Victoria Grant 12yr old speech on Canadian banks

[mrPPincer]

@TRM, I posted a link to the Zeitgeit movies because they touched on the subject of the fractional reserve banking system, I don't have any agenda at all.

The movies interview some interesting and intelligent characters, but their final conclusion of doing away with money altogether is, as they admit, not a perfect solution, and even if if was, I think the probability that we as a human society could pull it off is vanishingly small, when for example, in my area a vocal minority bring out the pitchforks and torches for major resistance against something as benign as wind power.

I've been following the economics part of this conversation with interest but - Facing42 your walls of text would be easier reading if you broke them up a bit.



... oh yeah ...

Also more importantly, being an investment nerd I sometimes wonder about the next generation and the future of Canada but every once and a while you hear about a smarty-pants from wherever. I know when I was 12 I couldn’t have done that. Since you’re the dad I want to say congratulations on all her success and well done.

^^^ agreed, +1

[HaroldCrump]

To which I said, welcome to the world of compounded interest and the reality that our system is about to collapse.

What?
Compound interest for govt. debt is not what causes hyperinflation.
Are you advocating abolition of interest as a form of return for capital?
If so, just say so.
Why all this rigmarole about private banks, govt. debt etc.

And in case you are, I am sure you are aware that you are not the first one to say this.
Various economic system theories have advocated the abolition of various forms of returns over the centuries.

Let's go back to high school economics for a minute - there are three main factors of production - labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.
The returns for labor are wages, the returns for entrepreneurship are profits, and the returns for capital are interest/dividends.

Marxian economics considers returns on entrepreneurship & capital to be labor surplus and recommends abolition of all three.
Or, rather, to be more technically correct, socialization of these returns.

Therefore, you cannot abolish interest payments on govt. debt without at the same time abolishing the interest form of returns completely.

And that has nothing to do with hyperinflation.

Her next question, "So if we pay off the private banks, and stop using them, and use the BOC to give us our countries money at 0 percent interest wouldn't that make more sense?" To which I said, I believe it would. Let the collapse happen and start over with the BOC. Or we could just tell the banks that the debt will not be paid as their system was fraudulent.

Wrong.
What you are calling fradulent private banks comprise of millions of common shareholders.
The returns in the form of interest goes back to those shareholders.
And it is a return for putting their capital at risk by lending it out.
You are essentially saying - nationalize the private banks.
If so, just say so.

There are countries that have nationalized banks.

I see no evidence to suggest that nationalizing banks eliminates govt. borrowing or interest payments or inflation.

How? 1) Compounded interest...usury.

Wrong. Interest payment is a form of return for capital.
As long as capital is private, it demands returns.
Only way to deny it returns, is to socialize capital.

2) private loans were given without expressing to the people that the bankers were not actually giving them money they had in their banks; instead people pledge themselves as surety, give the bank a promissary note in the form of an application, and the bank then lends them back another note/electronic note that only exists because of the promisary note they received from the borrower.

Um...that is how banking works.
Has always worked since let's say the advent of modern history, and possibly even back during the Roman times.

I have no issue with fractional reserve lending at 0% interest, to an extent.

Sorry, I have an issue with that.
Are you recommending a permanent, fixed, lending rate of 0%?
Do you have any idea what the impact of that will be?
You are worried about hyperinflation - that is hyperinflation right there.

Why should the govt. be allowed to borrow money @ 0% interest from private lenders?
As a tax payer, I have serious issues with that.
This is a sure shot receipe for govt. malpractice, out of control, irresponsible spending, and fiscal insanity.

there can be no interest or interest based debt will destroy the economy.

Interest is a form of return for capital.
An incentive to put capital at risk.
Just like wages are a return for labor.
To abolish interest, we must socialize capital.
But then we must abolish wages as well.

At this point, the theories you are putting forward are starting to get highly academic at best, and delusional in practice.

[andrewf]

If interest-bearing debt will destroy the economy, why has the economy been ticking over nicely for centuries despite the evils of usury? Even for all of our current woes, the economy is working very well, just not quite as well as we would like.

[HaroldCrump]

^ I find the idea that govt. should be allowed to borrow money from private investors (citizens) and private institutions (including banks) at 0% rate completely delusional.
The impact of such a policy will be the exact opposite of what the OP intends.

We have seen what happens when governments are allowed to borrow money at artificially low rates - Greece, and other PIIGS were allowed to borrow at artificially low rates because of the strength of the EU and Euro.

Also, Japan is a classic example of what the OP proposes - the majority of Japanese public debt is held internally within the country, and their borrowing rates have been 0% or pretty close for over 2 decades now.
Their debt to GDP ratio is 236% last I heard and they have recently been downgraded.

This is a receipe for disaster.

[andrewf]

Why would anyone lend the government money at 0%?

Only the central bank would do this....

[KaeJS]

Wow.

Who knew this thread would blow up as big as it did. Incredible.

I had forgotten all about this girl and her speech. Now, her father is here, too?

No doubt, some 12 year olds know more than others. But, a 12 year old can only be taught what was depicted in this video.

"What I have discovered is that the banks and the government have colluded to financially enslave the people of Canada." - VG.

^ Really? That's a bold statement for a 12 year old. Go ask ten 12 year olds what the word "Colluded" means and check your statistics on how many of them know the definition for that word.

I don't believe VG was able to "think" of this all on her own. My brother is about the same age and would have no idea what any of this means if I were to show him this video.

I don't want to be rude, but IIRC, Jesus was also mentioned in her speech along with some part of the Bible. As soon as someone mentions religion, especially in a matter where they are trying to make a serious speech, it instantly loses all credibility, in my opinion.

With all that being said, it was a great little stunt. So, for that, I applaud both the father and the daughter. However, a stunt is about as far as this goes and I am surprised at all of the attention this video has received.

[Aolis]

The issue with the speech is that it starts with a conclusion that no twelve year old would reach. So she obviously heard it somewhere and then looked for arguments that supported the conclusion. The arguments have faulty logic which is easily checked on the internet if someone really wanted to understand.

Even in the example conversation that the parent (Facing42) has with their daughter, he doesn't explain to her how the system could work, just "the reality that our system is about to collapse".

So while it is cute to see a monkey play the piano, it is obviously just a trick.

[v_tofu]

so... Buy silver and Gold? and some Facebook stock for diversity?