Money As Debt

One of the best documentaries about money and debt
(Paul Grignon):

English:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do…85877267580603

German in 5 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri6TA…feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SZ9…feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bobME…feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9iDT…eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-9B3…feature=relmfu

I just watched the first few seconds, but I find it ironic they quote Woodrow Wilson to open the documentary. The man who gave us the federal reserve(if only via rubber stamp) and consequently IRS - the action which invariably got the ball rolling. I will watch the rest later, but the concept of fiat currency as debt is something I have known for some time.

FWIW, while predominantly just a blog to help the professional investing public(aka every day joes), zerohedge is a wealth of information and has had similar viewing/reading material to your linked video.

I find it more ironic that Andrew Jackson is on a treasury bill (the $20).

Debt is good. The power of debt built the industrial revolution even more than coal did.

However, I have a theory that debt causes inflation by generating more money in the economy. How much less would a college education, surgery, dental work, a car, a house or even a candy bar cost if we couldn't have to borrow or use a credit card?

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
I find it more ironic that Andrew Jackson is on a treasury bill (the $20).

Perspective would dictate that is not irony, simply poetic justice… Who is around today, Andrew Jackson or the fraudsters he sought to rout out?

As far as debt being good, yes as you say it has it's uses… However a debt based currency is a whole different beast. I'll try and comment more once I've watched the vid tomorrow(too tired to watch a documentary - might fall asleep).

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
Perspective would dictate that is not irony, simply poetic justice… Who is around today, Andrew Jackson or the fraudsters he sought to rout out?

He's dead - and none too soon either. Just ask the descendants of those that managed to make it to the reservation in Oklahoma.

If he was serious about routing out fraudsters he would have had his cronies and himself arrested. Everyone knows the real motivation behind why he did it - apparently a stable currency wasn't as important as blind self interest.

Oh, and who is around today? The Treasury department - who feel the icons of myth making are more important that history. I suppose you are referring to them.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
He's dead - and none too soon either. Just ask the descendants of those that managed to make it to the reservation in Oklahoma.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830, while a horrible/awful/evil act, has no bearing on the discussion of money as debt or even Jackson's dismantling of the Second National Bank…

Anyway, back to the OP, watching the video now.

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
The Indian Removal Act of 1930, while a horrible/awful/evil act, has no bearing on the discussion of money as debt or even Jackson's dismantling of the Second National Bank…

It goes to show the tyrannical character and lack of morals the man had - genocide and short cited cronyism against the interests of the country were but two of the man's flaws that stem from this.

@ HiddenX

A well made documentary that anyone(I hope) should be able to watch and understand… It even brings up education and media's complicity towards the end.

Here's a pretty solid article(IMO) out of alt-market titled Disinformation: How It Works It relates tangentially, in so much as no one is willing to discuss the issues of money -> debt -> slavery. Look no further than Ron Paul and his treatment by both rightwing and leftwing media outlets. Or that his bill to audit the federal reserve which just passed the house is pretty much dead in the water because the senate will not consider it. Ironically the man spearheading the charge to kill the bill is none other than Harry Reid who, not but 17 years ago, wanted to audit the federal reserve(source).

Interesting documentary, really makes me think, but I'm curious, have you seen the somewhat similar documentary called the Secret of Oz, and if so, what was your opinion of it? Here is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
The Indian Removal Act of 1930, while a horrible/awful/evil act, has no bearing on the discussion of money as debt or even Jackson's dismantling of the Second National Bank…

Should it not be 1830?

And keeping things in a global perspective also helps to avoid getting misled by too much focus on details.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Should it not be 1830?

You are correct, that was a typo…

And keeping things in a global perspective also helps to avoid getting misled by too much focus on details.

