I didn’t assume any heinous activity, simply suggested global parity in money creation. I even suggested the inequity may be unintentional oversight.
You are claiming that the full faith and credit of some is intrinsically worth more than others, and that the interest collected on the credit furnished by each is reasonably kept by few who provide only bookkeeping.
Less than a dozen people own more than half the planet.. that is great Wealth. It’s also somewhat deceptive, because those few actually control a great deal of wealth they do not own. It’s also a fact ignored with economic theory like you quote, and why those theories rarely predict or explain actual results. Because that much control can easily manifest unexplained changes in the economy at will.
The thing about creation of money by loaning it into existence, it doesn’t cause inflation, because the money is balanced with debt. That’s why we do it, instead of simply writing checks for everything, which we can legally do
It doesn’t dilute the value, it confirms the value.. and the inflation of the ’70s was rent seeking, a reaction to the end of the gold standard, and an attack on the Carter presidency
You will need to prove that bit about loans to developing nations, becaiuse it is so completely wrong, and a logical fallacy. Even if that is the claim, the productive capacity is artificially limited by the amount and rate of any funds offered for loan, and it is predicated on the assumption that money they create by borrowing it into existence is not as valuable as money we borrow into existence and then loan to them at seven or ten times the rate.
You don’t explain why this is done, if not to keep non-white people down.. perhaps if we just say others?
My entire point is that ‘global banks’ should not be making loans to sovereign nations, with money created by other sovereigns
Sovereign nations should borrow money into existence from each human, because we are each the source of credit, the source of wealth, the guarantors of the value of currencies.
It isn’t nonsense, you specifially accepted the arbitrary devaluation of Zimbabwe’s currency as an advantage of Wealth, the Wealth of China isn’t involved with money creation, and the wealth of a US protecorate acts as the Wealth of the protector
..and in all this you still do not address the rule in any way
You deflect, present unrelated argument.. Like this turd “ownership of natural resources has become decreasingly important post Industrial Revolution to anyone”.. I mean, prove it, why is China buying so much gold, why is the South China Sea contested? Why not simply allow developing nations to create as much money as us, and respect the value, at least until they can’t make sustainable payments, but if they’ve never had the opportunity, it is only prejudice making the subjective determination of their credit worthiness.. mind that the US threatens to default at least annually
If Wealth wanted the market, it would allow others to create money under the same conditions, and respect the value, to sell their stuff, so why not?
Is prejudiced better than racist?
How is the current system better, more ethical, moral, useful, stable, sustainable, than after adopting the rule of inclusion?
What harm is caused by the rule?