Debt Based Money explained with sugar packs
Submitted by Idea Factory on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 00:07A quick way to explain how debt based money works using dinner condiments.
A quick way to explain how debt based money works using dinner condiments.
|
★
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here

I know there are a million of these
but this is one of my favorites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_jr1xVqjYU&feature=related
Enonesoch
lol a Kodak moment
Some of the younger ones won't remember this but Kodak practically gave their camera away but charged for film and paper.
So in order to use their camera, one was always in debt for the film and paper processing.
Worked for Kodak!!
Same thing works for cell phones, give the phone away, charge for the minutes.
mickey45
Kodak declared bankruptcy too
.
lol the marketing
concept still works. Same with fiat money. The difference is fiat money is taxed every time it changes hands. Pretty good ponzi scheme.
mickey45
Gosh... you're telling me Ron Paul's message isn't catching on?
This maybe the issue of someone whose spent tons of time talking to GOP voters in person, phone banking, tabling, etc. to those who haven't.
But this utter insistence on ideological purity is what locks out so many potential supporters.
I know for a fact that when you start going off on how the Fed is this giant corrupt monolith to someone who spends their leisure watching football and reality tv, they tend to dismiss you. Same goes for many GOPers who've been warned about "people like you" as being a conspiracy theorist.
The American Dream Film has TONS of inaccuracies regarding the history of the Fed, the Gold Standard, etc. but it has been an INCREDIBLE tool waking up normal people and bringing them to the cause. Of course it had a big budget and a whole lot of entertainment value compared to just a video camera and sugar packets.
Upon review, it seems more like it should have been entitled "The Dangers of Interest" but it's still a good explanation of an overall concept that gets people thinking about a topic they normally wouldn't.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
That is a convoluted explanation
That is a convoluted explanation missing vital information.
What has to be understood in order to get a handle on the fraud that is a monopoly banking system is the difference between the amount of money produced compared to the amount of things that can be purchased with money.
That has to be understood because it is theoretically possible to produced things to buy with money much faster than the rate of money produced.
Collective debt, not individual debt, occurs when the rate of money production exceeds the rate of production of things to buy and the difference is undeniable, or factual, or accurately measurable.
If sugar packs are used, then it must be understood that some of the sugar packs are used to produce more cars, or more homes, or more guns for defense, or more books, or more food.
If you do not understand that money can be used to make more things that can be bought with money, then you will miss the confidence scheme part of the fraud: when it is said that it takes money to make money.
It takes power to make power.
That is the truth.
It takes the power to purchase (money) to make the power to purchase (products sold for money).
A person who already has money does not have to borrow money to get started, and a person who already has money does not have to start small, making one thing for sale, then using the profit (money) from the one thing sold to make two things, then three, then four, instead of borrowing to make 10 things right away, and then having to send all the profits to the Monopoly Bank System of Fraud Operators.
The Monopoly Bank System of Fraud Operators have all the money in the world as their single legal power to control, to double it, or to take half of it out of circulation, and therefore that power to purchase is more power than everyone else combined.
If that is not understood, then the fraud that is a high level, or City Level, or County Level, or State Level, or National Level, or World Wide Legal Money Monopoly Extortion Racket won't ring true, logically, definitively, and without room for any doubt whatsoever.
There is no legitimacy to a World Wide Legal Money Monopoly and yet one does exist, and one does what one does to remain in power, and currently that one is called The Dollar Hegemony. Soon that one is going to change it's name, so as to blame the previous legal entity for all the wrong doings, and so as to regain control behind a less obvious false front, which is a regular thing done, on a regular schedule that spans centuries.
The last Single Legal Money Monopoly, the one before The Dollar Hegemony, was based in England, and World War II ushered in the switch from England to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and The Federal Reserve, or Wall Street, or Washington, as the legal place of money control.
World War III is on the schedule to usher in the new False Front hiding the same old thing, which is a Single Legal Money Monopoly Power World Wide.
Back to the sugar:
A Single Legal Money Monopoly Power has the legal power to make Credit or Debt and if you don't know the difference between Credit and Debt, then you won't understand the significance of having a Single Legal Money Monopoly Power.
Credit is a power to borrow.
Debt is a power to take back what was borrowed.
Those who borrow but never pay back are those who lose the power to borrow over time.
There is no power on earth whereby someone has the power to take back that which does not exist.
People are made to produce more things of value so as to have those things of value taken.
When a simple concept is made complicated, such as debt, when debt is merely an obligation to pay back what was borrowed, and that simple concept is turned into enforced enslavement, there has to be a simple explanation.
The simple explanation is to follow the money to the source of it.
There is one Legalized Producer of One Legal Money, and that is a simple crime in progress, it is called extortion, and it is called counterfeiting, and it is called many names, it is called The Federal Reserve, and it is called Wall Street, and it is called The Dollar Hegemony, and it is called so many names that few people know exactly what it is, in accurately measurable fact.
It is a crime in progress made legal.
No one else has the legal power to double the total number of legal dollars existing, just the holders of that one license; only those few.
No one else can borrow from the productive capacity of the entire network of producers who use dollars as money and never have to pay that money back, just the one legal license holders.
Those Legal Money Monopoly People, those few, can double the entire number of dollars that exist, as they did in 2008, and in that one act, that one alteration of the legal dollar account, they then have as much purchasing power as all the rest of the people using dollars combined.
That is not, as they say, "printing money out of thin air", since the money they print, when they print it, has as much power to purchase as the rest of the dollars combined together into one account.
Credit or Debt?
Someone, at some time, gave one small group of people the legal credit to borrow whatever amount they want, whenever they want, and they borrow that money from all the rest of the people who use dollars as money.
There is only one rational way to look at that, when it becomes painfully obvious that there is no possible way that those few can ever pay that money that they borrowed back.
It is a crime in progress, and it has been made legal by some people, including every single person who has yet to understand that it is a crime in progress. Each person who has yet to know the truth add a small power to the legitimacy of the crime that has been made legal.
Each person still using dollars to earn a living, produce things of value, and consume less than they produce, so as to have something extra, who then send their extra wealth, their surplus, to pay taxes, adds to the power that legitimizes the fraud that has been made legal.
It is not debt, in a moral, rational, logical, customary sense, it is crime made legal. It is a select few having taken the power of law and then giving themselves the lawful power to take as much as they want whenever they want, without any power on earth to stop them.
They laugh, and they smirk, and they know, and their victims are powerless, and their victim's are stupefied, and those few Legal Criminals already have a back up plan in place, for the time when the victims wise up.
The back up plan is a full reset, or World War. When the reset is over the victims will have forgotten about the fraud that was used to buy the war, to produce it, to make it possible, and the whole business starts all over again, just as it did when the Single Legal Money Monopoly stationed in England bowed down in a figurative sense, while headquarters moved to Wall Street, or The Federal Reserve, or Washington, or The Dollar Hegemony.
Out with the old, in with the new. The false front changes, but the things done remain the same, even the names of the most powerful operators change, as they most likely fight each other to gain control of the operation.
What will the new World Reserve Currency be when it replaces The Dollar Hegemony? Will it be as bad, or will it be even worse, than The Dollar Hegemony, from the eyes of the victims paying into it? Will it be as good, or will it be even better, than The Dollar Hegemony, from the eyes of the criminals who have made their crimes legal?
Who says that their crimes are crimes?
The victims actually believe in the need to ask the authorities?
Joe
To prove my point...
To prove my point, try recording everything you just said into a video and see how long it actually runs (10-20 minutes?)
Then see how many hits you actually get. Sure, 20 hits for in depth knowledge is still valuable, but it's likely instructing people who already understood most of the concept.
The 100's to 1000's of potential laymens won't bother watching your video meaning you've expanded your base by ZERO.
Interest is not inherently wrong, only when it's in a monopoly fashion when there's only when game in town.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
The idea is sound
Videos that are designed to help as many people as possible, to catch their attention, and then help them, in some way, is a sound idea.
My point was along the idea of reaching only the people interested in improving such messages, to improve the message, short sound bites, or long explanations, the idea, for my part, is to improve the message.
If there are errors, there are errors, who would want to repeat the errors?
I don't, so if I see errors, then I may be wrong, but how would I know, when they look like errors to me?
Joe
Some people don't think in terms of BIG
The idea was to use a person's pursuit of money to buy a car as a metaphor for the overall debt problem the US faces.
Looks like it missed the mark with some, but it still works with others. Going your route is just too big for some and you lose people.
If you got a better suggestion to do it, then stop harping me about it and do it yourself. Video cameras and youtube are about all it requires.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
speaking of convoluted
The monetary system has been purposfully convoluted by economists. The only thing an economist does is create problems, then explain how he knows how to fix it. One repetitive cycle acting like you know what you're talking about and will somehow magically make everyones lives better... Living simply to justify their own existences....
Its more complicated than banks loan people money they cant pay back... Interest is a market phenomenon accounting for risk and time value... Nothing wrong w interest.
Like you say its legal tender laws, fractional banking, secret cartel ownership, corporate bailouts with trillions of created credit, normal cronyism which is always present in any government intervention/ psuedo operation.
"The War Prayer - Mark Twain"
Everything should be a simple as possible
But not simpler (Albert Einstein)
Any average Joe can see how wrong it is for one person or one small group of people who are incorporated into one legal entity: see, see how complicated it can get?
One person can see how wrong it is for another person to have the legal power to write 13 zeros into their bank account when anyone else will go to prison for doing the same thing.
If that can't be seen that way, simply, honestly, and accurately, then unraveling the fraud that is The Federal Reserve System, or any State Monopoly Bank, is not likely to happen.
Without that base understanding, based upon simple moral principle, the effort to understand the fraudulent banking system is bound to fail and fall into deeper and deeper, compounding, confusion.
Joe
we don't owe the Fed
"That's money we owe to the Federal Reserve . . ."
No, actually, it isn't. We don't owe the Federal Reserve a dime. The Federal Reserve came into existence by fraud and continues to operate by fraud. The Federal Reserve owes the world countless quadrillions in reparations for the harm they've done.
yes, but you can only go into so much...
Yes, but you can only go into so much in a short video.
You would have to go into the fraud issue which goes to Jekyll Island, etc.
Remember, these are intro videos for econ newbs. So in that context we do officially "owe" this money to Federal Reserve.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
But why make obvious errors?
Care to discuss those errors one at a time?
Not to win or lose an argument, rather to uncover the facts, one by one, and in so doing a better message may be produced?
Rather than using sugar, which might be too simple to convey the accurate message without error, could you use a Monopoly Board Game for a prop?
There is one player who has all the money in the world at the start of the game, and every other player has a specific limited supply to start the game, and use during the game.
The special interest player also has an unlimited get out of jail free card.
The special interest player also has the ability to invent new cards on the Community Chest and Chance Card Stacks, the special interest players can invent anything they want, such as a card that says "Take all the money from Player of your choice" or "Take all the money currently held by every other player".
When "interest" is targeted as a bogus method by which some people take from other people, it can cover-up, or hide, or make powerless, the concept of Free Market Interest, as if punishing the good for the deeds of the bad, also known as collective punishment.
If the message has errors, what is the message, besides having errors?
If the message does not have errors, then I can be mistaken - of course.
Joe
"Obvious Error" = common understanding
Technically saying we owe the IRS income tax is an obvious error because it is not written anywhere that we have to actually pay, only implied and enforced (a la "Freedom to Fascism").
The second you cross that bridge, half your econ laymen audience will write off your presentation.
However, I do sign a contract with the bank if I take out a loan and it is very clear that this bank is part of the Federal Reserve system as the guarantor of last resort and all the other bells and whistles, so saying we owe this money to the Federal Reserve (no matter how corrupt the actual system) is still correct.
You're proposed presentation is already too complicated and I'm trying to put together the "baby steps" videos.
The sugar packets are ideal because you can make the presentation at a dinner table or somewhere else using random items. Carrying around monopoly money isn't something most are willing to do.
Sorry, but these are the waters we (or at least I) am swimming in regards to the type of people I run in to.
The sugar packs was an adjustment to complaints that a "Inflation is a Tax" video I did was still too complicated for many to understand: http://youtu.be/zd0tSOihmno
I'm planning on redoing the Inflation is a Tax video with just the sugar packs leaving out the Fed, John, and Jane but linking to the "advanced" version at the end for people to go to the next step.
