Why are interest rates them as a financial instrument bad? I understand that it is immoral to make money from money, as opposed to money made from goods. I am also opposed to renting for example. But it seems that being able to lend out money is a net positive for business. I always hear about debt-slavery and how it destroyed the German economy. Hitler and Schacht got rid of this apparently, but I have no idea how this worked. However, Japan apparently followed a similar policy (albeit heavily influenced under American neo-liberalism) and totally fucked their economy up.
Money has power. Debt enslaves you. Those who control money are your Emperors and your Lords that you are forced to bow down to and slave for. They control your life. They trick you and then your well being and non starvation depends on them.
Ryan Perry
The core feature of usury that makes it sinful is the externalization of risk. To see this more clearly, consider the two scenarios:
Scenario: Farmer needs money to buy seed to plant this year's crops. John Doe has money to buy seeds.
Case 1: Farmer borrows money from John Doe in a usurious arrangement to then buy seed to plant crops.
Case 2: John Doe buys 50% of Farmer's yield for the year in exchange for providing the seed up front.
Now, you can arrange the 50% part (up or down) so that the net present value of the Case 1 and Case 2 are equal. The difference between the two scenarios then is that in case 1, the incentives are socially perverse whereas in case 2 the incentives are cooperative. In case 1, John Doe might realize that he can salt a portion of Farmer's field during the night so that Farmer doesn't have a yield high enough to take care of himself *and* pay his debts off, thus impoverishing Farmer further over the course of the year. John Doe can then extract higher usury rates for the subsequent year and so on, eventually creating a slave class. This is a sociopath arrangement made possibly only be usury. In case 2 however, John Doe can not salt Farmer's fields because they both suffer for it.
This is why the only permissible investment vehicles in a civilized state are equity based rather than debt based (usurious).
Dylan Butler
So is it only bad because of the Jews control it? I used the specific example of Japan who had the same policy (again the documentary showed the US had huge influence so take that for what you will) but the bottom line is they never stopped printing. So is the policy bad or the people behind it the problem? I don't understand the reasoning, but this is my fault. I am not seeing why John Doe would want to ruin his interest payment in case 1. And in case 2 you are implying a system like Islamic banking, where the bank holds shares in your business, yes? But access to capital is fine under agreed conditions of interest right? It does more good than harm by giving people access to money for business. And then how do we control money supply and lending? Surely interest rates are effective economic controls right?
Christian Rogers
Goes here:
Matthew Morris
>I am not seeing why John Doe would want to ruin his interest payment in case 1.
In states which permit the parasitism of usury, the debt issuer in general has a priority claim to the fruits of production.
Suppose that Farmer has a mean expectation of generating 100 Bushels of corn in time period 1, 50 of which he owes to John Doe. If the weather is bad he might only generate 80, or he might produce 120, but he needs a minimum of 30 to feed his family.
Now, John Doe, because he has first claim to the produce given that this hypothetical civilization is given over to Satanism (i.e. it permits usurious arrangements), will get paid 50 Bushels as long as Farmer can produce 50 or more Bushels.
Therefore, John Doe has lost nothing if he salts 25% of Farmer's field, reducing the yield to only 75 Bushels. In this case, John Doe receives his expected 50 Bushels, but Farmer has only 25 compared with the 30 minimum he needs to feed his family.
This puts Farmer in a starvation scenario which forces his hand into making bad deals just to stay alive, effectively creating a slave class. Supporting usury is the exact same thing as supporting slavery.
Tyler Campbell
no. Jews happen to be in control of money right now. Anyone at any point of history who manages to collect the majority of money and generate more money is an unofficial tyrant. Be him jewish, white, black, asian, whatever. Be her even a woman.
Money enslaves the masses and money corrupts those who have it.
Aiden Ward
But I don't see anything wrong with a Central Bank. Honestly, I don't know why we have one. Why isn't it just the Treasury? They did this in Japan too in that documentary. But money is necessary in society and we need ways to instrument it to work for us. But isn't part of the reason farmers don't have this risk anymore is because of banks that lend out to them during poor harvests and the advent of farming options? So you're saying usury forces people into taking out more bad loans? but what about the loans that help a business thrive? and again I don't see how a loan officer giving out money has any ability to salt the field of a company. If a company has bad luck, that's different from a lender intentionally destroying a company. And what lender would give more money to someone that has such financial troubles already? Just seems foolish that a usurer would push someone into delinquency when he could collect low risk interest.
Carter Perez
Maybe. So far it only works against us. I long for the day that it works in everyone's favor.
Jack Gray
The key point that you are missing is that usury is dynamically unstable from a game theory perspective. The net present value of the arrangement in Case 1 and Case 2 (i.e. how much John Doe and the Farmer each get paid) is identical. Financially, there is very little to distinguish between the two cases at first glance. The problem arises because of the game theory of the arrangement: John Doe can salt the farmer's field in order to reduce Farmer to servitude, which allows John Doe to extract more generous terms from Farmer in the next deal. Therefore John Doe profits by doing things which reduce the net utility of the society, i.e. being a sociopath.
If you (1) believe that we live in a world with people who cheat when the opportunity arises (i.e. that they pursue personal utility maximization) and you also believe (2) in maximizing the net utility of society, then you can not support usury.
I really don't know how the economy works, and I only have neo-liberal professors talking about the joys of immigration, so I know they are full of shit. It seems incredibly complicated, and having seen the swindles in the past I know they are fucking us somewhere big time.
Ethan Turner
Yeah but risk is always involved in a business. I don't support interest because money shouldn't make money. I'll re read this again later and reprocess maybe it will make more sense
Let's move on to Germany and its abolition of debt slavery. What does that mean on a macro sense? Do we really pay direct taxes to the Fed or whatever central banking exists? And Hitler basically did the same thing with MEFO bills, so how is that any different? It's just like issuing government bonds and turning them into cash. Are central banks or their parallel policies inherently bad? And why are they independent and not part of the treasury?
Brandon Cook
I don't ((((read)))) anything that is published and official. You've fallen into the trap user.
I told you whoever owns the money controls the Humans. Humans shape the world. Those who control money thus control the press and media (books, films, games, music). You are essentially draining your ((((knowledge)))) from propaganda of the Big Capital by reading anything official.
My own knowledge comes from my thoughts, my observation of reality as I see it, and by discussing with friends and individuals who I personally deem to be of good intellect (not saying we agree, usually we fight, but there are good points to be made from discussions).
Reject the beautified propaganda. The numbers and statistics.
Just because "GEEPEEDEE LINE GO BRRRRR UPPPP" doesn't mean the world gets better.
Juan Howard
>I don't ((((read)))) anything that is published and official. You've fallen into the trap user. The author names the Jew in this book and was the Chairman of South Africa's central bank. Pretty good source.
And I still need to know how they function so I can beat them. Clearly something is amiss but I can't put it down in my mind.
I mean the short and sweet of it is the central bank allows control of money supply. It's a powerful tool and bad people are at the helm
Henry Hazlitt Economics in one lesson. Debt first 5000 years(decent anthropology, bad socialist biases) The Black book of Finace if you can read it. Stigums Money Market.
Debt is can be very bad as you are essentially outcompeting people who do not exist(the future) with capital that should not exist, and you are selected via a score you have no control over. The Central Bank in the U.S. is not a federal institution, but a cartel of banks that centralize to one massive point of failure.
Aaron Myers
>Yeah but risk is always involved in a business.
Note that Case 2 still has risks. For example, the weather could be bad. Very little rain results in low crop yield for the year. We are not talking about eliminating risk. What we want to do is eliminate perverse incentives. John Doe, as a usurer, can profit through intentional malice by salting Farmer's field which reduces the amount of food available to society as a whole, clearly a bad thing.
Perhaps we should consider another case. Historically it has been illegal to purchase fire insurance on property you don't own. The reason is obvious. You don't hold an equity stake in the neighbor's house (it isn't yours) so nothing is lost if it burns down. On the other hand, you get paid by insurance if it burns down. What is the rational thing for homo-economicus to do in this scenario? Burn down his neighbor's house. Therefore we don't permit the purchase of insurance on property you don't own generally.
In 2008 financial crisis however the usurers found a loophole. They created insurance products (credit default swaps) on mortgage backed securities (their neighbor's homes) whereby they profit from the inability of their neighbors to pay their mortgages (defaulting). Effectively they were able to purchase "recession insurance" whereby they made money if bad things happened to other people, thereby creating an incentive to crash the economy.
Now you have to understand that in the US alone the financial crisis resulted in about 500,000 excess deaths over normal. Variety of causes like suicide, excess stress from joblessness, not being able to afford medical care, etc. So these perverse incentives that we're talking about that encourage John Doe to salt Farmer's field or when we permit usurers to create "recession insurance" products that encourage them to crash the economy kill hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of people depending on how out of control it gets.
Julian Wilson
So a central bank under the control of the US treasury would be better? how would they not form a cartel then? Unless it must be public info so they can't hide shareholders.
Just playing devil's advocate. If I have a strong company and I know with 99% certainty I can stretch my dollar, there's no reason to bet on the 1% that I will default. Spread that out over the whole market and extremely low chance of default. Debt is not bad in its own right, but loading people with it obviously is. I'm not really sure what I'm asking. Andrew Jackson took great pride in killing the banks as did many other politicians against the US Central bank. Our country was lied to in order to make the Fed. Something is wrong here, but i dunno what.
thanks for the recommendations btw
Ethan Sanchez
Do as you must if that your goal. Do whatever your soul tells you and your mind puts you into. But make sure you always judge with YOUR mind first, not the mind others are trying to force onto you for their own interests.
The situation in my country at least has personally proven me that while money is a necessary evil, there are layers to how bad it can make your life. The more international and less secluded of foreigners and less national identity your country has, the worse your life will get with money.
Everyone deep down loves their own people. They might give em a hard time sometimes but deep down we love people who are like us and understand us.
The problem gets big when people come in our society that we can't relate to one another. People who are cultural and societal aliens.
Lucas Rogers
Do away with the banks, or increase reserve limit, change their structure by introducing different category of product(no interest but guaranteed on-demand withdrawal), or disband them and have them compete(should they fail make failures local). They are no longer necessary. Open source the credit score, tie accounts to a national ID with an open ledger. Debt being necessary now is questionable with the way blockchain works now.
Owen Brown
>Let's move on to Germany and its abolition of debt slavery. What does that mean on a macro sense? Do we really pay direct taxes to the Fed or whatever central banking exists?
We have to pay interest on debt which is financed by taxes, yes. Note that it isn't obvious that this is a bad thing. If the interest rate on your debt is 2% but inflation is 3%, then the tax payer is effectively being paid by the lender rather than the other way around. Be very wary of simplistic explanations on this stuff.
>And Hitler basically did the same thing with MEFO bills, so how is that any different? It's just like issuing government bonds and turning them into cash. Are central banks or their parallel policies inherently bad? And why are they independent and not part of the treasury?
Central banks are not inherently bad. If a government borrows money to build the Autobahn this could be a good thing. Suppose that the Autobahn costs $1 to build but results in $2 higher profit for the economy. Then the building of the Autobahn has improved your society so much that you can pay for it ($1) and have money left over ($2 - $1). On the other hand, borrowing $1 to give feed to Shaniqua so she can have another baby who can't feed itself can result in a loss of $2 to the economy (perhaps Shaniqua Junior burns down a grocery store while robbing it because Shaniqua Junior can't hold down a job to feed itself) so that now you're $3 in the hole.
