This is the ideal ‘starter’ video to point people towards when you are having a discussion with someone who has no idea how the monetary system really works and no clue about fractional-reserve banking.
As more people come across this subject, the typical response to an explanation of just how fundamentally flawed and skewed the whole financial system is, tends to be one of disbelief.
There are some criticisms of this film and even the filmmaker Paul Grignon admits that ‘his presentation of fractional-reserve banking may have been “misleading”‘, but it’s a good place to start.
You can read a little more about this 2002-released film by clicking HERE. Grignon has so far made three films in this series so I will also add the other two to this blog, although the third film – ‘Money As Debt 3 Evolution Beyond Money’ is not available for me to embed just yet. The second one, ‘Money As Debt 2’, can be viewed by clicking HERE.
These films are animations which, although a little basic in terms of presentation seem to be the ideal format for films of this nature.
In this video Stefan Molyneux talks with Gerald Celente. Gerald talks about a probable QE3 in the USA and other Ponzi schemes. Stefan adds that the money-printing by governments/central banks around the Western world is like a default by proxy. Gerald agrees and follows up by pointing out that ‘when all else fails they take you to war.’
This is grim stuff, but try arguing with the logic that they are presenting. It’s history repeating itself – this has been played out before.
I always enjoy listening to Stefan Molyneux and always learn something from him, but I was really impressed with Gerald Celente too. He’s a likeable character with a very clear and direct point of view. I recommend taking the 23 minutes to watch this video. There are a lot of people suggesting that things are coming to a head. Tomorrow the EU meets up to try and save itself from it’s inevitable demise. The USA has 10 days to raise it’s debt ceiling.
When people like Stefan and Gerald start telling us that we’re right on the edge of the precipice, my ears prick up. Gerald proposes the solution of direct democracy (although his new site is not up and running yet).
I don’t know if that could be part of the solution or the solution itself, but we need a solution quickly and it sounds a lot better than what we currently have.
I didn’t find the first fifteen minutes of this Keiser report particularly special (unusually), but I was interested in the interview in the second half (you can fast forward to roughly halfway to watch this with the video slider.)
In this interview, Max talks to Guy McPherson (a Professor Emeritus) about peak oil, anthropogenic climate change and American debt. These are subjects that I am trying to learn more about because I am not sure where I stand on some of these issues. I have seen many discussions that appear to be completely polarised into one camp or the other, when it comes to the first two subjects.
For example, reading what British politicians have to say about renewable energy sources and carbon taxes only convinces me that they are operating a huge scam and are keen to jump on the gravy-train, not least because –
a) various family members of British politicians at the highest level, as well as Royal family members and many other significant people are known to be ‘earning’ money in the form of rebates for operating wind farms
b) they continually talk long term (to be expected in some obvious ways) on this issue, but not on others. For example, politicans talk about how we will all be burnt to a cinder or drowned by rising seas by 2050 if we don’t all panic right now and pay 20% more tax, but on every other issue they only ever openly think short term (IE they make sure that all large bills are due just after the next election, so that the political party merry-go-round passes all of the payments for the current incumbents’ profligacy onto the next bunch from the current opposition)
c) in the same manner as b) above, they conveniently ignore the fact that every single day we are financially indebting our children, grandchildren and many generations more into the future, as if it doesn’t matter one iota or isn’t actually occurring, yet when it comes to climate change, all of a sudden they are really concerned about future generations and the consequences of our current actions – (ExRat note – you either care or you don’t, you can’t have it both ways and care selectively about future generations, depending on the particular issue)
d) their speeches and articles are often full of bad science, fuzzy logic and complete and utter BS
e) scamming and manufacturing pocket-lining gravy-trains are what politicians do best
So I was interested in some of the things that Guy discussed. In a slightly depressing and pessimistic tone (common with this subject, for obvious reasons) he explains how a decade ago he decided to finish his primary investigations into climate change as he had already deduced that as a species we were heading for extinction.
After taking six months off to feel depressed and listen to Leonard Cohen records (I made that last bit up), he then considered that because the ‘titanic of peak oil was about to hit the iceberg of climate change’ all might not be lost, because the former could solve the latter by reducing emissions.
It was interesting to note Guy’s comments about why he gave up his work at university in Tucson, Arizona to move to New Mexico in order to live a different, more sustainable lifestyle. He describes Tucson as a city which is the classic apex of empire because Tucson must take it’s resources from outside of it’s boundaries just to survive.
He mentions a phrase that resonates with me and my thoughts on some of the hidden benefits of adopting an attitude that some ignorance is bliss, when he says, “once you see it, you can’t un-see it.”
He explains how it became difficult for him on a moral level to talk about the costs and consequences of industrialisation in his job, while living in a city that is the apex of empire. As someone who fled the city to the coast myself for somewhat similar reasons I can identify with this, although my reasons were more to do with feeling uncomfortable with the vibes given off by my fellow ‘industrialised’ city dwellers, as well as a desire for general change, some personal space and a longing to be close to the ocean – amongst some other things.
For example, I have developed a deep connection with the ocean as a kind of living, breathing entity which I enjoy connecting with every time I get close to it, or in it. I have a gut feeling that some of the ‘well of universal knowledge’ (that people like Napoleon Hill refer to in their books) can be accessed via the ocean. I don’t really know why, I just kind of believe it.
This interview presents a type of dilemma that I have run into many times myself when trying to find truth and educate myself about what is really going on in the world and the dilemma is that it is easy to find myself utterly deflated, frustrated, depressed (insert relevant adjectives here) when hearing intelligent and knowledgeable people explain how screwed we all are.
There can be an underlying feeling of helplessness and that things are out of control and that those with any sort of control are unfortunately psychopaths who ignore the consequences of their nest-feathering activities in terms of how it affects everyone else and the future of the planet and our species and due to this scenario, it’s self-perpetuating because the only people likely to join those psychopaths at the top are more psychopaths. But regardless of this, the dilemma is that I still want the truth and I still want to know what’s really going on.
It’s also plainly obvious how this affects other people, for example when you try and have a conversation with them about these issues. In my experience, the average person will violently oppose anyone else who appears to be in danger of ruining their ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach to day-to-day life. I understand this reaction, because there is not much worse than an unwanted ‘chicken little’ character who brings down everyones mood by repeatedly trying to make them understand that ‘the sky is falling.’
Due to this, I am careful not to ram these subjects down peoples throats and make a point of warning them and probing for acceptance along with the desire to learn more before presenting this kind of information to them and striking up a conversation about it. This is a difficult balance, because at the same time the most effective way to make a difference for someone like myself is to try and gently nudge people down the same road of self education, because it is my opinion that increased knowledge, when gained in a carefully managed way, is likely to lead to a better quality of life and that although the ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach has it’s merits in certaincarefully selected areas, it does not as a general, or blanket philosophy.
I hope that you find my thoughts and explanation interesting or useful, along with Max’s video. Keep calm and carry on. 😉
This film is all about the financial/banking crisis of 2008.
This is a Sony distribution and is narrated by Matt Damon. It was released in 2010 and is directed by Charles H. Ferguson. You can read a more detailed review on the Inside Job movie wikipedia page.
There are some revealing interviews in this film with people who were heavily involved at the higher levels of the crisis. It might not be anything close to justice, but for now it’s still good to see these people squirm.
In the first half of this episode (15 mins) Max and Stacy talk about the firesale of income producing national assets by governments within the EU (you know, those things that are bought, paid for and owned by the taxpayer). They reference this article in the Guardian newspaper, in which you may notice this in the section about Britain –
‘the Treasury indicated that plans for a new Public Data Corporation would involve selling public data to the private sector.’
Nice. I wonder what public data this will be? Census information by any chance? Don’t forget to add yourself to the ‘do not call register’.
As Stacy points out, via these firesales the countries are going to be giving up their income-producing assets which will of course reduce their revenue, thus further destabilising their economies as well as sending the income from these assets abroad to private interests.
According to Stacy, this is ‘neofeudalism.’ According to the IMF, the EU and various governments, this is being done to ‘help’ Greece and the other countries to solve their financial woes and stabilise their economies. Can you spot the disconnect? All answers on a postcard to Herman Van Rompuy who is (allegedly) offering a nice Greek island to the lucky winner pulled out of the hat.
Max provides the example of the Greek state lottery, which produces revenue of 900 million Euros per year and can be snapped up for a bargain 450 million Euros. Huh?
In the second half of the program Max talks to economist Michael Hudson about Greece, the IMF and the ‘class war of the banks against the rest of society.’