Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🇺🇸 Red versus blue is misdirection when it comes to printing money. Scott Melker, crypto trader and host of The Wolf Of All Streets, expects the dollar to stick around while its value gets debased on purpose, because that's how the system was built. "There's a uni party when...

47,748 просмотров • 3 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

More sophistry and revisionist history from Mike Green. He claims: "Money exists to cancel debt. That's all it does. That's what it says on your dollar bill. This is legal tender for settlement of debts both public and private. It continues to function in that manner. It never stopped functioning in that manner. That is what it does. That's what it's supposed to do. It's not meant to store value. It's not meant to retain its value. It doesn't say that on there. There's no statement on your dollar bill that says this is good for three cowhides, right? It says this is for the settlement of debts, public and private." -------------------- His statements would only be sensible to someone who thinks money has been fiat for all of time. However, his claims are ahistorical (a word Green likes to use himself). Paper money was introduced as a representation of a specific amount of precious metal. Dollar bills once stated exactly how much silver or gold they were redeemable for. When the Coinage Act of 1792 was passed (and all the way up to 1971), you would have been laughed out of the room if you stated that "all money does is cancel debt." In fact, even after 1971, you would have been laughed at for claiming this, because Nixon's suspension of gold convertibility was "temporary," of course. When money was a specific representation of gold and silver, it DID store value. Of course paper money never stated that it can be exchanged for three cowhides. But when dollars stated exactly how much precious metal they were redeemable for, citizens KNEW that the underlying precious metal stored value over time. This is why the fiat rug-pull happened over many decades rather than overnight (central banking --> gold seizure --> "temporary" removal of gold convertibility --> fiat money). The best defense of Mike Green's claims are that they apply to the nature of fiat money TODAY. But Green leaves out that, historically (while competing monetary theories did exist), people correctly treated gold/silver-backed money as a store of value. Money DID store value. Everyone knew this to be true, and wanted it to be true (except banks and governments).

John Haar

10,393 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад