/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.58401458]

Alright, help me get some clarity on this.

The US dollar is just fed notes. It's not backed by anything.

Banks only trade with ledgers when they take in money or loan it out.

Banks internationally settle everything with their hoard of gold.

Now...if the dollar is meant to be fake, what sense does it make for banks to loan out this fake currency? And why tax it when it can all be created with ease? It makes no sense for the central banking system to loan out the currency. It also makes no sense to charge interest, too. Why do you want more back of what you already see as non valuable as a bank?

[Anonymous No.58401499]

>>58401458
Unless it's done for psychological or control reasons?

[Anonymous No.58402020]

>>58401458
Its all to extract the fruits of your labor.

[Anonymous No.58402040]

>>58402020
So slavery.

[Anonymous No.58402050]

>>58402040
Prices are set to what the market will bear. Same goes for degrees of slavery.

[Anonymous No.58402080]

>>58402040
Clarity pilled.

[Anonymous No.58402081]

People want things. They want food, they want housing, they want tv's and cars. These things require work.
The economy is a system of dividing the labor required to meet those desires.

Currency is just the representation of a unit of labor. It's not real in the sense that it has any inherent value, i.e. it doesn't help meet people's needs. This allows us to easily trade one type of labor for another. After all, it'd be a pain in the ass if we had to barter for everything. Imagine if you were a woodworker and you had to pay your restaurant bill with with furniture. Would be pretty annoying, no?

So, as for why banks loan out money, think about what money is and what the transaction would look like without it. So, for example:
>I'll come help you build a house right now
>later, you have to help me build my house, and also a shed in the back

In other words, money = labor credits.
When you get a loan you're getting labor, and that labor must be paid back.

[Anonymous No.58402101]

>>58402081
I do agree with your labor analogy. But where I don't agree is your usage of "currency." I'd argue that the dollar is a counterfeit of currency right now more than anything. It represents nothing, which is why our economy is so fucked atm. No one knows the real prices for anything. The only general idea we have is of real estate which is very high right now due to people not sure how the economy is going to go. Food is high, too, to show the general untruth of the dollar's value atm.

What we both likely agree on is that no one knows what their labor is atm. The high prices equates to the lack of trust in the dollar's value, which never had any to begin with if we are to be honest. The public is feeling their wallets tight, so something is going to give.

My fear is that normies will fall to the government solution of some kind that will just make things worse rather than letting the free market of currency decide.

[Anonymous No.58402103]

>>58402081
>money = labor credits
So, the people that work harder, more efficiently or perhaps both gain more of these credits?

In.ter.rest.ing.

[Anonymous No.58402107]

>>58402103
Under sound money that would be true. Which is why I replied to him that how it should work isn't working that way.

[Anonymous No.58402110]

>>58402103
>>58402107
To add to this, it explains the general trick of the banks and government on all of us. They are basically working us like slaves from what it sounds like. Im reminded of the pyramids.

[Anonymous No.58402146]

>>58402101
You're talking about letting the markets decide like it wouldn't result in another great depression. We've been hopped up on cocaine for so long the host would die if he stopped getting a fix.

[Anonymous No.58402155]

>>58402146
>You're talking about letting the markets decide like it wouldn't result in another great depression.
The great depression was and always had been caused by the banks and the government. If anything, the depression was the market's reaction to greedy men trying to manipulate the economy (and also was a scheme by America corporatists to help Britain with their export gold problem).

All gold backed "cycles" were small and hardly caused problems. The bankers just hate it cause you don't make as much money and can't steal labor as easily under sound money.

[Anonymous No.58402166]

>>58402103
...in theory.
In practice, there are ways to make money without working more. In fact, it is far easier to make money with money than to make money by working.

Take loans for example. Because the bank has money now, they can get even more money later. The bank is not the one building the house for you. They just use their labor credits to pay the builders.
But wait... where did they get those labor credits from in the first place? Well, they take out a "loan" from people like (you). You give them your labor credits, and you get those labor credits back + interest.

>alright, so when does the bank actually do labor to get their labor credits?
I think you can guess

[Anonymous No.58402189]

>>58402166
>>alright, so when does the bank actually do labor to get their labor credits?
Isn't this basically the ponzi scheme of money loaning and usury to begin with? It's set up to where not everyone will be able to pay back their money ever. So is the labor credits from those who are paying the interest for life?

[Anonymous No.58402224]

Fiat currency isn't backed by anything because it's just used to transfer value within a civilization. You're not "supposed" to work to be rewarded with something that has value inherent to itself, you work to be rewarded with further privileges within the society you are a member of. Why would an economic system, civilization, society, etc pay people in a way that distances them from the group? Why would you incentivize people towards work with the promise of being able to fuck off an do their own thing? A society has to be self-sustaining and pay into itself. You have to keep people cycling back into the system. I don't even mean this in a malicious "da joos" way, it's simply logical that an economic system would design itself to just be a loop that aims to grow larger. It makes no logical sense to reward your best people with the ability to remove themselves from the system. Just bad game theory.

[Anonymous No.58402284]

>>58402166
you can argue that the bank provides a service when it creates a smooth and liquid market for labor credit lending

[Anonymous No.58402299]

>>58402224
By not being tied to actual labor, like metals or btc, fiat allows malicious institutions to steal your labor via devaluation. It feeds corruption and the degradation of society.
People with piles of gold coins would still have to spend them into the system to get the goods and services they want.

[Anonymous No.58402319]

>>58402224
You're explaining basically socialism/ communism, which got us into this mess in the first place.

[Anonymous No.58402381]

the US treasury sells bonds that the fed buys with newly created currency (for any deficit spending), private buyers and other countries also buy the bonds. so the dollar is backed by that, and the faith that the US treasury will pay the borrowers back. part of that faith is taxpayers are forced to pay tax using the notes, so that's what it's backed by partly.

[Anonymous No.58402478]

>>58402381
>part of that faith is taxpayers are forced to pay tax using the notes
So it's backed by threat of violence. Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.58402482]

>>58402381
>newly created currency
Also, isnt this an oxymoron?

[Anonymous No.58402521]

>>58402381
Why doesn't the treasury skip the whole central bank thing and directly issue currency?

[Anonymous No.58402533]

>>58402478
all states are

[Anonymous No.58402542]

>>58402521
Why are you such an anti semite?

[Anonymous No.58402569]

>>58402533
But tying your currency to the state is a bad idea

[Anonymous No.58402574]

>>58402521
The government once did and actually can. However, through threat of violence by the federal reserve (((mafia))) anyone that tries to gets either silenced or assassinated. In fact, after JFK's assassination when he was doing silver backed currency straight from the government's vaults (which is still legal tender btw), they quickly made an amendment to say that the government cannot print its own currency (not only is this against the constitution, it's illegal).

Btw, that order of silver backed currency is still in existence. Just no one is bold enough to enforce it.

[Anonymous No.58402577]

>>58402081
so by printing more and more money, an infinite amount of labor is being done

[Anonymous No.58402585]

[Anonymous No.58402596]

>>58402585

[Anonymous No.58402625]

>>58402110
pyramids werent built by slaves, but farmers in the off season. it was probably an ancient labour program as well, like the new deal

[Anonymous No.58402631]

>>58402625
the farmers were slaves to the government in the same way taxes and inflation makes us slaves to the government now

[Anonymous No.58402658]

>>58402631
When slaves try to escape the plantation the owners would send the hounds after them. But our modern government does nothing to try to stop people from exiting the economy. In fact their favorite way to deal with the homeless is to ignore that they even exist. That is very different from slavery.

[Anonymous No.58402665]

>>58402658
Being homeless is not the same thing as escaping the system. Using your own competing currencies is escaping the system. Or gold or silver, which gets the hounds sent after you. Or not paying taxes, imprisonment.

[Anonymous No.58402690]

>>58402284
Of course, that's the salary paid to the employees of the bank.

[Anonymous No.58402697]

>>58402665
Crypto is a useless digital ledger and gold is useless shiny metal. Whatever currency it is you choose, you're participating in the system of gathering large amounts of tokens to coerce other people to give you their stuff. There are alternative systems and they blow. The homeless are essentially modern hunter-gatherers.

[Anonymous No.58402727]

Small government sounds great, where everyone is an individual and has true ownership of property/value, but isn't a small government a weak government? Doesn't this become a problem in the scope of global politics, where a stronger government could just declare war and conquer your territory? Sure it doesn't make sense for a government to nuke its own people, so I get the whole "legal gun ownership" concept. But what if a foreign government didn't care at all about yours and was fine with glassing your entire territory for the sake of having less competition for global power? Doesn't this whole economic idea of allowing lending and collecting taxes serve to create a stronger government/military to establish an effective border to the laws that govern society? Because sure a village can simply determine their own system without taxes, but at a certain size it becomes unsustainable and governments are required to organize the activity of societies. Is this organization not necessary so your society isn't out-competed by others?

[Anonymous No.58402737]

>>58402727
States came together during times of conflict before fiat was invented. Conflict only happens when countries have the money to spend on war. All major wars have been over money. If the US government became weaker, it doesn't mean the US becomes weaker. The people in the US become stronger, which DOES lead to a stronger military. No, the government is not responsible nor has ever been for providing the military. Otherwise, they wouldnt need to coerce people to join or bid for weapons from private companies.

You're making the same argument that liberals make when they say governments build roads.

The reality is that there's more peace than ever. We have a military surplus but it only exists for bank/ government interests. There is no war that is really being fought over something actually logical. Conflicts before fiat ended quickly. Under the gold standard, america wouldnt have been in the middle east for over a decade. Waste of money.

[Anonymous No.58402748]

>>58401458
you couldn't say it better op, thats why you need to at least put a little bit on side projects, BTC, BTCFi, BRC20, whatever pleases you

[Anonymous No.58402868]

>>58401458
If the population of the world was 10 elderly billionaires and one 20 year old poorfag, the poorfag would still have to toil and produce for all of them, even if they paid him 1 million dollars a week and became "rich"

Money is just bullshit stacked on horseshit

[Anonymous No.58402875]

>>58401458
Money is a tool. All your answers are in the evolution of money by David Byrne

[Anonymous No.58402885]

>>58401458
>Loaning out fake money at historic interest rates that the masses follow with unending and eternal faith and repossessing everyone who defaults on it while settling international payments with real money
You really dont get it do you

[Anonymous No.58402898]

>>58402885
wait...but you just said exactly what I just said. I agree that the money is an entire scheme to buy not only our labor, but our assets...for free

[Anonymous No.58402939]

this is already being solved

[Anonymous No.58402945]

>>58402939
lol printing those 100 bills costs less than whatever value was lost burning that paper

[Anonymous No.58402996]

>>58402945
Not to mention they don't even have to print bills anymore, just adjust the number on a bank's credit.

[Anonymous No.58403000]

>>58402996
This is why the bitcoin makes the most sense in competition. Banks are doing the same damn thing.

[Anonymous No.58403003]

>>58401499
>>58402020
>>58401458
they made paper money so they can add layers of usury lending

[Anonymous No.58403068]

>>58403000
Exactly

[Anonymous No.58403505]

>>58402697
>coerce
most people do it willingly, thats the whole point. the belief in money as valuable is as deep as any religious belief

[Anonymous No.58403507]

lol

[Anonymous No.58403508]

>>58401458
Crypto isn't backed by anything either but people still believe it has value.

[Anonymous No.58403539]

>>58402658
the only reason gubermint does nothing to prevent homelessness is that homeless people are very easy to control as they are fully dependent on others to feed them and give them their daily drugs you mongrel

[Anonymous No.58403557]

>>58401458
It's in Bills house and Fred's house

[Anonymous No.58403746]

>>58401458
he is beginning to believe.... i reckon you understand the basics and how interest ppays into the creation of money so i wont mansplane to you but you are misunderstnding some important context:
1. banks do not trade in gold internationally this flys in the face of money creation scheme
2. money creation is extremely immoral, the act must be hidden from the public by:
a. making it too confusing for the layman to understand
b. appear as if it is being governed by a reputable entity
c. be sound enough to be protected by the law

the fiat system is very well structured system, it is just not an ethical system

[Anonymous No.58404004]

>>58401458
>Banks internationally settle everything with their hoard of gold
where the fuck did you even hear this
or did you just make it up on the spot?

[Anonymous No.58404118]

>>58404004
For final setllement of international payments, which are wholly different from domestic.

[Anonymous No.58405758]

>>58402284
The primary two services of banks are:
1. Provide a safe place to put your money. Putting your money under your mattress is something you can do, but its also extremely dangerous and has a really nasty risk associated with it.
2. Provide liquidity, so that you can bet using your own ability to provide labor credits in the future by getting some extra labor credits right now. This is a loan, of course. You can borrow money from friends and family, but good luck getting 300k to finance a house that way. A bank is fine taking that money back (with interest) over 30 years, whereas friends and family are not.

So banks do provide actual useful services, the issue comes when they stretch those into traps to capture people so they can grow their own pile.

[Anonymous No.58405760]

>>58405758
>Putting your money under your mattress is something you can do, but its also extremely dangerous and has a really nasty risk associated with it.
The only danger here is that you get to decide what to do with your money and not the banks. And the other danger is that no matter where your money is, it gets its value destroyed with ease and hangs on a sliver of called "faith" since it is only as valuable as the paper it is printed on.

[Anonymous No.58405767]

>>58405758
>2. Provide liquidity, so that you can bet using your own ability to provide labor credits in the future by getting some extra labor credits right now. This is a loan, of course. You can borrow money from friends and family, but good luck getting 300k to finance a house that way. A bank is fine taking that money back (with interest) over 30 years, whereas friends and family are not.
Also, banks are not in the business of wanting you to pay off their loans. If anything, when people default on loans, the bank isn't really hurt by this. Their scheme is basically a ponzi scheme:

>I'll loan you this money that doesnt exist. Now go get it for me, boy. By the way, even if you dont pay it back, it's not like the money existed. We just lower your credit score and say you suck at stealing money and labor credits (in your words) from others.

>We'll buy this house for you. Just give us money back over thirty years so we can get money from you that never was ours. This is our profit.

>Of course, a bank run would ruin this scheme overnight, but we have the Federal Reserve and the Last Resort banking to bail us out anytime. Isn't money awesome?!

[Anonymous No.58405775]

>>58402189
Ponzi schemes are just this process taken to an (intentionally) unsustainable extreme, you can't call it basically a Ponzi scheme when that state is of a higher construction.

[Anonymous No.58405781]

>>58405775
Explain how the federal reserve fractional banking is different from ponzi schemes.

Fractional banking is THE biggest ponzi scheme in the world. Argue why it isnt.

[Anonymous No.58405807]

>>58405767
>If anything, when people default on loans, the bank isn't really hurt by this.
They are if its enough of them at the same time, because they often do weird shit with packaging up loans and selling the idea that they'll be paid in full eventually as its own concept. These were never really limited post financial crisis, and their use just changed a bit to be less risky (which is what they always say before exploding again and asking the government for a bailout).
The other term you're looking for is fractional reserve banking, wherein a bank is only required to control 10% in physical cash of the actual money they lend out. Banks literally get special permission from the government to make money from nothing at all and give it out as loans. If you or I were to do that, we'd rightfully be called a Ponzi scheme.

[Anonymous No.58405833]

>>58405781
A Ponzi scheme grows primarily from people joining into the scheme. Meanwhile new accounts are only one of the many ways banks can turn a profit. There would be nothing wrong with Ponzi schemes if their hyperbolic growth was sustainable. Like I said, they're a process taken to an extreme.

Fractional banking is generally sustainable. You could argue on good grounds that their practices are immoral or something to that effect, but you can't argue it's the same as a Ponzi scheme.

[Anonymous No.58405845]

>>58402040
now you're getting it. fiat exists to enslave you. crypto exists to liberate you.

1 btc = 1 btc
1 eth = 1 eth
1 pleb = 1 pleb

forget about fiat, it's nothing but jewish trickery

[Anonymous No.58405865]

>>58405833
>Fractional banking is generally sustainable
If everyone did a bank run, it would destroy itself overnight. Remember, Jekyll Island used this as one of its reasons for installing a central bank cause constant bank runs was ruining the bankers profits. But they also lied saying that bank runs was a symptom of money (when it was really a symptom of jews being jews).

[Anonymous No.58405889]

>>58405865
>Fractional banking is generally sustainable
>If everyone did a bank run, it would destroy itself overnight.
These statements aren't mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.58405899]

>>58405889
It is because your sustainable statement is misleading. The only people this is sustainable for is the top men. It's absolutely is bad for everyone else. Always has been. Even the government in this situation even though they could remove the Federal Reserve overnight. Oh wait, jews run just about every agency in the government. They wont get rid of the parasite that is funding their home nation (hint: it isn't the US or the UK).

[Anonymous No.58405910]

>>58405899
If everyone filled their bathtub with water at the same time it would be a disaster. That does not make the water system unsustainable. I'm not defending fractional banking as an institution, it just isn't a Ponzi scheme.

[Anonymous No.58405925]

>>58405910
>If everyone filled their bathtub with water at the same time it would be a disaster
No it wouldnt. There's more than enough water to go around.

For banks, cause of their fractional reserve policy, would be destroyed. Especially if companies do it, too, and default on their loans. The system exists where there's losers who are stuck with debt or default (granting the bank more free assets), and the winners are using debt to remain propped up with other people's money. It looks complicated but anyone with an iq above 70 can tell that this system is just lights and mirrors. In the end, they are counterfeiting currency and encouraged to do so by the Fed.

Literal usury and parasite. No business should be running debt just to stay in business. Goes to show that our market isnt truly free. Just a bunch of funny money. Now THAT is a ponzi scheme.

[Anonymous No.58405934]

>>58405925
>No it wouldnt. There's more than enough water to go around.
It's happened before.

[Anonymous No.58405943]

>>58405934
You and I arent necessarily disagreeing except on whether it's a ponzi scheme or not. I say it is because the bank functions effectively on pushing the inequality and poverty onto others. Not by their choice, but purely because the people closest to the government/ banks get the majority of the advantage. No matter what, there is always limited labor and resources, so there will always be losers. Only in this system, majority of us are the losers having to use this socialist money.