It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Two great articles about money and wealth and what they really are.

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:08 AM
check these two articles out, people. The authors talk about what really constitutes money and what really constitutes wealth.

by Chuck DiFalco

an excerpt:

Why is diversification away from the dollar important? Taking the big picture one level higher, you must understand that the money you have in your wallet, purse, and/or bank account is not real money. There is nothing tangible behind the paper dollar! It's just play money, like adult Monopoly money. That colorful $20 bill in your wallet or purse is a coupon redeemable at all locations near you. For now, anyway. Those ignorant, unconvinced folks who give me a half smile and a blank look when I tell them it's not real money will be in for a rude awakening when their belief system reveals its poor foundations. These terminal consumerists think, "Well, when I go to the mall, they accept my (paper) money, right?" They have been living with worthless paper money all their lives. They stubbornly stay in their comfort zone. They take for granted that their “money” has purchasing power while the game is going on. What happens when the game is up?

It's a subject that we have touched numerous times here on ATS, but it's one article that goes on to explain clear and precise what money really is, and what it really isn't.

The second article goes on about the consequences of our lack of understanding about money and wealth. If we are really improving in our wealth (and our purchasing power), as our governments and economists are claiming.

by Mats Larsson

When you enter the bank to lend money it is probably a common thought that the money you are lending has been deposited with the bank by another person or a company with excess money. In short, the money you are lending is already in existence.

This assumption is wrong. The money that you borrow from the bank does not exist earlier but are created when the loan is raised. In principle money is created out of thin air.

How can anything be created out of nothing? How can anything of value be created by writing figures on a paper? The new money will actually have value as they can be used in the society for purchases of assets and services on exactly the same manner as all other persons with access to money.

The answer lies in that nothing new is created but the total resources of the society in form of assets and services is exactly the same as before my new money was created. The only thing that has happened is that the total volume of money has increased and my new money is now competing for the same assets and services as before.

It is a repeat of lots of topics, I know. But this topic is so important that it has to be repeated until we truly get a sense of the truth about money and wealth in this world.

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 11:14 AM
I remember a thread that had a link about how money got started in the US and became big business it was very interesting.

I took economics in college so I learned all about money and its values, I remember some but I forgot most of it.

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 09:37 AM
Great articles! A bit scary... This subject reminds me of an article my husband and I have been discussing.

Debt Slavery

Many people today do not understand the true nature of interest. They have no idea that there are other possibilities besides slaving one's life away for the moneylenders.
The USA does not print its own money. The "Federal" Reserve, a private bank, creates and manages our money supply! It is neither federal, nor does it have any reserves. The US government surrendered its natural right to issue currency several times in its history, but it did so once and for all in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act. Now the government "borrows" huge sums (a billion here, 10 billon there) in the form of Treasury bonds, which are tacked onto our $9 trillion national debt—while the Federal Reserve, for the price of ink and paper, creates that money out of nothing.
The tyrant today is not the government (although Income Tax is something surprisingly new in our nation's history). The tyrant is the network of banks, which conspire to suck people dry at every turn, which causes such a drain that both parents have to work. This alone causes countless problems in the world today, because children were meant to be raised by their parents. They were not meant to be wards of the state.

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 01:26 PM
I see it as big money managing other's people's money. While all around we claim money but actually we don't have anything to back it off.

If our economy suddenly collapse, it will be us the regular Joes the one to lose anything we have and have saved.

Because banks will not be the ones to lose anything specially when is nothing to lose to begin with.

Their investments are taken care off, and diversified, while we the regular Joe can only hope to have something put aside.

Is just an illusion.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 11:58 PM
I recommend watching the film "Money Masters" which is several hours long and covers the same topic in great depth. It can be watched on or youtube etc..

posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 12:56 AM

I never took economics but have always studied the nature of money and how it effects people socially. I always knew money is arbitrary and relative and not an absolute value.

With this, I was wondering if the poster would like to add their knowledge to my concept and educate me on the pros and cons of an idea I had as follows:

I live in a mid sized city that is in a mid economic decline, because of job losses. Most of the new jobs are service oriented and geographically moving to suburbs. Job growth in semi skilled and skilled blue collar jobs is either declining or at a static condition. The city is stimulating some new development and jobs but they are all targeted for people with an education level well above the what the mean education standard is for its residents who are in the workforce. What this means to me is that employment growth within the city will have hardly any direct benefits for the majority of residents who live and work within the city. Most of them will not see any change in their own income or added benefits.

I had done some thinking about methods of economic development that provided the best benefits to the most people within the city without trying to create 1000's of new jobs which cannot be supported due to the fact that the types of businesses that could do this are going by the wayside (think GM and heavy industrial sectors), and competing with other regions and cities for their tax base and ability to provide employment with a decent living wage. I personally could never do this and neither could 100 people combining resources achieve the same.

What I noticed, was that a reduction in a families primary expenses would achieve the same type results without as much expense. In my area of town, I researched every property tax record and found that 85% of residential properties were rentals.

Since landlords own rentals for a profit, then it is clear that the propertie owners are making the money and the combined residents renting are losing money. I have always wanted to become an investor in real estate properties as rentals, but I have a clear idea of being content enough to live on just what I need and not to be a land grabber. However, if someone had the ability to control an entire section of properties within a town, and then manage those properties to break even so far as income goes, then the rents would be substantially reduced and provide a real economic benefit for everyone living within that area, without the creation of expensive businesses and the like. All it would take is someone with the resources and desire to do it. With more money in the pockets of residents, they would boost the localized economy to spur growth of new businesses.

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by ben91069All it would take is someone with the resources and desire to do it.

That's the problem IMHO. People like that are becoming increasingly rare. In this socieity we're taught that the idea of short term profits is good. I don't have any problem with that. Everyone wants to live a good life, but my problem starts when it's going at the expense of others. Which most (if not all) corporations seem to be doing nowadays.

Btw... I've just read this interesting article that put's it bluntly about money creation.

by Dollardaze
aka Mike Hewitt


log in