Gilligan's Corner

Debt-based Money: A guarantee to destroy the planet.

April 1, 2008 · 20 Comments

Debt

I want to take a moment to explain how money is created and destroyed in our debt based money supply. Environmentalists don’t often look for, let alone see the relationship.

The simplest way is via an example:

1) You go into a bank for a mortgage of 300K. Let’s say that the mortgage is fixed at 6% for 25 years, payable monthly. You will make no early pre-payments or double up your monthly payments. Very simple.

This means at the end of your mortgage (after 300 monthly payments = 25 years). According to this calculator here, this means that you will pay $1,919.00 a month. You will pay back the amount you borrowed (300K) + the interest – a whopping $275,826.00. So at the end of your mortgage you will pay back $575,826.00 – almost double the amount you borrowed.

2) The bank puts you through some preliminary hoops to see if they are going to make money off of you. I.e. you have a job, your credit is not maxed out, etc.

3) The bank creates 300K out of thin air. They do NOT take that money from their depositor’s accounts to give to you. Because of the fractional reserve requirements, they only have to keep a very small amount of “money” in the vault to back that loan. I say “money” because that is easier for most of us to understand, rather than the term “capital instruments”or “securities”.

So if a central bank requires the private banks maintain a reserve requirement of 10%, this means that they have to have $30,000.00 dollars of “money” in the vault. Here in Canada, the reserve requirements for our private chartered banks is 0%. That is not a typo. Our banks, in reality DO keep reserves, but there is no law that requires them to do so. Instead they police themselves with such governance documents like Basel I and II, which are always in flux. I am not aware if banks are required to follow them, and if they don’t what penalties apply for failure to comply.

4) You pay the seller of the house with your new $300K loan from the bank. Be it the builder or the owner, they take that money and (a) pay for all the labour and materials used to build the house and keep a profit, which they will spend into the economy sooner or later, or (b) the owner of the house takes that money and buys a yacht or another house or whatever. That new “money” you borrowed (the 300K) makes its way out into the economy. In otherwords, by you willing to shackle yourself to debt, the banks get to add 300K to the money supply.

By a simple accounting trick, the bank records the loan in two columns in the ledger book. The mortgage goes in the asset column as it is an interest bearing financial instrument. It ALSO goes in the liability column as someone will deposit it into an account and start writing checks against that account. Thus, the books balance.

5) You work for 25 years to pay that back, paying your $1,919 a month.

6) Around year 13 of your 300K mortgage, you would have paid the principal back. You still have 12 years to go to pay the $275K in interest back. Question. Where did the money come from to pay back the interest? What created the $275K and added it to the money supply in order for you to obtain it by working to pay the bank?

Do you see at this point? The bank loan actually reduces the amount of money in circulation over its lifetime! It transfers wealth out of the economy and gives it to the bank for the bank’s unearned work (their right to mint “checkbook money”)! Normally, this system would collapse!

But our system hasn’t collapsed. So what gives?

The answer is simple.

The money comes from people who borrowed AFTER you. They borrowed the money via the same mechanism from their private banks, dumping their newly minted “money” into overall money supply.

7) To sustain the money supply, we need to attract new borrowers into the system as old loans are being paid off. Rate of money created = rate of money disappearing = stable money supply.

If the rate of money creation is higher than the money being destroyed, we are told it is economic “growth” and possibly inflation, which rewards producers/spenders, but hurts consumers.

If the rate of money creation is lower, we have the opposite effect. The money being retired, we are told we have a “recession” and possibly deflation, which rewards consumers, but hurts producers. However, we rarely see deflation. The reason is that producers (i.e. big business) are in positions of affluence and influence in government. It is the little guy that bleeds via the inflation tax.

8) This is where the Fed (or any central bank) comes in. These central banks (or cartels of government agents and banking interests) look at a pool of economic data, have the power to artificially raise or lower interest rates. If they see the economy getting “hot” and inflation rising, they raise the interest rates.

This deters people from lining up for new loans. The money supply begins to contract. The economy slows down.

If the economy gets too slow, they lower interest rates, thus enticing people to line up at the loan window of the banks. New money is dumped into the economy. It heats up again.

In other words, the Fed is always looking for the sweet spot where banks can maximize its members profits of the backs of slaves (run as fast as you can on the old hamster wheel = keep up payments), but not kill them (i.e fall off the hamster wheel = bankruptcy). What’s that old saying? “You can’t beat a dead horse.”

9) The bank, believe it or not, does NOT want to foreclose on your house. They hate that. Now they have a non-paper asset they have to pay taxes and maintenance on. They might have to sell it into a market where there is a glut of foreclosed homes on the market = lower prices. They hate that. They just want your payments.

10) That money you paid back to the bank does NOT stay in the bank. Banks record the interest as profit. From that profit, they pay their employees, taxes, shareholders, capital/operational costs, finance business growth, and of course, the obscene bonuses to the CxO’s. Since shareholders are making a profit, they cheer the bank on! Employees are grateful for their jobs! Government relishes the tax revenue!

But all of these people who work at the banks/government/shareholders have loans they have to pay back too.

Since the money is backed by debt and issued by the bank, it’s ultimate destination is always back to the bank.

You can see where this is all going right? Because we have a money supply that demands new loans to be created to keep the money supply stable, this means that we MUST have infinite economic growth.

More loans = more houses = more jobs = more consumption.

Continuing our example. Your loan will cause a deficit of $275K when it is paid back in 25 years. We need Hank to take out a 300K loan to fill that deficit so you can actually pull the money out of the supply by working. This leaves us with a surplus of 25K (300K – 275K) in the money supply.

Now Hank needs to pay back 300K + 275K in interest. Since there was a surplus of 25K in the money supply, we need $550K in the money supply for it to be possible for Hank to pay back his loan!

This calls for Bill and Bob to take out two 300K loans. And so on, and so on…

Now in reality, the rate of creation, amount, interest rate, terms, and amortization of all these loans varies. The arithmetic can be quite complex when you multiply it by all of the players in an economy, but the underlying problem is the same.

This is not sustainable. The economy is 100% driven from whatever we can fish out of the sea, farm off the land, or dig out of the earth. It can’t go on forever. The planet will collapse into a smoking hole. I am not a big truther on global warming, but it would be insanity to ignore ALL arguments. The earth is flashing warning signs at us.

And we bicker without understanding the nature of the problem. There can be no environmental sustainability unless the money supply issue is fixed. We need to have a non-debt based money where we can prosper in a zero-growth economy. This concept is usually pretty foreign to most people.

And as the earth declines, it will be the banking industry and their debt based money standing on our corpses, before they are killed too. All their power won’t save them. You can only buy your way out if there are goods and services to be bought, meaning that there are people to produce them.

So how do we avoid this?

Firstly, part of the solution is that we return to sound money. Money that is not created out of debt – like gold and silver. Why do these make an ideal form of money? This explanation is suitable for it’s own post.

Secondly, embracing agorism would help with this as well. Simply put, agorism is a way that people could trade with each other, using sound money, outside of the taxation system.

Categories: Uncategorized

20 responses so far ↓

  • DB // April 1, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Reply

    Fantastic post. But if you shout too loud and point out the criminals too strenuously they will pick you out and destroy you.

    Ed’s Note: I am not too worried about that. I don’t matter. As Al Haig said, “Let them protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.”. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. It’s when people start listening to me is when government will send their terrorist agents after me.

    1) we can give up.

    Ed’s Note: Not an option. I have kids. It is my moral and ethical duty to them not to feed them blindly into the meat grinder.

    2) we can try and teach others and try to do something collectively, but face either marginalization or if we start to get some success, we will be hounded and destroyed.

    what is your suggestion for an alternative economy? Gold and Silver 100% Reserve?

