explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, really matters...hopefully

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, really matters...hopefully

thought I'd post my latest Renaissance 2.0 video here because it addresses in a new way the sovereign vs. debt money issue that has been the subject of so many heated debates on this site that are almost as polarizing and unproductive as the AGW debates.  by avoiding the math and economic theory and simply looking at big picture reality, I hope it reveals the true nature of debt money and why it must be fixed (at the M0 level...will be explained in a future video). it also provides a new perspective on inflation, JPM Chase, and derivatives...

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Damon,

Another great video.  I think it is debatable what will happen once the dollar comes under fire and the FED needs to raise rates but otherwise I don't think you have said much that I disagree with.  I do have some questions about your beliefs in sovereign money which maybe you will adress in future videos.

  1. Do you envision sovereign money only as an equalizer to our current value sucking system or do you see it as a long term solution even once the hurricane forces are removed?  Surely if soverign money has enough force to break the current value sucking system, that same force will run the risk of exploding outward in the future. 
  2. If our current political system is captured by those that control money, won't it be risky to give monetary powers directly to those that were so easily corrupted when that power was only indirect?
  3. I know you don't believe in the "Quantity theory of money" but do you really believe that the quantity makes no difference, even over the long run?

I really think most of the issue I have with sovereign money come down to my scepticism of anyone that is advocating something for nothing.  This is especially true when it is sold as a solution to all of society's problems ( hunger, crime, drugs, greed, ... ) that has no costs or risks.  Man is fundamentally flawed and no economic system will fix all of his failings.

If the idea was sold as a necessary risk, and it was admited that this new purchasing power does come at an indirect cost of lost purchasing power from other areas of the system, it would be easier to support at least giving it a try.  Otherwise, to believe that creation of money has no costs or adverse effects effects on anyone in the system ( directly or indirectly ) is fundamentally a belief that creation of money is equal to creation of wealth and I just don't understand such a belief.

ps. Are there lession 6 part 2 and 3 videos?  I was looking but did not find them?

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 617
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Very well done! Thank you.

jneo's picture
jneo
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2009
Posts: 742
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

 

WOW!!!  Amazing Job!!! 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Kudos strabes, I hope your excellent video makes people think.

I had asked a few questions in another thread that went unanswered and I'd like to re-post them here for people to contemplate:

  1. If the people and property of the U.S. are solely backing up all of our money, why are we as a nation, borrowing it from private banks that create it for free?
  2. The U.S. money supply (M3) is around $13.9 trillion and our combined private and public debt totals around $58 trillion.  We are around $44 trillion short - how will we make up this shortage?
  3. Why aren't the above two questions addressed in neoclassical, Keynesian, Austrian, et al, economics?

It seems as if relativism trumps self evident truths when it comes to economics.

Larry

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

hi goes.  To be clear where I'm coming from in this video...it's a marketing piece.  I want to get the phrase "sovereign money" out in the public domain.  My goal is awareness.  I think we're in a mega fight for civil rights and freedom, and I'm trying to show people how the monetary system is where the fight lies.  Explaining technicalities in this video would hurt that marketing message.  Having said that, on to your good questions...

Quote:

1. Do you envision sovereign money only as an equalizer to our current value sucking system or do you see it as a long term solution even once the hurricane forces are removed?  Surely if soverign money has enough force to break the current value sucking system, that same force will run the risk of exploding outward in the future

I see it as the only way of changing the current power dynamics in the system, i.e. pushing some power back out from the central cartel.  I think that has to happen before any (good) change is possible.  Then I think it's worth discussing what a sustainable, 21st century monetary system might be that should replace the whole thing.  I like some of the new thinking out there that recognizes the money system is just a way of facilitating relationships, so the idea of developing one that recognizes the humanity of each individual is exciting.  The 2 key priorities for me in thinking about a new one:  1) it can't be built on scarcity (exponential growth), and 2) it can't enshrine hierarchical power like ours today. 

Quote:

If our current political system is captured by those that control money, won't it be risky to give monetary powers directly to those that were so easily corrupted when that power was only indirect

What else do we have?  The only thing we have is government.  When people ask this question I'm always thinking "do you realize you're surrendering the constitution, surrendering the idea of government, surrendering to the financial powers?" I'm open to hearing another option, but short of a miracle, I don't see any other avenue of attack besides pushing from the bottom-up to make the government work...and I know that in itself is a miracle.  :)

Quote:

I know you don't believe in the "Quantity theory of money" but do you really believe that the quantity makes no difference, even over the long run?

I believe in it...just not the simplistic way it's applied today...to immediately shoot down any new ideas for the government doing anything against the financial cartel.  Yes quantity must be controlled.  I mention that briefly in part 2 or 3 coming up.  But for now just look at the total debt number...mega deflation potential.  Let's get the freedom concept out there, then let's discuss how to manage quantity (though Nate Martin has discussed this if you want to check his stuff). 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...
larry wrote:

2. The U.S. money supply (M3) is around $13.9 trillion and our combined private and public debt totals around $58 trillion.  We are around $44 trillion short - how will we make up this shortage?

We should make up the shortage by working the debt down by putting banks through bankruptcy proceedings just like everyone else has to go through bankruptcy.  Isn't it maddening how every agency of government currently serves the banks rather than treating them like everyone else?  But therein lies the power of the current central cartel controlling every dollar in the vortex...they even run the courts. 

Goes and others are right...the answer to this problem isn't just pumping out $45 trillion in new money (but I support every sovereign money initiative out there right now because it's a way of injecting some money and getting power in someone else's hands besides the central cartel).  The debt has to be worked down one way or the other.  The current plan is to work it down by dumping it on the government (taxpayer) so the financiers are made whole.  Should be the other way around.  We should basically be going through a modern jubilee where the system is reset in a way that serves the people rather than in the way that serves the banks.  The process would take a lousy bank, put it through bankruptcy, and mark the assets down to market by selling them to more healthy banks...then people with $500k mortgages in Las Vegas would have a $200k mortgage because that would be what the new bank paid for it...it's what it's worth.  And of course given the debt-based monetary system, we'd be decreasing our money supply by doing that.  But that's going to happen anyway.  And that could be ameliorated by sovereign money injections for things like, dare I say, infrastructure.  :) 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Damon,

Thanks for your answers.  Based upon what you are saying I think I could largely support such an initiative.  I still am sceptical of its long term ramifications but I do think it would probably be favorable to an IMF lead world currency which I assume is the Bankers preferred outcome.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

strabes wrote:

We should make up the shortage by working the debt down by putting banks through bankruptcy proceedings just like everyone else has to go through bankruptcy.

The problem with that idea is that the banks don't owe anywhere near that much money so even if they go belly up, almost all of the debt would remain.  If all of the big banks went bankrupt, do you really think we would extinguish much more than a couple trillion dollars in debt?  And, the debt owed to the banks would be transferred to others through bankruptcy proceedings.  So who else goes bankrupt to extinguish bad debt?

I think as of 2007, the total outstanding private and commercial mortgages totaled around $14.7 trillion.  So if every mortgage defaulted, we would only extinguish part of the debt and would be left with close to $28 trillion in remaining debt - not including interest.  And much of that is insured through Fannie and Freddie so the U.S. would take a heavy hit in the process.  So who else goes bankrupt in defaulting on loans?

Foreign holders of Treasury Securities total around $4 trillion, if we simply refused to pay, we'd still be left with $24 trillion more in debt than money.  And don't forget, that's an M3 total, much of that money is not available for circulation.  M1 is only around $1.7 trillion and measured as M2, the amount is $8.5 trillion (not all of M2 is available for circulation).  And don't forget our unfunded liabilities.

Maybe you can point out where I am wrong but I don't see how allowing all of our banks to go bankrupt helps our overall situation much.  And even if there is other more significant debt defaults, we would still be very deeply in debt.    

strabes wrote:

We should basically be going through a modern jubilee where the system is reset in a way that serves the people rather than in the way that serves the banks.

Don't forget that much of our debt is held by private individuals and a "jubilee" would severally hurt those who innocently bought bonds and other debt instruments.  Wouldn't this approach be unfair to those who avoided debt and saved their money?

If we start massive defaults, or a jubilee, it will be national suicide.  We have pledged collateral that includes our future earnings, property and national infrastructure.     

The solution, if there is one, is many years of debt free money being spent into the economy rebuilding infrastructure and implementing clean and sustainable energy alternatives.  Yes, it will take many years and a lot of hard work and our life styles must change but in the end, we can mitigate a total collapse.

The contraction has already begun and if anyone thinks inflation is bad...wait till deflation goes on for another 6 months:

The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz in history.

The M3 figures - which include broad range of bank accounts and are tracked by British and European monetarists for warning signals about the direction of the US economy a year or so in advance - began shrinking last summer. The pace has since quickened.

The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of insitutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

"It’s frightening," said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. "The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing banks to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the US is not recovering properly," he said.

  Shadow Government Statistics

Larry

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

It was good talking with you this afternoon larry.  Maybe someday the people will realize that debt free, wealth based money is the only solution to this god forsaken mess.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...
goes wrote:

would probably be favorable to an IMF lead world currency which I assume is the Bankers preferred outcome

there's disagreement among the bankers.  my understanding is that the faction centered around IMF wants the debt overhead system, whereas the faction around BIS wants some form of gold-backed.  either way, it's a top-down, centrally controlled global system.  I'd prefer a distributed system to disrupt our current power structures...sovereign money.  would it cause some havoc?  sure.  we need some bottom-up havoc...Lord Acton reminds us all the time that monolithic top-down power is not a good thing. 

 

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Wow Strabes. Great series. I'm watching the whole thing. 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...
larry wrote:

problem with that idea is that the banks don't owe anywhere near that much money so even if they go belly up

Besides reducing debt, the benefit of industry-wide bankruptcy process is the restructuring of power...my primary concern.

Quote:

And, the debt owed to the banks would be transferred to others through bankruptcy proceedings.

It gets written down in bankruptcy...not just transferred.

Quote:

So who else goes bankrupt to extinguish bad debt?

It's going to happen one way or the other...either we deflate in a bankruptcy process in combination with injections of sovereign money (I believe Friedman actually suggested this way back when), or the "market" will deflate for us, i.e. the financial sector sucks up assets as millions of little people (billions maybe) and their governments go bankrupt.  I prefer the former.

 

Quote:

Maybe you can point out where I am wrong but I don't see how allowing all of our banks to go bankrupt helps our overall situation much

The power shift.  The republic reasserting its power.  You don't see how running JPM and GS (the most bankrupt banks given their derivatives positions) through a state court bankruptcy would effectively be an overthrow of the financial dictatorship that runs our country, states, counties, and towns?  I can't think of anything better.  Would it be risky?  Absolutely if power over the monetary system isn't taken from them beforehand. 

Quote:

If we start massive defaults, or a jubilee, it will be national suicide.  We have pledged collateral that includes our future earnings, property and national infrastructure.

I'm not talking about a unilateral jubilee from Hebrew days...yeah that's nuts...wipes out our money supply.  That's why I said a modern form of jubilee, by which I meant an orderly process of managing down the debt in a way that allows people to keep their assets rather than what's going to happen if we don't do this. 

Quote:

The solution, if there is one, is many years of debt free money being spent into the economy rebuilding infrastructure and implementing clean and sustainable energy alternatives.  Yes, it will take many years and a lot of hard work and our life styles must change but in the end, we can mitigate a total collapse.

Agreed...that's what I'm proposing.  But how do you do it without also shutting down the JPM/GS vacuum machine by putting them through bankruptcy, nationalizing them, or getting strict usury laws in place?  I'm trying to figure out why you're against restructuring the financial sector....doesn't make sense given your proposed solution here. 

Quote:

The contraction has already begun and if anyone thinks inflation is bad...wait till deflation goes on for another 6 months:

We agree again.  What I said in the video. 

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

I wasn't aware of this video series you have made. Looks interesting.

Question:

How would changing to a sovereign money system alter the energy/food conundrum we are in now? I've read that in America less than 5% of food is grown locally.

In the United States today, less than five percent of food is locally produced (Pfeiffer 68), and so our food travels an average of 1,500 miles before being consumed (Pimentel 467).

The rest is dependent on and part of the global, centralized food distribution system. It appears that along with our money system, food and energy are also controlled by a few hands at the top.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1444
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Strabes, 

Great as usual!  

So you believe that deflation will be the bankers game to keep their control in place without having to come up with a new financial system....whereas hyperinflation would destroy the current system.....is this correct?  If so, how long does the deflationary period last?  And how does the exponential aspect of sovereign debt play into this system/scenario?  You mentioned the 20 years of financial stagnation in Japan, is this what you're thinking will happen?  Can they actually keep it in such a stable state for that long at this time in history?

Again, great series and can't wait for the rest!

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...
xray wrote:

How would changing to a sovereign money system alter the energy/food conundrum we are in now?......It appears that along with our money system, food and energy are also controlled by a few hands at the top.

Very true xray.  Not just food and energy...everything...consumer goods, retail, pharma, media, entertainment, communications, manufacturing, transportation, etc etc.  Everything has been consolidated into mega corporations all controlled by the debt-money vortex.  Over the course of several years, debt-free money, sovereign money would flow to the outer bands, i.e. we would have a real republic with real main street economies again that can't be inflated away by the perpetually growing vortex that floats above the real economy.  The concentration of power has been built over the course of several decades in the system that fed off the real economy below it.  It just constantly lowered vortex pressure, gained steam, sucked value from the real economy, and built an ever-increasing scale system above the heads of everything else.  That's what we're living in today.  A well-manged sovereign money system would reverse that momentum. 

 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

logan, you're asking me to discuss chess on a site that prefers not to address the chess game.  so just a heads up to everyone else...please skip this if you'd rather not spend time on it.

Quote:

So you believe that deflation will be the bankers game to keep their control in place without having to come up with a new financial system....whereas hyperinflation would destroy the current system.....is this correct?  If so, how long does the deflationary period last?  And how does the exponential aspect of sovereign debt play into this system/scenario?  You mentioned the 20 years of financial stagnation in Japan, is this what you're thinking will happen?  Can they actually keep it in such a stable state for that long at this time in history?

To be clear:  I don't know.  I'm just guessing based on understanding the vortex and my take on what's really happening among the empire players.  Deflation is clearly what's happening globally...and we're going to see a lot more.  Could that happen while hyperinflating the US?  Maybe, but I'm not sure they can blow up the USD...the basis of their power.

My take is that hyperinflation has been used by the banking cartel to establish power where it didn't have it previously.  But it already has it big time in the US.  Why would it evaporate its own power?  Hyperinflation destroys centripetal power...destroys the Fed, therefore the US Treasury and the US government unless it quickly plugs into a new funding machine.  Risky, but certainly a scenario many people (inflationists) are anticipating...one doesn't have to think too hard to figure out how global powers would respond to it (who holds our debt? where are the capital assets? where are the production assets? where is the largest army in the world?  where is the largest surplus of angry single men due to a 1-child policy?  where is the biggest un-utilized fleet of freight ships just waiting for a cargo mission across the pacific?......I may be sounding drastic, but what do you think hyperinflating away the global superpower would be?) 

On the other hand, deflation maintains the power structure at the expense of the outer bands.  I think this is the IMF plan...put a higher overhead on top of the eurozone, dollar zone, and yen zone to sort of merge the 3 vortexes into one.  that would require painful austerity.  and I think Americans will be less forgiving than Japanese citizens.  it may be like trying to put a leash on a cat.  :)   so it won't peacefully last as long as it has over there.  but there are contingency plans for that.  as far as timing, I have no idea.  I would say by 2050, if their plan succeeds and they maintain centripetal power, we'll be on par with China in terms of per capita way of life...the great global equalization process. 

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

 

Strabes,

      But how would a sovereign, debt-free money system deal with resource depletion issues. Would it be part of a steady-state economy which would not require continual growth? 

So you see the money system as the crux for returning power back to individuals and communities. If you could, please post a synopsis for each of the videos in your series.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1444
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Thanks Strabes!  I see what you're saying and it very much makes sense.  The only thing that I would say/add is that in my discussions, they may actually have that "New Funding Machine" ready to be implemented.  Now whether that's due to the expectation of hyperinflation, I don't know.   

I personally hope we get into a hyperinflation situation.  At least then, we have a chance of wrestling power back from the bstrds due to the lack of control in that situation.  If we're stuck in austerity and deflation, as you said, they have absolute control.

strabes wrote:

logan, you're asking me to discuss chess on a site that prefers not to address the chess game.  so just a heads up to everyone else...please skip this if you'd rather not spend time on it.

