The Money Myth: Jem Bendell at TEDxTransmedia2011
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 10. 2011
- Jem Bendell is a professor and the owner-director of Lifeworth Consulting, providing solutions for systemic change towards sustainable development. For 16 years he has consulted with business, United Nations (UN) and civil society, while writing over 100 publications on the social responsibility of organisations.
In TEDxTransmedia he denounces the crisis in the monetary system.
About TEDx:
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Great video. For those who are interested in this subject, I HIGHLY highly highly suggest the book "Sacred Economics" by Charles Eisenstein. In this book he describes with eloquent ease how the system "works", how this affects all our relationships (to ourselves, others, and the environment), why it doesn't actually serve us, and how to change it :)
Listening in 2020. I am finding it so relevant today
"Money as a public utility, instead of for profit" Wouldn't that be something?
Yes its called communism. Didn't work. Still doesn't.
@@robertwoodpa6463 - BS. It's the lust for power and wealth on the part of the few that stuff up any system. Cooperation and public utility make for a healthy society and communities.
@@sonicspring6448 Nope not the lust for power and wealth, such up tradegy of the commons.....
@@yunfeichen9255 Yes, it's the tragedy of the commons, and it happens because of the addiction to power and wealth of the few who exploit and control the others.
Facebook will come up with a global currency one day. You nailed it.
Had to lead an economics session so I played the video. thank you for breaking it down so simple!!!
Well done. Clear, incisive, thoughtful.
this needs more views.
Money and the 'Material Myth' are the root of unhappiness! Ultimate bliss, happiness and contentment are found through wholeness, through balance, and through living a holistic lifestyle.
In human affairs the questions are; more or less. Not, exist, or not exist. Absolutes. So we seek ways there are less of the bad things, and more of the good. People like this guy are pointing out that money is worse than many thought it was, or think it is.
sustainable alternatives.
When I go to the bank, and borrow money to build a new factory, or develop a never process that creates more bread, I'm effectively creating more value, which would more than compensate for the interest of 1 coin, or whatever the agreement is.
I agree that the practice of banks lending on money they don't have is a problem (which was a policy change the US gov't passed that allowed that to happen), but currency and the practice of lending is not the problem.
People are watching useless Vines when there are beautiful videos such as this one :O.. I'm in love with this guy
Totally agree
For more info watch- Money as Debt, The Money Fix, The Money Masters
I cannot comment on the money fix because i have not watch it. I can, however comment on the other two. I must have watched the MONEY MASTER and the new variants by bill still. While historically semi-accurate it does not get to the core of what the banks are doing today. Money as debt does not get to the core of what the banks are doing today either. I have learned from two economist who are not holding back. They are better than the Austrian (rothbard and friends) school that teaches misinformation. The two economist are Steve Keen and Richard Werner. But even they do not tell you the core of the problem. If you really want to know the absolute truth as to how our money is created read the stuff by Tom Schauf. He is dead on.
Tut Tut Jester, so many questions!
There is always enough money to pay back the debt because - it can be borrowed from another Bank!
That's the beauty of the whole system - Everyone is a Winner!
Hooray, Everything is OK! ; ^ )
Thank you !
Yes you are right, however the problem occurs when the borrower deposits the $90 lent by the bank. From this $81 can be lent out, then $72.90 (90% of $81) and so on based on a 10% fractional reserve rate. That initial $100 deposit in effect can ultimately behave like approximately $1000 through this multiplicative effect while the multiple banks (or one single bank) involved are collecting interest at every stage.
Heyo man, pretty good stream that you have here. Keep in touch.
True so true.. Peace
PEOPLE PLEASE SHARE THIS>>>
Thank you.
@Tasqa1993 Thx Tasqa. The Inside Job is a great film, but stops short of unpicking the unsustainable nature of monetary systems (in USA, Iceland and beyond). The subprime lending, complex derivatives, regulatory capture & academic conflict of interest well described in the film are just the latest SYMPTOMS of an underlying crisis in the nature of money i.e. credit creation with interest by banks. Happy u can use the talk to connect mainstream critiques of banking to deeper causes of crisis
In its early neutral role money is a medium of exchange of goods and services. However, money today has become the ultimate (state and who is behind the state) tool to control fully our lives. So it is a good thing in good hands and an ugly thing in ugly hands!
Right! The problem about excessive debt is banks can print money out of thin air with no gold reserve. The new money should be based on on real assets, services, skills etc. not digital or paper money. It is up to us to create the new currency that will bypass banks(not controlled by banks and super rich)..we can do it if we put our minds together before it is too late.
Very good presentation. I would urge everybody to look up 'Mathematically Perfected Economy', an economic model where we maintain a 1:1:1 ratio between the currency in circulation, the debt owed and the value of any given item thus eliminating inflation and deflation. It is a system where we create our own currency based on our labour and production. Every item is valued on its projected lifespan and is paid down over that period (or sooner if one wishes) with no interest.
great video!
"Time to print more dollars."
That is the exact conclusion I wanted the reader to come up with as it is the ONLY conclusion to the money myth. You seem like a smart person, what happens when you continually print money? What is the effect of useless money?
They don't 'make' money, they 'create it'. Go to the bank and borrow 10K (choose your currency). They add 10K to your account, they don't take it out of a vault. The total money supply has now increased by 10K. Forgetting interest for a moment let's say you pay back the 10k in a couple of weeks. This means that the balance is back to zero and the general money supply has now dropped by 10K (putting it back where it was). Any plus balance means a corresponding debt somewhere else in the system.
resource based economy is our best hope
Yes, its double book keeping. -1000 000 is +1000 000.
Bad translation from the Bank of Finland web page.
"When a bank grants a loan, its assets and liabilities will increase. And when the loan is paid the assets and liabilities will be reduced."
In “Occupying Chairlifts” a simple rule tweak on inheritance ends up changing the direction and purpose of modern human life! Here’s a fair way to transition forward to where we’re rewarded for cooperating and creating instead of competing and conquering.
It's something specific we can demand. If this isnt the best answer, at least we’re thinking about what might be. Are we really just this close to having it work right?
Oh yeah, it's a Ski movie! “Occupying Chairlifts” on CZcams!
This video needs 7 billion views...
@kparcell that argument assumes all earnings from interest are spent and not saved or invested, which isnt the case. Its an argument that the film "Money as Debt II" helps explain is not the case. the only other argument against the problem money issued as debt with interest is that if the velocity of money circulating increases this means all debts can be serviced with existing money supply. but again, this doesnt happen, as the velocity increase needed is not normal.
Alan, fyi, fractional reserve is a standard way of having enough money in reserve to cover what might be demanded. The amount reserved is transparent and in a fiat system has zero relationship to the amount created.
It's the inflationary effect that is the worst I've heard, this represents an ongoing transfer of wealth from ordinary people to monetary institutions by stealth.
Not to mention that all fiat currencies throughout history have eventually failed....
So long as people wish to live beyond their means, there's always going to be interest, banks or no banks, fiat currency or not. So long as there's interest, people are going to have to do more work to pay back the interest than the things they wanted to buy with the loan. This is unavoidable. Whether a bank creates that money out of thin air or not is not a problem either, what's a problem is when they've let out so many loans that they don't have even a fraction of the assets to back up those loans, and a recession hits.
The real problem lies in people thinking it is fine for a bank to put a loan on their balance sheet as both an asset AND a liability, rather than having separate categories of assets and liabilities where the two categories cannot be simply "cancelled out" against each other. A loan might be considered a long term asset, but the moment someone defaults on the loan, that long term asset goes to zero and the short term liability stays. What happens when an institution like this is leveraged 20 to 1 and a recession hits in which 5% of the loans go into default? That bank's value drops to zero, that's what.
However, if you simply put in a regulation that limits banking leverage, they'll just find other clever accounting tricks to get around it and keep doing what they're doing. There is simply no alternative to being vigilant and examining what's going on. If you as a saver refuse to deal with a bank which does anything other than protect savings and make loans to people of good credit, and reject any which take on more than 2 to 1 leverage, that would be a step in the right direction.
If you really want to figure out where all the money is going, multiply the average hourly wage in your country by the size of the workforce and compare it against the size of the annual budget of your government. You will see that a large portion of your money is being consumed by governments, and what do you get for it? Lousy services and a bunch of debt in your name. THAT is where most of it is going.
So insightful, would love to know your thoughts on an alternative to this existing system of debt!
@@genzmind01 I don't really see an alternative to it, honestly. The system is actually fine, the problem is that no one seems to care when the institutions become over-leveraged, or when government spending gets out of hand, they're too focused on their day to day lives. If you pass a law which prevents high amounts of leverage, as I said the lenders will just find ways around it, and if you pass laws that limit government spending, they'll wait til the next big war or other calamity, and use that as an emergency justification to repeal that law. This is going to happen over and over again unless there is a fundamental change in the mindset of the average person, such as that they start to care to actually look for the early stages of this process happening and demand it stop, or disbanding the concept of having a government entirely, and just leaving it to be the person's responsibility to not invest in a bad bank, or else they lose their own money when it goes broke.
Excellent.
Mechness, it's work changing minds on hot issues, and people have been warring about economic views forever, but most of the people who care are coming from a good place, imho, and eventually will listen to opposing arguments. But as you say, "some" would rather not.
@Tasqa1993 I cant put links in youtube, but in addition to the books I mentioned below (I find Greco's is the best), I recommend the following films, which can be found online, or ordered as dvd: Money as Debt, Money as Debt II, Money as Debt III, Money Masters, The Money Fix, Lets Make Money, 97% Owned. All are better on this topic than the Zeitgeist films. If you have an academic interest, check out the "International Journal of Community and Complementary Currency Research".
So how do I do stuff to pay for normal existence (rent, food, etc) while also hating the system that is so messed up?
The next step for humanity.
i cant find lord acton when i search him on internet.
do you know any books he has written or his full name? i heard him being mentioned in the film "find me guilty" . can't find him. help please
There's still a big difference between fiat currencies and gold. Historically they can return to having the value of the paper they're printed on.
#TheMoneyMyth: Jem Bendell at TEDxTransmedia2011
@elefteross The 20 euro pieces will be used in a piece of art that will be auctioned for charity. The talk is not calling for people to destroy money (unlike Zeitgeist). The ripping of a euro was to help people feel how attached to the idea that money is value, rather than money representing value. The poor need real solutions to exploitation, not charity on the whim of the rich. Money issued as debt with interest is anti-poor, indeed, its anti-everybody, which is the message of the talk.
Great talk. Combining the Bitcoin public ledger (aka block chain) idea with the Ripple idea of extending credit in whatever units to whoever you want, could be something big. A p2p mutual credit system that relies on no central servers could pave the way forward. Ripplecoin? heh.
The problem don't rise from the need to exchange goods. It appears in the moment when you need something and you don't have the means to pay for it. At that moment you have to look for a loan. No one will borrow you 'money' for nothing simply because there is a risk of not getting it back on time or forever. The problem is not the money (no matter how many you create), but the need to borrow.
Thank you for your nice reply!. You didn´t answer my question?. How would "gold standard" be different from what we have now.
Ancient Rome used gold for currency. And we all now what happened to Rome. First economy was destroyed by the lack of a medium of exchange, and then the whole social system.
One problem with gold standard is that the one who has the gold makes the rules, and the one who makes the rules gets all the gold.
Who are you talking about @fieryglimmer? Jem Bendell? Which organisations are you talking about?
Charging interest doesn't create money any more than does charging for any other goods or services. The debtor earns pre-existing money from somewhere else and pays it to the bank for the privilege of borrowing money. Very simple really.
that is exactly the misinterpretation i was talking about. fractional reserve does not mean they make money.
while it is true that money has no real value other than the one we set to it. but that is the nature of fiat currency. banks are not making money out of thin air. if they had the dollar would have had no value.
The Gold Standard was abandoned for good reason, and the petro dollar will be abandoned for similar reasons when the bargaining balance changes - the goalposts have to be moved on a regular basis, and non-debt currencies will come to the fore just as soon as a way is found to control them.
We need a Resource Based Economy
@kparcell The talk identifies charging of interest at the point of money creation as a key problem, not all interest i.e. fractional reserve banking is identified as the problem, not a private bank lending deposits/capital at interest. The wider role of interest is something to discuss. Note that there is a profit motive from lending without interest, as Islamic banking has demonstrated. I havent found monetary economists proving velocity of money means lending does not need to expand
I thought the beginning was absolutely terrible but I did persevere and warm to the guy later on - I see your point, but I am very dubious that most of the movers n capitalism are capable of higher consciousness - they'll start a War before they take up yoga and chill out. Really, really hope I'm wrong on and you are right on this, but in the meantime I'll work on a better idea just in case.
If one gets that the underlying monetary structure of debt based issuance of money-creates and drives many if not most of the incentives and disincentives that people act upon and then if you can get that the system is really a game of make believe on a mass scale- then a light could go off whereby seemingly intractable problems could be solved by structural innovation to the most basic function in economics-Money. Apparently neither Adam Smith nor Karl Marx had much to say about what money is and where it comes from and how that might make a big difference...so the leading voices in economics set up a pattern whereby economists rarely if ever asked fundamental questions about the structural basis of the monetary system.
But Karl Polanyi certainly did.... Read the Great Transformation...
Banks that lend you money borrow that money from larger banks with interest. They do not create it out of nothing. Banks lend money, borrowers pay in installments, and the banks re-lend this money, pay their workers with it, invest it, etc: unless bankers eat money it recirculates in the same marketplace. In this way there is enough money to repay loans and interest. This matters, because we can not solve real problems unless we name them correctly. Money as debt is a dangerous myth.
Money that is paid back to the bank as loan repayment does infact disappear.
I think you've discovered where these people are coming from, just as I did. At some point you just have to give up on them. Some things some people will never understand because they just don't want to.
It only works in that room. If someone was to leave and take that penny with him/her the whole thing would collapses.
Our economy is not a closed system!.
I always give the benefit of the doubt until there isn't any. gb.
The story about money being created by banks is based in reality. If you find that uncomfortable you're going to have to work had to get on top of it. Good luck.
I have always thought that money is stuipted and money is a failing system BUT things will not change instead people will always be trying to fix money and the best thing to do is to try and get rich and not fall into the poor trap
The ingredients of the financial crisis were a misrepresentation of risk and false assumptions about the direction property markets would take in future. Neither fractional reserve banking (there really isn't any other kind of banking) nor government borrowing (which also worked perfectly well for over a century) have anything to do with it. Special-interest groups always try and hijack downturns in the economy to further their own agendas, that's about as far as any connection goes.
There doesn't need to be as much money as debt to pay off all debt. It's a specious argument. If there's a roomful of people who all owe each other a penny, the total debt is much more than a penny. But you CAN pay off the debts with just one penny. Money doesn't vanish after first use.
Where does interest come from? The same place as money to pay off the primary. The debtor earns it. If they can't, the loan is bad and the vetting of a borrower was at fault, not the entire concept of lending.
Money as debt is a dangerous reality.
Yes, Kevin, FRB is the standard way of bringing money into circulation, and it creates money out of nothing, or human confidence, or the laws of probability, if you want it based on something...that's what the lecture was about.
Fiat money as I understand it is not used these days outside of Cuba and North Korea, but I accept there are various definitions. What are you trying to tell me?
If you think the FRB is transparent, go ask 100 people in the street if they understand it.
"i.e. fractional reserve banking is identified as the problem, not a private bank lending deposits/capital at interest."
If a bank lends any deposits, by definition they're engaging in fractional reserve banking. Full reserve banking means the money stays in the bank's vault. Thus depositors cannot earn any interest and would probably have to pay a stewardship charge (bank vaults aren't cheap). There would be no incentive for savers to keep money in a bank at all.
So what would a bank lend?
Fractional reserve banking has not been around forever and did create a major problem in the U.S. in the 1930's; but that is too involved a discussion for a 500 character text-box. I think that we are over-complicating the problem as a whole anyway. The U.S. should resort to those age old, time tested financial principals. Our income/outgo ratio should be a net positive.
To say money is created is perhaps a bit misleading we are talking about digital impulses in computers. Money is an accounting tool and as such it's numbers and do number's exist independent of our minds? Money appears to be a concept or a mental representation. The powers vested in private banks are the power of allocation, interest and issuance of the public's money as a debt + interest. This is an immense amount of control to turn over to any group or institution.
Fractional reserve banking hasn't been around forever because banks haven't been around forever. When a bank lends out its depositors' money it's no longer full-reserve banking. And that is the very definition of a bank.
Of course it's ideal for a nation to have a net trade surplus. The problem is not everywhere can achieve this simultaneously without inflation cancelling it out. But when do the media talk about any country's current account deficit? People prefer to hear conspiracy theories.
Really? How? Where does it go to?
11:34 "But all these innovations mean that we need a clear idea about what kind of currencies will be good for us, not [harmful]. So it doesn't mean going back to scarce metals as our money, it doesn't mean waiting for Facebook to come up with a new private global currency, as I'm sure they will one day" Jem Bendell, 2011
@mikeriddell62 We need to learn from various systems - compare, copy and scale them. So its good to hear about Nesta, thx. Community Forge is supporting about 200 currencies with open source software. Explaining the need and new systems is part of a process of getting more useful systems! The talk content isnt at all new, but the lack of discussion in the mass media is a problem and I presented to the main broadcasters in Europe to encourage more coverage.
There's no mis-interepretation.
Its true that Banks don't make money from nothing - the "Something" they make it from is human confidence. The Banking system works because we think it will work, no other reason.
There are lots of explanations of the *Fractional Reserve* system online. Try googling *Fractional Reserve* and read the wiki entry to start with.
So if money is really just a representation of the doing that gets done then why do we think it must be issued and come into existence before the doing that it will be used to represent?
awesome.
You print a new money ? There´s no beating those guys . they are on to a winner, and know it.
The knights token story was a thought experiment to help people understand how money is assumed to be wealth. As Graeber points out, and Hudson before him, the barter history of money is a myth developed by Smith and others. Yes, tax is key to underpinning the currency. Disagree on yr other point, i.e. the debt created by banks acts the same as money, so the semantic point on whether bank debt is money or not ignores the matter of how it operates as such, which is what matters.
And what's the problem with the Zeitgeist approach?
The money-system will be gone and forgotten in the near future -- I can feel it in my wallet already ..
so let say 10 such transactions. here would be the money distribution.
Me 0
A-10
B-9
C-8.1
D-7.29
E-6.561
F-5.9049
G-5.31441
H-4.782969
I-4.304682
J-3.874205
Last borrower-34.86784
if you add that up it come up to 100 (assuming i didnt mess up). zero money is created nor made.
hard to show charts on here but i hope that makes sense.
This idea need not be the crazy idealistic revolution that it first sounds like. Prof. Richard Werner of the University of Southampton describes a similar concept in a youtube video titled "Richard Werner: Debt Free & Interest Free Money." In other papers (google for them), including a citation in the May 19, 2005 issue of the Economist titled "Indian defence", he proposes that central banks could purchase assets directly, almost as a kind of "proof of concept" of this idea.
yes.
