air, but expectations of future income.

edit2. in the video II, i'm wondering if they consider non-americans to be competing for the 'limited jobs' too, and how does this affect their one-closed-country -model?

[Zeyi]

Sorry, I edited a couple of parts of my post while you replied - I should probably stop proof reading after hitting post. I just don't like reading it in these editable text boxes.. far more.. condensed >.<

It was actually pretty well cited (in terms of sources). Actually a decent read on the myths mentioned on it.

Indeed it is! I just meant in general more than that article specifically. There's some others at the bottom that clear up some other "myths" regarding the federal reserve. Although I personally didn't really know anything about the federal reserve anyway.

I'm reasonably convinced that music industry also releases a lot of videos on free on the most popular network for getting videos out there but it doesn't change the fact that their intention is to earn through this. Advertising?

I know, I know but that's my point, it doesn't make it invalid. It simply casts doubts on his motives (presuming he did this to educate people rather than for profit). Youtube vids don't actually generate profit for anyone but google unless you're part of the affiliate programme which I massively doubt the fellow who posted these is.

The important point here is we shouldn't condemn something simply due to the way it is presented to us. A factual youtube video with commentary by Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking would be more informative for instance than a book published by a PhD in Physics that claims the Earth is still flat. Basically, we should concentrate on the credibility of the contents rather than credibility of the author or the means by which it is presented to us (otherwise we stray off topic which I have a feeling I may have done)

[Korsan]

Without reading or watching all of it:

I find it funny that the Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor is it a reserve. It just prints money and gives it to the USA which spread this worthless paper around the world. The illusion that this paper is worth anything is kept alive by common media and all country chiefs involved.
The only winner is the FED who gives money and gets interests for it. In fact the FED controls the global monetary sector. The USA and other politicians are muppets/actors who have to credibly act like they are told. Anyone who thinks that Obama doesn't follow the same lords as Bush should compare promisses/real politics. You'll see that they both follow the same agenda.
Now there are a lot of conspiracy theories around, from which most I think aren't theories any more. Our free media has become a whore propaganda organ of the criminals which lead countries. Our leaders do everything to make us dependant on help and less self sustaining.

At the end we will be a huge manpower pool who are grateful for any work.

you see i brought this quick to an end as I don't have more time now but I'll follow this

[Paisley]

I haven't forgotten about this thread, as soon as I read up on keiz's suggested books I'll reply to the thread

[Tietäjä]

by then Greece will have been torn asunder and we'll have discovered a whole lot of new conspiracy theories on why this happened, none of them discussing just quite how dumb it is to lend over your capacity and have an atrociously corrupt a social welfare system combined with crappy labor market and shit worker effort.

[Paisley]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

by then Greece will have been torn asunder and we'll have discovered a whole lot of new conspiracy theories on why this happened, none of them discussing just quite how dumb it is to lend over your capacity and have an atrociously corrupt a social welfare system combined with crappy labor market and shit worker effort.

The estimates for greece to run out of money is mid to late October so I have a bit of time