    Ed’s Note: Google “Agorism”.

  • Mr. Howell // April 1, 2008 at 7:57 pm | Reply

    A very clear exposition of our current situation, and a great point about how it links to our environmental dillema!

    I think that our debt backed money system is the reason we are encouraged to consume at an ever increasing rate. It seems that it is a requirement of the system to keep the number of borrowers increasing and to have them borrow more and more to keep the system from collapsing. And of course, advertisement of “stuff” is how people are enticed to assume more debt.

    Unfortunately, we are not shown the externalities of our resulting excessive consumption habits, i.e. the enviromental impacts. Our money system cannot support a balanced level of consumption because it needs to ever expand, and hence our environment suffers physically, and we suffer emotionally. Environmentalism encourages us to reduce our consumption, but our economic system counts on our ever increasing consumption.

    If the money system is not fixed, how can we ever hope to balance our consumption habits? Great point Gilligan!

  • GWilly // April 2, 2008 at 4:39 pm | Reply

    I’m sorry I must be a bit thick, but something just does’nt seem to add up, firstly with Points

    3) The bank creates 300K out of thin air. They do NOT take that money from their depositor’s accounts….
    4) You pay the seller of the house. Be it the builder or the owner, they take that money and…..

    [You] meaning the purchaser pays the seller with what? from where?

    Ed’s Note: I updated point (4) for clarity.

    If the answer is worthless bits of paper/capital instrument, could you further explain how this model would work if the seller kept his £300k in the same bank with a savings interest rate of 6% ?

    or is it dependent on the seller SPENDING the money? (Negating Growth ie. consumerism)

    Ed’s Note: If the seller kept their money the bank @ 6%, they are technically “hoarding” their money. However, in practice, the vast majority of us (99%) would spend the money on our next place of residence as the vast majority of us has our house as our most valuable asset. So the model is largely unaffected. However, to achieve a higher rate of interest on that 300K, you usually put it into a “term deposit” where you agree that you will not ask for the money for a period of time (say 1 year). What you are effectively saying to the bank, “Go ahead and borrow my money for 1 year. Do whatever you please with it, but make sure that it is back in a year’s time + the 6% of interest we agreed on.”. Does that help?

    Remember that money has no intrinsic value at all. What money represents is deferred spending. You save today to spend tomorrow.

    Please help me by clarifying this

    GW

  • GWilly // April 3, 2008 at 11:57 am | Reply

    Yup thanks Ed, that makes it a bit clearer.

    I’m sure there are a lot of variables that can affect this model, the greatest one of all I suppose is Perception which influences market valuations. Who knows what the £300k house will be worth ten years hence, we can only guess, does it matter?

    I’m off to build a Bunker ;-) , but…., mmmmmm…… ,theres plenty more potential debtors in India?

    maybe tomorrow

    Thanks Gilligan

  • Fractional Reserve Banking: A Primer « Gilligan’s Corner // April 4, 2008 at 7:28 am | Reply

    [...] Banking: A Primer Filed under: Uncategorized — gilliganscorner @ 7:28 am I copied my previous post here on one of the threads in the Ron Paul [...]

  • Brian M // April 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm | Reply

    One aspect of the link between the economics of debt money and the environmental impact of the rampant consumerism that it engenders, is that it is generally not possible for an individual to make better choices because the true cost of their consumption is necessarily masked in the “tragedy of the Commons”. If for instance, a tar sands operator were to be required to return all environmental constituents of their production (air, water etc.) in their original form, their cost of production would be substantially higher. This would then mean that gas prices would rise and people would pay the true cost. Those who choose to drive big SUV’s would therefore pay the true cost of their environmental impact rather than downloading it on those who make better choices. But that’s just half the story. In some cases, an individual may think they have made a rational choice such as buying a hybrid. The question is, can you be certain that the cost of manufacture of the hybrid represents fairly the true environmental impact? Hybrids use a lot of Rare Earth Elements (REE’s), which are mined by grinding up hundreds of tons of rock in Western Australia to get a few ounces of REE’s. The companies mining REE’s are under no more obligation to restore their environment than the oil sands folks are. How then is a consumer to know which is the better i.e. more rational choice? If the imputed total cost of production (including environmental factors) was attached to goods and services, consumption would decline. This would be good for the environment, but absolutely devasting to the ponzi-finance scheme currently being run by the banking establishment.

  • Rick Hanson // April 5, 2008 at 11:22 am | Reply

    Excellent post! I’d only take issue with one sentence, namely “… by you willing to shackle yourself to debt, you allowed the bank to add 300K to the money supply.”

    I wouldn’t say that the debtors “allowed” the inflation of the money supply. Clearly, and this is demonstrated throughout your excellent post, it is rather the lenders who are *only* to blame for inflating the money supply by their practice of fractional reserve (read *dishonest*) banking. For if the lenders did not lend dishonestly, the debtors could not affect the money supply.

    [Gilligan's note] : Thanks Rick, I changed the sentence.

  • TM // June 3, 2008 at 10:01 am | Reply

    Some spelling errors:

    “6) Around year 13 of your 300K mortgage, you would have paid the principle back.” PRINCIPAL, not principle.

    “And we bicker without understanding the nature of the problem. Their can be no environmental sustainability unless the money supply issue is fixed.” THERE, not their.


    Gilligan Says: Fixed. Thanks for the correction!

  • TM // June 3, 2008 at 10:03 am | Reply

    Great article btw. Appreciate it.

  • Shane // June 17, 2008 at 11:38 am | Reply

    Excellent post! It’s amazing how many people do not realize what inflation actually is.

    PS – Found your link over on the Campaign for Liberty site :)

  • Max // July 21, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Reply

    I like your post, sir. I would like to say that the connection between increasing product production and the end of all earth resources argument is not put together completely though. Consider for example some parts of the economy which get paid to recycle components of things used or the paper company that has to grow its own trees just to make juice cartons.

    To get a more detailed view of the materials economy view the free 20m video at http://www.storyofstuff.com

  • Remi Doiron // September 8, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Reply

    Great Post!

    Just one point that I would like confirmation you said that capital paid back to the bank does not stay at the bank, arguably this makes sense, but one, where does the money go, and 2, what happens when a debtor defaults on his payments, does the bank owe the balance of the loan to someone???

    RD

    Remi,

    a) The money goes where all money goes in a public corporations – salaries, CxO bonuses, taxes, captial and operational expenses and so forth…staples for the stapler, petty cash…whatever.

    b) What happens when you as a business lend someone 10 dollars and they default? You write it off on the books as a bad loan.

    Remember, for all intensive purposes, the money banks print are accepted by everyone, including the banks! That is all part of the scam.

  • Remi Doiron // September 8, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Reply

    So in other words, when the loan is paid back, the money technically dissapears correct? Since the amount was created for the sole purpose of the loan it should not exist after the principal is paid back, the interest is the corporations profits, but I am still not clear as you say you write off a bad loan, does this bad loan affect the banks ability to loan more money? Clearly it has to, otherwise a bank could never be insolvent and would be able to issue as much money as it wants practically. Seems to make no sense to write off the remainder of a bad loan when the money inherently did not exist to begin with, another accounting trick?

    RD


    Remi, I will answer this in another post.

  • kostas // October 14, 2008 at 3:47 am | Reply

    Interesting article. However, I may be missing
    something but I’m not convinced by your argument that news loan need to be taken out
    to permit existing ones to be repaid. In
    principle, why cannot the money that banks
    take from the economy through interest charges return to the economy via services
    rendred to the bankers from loan takers.
    Overall, you seem to be arguing againsts banks
    charging interest since this is ultimately how
    they take money from the economy.

  • Alan Burke // November 19, 2008 at 9:54 am | Reply

    Thanks for commenting today on the Globe and Mail. I have posted a link to this article and your home page on the “Links” and “Economics” pages of my website. Thanks also for the link to “The Story of Stuff”.

    Alan

  • Ishmael // November 19, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Reply

    It seems as though things are more complicated than that, though. Although the money supply is increased, there’s also something of inherent value created at the same time – the house, in this case.

    Also, much money that is created also goes towards productivity enhancements as well, ie allowing a person to do more with less time/effort. This increases the overall pool of wealth.

    Economies are ultimately just a way of abstractly determining a way of people trading bits of their lives for bits of other people’s, no?

    Take the contrast of a Mennonite family, versus a contemporary N. American consumer family. The Mennonite family’s “wants” are modest, and because they produce most of their own goods, they only need to build a small economy on top of that, for a basic exchange of simple items. The other family has this burning desire to have new cars, cellphones, iPods, vacations, health care, etc, so they need to throw themselves into and shackle themselves to the modern economy, thereby riding the “debt sweet spot”.

    I agree very strongly with your overall premise, that debt is a sophisticated version of slavery, but it seems to me that the stay out is to avoid debt, and manage your desires. They can’t sell a $300,000 house if no one wants one. Remember that you have FAR more power with how you choose to spend your money, than you ever will by voting.

    So, my ultimate question is: is it the money supply that’s truly inherently flawed, or our consumer-driven myopic culture?

    One suggestion for everyone who cares about this: embrace Linux and open-source software; proprietary software is another slavery trap, in more ways than one.

    Aside: I remember reading somewhere that in biblical times, it used to be against the law to charge interest on loaned money – is your essay an explanation of why?

  • nam // December 12, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Reply

    “Although the money supply is increased, there’s also something of inherent value created at the same time – the house, in this case.”

    The house is created through the creation of debt, after the debt plus interest is repaid there is a house in existence, then other laws come into operation ensuring the next generation gets into debt as well. Namely taxation laws ensure that the value of the house will be reduced and your children will loose a huge slice of it.

    There is something inherently disgusting when a hidden and small group can control the economic destiny of the many… it is morally repugnant, real human beings should be enraged and should rise up against their would be masters.

    Gold and Silver money make sense, however, if the economy requires a greater supply of gold and silver to conduct trade, it can get slowed down by lack of fresh supplies…leading to? deflation? inflation? I do not know.

    Some humans should never arrogate to themselves the ability and responsibility to plan for others…humans will always get driven mad by their ego and lust for more power and control.

  • Robert // December 23, 2008 at 10:07 am | Reply

    My question is, how do banks resolve it between themselves?

    So I borrow 500k for a house, that money moves to another bank. Do they never request the money from eachother, it just moves to that bank and my bank is not responsible anymore?

    I’m confused on that point? How money moves within the loop, and why one bank can’t just demand all the money on it’s computer from other banks instantly if needbe?

  • Robert // December 23, 2008 at 10:11 am | Reply

    kostas:

    Not it’s not the interest, it’s that there was never any money in the first place. They are essentially given the right by the government to make pretend money and loan it out.

    As long as everyone pays their bills on time, and doesn’t ask to empty their accounts the system will somewhat work, but it’s a ponzi scheme, there is no money actually given out, it just moves from computer to computer.

    It’s the inherent absurdity, since nobody in the world gets to sell nothing for something, but they do.

    And to top it off, they charge monthly fees to “hold” money, that doesn’t actually exist!

  • Anti_Serpent // March 11, 2009 at 9:47 pm | Reply

    I still can’t understand how DEBT is a problem? I thought this system was designed to Function as part of the money system. To ask in another way, isn’t / wasn’t it designed into the engine (a part) of — Fractional Reserve Banking, in such a way as to be part of the system itself? We always here people in Governments saying – “We need to do something about the debt problem.”

Leave a Comment