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.
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.
There is a difference for sure, though I would point out the obvious slippery slope, and I would point out that slope is coated in the grease of unmitigated greed, and I would point to our ancestors TOTAL BANS on interest bearing loans (aka usury).
With further reading you can see that these bankers were not funding their side of a war, but were infact funding both sides of many wars, some entirely disconnected from the lands they lived in, others closer to home. The Rothschild dynasty especially was horrible for this, making money hand over fist while European kingdoms (ostensibly the “nations” of these bankers) fell.
So it’s not like, e.g., King Louis was instituting a 1% war tax on French printed money and funding his war with that, FRANCE HERSELF was being taxed by the bankers, this largess was being passed off to enemies of France to fund invasions and war campaigns against her! While also funding France’s response (ensuring that whoever wins will be indebted to the banks until the bank-parasites excrete themselves, enter the water supply and change hosts
I get where you’re coming from with the idea that this was just an innovation in warfunding, but I just don’t think that was the case (that this was a scheme the nations of the world wanted, to fund their wars of aggression - I see it more as an “arms race”, where the bankers were the ones fueling the race on all sides, because no matter which side lost, the lenders won).
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.
There is a difference for sure, though I would point out the obvious slippery slope, and I would point out that slope is coated in the grease of unmitigated greed, and I would point to our ancestors TOTAL BANS on interest bearing loans (aka usury).
With further reading you can see that these bankers were not funding their side of a war, but were infact funding both sides of many wars, some entirely disconnected from the lands they lived in, others closer to home. The Rothschild dynasty especially was horrible for this, making money hand over fist while European kingdoms (ostensibly the “nations” of these bankers) fell.
So it’s not like, e.g., King Louis was instituting a 1% war tax on French printed money and funding his war with that, FRANCE HERSELF was being taxed by the bankers, this largess was being passed off to enemies of France to fund invasions and war campaigns against her! While also funding France’s response (ensuring that whoever wins will be indebted to the banks until the bank-parasites excrete themselves, enter the water supply and change hosts
I get where you’re coming from with the idea that this was just an innovation in warfunding, but I just don’t think that was the case (that this was a scheme the nations of the world wanted, to fund their wars of aggression - I see it more as an “arms race”, where the bankers were the ones fueling the race on all sides, because no matter which side lost, the lenders won).