But again, nothing's stopping you from coming up with your own video presentation. Just takes a camera and some props.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
Haves and Have-nots error
The concept of speaking to a targeted audience, to tailor the message in the language of the specific people intending to receive the message is what I think is being said here concerning what I think are errors and what may be merely shaping the language to fit the audience.
I can avoid falling into the beating the dead horse scenario at any point in time, here, however I can also offer a step by step review of the message concerning where I see errors.
First, and this can be the last effort if this is already going too far, there is the concept of having to go to the bank to get the money to buy the car.
That to me is a huge error since the real message is watered down by that error and that error can be translated by some people as a reinforcement of a similar error involving where wealth comes from, some people think wealth comes from a system, or God, or a government, or anything but their own power to produce and then trade, or from charitable people. People most certainly do not have to go to a bank to get money to buy a car, and it is that single concept of having only one place to get money that is the problem - it seems to me.
I don't think many people really believe that nonsense, not even the religious people, not the serious one's anyway, but it works as a convenient excuse to support the frauds that are ongoing. Tax them more, to pay me more, for example. Give the concept of "Manna from Heaven (or Uncle Sam)" lip service, so long as I get my piece of the action.
It may be too complicated to list all the ways someone can buy a car, but to claim that it is necessary to go to the bank to get the money to buy a car is, in my opinion, an error, for the reasons offered.
I have been writing for decades on this, not making videos, but the idea does appeal to me, it is that which brings me here: how can I know what works, and what will not work?
Can sugar packets work to convey accurate meaning?
I don't think that your video accomplished the task, but I can certainly be wrong.
Joe
Did you watch the video?
"It may be too complicated to list all the ways someone can buy a car, but to claim that it is necessary to go to the bank to get the money to buy a car is, in my opinion, an error, for the reasons offered."
At the beginning of the video, the person wants to buy a car but the dealership has now decided to use these new things called dollars instead of trading 20 chickens.
So the person goes to the bank which is explained as the only source of the money.
Now this analogy is very true today because of the low recapitalization costs for banks to loan money compared to the difficulty to amass personal revenue in the current environment.
"to claim that it is necessary to go to the bank to get the money to buy a car is, in my opinion, an error"
Where the heck else are you going to get the money on average since the car dealership financing you still means a bank is involved, just behind the scenes.
But again to my beating a dead horse point, go out and find someone who would generally describe themselves as clueless in how economics works and then you explain things your way.
I started out doing a much more complicated version that people couldn't grapple with immediately jumping into fractional reserve banking, M0, M1, money multiplier, etc.
This has worked because it's kept as simple as possible despite the inconsistencies.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
Strange how the Fed is immune to anti-trust prosecution
while other private businesses must comply.
Not that strange when
Not that strange when you consider the people who make up a lot of the anti-trust enforcement agencies like the SEC are loaded with former Goldman employees and other former Fed Reserve bank members.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) predates the Fed (1913) and the
SEC (1934).
To your point, Godlman-Sachs was founded in 1869 - so the fix has been in for a looooong time.
And the German Banking Families before that...
It fundamentally comes down to people being willing to enforce the Sherman Anti Trust Act which requires a large enough re-enlightenment of the populace.
I know it's easy to discount this option, but it's amazing how much people are willing to listen these days if you can tell them why they're really in so much debt.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
I'm actually opposed to anti-trust legislation,
given that true monopolies (the Fed, for one) are created by the government, so I wouldn't look to government to fix a problem they created. The adage "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" comes to mind.
My comment was about the disparity in enforcement of the law. Microsoft was hounded by the government, but the Fed has remained untouched.
Perhaps you are correct that if more people become aware that the Fed is a private corporation that operates as a monopoly, there would be a greater call for its dissolution.
Microsoft was hounded under Clinton
But issued a carte blanche reprieve from the Bush Administration, but this just reinforces the point of how counterproductive anti trust legislation really is.
How to Help Rand End the TSA - TSA Agents pose potential public health threat. Support Dr. Burzynski's Cancer Cure
that was good
quick and to the point!
bump
.