No I don't see it as a problem. (Note I don't use the word capitalism as it's a marxist framing technique of identifying their target, what you are describing is government backed free enterprise. No-one sat down and said "lets create a system and call it capitalism. It's just an example of the superior linguistic discipline the left has)
There are many individual issues with financial problems but they are individual not as a result of some mythical "system" to say that is to buy into the marxist frame.
I think most of those individual issues could be solved or avoided by greater economic literacy in individuals. Seriously Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is required reading.
To be fair, when I called it “the modern system of debt-based capitalism” and “capitalism(usury)” I was trying to differentiate what I was referring to (the reality of the situation) from any theoretical renditions of the meaning of “capitalism” (either explicitly Marxist or not).
Frankly I do believe some people sat down and said “let’s create a financial system which operates as an inescapable black whole from which lendees will never escape, while the lender’s event horizon grows ever wider. There was the rothschild banking cartel from the 16th century onwards, from which time old world economics became ever more centered not on labor or production but debt. Part of the reason for America’s rampant success early on was the casting off of this system, though it eventually returned and metastasized in 1913 with the creation of the fed and shortly after that with the abolition of the gold standard with Breton Woods
I know Sowell is quite smart, but I can’t think of much I’ve heard him say on the topic of debt slavery, inherent with fiat currency
Probably pedantic point but I see a difference between money lending and receiving interest in return for the risk of not getting the money back. And private central banks convincing governments that the money they create is worth paying interest for.
Frankly I do believe some people sat down and said “let’s create a financial system which operates as an inescapable black whole from which lendees will never escape, while the lender’s event horizon grows ever wider.
Was this done as an alternative method to fund wars? Because traditionally wars had to be paid for during the war, paying soldiers with fake money that you then have to pay money to bankers in the future with the proceeds of your country (after you've won the war so have additional treasures) seems like a win win decision at the time. Because if you lose the war you're debts are the least of your concern.
Not that it's any consolation to today, but it may have started out as an innocent and reasonable solution to paying for wars. Which get more and more expensive as technology and scope improves. (not making a moral judgement on this, just pointing out that it happens and if you want to continue existing as a country you have to fight larger and larger wars or be conquered)
Paying for the war in the future, but getting war material today is a better choice than paying for the war with whatever you have today as that will always be less.
No I don't see it as a problem. (Note I don't use the word capitalism as it's a marxist framing technique of identifying their target, what you are describing is government backed free enterprise. No-one sat down and said "lets create a system and call it capitalism. It's just an example of the superior linguistic discipline the left has)
There are many individual issues with financial problems but they are individual not as a result of some mythical "system" to say that is to buy into the marxist frame.
I think most of those individual issues could be solved or avoided by greater economic literacy in individuals. Seriously Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is required reading.
To be fair, when I called it “the modern system of debt-based capitalism” and “capitalism(usury)” I was trying to differentiate what I was referring to (the reality of the situation) from any theoretical renditions of the meaning of “capitalism” (either explicitly Marxist or not).
Frankly I do believe some people sat down and said “let’s create a financial system which operates as an inescapable black whole from which lendees will never escape, while the lender’s event horizon grows ever wider. There was the rothschild banking cartel from the 16th century onwards, from which time old world economics became ever more centered not on labor or production but debt. Part of the reason for America’s rampant success early on was the casting off of this system, though it eventually returned and metastasized in 1913 with the creation of the fed and shortly after that with the abolition of the gold standard with Breton Woods
I know Sowell is quite smart, but I can’t think of much I’ve heard him say on the topic of debt slavery, inherent with fiat currency
Can you elaborate by what you mean by debt slavery?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sIE84LWvqU8
Ok I did watch it, thank you.
Probably pedantic point but I see a difference between money lending and receiving interest in return for the risk of not getting the money back. And private central banks convincing governments that the money they create is worth paying interest for.
Was this done as an alternative method to fund wars? Because traditionally wars had to be paid for during the war, paying soldiers with fake money that you then have to pay money to bankers in the future with the proceeds of your country (after you've won the war so have additional treasures) seems like a win win decision at the time. Because if you lose the war you're debts are the least of your concern. Not that it's any consolation to today, but it may have started out as an innocent and reasonable solution to paying for wars. Which get more and more expensive as technology and scope improves. (not making a moral judgement on this, just pointing out that it happens and if you want to continue existing as a country you have to fight larger and larger wars or be conquered)
Paying for the war in the future, but getting war material today is a better choice than paying for the war with whatever you have today as that will always be less.
Great video regardless of pedantic differences.