4 ms·
Regarding the last part In the US, when it comes to banking it's really not about logic but about power. which you wanted elaboration on, the OP is essentially
by itsprofitbaron 13y ago
Regarding the last part In the US, when it comes to banking it's really not about logic but about power. which you wanted elaboration on, the OP is essentially referring to the fact that power is king (well one of the kings anyway) and in order to have power, one of the easiest ways to do it is through controlling the debt - after all if you can control the debt you can control everything - this is highlighted perfectly when there is any form of conflict between nations as, the true value from conflicts isn't who wins or loses but rather the debt it creates.
- sillysaurus 13y agotrue value from conflicts isn't who wins or loses but rather the debt it creates. Would you expand on this (possibly with examples)?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- itsprofitbaron 13y agoFor instance when two nations go to war it doesn't really matter who wins or loses because, they're both creating debt (the one who loses the war usually ends up with the most debt) in order to fund their conflicts. Likewise, another example is a bookmaker - those who are in conflict are the punters who are betting on an outcome (one of them wins & one of them loses) - however, to the bookmaker it is trivial who wins or loses because they always make money on that outcome. It's the same with the banks etc.