Quote:

So you believe that deflation will be the bankers game to keep their control in place without having to come up with a new financial system....whereas hyperinflation would destroy the current system.....is this correct?  If so, how long does the deflationary period last?  And how does the exponential aspect of sovereign debt play into this system/scenario?  You mentioned the 20 years of financial stagnation in Japan, is this what you're thinking will happen?  Can they actually keep it in such a stable state for that long at this time in history?

To be clear:  I don't know.  I'm just guessing based on understanding the vortex and my take on what's really happening among the empire players.  Deflation is clearly what's happening globally...and we're going to see a lot more.  Could that happen while hyperinflating the US?  Maybe, but I'm not sure they can blow up the USD...the basis of their power.

My take is that hyperinflation has been used by the banking cartel to establish power where it didn't have it previously.  But it already has it big time in the US.  Why would it evaporate its own power?  Hyperinflation destroys centripetal power...destroys the Fed, therefore the US Treasury and the US government unless it quickly plugs into a new funding machine.  Risky, but certainly a scenario many people (inflationists) are anticipating...one doesn't have to think too hard to figure out how global powers would respond to it (who holds our debt? where are the capital assets? where are the production assets? where is the largest army in the world?  where is the largest surplus of angry single men due to a 1-child policy?  where is the biggest un-utilized fleet of freight ships just waiting for a cargo mission across the pacific?......I may be sounding drastic, but what do you think hyperinflating away the global superpower would be?) 

On the other hand, deflation maintains the power structure at the expense of the outer bands.  I think this is the IMF plan...put a higher overhead on top of the eurozone, dollar zone, and yen zone to sort of merge the 3 vortexes into one.  that would require painful austerity.  and I think Americans will be less forgiving than Japanese citizens.  it may be like trying to put a leash on a cat.  :)   so it won't peacefully last as long as it has over there.  but there are contingency plans for that.  as far as timing, I have no idea.  I would say by 2050, if their plan succeeds and they maintain centripetal power, we'll be on par with China in terms of per capita way of life...the great global equalization process. 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...
xray wrote:

But how would a sovereign, debt-free money system deal with resource depletion issues. Would it be part of a steady-state economy which would not require continual growth?

Pure steady state requires tyranny, which I'd rather not have.  But yes, sovereign money can't be hyperleveraged to fuel growth, velocity, scale beyond natural limits.  Allowing decentralized banking on top of the sovereign money (M1-M3) would allow leverage but it would be curtailed by the sovereign base money (M0).

Quote:

So you see the money system as the crux for returning power back to individuals and communities. If you could, please post a synopsis for each of the videos in your series.

Yes.  I think it's clear.  Money = power, and in our world all money is controlled at the center and most everyone else just has debt...negative power.  Look at some of our biggest, supposedly most powerful states...totally bankrupt...powerless.  Now, would passing power back out just result in another cycle of competitive evolution as mafias compete for dominance and eventually grow in scale to takeover everything again?  Maybe.  But I have trust and hope in people...without that, I don't see the point of this little experiment on earth called life. 

The closest I have to a synopsis would be here...very much still a work in progress...

http://www.csper.org/renaissance-20.html

xraymike79's picture
xraymike79
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 24 2008
Posts: 2040
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

     Looks like some good stuff at your site there. I have not gone through it yet, but I'd like to see how your sovereign money system operates within the confines of the environment long term. The inability of a money system to be hyperleveraged would go a long way in keeping us within nature's limits. This "money confinement" would likely force society to work more diligently on finding practical solutions to problems rather than constructing more elaborate edifices to continue to build upon a failed system, i.e. deep-sea oil drilling, "clean coal" technology, MV highway system. Definitely a better way than the current infinite money system.

This reminds me of an essay from the Wealth Gap:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/59547#comment-59547

....But the environmental damage of the Middle Ages was usually localized, and never on a global scale as it is today, to such an extent that it actually threatens the continuity of our species. Others have amply demonstrated why interest is economically unsustainable, but I would like to essay a demonstration of why it is ecologically unsustainable.

...

Many of these deforestation projects are made possible by first world loans to second and third world countries. These countries then become the debtors of first world lenders like the IMF and the World Bank and, to get out of the vicious cycle of debt, they must perpetuate unecological practices to produce profit...

...

Many of the coal mining operations in China are bankrolled by Bank of America. China Development Bank contributed funds to major infrastructure projects like the Three Gorges Dam.