"But don't do more than a dollar's work as no one has the money to pay you... “
Who sets that limit? You? How about the person that’s paying you... money brings lots of power to anyone who has it, despite their morals, skill set, or in some cases lack of conscience.
to reduce the influence of bank-issued credit on the money supply, take certain things OUT of the private domain and have Govt (Fed + Treas together) create the money and pay for it: college, health care, urban dev, infrastructure, pensions for elderly. STOP confiscating TAXES from everyone, esp wages, labor. Taxes do not "get" money for US Govt .. IRS destroys money. "Deficit" is the net amt ADDED to private sector accts. Less net Govt spending = more dependency on credit and v.v.
I don't really know the answer to that. The expansion of credit lead to extra economic activity which has benefitted mankind generally, but there has been is ongoing a massive ecological price for that.
Bearing in mind the ecological burden of the inflationary system, a finite money supply (based on gold, silver, wheat) is preferable - however the social implications mean that a reorganisation of existing economic and social hierarchy might also be a useful part of any finite money package.
Vantarintel, you just have to carry on and play the game at the sane time as you are trying to change the rules.
Yeah, I kind of getting this message that the popular idea of modern monetary systems as debt as put about on the Internet is itself lacking some deeper complexity.
I'm trying to get to figure what the real truth of it is.
The Government wouldn't need to go into Debt if Money was defined as a Public Utility. Money could be Spent and not Lent into existence. The reason there is so much debt is money Begins as a debt to private banks.See Web of Debt by Ellen Brown.
Yes they do.
similar ideas from Tareq el Diwani
good speech
I thought this was a Ron Paul speech, kept waiting to hear the " gold standard" argument.
Alan - you, or jester, or jem, or anyone else, is very welcome to try to show where my argument is wrong, but merely asserting that an argument is wrong is not an argument and shows nothing except perhaps that the speaker is more committed to their position than to the truth. I use my real name and offer an actual argument and if it's incorrect than I'd be very grateful if you would show me where. If you can not and you care about the truth then perhaps you can consider revising your position.
Hmm, my argument is a little more complex than Jim's example, but at least he made an argument. If you'd like to counter that somehow an "uninterrupted flow of services and good" absorbs the shortfall resulting from interest, I'd like to hear how, and I'm sure everyone else would like to hear your argument too. The difference between my argument and Jim's is that mine includes the fact that banks spend every penny (except for reserve) on wages, etc, which falsifies Jim's premise. Cheers.
See Bill Still : CZcams : The Money Masters.
He was so conscious of that ripped 20 euros. He couldn't wait to tape it back together after he made his point lol
+Jonathan Law whats a a euro. im in america.
He should have ripped up a five euro note.
understandable message. Is ripping currency note illegal?
Of course can be done when there are no evidence.
It would be quite nice if he done a little magic trick that reformed the teared pieces into a whole money
thanks, ratios are way lower than i thought
You set the limit by constructing an impossible scenario.
Was that a genuine currency note? Is it legal to tear a currency note like that in Europe? Once he tore it up, why was he so afraid of stepping on the pieces?
There is a big difference between money, currency, and values. And they are not necessarily convertible from one to another. Values will always be subjective according to the one that has them. A chicken farmer might not value a chicken as much as someone else who's hungry. And a rich man might not value money as much as a chicken farmer who's poor. The problem is when a poor person has to forfeit collateral for unpaid debts, but there's no recourse for the poor when that money is not honored. A chicken farmer will never have collateral to collect for bad debts, or the ability to repossess the goods. A chicken will feed you and it's value consumed. But money is only as valuable as those who will honor it (which will always be subjective). Gold as a backing for money is still only as valuable as those who will honor it (which will always be subjective). If there is nothing available that you want to spend your money on, or transform that gold into, then the money or gold itself represents no real value. It's like, no one can collect debts from a fellow merchant because the currency crashed.