digg

Join DiggAbout

Our Debt-based Money System, and its Consequences watch!

youtube.com — If the three and a half hour documentary on fractional reserve banking left you overwhelmed, this series of animations explaining how our debt based money system works should clarify the confusing aspects —and leave you indignant at a system that lets banks make money out of nothing to loan you at interest or foreclose on your property.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -4/+46This series of animations has apparently been compiled into a single 47 minute movie: http://www.themoneymasters.com/order.htm#mad

    • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -1/+16Or, if you prefer to see it online in one piece: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436 ...

      (But ignore the socialist banter on the sidebar by the person who posted the video; the problem is debt-based money enabled by fractional reserve banking, not capitalism or free markets as a whole.)
    • elcaminos, on 12/06/2007, -2/+5Man, this video is so slow paced...I wish I could watch it at 2x speed.
    • LeeSoong, on 12/06/2007, -5/+2Well, now you know the future of the USA:

      1. The strong Canadian currency will continue to grow stronger, buying up investments in USA.
      2. The USA economy continues to use Debt money, eventually consumed by its own interest.
      3. Old, Fat, Poor, Childless USA Americans die out, extinction via economic genocide.
      4. Land repopulated by immigration from the south, more and more of the USA converts to
      Spanish, abandons English as the common language.
      5. Canada owns most of the continent, and Mexico supplies the people.

      So eventually, the Canadian and Mexican borders will touch, having squeezed out the remaining USA population via economic debt based genocide.

      Mortgages, Credit Cars and Car Loans as a more powerful weapon than Nuclear Bombs.
      This goes back to the bankrupting of the current USA economy, spending $2 Trillion in Iraq, and another $1 Trillion a year in military operations. The USA can be defeated simply via the continual engagement in military operations because it causes too much financial strain on the economy.
      The bubble will burst.
      • roodammy44, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1This will only happen if the american people continue to elect retards.
        If someone with more knowledge than a 10 year old child gets elected, they may be able to put the US on the path to recovery, although it will be a bumpy ride whoever gets in.
        • jadenguy, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4You, sir, are delusional. No man who wants to rule the world should be allowed to do it.
      • Speed, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4"The strong Canadian currency will continue to grow stronger, buying up investments in USA"
        Our currency isn't rising, the US dollar is just falling. Big difference
  • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -4/+49For those of you who missed it, the very thorough 3.5 hour documentary I'm talking about is this:

    A History of Fractional Reserve Banking, and Why Monetary Policy Matters
    http://digg.com/educational/A_History_of_Fractiona ...
    • tmanka, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Oops sorry wanted to comment below...can't delete comment, just edit.
    • fishpicker, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4the debt as money video is decent but it is superficial. the money masters video isn't flashy but it does provide the very best argument against the FED. I'm glad someone mentioned it. the money masters vid is on google video.
  • principle, on 12/05/2007, -23/+42"It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head." Warren Buffett

    Many seem to believe that Ron Paul’s gold-based currency is the answer. Even though I have enormous respect for Ron Paul, I find his statements misleading. For example, he implies that the founding fathers wanted our government to coin gold-based currency. Actually, this is what they set forth in the Constitution.

    Article I, Section 8 “The Congress shall have Power … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

    Gold-based currencies were invented by bankers and I am certain that Ron Paul is aware of that. He even said that US has NO GOLD!

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-186811620 ...

    With gold-based currencies, those who have no gold have no money. So going to gold standard is not going to make us rich and thus solve our problems. In fact, the use of fiat money is not the root of the problem. The problem we have was created by banks, which printed their own money and collected compound interest on loans.

    As much as I like Ron Paul, he is too inflexible to lead us out of bondage to the Fed. Ron Paul proposes to get rid of the Fed and the Income Tax. Yes, that would put us on a rode to recovery. However, the notion of converting to gold standard is not an option. We simply have no gold. At the same time, being a Libertarian he wants a small government, which is incompatible with value-backed money. That is, money issued to build government projects like power plans, roads, bridges, etc., where the treasury would act as the central bank landing money, with proceeds going back to the people. Unfortunately, none of this is possible with Ron Paul as president because he is against “big” government.
    • Berkana, on 12/05/2007, -1/+14What you're talking about is addressed by the monetary reform act, which is described in the 3.5 hour documentary I linked above, near the last hour or so.

      The irony of what you're saying is that the folks who are backing a 100% reserve, non-privately owned central bank using fiat currency that is statistically regulated based on population needs are endorsing Ron Paul as the only candidate that seems serious about monetary reform. See http://www.themoneymasters.com , at the bottom of the page. I found out about those two documentaries from them.
      • principle, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1After following Ron Paul’s comments on this subject for many years, I still have no clue as to what he is proposing. It worries me when a politician dangles a hook in from of my nose without any meat on it. It may be tempting but I want some meat on it first.
    • dukeeeey, on 12/05/2007, -2/+18i dont live in USA
      but we have the same banking system here.
      The answer is for the people and the goverment to have control over the money supply and not a private company (the federal reserve) or for us in the uk the bank of england. We also need to end the madness that is fractional reserve banking, which essentially legalises banks creating money out of nothing.
      • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5*money* is nothing so why not make it out of nothing? Any time (or almost every time) business is conducted, *real* goods and services are involved. *THAT* is where all value lies. Money has no value. It would be insanely stupid to tie up general value in what is nothing more than a book-keeping method.

        Money is created when there is a demand for it. That demand coincides with a need for liquidity to allow commerce. Because banks charge interest for that money, there is a mechanism that inhibits "demand" and so prevents excessive inflation.

        Our system is working very very well. For the sake of all that is sane, don't break it.
        • TLAKABM, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4The problem is that the system benefits privately owned banks enormously. All the power and control rests in private hands.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1Not just private hands, but in the hands of an organization engaged in a criminal fraud. Government says it's okay to practice fractional reserve banking, though, so apparently it's all legit. :)

          Any group outside the protection of the government would be charged with fraud and/or counterfeiting.

          Private organizations on their own are not something to fear. A corporation, however, is getting SOMETHING from the government, and that should be scrutinized.
    • BadseedJR, on 12/05/2007, -4/+11I could be wrong, but from what I've seen, Ron Paul doesn't support the gold standard, he just wants accountability for the money. He is against printing money to fund things that have no end, which increases our money supply and kills the value of the dollar. Where a gold standard would do that, I don't think that is what he is trying to do. He simply wants the Feds ability to do that eliminated...by eliminating them.
      • HippyInASuit, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4He will also make gold and silver legal tender, removing capital gains tax on precious metals, and opening the money to free market competition.
    • winterus, on 12/05/2007, -7/+48You are wrong. Ron Paul isn't an advocate of strict gold standard. He just supports legalizing competing currencies, and merely points out that if the market is allowed to choose, gold is often chosen.
      • browwiw, on 12/05/2007, -23/+3Ron Paul is an advocate at slinging his feces at the mailman.
      • brjohnson789, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2Sorry, I meant to digg your comment.
      • principle, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1You can mint you own currency today. It is your right under the Constitution. Some already mint gold currency like the Liberty Dollar. Therefore, what Ron Paul is saying is as clear as mud.
        • thirdoffive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6>>You can mint you own currency today. It is your right under the Constitution. Some already mint gold currency like the Liberty Dollar.

          You can't spend it though, unless you're cool with the secret service throwing you in jail and taking all your stuff. People ought to be allowed to use anything they want as a medium of exchange without fear of imprisonment or confiscation.
        • TruthforAll, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Liberty dollar WAS raided by the FBI.. http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/legal/raid.htm
      • fishpicker, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2that's right winterus. Ron Paul suggests that we introduce a dual currency. (let the currencies compete) that is not the same as a gold standard. if we had a gold "standard" the whole world would have to do the same or it would not be standard. the gold standard wouldn't work and RP hasn't ever said that we should go back to it .
    • brjohnson789, on 12/06/2007, -2/+26As much as I like you, I find you ignorant about this matter. Paul does not argue for a strict gold standard; he has argued for competing currencies to be allowed. If a gold/silver backed curerncy were allowed to exist in the US, overtime people would spend their old Fed notes on the gold money, so over time the US WOULD get some gold back. And of course the gov't, if it were made legal, would let you pay your taxes in gold.
      • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5THAT IS STUPID. The reason currency is so useful is because it *represents* worth without actually *being* worth. Any gold standard requires that objects of worth be put in a vault somewhere and just sits there. You are *wasting* resources!!!

        The rational purpose of currency is to allow the trade of goods and services without necessitating the stockpiling of useful, valuable materials. Precious metal standards impose an inherent, hidden cost on all commerce. Those stockpiles are wasted resources in a figurative black hole and they contribute nothing to the economy. And it is completely unnecessary to do that.
        • scubasteve377, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Because the millions of tons of gold currently dangling around peoples necks, wrists, and fingers isn't a waste of resources...
      • principle, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1You can mint all the gold coins you want under the 10th Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is what Liberty Dollar does. Given that, what exactly Ron Paul is proposing?
        • HippyInASuit, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3Ron Paul is proposing we don't have the FBI raid places that sell gold coins.
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10It's not accurate or sufficient to say 'bankers like gold, therefore gold is bad'. And that says nothing about solving the current situation. But what is certain is that fiat currency is worse.

      We're not beyond the means of translating our labor into stores of wealth such as gold or silver. Wealth is not a limited commodity, and there's much less to fear from fluctuating gold than from fluctuating faith-based debt notes with no value-backing.
    • themonkman, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8You are incorrect, Sir. We do have gold, and plenty of it. In fact, we are able to mine an additional 1-1.5 million ounces of gold per year. Most of it is stored in Ft. Knox's Bullion Depository and also the Philadelphia Mint, the Denver Mint, the West Point Bullion Depository and the San Francisco Assay Office, also facilities of the United States Mint. The only problem is that in reality our gold reserves haven't been audited in the last 30 or so years, or at least so says the documentary I saw a year ago on the History Channel. More info about our Mint's and gold reserves, particularly at Ft. Knox can be found here:
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/fo ...
      • SlimFastForYou, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6I didn't think there were still people who believed there is still gold in Fort Knox. Well, I don't know what to say other than everything happens for a reason - including a lack of audits for 30+ years. I'll leave the reason for the lack of audits up to your imagination :).
      • shig, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2The 'Bretton Woods' system is what you're looking for. In truth, we have no gold.
    • dominicmck, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1The gold standard was the "standard" until the global economy began to grow faster than gold could be mined. Placing a physical limit on the total sum of money (there is only so much gold in the ground) has very negative impacts. Unfortunately the gold standard is a case of been there, done that, and it didn't work. While reform is nessassry, money can never be backed by a finite commodity in the long term.
      • thirdoffive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4>>money can never be backed by a finite commodity in the long term.

        Yes it can. It's value would just deflate. So it would get MORE valuable instead of less. There are arguments for why that's bad but I don't really subscribe to any of them.

        I think the bigger picture is that people should be able to use any medium of exchange they want. You like fed notes? Use fed notes. You like gold? Use gold. Like iridium? Use iridium. Like jade monkeys found before the next full moon? Use jade monkeys found before the next full moon.

        There's no justifiable reason for bossing people around and ordering them to only use certain things as money.
        • synarchy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1The only problem with "use fed notes" is that they have to be backed with a "promise" to pay, which is the income tax. So, if you want to use fed notes, then you pay the income tax. If you use value-based currency instead of debt-based, you don't pay the income tax.
      • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Finite commodity does not translate to finite value. If something is more rare, it will become more valuable, therefore you need LESS of it to buy the same goods and services. If you invest in gold and the demand rises faster than it can be supplied, you WIN!
      • synarchy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2
        "For example, he implies that the founding fathers wanted our government to coin gold-based currency. Actually, this is what they set forth in the Constitution.

        Article I, Section 8 “The Congress shall have Power … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

        KEEP READING...

        Article 1. Section 10.
        No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
    • sphira, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3Bad public relations to let the public in on the scam. That Gold was borrowed against years and years ago. That, also, was the plan all along by the "Money Changers" (The core control in the bank of england at the time of the war for independence). They have very long term plans. Generational in fact.

      I have a word to say about diversity. What makes a people a people?
      Common threads that run through the group sewing all the members together. When those threads are too few and weak, effectively the group ceases to be a cohesive group. The word USA became attached to the geographic location or container if you will. It no longer is synonymous with "the people" as a group. When you introduce immigration in massive numbers well beyond the assimilation capacity you effectively scuttle the "will of the people" because there really is no will of the people, and no common threads to hang the "will" upon if there were. The obstacle of "the people" as a competing force for control is eliminated and a field day ensues. We are at that "field day" today. We are well beyond the point of no return I'm afraid! You can no longer take America back because America has ceased to exist!
    • warlokaz2004, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0we can't return to a Gold Standard. Not overnight. Probably not in 20 years. to do so would result in a simultanious hyperinflation AND Depression.

      So on that Ron Paul is wrong. As for our declining Dollar...we need to get away from Floating currency and back to fixed rates of exchange. We might as well since China insista on 'under' valuing its Yuan (tho with the Declining Dollar that might soon no longer be a problem.)
  • nuvem, on 12/05/2007, -6/+98I wish more people would digg this up, it's something everyone should know. You might not agree with the proposed solution, but one thing is for certain: The system is unsustainable.
    • jimmick, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Of course it is.
      The only way the bank will crash is if everyone gets out of debt and stop relying on the bank. (Withdrawing all their money)
      But the amount of debt the average American is in has just about quadrupled over the last 25 years.
      The only way you can kill the bank is for every nation of the world to stop accepting American notes, of course, then the whole contries infrastructure would collapse.
    • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -7/+3The system is not only sustainable, it is stable and effective.

      Money is created when there is a demand for it. That demand coincides with a need for liquidity to allow commerce. Because banks charge interest for that money, there is a mechanism that inhibits "demand" and so prevents excessive inflation.

      It is a self-regulating system that shows no signs of instability. It is a mistake to equate a state's debt with the quality or stability of the currency used by that state. The debts that the US federal government incurs is an issue unrelated to currency.
      • Berkana, on 12/06/2007, -0/+3You obviously have not seen the documentary. The stability is an illusion, just as the roaring 20's were. Watch the documentary, please.
      • roodammy44, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2"that shows no signs of instability"

        What have you been smoking?
        I'm guessing the current credit crunch and runaway inflation were all just in people's head?
      • dbhaley, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Thanks, Whiteraven. It's good to see someone have the balls to stand up against this idiocy. I was trying to explain the supply and demand for fiat currency and how it's better and more efficient than asset-backed currency to one of these conspiracy theorists. She was blatantly disagreeing with how the system works. I said, "Maam, I have a bachelors in economics. I know how it works." She said, "Whatever they are telling you." As if the University Professors were in on the conspiracy. You can't convince these people of anything. They don't listen. But kudos to you sir.
      • HippyInASuit, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Sustainable, stable and effective? When was the last time the Fed caused deflation? The only "tool" it has is to print more money and cause inflation.
    • stklaw, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Come to think of it, we just need to tax the bank to hell and it will be all fine.
      But then no one will make banks and we're screwed... :(
      wtf? is this a paradox?
    • sphira, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1"The system is not only sustainable, it is stable and effective"
      sustainable -- money from nothing = nothing
      nothing = money

      With laws of governance like that sure it is -- but by and for whom?
      stable -- ? --- What will the federal budget look like in 2107?
      what will the state of world population vs world resources be
      world politics?
      world war?
      In times of tribulation will the "system" save rich and poor alike, or just the rich?
      effective is subjective!
      negative effective maybe.
      All else you write is just explaining how those grasping control game the "system"

      "self-regulating system that shows no signs of instability"

      Delusional!

    • canUdi9it, on 01/14/2008, -0/+2The current monetary system was designed to collapse from the beginning. It was also designed to concentrate and transfer wealth into a few private hands. Yes, that means a conspiracy or cabal was involved. It's an historical fact. Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island" for a good factual history of banking and the Federal Reserve.

      The current system is unsustainable, because only the principle is created with each loan, not the interest. So the interest must be paid for with more debt and so on. It's a ponzi scheme of debt that can never be paid back without going further into debt, until the whole thing finally collapses. When that happens, they won't blame the banking system or the bankers. They'll blame the politicians and the people.
  • SeethisPass, on 12/05/2007, -3/+34The money system is an extremely important subject. We need lots and lots of eyes on it. Someone please take this subject and simplify it enough for neophytes to get it more quickly, before their attention span elapses. 3 minutes max.
    • MogusMaximus, on 12/06/2007, -1/+14I resent that request, I am perfectly capable of... oh, look at the kitty.
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7Federal Reserve Notes have no backing, simply faith. They're worse than ordinary debt 'notes' because at least with a note, there is a promise to pay the value. You can't get that from the FRN.

      There is no Gold in Fort Knox.

      Gold and silver are intrinsically valuable. Paper certificates are a convenience and guarantee redemption and parity (if the certificate says it's worth 1 ounce of gold, they ACTUALLY have that amount in a vault somewhere).

      Regular auditing by a third party is required if one is to keep a 'banker' honest. Competing currencies and varied metals will aid in bringing better money systems to the people.

      People argue against gold standard because they claim foreigners/bankers would 'manipulate' the value and destroy an economy. This is an exaggeration. Provided stores of gold are audited, and individuals can acquire gold or silver specie, there would be little to fear, but in order to guard against fraud, you must use a trusted currency maker.

      Anything that happens as a consequence of individuals buying or selling gold in massive quantities is really fair game. If gold goes down in value, that makes it easier for someone to acquire more. If gold goes up, that benefits those who have it, yes, but only if they can convert their gold into some other asset before the value declines. Silver has a better stability reputation than gold: Diversification is the key to success for managing the growth of your wealth.

      The USD is in a constant free-fall of value, so by comparison gold prices appear to be skyrocketing. Taxes make it prohibitive to invest and earn. When the Federal Reserve prints more money, all the money in circulation decreases. This is called inflation tax.

      I hope that's under 3 minutes of information. :)
      • spiralspirit, on 12/06/2007, -2/+7neither gold nor silver are intrinsically valuable, they are simply something that is both scarce and pretty, which gives to value within out society. If people have the same faith that a speck of gold as they do in the piece of paper, they are fungible.
        • BabaRamDass, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Gold and silver are both metals, and have real utility. As long as real utility is inherently valuable, so are gold and silver.
          • BrainInAJar, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1the utilitarian value of gold and silver are actually pretty slim, decorative pieces aside.

            Sure, gold is used for computer interconnects sometimes, but on the whole if you had a utility+scarceness = value calculus, you might be able to come up with copper & platinum based money systems...

            but then, those have actual value, you wouldn't want to shove them in a vault somewhere
          • dbhaley, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Hell yeah, and that apocalypse is right around the corner. Or so I hear... from wingbats.
      • wstrucke, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2i think he meant 3 minutes of video. if you're going to write text it better take about ten seconds to read before the average person skips to the bottom.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Seems to me this is why we're having problems in the first place. Not enough people actually read. Sometimes it is difficult to encourage people to do things that are in their best interest.
      • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3"Faith" based money is the superior method. Debt based or precious-metals based currency is an unnecessary and wasteful extra step in the process. An economy uses currency to make equitable trades quickly and easily. The people *using* the currency are only concerned with those they trade with, not the backers of the currency. In essence, everyone with a note is backing it themselves whenever they trade it away to another.

        It makes no sense to require some entity to maintain a debt or a stockpile of gold just because there are some notes being used to conduct business out in the economy. That is wasteful... gold's value is real because it is *useful*... don't place it in a black hole where nothing can be done with it. The same holds true with debt... a debt that a bank or other entity must be prepared to re-pay on demand forces them to tie up wealth that just sits there, waiting to be redeemed. Even if they do not cover the outstanding debt 100%, it still represents a waste of resources that gains us nothing.

        The value of money is tied to whatever you wish to trade it for at any given moment. Currency is subject to supply and demand. If there are more goods and services available than there is liquidity (cash) available to allow them to be easily traded, you have pent-up demand. This is why the Fed is allowed to "print money" and charge interest on that money. The printing fulfills a need and the interest imposes a cost to keep the demand in check. It is a great system that guarantees enough liquidity to supply a growing economy while providing a check against the danger of printing too much money and causing inflation.

        It is FALSE to claim that the printing of money reduces the value of the currency. Because of the elementary principals of supply and demand, by printing money *as demand increases*, we maintain it's value.

        The problem is that there are *currency traders* who do not understand these facts and influence the value of the USD internationally in a way that is simply not reflective of any reality. Unfortunately, value *is* perception so it is certainly possible that *ignorance* can rob the dollar of it's legitimate value.
        • roodammy44, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1While mostly true, what's happened in this case is that the "by printing money *as demand increases*, we maintain it's value." part hasn't been fulfilled.
          What's happened under this administration is that money has been "printed" as demand decreases therefore producing inflation.
          This has caused banks willing to give money on the flimsiest promises to pay it back, and when that cannot be fulfilled the money disappears.
          So a lot of money has been "created" and then disappeared.
          Unfortunately, everyone spent the money straight away (especially the govt) and now it's disappeared there's a big economic problem that will cause a recession.
          The problem is not just about the fractional reserve rate, however - it has been interest rates in which you can make more money by getting in debt than by saving due to the rate of inflation being greater than interest
        • dbhaley, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Roddammy44, by your comment, it almost seems as if you think the fed actually prints new notes and hands them out. They actually just buy back govt notes and loosen lending requirements on banks. Also, the fed increases liquidity (decreases the target interest rate) during recessions (and before them as well) in order to boost the country's economic performance and lift us out of that recession more quickly. Could we come out of the recession eventually? Yes, but it is simply more efficient (and more beneficial for unemployment) to stimulate the economy with increased liquidity. See: Phillips curve, a modest amount of unanticipated inflation can reduce non-cyclical unemployment.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Well, the people SHOULD be concerned with those backing and managing the money supply. Those in government and those who get contracts with the government benefit first, and benefit the most when new money is printed and placed into circulation. Your wealth is being destroyed without having an armed bandit steal your wealth directly. This is the problem with fiat currency.

          For you to call precious metal debt based is a complete falsehood. That would make all commodities debts. That would make everything tangible a debt! But debts to whom? That makes no sense!!

          The point of currency is to improve the means to purchase goods and run a business.

          All actions require energy, yes. So some currency solutions will require more energy than another. That doesn't mean that gold and silver currency is inferior.

          Why does the US Mint go through the trouble of printing metal anyways, even though the value of the metal is inferior?

          If it's not your property it really doesn't matter. I agree with you to the extent that it is an idle resource that perhaps could be put to a better use, but that does not mean that fiat currency is superior. It is thoroughly inferior because its value can be manipulated by those who claim an exclusive right to produce it.

          "It is FALSE to claim that the printing of money reduces the value of the currency."

          Incorrect. It reduces the wealth behind the currency. The value on its face may remain the same, but products in respect to the currency will rise in price. A single dollar today is worth about 3 cents due to inflation, as opposed to when it used to have an actual value backing it.

          We could manipulate the value of the dollar if we raked it into a huge pile and burned it, MAYBE.
    • najdorf, on 12/06/2007, -0/+8Basics points of the video:

      -Charging money at an interest requires an exponential growth (unsustainable) otherwise sooner or later all the money will be to the money lender.

      -Banks can basically produce money as long as there is a debt to back it i.e. if I take a loan for 10k the bank can make 10k fiat money in practice. So money IS debt (promises of wealth, not real wealth).

      -Most of the debt of families, government, companies is debt towards the banks themselves.

      -Debt implies slavery to the banks that dont produce ***** but are so full of money.

      -Proposed solutions are using a fixed amount of money or having the govt only make money (and spend it wisely), not the goddam banks.
    • synarchy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Then you'll get accused of promulgating a "conspiracy theory" with demands that you provide detailed evidence. Unfortunately is pandering to the people who need the 3-minute version that got us into this mess in the first place.
  • Curlz31, on 12/05/2007, -4/+71This is one dupe that shouldn't be buried. Too important.
  • snowwrestler, on 12/05/2007, -21/+10Speaking of a corrupt cartel--how does this same video make it to front page of Digg every 2 months?
    • Oomsoup, on 12/05/2007, -2/+21I never saw it and it's a series of videos that should been seen by everyone. Who cares if it comes up often? The more people who see it, the better!
    • Scynet, on 12/06/2007, -2/+17Because we want it to. It's important.
  • lewhich, on 12/05/2007, -9/+31The Federal Reserve is just "as federal as" Federal Express.

    • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6What corporate officers of FedEx does the government appoint?

      You know, just to point out that there is in fact a difference.
      • tankd0g, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0No one is elected to the Federal Reserve.
        • Akronos, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1The Chairman is appointed by the President.
        • Berkana, on 12/14/2007, -0/+2But the share holders are secret, private, and their operations are not subject to any outside audit, nor oversight. The Chairmen of the Fed have always come from the Banking establishment, and historically, have acted in the interest of the shareholders of the Fed, not the public; the Great Depression only continued because the Fed's policies contracted the money supply, and kept it contracted. The stock market crash would only have taken out the high fliers in the market, not result in an economic depression lasting years. For such a thing to happen, the money supply must contract and remain contracted, and the Fed has been known to do this, rocking the economy between easy money and difficult money, reaping foreclosures after each cycle.
    • jcasc99, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1? I'm missing the comparison
  • Oomsoup, on 12/05/2007, -3/+40Wow, those were really well done and extremely easy to follow. Dugg for knowledge!
  • jsun9, on 12/05/2007, -1/+17Even people that don't think they'll understand this.. watch it; it's easier than you think. Watch it twice if you have to. I ended up sending it to my whole family. This is incredibly important topic and one that affects a lot more than meets the eye.
  • Zique, on 12/05/2007, -8/+4Yes, the monetary system is based completely on debt, except for the Fed loans to government that they have never collect back. Wait what, you don't care about facts? Oh, ok.
  • windowi, on 12/05/2007, -2/+11**shutters** reminds me of econ 202 still none the less important so dugg!
    • Dunedain, on 12/06/2007, -0/+5Why are you covering up the windows?
    • dbhaley, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1If this is what you learned in 202, shred your degree. This is more like macroeconomics 101, the irrational paranoid version.
  • fonebone2, on 12/05/2007, -17/+7Cue the morons who think banks shouldn't be allowed to charge interest, and that interest charges "create money that doesn't exist."
    • Berkana, on 12/06/2007, -4/+10Cue the morons who don't read articles or watch videos before commenting.

      You obviously haven't watched the videos. Interest charges on loans don't create money that doesn't exist. The entire loan itself is money that doesn't exist.

      Please watch before you spout off. Then maybe you'll have something intelligent to say.
      • WhiteRaven, on 12/07/2007, -1/+1"Money" only serves to represent the value of some other thing. Since the goods and services available in the economy do in fact exist and there are always MORE goods and services becoming available, there is a need for that money to be created.

        When a good or service is created... whether through extraction of natural resources or growing food or manufacturing goods or hanging out a veterinarian's shingle (in other words, offering the time and resources needed to care for pets), value is created. Hopefully you understand that that value is not spontaneously created from nothing... it is the result of effort and resources and is a genuinely valuable thing. Once that actual wealth is created, creating a paper representation of that wealth is a natural response.

        In other words, the money did not exist but some thing of value corresponding to that money DID. That borrowed money does not *create* value, it is going to be used to represent existing value. There is a demand for the currency and as long as supply and demand is kept in balance, the currency does not loose value simply because more is printed because it is printed in response to rising demand.
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/06/2007, -5/+3There's a difference here. If I loan you some money and set an interest rate, that's fine on its own. The problem, however, is lodged in the fiat money system itself and the banking practice of fractional reserves.
      • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5There is no problem in the fiat money system. It is the only system that allows an economy to grow without an artificial limit. Goods and services *need* a fluid currency to be available to represent them. This representation allows quick and equitable trades to be made. The ability to print money on demand guarantees that the natural growth of an economy can be accommodated. And it vital that a cost be associated with the printing (the interest charged) in order to provide a control mechanism to prevent over-printing.

        Paying that interest is a clear demonstration that there is *demand* for the money. If the demand is not met, the economy experiences something akin to a traffic jam and slows. And ONLY a fiat currency can accomplish this because no form of direct backing of a currency can reliably (if ever) keep up with demand.

        Every day, there's more stuff and more services that need to be accommodated in the economy. We MUST accommodate it. This is the only way to do it. Whether the Fed is private of public is really immaterial... it just isn't an issue.

        Also remember that unlike gold in a vault, the interest that is paid to the central bank is immediately fed back into the economy... it is a cost only to individuals, not to the economy as a whole.
        • waynetheman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2But what do you think of fractional-reserve banking?
          • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2I think sticking large volumes of wealth (regardless of how it is represented) in a black hole where it is not being used by anyone is bad policy. The risks of fractional-reserve banking are minimal when compared to the utter waste of maintaining large stockpiles of static wealth. People often seem to not understand that the alternative to fractional-reserve banking means that there is *duplicate* wealth being held somewhere. That just makes no sense.

            As I said, as long as the money supply does not outstrip the legitimate need for the liquidity it represents, there is no reason for the value of currency to go down. It doesn't matter what the origin of the "cash" is as long as there are goods and services that need it to exist.
          • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Yet somehow people who save and invest wisely, not spending all their wealth on worthless goods and services, appear to be able to increase their wealth.

            Apparently rich people don't even factor into your understanding of economics.

            Fractional reserve is fraud.

            Duplicate wealth? Wrong! You can carry and store gold and silver coin or bars. That's a big hole in your theory.

            Money is supposed to serve the people, not people serving the money suppliers.
          • WhiteRaven, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1@PeppermintPig
            A hole in my theory? The practice for using precious metals as wealth is perhaps the single dumbest economic practice ever. Gold and silver are useful metals. But, instead of *using* them, you want to just hold on to them. This is a very, very stupid waste. Okay, fine... as long as you are holding gold, that wealth is not being duplicated.... it's simply NOT WEALTH. The value of metals is in what can be *done* with them. If you aren't using them, they have a value of zero.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2You seem to be associating the scarcity of a commodity with a limit to the growth of wealth. This is inaccurate. Wealth is not a limited commodity.
          • WhiteRaven, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1Uh... how did you reach the conclusion that that is what I was saying. Indeed, that is the opposite of what I said. Wealth is virtually guaranteed to grow and so the supply of currency must also grow.
      • najdorf, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3The problem is when the govt spends billions that will never come back, and the billions that banks make without really producing anything.
    • chaosium, on 12/06/2007, -4/+1"Cue the morons who think banks shouldn't be allowed to charge interest, and that interest charges 'create money that doesn't exist. "

      Welcome to Ronconomics, the Downsy brother of Reaganomics!
  • mt066, on 12/06/2007, -22/+5"...a system that lets banks make money out of nothing..."

    aaaaaand that's all I need to read here. Buried. Goodbye.
    • sentime, on 12/06/2007, -4/+12sheeple lol
      • mt066, on 12/06/2007, -9/+3yeah only non-sheeple watch bank conspiracy videos posted by a guy named "tyrannyofsoulz"
        • BabaRamDass, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5Fractional reserve banking isn't a conspiracy. It's a pretty well established practice.
          • mt066, on 12/06/2007, -6/+3"...[this film covers] the corrupt banking system. It explains how these institutions get away with robbing the unsuspecting public by creating monetary policies designed to enslave society"

            Oh yeah you're right this isn't some crackpot conspiracy garbage. my bad.
          • roodammy44, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1@mt066
            Obviously everything that means a small group of people are better off and the vast majority screwed is a conspiracy.
            Because we live in happy land, where only good things happen.
            The govt actually makes legal bad things happening to good people? You gotta be kidding me!!!!
            I guess the american govt overthrowing iranian democracy in the 50s and funding osama bin laden in the 80s were conspiricies as well eh?
          • mt066, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1OHMG YOU GUYS HAV SOWN ME TEH LIGHT THANKU RLOVEUTION
      • mike17032, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Using that word only proves you are retarded.
    • waynetheman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3WTF?!! The fact that you have trouble wrapping your brain around the concept DOES NOT mean that that's not exactly how it happens!

      Ever hear of fractional-reserve banking?
  • Killbot2015, on 12/06/2007, -15/+4Whoever made this video should grow some balls and tell his artist that his drawings are actually a significant step down from just using clipart and tell him to do them again or, even better, fire him. Now, don't get me wrong, I liked the video. I watched all 5 parts of it when it was on digg months ago (but that's besides the point) and i realize that a documentary like this isn't the kind to get any real funding. It just got really distracting at points where I couldn't tell if I was watching a man get a loan from a bank or a pirate and a walrus wrestle over a treasure map.
    A tip to any aspiring filmmakers: Don't let people work with you just because you went to high school with them and feel sorry for them because they never got over the death of their cats. Or if you really must work from the bottom of the barrel go on mininova and download photoshop so at least they don't have to work with finger paints and construction paper.
    • Gerfervonbob, on 12/06/2007, -2/+9Wow *****, its the content's message thats important not the animation.
      • Killbot2015, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2So visuals aren't important in film now? I'm well aware that you liked the thing and I AM IN NO WAY DISAGREEING. If you liked it BECAUSE of the gross clipart wriggling around on the screen then I AM disagreeing. All I'm saying is it is difficult to take seriously sometimes because it looks like the guy ate crayons for a week and filmed his *****. And yeah, I am an ass hole for wording it like that but I think the point remains valid.
        • Gerfervonbob, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Animation costs and takes time and since the point of the video is not your or anyones entertainment but the message then I'm inclined to give the artists a break. And yeah it's your opinion, and its my opinion that you sounded like an ***** so I said it. But hey, heres to no one being offended over something so stupid, right?
    • keithgplayer, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4You probably hate South Park then.
      • Killbot2015, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Also no, I don't hate South Park because I realize the difference between style fore the sake of originality and style that works so poorly for it's context to the point that it actually distracts you from what matters. And what matters, as Gerfervonbob said, is the message. I believe that the face of the message is distracting from it's spirit and I'm sorry if-- no, no I'm not sorry for *****! It's my opinion and if you feel like you can jump to conclusions about me as a person based on the fact that I don't like clipart in my movies then ***** you. I don't like clipart in my movies, is that such an offensive opinion?
        • roodammy44, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2It's not your opinion that people are digging down, it's the retarded way you expressed it:

          "Whoever made this video should grow some balls and tell his artist that his drawings are actually a significant step down from just using clipart"
        • keithgplayer, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1I can see you didn't take your meds today.
  • reed311, on 12/06/2007, -18/+11Be mindful when viewing this video that the youtube user that has posted this has posted countless conspiracy theory videos to his account. So take this with a grain of salt.
    • Berkana, on 12/06/2007, -2/+16Judge each document by its own merit. Attacking the guy who posted someone else's work is an ad-hominem attack. He can be wrong on some matters and right on others.
      • Waterrat, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5 This is true...And it's not a conspiracy theory.
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560 ...
        http://www.michaeljournal.org/lincolnkennedy.htm
      • StaticThunder, on 12/06/2007, -3/+1Judging this by its own merit, it IS conspiratorial, and makes the money system much scarier than it actually is. Typical NWO conspiracy nut-video. And of course most people eat it right up without considering what actually limits the money supply.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Typical knee jerk reaction to anything outside MSM or recognized by institutions of 'higher learning'.

          By the admission of skeptics, this is not 'conspiratorial', in the derogatory sense of the word at least. This is how the system works.

          Only the resources required to produce them is what limits the printing of fiat notes. Money is a better store of wealth. Currency does not equate to wealth!
      • mike17032, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1Or take them for what they are, the ravings of moonbat wackos.
    • Tetraca, on 12/06/2007, -4/+7Fractional Reserve Banking exists. It's agknowleged, documented, studied, and can be an issue in the future if we ever need to cap our consumption rate and make a sustainable economy based on fully reusable resources, but for now it works more or less. For that much, it is rather accurate. The whole message at the end of New World Order, however, is when it starts to go a bit fruity and you should really take it with a grain of salt if you're not a conspiracy theorist.
  • airiox, on 12/06/2007, -9/+46This is the exact reason why I feel if Ron Paul gets close to being elected President, he will be assassinated.
    • DokGonzo, on 12/06/2007, -1/+11Exactly. By whom you ask? The banking cartel of course! It's so simple! But the sad truth is this whole things flies so far over most peoples heads it will NEVER get the attention it requires until it's too late, i.e. the whole system crashes in a MOST dramatic way. You think the Great Depression was bad? Think again...
      • BrainInAJar, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6Babylon fell, Athens fell, Persia fell, Egypt fell, Rome fell, The Ottomans fell...

        Eventually, America will fall. To believe otherwise is fallacious. Fractional Reserve will probably be the cause of the fall.
    • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -7/+5Now explain why you wrap your head in tin foil.

      By the way... the President can't do anything about the banking system so even if there really was a conspiracy, Ron is a bigger threat to it where he is in congress than he would be as president.

      But hey, thanks for playing.
    • mike17032, on 12/06/2007, -7/+2We can only hope so, because if he was able to implement even half is his ***** retarded ideas it would run the country right into the ground.
    • wssharp, on 12/06/2007, -2/+3if not for this, then certainly by the mafia when he tries to push for the decriminalization of drugs.
    • DavidGX, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2I sure hope so.
    • brownrabbit, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I would like to think that Truth and Integrity and Freedom will overcome.
      I will not be seeing anyone killed for power. I ask that you banish this possibility. We do not need it to move forward. We do not need to learn from such a path.
      Blessings in you, through you, all around you...
  • fabiolover2002, on 12/06/2007, -14/+7This video is very misleading. It presents banks lending out other people's money as a bad thing. Anyone who has taken a basic economics class understands how this can stimulate the economy. Money is deposited in the bank, and then the bank loans that money to someone. That person will most likely put that money into their bank, and the process is repeated. This stretches everyone's money as much as possible, allowing for the money to go a lot farther in contributing to GDP. Of course the government has to step in though to make sure that the banks keep enough money in their possession. This is also how the government can control the economy, making sure it doesn't expand or contract too quickly. A completely gold based economy would be absurd, and every luxury you enjoy would not exist because we would be living in a 2nd world country where venture capitalists, inventors, and entrepreneurs would not have access to loans.
    • otalivan, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10You didn't even watch the video... it surely does not present banks lending out other people's money at all.
    • Berkana, on 12/06/2007, -1/+6If you would have watched the video more carefully, it doesn't present lending out other's people's money as a bad thing as long as its paid back. It presents loaning out more money in the form of account balances than you actually have money to back it up with as a bad thing, because that's one of the root causes of inflation--namely, money from nowhere.
      • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -3/+2No, "money from nowhere" does not cause inflation. Too much money and too few goods and services is the cause of inflation. Because the economy is constantly growing... because there are more goods and services available... there MUST be more "money from nowhere". As long as the money supply keeps pace with demand, the value stays consistent. And by charging interest on the "printing service", the system guarantees that yes, the money is only printed when there is pent-up demand.
      • guniouz, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Guys... WhiteRaven is right. It's pretty much intro Econ. Now please read what I have to say before you dig this down.
        Think of it this way:
        The amount of money out there in the world is increasing, via fractional reserve banking. At first glance it seems that yes, this causes inflation. But at WhiteRaven is pointing out, what we produce is increasing too. Technology is improving, people are getting better at making stuff. This has a deflationary effect.

        Intellectual exercise:
        Let's say we have $100, and 100 pencils, and that's all there is. We can assume that 1 pencil will = 1 dollar for argument's sake.
        If we print more money, and we now have $200, it's true that each $1 will buy you only 1/2 a pencil now -> this is inflation. But what if we get better at making pencils? There is $100, and $200 pencils. This is deflation, as $1 buys you 2 pencils.

        As WhiteRaven points out, as more pencils are produces, more money needs to be created. Even if we double the money to $200, as long as we double output (pencils), money will not inflate.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Or we could simply pay less for the pencils without wasting money printing more money?

          Printing more money doesn't make us any wealthier.

          That's not a reason to print more money. It doesn't justify fiat currency in any way.
    • widman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5No. Banks make every possible trick. They create the rules. They make big bubbles and then cash in. Now this bubble, the largest ever known, is due.

      UK banks, ranked among the most serious financial institutions are having scandals every single day lately. Some are shocking like the abuse of Charity Laws
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/dec/05/banks. ...
      and other madness like this first bank run in over 150 years on a large bank with somehow... no assets!
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/23/nor ...

      The whole world economy is at stake and there's no clear way out of this. The only action so far was to raise the rates (benefit to lenders and not the people!) and to give huge amounts, billions, to banks at crazy low rates (at the tune of 60bn u$d in only a couple of months in UK, and rumored 100bn in US soon.) Lenders see people can't borrow any more so now they want to squeeze to the max the existing clients till they bleed their whole savings out. If that's not possible, they'll sell all and just run with the money.
    • PeppermintPig, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3Lending people money is not a crime. The crime here is that they make people pay interest on money that has no backing and/or they print the money in surplus of the gold they have on hand. Fractional Reserve Banking.

      You do not appear to understand economics at all.

      "Of course the government has to step in though to make sure that the banks keep enough money in their possession. This is also how the government can control the economy, making sure it doesn't expand or contract too quickly."
      The government does not by its mere presence make banks more accountable. Fractional Reserve Banking exists today. It is fraudulent. The government does nothing about it. Secondly, you do not need a central organization 'regulating' economic growth. That's a scam.

      "A completely gold based economy would be absurd, and every luxury you enjoy would not exist because we would be living in a 2nd world country where venture capitalists, inventors, and entrepreneurs would not have access to loans."
      It would be absurd, but not for the reasons you point out. People will diversify naturally. There are many commodities. Gold is not an inhibitor of economic growth. The methods of wealth management will dictate economic success or failure.
    • BabaRamDass, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4"It presents banks lending out other people's money as a bad thing."

      And that's when I knew you didn't even watch the video. Banks don't lend out other people's money; it lends out money that never existed.
      • guniouz, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1It is still unclear to me why creating money that never existed is a bad thing... and mind you I'm an econ major. It is an innovation, not a bad, evil idea.
        • PeppermintPig, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1I have a couple million in UBERDOLLARS sitting here. Seeing as you don't think it's a bad idea, I'm sure you'd gladly accept my UBERDOLLARS in exchange for your car. After all, there's nearly 2 million worth sitting here!

          You should ask for a refund if you're an economics major and they haven't explained these things to you yet.
  • Snuffs, on 12/06/2007, -1/+15Thats a "wealth" of information.
  • danwallace, on 12/06/2007, -9/+11http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

    It's all about control.
    • waynetheman, on 12/06/2007, -3/+6zeitgeist, at least in part, is likely a deliberate hoax. Possibly just disinformation, with enough truth sprinkled in to hook some folks.

      The part about the "Son of God" being a play on ancient "sun gods"... a play on words which only works in English... should be the first clue.
      • Berkana, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1not only that, they completely ignore the history behind the date of Christmas. It was not dated to coincide with the Roman sun god's feast day until the fourth century. Prior to that, there was no official celebration for Christmas.
  • capiCrimm, on 12/06/2007, -3/+12The general public can barely watch 1 hour *action films*. Try compressing it down to five minutes if you want mass appeal and to make a change.
  • kavin620, on 12/06/2007, -6/+15Guys, I'm no economist, but this seems a bit misleading. He keeps implying that money's created from nothing via loans, but most loans are backed by collateral that the bank can seize and sell if the debtor doesn't pay up. So isn't it more accurate to think of the banking system as creating liquidity on an asset that would otherwise be illiquid?

    That seems like a GOOD thing, since it creates access to capital to start businesses, etc...
    • kavin620, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4Also, in cases where the loan isn't backed by actual collateral, loans are usually made to people with income. The legal system gives lenders the right to reclaim at least a percentage of their loan from debtors via their wages if they don't pay up (AFAIK).
    • sentime, on 12/06/2007, -6/+4wrong, you're talking about old banking kavin
      • kavin620, on 12/06/2007, -0/+4What do you mean? I watched the videos but I don't understand how loan money gets created from NOTHING -- there's always some value that the lender will seek to extract from the debtor if they don't pay. Or can someone explain to me how this isn't the case?
        • StaticThunder, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2You're absolutely right. The only way money gets created is when someone adds value to the system. When a bank "creates" money, what it actually does is devalue all the money currently in circulation -- ie., inflation.
    • SkippySkip, on 12/06/2007, -4/+5The main problem with this is that the collateral cannot keep up with the new money forever. Eventually we will run out of new "collateral."
      • chaosium, on 12/06/2007, -4/+4"The main problem with this is that the collateral cannot keep up with the new money forever. Eventually we will run out of new ''collateral."

        WHICH IS ALSO A PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU''RE ADVOCATING, MORONS.
        • BabaRamDass, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2Calling someone a moron is a very ineffective way of changing their mind on a subject.
      • StaticThunder, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6You never run out of "collateral" or labor unless everyone dies. THAT is what you are promising the bank; that you will produce goods and services of value greater than what the bank gives you TODAY at a specified time in the future. And the interest you must pay should be proportional to the risk that you won't come through with the goods.

        This is only a problem when people fail to live up to their promises, or the amount of money loaned is greater than the amount of commodities available for purchase. The system works, and has plenty of built in corrections.
      • dbhaley, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2@ Staticthunder: YES!!!! As long as the economy is performing at a decent level, the currency will have value. The country's economic performance has nothing to do with its currency, either. It has to do with the amount of labor, capital, and technological growth. America has more capital per worker than any other country. There is nothing to worry about yet in regard to a currency collapse.
    • roamzero, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4Ideally, that is the argument for such a system because it promotes growth, and quality of living goes up (or at least that's the idea). People take chances, start businesses, buy houses, etc under the assumption that the investments will grow, or at the very least, people will be able to pay off the debts. But even with some very smart people at the helm of the Fed, managing the economy in such a way is difficult, and almost always results in some sort of inflation. People do question the fairness of the system because people who choose to save can be hurt by the Fed's blunders, and the financial industry has first dibs on the money and can sometimes go a bit too far with it (see the housing crisis).
    • StaticThunder, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5Loans are the promise of future goods and services. There is only a problem if future goods and services cease to exist, which is not only unlikely, its impossible unless trade ceases. Its not just natural resources or current collateral. When the resources run down, interest rates go up because the likelihood of the loan being repaid goes down as well and less "money" enters the system. Ultimately it IS stable, as interest rates and the amount of money available to loan is dependent on people being willing to promise future goods and services.

      This video is extremely simplistic. It didn't even touch on inflation, which insures that money is not worth more than the amount of goods and services available for purchase without tempting correction.
      • guniouz, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Agreed.
      • fishpicker, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2"There is only a problem if future goods and services cease to exist, which is not only unlikely."

        a problem is not unlikely= it is likely= you're talking out of your ass
      • brownrabbit, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Exactly. Future 'Goods and Services' are not unlimited. Welcome to Earth, a closed system of resources. Let's figure out how to move beyond linear extraction ans then we can talk about the ideal of a future in which goods and services never cease to exist. Maybe I am making this too simplistic and I also feel this to be true.
    • tankd0g, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0There is absolutely no risk to the bank, if you default AND they don't get hold of your assets, what did the bank lose? Nothing. They never put anything up in the first place. So why can't I buy a car with nothing? To simplify it a little. You get a loan and they print you some money, if you don't pay it back, they just print some more money.
    • kingpin2k, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0If you're talking about the $200k to buy a $200k house, then yes. But you're not, you're talking about the $300k to buy the $200k house (figuring interest)...it's the extra $100k that is simply "created". That's the impact of usury.
  • GregDude, on 12/06/2007, -2/+11This documentary should be compulsory viewing for all school children. The core content and history of money is accurate. The conclusion is that alternative systems for regulating money and its supply are possible. We lack political will to fix the system. On a side note, a return to Gold, Shells or Barter is not the solution, lets think outside the box. What goals do we want the money system to achieve, and what options do we have to implement it? Remember David Suzuki's bacteria in a test tube story (sorry, no link). This is a timely warning.
    • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -4/+2The system is not broken.

      The current system is already doing everything a money system should do... including growing dynamically to accommodate a growing economy. The purpose of charging interest on "money printing" is to ensure that the demand for the currency is appropriate and in keeping with the needs of the growing economy.
    • StaticThunder, on 12/06/2007, -3/+0GregDude, children don't need to see a one-sided conspiracy video. The system is working exactly the way its supposed to, and the death spiral shown in the video CAN NOT HAPPEN, unless we all decide not to make good on our promises to the bank, which is merely a surrogate for every other person in the economy (creating liquidity). And if that were to happen, then yeah, of course we're in trouble, but the system is largely self-correcting as long as nobody cheats.
  • thebitghost, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10This topic should be required learning for all students. A real eye opener for those just waking up.
  • OneAndOnlySnob, on 12/06/2007, -9/+19Please don't bury this until you've read the whole thing and at least given it an inking of a thought. After that, I don't care what you do.

    I watched this about 6 months ago and was a little freaked out by it. I know I'll get buried for saying this but ... look around you! Are you aware that we live in the richest country on earth and we are the richest society there has EVER BEEN? You people seem to have no idea how good you've got it, or how we got here. Ostensibly, this insane system works. You can talk about how freaky it is, but the results are in and have been in for several decades. I'm not talking about how much money is in circulation, I'm talking about all the stuff we've built, how everyone has a TV and if you're reading this you have a computer.

    If you think about it, if you have debt, pumping more money into the economy does two things. It makes the value of your debt less via inflation, and it makes it easier get money to pay off your debt.

    Before we went off the gold standard, did you know that we had frequent depressions? We'd have a depression every two or three decades. Why? Because too much money ends up locked up in the hands of too few. Pumping more money into the economy gets things moving again. You conspiracy nuts like to blame the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve, but frankly, there are a lot of depressions in the history of this country. There was a depression in that started in 1893, long before the Federal Reserve.

    Okay, now that you've read it, you can bury it if you really want.
    • source1984, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5Um.. please don't forget that you're living in a bubble. Just 60 years ago, America was NOT #1. You are CURRENTLY living it up. If you consider the CONSEQUENCES -- they could be disastrous. America could come crashing down so hard that it could go to being a CRAP HOLE.
      • starmanjones, on 12/06/2007, -3/+4but the remedy that this philosophy advocates means nobody owns a car, home or anthing else they can't pay cash for. frankly, life under those circumstances is not much different than a crashed bubble for most of us.

        its the cheating on the system that is the problem. i hear complaints about inflation from the same gold hoarders. kill it or it kills us. well, you never want a raise or increased benefits. people get raises but it very seldom is accompanied by an equal amount of increased production.

        they always fail to accurately describe the down side of what they want. i don't think most even know the down side. its a rhetoric base system that is the opposite of communism with the same
        • chaosium, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2"they always fail to accurately describe the down side of what they want. i don't think most even know the down side. its a rhetoric base system that is the opposite of communism with the same"

          Far right-wingers and far-left-wingers have tons in common. They're also both the lunatic fringe.
          • starmanjones, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1i think its hilarious they don't see that. or ironic. or... well in the case of the current admin... a crime. :D
        • waynetheman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1"but the remedy that this philosophy advocates means nobody owns a car, home or anthing else they can't pay cash for. frankly, life under those circumstances is not much different than a crashed bubble for most of us."

          Oh please! Are we THAT spoiled in this country?!!

          Our grandparents didn't just go out and get a loan or a credit card and get what they wanted when they felt like it. They saved up and EARNED what they got.

          So you can't drive the newest SUV on the block, or won't own a house until you're 30 or 40... SO WHAT? With what you save on interest, you'll be better off long-term, but as a typical American, it's about having the same stuff Mom and Dad do by age 25 that's the goal. You can survive and even prosper without debt, even if you won't be able to leverage it into millions.

          It's called living within your means.

          It's been said that you can't scam an honest man. And you, sir, are buying into this scam.
          • starmanjones, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1i'm not sure what your point is. i guess its a value judgment. my grand parents did borrow money. for a car. a house. i don't drive a new SUV. they are as much as i paid for my first house... oh, ya... i borrowed money to buy it and i sold it for twice what i paid. my current house is worth twice what i paid for it. you got something against making money?

            the rent i would pay is more than the house payment. i'm supposed to not borrow money to buy a house so i can not be spoiled paying more to rent? because you think its a good idea? why would i put my money in some landlords pocket when i can pay less.. and double my money. i actually go paid to live in my home. you want me to loose my ass paying for someone elses property?

            as far as having what mom and dad do by 25... thats not the goal. thats the result of the system you are criticizing. you need to focus on whats causing the system break. more often than not its because someone that can pay cash for a house is manipulating/corrupting they system. the bush family is a perfect example. s&l bail out = big profits for the bushs who were accused and let off the hook for illegal things.

            the credit card thing is bad. credit card companies toss you a credit card way too easy because they make money doing that. its a predatory system that is in most ways like the rackets formerly known as the mob.

            finally, living in your means. have no idea what that means. does it mean don't borrow money that you can afford to make payments on? or do you mean save $200,000 bucks so you can pay cash for you new home?

            you realize if i don't borrow money to buy a house... opting to pay more per month to rent an apartment... that the housing industry doesn't employ people. the toilet makers don't sell many toilets. you are describing how to employed thousands and thousands of people who will pay more for rent... resulting in an in ability to ever save 200,000 for a home. can't afford a car either. the schools systems have less money.

            think it over. you're the one listening to the scam. they are the people i pay rent to... they don't want me buying a home.
      • starmanjones, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3digg died.... truncated me...

        this rhetoric and the rhetoric of communism are equals in that neither is realistic. they are polar opposites. they both are "if only" and neither can produce a single example of it working. they both end up as some form of command economy.

        that is all.
    • starmanjones, on 12/06/2007, -3/+5i agree. i have misgivings about all this. but the fact remains that debt has given us our standard of living. we as individuals are doing the same thing as banks. i buy a house... i don't have money to pay cash. i'm borrowing on my future income with nothing more than some documentation that i might be able to pay it off before i die.

      i think there are several missing pieces to this criticism. it used to be that gold and other precious metals... all that backed up the system. thats because it was valuable to people at the time. i don't think there was any truth in its value ever... but... hey.

      now, the valued commodities are the things that drive an affluent lifestyle. thats not gold.

      i think this video was produced by the same people that support lasse faire capitalism. this suffers from the same misdirection. lasse faire capitalism and free market is used nearly interchangeably. they aren't. in fact, in practice, lasse faire... no interference with the market capitalism thwarts free markets.

      it produces in pretty short order an elite few with access to capitol because they can eliminate competition. when that happens you have capitalism but no free markets.

      same thing here. banks do what we do. borrow. do they cheat... ya. do they have special access to money... ya. the bush's are a perfect example of that. that should be stopped.

      this group of people wants all money backed by bars of gold. gold that aren't really worth much. i could have gold and starve. i could have gold and no home. the down side of gold based systems is that you and i wouldn't be able to buy a home. we'd never have access enough to obtain gold enough to pay cash for it.
      • StaticThunder, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1The banks are merely surrogates for other individuals in the economy you wish goods and services from. They create liquidity, and are subject to supply and demand just like everything else, so long as no one is cheating. They are NOT a problem and returning to a standard currency is NOT a solution.

        Making sure interest rates are in proportion the the actual risks inherent in a loan and that banks are appropriately insured, THAT might be a solution.
        • starmanjones, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1i agree. its not the system per se. its the parasites.
    • fetussoap, on 12/06/2007, -3/+3All the things were are creating from "thin air" money have come at a cost. I do live in the richest country in the world, but we are all in debt and have failed to calculate the costs of non-renewable wealth.

      You must not have watched the entire video series. Exponential growth cannot continue forever. You need a renewable system. Something in, something out. Recycle.

      If you want to keep buying crap (tv's, iPhones, plastic, eating meat, etc) you must rationalize the waste you are creating.

      Think about it this way. You buy a $1.00 burger from McDonalds. Well, the waste from your meal is going to either be recycled, or put in a landfill. Either way, waste is created (environmental, or landfill). Your burger is cheap, but wound up costing society and future generations.

      I would only agree with your above paragraph if everybody wanted to have EVERYTHING and live like kings. In the real world this is not possible. (for now. there is always star trek)
    • Berkana, on 12/06/2007, -2/+4The problem is not that we are poor; the problem is that this system is not sustainable, and it is leading to the destruction of the earth and the depletion of its resources.

      As for what you're saying about dismissing "conspiracy theories" regarding the great depression, you need a history lesson, not just your vague recollections of what you think you retained from the history books. Watch this documentary before you spout off, because you are woefully unaware of the factors involved in the Great Depression.

      http://digg.com/educational/A_History_of_Fractiona ...
      • waynetheman, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Your comment was factual, rational, and made sense. I just don't get that people are actually digging you down, just because they like using debt and don't want the hard work of saving their money and waiting to buy things. Sheesh.
    • kirstpo, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2This type of system is unsustainable. The rate of growth is too fast. True assets are created from scarce materials like trees, water, oil. These are scarce materials because by definition they WILL RUN OUT. This perpetual debt system will clean out the earth of it's resources before it can replace it. This debt system also creates large disparities between the rich and poor and working class; it has to have losers to continue running. Growth is not always so good a thing.
    • Xevec, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2The saying that we don't have depressions anymore is because the definition of them has changed. The real goods being created is irrelevant to the money supply. The money supply has grown too much. Combined with the LEGAL obligation that all business MUST accept the federal reserve note. If I wanted to pay for my college tuition with only $1 bills, by law, the college must accept it. If they don't, the court doesn't have to enforce the debt.

      Gold right now is selling for $1000 an ounce. It is still rising. Under the gold standard, we could be seeing gas prices at 10 cents a gallon...AND DROPPING!

      Also, I disagree with the notion that no interference destroys free market. That's an oxymoron. Let me comment on this:

      it produces in pretty short order an elite few with access to capitol because they can eliminate competition. when that happens you have capitalism but no free markets.

      This is complete crap. The "age of the robber barons" proves this. No business can "eliminate" competition. You have to be a pretty smart business to keep up with the ever-changing demands of the consumer. Not even standard oil could do this for long. Even by the time they were broken up by anti-trust laws in 1912(I think), they were losing market share to companies like Texaco and Gulf. Free markets don't have a "standard" of how many businesses there should be in a given industry. Any small company can easily compete with a huge company. Let us compare wal-mart to K-mart. K-mart was a huge company when Wal-mart first started off. Tell me, where are they now?

      But money itself is simply a medium of exchange. It represents something. It is not a CLAIM to something, but a representation. I can't comment more because i don't know much about monetary theory.
  • Shenaniganz08, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6great video
  • stklaw, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10This actually blew my mind.
    Everyone should see this.
  • annihilator675, on 12/06/2007, -0/+10"Last payment honey!" -"Yay! No more catfood" WTF??? LOL
    • hollygolitely, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1glad someone else saw that part.
    • RossDuprey, on 12/13/2007, -1/+0What was being said was that all their money went into paying off the debt so what was left every month only bought cat food for them to eat instead of white albacore tuna. Since they were done paying off the debt, that money could then be spent on tuna instead of cat food.
  • niktech, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10Watched all 5 videos. Money, legally created out of nothing - this really is a surprise for most of us.
    Logged in just to digg it.
    • guniouz, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2It really isn't a surprise to anyone who has taken Economics... The video states that creating wealth out of nothing is bad. But beyond this assertion, it really isn't clear that it is bad.
  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 12/06/2007, -0/+7This video, is actually called "Money as Debt" and can be purchased at moneyasdebt.net Buy a copy and show it to your relatives.

    Another very important video that everyone needs to see which is only 42 minutes long is
    Money Banking and the Federal Reserve
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540 ...

    A copy can be ordered at
    http://www.mises.org/store/Money-Banking-and-the-F ...
    • Berkana, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1At the same time, the Ludwig von Mieses school of thought ("libertarian economics" aka. "Austrian economics") is only partially correct. They recognize the problem of fractional reserve banking and that the Fed is a sham, but the solution they propose is the gold standard (or if not a strict gold standard, a gold/silver/platinum standard).

      I know Ron Paul is of the Mieses school of thought, but I still support him because if he gets elected, there will be a national dialog on the matter. That is better than what we have now, which is Bush at the helm and our nation borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a futile war.
  • mediaspree, on 12/06/2007, -0/+19The last hour of my life was educational.
  • Ifishbein, on 12/06/2007, -5/+2I saw the videos when they were posted the first time, and there is a lot missing from them. The biggest surprise to me was the ridiculous claim that, in short, since companies have to continually report percentage based growth in order to appear profitable, it means they have to continue growing to infinity at an exponential rate. The video omits the fact that inflation usually rises faster than company profits, so they don't actually grow, but rather only appear to grow. So a company that appears to make 102% of last year's profit, in real dollars, actually made 98% of last year's profit. Therefore, the company isn't forced to create sales out of thin air in order to maintain exponential growth, but rather can sustain "strong growth" by selling its product at an inflated price.
    • tankd0g, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0Sales don't automatically increase with inflation, so yes, they do have to create new sales to keep pace.
  • cnot3, on 12/06/2007, -0/+6OLD, but true. Watch it if you haven't.
  • Todamont, on 12/06/2007, -2/+1Could someone make an article explaining the ideas in text, or do I have to watch this drawn out sensationalist video that gives me a headache in the first 20 seconds?
  • zantos420, on 12/06/2007, -1/+4now i know why the CANADIANS have a better currency than ours! really, look it up! it hasn't been this way since 1913!!!!
    • LeeSoong, on 12/06/2007, -0/+2Wow, now I can really move to Canada - can they change their laws to accept citizen equals, instead of powerless surfs?

      It would be nice if Canada had freedom of the press, a rational approach to copyright, and warmer weather too.
      • drewj05, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Canada has a fractional reserve system much like ours so that doesnt even make sense. At the same time, is it so bad that Canadians and Europeans are now buying our products more than ever because our currency is cheaper than theres? Just because our currency is down does not make it a bad thing unlike many politicians would make you think.
    • guniouz, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2Guys... the value of the US currency isn't like a world ranking. Whoever's currency is worth the most isn't the "winner".

      It's ironic, because so many people on Digg lambast the fact that the US runs a current account deficit (ie. we import more than we export), but they don't recognise that part of that solution is a depreciation of US currency. In fact, it naturally follows. A less valuable US dollar means others will want our exports, because they are now cheaper. If you actually look at the current account deficit over the last two months, you will see that it has become sharply less negative.

      And to further elaborate on my claim that a "more valuable" exchange rate doesn't mean you "win". Because in the end the exchange rate is only what regulates the exchange of goods between nations. Does the fact that the US dollar has dropped mean that Apple is going make fewer computers? Does it means that the number of trees, fertile fields, iron ore etc in the US has decreased? No. The US is still as wealthy as it is, even with a lower exchange rate. In fact, anyone who exports US goods is probably celebrating the drop in value right now.
      • synarchy, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2It also means that no one outside the U.S. wants to invest in the U.S. dollar, and that countries currently only accepting dollars for their oil will start wanting Euros instead.
    • tankd0g, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Canada used to have a system like he describes, where we could take interest free money from the Bank of Canada to build the health care system and infrastructure. Brian Mulroney fell in with the IMF/NWO crowd and in a few short years completely dismantled that system, now Canada is on the same path as the USA. See you in hell.
  • Enlightenment, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2007/12/rea ...
  • Snarfy, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2The last movie that talks about NWO, reminded me of this animation
    http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

    You can almost see NWO happening when the borders are defined towards the end of the animation.
    • dadioflex, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1So you're saying that once Israel was established wars stopped? Ummmm. Think again.If anything the reverse is true. I respect the right of Israelites to have a homeland, I just wonder why they had to pick a spot in the middle of an area that hates their guts. I'm thinking someplace in New York would work better. Hey, hear me out it's not like I'm advocating anything permanent, I'm just throwing some ideas around. Suppose Islam decided that Ground Central in New York was the ideal spot to establish a community. A lot of Muslims died there so it's a special place for them, obviously. Nobody is questioning their right to grieve and it's a place of mourning. So far so good. I'm not speculating that in 20 years time a lot of fake Muslims are going to turn up and turn the place into a joke. I'm just saying it could happen. So you've got that Ground Zero community coming on terrific but now some wiseass is claiming you're not a real New Yorker. Well, you know the score by now, this is normal so you answer these ludicrous threats by turning Ground Zero into a police state and turning your children into soldiers. THIS is going to work great.

      You have to question the humanity of the worthless ***** that killed your kids that were acting like soldiers. It's like those animals didn't realize this was all supposed to be a joke with us winning.

      We'll have the last laugh. No matter how much we have to turn Ground Zero into a police state, no matter how many freedoms we have to sacrifice and no matter how many innocent people have to die, we will do as we please.
  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Todamont here are some interesting books

    http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-and-Austrian-Econ ...
    http://www.mises.org/store/Gold-Peace-and-Prosperi ...
  • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -7/+10Points to keep in mind. There is a reason the currency system does in fact WORK.

    The root purpose of currency is to allow the quick and equitable trade of goods and services.

    The economy is (almost) always growing. There are more goods and services and thus a need for more currency... currency that will retain its value because it is more dollars "chasing" more goods.

    Currency is subject to supply and demand and it's value is determined the same way. If you fail to meet demand, the value of currency goes up. If you print too much, value goes down. But don't forget, demand *IS* constantly going up and not always predictably. Being able to "print money on demand" is important.

    Associating interest costs with printing money is a way to ensure the printing only takes place when there is in fact demand. This is a great way to gauge demand and avoid inflation. Also, this "cost" is money that will still be circulating and so does not impose a cost on the economy as a whole (unlike putting gold in a vault where a useful commodity is rendered useless).

    When the federal government borrows money, it also *spends* that money. It is exchanged for goods and services just like any other money. So, this borrowing is a legitimate form of demand and the corresponding printing of money does *not* reduce it's value. Nor is ownership of the debt usually kept by the "printing" banks. This point in no way addresses the wisdom of going into debt, it only is meant to show that governmental debt should not be a drag on currency value. Of course, the irrational currency markets aren't sophisticated enough to recognize this so state debt does often effect the value of a currency... just not for any rational reason.

    The fact that private enterprises profit from the printing of money is not a negative. They are a part of the economy... it does no harm. And as I said, associating a cost with printing new money is an important feedback mechanism allowing us to gauge demand.
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 12/06/2007, -1/+2All your posts in this thread have been great. Are you studying economics or something?
    • mikemil828, on 12/06/2007, -2/+2//Currency is subject to supply and demand and it's value is determined the same way. If you fail to meet demand, the value of currency goes up. If you print too much, value goes down. But don't forget, demand *IS* constantly going up and not always predictably. Being able to "print money on demand" is important.//

      Which is the benefit of a fiat currency, you can increase or decrease the money supply to suit the situation (The fed dramatically increased the money supply when 9/11 occurred to prevent a run on the banks and dramatically decreased it when things cooled off), with gold money growth is dependent on how much of it is mined per year, too much gold and you get massive inflation, too little gold mined and you get massive deflation.
    • waynetheman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+3"The economy is (almost) always growing."

      It's not growing anywhere near the real rate of inflation (which is far beyond the lie the government sells us.)

      Look around you. Have you bought milk recently? Do you know how much we're paying for a barrel of oil? Do you know how much we owe the Chinese? How can you sit there and try to tell anyone that this bastard currency of ours "works"?
      • WhiteRaven, on 12/06/2007, -1/+1@waynetheman,
        You need to differentiate between inflation due to currency imbalance and inflation due to the interplay of supply and demand. Properly managing currency is not a guarantee that prices will not rise because currency has nothing to do with the supply and demand of *other* products.

        The supply of oil (for example) is finite. And, the cheaply available, easy to drill for oil has already been used for the most part. And global demand is rising at an astonishing rate. These factors have very predictably lead to a spike in oil prices. As the basis of so much of our economy, that spike is causing a rise in all prices. No currency policy can or even should attempt to prevent this kind of rise in prices. Prices are going up because they MUST.

        There are of course some government policies that are exacerbating the situation. Ethanol subsidies are just about the dumbest thing the government has ever done and we are suffering because of it. But the rise in prices is not an effect of the money supply... it is an effect of ordinary market forces that are ultimately the necessary feedback mechanism that keeps the entire system running. Rising energy costs represent a very real shortage in supply as compared to demand and those rising costs affect all corners of the economy. It is up to us to adapt to new realities.

        In reality, the currency has not lost value... but due to relative shortages of energy (and a few wrong-headed subsidy programs), almost everything has increased in value. Never forget, value is determined by the interplay of supply and demand. The prices MUST rise. Confusing that rise with a reduction in the value of a currency is a serious mistake.
  • gr00vy, on 12/06/2007, -6/+8Ok, and this is for all the "real" money whack-tards out there. What this film does not show is that work and economy both/each creates and exchanges debt. When you work for someone that creates debt, the sum of that work is the wealth/debt that is created and exchanged for money. We are not going to be out of money when all the homes are paid off. We are out of money when everyone stops working. This is true no matter WHAT we use for money. However, a debt based system creates enough money to cover all the wealth that is created. In a modern society you can't use gold or silver, because the economy grows faster than the supply of the commodity creating a death spiral of deflation, or it holds