上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 463

[–]Oliomo 129ポイント130ポイント  (125子コメント)

Quite a few people here are calling the video inaccurate. Could someone with an understanding of economics please explain specifically what's wrong with it?

I don't know anything about economics so I'd really appreciate it!

[–]woodyallin 174ポイント175ポイント  (54子コメント)

its a huge over simplification of the history of economics and dips into conspiracy territory later on.

There's some truth, but there is more bias.

[–]Oedium 90ポイント91ポイント  (48子コメント)

It's a huge oversimplification of a totally erroneous view of monetary policy. Literally watching thirty minutes of porn will leave you a more informed voter than watching this.

[–]Tiltboy 38ポイント39ポイント  (43子コメント)

What's the biggest inaccuracy that you saw? I sometimes enjoy these types of this for their entertainment value alone.

[–]alphamoose 53ポイント54ポイント  (21子コメント)

Any profits the Federal Reserve makes actually go to the US Treasury, not some evil guy sitting in an office chair at the Rothschild Headquarters.

[–]DrAwesomeClaws 45ポイント46ポイント  (12子コメント)

What about the 6%(?) dividend? Doesn't that go back to the member banks and / or board? I could never find a clear answer on that.

Edit: just found this:

(a) Dividends And Surplus Funds Of Reserve Banks.

Stockholder Dividends.

In General. After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock. Dividend Cumulative. The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section7.htm

[–]detroitvelvetslim 15ポイント16ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yeah its a rate paid to member banks so they keep a portion of their reserved in the bank. The rate is subject to change, and exists so as to provide liquidity if the Fed ever needs to guarentee deposits in the event to a fiscal downturn, like the 2008 crisis.

[–]DrAwesomeClaws 43ポイント44ポイント  (10子コメント)

But if the stock isn't traded on a market and the price doesn't change... wouldn't that eventually turn around into risk-free cashflow for the banks? The more i look into this the more it seems like a pyramid scheme, haha. Member banks have to buy it at a set price to participate in the federal reserve system, but given enough time the dividend should cover the money they used to buy the shares and then they're at pure profit... so now you'd need to bring in more banks to capitalize the fed because the original buyers capital is no longer there (barring further investment of the initial funds).

Why not allow other private entities and individuals help capitalize the Fed by purchasing this stock if they're able to financially? Seems like there's no downside and very little risk. I know i'd like some if i had the kind of money to get in on that.

[–]corran132 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

There is another answer, other than greed, why they might not.

Generally speaking, the most stable an investment is, the less the return is. In this case, 6% is very good, but you can do better if you are willing to play the stock market. Additionally, that interest, while cumulative, has to fight against inflation, so if inflation is an issue your shares can actually loose relative value over time, even though they are gaining interest. In this case, that is not much of an issue, but it is worth mentioning.

There is also an issue on how they want to hold the money: large denominations, long term. 6% sounds great, but it might be held for 20 years, and you might have to chip in $100,000 or more. Anything less is not worth it, as far as the reserve is concerned.

For a bank, it might not matter. They can use their 3.4 billion investment in the reserve (which is guaranteed, short of a collapse of the country's economy) as security vs. other loans and such, and they have the money to do so. But you might need to get at that money at some point, and you might want to spend that money while you can enjoy it.

Basically, if you were to buy in, your money might amount to a rounding error, and they aren't willing to bother with it. Also, you probably want more access than they are willing to give.

[–]thepwnguin 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Your question hits the nail on the head. There's no answer, other than greed.

[–]Jonatc87 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

When you boil away the conspiracy visualizations and the simplified economics, in the end it highlights the greedy vs the shackled.

[–]JediMasterSteveDave 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

If profits the fed makes are from interest on the loans themselves, why do we pay that interest in the first place? Why are we indebted to the fed?

[–]UBIQUIT0US 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

The benefit of participating in the Federal Reserve System isn't the revenue the Fed receives. It's influencing monetary policy. Anyone with deep pockets and an information advantage on monetary policy has enormous profit potential.

[–]cgi_bin_laden 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

They actually talk about the freaking Rothschilds?? Nope. Not even clicking on that link.

[–]woodyallin 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

The history of paper money was bad. China had paper money.

Also assumed America's growth was due to the gold standard, but the Fed was established in the early 1900s. Are they assuming the greatest extent of American industrialization was due to the gold standard?

America was one of the last developed countries to abandon the Bretton Woods system for fiat currency. Also assuming America's growth under fiat currency is nonexistent.

Compare the Great Depression under a gold standard and the recent recession with fiat currency. Sure you have to factor in other controls, but I think people suffered less in the recession.

There's more issues but there are also facts. The video is largely biased towards a destroy the "Fud" back to gold standard, "it's happening" aspies.

[–]SlappyMcGooTop Contributor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's the biggest inaccuracy that you saw?

And what porn would you recommend?

[–]batshitcrazy69 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can only ever seem to get through about 7 - 15 minutes of porn. Then I seem to loose interest.

[–]alllieTop Contributor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which part is inaccurate?

Funny how shills say it's inaccurate but never say why.

[–]Vlad_the_imp_hailer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I will make sure I am a very informed voter.

[–]Damjo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Watch porn. Get informed.

Got it.

[–]alllieTop Contributor 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So don't worry. Be happy. The men who run the world's financial systems would never cheat the whole world, would they?

[–]IronBear76 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

I have worked in banking for over 14 years now and have a masters in economics. Let me break it down for you.

1) First of all banks are businesses like anyone else. They don't make their money from making debt. They make their money from making profits. How they make their profits from collecting those debts and the interest with minimal effort. If a bank fails to collect on a single loan, it can wipe out the profits from 30 other loans. Furthermore the labor costs of troubled loans, can kill your profits. For example if you lent a person $10,000 to get a used car, and charged them 10% interest, you would be getting $1000 a year in profit (FYI: I know that due to amortization, the actual interest would be lower, I am keeping it simple). However if the person never pays you back, you now have to set aside a loan officer to oversee the collection of the loan. While, he will typically oversee several dozen loans, he is a highly paid individual ($70K or more a year) and to collect your principal (original loan) he will have to hire repo men, collection agency, etc. So it will likely cost you thousands of dollars just to recover a car that you might be able sell for half what you lent for it.
--Because of this banks actually tend to be conservative with who they lend money to. Most bankers will tell you that if they have to lift a finger to recollect their money, then you are waste of their time.

2) This one is REALLY IMPORTANT. Most consumer lending is not handled by banks anymore. Long ago banks realized it was more profitable to spin these operations off into subsidaries. There are many reasons for this:

-- Loan officers are highly skilled workers, it is a waste of resources to have them working on small consumer loans.

-- In the last several decades a robust secondary market loans has appeared. Basically a bank can sell your loan. Banks love this because they may not get as much money over the long run, but they get a big lump sum and since they don't own the loan anymore they don't have the risk anymore.
-- Plus, they can sometimes collect a servicing fee from actual owner of your loan. Basically the bank's subsidary originally gave you the loan or credit card provides you with customer service for money.

-- And finally this spinning off allows for economies of scale. Instead of each bank developing it own consumer lending expertise and developing a robust collections division (both of which are very expensive to run), it can just sell loans to the secondary market, and trust that they have the expertise to know what they are doing.

Now that you understand a little bit of background, you are ready to get into the details of why the Great Recession happened. Just remember two things. A lot of financers hate effort because effort = cost. A lot of financers hate risk because risk = BIG costs.

3) Those buyers in the secondary market basically got lazy themselves. Instead examining the loans they were buying properly, they were letting things slide. While this was irresponsible of them, it is kind of like have condomless sex. There is good chance that being irresponsible will not result in an STD or pregnancy. You can probably get away with it dozens or hundreds of times. But one time luck is not with you and now you are in serious shit.

4) Another factor in why the secondary market for loans was so lazy, is because they had also sold off their risk. Typically these secondary market buyers will bundle a loan with a bunch of other loans and issue a bond. It is kind of like a US treasury bond, but instead of the US paying you back, it all the homeowners that will pay you back.

5) Now you would hope that the bond owners would finally be the ones who would develop the expertise to determine who to lend money too. But nope, they shirked that duty. Basically what would happen is that either the bond owners or bond sellers would buy default insurance. That way if the bond defaulted, they would still get paid.

6) Now you would hope that the sellers of the bond insurance would finally be the ones to develop expertise on mortgage lending. But you would be wrong. By now the bond insurer were so divorced from the loans that they knew very little of what was going on and were assuming that everyone below them was doing their jobs. So instead of developing expertise, they just held excessive sums of money in order to impress the credit rating agencies.

7) Now you would hope that the monolithic credit agencies who determine good borrowers from bad borrowers would finally be the ones to fully understand the mortgage market. But guess what? They slacked off to. They would often do only brief examinations of what they were rating. And there was often confusion in what exactly a rating meant.

CONCULSION: What caused the Great Recession was not an evil plot to turn you into a debt slave. What caused it was a lot of people shirking their responsiblities to someone else to the point that no one was taking responsiblity because they all assumed someone else was being responsiblity.

There is a lot more to it than just this. This rabbit hole goes even deeper. The responsiblity would get shirked on to the issuers of credit default swaps, issuers of CDOs, mortgage companies, pensions funds, regulators, Congress, and even back to the banks themselves in some cases. And all along the rabbit hole there were fraudsters who realized that others were shirking their responsiblities and jumped into make a quick buck before anyone realized what was going on.

And the big cherry on the shit sundae, was the "Too big to fail" assumption rattling around the financial system. Basically anytime someone in the financial system started to wake up from their pleasant nap at the wheel, they would just tell themselves that the Government would bail them out if it really was all that bad.

[–]nochvedmy 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

Basically it's the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in fucking cartoon format.

[–]david1610 26ポイント27ポイント  (10子コメント)

Firstly the FED isnt run by private banks, it has member(private) banks roughly 30% of all banks are members(100% of really large banks) of the regional FED banks. They all take directive from 12 economists/financial experts on the board of governors one permanent member (new york FED head, talks with their new york trading desk where they buy sell securities) a few directors appointed by the president and a few from the regional FED banks. The ones appointed by the president are on a rotation that ensures the president cant pick all of them at once(stops political cycle incentive problems). Diagram..Secondlyprofit from the FED goes to the treasury. Thirdly the gold standard has serious problems which is why the world abandoned it. Essentially zero control over the value of ones currency. It would move around depending on gold values rather than demand values. People might sit on the money and not invest/spend plus it caused numerous devaluation crisis. Not to mention monetary policy(that caused the great recession to be over iin half a year, no thanks for that one) couldnt work under a gold standard. Finally the FED didnt cause the housing bubble(Australia and the UK had housing bubbles without the 1% rates in 2001) the FED only burst the bubble in 2006-2007 with 5% rates. Housing bubbles can only exist if there arre restrictions to supply, the release of land and financial securatization are the two largest contributors to the housing bubble. EDIT Been over some texbooks, the problem with the gold std is to do with international exchanges, an economy under aurtarky could probs get away with a gold std. Imagine your notes are pegged to gold then all of a suddend a macroeconomic shock causes increase/decrease in net exports or speculators buy dollars to force a revaluation, removing dollars from circulation. EDIT Omg i finally watched some of it, this is comedy i regret giving a serious reply

[–]Soldisnakelp 23ポイント24ポイント  (9子コメント)

Its not run by private banks, its run by banks that are private..... "They take directive from" The 12 you are talking about are there own people... The are all former private bankers and go back to being so after they are done serving on the board. Most of them have ties to Goldman Sachs.

When the president tells them they should do something they don't like -"go pound sand"

When congress asks them what foriegn banks are they propping up or audit them -"go pound sand"

They aren't accountable to anyone.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." -Thomas Jefferson

Dude was smart, smarter than you. I listen to him.

[–]SauteedGoogootz 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thomas Jefferson also believed that the US should be primarily a country of white, male farmers on private estates. The country that exists today doesn't typify the Jeffersonian ideal. Furthermore, the US's greatest strengths in commerce, industry, and technology would never have developed to the same capacity. Jefferson was smart, but he's been dead for a long time.

[–]BearlyBreathing 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Believe it or not, the human race has figured a few things out about economics since the late 18th century. If your go-to source for economic wisdom died prior to the industrial revolution you're essentially just using hero worship to rationalize your own willful ignorance.

That aside, the Jefferson quot you cite doesn't even really refer an entity like the Fed. I'm actually certain that Jefferson never even conceived of such a thing since many of the ideas upon which it was built didn't come around until long after he died. So, really, you've said worse than nothing.

[–]TheBigBadDukeTop Contributor 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wrong. " The Bank of England, formally the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in the world, after the Sveriges Riksbank, and the world's 8th oldest bank. It was established to act as the English Government's banker, and is still the banker for the Government of the United Kingdom. The Bank was privately owned by stockholders from its foundation in 1694 until nationalized in 1946."

Thomas Jefferson 1743 – July 4, 1826

[–]Ajax2580 28ポイント29ポイント  (14子コメント)

There is so much wrong with the video. I made a huge post on the original video which is also on YouTube. I'm on my phone with slow internet so can't link it. I don't know why OP linked this brand new video instead of the original one.

At the end of the day we have a living standard today and have made so many advancements that we could've never accomplished with the gold standard and the type of banking and financial system these people* want.

*The group of people who advocate for this stuff are very rigid and cult like in their beliefs. A bunch are probably already here and making sure everyone who disagrees is taken down.

[–]nightscout1 27ポイント28ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sounds like slavery with extra steps.

[–]J2quared 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

No see, they work for each other.

[–]funky2beglobetrotter 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ooh-la-la, someone's gonna get laid in college.

[–]popcorn-tastes-good 14ポイント15ポイント  (9子コメント)

This doesn't change the fact that the current model of banker driven financial capitalism being used to expand the monetary base is profoundly anti-democratic, and one of the primary engines of social inequity today.

Instead of printing money to give to bankers to shore up their balance sheets, and letting bankers decide who is 'trustworthy' enough to receive the benefits of newly created credit through the issuance of favorable loans (white owners of large, established businesses), what the Federal Reserve can do instead is distribute the newly printed money directly to the States in order to directly fund investment in infrastructure and the provision of public goods and services.

That is, the alternative to our current system of expanding the monetary base is not a return to the gold standard, but to expand the monetary base democratically through a federated and decentralized investment in infrastructure performed by the States, for the direct benefit of all classes and races of residents.

[–]OneX32 -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Wow. You have no idea how the Federal Reserve works. It just doesn't print money to expand the money supply. If it wants to expand the money supply, it lowers interest rates so the demand of treasury bonds falls causing holders to cash them in putting more money into the money supply. If it wants to contract the money supply, it raises interest rates so the demand of treasury bonds rises and people buy treasury bonds reducing the money supply.

The Federal Reserve simply does not print money off just so it can dump it into the supply of banks. The process is actually quite equal to all investors willing to buy treasury bonds.

[–]popcorn-tastes-good 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

It just doesn't print money to expand the money supply.

Under QE the Fed spent $4.5 trillion on bond purchases, primarily from commercial banks, and 'printed money' to do so. Banks used this to shore up their reserves and to continued business as usual with their standard partners, not to perform widespread or efficient investment in socially necessary goods and services for the benefit of the larger population.

The process is actually quite equal to all investors willing to buy treasury bonds.

A democracy should not be run for the benefit of a class of financial investors who have pre-existing concentrations of capital and wealth by which to directly accumulate bonds (ie. banks), it should be run for the benefit of all people, including those who are in debt, those who are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and including those who have not been able accumulate significant holdings or directly participate in treasury auctions.

A process which is equal only among a small subset of the population well positioned to take advantage of it is equal in name only.

If the federal reserve wishes to expand the monetary base as a form of economic stimulus, in the future they should be able to do so by purchasing 'invoices' directly from the States, where each invoice specifies the cost of labor associated with the completion of an infrastructure project which the residents of that State democratically determined was of social necessity.

[–]Evlmky 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

To carry out QE central banks create money by buying securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with electronic cash that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence "quantitative" easing. QE1,2,3 wasnt about cutting rates. Im curious to see if whats next QE4 or rate hike?

[–]matt_damons_brain 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, when it buys assets it pays the market value. If I buy an asset worth $20 from a bank for $20, the bank is not $20 richer.

[–]Evlmky 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not but if the bank has 20$ more in its coffers (computers) it can lend out 200$ with interest.

[–]Blurr11 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So there wasn't quantitative easing in America a year or two ago?

[–]anxiousonmybirthday 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Banks have multiple regulatory requirements to lend to borrowers other than white large businesses. Plus you have the SBA guaranteeing small business loans so banks can lend more to them.

[–]Ajax2580 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Forgot to add, the part that is correct is that excessive debt is obviously bad. There is such a thing as "good" debt and "bad" debt. You can be enslaved by excessive debt, but there is no conspiracy the video proves. If you eat too much you will become fat, McDonald's might be making you fat, they want profit, but there is no big conspiracy besides that.

[–]marcxvi 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you call it accurate, you belong in /r/conspiracy

[–]mrtrotskygrad 13ポイント14ポイント  (30子コメント)

the government has a shitton more control over the fed than is portrayed in the video.

Also rothschilds

[–]Rookwood 15ポイント16ポイント  (28子コメント)

Incorrect. The Fed is independent by design. Throughout history and in current day, we see countries where, the more independent their central bank, the more stable the economy.

[–]anarexea 34ポイント35ポイント  (24子コメント)

The president nominates the Chair and Governors. The Senate confirms them.

They are not independent from the government.

[–]ivantheimplyer 11ポイント12ポイント  (19子コメント)

That's just the Board of Governors, not the Federal Reserve.

[–]anarexea 5ポイント6ポイント  (18子コメント)

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors

"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, commonly known as the Federal Reserve Board, is the main governing body of the Federal Reserve System. It is charged with overseeing the Federal Reserve Banks and with helping implement monetary policy of the United States. Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for staggered 14-year terms"

The fed is not independent from the government.

[–]ivantheimplyer 13ポイント14ポイント  (16子コメント)

Once again, that's just the Board of Governors, the President has no say so in their actions or polices. They have shareholders and are owned by member banks and structured like a private corporation. They are not a Federal agency, group, entity or whatever you want to call them.

"The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act, enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320 and 31 U.S.C. section 714 establish that the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks may be audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).[38] The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may audit. Audits of the Reserve Board and Federal Reserve banks may not include:

transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization;

deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;

transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3).[39][40]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

So ya, sure, I'll concede that the Head of the Board of Governors is elected and there was a law put on the books that they can be audited but this exemption "deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters;" should say everything. That looks pretty independent of Government involvement to me.

[–]anarexea 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

I never said they were a Federal agency, group or entity.

I'm saying they aren't some independent organization. The above post that started this said "the government has a shitton more control over the fed than is portrayed in the video" and they were right.

[–]ivantheimplyer 4ポイント5ポイント  (14子コメント)

They DO NOT have a "shitton" of control over the FED, the only say so they have, is who is on the Board of Governors. These are areas which the Government has ZERO say in, even during an "audit" "transactions for or with a foreign central bank or government, or nonprivate international financing organization deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters; transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to items (1), (2), or (3)."

Which means the government has no say so In day to day operations, policy making, transactions with ANY foreign government, monetary decisions, and discussion of ANY of these matters INCLUDING the Board of Governors, which means there is next to zero over site on what they do. Please elaborate on how this is a "shitton" of control.

[–]anarexea 8ポイント9ポイント  (10子コメント)

0%?

The Fed will soon meet to decide on whether to raise the federal funds rate. When they meet, 7 of 12 FOMC voting members will be political appointees (president nominated, senate confirmed).

A vote where more than half of the members are political appointees is not one that is independent of the government.

I'm not saying Obama decides what the FOMC does. I'm saying it's inherently not independent when the decision makers are selected by the president and the senate.

[–]doyoulikewormsTop Contributor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that part of the problem with this thread is the definition of "shitton".

It seems reasonable to expect that the government has some influence over the Fed, but it's nothing like its influence over, say, the SEC or DOD or something.

[–]Denverrealestated 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They can enact policies which can force the hand of the Fed Res

Glass-Steagall Act

The removal of this caused indirectly many of the actions of the fed also Dodd-Frank

tail wagging the dog/ they have to react

[–]Thewhiterabbit7 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

What a joke. Are you saying that our economy is stable??

[–]ffollett 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Board of Governors and part of the Federal Open Market Committee are presidentially appointed. And in 2010 $79bn of the $82bn profit the fed made went to the US Treasury[Source].

I think it's accurate to say that the video bends the truth on the matter quite a bit. They make it sound like these 'Red Shield' guys are taking all the reserves money.

[–]mrtrotskygrad 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

"The Federal Reserve System's structure is composed of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB), partially presidentially appointed Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), non presidentially appointed twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation, numerous privately owned U.S. member banks and various advisory councils."

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[–]Rookwood 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I was going to try to flip through to glean a few claims that the video makes that may be fallacious. I got to a point where the guy giving all the information hung a banker during a run on the bank while giving a lecture how one of the three things you don't mess with is a man's money.

Sorry but this video is too ridiculous to be refuted. Probably by design. If you can't see through it's obvious bullshit, I can't help you.

[–]Oliomo 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ha, I can tell that it's very sensationalist. You didn't even get to the really bad stuff if you stopped at them hanging the banker. Towards the end, bank tentacle monsters team up with J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller to take over the world.. They even try to tie the banks to the JFK assassination...

I was hoping someone with some economic expertise could show up and spell out specifically what was wrong with the content of the video. I get that it's clearly a load of crap, but it'd be nice to see some economics-wizard lay down some smack.

[–]aas03[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If You want to judge the video inaccurate or accurate - You can watch this documentary: https://youtu.be/VtSFYpwhy7M

You can also watch this awesome video: https://youtu.be/qvrH1O_LS0c

You will get the answer.

[–]_ferz 35ポイント36ポイント  (103子コメント)

Interesting. This video was getting a lot of popularity and praise when it first came out. Now it's the opposite. How come? I am bad at economics and finance, would anyone ELI5 the inaccuracies?

[–]demomars 33ポイント34ポイント  (6子コメント)

Here's a decent rebuttal to why credit is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

It's not a direct rebuttal but covers the same subject matter and is not conspiracy-laden.

[–]Quelano 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

More people need to have a deep understanding of this information. Thank you for sharing.

[–]BravoFoxtrotDelta 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

That was terrific - seemed very even handed and clear - I hope it was accurate.

I can't help but think though, after watching this, that it seems obvious that borrowing on credit leads inevitably to economic depression. I have a hard time understanding how this - which represents misery and catastrophe in reality for millions of people - demonstrates that credit is a good thing.

Also, I think it's problematic that the video glosses over interest - it's included as a given or an assumption, and not discussed critically at all in terms of its systemic impacts. I do get, though, that the video's creator is trying to help attentive viewers learn to avoid the problems caused by the economic system, and is not out to actually fix the system.

[–]SauteedGoogootz 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

borrowing on credit leads inevitably to economic depression

Not necessarily. If you're taking out loans on investments that pan out, there is still growth. For example, if I take out a loan to start a business, and the business is successful, I will be able to repay the loan and still profit.

The problem is when large sectors of the market that have been heavily invested in suddenly are not profitable, like the housing bubble, which was caused in large part by sub-prime mortgage lending, and made worse by the mismanagement of banks.

In most cases it doesn't cause crisis.

[–]BravoFoxtrotDelta 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I agree, if manage your own affairs effectively - and get lucky enough to avoid bubbles - you individually should be okay, though the video I'm responding to pretty much described it as an inevitability of the system, because it's not possible for productivity to always outstrip debt repayments, as these must be made at some point in greater proportion to borrowing because of limitations in money supply. The video's conclusion is that in order to manage the inevitable recession and depression, central banks must and ought to engage in money printing, and individuals should strive to minimize debt burden and maximize their productivity.

[–]revanchist3964 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That was amazing. I learned more about the economy in these 30 minutes, than my entire semester of HS Econ...

[–]Rookwood 77ポイント78ポイント  (0子コメント)

Probably because I have been watching the video for about 5 minutes and two bankers have been killed with high fives and hoorahs.

Also, the part where it says Andrew Jackson demolished the national bank and then the US experienced the biggest economic boom in its history. That's just completely wrong in a number of ways.

First, the way the video presents it, it seems Andrew Jackson was against all banks, which isn't true. He was against the Second Bank of the United States because it was not properly independent from the US government. When the 2nd Bank was closed down, all the funds that had been going into it were diverted to private banks.

Secondly, there was no economic boom whatsoever after the 2nd Bank was closed. In fact, the bank was closed in 1836, the following year the Panic of 1837 occurred which sparked a major recession that lasted until the mid-1840s. In terms of money supply, this is the second worst recession in US history next to the Great Depression.

[–]matt_damons_brain 39ポイント40ポイント  (14子コメント)

Any time that any insanely complicated/unpredictable macroeconomic phenomena gets boiled down to, "Those people over there are too greedy, and this is all part of their powerful scheming!" this is tribal monkey mind shit and just don't waste your time on it.

[–]ohgodwhatthe 46ポイント47ポイント  (11子コメント)

Because the wealthy elite who currently control our government definitely never push for legislation or programs which would further benefit them financially at the expense of American workers. It wasn't greed that has resulted in historically high proportions of wealth being concentrated in the hands of very few, no, it was just their sheer gumption.

[–]nuffstuff 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Couldn't agree enough.

[–]Prop0 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

Most Americans, whether they understand it or not, view the world through the lens of postmodernism, so they believe truth is in the middle of all claims and no one is at fault for anything.

[–]TotesMessengerTop Contributor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]Mattrap 163ポイント164ポイント  (92子コメント)

This video is horribly inaccurate. I sincerely hope that all viewers of this video do NOT accept the information provided as fact. If you sincerely want to understand how the money supply works buy an introductory level macroeconomics textbook. You can find it at any college bookstore.

[–]mrjosemeehanTop Contributor 41ポイント42ポイント  (57子コメント)

I was going to attempt a point-by-point writeup of the video but I'm five minutes in and still haven't gotten through the forced plot points into actual content yet.

[–]Oliomo 47ポイント48ポイント  (51子コメント)

I'd be really grateful if you did. I'd love to see a breakdown on what specifically is wrong with the video. I don't know anything about economics..

[–]bktechnite 10ポイント11ポイント  (32子コメント)

The fact that they call the federal reserve a private, for profit institution is a big wrong. That was minute 5 of the video. I stopped watching after that.

If you doubt me, just google about the federal reserve and what they actually do, and who "owns it".

[–]Lachlannn 14ポイント15ポイント  (26子コメント)

So I googled it -

"In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[22]"

"The Fed considers the Federal Reserve System "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government""

Dude wtf?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

[–]ummyaaaa 5ポイント6ポイント  (12子コメント)

"In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury.[22]"

So they still keep 3 Billion in profit? That's a ton of money.

Not to mention that fact that they make a ton of money for their commercial bank friends and friends on wallstreet by controlling interest rates.

[–]Lachlannn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"One thing that muddies this discussion on “ownership” is the issuance of stock by the regional Fed banks to the member banks. This stock pays a fixed 6% dividend and gives the banks a claim on the Fed’s annual profits. But let’s keep this in the right perspective. Last year the Fed earned $90.5B. Of this, $1.6B was paid out in dividends"

Dividends to member banks, which are privately owned... http://www.businessinsider.com/who-actually-owns-the-federal-reserve-2013-10?IR=T

If they're bringing in 90b per year - how much are they printing?? Holy fuck

[–]HelperBot_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System


HelperBot_™ v1.0 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 13815

[–]bktechnite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But the president appoints the chairs of the Federal reserve bank.

http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/26

Also try to avoid wikipedia, for obvious reasons. Go read the thread again, some users posted some pretty good readings and explanation.

[–]doughishere 6ポイント7ポイント  (13子コメント)

Problem is that a write up of something that's just horribly inaccurate is that it takes time....time i could be spend learning something new myself, spending time with my family, working out or doing a zillion other things. If theres a lot wrong and if i spend a lot of time writing something im generally gonna say screw it im moving on. Especially when people like /u/mattrap and /u/mrjosemeehan are right, you should go buy a text book to learn micro economics. At the very least you should google it, thats free or at least if your on reddit you already have resources to read about it.

First and foremost it plays on your emotions way too much. Cute dog, ominous voice. Midnight raids. Bully kicking you in the nuts from the pasts. Chicks in bikinis.

Want a good explanation then go to khan academy.

Banking Money https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/money-and-banking/banking-and-money/v/banking-1

Mortgages https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/housing/mortgages-tutorial/v/introduction-to-mortgage-loans

[–]Oliomo 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

I love Khan Academy, I'll check out their economic stuff. Thanks for the links. I could tell the video was very sensationalist (plus it had the conspiracy stuff towards the end) but I didn't know enough about economics to tell what specifically where the flaw was. I guess it's best to just learn more about economics in general, thanks again!

[–]mrjosemeehanTop Contributor 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's not just the economics they get wrong. It's the basic civics of the structure and nature of the federal reserve system, the system's history, the contents of the constitution. I got almost twelve minutes in and started an outline and a couple of paragraphs but, fuck it, I simply cannot spend another twenty minutes of my life watching this trite, manipulative, incoherent pile of half-facts and irrelevant fantasy narrative full of cartoon villains.

I'll let you know if I finish it later.

[–]ummyaaaa 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

trite, manipulative, incoherent pile of half-facts

Your comment is a trite, manipulative, incoherent pile of NO facts.

[–]neomagtyler 11ポイント12ポイント  (7子コメント)

time i could be spend learning something new myself

Oh you thorough learner you. Lose 15 mins of your day instead of learning 15 mins, heavens no!

Pffft, the smugness oozes from your post.

[–]Mattrap 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not sure 15 minutes is a good assessment of the required time to give an accurate and thorough response to the video. For example : one would need to summarize the main talking points of the video. This would require viewing the 28 minute video again. Next, we would require an outline of all the topics that need to be explained. Third, creating a rough draft on the topics. Fourth, finding and citing reputable sources. Fifth, proof-reading and posting the final draft.

I don't think /u/doughishere is being smug. I think he's merely being realistic about the size of the task, and the value of his time. EDIT* his or her time

[–]Superjuden 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

It would take far longer than 15 minutes to really write a good post explaining why this documentary is simply garbage

[–]Kosmological 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

And chances are the majority of the people buying into this crap wouldn't believe any of it anyways.

[–]aletoledoTop Contributor 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

And the people that believe in todays system are probably watching Big Brother (or some other reality show) anyway.

[–]newfulluser 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am insterested too RemindMe! 1 day

[–]RemindMeBotTop Contributor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Messaging you on 2015-09-09 23:35:13 UTC to remind you of this.

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.


[FAQs] [Custom] [Your Reminders] [Feedback] [Code]

[–]blndcavefshTop Contributor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Please do. I love those things.

[–]Pollymath 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Any suggestions on better documentaries that cover similar ground without bias?

[–]Lerkot 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

If economists are always right, how come their predictions are always wrong?

If economists are always right, how come we have reoccuring and devastating financial crisis?

[–]ummyaaaa 7ポイント8ポイント  (14子コメント)

Why don't you explain what's wrong with the video and how it really works if you're so smart? If you've read your macroeconomics textbooks... share the info. Assuming you actually did read/learn something worth sharing.

I sincerely hope that all viewers of this video do NOT accept your comment as fact.

If you sincerely want to understand how the money supply works do your own research. And you do NOT need to buy a textbook. There are plenty of resources online.

[–]TotallyNotHitler 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

The "Red Shield" scheming Jew bit should've really set a few alarm bells off. You didn't notice that?

[–]neomagtyler 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, you are still not giving valuable information, that would also be used as a counter argument.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#The_Napoleonic_Wars

EDIT2: Also, how much power do you think the people that fix the price of gold (one of the main standards of economy) worldwide have?

[–]aletoledoTop Contributor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So if the rothchilds did have a red shield associated to their family, then that might change your mind?

[–]newe1344 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

ok serious question...

what was kennedy talking about in that speech?

[–]HeighwayDragon 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Communism. This quote has been taken out of context by a lot of people over the years.

[–]TheBigBadDukeTop Contributor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Funny he would have to warn the Americans about communism considering the red scare and people were being taught to cower under desks because of the Cold War. Makes perfect sense. /s

[–]NativEld 24ポイント25ポイント  (16子コメント)

Is anyone actually going to explain what exactly is wrong with this documentary? All I'm seeing is that it's biased, not to waste your time on it, it's all conspiritard shit...but no actual rebuttal. I'm asking this because I'm genuinely curious as to what is so wrong this with documentary. If someone could enlighten me with any facts that the video got wrong or of any misinformation it contains I would love to hear it.

Again, I'm asking this because I don't see anything being commented on that really disproves the information within this documentary, and I'd like to have a better understanding of the whole situation.

[–]WeFinallyBeatPSU 39ポイント40ポイント  (13子コメント)

Hey there, I will make a few comments which will perhaps shed some light on the matter. Some other posters above went into a lot of detail about how the Fed works and is organized, but I will lay a foundation for your understanding. I have a degree in finance and I have worked at an investment bank, as well as several other finance related roles.

First, one thing we all have to understand is that our economic system is entirely based on CONFIDENCE. Unsophisticated people usually stop their understanding here, and sometimes adopt a defeatist, usually conspiratorial, worldview. But lets think deeper than that.

How is the entire economic system based on confidence, you ask? It is because we all kind of agree with each other to fulfill claims at some point in the future. Open your wallet and take a dollar out. That dollar is really just a claim to some future resource, such as a cheeseburger, a hair cut, or some pieces of gold. A dollar is only worth something because it is a medium of exchange (currency) - we all agree that it is worth something and at some point will be able to be put to use.

Now most people get this concept, but stop there. They really don't understand how the banking system works. I am going to assume you know what fractional reserve banking is (remember that scene from A Wonderful Life?). Now, since as we said earlier, everything is based on confidence, what happens when people -LOSE- confidence? This happened in the 1920's and caused the great depression. So we needed someway to restore confidence in the financial economic system so that people wouldn't run on the banks.

So we created the Federal Reserve (the Fed). It is a central bank that ALL other (major) banks have accounts with, and keep THEIR money with. Citi, JP Morgan, BofA, etc. all have bank accounts with the Federal Reserve and they keep their RESERVES in this account (keyword. remember fractional RESERVE banking?).

The Fed is unlike any other authority on the planet. I could go deeply into its structure, but just agree with me that it is highly independent and is made up of largely PRIVATE individuals (bankers, economists, etc.). We as Americans decided to do this many many years ago because we realized that politicians make awful economic policy decisions. Almost none of them are economists or businessmen, and they have very little idea of how the world works outside of D.C... So that brings us kind of to the first point that always makes me laugh with these videos. The Federal Reserve is NOT controlled by the Government. The Fed is far far more powerful than our politicians, actually. And this is a good thing. Because if we had this kind of power in the hands of politicians, they would be toying with the economy to win the next election by manipulating the CONFIDENCE in the system to make themselves look good by the end of a cycle. In doing so, they would make poor long term decisions in favor of good short-term decisions.... Also, it is worth noting that the Fed is dispersed across the country in 12 different cities, each with semi-equal representation, so that the economic interests of different regions of the US are represented.

So that is kind of WHY the Fed exists. Now I will talk a little bit about how they go about providing this "CONFIDENCE" we spoke about earlier. The Fed does have the power to make money. This is not insidious, it is necessary for a financial economic system to have merit. Why? Because it has two goals: (1) Control inflation and (2) keep unemployment as low as possible. In a nutshell, inflation and unemployment are largely symptoms of a lack of confidence in the financial economic system. So the Fed can restore that confidence by tinkering with the money supply. Obviously it won't just keep arbitrarily making money because that would make money worthless (inflation).

So it controls the money supply which in turn controls interest rates (because more money means money is cheaper to get, so interest rates will be lower.... LESS money means it is MORE expensive to get, so interest rates will be HIGHER). As Interest rates RISE.... economic activity will slow because it is more costly to finance things... as interest rates FALL... economic activity will heat up because hey, I think I will take out that $10,000,000 loan to build that car shop I wanted to. So the Fed has to find the right amount of money to pump or remove from the economy that will keep interest rates low enough to promote economic activity, but not too low because that would mean they put TOO MUCH cash into the economy and inflation would run rampant. They need to "take the punch bowl away from the party just as it gets started" - they want to give the economy just enough CONFIDENCE that everything will be okay.

This is where some people freak out because they think that the Fed is just creating money out of thin air for whatever insidious reason. The real reason the Fed is currently pumping money into the economy (by basically just dumping cash into the RESERVE accounts of those big banks we talked about earlier) is because they want to keep interest rates VERY low... they are at some of the lowest levels in history and have been since 2008 because the world economy has dramatically changed since then. In other words, the economy needs a ridiculous amount of cash to keep it going because we lost so much confidence in 2008 because financial institutions acted recklessly with everyone's money, as well as other macro-economic factors that will never reverse (i.e. a lot of US jobs going overseas, technology taking away people's jobs, etc.)

I just kind of puked information here and I didn't explain things fully. But this should guide your understanding and you should be able to Google further questions. Or feel free post them here and I (or hopefully others as well) will try to answer them, because I do not know where exactly you are in understanding this. I have also been awake for like 20 hours.

