7 ms·

It makes perfect sense that most people in the top 0.1% are associated with the financial and banking industries if you know how banks work. Banks, and the Fed

It makes perfect sense that most people in the top 0.1% are associated with the financial and banking industries if you know how banks work. Banks, and the Federal Reserve, create new money. They give this money to themselves, and then loan it out. This is as bad as, and effectively equivalent to, counterfeiting. Creating new money, i.e. counterfeiting, i.e. inflation, does not create new wealth. It merely changes the distribution of the purchasing power of the money away from most people who have the money and to the people who get the new money. This is where the wealth of the top 0.1% comes from. Freshly printed money. It is a terrible system. The people with the highest wealth are not contributing in proportion to their wealth. Rather, they are stealing their wealth from the bottom 99.9% by stealing their purchasing power by printing new money. If you would like to read a thorough argument about how fractional reserve banks and the Federal Reserve are scams, read "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard. Google it and you will see it is available for free at mises.org. For some reason this subject is very polarized and I get downvoted whenever I explain this. Don't downvote me just because you are uncomfortable with what I'm saying. Note that I am not ignorant. I have learned about economics. It just so happens that when trying to understand the issues myself, I have arrived conclusions that are not mainstream. But they are the correct conclusions in so far as I presently understand.

danenania 15y ago
Yep, fiat money systems are at the core of modern wealth inequality. Regulations and other measures will have little impact until we address this. Bailouts, taxes, budgets, deficits, regulations: none of it has much relative quantitative significance when the Fed is doling out many trillions behind the scenes. This money directly benefits the very wealthiest and regressively dilutes the rest on a scale that vastly exceeds the effects of any other policies. Abuse of fiat money is the ultimate economic elephant in the room.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- lucasjung 15y ago
  It's funny that you say this, because prior to the adoption of fiat money systems, class-warfare leaders agitated for decades (centuries, even?) in favor of a system of fiat money, because they saw fiat money as a way to reduce wealth inequality. The logic goes like this: 1: In general, poor people borrow money from rich people. Interest payments on these loans is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich: an increase in debt inequality. 2: Fiat money is much more subject to inflation than commodity money. 3: When inflation occurs, the real value of debts is reduced. 4: By adopting fiat money and the accompanying continuous inflation, a situation would be created whereby poor people could borrow money from the rich, use it to create wealth for themselves, and then effectively pay back less than they had borrowed. I'm not saying they were right, I'm just describing their ideas. I find the whole situation ironic.
waterlesscloud 15y ago
It makes sense that the members of the top 0.1% that a professional money manager comes in contact with are associated with the financial and banking industries. Yes, that I agree with.
eternal_skeptic 15y ago
You say "Banks, and the Federal Reserve, create new money". That is factually untrue: only the Federal Reserve can legally create new money in the US. Since you mentioned it by name, you are definitely talking about the US, but the same state holds in virtually all developed countries as well: one designated "central bank" entity creates money, the others don't. Per your main point, yes, the central bank creates money, but it doesn't "give" it to anyone. Seriously, you describe it as if there's a "printing party" at the FR, and only the rich get invited to grab booty bags stuffed with trillions of freshly minted dollars. The truth, of course, is that the FR (and secondary banks) can only lend that money. They lend it for a variety of people and reasons. Not too long ago, they lent it to too many people. Not because their kind heart, but because it's a business: they lend it out hoping to get it back with interest. Who do they lend it out to? Well, to some of the people here, for starters. Because what you failed to consider is that if I'm already at the top 0.1%, the best thing for me is to keep the situation static: not printing any new money. Because you're talking about the top 0.1% dollar earners and holders. Inflation dilutes their assets and earnings just like everybody else's, and in absolute values, they lose more. Lending is (generally) an instrument of economic growth, a way to fund innovation and investment in production of new products and services. Guess what, if nobody can get loans, new businesses and startups won't get funding either.
- Astrohacker 15y ago
  Here's how banks counterfeit money. You deposit $100. The bank loans out $80 of your money to someone else. They put that money back in the bank. The bank now has $100 - all your money. But your checking account says $100, and the loanee's checking account says $80, for a total of $180. The bank has now effectively created--that is, counterfeited--$80 in new money. They gave this new money to themselves, and then loaned it out. Since their reserves are still over 20% (or whatever the present reserve requirement is), they keep doing this until 80% of the money is money they have counterfeited and loaned out. And the Fed does give money to banks. They gave loans at 0% interest to Goldman Sachs who then buys government debt with it and earns interest >0%. That is the same as giving them the new money. And that is only one way, but there are others. Another way is by buying government debt from banks using freshly printed money at prices that are necessarily above what the market value would be if there wasn't an institution like the Fed that can print new money any time it wants to buy stuff.
shawndrost 15y ago
"counterfeiting... stealing... scams..." "For some reason this subject is very polarized." Baffling!
webXL 15y ago
As much as I favor low taxation and hate class warfare attacks on the wealthy, I think we ought to tax "freshly printed money" at a much higher rate, or figure out a more equitable way to create money... if we have to create money. Our financial system (the one created and regulated by the U.S. Federal Government) is so corrupt, as evident by TARP and the lack of lending and recovery. The only way its gonna change is if the dollar stops acting as the world's reserve currency, i.e. collapses. Only then do I think we have a chance of replacing it with something better. Don't hold your breath. The rest of the world is just as corrupt and financially unhealthy, so the dollar will remain superior. Edit: Oh come on, why the downvote?
- Astrohacker 15y ago
  There's no reason to create new money[1]. As I argued in my post, all inflation can do is change the distribution of the purchasing power of the money... not create new wealth. But the market already handles the distribution or purchasing power just fine through normal market forces. Good businesses get more purchasing power and grow. Bad businesses lose purchasing power until they collapse. The only reason to inflate the money supply is to scam everyone because you get all the new money. As for replacing the dollar, bitcoin is the only reasonable alternative that presently exists. Fiat currencies almost certainly will never work, because the temptation to inflate them is too great. Gold can't work because you can't send it over the internet. But bitcoins both can't be inflated and can be sent over the internet. No government will decide to switch from dollars/Euros/whatever to bitcoins. Rather, it will be the market that chooses them if they are appropriate. [1] If you actually halted inflation of the dollar, then as technology continues to increase the supply of everything, eventually the dollar would be so valuable that a cup of coffee would cost less than a penny. You would need to make new monetary units worth less than a penny so that cheap things like coffee can be purchased with them. You would do this by taking your pennies to a bank and getting, say, 100 penny pennies with each penny, and then a cup of coffee could cost 78 penny pennies.
  - webXL 15y ago
    Right, new dollars have to enter the economy somewhere, and the purchasing power is increased at those points of entry, decreased everywhere else by an proportional amount. I'm all for bitcoin but the powers at be will find a way to stop it if it catches on. But the cat is out of the bag. I just can't see the dollar standing up to all the benefits a technology like bitcoin affords.
eurohacker 15y ago
there is a documentary called "Money Masters" available on Youtube that explains the history of this Federal Reserve monetary system, Fed is basicly unconstitutional private institution
trunnell 15y ago
This misses the point of the article, which is that many in the top 0.1% got there from some form of self-dealing. His argument is that they are profiting from their position in the economy rather than from the value they add. And by position, he doesn't mean nearness to the money press. I think he means nearness to the center of wealth and power, which at the moment happens to be the financial industry. > This is where the wealth of the top 0.1% comes from. Freshly printed money. I'm sorry but this statement is very wrong. Newly printed money enters the economy through interbank loans. If I borrow $100 my net worth is exactly the same as before. I'm not any wealthier. To set the record straight: the ability to expand or contract the money supply is an essential tool in managing the economy: the Fed can cool things down in a bubble (by raising rates and contracting the money supply) or heat things up in a downturn (by lowering rates and expanding the money supply). Otherwise, inflation or deflation can spiral out of control. > Creating new money, i.e. counterfeiting, i.e. inflation, does not create new wealth. Ok, but creating new money in an effort to grow the economy while managing inflation does create new wealth-- or more accurately, creates an environment in which wealth can more easily be created. Especially in comparison to the alternative: an unmanaged economy that is completely at the mercy of panics and bubbles. Think the last crash was bad? The unemployment rate rose to 14% during the six years following the panic of 1873, which was largely caused and substantially prolonged by the inflexibility of the money supply (which was still tied to silver and gold). I'm getting a little tired of the anti-fiat currency crowd. You say you learned about economics; you might want to get your money back. I'm sure you're a very smart person, astrohacker, but your perspective here is unsupported and stands in direct contradiction to the last 80 years of economic thought. And no, the bitcoin crowd do not count as economists.
- watchandwait 15y ago
  The self-dealing by the banks since 2008 has been almost wholly underwritten by the Fed and the Treasury. Beyond TARP there are myriad guarantees, lending programs, and regulatory exemptions, all designed to provide the banks with greater profit and allowing them to offload risk, usually to the Fed or the taxpayer. Indeed, if you look closely, much of the "profit" in the banking system today is coming from banks borrowing at Fed subsidized rates and lending that money back to the U.S. government.
djm 15y ago
Agreed. Inflation amounts to stealing from people with savings. I haven't read the book you linked to yet but I just wanted to chime in and reference another great little book "How and economy grows and why it crashes" by Peter & Andrew Schiff. It's an extremely readable cartoon book that explains recent American economic history in a comic fashion and shows the differences between keynesian and austrian thinking on the subject.

danenania 15y ago

Yep, fiat money systems are at the core of modern wealth inequality. Regulations and other measures will have little impact until we address this. Bailouts, taxes, budgets, deficits, regulations: none of it has much relative quantitative significance when the Fed is doling out many trillions behind the scenes. This money directly benefits the very wealthiest and regressively dilutes the rest on a scale that vastly exceeds the effects of any other policies. Abuse of fiat money is the ultimate economic elephant in the room.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
lucasjung 15y ago
It's funny that you say this, because prior to the adoption of fiat money systems, class-warfare leaders agitated for decades (centuries, even?) in favor of a system of fiat money, because they saw fiat money as a way to reduce wealth inequality. The logic goes like this: 1: In general, poor people borrow money from rich people. Interest payments on these loans is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich: an increase in debt inequality. 2: Fiat money is much more subject to inflation than commodity money. 3: When inflation occurs, the real value of debts is reduced. 4: By adopting fiat money and the accompanying continuous inflation, a situation would be created whereby poor people could borrow money from the rich, use it to create wealth for themselves, and then effectively pay back less than they had borrowed. I'm not saying they were right, I'm just describing their ideas. I find the whole situation ironic.

waterlesscloud 15y ago

It makes sense that the members of the top 0.1% that a professional money manager comes in contact with are associated with the financial and banking industries. Yes, that I agree with.

eternal_skeptic 15y ago

You say "Banks, and the Federal Reserve, create new money". That is factually untrue: only the Federal Reserve can legally create new money in the US. Since you mentioned it by name, you are definitely talking about the US, but the same state holds in virtually all developed countries as well: one designated "central bank" entity creates money, the others don't. Per your main point, yes, the central bank creates money, but it doesn't "give" it to anyone. Seriously, you describe it as if there's a "printing party" at the FR, and only the rich get invited to grab booty bags stuffed with trillions of freshly minted dollars. The truth, of course, is that the FR (and secondary banks) can only lend that money. They lend it for a variety of people and reasons. Not too long ago, they lent it to too many people. Not because their kind heart, but because it's a business: they lend it out hoping to get it back with interest. Who do they lend it out to? Well, to some of the people here, for starters. Because what you failed to consider is that if I'm already at the top 0.1%, the best thing for me is to keep the situation static: not printing any new money. Because you're talking about the top 0.1% dollar earners and holders. Inflation dilutes their assets and earnings just like everybody else's, and in absolute values, they lose more. Lending is (generally) an instrument of economic growth, a way to fund innovation and investment in production of new products and services. Guess what, if nobody can get loans, new businesses and startups won't get funding either.

Astrohacker 15y ago
Here's how banks counterfeit money. You deposit $100. The bank loans out $80 of your money to someone else. They put that money back in the bank. The bank now has $100 - all your money. But your checking account says $100, and the loanee's checking account says $80, for a total of $180. The bank has now effectively created--that is, counterfeited--$80 in new money. They gave this new money to themselves, and then loaned it out. Since their reserves are still over 20% (or whatever the present reserve requirement is), they keep doing this until 80% of the money is money they have counterfeited and loaned out. And the Fed does give money to banks. They gave loans at 0% interest to Goldman Sachs who then buys government debt with it and earns interest >0%. That is the same as giving them the new money. And that is only one way, but there are others. Another way is by buying government debt from banks using freshly printed money at prices that are necessarily above what the market value would be if there wasn't an institution like the Fed that can print new money any time it wants to buy stuff.

shawndrost 15y ago

"counterfeiting... stealing... scams..." "For some reason this subject is very polarized." Baffling!

webXL 15y ago

As much as I favor low taxation and hate class warfare attacks on the wealthy, I think we ought to tax "freshly printed money" at a much higher rate, or figure out a more equitable way to create money... if we have to create money. Our financial system (the one created and regulated by the U.S. Federal Government) is so corrupt, as evident by TARP and the lack of lending and recovery. The only way its gonna change is if the dollar stops acting as the world's reserve currency, i.e. collapses. Only then do I think we have a chance of replacing it with something better. Don't hold your breath. The rest of the world is just as corrupt and financially unhealthy, so the dollar will remain superior. Edit: Oh come on, why the downvote?

Astrohacker 15y ago
There's no reason to create new money[1]. As I argued in my post, all inflation can do is change the distribution of the purchasing power of the money... not create new wealth. But the market already handles the distribution or purchasing power just fine through normal market forces. Good businesses get more purchasing power and grow. Bad businesses lose purchasing power until they collapse. The only reason to inflate the money supply is to scam everyone because you get all the new money. As for replacing the dollar, bitcoin is the only reasonable alternative that presently exists. Fiat currencies almost certainly will never work, because the temptation to inflate them is too great. Gold can't work because you can't send it over the internet. But bitcoins both can't be inflated and can be sent over the internet. No government will decide to switch from dollars/Euros/whatever to bitcoins. Rather, it will be the market that chooses them if they are appropriate. [1] If you actually halted inflation of the dollar, then as technology continues to increase the supply of everything, eventually the dollar would be so valuable that a cup of coffee would cost less than a penny. You would need to make new monetary units worth less than a penny so that cheap things like coffee can be purchased with them. You would do this by taking your pennies to a bank and getting, say, 100 penny pennies with each penny, and then a cup of coffee could cost 78 penny pennies.
- webXL 15y ago
  Right, new dollars have to enter the economy somewhere, and the purchasing power is increased at those points of entry, decreased everywhere else by an proportional amount. I'm all for bitcoin but the powers at be will find a way to stop it if it catches on. But the cat is out of the bag. I just can't see the dollar standing up to all the benefits a technology like bitcoin affords.

eurohacker 15y ago

there is a documentary called "Money Masters" available on Youtube that explains the history of this Federal Reserve monetary system, Fed is basicly unconstitutional private institution

trunnell 15y ago

This misses the point of the article, which is that many in the top 0.1% got there from some form of self-dealing. His argument is that they are profiting from their position in the economy rather than from the value they add. And by position, he doesn't mean nearness to the money press. I think he means nearness to the center of wealth and power, which at the moment happens to be the financial industry. > This is where the wealth of the top 0.1% comes from. Freshly printed money. I'm sorry but this statement is very wrong. Newly printed money enters the economy through interbank loans. If I borrow $100 my net worth is exactly the same as before. I'm not any wealthier. To set the record straight: the ability to expand or contract the money supply is an essential tool in managing the economy: the Fed can cool things down in a bubble (by raising rates and contracting the money supply) or heat things up in a downturn (by lowering rates and expanding the money supply). Otherwise, inflation or deflation can spiral out of control. > Creating new money, i.e. counterfeiting, i.e. inflation, does not create new wealth. Ok, but creating new money in an effort to grow the economy while managing inflation does create new wealth-- or more accurately, creates an environment in which wealth can more easily be created. Especially in comparison to the alternative: an unmanaged economy that is completely at the mercy of panics and bubbles. Think the last crash was bad? The unemployment rate rose to 14% during the six years following the panic of 1873, which was largely caused and substantially prolonged by the inflexibility of the money supply (which was still tied to silver and gold). I'm getting a little tired of the anti-fiat currency crowd. You say you learned about economics; you might want to get your money back. I'm sure you're a very smart person, astrohacker, but your perspective here is unsupported and stands in direct contradiction to the last 80 years of economic thought. And no, the bitcoin crowd do not count as economists.

watchandwait 15y ago
The self-dealing by the banks since 2008 has been almost wholly underwritten by the Fed and the Treasury. Beyond TARP there are myriad guarantees, lending programs, and regulatory exemptions, all designed to provide the banks with greater profit and allowing them to offload risk, usually to the Fed or the taxpayer. Indeed, if you look closely, much of the "profit" in the banking system today is coming from banks borrowing at Fed subsidized rates and lending that money back to the U.S. government.

djm 15y ago

Agreed. Inflation amounts to stealing from people with savings. I haven't read the book you linked to yet but I just wanted to chime in and reference another great little book "How and economy grows and why it crashes" by Peter & Andrew Schiff. It's an extremely readable cartoon book that explains recent American economic history in a comic fashion and shows the differences between keynesian and austrian thinking on the subject.