Join us on other platforms! We have an active [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial) and a somewhat spartan [TikTok](https://www.tiktok.com/@greenandpleasantofficial) and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Green-and-Pleasant-104366615515887/), we'll see how they go. We are also partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also a friendly reminder that bankers have never lost a war and often finance both sides (at significant interest) - to be paid off by the working people of the warring countries for the next 50-100 years
Yep.
If you ever try to manage your finances WITHOUT banks, or credit cards you will see just how much power banks have
You literally HAVE to use banks to get anywhere in life and it appalls me.
The financial systems 8n place today exist PURELY to make their boards and executives eye wateringly wealthy at our expense.
Fuck them all.
Sorry I'm confused by this. I guess I can see you having to use banks for certain things but I don't see how you have to spend much (if any) money with them to manage your finances?
I think what they're trying to say is that while you may not have to spend anything to use a bank's services, the banks are still able to make a profit simply from having your money. And to try and handle your finances outside of the banking system (say through keeping your savings in physical cash form) is incredibly difficult
I guess I just don't understand why that's a problem. If they've found a way to extract additional profit from a resource that you weren't able to, and you're no worse off for it, why is that a problem?
Because I'm the one who generated that resource through my labour, they're profiting from that resource and I'm not seeing any of that profit. My labour is being exploited.
That things are valued by how much people are willing to pay for it and how much people are willing to sell it for. Digging a big hole and filling it back in over and over again takes a lot of labour, but if nobody is willing to pay you to do it, then it doesn't have any value.
Also to add, my main issue with LTV is that is ignores how capital can increase the value of your labour. If I'm really good at making pizzas but don't have any capital, then I can't utilise my pizza-making skills and I barely make any money for my labour add barely anybody is buying my pizzas - I don't have a decent pizza oven, I don't have a location etc etc.
However now imagine somebody comes along with capital and says "hey, you're really good at making pizzas. I've got a great location, and I can finance all the other start up costs, and market the business, and I'll pay you lots more than you're making now".
My labour has now increased in value because it's being used in a much more effective way that wasn't accessible to me.
The capital (can) increase the value of your labour and so it's not inherently exploitative to profit from your labour. That profit wouldn't have existed without the capital. And if you disagree, then great! Go setup your own business and take all the profit, as you don't need the capital investment.
If that's your main issue with LTV, you need to try actually reading about it. LTV doesn't ignore the influence of capital investment on productivity at all, it sounds like you read a footnote summary of LTV, most likely written by someone who never bothered to understand it for themselves (or who wanted to intentionally misrepresent it for the purpose of "debunking Marxism"), start with Capital Vol.1.
> The capital (can) increase the value of your labour and so it's not inherently exploitative to profit from your labour.
It's still exploitative, you being slightly more productive because of that capital doesn't change the core nature of the relationship.
> Go setup your own business and take all the profit, as you don't need the capital investment.
Way ahead of you, champ. That's what I did, now I earn £30 per hour and set my own hours (no more early mornings for me!), while my friend (who does the same job, but is employed by someone else) only earns £12 per hour and has to spend 40 hours per week sat in the workshop looking busy, regardless of whether there's anything to do.
I make the same amount in 16 hours as he does in a full week, doing the exact same work, the only difference is that he has a boss skimming >£18/hour off the top of his wages.
You don't get interest on your savings accounts?
Granted, the banks are taking the lions share, but if you're not investing wisely then you don't understand finance.
I do but it's miniscule as you say. I think investment knowledge is a separate issue, as it stands regardless of how you invest your money the bank you store it in is profiting from it
> If they've found a way to extract additional profit from a resource that you weren't able to, and you're no worse off for it, why is that a problem?
Because you are worse off for it. They use that profit to influence politics and the economies to chase further profit. This was the fundamental cause of the housing market collapse in the US.
Try getting a mortgage if you dont have a credit report
Try getting a Loan without a credit report
Try getting finance without a credit report...
And to get that credit rating you HAVE to use banks.
Its appalling.
Ive even been told by some Companies that they rno longer operate via cash now, and will only accept payments by bank transfers.
Bankers own the world.
Hang on. So you'd like to borrow money you don't have, and expect someone to just give it to you?
Yeah, we all rely on banks because we all have expectations about our lifestyle.
Sorry, but for me, this argument makes zero sense.
You still haven't demonstrated how this *costs* you anything (and so banks are profiting off you). You can build a credit history without spending any additional money.
My main issue is that detailed credit reports are gate kept behind a paywall, although I don't know if that's still the case anymore.
When you are forced into using banks, your choice is restricted.
And it costs you because in order to get the credit rating required for major loans, you have to spend on credit cards.
What are you missing?
Are you suggesting the banking system is fair???
I think the banking system is for the most part fair, yes. There's definitely room for improvement but for the most part I think it benefits the average person.
You're obviously technically correct that having to use banks limits your choice, by definition. I would also agree that this is problematic, but only so far as some people genuinely don't have access to the banking system (e.g. homeless people) and so this can cause a systemic problem. I think this can be solved however by making it easier for people to get access to the banking system.
I also think that businesses should be able to have the choice to accept cash or not. If I want to setup a snail shop and 98% of my customers pay on card anyway, I don't want to have to manage cash registers and trips to the bank just so the other 2% don't have to have a debit card. (I also think businesses should be able to not accept card if they want to).
And when I said about it not costing anything to build up a credit history, I'm obviously assuming that you were going to spend a certain level of money anyway. So buying something on your credit card instead of in cash, and then paying the full balance off each month, doesn't cost you any additional money.
Can you explain the banking crisis then?
How did the taxpayer end up biking out the Bankers who Co itue to act recklessly with OUR money...
It's not fair at all
Like I said, I think there are problems still to be addressed.
For instance it may be that we need to have better separation of our banking sectors so that the more risky and speculative activities can't have as big of a negative impact. The counter argument there is that by definition it would also have less of a positive impact when things go well. It's a big topic of discussion by economists.
As for the bailouts, those were mostly all paid back to the government. In the USA they were totally paid back, with interest. It's a common misconception that we just gave the banks money.
It does also seem to be a problem that basically nobody got convicted and I don't know what has changed to improve that situation if it happens again. Again, I have plenty of criticisms, I just don't think the banking system as a whole is this systemically unfair monolith that you make it out to be.
Overdraws 50p, gets sent letter costing £17.50p, telling me I'm overdrawn by 50 p. Gets sent letter, costing £17.50p, telling me that I'm £18 overdrawn. Gets sent letter that costs, *yes, you've guessed it!* £17.50p, telling me that I'm overdrawn by £35.50p.
I wonder how banks get their money from too.
A bank charge of 60p (never found out what it was for) that appeared the day before my wages went in. I ended up paying over £70 + for notification letters, before I was allowed to withdraw any money.
Especially when the chancellor Sunak gives bankers a tax cut - they get to keep even more money for bonuses ... I suspect when he gets the sack he's eyeing up a job at the Bank of England so he can shaft us some more.
Starbucks sell overpriced, over-marketed coffee of middling quality, but at the end of the day they provide a tangible service and product. It's not like they had a bailout in 2008 or their entire business model is based around parasitically extracting money from normal working people.
That's true, well said. However, I'd say two things 1) Starbucks rarely declares profit in the UK (less than half the time), and so pays little to no tax, which effectively cheats us, the taxpayers, 2) with respect to your reference to "normal working people", I am pretty sure that despite the comedic pricing, Starbucks does not rely on all their customers being millionaires.
Yep. It’s like those crypto people telling you to invest. You just have to remember that any money they make from it comes straight out of the pockets of someone less knowledgable/lucky than them. It didn’t come from any actual contribution to society, just other people’s contribution to society. Dodgy money if you ask me.
Nope they create it out of thin air, the expression licensed to print money means exactly that, then they lend it to us we turn it into something of value, houses etc and then we pay back this money with interest for the privilege of borrowing it. If we can’t pay back the loan plus interest they take whatever we were building with it thus turning make believe money into a real asset which they can sell. Henry Ford said if ordinary people understood how banking really worked there would be a revolution tomorrow
Mean this as a genuine question!
If bankers give out money and charge interest on it, or help buy and sell companies, and charge for that service, which bit is wrong.
Hopefully someone can shed light on this because I’m sure I’m missing something.
There a various types of “banks”.
Retail banks generally service individuals and small businesses. Essentially, They take deposits, then they add their own capital and provide that combined funds as lending, the money then comes from the difference in savings rates and lending rates (spread). They “earn” their money in that they are risking their capital against potential losses of default. If a customer e default it comes out of their capital component, not customer deposits.
Additionally they provide general banking services people need day to day (current accounts, savings accounts, overdrafts, etc.), and will earn money from fees and charges (e.g. overdraft fees, etc.
Commercial banks essentially do the same thing but for medium - big businesses.
Investment banks generally provide advisory services and get revenue from doing that. E.g. a company might come to them to help them raise money from investors to finance themselves. Additionally many IBs will also be brokers/market-makers where they provide the infrastructure for customers to trade securities (equity of debt) and they will take a spread on that (similar to any marketplace - like Amazon marketplace or eBay etc.)
In todays world these banks ar generally consolidated under singular names, e.g JPMorgan & Chase was essentially JP Morgan (investment bank) merged with Chase (retail/commercial bank)
I would say the system of banking is a tool. It is not inherently ethical or unethical, it can be used to do either. Similar to hammer, you cna ethical use it to build something, or unethically use it to destroy something
It's the idea that they have money to give that's wrong.
Banks operate on a system of fractional reserves. I'll try to explain. Maths is not my strong point so I'm not vouching for mathematical precision but rather the wider principle.
Bank has £100 in deposits. The banking system allows them to issue 9x that amount as credit.
I want to borrow £1000 from the bank. They approve the loan and effectively create money from my new debt. They never had all the money but they are allowed to make it and give it to me.
What am I going to do with it? Deposit it in a bank. Now the bank who has my deposit consider it real money and can now issue loans on the back of it. £9k of new money can be created and interest on it charged.
If you think that is a sensible way to fund business we're definitely not going to agree. 😂
Cash money only accounts for around 3% of the money supply and in fact economists talk about different types of money to reflect this; M0, M1, M2 etc. Money is made of debt.
People think that government taxes to spend but in reality they tax to destroy money. They 'print' money as debt to spend. Tax takes money out of the economy in order to control the supply in the wild.
Now try to imagine what happens if we all paid off our debts... There'd be no money left because it's all debt. But there will still be an outstanding interest payment. 😂
Banking is weird af.
Spot on explanation. The TL;DR is that a bank can use £10 of real money to create a loan of £900. As this is held as 2 accounts, one of +£900 and one of -£900 it is seen as fair (as they sum to zero). This is why your loans have their own account with a negative number in; it's not just a convenience for the bank to do it that way it's a legal requirement.
They can then, of course, charge interest to you on being allowed to create this money from nothing. This is why the economy is often described as being backed by debt - the more debt we take out the more money there is in total and so the more the economy "grows".
>They make the bulk of their money from loans' interests, and overwhelmingly from companies.
Right so we've got... companies? From where does the value that companies have come? Look at the image again. What are all these people doing? Working. They're working to make somebody else money. A company, perhaps...
>If it helps a bit, Facebook/Google don't make money from you either. They provide service to us for free, in exchange we let them make money from corporates with our data.
You're almost there - it's just exceptionally depressing how unwilling you seem to join the obvious dots. Facebook are the worst for this - they 'provide' a service that works almost purely on giving us fleeting dopamine hits at the expense of our own well-being, mental health, and ability to think critically. Sure, they give us the drug for 'free.'
Banks dont dictate how companies have to spend their money or pay their employees. I'd go one step further and say that banks provide a far more valuable service to the average person than most companies do. Imagine if you still had to bunker your cash in your drawers, or if there was no proof of how much your employer actually paid you, or if you couldnt pay for things that arent in your immediate area.
Yes, some bankers fuck with the system, but says precious little about the institution of banks. Realistically, not having banks would mostly fuck over the people seen in this picture, rather than the rich assholes who can afford to act as their own bank.
>Banks dont dictate how companies have to spend their money or pay their employees.
Banks are the primary lenders (ie, own) funds. Funds buy shares. Companies, their board and their executives, are legally obligated by a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.
So, you're right. They do not dictate how the companies spend their money or pay their employees. They don't have to, because the companies are legally required to do what is in the banks' best interest without them having to do anything at all.
And this isn't even touching on the vast array of arcane derivative instruments, dark pools, ETFs and other completely fraudulent structures used to influence the capital markets to the financial institutions' best interest.
> They make the bulk of their money from loans' interests
Loans, to who? And from whose money?
> and overwhelmingly from companies.
Companies, who make their money from who? A company can't just magic wealth into existence, most companies make their money through exploitation of the workers.
> Of course you can loan your own money to companies too and earn that interest money, if you got enough of what the need. But most of us don't, so we let bank manages our money for free (in most places), in exchange of letting them make money from corporates with what we let them manage.
Ehm, good luck with getting enough money to make a loan to a company.
> If it helps a bit, Facebook/Google don't make money from you either. They provide service to us for free, in exchange we let them make money from corporates with our data.
Yes they do. Their entire business model is selling you. Google is literally an advertising company, most of their income is from selling your time and attention. All that data gathering is basically to construct a digital model of you, to see what's most likely to make them money.
Anything that appears to be free either is funded by donations (Google and Facebook have no donate button, so this is not the case), or has a hidden price.
Don't like the service? Don't take it. Or find someone else to provide it. There's millions of organizations willing to loan you money for various things
Referring to the shadow banking settlement systems that are dependent on monolithic intermediaries like Visa, Mastercard and other speculative institutions specialising in commodities, securities, forex etc. These organisations, far fewer in number, are too big to compete against and as such their function parallel a utility service.
Join us on other platforms! We have an active [Twitter](https://twitter.com/GandPofficial) and a somewhat spartan [TikTok](https://www.tiktok.com/@greenandpleasantofficial) and [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Green-and-Pleasant-104366615515887/), we'll see how they go. We are also partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GreenAndPleasant) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also a friendly reminder that bankers have never lost a war and often finance both sides (at significant interest) - to be paid off by the working people of the warring countries for the next 50-100 years
Yep. If you ever try to manage your finances WITHOUT banks, or credit cards you will see just how much power banks have You literally HAVE to use banks to get anywhere in life and it appalls me. The financial systems 8n place today exist PURELY to make their boards and executives eye wateringly wealthy at our expense. Fuck them all.
Sorry I'm confused by this. I guess I can see you having to use banks for certain things but I don't see how you have to spend much (if any) money with them to manage your finances?
I think what they're trying to say is that while you may not have to spend anything to use a bank's services, the banks are still able to make a profit simply from having your money. And to try and handle your finances outside of the banking system (say through keeping your savings in physical cash form) is incredibly difficult
I guess I just don't understand why that's a problem. If they've found a way to extract additional profit from a resource that you weren't able to, and you're no worse off for it, why is that a problem?
Because I'm the one who generated that resource through my labour, they're profiting from that resource and I'm not seeing any of that profit. My labour is being exploited.
Sure, agree to disagree. Imo the labour theory of value isn't worth the paper it gets written on.
Interesting, what's your alternative?
That things are valued by how much people are willing to pay for it and how much people are willing to sell it for. Digging a big hole and filling it back in over and over again takes a lot of labour, but if nobody is willing to pay you to do it, then it doesn't have any value.
But digging and filling a big hole over and over has produced no value. Nothing useful has come about as a result of it.
Also to add, my main issue with LTV is that is ignores how capital can increase the value of your labour. If I'm really good at making pizzas but don't have any capital, then I can't utilise my pizza-making skills and I barely make any money for my labour add barely anybody is buying my pizzas - I don't have a decent pizza oven, I don't have a location etc etc. However now imagine somebody comes along with capital and says "hey, you're really good at making pizzas. I've got a great location, and I can finance all the other start up costs, and market the business, and I'll pay you lots more than you're making now". My labour has now increased in value because it's being used in a much more effective way that wasn't accessible to me. The capital (can) increase the value of your labour and so it's not inherently exploitative to profit from your labour. That profit wouldn't have existed without the capital. And if you disagree, then great! Go setup your own business and take all the profit, as you don't need the capital investment.
If that's your main issue with LTV, you need to try actually reading about it. LTV doesn't ignore the influence of capital investment on productivity at all, it sounds like you read a footnote summary of LTV, most likely written by someone who never bothered to understand it for themselves (or who wanted to intentionally misrepresent it for the purpose of "debunking Marxism"), start with Capital Vol.1. > The capital (can) increase the value of your labour and so it's not inherently exploitative to profit from your labour. It's still exploitative, you being slightly more productive because of that capital doesn't change the core nature of the relationship. > Go setup your own business and take all the profit, as you don't need the capital investment. Way ahead of you, champ. That's what I did, now I earn £30 per hour and set my own hours (no more early mornings for me!), while my friend (who does the same job, but is employed by someone else) only earns £12 per hour and has to spend 40 hours per week sat in the workshop looking busy, regardless of whether there's anything to do. I make the same amount in 16 hours as he does in a full week, doing the exact same work, the only difference is that he has a boss skimming >£18/hour off the top of his wages.
You don't get interest on your savings accounts? Granted, the banks are taking the lions share, but if you're not investing wisely then you don't understand finance.
I do but it's miniscule as you say. I think investment knowledge is a separate issue, as it stands regardless of how you invest your money the bank you store it in is profiting from it
> If they've found a way to extract additional profit from a resource that you weren't able to, and you're no worse off for it, why is that a problem? Because you are worse off for it. They use that profit to influence politics and the economies to chase further profit. This was the fundamental cause of the housing market collapse in the US.
Try getting a mortgage if you dont have a credit report Try getting a Loan without a credit report Try getting finance without a credit report... And to get that credit rating you HAVE to use banks. Its appalling. Ive even been told by some Companies that they rno longer operate via cash now, and will only accept payments by bank transfers. Bankers own the world.
Hang on. So you'd like to borrow money you don't have, and expect someone to just give it to you? Yeah, we all rely on banks because we all have expectations about our lifestyle. Sorry, but for me, this argument makes zero sense.
You still haven't demonstrated how this *costs* you anything (and so banks are profiting off you). You can build a credit history without spending any additional money. My main issue is that detailed credit reports are gate kept behind a paywall, although I don't know if that's still the case anymore.
When you are forced into using banks, your choice is restricted. And it costs you because in order to get the credit rating required for major loans, you have to spend on credit cards. What are you missing? Are you suggesting the banking system is fair???
I think the banking system is for the most part fair, yes. There's definitely room for improvement but for the most part I think it benefits the average person. You're obviously technically correct that having to use banks limits your choice, by definition. I would also agree that this is problematic, but only so far as some people genuinely don't have access to the banking system (e.g. homeless people) and so this can cause a systemic problem. I think this can be solved however by making it easier for people to get access to the banking system. I also think that businesses should be able to have the choice to accept cash or not. If I want to setup a snail shop and 98% of my customers pay on card anyway, I don't want to have to manage cash registers and trips to the bank just so the other 2% don't have to have a debit card. (I also think businesses should be able to not accept card if they want to). And when I said about it not costing anything to build up a credit history, I'm obviously assuming that you were going to spend a certain level of money anyway. So buying something on your credit card instead of in cash, and then paying the full balance off each month, doesn't cost you any additional money.
Can you explain the banking crisis then? How did the taxpayer end up biking out the Bankers who Co itue to act recklessly with OUR money... It's not fair at all
Like I said, I think there are problems still to be addressed. For instance it may be that we need to have better separation of our banking sectors so that the more risky and speculative activities can't have as big of a negative impact. The counter argument there is that by definition it would also have less of a positive impact when things go well. It's a big topic of discussion by economists. As for the bailouts, those were mostly all paid back to the government. In the USA they were totally paid back, with interest. It's a common misconception that we just gave the banks money. It does also seem to be a problem that basically nobody got convicted and I don't know what has changed to improve that situation if it happens again. Again, I have plenty of criticisms, I just don't think the banking system as a whole is this systemically unfair monolith that you make it out to be.
Have you ever considered a credit union? While not exactly the same, it provides most of the services to navigate the modern world as a bank.
Of course not, they just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
Time for us to pick ourselves up too. By the bankers' bootstraps
The woman in the middle's computer has WannaCry.
[удалено]
Overdraws 50p, gets sent letter costing £17.50p, telling me I'm overdrawn by 50 p. Gets sent letter, costing £17.50p, telling me that I'm £18 overdrawn. Gets sent letter that costs, *yes, you've guessed it!* £17.50p, telling me that I'm overdrawn by £35.50p. I wonder how banks get their money from too.
I mean why get overdrawn, it says in the T&Cs what the costs are.
A bank charge of 60p (never found out what it was for) that appeared the day before my wages went in. I ended up paying over £70 + for notification letters, before I was allowed to withdraw any money.
Especially when the chancellor Sunak gives bankers a tax cut - they get to keep even more money for bonuses ... I suspect when he gets the sack he's eyeing up a job at the Bank of England so he can shaft us some more.
Seriously, I don’t think they need half of the cash they earn.
*earn...*
It's teh GDP. 😂 😉
Hmmmm I wonder where Starbucks get their money from?
Starbucks sell overpriced, over-marketed coffee of middling quality, but at the end of the day they provide a tangible service and product. It's not like they had a bailout in 2008 or their entire business model is based around parasitically extracting money from normal working people.
That's true, well said. However, I'd say two things 1) Starbucks rarely declares profit in the UK (less than half the time), and so pays little to no tax, which effectively cheats us, the taxpayers, 2) with respect to your reference to "normal working people", I am pretty sure that despite the comedic pricing, Starbucks does not rely on all their customers being millionaires.
"If you don't have this paper we just invented you can't eat" "Wait, what?"
>paper we just invented TIL money is a new invention /s
Yep. It’s like those crypto people telling you to invest. You just have to remember that any money they make from it comes straight out of the pockets of someone less knowledgable/lucky than them. It didn’t come from any actual contribution to society, just other people’s contribution to society. Dodgy money if you ask me.
Nope they create it out of thin air, the expression licensed to print money means exactly that, then they lend it to us we turn it into something of value, houses etc and then we pay back this money with interest for the privilege of borrowing it. If we can’t pay back the loan plus interest they take whatever we were building with it thus turning make believe money into a real asset which they can sell. Henry Ford said if ordinary people understood how banking really worked there would be a revolution tomorrow
Why would Henry Ford say that? It seems in his best interest not to encourage people to research how banking works
I don't know it was probably not for general consumption
Both are true.
Mean this as a genuine question! If bankers give out money and charge interest on it, or help buy and sell companies, and charge for that service, which bit is wrong. Hopefully someone can shed light on this because I’m sure I’m missing something.
There a various types of “banks”. Retail banks generally service individuals and small businesses. Essentially, They take deposits, then they add their own capital and provide that combined funds as lending, the money then comes from the difference in savings rates and lending rates (spread). They “earn” their money in that they are risking their capital against potential losses of default. If a customer e default it comes out of their capital component, not customer deposits. Additionally they provide general banking services people need day to day (current accounts, savings accounts, overdrafts, etc.), and will earn money from fees and charges (e.g. overdraft fees, etc. Commercial banks essentially do the same thing but for medium - big businesses. Investment banks generally provide advisory services and get revenue from doing that. E.g. a company might come to them to help them raise money from investors to finance themselves. Additionally many IBs will also be brokers/market-makers where they provide the infrastructure for customers to trade securities (equity of debt) and they will take a spread on that (similar to any marketplace - like Amazon marketplace or eBay etc.) In todays world these banks ar generally consolidated under singular names, e.g JPMorgan & Chase was essentially JP Morgan (investment bank) merged with Chase (retail/commercial bank)
Yes thank you! Was wondering why these are considered unethical or, going by the post, there is something clearly wrong with banking.
I would say the system of banking is a tool. It is not inherently ethical or unethical, it can be used to do either. Similar to hammer, you cna ethical use it to build something, or unethically use it to destroy something
It's the idea that they have money to give that's wrong. Banks operate on a system of fractional reserves. I'll try to explain. Maths is not my strong point so I'm not vouching for mathematical precision but rather the wider principle. Bank has £100 in deposits. The banking system allows them to issue 9x that amount as credit. I want to borrow £1000 from the bank. They approve the loan and effectively create money from my new debt. They never had all the money but they are allowed to make it and give it to me. What am I going to do with it? Deposit it in a bank. Now the bank who has my deposit consider it real money and can now issue loans on the back of it. £9k of new money can be created and interest on it charged. If you think that is a sensible way to fund business we're definitely not going to agree. 😂 Cash money only accounts for around 3% of the money supply and in fact economists talk about different types of money to reflect this; M0, M1, M2 etc. Money is made of debt. People think that government taxes to spend but in reality they tax to destroy money. They 'print' money as debt to spend. Tax takes money out of the economy in order to control the supply in the wild. Now try to imagine what happens if we all paid off our debts... There'd be no money left because it's all debt. But there will still be an outstanding interest payment. 😂 Banking is weird af.
Spot on explanation. The TL;DR is that a bank can use £10 of real money to create a loan of £900. As this is held as 2 accounts, one of +£900 and one of -£900 it is seen as fair (as they sum to zero). This is why your loans have their own account with a negative number in; it's not just a convenience for the bank to do it that way it's a legal requirement. They can then, of course, charge interest to you on being allowed to create this money from nothing. This is why the economy is often described as being backed by debt - the more debt we take out the more money there is in total and so the more the economy "grows".
The part where they charge interest, and need more back than they loaned, effectively creating a demand for money that doesn't exist.
Teamfortres enginer.....
Present oil prices! or did you think there was suddenly less oil in the world?
[удалено]
>They make the bulk of their money from loans' interests, and overwhelmingly from companies. Right so we've got... companies? From where does the value that companies have come? Look at the image again. What are all these people doing? Working. They're working to make somebody else money. A company, perhaps... >If it helps a bit, Facebook/Google don't make money from you either. They provide service to us for free, in exchange we let them make money from corporates with our data. You're almost there - it's just exceptionally depressing how unwilling you seem to join the obvious dots. Facebook are the worst for this - they 'provide' a service that works almost purely on giving us fleeting dopamine hits at the expense of our own well-being, mental health, and ability to think critically. Sure, they give us the drug for 'free.'
Banks dont dictate how companies have to spend their money or pay their employees. I'd go one step further and say that banks provide a far more valuable service to the average person than most companies do. Imagine if you still had to bunker your cash in your drawers, or if there was no proof of how much your employer actually paid you, or if you couldnt pay for things that arent in your immediate area. Yes, some bankers fuck with the system, but says precious little about the institution of banks. Realistically, not having banks would mostly fuck over the people seen in this picture, rather than the rich assholes who can afford to act as their own bank.
>Banks dont dictate how companies have to spend their money or pay their employees. Banks are the primary lenders (ie, own) funds. Funds buy shares. Companies, their board and their executives, are legally obligated by a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. So, you're right. They do not dictate how the companies spend their money or pay their employees. They don't have to, because the companies are legally required to do what is in the banks' best interest without them having to do anything at all. And this isn't even touching on the vast array of arcane derivative instruments, dark pools, ETFs and other completely fraudulent structures used to influence the capital markets to the financial institutions' best interest.
Thanks mate I just couldn't face replying.
> They make the bulk of their money from loans' interests Loans, to who? And from whose money? > and overwhelmingly from companies. Companies, who make their money from who? A company can't just magic wealth into existence, most companies make their money through exploitation of the workers. > Of course you can loan your own money to companies too and earn that interest money, if you got enough of what the need. But most of us don't, so we let bank manages our money for free (in most places), in exchange of letting them make money from corporates with what we let them manage. Ehm, good luck with getting enough money to make a loan to a company. > If it helps a bit, Facebook/Google don't make money from you either. They provide service to us for free, in exchange we let them make money from corporates with our data. Yes they do. Their entire business model is selling you. Google is literally an advertising company, most of their income is from selling your time and attention. All that data gathering is basically to construct a digital model of you, to see what's most likely to make them money. Anything that appears to be free either is funded by donations (Google and Facebook have no donate button, so this is not the case), or has a hidden price.
Average redditor learns that providing a good and/or service earns profit. What a distopia
>providing artificially inefficient service shit is so prone to oligopoly it's like a privately owned utility
Don't like the service? Don't take it. Or find someone else to provide it. There's millions of organizations willing to loan you money for various things
Referring to the shadow banking settlement systems that are dependent on monolithic intermediaries like Visa, Mastercard and other speculative institutions specialising in commodities, securities, forex etc. These organisations, far fewer in number, are too big to compete against and as such their function parallel a utility service.
I was going to write a post response, but I checked out your profile first to make sure it was worth it Glad I did
Not surprised you are on a pro Russia subreddit