[–]aletoledoTop Contributor 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because if we had this kind of power in the hands of politicians, they would be toying with the economy to win the next election

What happens when you give this kind of power to non-politicians?

The Fed does have the power to make money. This is not insidious, it is necessary for a financial economic system to have merit.

I agree with your points about it all being an issue of confidence. However this is why the alternative is a commodity currency, because it's less dependent on confidence. A failure of a commodity currency leaves you at least with the commodity.

Obviously it won't just keep arbitrarily making money because that would make money worthless (inflation).

the past 7 years of quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates proves this wrong. Yes, they have an incentive to keep the system going, but it should be obvious now that they are not really all that much in control. If they were in control, then all the QE should have produced a great economy. Things are not looking good at the moment and the Fed can't raise interest rates now above 0% to even 0.25% without the market freaking out.

[–]thinkpositive1 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for taking the time to explain why you disagree with the video. I especially like how you pointed out how confidence is crucial when considering the pros and cons of a political/economic system.

The Federal Reserve is NOT controlled by the Government. The Fed is far far more powerful than our politicians, actually. And this is a good thing.

If the Fed has so much direct power over economic policy, doesn't that make them a de facto part of the government? They seem to be a fourth branch, apart from the original three.

This is an important point, because you can opt-out of having ties to nearly any private institution, but you can't opt-out of the government.

What would happen if the Fed didn't have an effective monopoly on the money supply, and people had the freedom to use whatever currency they feel best serves their needs? This would include federal reserve notes, gold, silver, platinum, foreign currencies, bitcoin, dogecoin, and others.

[–]TheBigBadDukeTop Contributor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Fed was created in 1913 before the Great Depression. It's a wonderful life was propaganda. In the movie it was explained that the depositors money was loaned our for the loans. It never explains fractional reserve banking which is the real problem. When the 2008 crisis hit the banks asked for 700 billion from the taxpayers while at the same time the Fed loaned out off balance loans of several trillion dollars to prop up the global system and would not disclose who received the loans or even what the criteria for getting the loans was.

[–]gexor 129ポイント130ポイント  (11子コメント)

[–]neet-chee 35ポイント36ポイント  (4子コメント)

I am so sick of seeing links to that goddamned subreddit.

[–]whatamidoing11Top Contributor 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

You could belittle any meaningful statement with that subreddit. Literally anybody's favorite quote or movie or song could be instantly shot down by saying that. I hate it.

[–]twopizzasnofun 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

it's easier to shit on something than it is to try and relate. doesn't matter what the content is, reddit is a "shit first ask questions later" breeding ground.

[–]a_sirius_man 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yet another example of why I downvote every post with "American Dream" in the title

[–]trechtTop Contributor 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

"This doesn't fit my agenda, let's distract by mentioning some random subreddit"

[–]decayfar91 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

why does this look like the cameraman was drunk even though it's animated?

[–]ghostboytt -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because the animator was drunk

[–]Crunchthemoles 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow, what a pile of conspiracy laden crap.

[–]Pollymath 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Can anyone suggest a documentary that focuses on real non-biased opinions of the current direction of our political and economic future?

[–]aas03[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can watch this documentary: https://youtu.be/VtSFYpwhy7M

You can also watch this awesome video: https://youtu.be/qvrH1O_LS0c

[–]am5437435Top Contributor 32ポイント33ポイント  (0子コメント)

What a pile of shit.

[–]IronBear76 24ポイント25ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a bad video on economics.

[–]JungleBird 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is rubbish.

[–]pgi_fugleys 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I watched this a while back and hated it. It is pretty bias and doesn't go into enough detail to allow you to form your own opinion which is a huge problem. They way the information is presented is annoying too. It goes into conspiracy theories and is just really sketchy. I feel like someone's cynical grandfather wrote it. Idk, I just really did not like it.

[–]nastygamerz 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Allright, i think it safe to say that people that are watching this demand some answers for the video. This is a couple of things i thought after watching it:

  1. It was said that the way these big bankers gain wealth is through create some sort of "artificial inflation" and then the profit would be taken by the IRS directly from the people. What is the significance of IRS in the whole "IRS-The Fed" deal as was claimed in the video? Don't congress is the one who set the amount of tax in US? Arent IRS job is to only collect those taxes from the people?

  2. If U.S tax revenue continues to be spend on paying back the loan, why is us still spend on other expenditures like military, social service, education, etc? Shouldn't there be a significant cutbacks happening in U.S expenditure?

I am still trying to wrap my head around the video explanation of the conspiracy since im no economics major myself. Can anyone with an economics background answer my questions and probably can explain deeper about this supposedly conspiracy theory?

[–]hoovespas92 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Quite a few people here are calling the video inaccurate. Could someone with an understanding of economics please explain specifically what's wrong with it?

I don't know anything about economics so I'd really appreciate it!

[–]Tiltboy 9ポイント10ポイント  (4子コメント)

In America we were only debt free once and it was after Andrew Jackson abolished the Second bank of America.

The debate over a central bank goes back to our founding and the arguments between the anti federalists and the federalists.

Thomas Jefferson I believe was the president who abolished the first bank.

Fun fact: In Libya, before Gaddafi was even gone, the lowly rebels in the midst of civil war somehow managed to create a new central bank as their first objective....in a war with a brutal dictator who wasnt even out of power yet.

Oh and go figure, they created a new oil company at the same time.

Pretty sophisticated rebels. Sorry, I got sidetracked.

There are legitimate arguments against central banking. Don't take this video for anything more than entertainment however.

[–]JonathanDP81 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is antisemitic propaganda that I really wish people would stop reposting.

[–]BassheadPandaTop Contributor 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

The editing is pretty terrible. Why is the camera randomly moving around so much?

[–]ghostboytt 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The camera man was high on something

[–]tylermakesgames 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Was all for this video until they strongly implied that the banks assassinated JFK.

[–]bamtron5 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

90% of these high school economists want to ban this youtube video.

Fact is, your money is worth less when you get it, than when a bank gets it. The fed seems like an unnecessary link in the chain, impartial, or well regulated. Considering the fed controversy and its influence on everything, this sort of stuff can be sensationalized, but eventually this whole system will go down on record as an endless bubble machine full of manipulation crime and bunk promises.

[–]thinkpositive1 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fact is, your money is worth less when you get it, than when a bank gets it.

Bingo! Anyone on a fixed income, anyone trying to save, and anyone without deep political/financial connections are hurt when the Fed devalues the dollar via inflation. It amounts to a transfer of wealth from the (usually) the poorest Americans to those with ties to the Fed.

[–]ghostboytt 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

The Fed is there to provide stability, without it your money would be worth much less. Inflation is normal and necessary, but too much of it is bad that's why the Fed is there to let inflation stay at a steady pace.

[–]environmentalent 9ポイント10ポイント  (10子コメント)

Ah, the American Dream. Because you'd have to be asleep to believe it.

[–]ALKIRYA 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fucking love Carlin, such a legend that FBI had a file on him.

[–]antromy 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, as the income gap gets wider and wider.

[–]marcxvi 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

/r/conspiracy is over there --------->

[–]-WISCONSIN-Top Contributor 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

People are talking shit about the facts but the animation and jokes are pretty cool at least.

[–]mrjosemeehanTop Contributor 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shiiit. I thought the writing and voice acting were insufferable.

[–]bktechnite 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody watches a documentary for animation and jokes, rather than facts.

noun 1.a movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report. synonyms: factual program, factual film; More

[–]The_Tolman 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Misinformation, Antisemitism, littered with conspiracy theories, and just a splash of sexism thrown on top. What a load of shit. Did someone find this on some 14 year old Alex Jones fan's Facebook?

[–]Charidemos 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

The Rothschild conspiracy, that Nathan Rothschild profited from the Battle of Waterloo, originated in an anti-Semitic French pamphlet in 1846, was embellished by John Reeves in 1887 in The Rothschilds: the Financial Rulers of Nations, and then repeated in other popular accounts like that of Morton and the 1934 American film directed by Alfred L. Werker, "The House of Rothschild." Many of the alleged facts are clearly untrue. For example, the size of the market in government bonds at the time could not have supported a gain of anything near one million pounds. The fact this video uses the Rothschild's coat of arms as the symbol of evil would further suggest the makers are adherents to the many Rothschild conspiracies.

[–]Liamcarballal 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

That symbol is the signat of the Rothchilds a well nown Jewish banking family this whole thing is thinly bailed antiseptic propaganda

[–]vagina_fang 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

When you study finance this system is exactly as it should be.

There are pros and cons to the free market and capitalism in general. Nothing has gone wrong or was predicted to end badly.

This is just that happens.

Show me an alternative system otherwise it's boring complaining about this one.

[–]bigpersonguy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Please do not refer to this "documentary" as your sole source of information on the federal reserve banking system.

[–]Odinskriger 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

I haven an inkling that this video is very very biased.

[–]Itshappening- 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

ITT: Everyone saying how its inaccurate but making up excuses on why they can't provide sources. Propaganda machine hard at work on reddit.

[–]Taylorswiftfan69 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

How many bitcoins do you own?

[–]IWantYourSmiles 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

why does this look like the cameraman was drunk even though it's animated?

[–]DBPooperTV 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"no we've just never had a true lessaiz faire economic system" "a free market society is the only way to benefit small business" "capitalism is a fair system, it honors merit" - things every republican say while actively avoiding economics courses

[–]banthetruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

nothing will be done by anyone.

[–]heating666 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

People who want to end the federal reserve are gullible and have no understanding of economics.

[–]GlobalistMovement 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

People who want to end the federal reserve are gullible and have no understanding of economics.

[–]Ivan_Ivanov_Ivansky 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I remember my first year of college.

[–]drinks_antifreeze 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

As an econ major this video boils my blood. Pure horseshit.

[–]DutchNugget 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I look at it this way...since we operate in an economy which by the way...doesn't economize anything, since its based around accelerated looping consumption and planned obsolescence, continues to pool money within the grasp of large entities such as utility companies big business and banking. Money is the lifeblood of this economy, and when blood...(money) pools in any organ in the body seriously bad things start happening, our economy is no different, when the money is hoarded and not in FULL circulation disparity, inequality, crime , famine and a hoard of other problems ensue.

[–]EffingTheIneffable 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're not wrong. But the video doesn't really touch on any of that.

It's just another permutation of the "OMG evil cabal of Jews reptilians bankers secretly controlling eberything" conspiracy theory. The stuff about the Federal Reserve is all nonsense, too.

[–]PizzaQuest420 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The main piece of this video- that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned company that prints and loans America currency with interest- is factually accurate.
Thomas Jefferson's opinions are presented accurately.
The story of the 1910 banker's meeting on Jekyll Island is a true story, though obviously the actual dialogue of the meeting isn't available and was fictionalized.
The Rothschilds (Red Shields) did make massive amount of money playing with the English stock market during the Napoleonic wars.
JFK's quote is accurate.

[–]HeighwayDragon 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The JFK quote is taken out of context. He was talking about communism.

[–]loveforyouandme 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So many posts claiming inaccuracies, but no content to substantiate them.

Many "I haven't got time to explain the absurdities of this video."

Folks, recognize the manipulation of public opinion we are under.

[–]gamepopper -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did the uploaded add the Youtube stabilizer effect on the video or is it supposed to have the awkward motion and zooming?

[–]majorfoodie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The astroturfing is strong in this post. This movie depicts exactly what fiat currency is and how money changers turned into the banking systems we have today. The Rothschild line doesn't have as much affect on the direction the world banking system as it once did. It doesn't need to. The super elite class already have diversified into perpetual wars and (in America) endless medical or school tuition expenses. All knowing that they can continue to get unlimited currency by laundering it through the human populace in which you are no more than a number to them.

[–]nategifford 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I was hoping for more information on his feuds with "Dirty" Dick Murdoch or the Four Horseman...

[–]harrasfl1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, the American Dream. Because you'd have to be asleep to believe it.

[–]Beadnip 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't care about how inaccurate the video is, what I love is that the main character lived beyond his means, then complained abouts the consequences of that choice.

[–]Denverrealestated 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Not me. I might have made bad choices but the banks let me so its their fault.

[–]Beadnip 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

So do you blame your car when you get a speeding ticket because it allowed you to speed, and not your choice to disregard rules?

[–]Denverrealestated 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Of course you blathering buffoon. How dare you put any blame on suck a perfect person... I was being satirical

[–]iamtheCircus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Things have gotten shilly in here. Best to leave

[–]iamtheCircus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reddit is full of shills people. Propaganda is in full force

[–]inthedarkbluelight 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anyone else think this video is kinda sexist?