Does anyone remember the link that was in?
My specific question is that someone commented how the international bankers goal is to shift wealth from US to China which would make them trillions. How would this make them trillions?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
I work in banking and am very well educated in finance. I can explain.
To simplify things, banks take money from savings and reallocates it toward investments through credit. Banks profit when the cost they pay to savers is low and the price they charge to investors is high.
The prices are based on supply and demand. Thus from a banks perspective, they always make the most money by paying savers in areas where the demand for savers money is low and the quantity of savers is high. The USA would count as this type of location right now. The bank also makes money where demand for investment is high but the supply of investment is low. China would constitute a location that meets this criteria.
This is why the global banking system is opposed to borders and wants globalism because the easier it is for banks to take savings from anywhere and shift it to investments anywhere, the higher their profit. A bank's profit interest does not align with any single nation's interest. Right now, China's interest overlaps and the USA is actually losing out due to the bank's interest but things could change one day for China also.
Now how does what the bank is doing impact the USA? Well, when the bank decides to throw American savings at China instead of America, that drives the price investors in America are willing to pay (the price of credit) up which reduces the overall amount of investment in the USA. The net impact of this is reducing the wealth in the USA, while increasing the wealth in China and increasing the banks profit.
Whenever people discuss the problems of the world through the lens of "Zionists", they almost always tend to miss the mark. Zionists aren't inherently bad and in fact Zionists have criticized international banking Jews before also because the interests of international banking Jews didn't necessarily align with the interests of Zionists. This is why you can get a situation where the left and Israel are fighting one another because the global Cathedral as one might call it IS NOT actually fully aligned with Zionism.
Here's a quote by Theodore Herzl who was the Father of Zionism. In this quote he is referring to banker Jews.
Correct but that equilibrium is not as beneficial to the USA then if say the bank didn't shift the savings to China so that the bank had excess savings it needed to invest in the USA (since it can't go to China and we'll ignore all other countries). The banks would start offering credit at extremely low rates to encourage investment to get rid of its excess savings. This would overall reduce the profit of the bank and increase investment in the USA which would be a net benefit to the USA's wealth but the bank's profits would decrease.
Between the two scenarios, the one I just described benefits the USA more.
Without complicating it too much, I will note that the bank's maintain and free market economists etc... that my Scenario 1 (money going to China) leads to greater global wealth and since the banks are owned by Americans, the profits come back to America over the long-term. More wealth in China for example means more potential for trade and the net benefits in the end improve the lives of Americans over the long-term. This is a very idealistic take because it assumes the profit will come back to America and won't just be used on purchases in other countries or to again further invest in other countries. Nothing says the money has to cycle back and with companies now more able to do the work by offshoring in other countries, it doesn't even necessarily lead to more American jobs. Furthermore, there's nothing to say China's increase in wealth will cycle back to the USA either because China can implement trade barriers and perhaps leverage its wealth to get better trade agreements with other countries and actually reduce America's overall wealth even further.
Can you speak on the supposed signs that China has an imminent economic catastrophe on its hand due to being far too overcredited? You're probably familiar with the Peter Zeihan take on this and that is mainly how I am familiar with it.
Honestly, I don't know enough about China's situation trust myself to speculate but my quick take is that almost all their debt is to their own citizens. That means China has a lot of tricks up its sleeve to solve the debt problem. Essentially, they'll just spread out any negative impacts from the debt among all their citizens. The net impact would be reducing the quality of life of the Chinese people but if they spread it out well enough it might have relatively little total impact.
The debt is likely not good for the Chinese people. I have a hard time believing a lot of the new debt China has taken on has actually had net positive value add to society as a whole (though it might, I haven't looked into it). But will it be the cause of an imminent economic catastrophe? I doubt it.
This is great; thank you!