Interest allows banks to accrue profit, and profit in turn allows banks to grow. As banks grow, they lend more. The more banks lend unethically, the more the environment is diminished. This process did not exist in Medieval Europe. Bank of America started as a very small operation in San Francisco. After decades of acquisitions, it now has over ten percent of all US deposits and is the largest underwriter of global high yield debt.  The proscription and restraint of lending at interest would curtail this cycle.

There were few, if any megaprojects, in the Middle Ages. Megaprojects are those public projects that have profound impacts upon the natural environment and local communities, often spanning international borders. They are capital intensive endeavors funded almost entirely by lenders and governments. They can displace entire populations of humans or destroy the niches of species. The Hoover Dam; the Suez Canal; the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System; the Channel Tunnel under the English Channel, to name only a few, are all megaprojects with substantial environmental impacts that were made possible by banks lending at interest. The World Bank has invested in oil pipelines in Chad. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has financed extractive mining operations in both Latin America and Africa. Both have extended loans to brutal dictators of third world countries.

Interest is among the chief impetuses of economic growth, which is quantified by the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The building of prisons is factored into the GDP. The money expended and the services rendered to clean up an oil spill are also factored into economic growth. The average citizen, who wants to maintain employment, considers economic growth to be sacrosanct, as do many economists who want to keep their jobs. Economic growth, quantified with whatever metric, requires a substratum of natural resources to buttress it and preserve its growth. But the resource base is finite. When the charging of interest became the norm, the economic conditions were ripe for the First Industrial Revolution. Capital returns allowed for reinvestment in primary and secondary materials, heavy machinery and other fixed asset investment that will be utilized for production and profit in the future. In this way, economic growth coupled with technical innovations (the jacquard loom, the steam engine, etc.), enabled Western civilization to vanquish the natural environment in ways that were not accessible to the Middle Ages....

...

Interest is one of the chief impetuses for the expansion of capital markets, a pretext for imperialism and colonialism. The charging of interest establishes the conditions for a positive feedback loop, which once put into motion, cannot be stopped without collapsing the entire edifice. Systemic risk is built into the very nature of investment ventures.

...

It is instructive here to recall Aristotle’s prohibition against usury: “Usury is detested above all and for the best of reasons. It makes profit out of money itself, not from money’s natural object…Money was intended as a means of exchange, not increase at interest” (Braudel 560).

The Built Society » Usury

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

thanks xray.  it's amazing how it all goes back to usury.  that Aristotle quote is what I was referring to in my video. 

barrt's picture
barrt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Posts: 171
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Hi strabes

barrt here, long time lurker and learner. I just wawnted to chime in to say that I very very much appreciate and admire what you are doing.

You giant heart sings out so loud amigo that you are really touching other people's!

Not only a true American hero, you are truly a civil rights hero and I salute you and everyting you stand for.

You've had a big effect on me for sure in the last few years (as have many here, thanks folks!) but you have also had a HUGE effect on a lot of my friends and family that I have passed on the links to, you are having an impact my friend porobaly much larger than you imagine. I just tell the folks in the UK to substitute the words "Dollar" for "pound" and "The Fed" for "The Bank of England" and it seems to translate very well. Theres lots of people talking about your stuff now in Ireland and Spain too, your little acorns are becoming little oaks my friend. Just wanted you to know that :-)

The patriot's blood is the seed of Freedom's tree.  ~Thomas Campbell

All of your hero's would be proud of you strabes, go dude!

Peace and love my brother

barrt

Big Baby's picture
Big Baby
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2010
Posts: 8
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

NM

Big Baby's picture
Big Baby
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2010
Posts: 8
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Just watched your entire series.  It was EXCELLENT.  Thanks for putting those out there...I've passed them along to some like minded people and will continue to share them with others.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

hi barrt and baby, I really appreciate your words.  I lose motivation when I only see a few thousand views on youtube and things like this need to be seen by 20,000,000 in order to have a chance at changing the current system.  but the personal comments that I get keep me going.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: explaining why sovereign vs. debt money really, really, ...

Strabes,

The more and more people hear this stuff the more and better chance we have at changing the people's emotional belief system they hold onto with reguards to the subject of money.

You hold so much credibility because you're smart, pedigreed, and able to resonate with a regular common person.  Next time we talk I want to run an idea past you to get your opinion.  I think I might have something that could really help push this farther.

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments