Making Money System

so, yea, what's the big deal?

This is not a simple matter of temporary inconvenience. If you agree to pay interest on a loan from them you are enslaving yourself. It is very simple, and they don't want you to know that.

The loan money you agree to pay back did not exist until you signed the dotted line. In fact, it will never 'exist'. When you purchase a home or a car you agree to make payments until the loan is completely paid off, paying an 'agreed' interest rate, a premium, for the convenience of taking control of the home or car without paying in full. But no money is ever exchanged. The loan document is essentially an agreement that if you stop making payments the bank will have to take over, potentially at a loss. Either way the third party, such as the original owner of the home, or Toyota, in the case of a car, is paid in full by the bank - the third party is no longer involved. They have received full payment. But you, my dear consumer, are now a slave.

Why use such a term as slave? Because you are working for someone that never worked for the money in the first place. They 'printed' it. They increased the number of zeros on their ledger because you have agreed to make payments on that money, but it never existed in the first place. That is, the Federal Reserve has the ability to increase the money supply and then pass it on to their 'member' banks: Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, etc. These banks will only take a loss if you stop making payments - and they threaten you with a lower FICO score, which is always fluctuating and at risk of identity fraud anyway, if you decide not to play anymore. So how is this slavery? You are paying interest on money they did not work for. But you had to sweat to get the money to pay that interest. Your sweat goes to these bankers without them doing a thing. If enough of your fellow consumers stop making payments the house of cards falls and the big bank gets a bailout. The small banks just get their assets gobbled up by the big banks; no bailout.

If you, my dear consumer, attempt to create money out of thin air you are put in jail. You are a cheat. But not them. They can create all the money they need, raising this so-called debt ceiling, creating programs like TARP, and other 'bailouts' for risk-taking banksters. That's right. They get your sweat in the form of interest payments, you slave, and they get to take risks because Glass-Steagall has been repealed, and if they fail, you, the taxpaying consumer, get to become the primary investor in their failure: the bailout. They threaten collapse, chaos, and even war if the don't get their bailout from the taxpayer. And then they turn around and lend you, the consumer, money at 10, 20, 30%.

So what is pragmatic? How about a system that cannot be manipulated? How about a system in which losers actually lose and are not allowed to play anymore instead of given huge bonuses? 

That system, is a gold-backed system. Keynes is popular in the current time because he speaks the language of bankers and politicians - not the People. There should be no such thing as inflation. Inflation is at best a hidden tax (increase the money supply to fund inefficient programs, sweetheart deals, and risky investments waiting for a bailout) because the value of the money under your mattress is devalued - you can't buy as much anymore. Why should anyone ever! be content to have less money the next day. You can buy X for $10 today, after inflation it will be $11. Why would you ever want that? How is that ever good? This is no mere inconvenience - it really is theft. So these financial scientists (bankers) and politician friends have devised a near perfect system of control. And because you can't inflate gold (it can't be copied, duplicated, or printed) it's 'value' stays constant. A gold coin will always have a specific weight and purity according to the standards of the mint it came from. That's what's in the Constitution - not an extra-governmental (private) instiution that can create as much money as it needs to maintain control!

Banking should be boring. They should accept deposits and charge money for keeping it safe in their vaults. But don't they pay depositors interest, you ask? Why would they pay you to keep your money safe when you can come in and get it back anytime you like? You can't run a business like that! The point of paying interest on a deposit is because the depositor agrees to allow the banker to loan the money to someone else. But that's not how it works, you say? Exactly. Because everybody knows that if enough depositors come to get their money the house of cards collapses and the FDIC has to step in. This should never happen. There should be no such thing, generally speaking, as a bankrun. A bank will fail if they make too many risky loans. That is, if a banker fails to properly evaluate the 'creditworthiness' of the individuals applying for loans. If too many loans go sour the banker fails and all of his assets are purchased by those making loans that are less risky. No need to ask Keynes what he thinks. Banking should not involve economics, which is really about the effects of human choice. Banking is math. If you deposit money, and you want to be able to get it the next day, you must pay the banker a fee for safekeeping. If you agree that your money can be lent to another, trusting the judgment of your banker, then you should receive part of the profit - and you cannot get it the next day, because it has already been lent! How can you possibly retrieve something that is not there? You banker would think you are an idiot to request money you agreed to lend! But that's what an honest system would work. Instead, we have an 'unlimited' system. It stops working properly if you apply gravity. Ron Paul's 26 year attempt to audit the Federal Reserve is almost more of an inside joke. He already knows that the Federal Reserve is evil - but he has a hard enough time deflecting attempts from the media to portray him as a lunatic as it is - he wants the public to perceive what a mudfight will ensue if they actually knew how the system works.

So growth would be slower. But it is inherently stable. Individuals are likely to take less risk, and they are less likely to get a loan that they probably won't be able to pay back. People sharpen their pencils. People look for other ways to finance their plans by seeking out friends, family, neighbors, etc instead of bankers. The free market is the market in which there is no restriction. But we do not have a free market. We have banksters hiding behind green curtains telling us what is best. The more stable the system the less money the banksters make. They make more money gaming the system: booms and busts - and we start to hear these pompous, paid economists (bankster apologists) tell us they couldn't see this was going to happen, and we all nod our heads, "Nobody saw this coming." So because the banksters never work for any of this money it is in their best interest that you, the simple-minded, ever-trusting consumer is in a perpetual state of paying interest. They are less interested in being paid in full than they are having you pay with your sweat.

Bankers control. Consumers always pay. Maybe you already explained all this to your girlie, my fellow FR-hater, and there is much more, but ask her what has always happened when enough people become apathetic to evil. The reason the founding fathers didn't get around to explaining the free market in the Constitution is because it is the lack of restriction. Real liberty. Let coined precious metals be the pinnacle of our economic system - everything else can be bartered. It keeps the bankers at bay.

I leave you with two quotes, from men of opposite character, that say the same thing using different words:

Recently a media feeding frenzy ensued when Washington Redskins defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth uttered the statement, “Just because somebody pays you money don’t mean they’ll make you do whatever they want…I’m not for sale. Yeah, I signed the contract and got paid a lot of money [$21 million this year], but that don’t mean I’m for sale or a slave or whatever.”

Part of the shock, or better yet outrage, seemed to be focused on the very thought that a black man making so much money would compare playing in a defensive scheme he despises to the master-slave relationship at the heart of the American Black-white divide. According to Haynesworth his bone of contention was part of his contract negotiations with the Redskins.

Of course he is not the first contemporary athlete to utter the slave comparison. Former NBA great Larry Johnson once referred to some of his New York Knicks teammates as “rebel slaves” which generated similar outrage. William Rhoden’s wonderful book Forty Million Dollar Slaves takes on the historic plantation mentality of American sport culture and contemporary athletes. And my own book, Ballers of The New School, examines the mentality of contemporary post-civil rights, hip-hop generation athletes, bold enough to make such utterances.

RELATED: Albert Haynesworth “I’m not a slave”

To be fair to Haynesworth who is black, the history and legacy of the enslavement of African persons in the New World, and testifying against it or vestiges of it, will forever be part of the psyche of black Americans. Enslavement in America was harsh, bitter, and cruel as recounted in endless slave narratives. These narratives testified against captors and bore witness to the desire of every black person to be free. Haynesworth’s recent tirade or testimony (depending on your point of view) underscores the feelings that most contemporary athletes are either unwilling to or incapable of articulating.

While Haynesworth certainly does not endure the same type of cruel bondage, his rebellion is against those in power of a plantation or system (dominated primarily by white men) that controls black men—even if they pay them. It is a system capable of making them “do whatever they want” whenever they want. Haynesworth, like the slave narratives, which demonstrated the problematic value of plantation culture, is perhaps addressing the problematic white-black labor conditions in contemporary sports culture that is driven by a modicum of the past master-slave ideology.

Rhoden says in his book “sports might be a plantation of sorts.” Haynesworth seems to concur. And, no amount of money will hush black folk with knowledge of this legacy, because America’s foundation is buried in the fields of slave plantations.

Ironically, the foundation of contemporary high profile sports like football and basketball are the descendants of former slaves. Even the structure of contemporary sports teams traces the power dynamics of plantations. Nearly all the people who exercise power over players are white— the owners, head coaches, commissioners, etc.

The outrage directed at Haynesworth for making his “slave” comment confirms the unspoken notion that because he is Black, he is treated as a descendants of former slaves. Critics say Haynesworth should be grateful—more grateful than his white peers—for the money he makes.

But if Haynesworth is getting paid so much and the dynamics are so different, why make the comparison?

Haynesworth is bothered that despite his immense wealth he does not control the terms of his liberation—the problem slaves faced without the benefit of wealth. Further, in the contemporary sports world not only are white men (like his coach and team owner) in power, but they have defined the terms of the liberation for black men. Haynesworth’s analogy is perhaps his way of saying that while his services may be for sale, his pride and self-respect are not. Despite the money, prestige, and lifestyle, he is not blind to the master-slave power dynamic in contemporary sport culture.

What underscores the Haynesworth saga is how it compares to that of Minnesota Vikings’ Brett Favre who is white. Haynesworth dislikes the Redskins 3-4 defensive scheme, preferring to play tackle instead of nose guard. He also skipped the Redskins voluntary off-season conditioning program. The media maligned him for this, suggesting he was lazy. Brett Favre routinely skips training camp until the last two weeks of camp.  He also chose to play for the Vikings because they use an offense he likes.

RELATED: Cavs see LeBron as runaway slave

Yet, the media response to his antics is the antithesis of the response to Haynesworth. Haynesworth is called “ridiculous,” “an idiot” and worse for making his comments. Meanwhile Favre is worshipped for holding teams hostage (deciding if he will play or retire) each year until two weeks before the season begins. In fact, he was given a raise this season. (He now makes $16 million!)

Race is an undeniable variable in the different treatment of these men. The black one is told he should be grateful, shut up and do what he is told.  The other is afforded the latitude to waffle about playing, and is offered a raise for doing so.

My point here is not that Haynesworth is literally a slave, but that because he’s Black he’s treated like one. Nor is it that whites are literally masters. The point is that Haynesworth seems to be aware the racial dynamics at play and rejects them. Our national understanding of race could make leaps and bounds, if the public considered these dynamics alongside Haynesworth words, “I’m not for sale or a slave or whatever.”

Thabiti Lewis is the author of Ballers of the New School: Race and Sports in America (Third World Press, 2010).  He teaches English and American Studies at Washington State University Vancouver.

Click here to join the 2011 Black History Month contest

Share this post on Facebook! CLICK HERE:

robert shumake

autosport.com - F1 <b>News</b>: Raikkonen rules out Renault F1 seat

Kimi Raikkonen has ruled out making a return to Formula 1 with Renault next year, despite being linked with the team for several weeks.

Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado. Find more Site News news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

Target doing poor job of selling the iPad? | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Target doing poor job of selling the iPad?. Find more iPad news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

robert shumake

autosport.com - F1 <b>News</b>: Raikkonen rules out Renault F1 seat

Kimi Raikkonen has ruled out making a return to Formula 1 with Renault next year, despite being linked with the team for several weeks.

Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado. Find more Site News news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

Target doing poor job of selling the iPad? | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Target doing poor job of selling the iPad?. Find more iPad news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

robert shumake

so, yea, what's the big deal?

This is not a simple matter of temporary inconvenience. If you agree to pay interest on a loan from them you are enslaving yourself. It is very simple, and they don't want you to know that.

The loan money you agree to pay back did not exist until you signed the dotted line. In fact, it will never 'exist'. When you purchase a home or a car you agree to make payments until the loan is completely paid off, paying an 'agreed' interest rate, a premium, for the convenience of taking control of the home or car without paying in full. But no money is ever exchanged. The loan document is essentially an agreement that if you stop making payments the bank will have to take over, potentially at a loss. Either way the third party, such as the original owner of the home, or Toyota, in the case of a car, is paid in full by the bank - the third party is no longer involved. They have received full payment. But you, my dear consumer, are now a slave.

Why use such a term as slave? Because you are working for someone that never worked for the money in the first place. They 'printed' it. They increased the number of zeros on their ledger because you have agreed to make payments on that money, but it never existed in the first place. That is, the Federal Reserve has the ability to increase the money supply and then pass it on to their 'member' banks: Wells Fargo, Citi, Bank of America, etc. These banks will only take a loss if you stop making payments - and they threaten you with a lower FICO score, which is always fluctuating and at risk of identity fraud anyway, if you decide not to play anymore. So how is this slavery? You are paying interest on money they did not work for. But you had to sweat to get the money to pay that interest. Your sweat goes to these bankers without them doing a thing. If enough of your fellow consumers stop making payments the house of cards falls and the big bank gets a bailout. The small banks just get their assets gobbled up by the big banks; no bailout.

If you, my dear consumer, attempt to create money out of thin air you are put in jail. You are a cheat. But not them. They can create all the money they need, raising this so-called debt ceiling, creating programs like TARP, and other 'bailouts' for risk-taking banksters. That's right. They get your sweat in the form of interest payments, you slave, and they get to take risks because Glass-Steagall has been repealed, and if they fail, you, the taxpaying consumer, get to become the primary investor in their failure: the bailout. They threaten collapse, chaos, and even war if the don't get their bailout from the taxpayer. And then they turn around and lend you, the consumer, money at 10, 20, 30%.

So what is pragmatic? How about a system that cannot be manipulated? How about a system in which losers actually lose and are not allowed to play anymore instead of given huge bonuses? 

That system, is a gold-backed system. Keynes is popular in the current time because he speaks the language of bankers and politicians - not the People. There should be no such thing as inflation. Inflation is at best a hidden tax (increase the money supply to fund inefficient programs, sweetheart deals, and risky investments waiting for a bailout) because the value of the money under your mattress is devalued - you can't buy as much anymore. Why should anyone ever! be content to have less money the next day. You can buy X for $10 today, after inflation it will be $11. Why would you ever want that? How is that ever good? This is no mere inconvenience - it really is theft. So these financial scientists (bankers) and politician friends have devised a near perfect system of control. And because you can't inflate gold (it can't be copied, duplicated, or printed) it's 'value' stays constant. A gold coin will always have a specific weight and purity according to the standards of the mint it came from. That's what's in the Constitution - not an extra-governmental (private) instiution that can create as much money as it needs to maintain control!

Banking should be boring. They should accept deposits and charge money for keeping it safe in their vaults. But don't they pay depositors interest, you ask? Why would they pay you to keep your money safe when you can come in and get it back anytime you like? You can't run a business like that! The point of paying interest on a deposit is because the depositor agrees to allow the banker to loan the money to someone else. But that's not how it works, you say? Exactly. Because everybody knows that if enough depositors come to get their money the house of cards collapses and the FDIC has to step in. This should never happen. There should be no such thing, generally speaking, as a bankrun. A bank will fail if they make too many risky loans. That is, if a banker fails to properly evaluate the 'creditworthiness' of the individuals applying for loans. If too many loans go sour the banker fails and all of his assets are purchased by those making loans that are less risky. No need to ask Keynes what he thinks. Banking should not involve economics, which is really about the effects of human choice. Banking is math. If you deposit money, and you want to be able to get it the next day, you must pay the banker a fee for safekeeping. If you agree that your money can be lent to another, trusting the judgment of your banker, then you should receive part of the profit - and you cannot get it the next day, because it has already been lent! How can you possibly retrieve something that is not there? You banker would think you are an idiot to request money you agreed to lend! But that's what an honest system would work. Instead, we have an 'unlimited' system. It stops working properly if you apply gravity. Ron Paul's 26 year attempt to audit the Federal Reserve is almost more of an inside joke. He already knows that the Federal Reserve is evil - but he has a hard enough time deflecting attempts from the media to portray him as a lunatic as it is - he wants the public to perceive what a mudfight will ensue if they actually knew how the system works.

So growth would be slower. But it is inherently stable. Individuals are likely to take less risk, and they are less likely to get a loan that they probably won't be able to pay back. People sharpen their pencils. People look for other ways to finance their plans by seeking out friends, family, neighbors, etc instead of bankers. The free market is the market in which there is no restriction. But we do not have a free market. We have banksters hiding behind green curtains telling us what is best. The more stable the system the less money the banksters make. They make more money gaming the system: booms and busts - and we start to hear these pompous, paid economists (bankster apologists) tell us they couldn't see this was going to happen, and we all nod our heads, "Nobody saw this coming." So because the banksters never work for any of this money it is in their best interest that you, the simple-minded, ever-trusting consumer is in a perpetual state of paying interest. They are less interested in being paid in full than they are having you pay with your sweat.

Bankers control. Consumers always pay. Maybe you already explained all this to your girlie, my fellow FR-hater, and there is much more, but ask her what has always happened when enough people become apathetic to evil. The reason the founding fathers didn't get around to explaining the free market in the Constitution is because it is the lack of restriction. Real liberty. Let coined precious metals be the pinnacle of our economic system - everything else can be bartered. It keeps the bankers at bay.

I leave you with two quotes, from men of opposite character, that say the same thing using different words:

Recently a media feeding frenzy ensued when Washington Redskins defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth uttered the statement, “Just because somebody pays you money don’t mean they’ll make you do whatever they want…I’m not for sale. Yeah, I signed the contract and got paid a lot of money [$21 million this year], but that don’t mean I’m for sale or a slave or whatever.”

Part of the shock, or better yet outrage, seemed to be focused on the very thought that a black man making so much money would compare playing in a defensive scheme he despises to the master-slave relationship at the heart of the American Black-white divide. According to Haynesworth his bone of contention was part of his contract negotiations with the Redskins.

Of course he is not the first contemporary athlete to utter the slave comparison. Former NBA great Larry Johnson once referred to some of his New York Knicks teammates as “rebel slaves” which generated similar outrage. William Rhoden’s wonderful book Forty Million Dollar Slaves takes on the historic plantation mentality of American sport culture and contemporary athletes. And my own book, Ballers of The New School, examines the mentality of contemporary post-civil rights, hip-hop generation athletes, bold enough to make such utterances.

RELATED: Albert Haynesworth “I’m not a slave”

To be fair to Haynesworth who is black, the history and legacy of the enslavement of African persons in the New World, and testifying against it or vestiges of it, will forever be part of the psyche of black Americans. Enslavement in America was harsh, bitter, and cruel as recounted in endless slave narratives. These narratives testified against captors and bore witness to the desire of every black person to be free. Haynesworth’s recent tirade or testimony (depending on your point of view) underscores the feelings that most contemporary athletes are either unwilling to or incapable of articulating.

While Haynesworth certainly does not endure the same type of cruel bondage, his rebellion is against those in power of a plantation or system (dominated primarily by white men) that controls black men—even if they pay them. It is a system capable of making them “do whatever they want” whenever they want. Haynesworth, like the slave narratives, which demonstrated the problematic value of plantation culture, is perhaps addressing the problematic white-black labor conditions in contemporary sports culture that is driven by a modicum of the past master-slave ideology.

Rhoden says in his book “sports might be a plantation of sorts.” Haynesworth seems to concur. And, no amount of money will hush black folk with knowledge of this legacy, because America’s foundation is buried in the fields of slave plantations.

Ironically, the foundation of contemporary high profile sports like football and basketball are the descendants of former slaves. Even the structure of contemporary sports teams traces the power dynamics of plantations. Nearly all the people who exercise power over players are white— the owners, head coaches, commissioners, etc.

The outrage directed at Haynesworth for making his “slave” comment confirms the unspoken notion that because he is Black, he is treated as a descendants of former slaves. Critics say Haynesworth should be grateful—more grateful than his white peers—for the money he makes.

But if Haynesworth is getting paid so much and the dynamics are so different, why make the comparison?

Haynesworth is bothered that despite his immense wealth he does not control the terms of his liberation—the problem slaves faced without the benefit of wealth. Further, in the contemporary sports world not only are white men (like his coach and team owner) in power, but they have defined the terms of the liberation for black men. Haynesworth’s analogy is perhaps his way of saying that while his services may be for sale, his pride and self-respect are not. Despite the money, prestige, and lifestyle, he is not blind to the master-slave power dynamic in contemporary sport culture.

What underscores the Haynesworth saga is how it compares to that of Minnesota Vikings’ Brett Favre who is white. Haynesworth dislikes the Redskins 3-4 defensive scheme, preferring to play tackle instead of nose guard. He also skipped the Redskins voluntary off-season conditioning program. The media maligned him for this, suggesting he was lazy. Brett Favre routinely skips training camp until the last two weeks of camp.  He also chose to play for the Vikings because they use an offense he likes.

RELATED: Cavs see LeBron as runaway slave

Yet, the media response to his antics is the antithesis of the response to Haynesworth. Haynesworth is called “ridiculous,” “an idiot” and worse for making his comments. Meanwhile Favre is worshipped for holding teams hostage (deciding if he will play or retire) each year until two weeks before the season begins. In fact, he was given a raise this season. (He now makes $16 million!)

Race is an undeniable variable in the different treatment of these men. The black one is told he should be grateful, shut up and do what he is told.  The other is afforded the latitude to waffle about playing, and is offered a raise for doing so.

My point here is not that Haynesworth is literally a slave, but that because he’s Black he’s treated like one. Nor is it that whites are literally masters. The point is that Haynesworth seems to be aware the racial dynamics at play and rejects them. Our national understanding of race could make leaps and bounds, if the public considered these dynamics alongside Haynesworth words, “I’m not for sale or a slave or whatever.”

Thabiti Lewis is the author of Ballers of the New School: Race and Sports in America (Third World Press, 2010).  He teaches English and American Studies at Washington State University Vancouver.

Click here to join the 2011 Black History Month contest

Share this post on Facebook! CLICK HERE:

robert shumake

autosport.com - F1 <b>News</b>: Raikkonen rules out Renault F1 seat

Kimi Raikkonen has ruled out making a return to Formula 1 with Renault next year, despite being linked with the team for several weeks.

Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Photo of the Week: iPad in Colorado. Find more Site News news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.

Target doing poor job of selling the iPad? | iLounge <b>News</b>

iLounge news discussing the Target doing poor job of selling the iPad?. Find more iPad news from leading independent iPod, iPhone, and iPad site.