Modern economics/BANKS
This is a great video I came accross, for anyone who is a visual learner and a complete right brainer like me a video like this can easily be worth 6 months of reading books and trying to "get it" through written text and calculations on paper. It's quite depressing when it all comes together.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544#
- Login to post comments
The video was really interesting. I already know that banks created money from my economics class, but they talked about it as if it was such an obviously positive things that I didn't really analyze it that deeply. This video really made me think about it in a new light.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this.
The power this system gives to certain privileged individuals is concerning. I don't like the idea of non elected elites dominating our economy. Especially when those people have the resources to control the media.
I think the biggest problem with this system is environmental. My reasoning for this claim is as follows.
1) The system creates an endless push towards economic growth.
One reason for this is because people in dept are always seeking new ways to pay it off.
Another reason is that the people who benefit from this system push the ideals of consumerism in order to facilitate growth. My reasoning is as fallows.
The system creates an ever increasing supply of money. Either the economy must grow or this increase in money will lead directly to inflation. Increasing inflation means that the effective interest rate for banks and other lending institutions is decreasing. In order to compensate for this decrease they have to increase the interest rates that they charge. This causes the interest rates in the market as a whole to go up which decreases the value of the dept they currently hold. This causes people to be less inclined to borrow money, which in turn leads to a recession. Bottom line is that as long as this system exists there will be periodic recession, and a constant push for economic growth by people who wish to keep the system running smoothly.
2) The environment can’t handle endless economic growth. Their simple are physical limits to what the earth’s ecosystems can support.
Conclusion: As the economy keeps growing putting ever increasing demands on the environment eventually it is going to become a problem, if it isn't one already.
if you want to learn about economics read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"
no complicated mathematical bullshit to obfuscate and confuse, just simple explanations
great book and a great read
Viral banking: don't knock it if you haven't tried it? (Sorry; couldn't resist the rimshot!)
It is, indeed, true that the banks have pushed their fingers into (nearly) everything. Every orifice, every document, every board of directors, every slice of cheese, and every toilet has "Finance" (metaphorically) written somewhere on it. And the banks are given lots of power to rob you of everything you have for a late payment, overcharging an account, not "reading between the lines", etc.
This much seems relevant:
Pinched: What's left behind when people lose their homes www.salon.com My boyfriend and I repossess and clean out foreclosed houses. It's not easy picking up after the American dream. Tales of living through the recession“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Actually I think a better title would be:
Money as servitude.
Isn't the real problem that there is an unlimited supply of gullible people that can be exploited by employers, government, religion and bankers? Isn't this what feeds the beast and enables the rich to get richer, the powerful more powerful and the poor to get more enslaved? That P. T. Barnum was right?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
It was true 100 years ago, when Barnum was alive and people did NOT require a gigantic, expensive mortgage in order to own a condo/house of some sort. It's even true today, with subprime mortgage crises and all. But simply put, predatory moneylending is ALSO a reality, not a fantasy.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
So what is the answer? Barter system can't work for expensive homes. People always believe they deserve the best home even if they have no marketable job skill.
There is pleanty of greed on both the borrower and the lender. When someone moves into a home they can not afford, they are also creating wealth for nothing. Any reform of the system is going to have to force people to live within their means and get a marketable job skill and limit their family size if they want expensive stuff.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I disagree with this. Besides the more obvious reasons; like "professional trophy wife", or "highly trained, parasitic cult leader"; it's still possible to con your way into someone's heart and, of course, their home.
In the more popularized versions of this general 'meme', you can also con your way into someone's inheritance, out of their family business, into the middle of their legs (for however many nights), a good slice of their trust fund, and however many faberge eggs/diamonds/pigeon's blood rubies/sapphires and what have you that they have locked away in a safe, ready to be claimed by the next Prince/Princess Charming.
At the 'rock bottom' of this type of profiteering, is the marrying such a person, having them name you in their will, and then killing them for all the life insurance money they're worth. This sort of activity has been in practice since the late industrial revolution, and possibly even earlier than that, with many "Black Widows" having several past husbands suddenly deceased with no plausible explanation.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)