You mean looking at the broader perspective? The global perspective is about as relevant as judging past events with modern values. Let us not forget that historical context is exceedingly important when considering past events, but I digress…

Let me repeat, Jackson has no bearing on the discussion of "Debt as Money". The last restrictions on money creation the Fed had to observe were abandoned in 1971 when Nixon effectively killed the Bretton Woods system of international financial exchange. Which was accomplished by his voiding US note convertibility into gold. Though what really got the ball rolling, as I earlier stated, was the formation of the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

Any other discussion outside of the scope of the documentary should find it's way to a new thread altogether.

Originally Posted by The Hulk
Interesting documentary, really makes me think, but I'm curious, have you seen the somewhat similar documentary called the Secret of Oz, and if so, what was your opinion of it? Here is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

This one is interesting, too.

The biggest error in the current banking system:

Banks can loan money 10x as much they aktually have in their own deposit and they demand interest for it! - for money they don't have!

Money is created as debt. This leads (on the long run) to
1) too much money in the system without equivalent real world value
2) financial air bubbles
3) high state debts (with high interest rates for generations to come)
4) inflation -> depression

and at least

5) to the implosion of the whole system ending with default.


The solution is in fact a system

a) where states/state banks are in control of the money
b) every loan is backed up by real world value -> important (!)
c) interest rates should be very low
d) money is issued without debt by the state in a responsible-minded way

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
You are correct, that was a typo…



You mean looking at the broader perspective? The global perspective is about as relevant as judging past events with modern values. Let us not forget that historical context is exceedingly important when considering past events, but I digress…

What modern values are you talking about? If 1830, the values have barely changed. The obviousness on this is that Jackson was made wrong by a Court Judgement. And rejected the Court judgement to impose his own will. So the discussion should be Jackson's personal beliefs vs modern values, once set back in the historical context.

This is part of his actions like a public figure and therefore can not be forgotten when speaking of some other public actions of his, because actions of such scope often complete each other.

Let me repeat, Jackson has no bearing on the discussion of "Debt as Money". The last restrictions on money creation the Fed had to observe were abandoned in 1971 when Nixon effectively killed the Bretton Woods system of international financial exchange. Which was accomplished by his voiding US note convertibility into gold. Though what really got the ball rolling, as I earlier stated, was the formation of the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

Any other discussion outside of the scope of the documentary should find it's way to a new thread altogether.

It has bearing. Money is tied to a bank system and Jackson wish to dismantle a national (central) bank was performed with purposes, which are tied to the topic at hand.

Which brings back Jackson, his character and his beliefs that were contrary to the modern values as set by the late 18th century (Jackson lived in the 19th century)

Bringing in new material like 1973 (that has to be linked to peak oil in the US) is just a diversion from a core topic, Jackson, his wishes toward banks and the public actions he was led to take.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
It has bearing. Money is tied to a bank system and Jackson wish to dismantle a national (central) bank was performed with purposes, which are tied to the topic at hand.

Sure it has bearing, in so much as his actions delayed the inevitable… But saying money is tied to a banking system is a lit like saying water is wet. Your statement may be correct, but it does not dovetail into this discussion. Jackson fought for hard money(in this case a money tied to metals - gold and silver) not for the destruction of all forms of banking systems.

Which brings back Jackson, his character and his beliefs that were contrary to the modern values as set by the late 18th century (Jackson lived in the 19th century)

Source? You mean to tell me that the majority of Americans, at that time, were not overtly bigoted/racist? Jackson was a populist president, not to mention he was reelected after both the Indian removal act and destruction of the national bank. His reelection can only be seen as support for his policies(at the time).

Bringing in new material like 1973 (that has to be linked to peak oil in the US) is just a diversion from a core topic, Jackson, his wishes toward banks and the public actions he was led to take.

Ok then, spell out how Jackson indirectly or directly contributed towards the construction of a fiat currency… Unless you mean to say he did everything in his power to prevent such an event? The only diversionary tactics are the ones you seem to be employing, peak oil has been a myth and will continue to be a myth. The US has enough untapped reserves, that should we start producing, the argument itself would be irrelevant(despite ME hitting their peak at some point in the future).

-EDIT-

Originally Posted by HiddenX
The solution is in fact a system

a) where states/state banks are in control of the money
b) every loan is backed up by real world value -> important (!)
c) interest rates should be very low
d) money is issued without debt by the state in a responsible-minded way

I agree, but this will never happen, the banking elite would cause WW3 before anything like the above ever takes hold. Nor will it work for large scale "democracies" that are easily corruptible and largely inefficient due to their size.

@HiddenX:

I don't think that solution is error-free either and it certainly does not allow for as much growth as a debt-system allows for.

Debt, while a big risk also stimulates the economy. (It also inflates it like you said).

Empires have both risen and fallen due to debts or lack of money. It goes both ways. Each way has its own pitfalls. In my opinion a highly regulated debt-market is the best. Best of both worlds. I don't think banks should be made public institutions though.

Originally Posted by Pladio
@HiddenX:

I don't think that solution is error-free either and it certainly does not allow for as much growth as a debt-system allows for.

growth=increasing consumption of resources -> resources are rare

We have to develop an economy without growth with full recycle-systems and sun energy on the long run.

An economy based on growth is a slow death spiral to depression.

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
Sure it has bearing, in so much as his actions delayed the inevitable… But saying money is tied to a banking system is a lit like saying water is wet. Your statement may be correct, but it does not dovetail into this discussion. Jackson fought for hard money(in this case a money tied to metals - gold and silver) not for the destruction of all forms of banking systems.

Back to the global perspective: public actions might be tied one to another.
Like reporting about a mafioso giving to charity without reporting that the mafioso runs a drug cartel operation.

Jackson fought for hard money, yet, and land is also hard money. So the Indian removal act was not meaningless.

Source? You mean to tell me that the majority of Americans, at that time, were not overtly bigoted/racist? Jackson was a populist president, not to mention he was reelected after both the Indian removal act and destruction of the national bank. His reelection can only be seen as support for his policies(at the time).

What source is needed? You wrote something about the past being judged with modern values. The modern values as known today, largely existed by the time of Jackson.
People being racist and begoted have no impact on the set of modern values as they set out. It simply means that Jackson did not share the set of modern values and even worked against them. But it did not rule out the possibility of judging Jackson by a set of values that existed in his own time and a set of values he was well aware of. Especially as he was made aware of the judgement by the court.

As to a source, then, I am sending you back to your own quote

The global perspective is about as relevant as judging past events with modern values.

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
…
I agree, but this will never happen, the banking elite would cause WW3 before anything like the above ever takes hold. Nor will it work for large scale "democracies" that are easily corruptible and largely inefficient due to their size.

Local money for a small region was tested in several cities/regions in Germany and it can be surprisingly successfull. You can only buy from local shops, farmers, craftsmen … - it just works and you're strengthening your local region.

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
Let me repeat, Jackson has no bearing on the discussion of "Debt as Money". The last restrictions on money creation the Fed had to observe were abandoned in 1971 when Nixon effectively killed the Bretton Woods system of international financial exchange. Which was accomplished by his voiding US note convertibility into gold. Though what really got the ball rolling, as I earlier stated, was the formation of the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

Any other discussion outside of the scope of the documentary should find it's way to a new thread altogether.

Brenton Woods was an absolute abortion. Getting rid of it was one of the few good things that Nixon actually did.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
This one is interesting, too.

The biggest error in the current banking system:

Banks can loan money 10x as much they aktually have in their own deposit and they demand interest for it! - for money they don't have!

Money is created as debt. This leads (on the long run) to
1) too much money in the system without equivalent real world value
2) financial air bubbles
3) high state debts (with high interest rates for generations to come)
4) inflation -> depression

and at least

5) to the implosion of the whole system ending with default.


The solution is in fact a system

a) where states/state banks are in control of the money
b) every loan is backed up by real world value -> important (!)
c) interest rates should be very low
d) money is issued without debt by the state in a responsible-minded way

There are so many things wrong with those statements that I am not even sure where to begin.