rothschild family making all the money? They got assets in England worth 33 billion

People just STOP. Stop posting this rubbish, you are making fools of yourselves!


No, it is not true. And yes, money is in the bank when you take out the loan otherwise banks would lend infinite amounts of money. Bank is a business and therefore has a balance sheet so assets need to equal debt and equity.

Money creation only works on the "system" level and only central banks can create money. "Normal" bank can't create money.


Nobody is in debt. If you are owed £50 and you owe £50 to somebody else the "Net value of debt" is 0. Proof: 50 asset + (-50) liability = 0
Doesn't take a genius to figure it out. And if by some remote chance you didn't figure it out you are obviously clueless and you shouldn't be posting stuff you are clueless about. No offence.


This is exactly the problem! People watch 10 minute comic on youtube and suddenly the became experts on money and banking
That piece of storytelling is full of half truths twisted around 5 times so its educational and factual value is not even zero, it is actually negative.

So once again, just please stop misleading people if you don't know what you are talking about!

That staggeringly simple piece of maths also fails to take into account the effects of interest and inflation, however.
So yes, quite a lot of people are in debt, as the value of what they've borrowed exceeds that which that are owed.

And just when I thought I might post again......



They do. Wake up.

I chose that video, because it was the easiest way available to me to explain. Not because I feel watching it makes me an expert. You don't have to be an expert to see that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. Read a [LIFTED] book. Might I suggest you start with Marx?



Oh that's alright then. Yay the system. "They" will make sure it all works and we ALL prosper from the fruits of our collective labour.

No, they don't. I repeat: Only central bank can create money. "Normal" banks can't!

I read plenty of books, don't you worry about that. That is why it winds me up when people talk sh*t about things they know nothing about. Last time I've had this debate with a car mechanic. Freaking car mechanic!
He was telling the same rubbish he has seen in that comic you linked. That video is full of lies. The problem is that was it is talking about is very complex stuff so you actually need to know about economics and banking to spot that.

If you want to learn something read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Banking ... 0321200497

Obviously not simple enough for some people.
I could argue that Net Present Value of £50 owed to and £50 owed is exactly the same if they were lent at the same terms (which is my assumption) but what is the point anyway. Let's keep it simple (ish)

But that's precisely my point - thing's are never lent at the same terms, so you've made a completely non-sensical argument.
It's like attempting to argue that as one person dies, one person is born. Ergo, there is zero population growth. Which is patently [LIFTED].

'It's just and illusion, shaba-daba-da, it's just an illusion....'

Ok, I think we are talking about different things now. I was talking about that island where everybody owed money to everybody. What are you talking about?

I'm sure the resident economists will have their own field day on this one as the video in question makes dubious empirical claims. But another problem with this form of analysis is that it is switching levels...

I'll give you an example: If a thirsty man stumbles out of a desert and begs you for a glass of water, it is inappropriate to respond that water is "just" hydrogen and oxygen, and therefore won't quench his thirst. At one level of analysis, water is nothing but those two elements, but the thirsty wanderer is not looking for a chemistry lesson right now. The true fallacy here though is in the use of the word "just" (which is always present in such cases, though sometimes only by implication). Water is hydrogen and oxygen combined, but that doesn't mean it isn't also a lovely thirst quenching life saver.

Now consider "this particular money is just fictional". For the use of the word "just" to be valid, there would have to be such a thing as real money. But all money is metaphorical, nothing you own has any value as far as the universe is concerned, only people can give objects worth.

Let's also consider "And why the system relies on confidence in the banking system". Again, this assumes that there is the possibility of there being such a thing as a banking or financial system that is true according to the rules of the universe. But that cannot be, gold, land or even sea shells only have value if and when people believe they do.

So to complain that one portion of the economy is untrue because it is imaginary is self defeating, the argument, if applied honestly, destroys all economics in all places and at all times. Including Marxist theories.

To be fair, the example given with the explanation that this is how the UK economy works, made exactly that assumption, so Koli has stayed within the terms prescribed. The most you can achieve is to agree with him that the example given is not very accurate.

I was discussing the reality that a lot of people are in debt, here in the real world.
Apologies if I had my wires crossed.

I 100% agree with that fact. I wasn't commenting on the amount of debt in the world, I was trying to explain who lends money to governments.
Later I tried to deny those misconceptions presented by various people.

I try to present facts only, I don't want to argue whether "the system" is working or not as we all have different criteria about what is good and what is bad about pretty much everything. I don't need to convince people that my ideas are the right ones.

Alternative currency:

wow you remind me of that eccentric david icke in this video !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peiTfY7Bx4c

take a look at that and his perception how money doesnt exist etc