Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Throughout history, all fiat currencies eventually face the same pressures. When debt grows faster than income and money needs to be created to fill the gap, the value of that money changes. This isn’t a prediction—it’s a pattern that has repeated many times. Understanding how these systems work helps...

102,727 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Elon Musk: AI and robots are going to make so many goods and provide so many services that humanity could eventually run out of things for humans to do. When machines can produce abundance at an unprecedented scale, the output of goods and services could grow far faster than the money supply itself. In that kind of world, the economics we’re used to today start to break down. If the production of goods and services expands dramatically faster than the creation of money, the result is deflation—where everything becomes cheaper simply because there’s so much of it. Musk believes this could lead to a future where governments issue what he calls a “universal high income,” essentially distributing money because machines are generating far more value than humans alone ever could. But the implications go even deeper. Imagine an economy that becomes 1,000 times larger than today’s global economy. At that scale, Musk argues humanity may have already saturated nearly every desire people can think of—housing, food, entertainment, travel, technology—everything available in extreme abundance. And if the economy ever reached something like a million times the size of Earth’s current economy, human demand itself might become the limiting factor. There would simply be more production capacity than humanity could ever meaningfully consume. At that point, Musk suggests something radical: money itself may stop being relevant. Instead of currencies and financial systems, advanced AI civilizations may care only about the fundamental physical resources needed to operate—power and mass, wattage and tonnage. Even Musk’s own wealth illustrates the strange nature of modern money. The idea of “trillionaires,” he explains, isn’t stacks of cash in a bank account. It’s simply ownership percentages in companies that are building technologies and creating value. As those companies grow and do useful things, the valuation grows too. Which raises a strange irony: Just as the world may start producing trillionaires. We may be approaching a future where money itself matters less and less.

Ian Miles Cheong

87,242 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten