Share Video
Permalink:
Bookmark
blumyztikk Says:
Jun 29, 2009 - yes thanks, i'm just really interested in those things..it's good to ask isn't it?
hansxxxx666 Says:
Jun 29, 2009 - sure!
Evulmeh Says:
Sep 3, 2009 - The law? :P
Evulmeh Says:
Sep 3, 2009 - I find it interesting that there are so many people against FED etc. on the internet, yet the views on these videos are now about 6,000...Wondering if those ppl are just not willing to learn more :P
Pantz104 Says:
Sep 24, 2009 - I have a question. If you loan the government X amount of dollars (bank notes) and they fulfill their promise to re-pay you with interest, would you not still end up losing out? Although it would appear you now have more dollars than you loaned out, the purchasing power of those dollars has deceased due to inflation over the many years.
7wiiskate Says:
Oct 29, 2009 - the info is great. bit i would have like it better if he had done it in a regular blackboard with chalk so that it could be more easily understood and looked at. just my opinion. tnx 4 the upload
personova Says:
Nov 12, 2009 - Sal, the revenue base dynamics of the US no longer support the debt owed. You cannot tax indefinitely. We have reached a Laffer effect, such that any marked increase in taxation will not increase revenue, in fact it may even reduce revenue. The ability to pay, the confidence in US Treasuries, is not good as gold, and really the US credit rating should be Junk. Especially, in maintenance of wealth.
atrickpay11 Says:
Jan 15, 2010 - @Evulmeh why does one need to learn about how it's intricate operations work in order to oppose it? I myself just oppose the State having a currency because it is destructive to liberty.
jakebarnes28 Says:
Feb 24, 2010 - Excellent primer on the subject. Definitely food for further inquiry. The tax/repayment issue of the treasuries and risk factors are what are being referred to when commentators speculate on the risk to our currency value when no one shows up for the US Treasury bond auctions.Its also why the fact that foreigners owning our T-bills is NOT the risk its made out to - if they sell, en mass, their investment tanks.Owe the bank 100 and it owns you - owe a million - you own it.
lwanatt Says:
Mar 15, 2010 - w/ blackboard the lecturer always gets infront of the material and blocks my view, i like this better
lwanatt Says:
Mar 15, 2010 - the problem with the fed is that if someone can gain control of the fed they can more than predict market trends they can manufacture them. as we know the right amount of money will buy control over anything, this is no exception, and the profits gained by these individuals perpetuate the cycle in an inconceivably destructive way, leaching all of the real value right out of the economy and into private hands.
notme222 Says:
Mar 23, 2010 - @personova, The US is demonstrably NOT at that point. You might have a point if you take current spending as a given. But the gov't could, if it were willing, cut spending and pay off debts, which is why the T-bills remain "risk free". That wouldn't be true indefinitely, but is sufficiently for now. So the Laffer curve is irrelevant to the topic.Contrast this with Greece, which is on the verge of default. They are a warning for what could happen, but a contrast to our current position.
hansfbaier Says:
Apr 23, 2010 - Backing the US Dollar by US Treasuries essentially means that the US dollar is a fraud: Treasuries are payable in Dollars, no material securities; so both are effectually but paper. A real solution would be if the reserve disposes of treasuries and acquires only stocks or loans which are backed up by physical securities(like a house in a housing loan).That way the dollar *really* would represent the economy, sincestocks represent the businesses that power the economy.
hansfbaier Says:
Apr 23, 2010 - @hansfbaier Hmm, just learned that stocks are only a part of the equity... so that won't work,isn't there something out there which parts ownership of the whole company, including its assets?
prayfortruejustice Says:
May 3, 2010 - There has been no gold standard since 1971.Federal Reserve Credit and Notes are borrowed into existence via T-Bonds exchanged for FRNs. FRNs are obligations of the privately owned Federal Reserve and the US (people) paid 700 Billion in tax to the FED in interest in 2009.The only public debt-free US money today is old US Notes (rare) and all coins from the US Mint. The FED pays 100% face value for coins and this profit or "seigniorage " (700 million in 2008) goes to offset the US debt.
prayfortruejustice Says:
May 3, 2010 - State owned banks like the BND (Bank of North Dakota) essentially create debt free money for the state, and provide low interest credit to farmers and businesses. Rather than compete with private banks - they can support them as a clearing house, check processor, and risk sharing partner on private loans. State owned Banks can be capitalized initially with state bond issue. All Bank "profits" go back to the state to pay for programs and offset taxes.
ananiasacts Says:
May 16, 2010 - @hansfbaier, why don't you consider the taxing authority of the federal government to be a more reliable backing for money than the market value of real property? The fact that treasuries are sold in an auction means that it is the lenders who determine how trustworthy our government is (how much treasuries yield in interest.) I see no reason to consider any part of that mechanism as fraudulent or even misleading. I can't think of a better way to define money. What do you want to see changed?
hansfbaier Says:
May 17, 2010 - @ananiasacts The Treasuries are paper;they are payable with paper money;if money is to represent wealth, where isthe value here?What I'd want to see changed: Let treasuries be backedby real property (real estate, companies, stocks, raw materials, etc.);So when the state goes bankrupt, you still get a share on those securitiesand not just a piece of paper.
ananiasacts Says:
May 17, 2010 - @hansfbaier, I have no idea what you're trying not say. Turn you paper money into something you believe does have "value" if you fear that our currency doesn't. No one is forcing you to hold cash. Frankly, your complaint makes no sense to me because if you really believed that our government is deliberately debasing our currency to exploit us, it means that you could easily make a great deal of wealth via a highly leveraged bet against our currency. Why seek to destroy that opportunity?
hansfbaier Says:
May 17, 2010 - @ananiasacts My point is that if the government goes insolvent all that isleft of dollars and treasuries is paper. If treasuries were backedup by real securities, the situation would be different. This is not too far-fetched: The state of California just was on the edge of bankrupcy not too long ago.
ananiasacts Says:
May 17, 2010 - @hansfbaier, if the government goes bankrupt guns themselves will turn out to have been the best token for wealth, and you can't seriously suggest we lug boxes full of them around just to do business. You can't consider anything defined by the state, like real property, as wealth without the state itself, and if you have that, then there is no reason it's taxing authority cannot be turned into whatever other form of wealth you wish to hold.
ananiasacts Says:
May 17, 2010 - @hansfbaier, If everything is backed by something real of equal value then wouldn't any loan become impossible?
hansfbaier Says:
May 18, 2010 - @ananiasacts I only talked about backing US treasuries, not every loan. Loans were perfectly possible in gold standard times, so that would be no problem. Nevertheless I would be concerned about the massive amount of wealth the Fed would suck in if it started buying stocks or real estate instead of US treasuries and its impact on those markets.
f0revern0ty0urs2 Says:
Jul 18, 2010 - I'm a little bit confused,each of those 2 primary banks have 200 money in demand deposits,yet they received only 100 notes from the treasury.What have they been lending out then?Are those notes out. they received from the treasury the same currency as the money which they have lend out?
hansxxxx666 Says:
Jun 20, 2009 - no!