posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Paradox.
reply to post by CaptChaos
No I don't. The 100$ was worth 200$ that the prostitute gave to the motel owner. 100$ Was needed to pay off her debt to the motel owner, and another
100$ Was the banker's loan which came back around the circle. In theory the only individual that did not "lose" any money was the motel owner.
No, you are totally wrong. I'm not surprised that NO ONE HERE understands how this works. This IS how our money system works. Ford was quoted as
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution
before tomorrow morning.
If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched. George H. W. Bush told a White House
The motel owner did not "make" 200 dollars. He owed 100 to the butcher, the hooker owed him 100, it cancels out. In the real world, the tourist
was the "banker". He printed up a 100 dollar bill, then "loaned" it to the hotel owner. Like I said before, the things not included here are
interest (usury) taxes, and inflation. Forget the taxes and inflation for now, the "banker" would have wanted 100 plus INTEREST. In the whole
town, there IS no more money. Therefore, he takes a part ownership in the hotel as "payment" for the "debt".
All the idiots in Marshall (the world) will keep on playing this game, giving up a small portion to the "banker" every time. OBVIOUSLY, eventually
the banker ends up "owning" the butcher, the baker, the hooker, the hotel, EVERYTHING.
Every step of the way, everyone loses a little bit to taxes, thereby "owing" MORE each time. The "more" money is simply created by the banker.
Each transaction ratchets the cuffs a little tighter. When people complain, the "banker" simply prints more "money", which to the rubes seems to
solve the problem but simply ratchets the cuffs a little tighter.