nice. have some kid spread your propaganda for you.
1. Nation Debt != banks fault, further, the interest isn't paid to the banks, it's paid to government debt holders, which I am sure is not the "banks" but actually private debt holders. Even it were all held by the banks, the banks are largely publicly owned companies, owned by the very same pensions, 401ks, and retail investors as any other public company. After looking at it, Canada's debt isn't owed wholly to the banks, just like any other country's debt.
2. Banks require funding, they don't just "create money", Assets = Liabilities (LT debt, deposits..etc) + Equity. That equation has to match.
3. Inflation is not just monetary based. We had huge inflation in the 1970s, was that monetary based? No, it was oil embargo based, however, we did have to contract the money supply to counteract it, initially causing economic issues.
So really, what this comes down to, is that this girls parents force-fed her a bunch of bullshit so she could run around YouTube and spread FUDD. Skewed half-truths, outright lies, and complete hyperbole. Then people who agree with this trash spread it around, not because its true, but because they want to spread the same FUDD rather than addressing the real problems.
What's sad is that this girl isn't even thinking for herself. If she was and she was as smart as people thinks she is, she'd know that Canada's debt isn't owed to the banks.
http://www.davemanuel.com/canada-debt-clock.php
It's really sad to see kids so confused by parents who are just as corrupt as the people they are trying to go after.
Whatever your opinion of her speech, you have to admire her for standing in front of an audience and giving it.
You go girl.
I couldn't help but laugh at that heh, come on man.
That's why I'm such a fan of Stalin; I admire his tenacity, determination and go-get-it-ness
Sure, theres the money multiplier based upon the reserve ratio, however, that's not just "creating" money. They themselves get funded, whether you want to count that as multiplied deposits or not and rail on fractional reserve banking, thats your choice. However, they DO get funded one way or another by money on the other side of the balance sheet. Every single mortgage is funded by something, the money just isn't willed into existence. Banks borrow money, whether its from depositors, bond holders, or from equity (not really "borrowing" there), but it *IS* borrowed and they make money on the difference between the rate at which it was borrowed and the rate at which it was lent.
If you can't understand that simple of a concept, then obviously you aren't smarter than a brainwashed 12 year old.
I came off douchey... I apologize.
I guess it's that I've known private equity traders, finance majors, finished accounting at RU, and have become so distraught with the whole system with things like the derivatives blowout, technical analysis, how much influence equity has on the human race, ect. I almost lost my livelihood caught up in a stupid game.
Anyway I would disagree with the bolded but can't prove it otherwise so you win sir, should not have brought it up anyway.
If you know simple accounting you that A = L+E, a mortgage is an asset, what funds it is a liability. Banks do not issue currency, they issue debt, therefore they have to have a liability that is not "money" creation to finance the asset. It's simple logic.
*every* single mortgage is funded by something, whether that's term securitization debt, bonds, equity or deposits (money multiplier), it is funded by something. You can see it on the balance sheet statement of any bank. Not to sound douchey myself, but if you can't read the BS, you shouldn't be spreading this stuff around.
Well I fell into the fallacy of believing nothing doesn't equal something. Nothing does equal something(more of a philosophical debate), so you are correct.
I posted the video more because, I was taken back by the spectacle of the video then the message, I just got an xbox at 12 and was playing Halo, while she's giving sophisticated(in a vernacular perspective at the very least)speeches in front of adults. I don't know whether to applaud for what you have to admit was a good performance regardless of the message, or be sadden that a 12 year was put in that situation.