Brandon Jones
Governments can issue money directly from the Treasury if they wanted. All it takes is a change of law ( See: OP's picture: Lincoln Greenbacks and Reichsmarks ). Right now Banks create money and people are under the illusion that it's in control by interest rates.
Liam Gonzalez
>greenback the kike banks wanted 35% interest for war wages
>Reich Mark (((Young Plan))) causes hyper-inflation (4T RM to $1)
I think a better way of putting it is that John Doe does not take a loss nearly as bad on a loan. If the farmer fails its gg. So John does not salt the field. He just has less fallout if a bad thing happens to the farmer in case 1. My problem is I don't see John Doe salting the fields to fuck up his borrower INTENTIONALLY. I just see a huge disparity of risk in lending vs shares issued for bank lending with no interest.
2008 wasn't caused by interest or lending (well kind of because of the bubble from excessive lending) though. It was caused by shorting shorts^2 that stretched the debt way too far, which I am opposed to and think it should be outlawed. A low-interest rate and a reasonable amount of debt are not destructive usually. So tl;dr, shorts should be illegal. There is an incentive to hurt the economy. but i want to just know about interest rates, and then tangentially central banking using that as a tool.
Jose Price
Haha well thats where you are wrong. Banks work on Fractional reserve lending. This is where the bank invests most of your deposit. Since requirements became stringent on the deposit. Only certain categories of investments were allowed for deposits. The largest and deemed "safer" were mortgages. They knew that many were shit and were packaging and reselling them fast(like a game of hot potato).
>My problem is I don't see John Doe salting the fields to fuck up his borrower INTENTIONALLY.
This can only be because you are a naive young man that has been sheltered from the brutality of the world. These things do happen, although many people are oblivious to it. The liberal mindset is often a product of this obliviousness (many university professors and what not) or the almost exact opposite, being overwhelmed and traumatized by the brutality of the world and wanting an All Powerful Protector (the State) to shield you from it.
The nuanced / conservative view is an awareness of the problems without being traumatized into overreaction. That would mean arranging incentives in society such that they are not perverse and therefore the trajectory is towards less brutality.
>2008 wasn't caused by interest or lending (well kind of because of the bubble from excessive lending) though
It was perverse incentives whereby individuals profit at the expense of society (through destruction). This is an inherent property of societies which permit usury, so the two are similar but not exactly the same.
Samuel Anderson
>The problem gets big when people come in our society that we can't relate to one another. People who are cultural and societal aliens. True word bro Blockchain may be a solution, but I would have to know more about the current system first. I think increasing reserve limit is most plausible. Banks failed a 9% in '08 I think. We're at 0% now so strap yourself in. I guess my next question is I always hear that money is created from nothing with Central Banks. That seems way too simple of an explanation. And then also by what mechanism do we pay the Fed taxes? It is just a direct payment or some tool like we owe them bond payments so our taxes pay those bonds. Why do they print our money and not the treasury? It's weird the government issues bonds to itself
>Shaniqua Junior burns down a grocery store while robbing it because Shaniqua Junior can't hold down a job to feed itself He dindu nuffin. He a gud boi werkin on his mistape.
Gavin Perez
This is accounting abstraction the end result is the same and has been since the time of the Medici (double entry bookeeping). Source is biased, comes from the Bank of England from the City of London.
Anthony Ortiz
>I guess my next question is I always hear that money is created from nothing with Central Banks. That seems way too simple of an explanation.
The fed gives people money (that it created) in return for a promise to pay it back. So, the US can create a promise to pay money back (a US treasury bill) which it then sells to the fed. The fed doesn't need money "already in the account" to buy this US treasury bill. It can (and does) simply create new money that it gives in exchange for the t-bill.
>And then also by what mechanism do we pay the Fed taxes? It is just a direct payment or some tool like we owe them bond payments so our taxes pay those bonds.
Yes.
>Why do they print our money and not the treasury? It's weird the government issues bonds to itself
There is not one clean answer here. Some people feel that the power of money creation in the hands of Congress would lead to out of control spending, so they want an "independent" and "expert" and "non-political" body to do it instead. Now of course we know things don't work out this way in practice, but it doesn't mean that the theory wasn't sincerely believed by some people who had a hand in setting it up. Other people wanted the fed to be independent specifically because they felt that it was *more* corruptible this way and less likely to be held to account. Bankers benefit way more from the fed than we do for example, a very predictable result and hard to unwind because if the independence of the fed.
Brandon James
Thanks for the leads I'll look into those. I'm in a class at Uni for this stuff and can't get a straight answer on anything. For example, my professor said that the Soloman Brothers' bankers like Shapiro, Ranieri, and other Italian sounding names were mainly Italians, almost like he knew what he was shilling. so now my folder for jewish memes is called italian americans. really want to know whats going on behind the scenes will read tomorrow. thanks for the read >This can only be because you are a naive young man that has been sheltered from the brutality of the world. Yes and no. I'm just confused why a banker would fuck up his own guaranteed interest in your example. I still think high-interest rates is wrong, but overall not so bad at low rates. I don't doubt these things happen, I'm just trying to get it in my head. >It was perverse incentives whereby individuals profit at the expense of society (through destruction). I saw it as more a byproduct of greed with piss poor gov't policy with FNMA and such. I mean what did they think they were gonna do? They just took the money and bought bonds. The push for housing and low lending caused a bubble. This overconfidence is what popped it.
Ayden Cox
>will read tomorrow. thanks for the read You don't need to read the whole thing, just keep it for your records of the Bank of England admitting to how money is made.
>I don't doubt these things happen, I'm just trying to get it in my head.
You live in a world that is the product of evolution, so you have inherited a long history of trial by fire whereby society has minimized perverse incentives already. For example, for hundreds of years prior to the industrial revolution Christiandom was executing criminals which has the effect of reducing this type of "cheating" at the genetic level.
You also live in a dynamic and still evolving world. Periods where the suppression of perverse incentives have been highly successful can cause people to let their guard down, which allows bad genes to proliferate rapidly because the perverse incentives confer individual gain (though at the expense of the society overall), so all of this is subject to very rapid change in just one generation even, or perhaps even quicker if you have say large migrant fluxes from gene pools that do not share historically similarly eugenic protocols.
>I saw it as more a byproduct of greed with piss poor gov't policy with FNMA and such. I mean what did they think they were gonna do? They just took the money and bought bonds. The push for housing and low lending caused a bubble. This overconfidence is what popped it.
You should read Kevin Freeman's Secret Weapon. You have an extraordinarily naive view that he'll do a good job of breaking down.
Logan Bennett
Ill give you a heads up, It took me years to get things to click. Uni will only help you on a start to function as an employee of finance. Find the most important 20% and work on that. Being an Entrepreneur can give you some perspective. I abuse this system too, but I hate doing so. The more educated guys the better. We really do have kings. Don't take everything I give you as gospel, look it up read on it ask if this guy has a bias. I actually started as a History guy then 08 happened and had no choice but to get cash as fast as possible. History helps find why things started shitty as they were and yes its mostly """Sumerians""".
Lucas Sanchez
So there are pros and cons to this independence. I would have to think about this some more. There have to be checks and balances on spending too in that case. All of my professors adamantly believe the Fed must be independent and that Trump is ruining it by politicizing and demanding 0% interest. They also think China running our manufacturing is good because we get lower goods. That smells like a crock but don't know what's wrong about it specifically to btfo them. >checked Thanks for taking the time and walking me through this. I still have a lot more to learn but you put it in a succinct way as possible. Should I post on here or biz more for economics and policy related questions? It's 5 am and I have a test tomorrow so I'm gonna hop off. thanks again!
