Prof. Meow explains why we NEED separation of Money and State


This war craft, an everyday struggle of the math, finance and social class, makes this brother grasp at straws until I lose it all. Strayed from the path and laugh, What is it all for? Where’s the encore? Burn bright and fast until there’s no more Hey, it’s TheDankSeer, I promised I’d follow up with a video about why the
seperation of money and state is a good idea. Let’s start or something we’re
familiar with: the separation of church and State. That was a good idea because
society recognizes that different cultures have different perspectives, and
if we all want to get along, allowing one group to dictate their set of rules on
behalf of everyone else was not an effective, nor a fair way to govern people. You guys understand why protecting net neutrality is important.
Precisely because giving special interest groups the power to decide
which parts of the internet you should and shouldn’t see would destroy the open
Internet that you know and love. So I’m here to make the case that money, the way it is today, serves special interest groups more than does the majority of the
people who use it. All right, here we go. I’ve gamed all my life. Part of gaming
is understanding the mechanics of the game and playing in such a way that
gives you the best results. If the game has an exploit where players can abuse
certain rules to gain an unfair advantage over other players, that’s what
we call OP. OP is short for overpowered. If game has a broken mechanism, the game becomes: abuse to exploit, if not, play at a significant disadvantage. The most
successful players use exploits that other players don’t even know about. All
right, so far so good. Let’s look at the game of Monopoly. Early in the game, it’s
the right move to convert cash to property. Late game, cash is king because
you need cash to pay rents when you land on property. Some players are forced to
sell their property at discounted prices to raise that cash. The game is then determined by rolling dice. No player has any significant advantage over any other. But
how can you change the rules of the game to give one player and unfair advantage
over others? We can do many things, but if we played a game of Monopoly the
following way, we get something close to how our money works.
Let’s introduce player B, B for Bank. Player B is allowed to make loans and
take deposits. Essentially, you know if we want to produce something we need funding so there’s a role for banks in almost
everything that’s happening in the economy. Rather than let cash idle,
players can deposit their cash to earn interest, which in turn gives player B
more money to lend out. But what exactly is that role. Just quickly I’d like to reflect on that banks are being thought of as intermediaries, but, this is not really
what’s happening, banks, they’re creators of the money supply Players can also buy and sell property on credit, which is to say that players
promise to pay back the borrowed money to player B with interest at a later date. If you can’t pay back player B, player B gets to
keep your properties. ONE MORE THING!!! Player B gets to lend out as much money as player B wants, as long as player B keeps a tiny fraction of other player’s deposits The money supply consists to 97% of bank deposits and these are created out of
nothing by banks when they lend because they invent fictitious customer deposits.
Why? They simply restate slightly incorrectly in accounting terms what is
an accounts payable liability arising from the loan contract having purchased
your promissory note as a customer deposit but nobody has deposited any
money. So that much we’ve established what about lending? Surely they’re
lending money. No they don’t. Banks don’t lend money banks again at
law it’s very clear they’re in the business of purchasing securities. That’s
it. OK, so the amount of credit spending on properties and hotels will quickly
grow to multiples of the amount of money in existence. Property and hotel prices
skyrocket. Now then you have a problem Why? Because you’re creating new money, but you’re not creating new goods and services. You’re simply giving somebody new purchasing power over
existing assets. As the game progresses, players will need more cash to pay off
their debt. They’ll turn a player B who will also be short in cash. If nothing is
done, all players will go broke. So player B gets another buff: Quantitative Easing.
Player B prints more money to add to the money supply and the players keep on
going until the players go broke again. In this game, cash and property take
turns to be the better option. This describes credit cycles in a
nutshell. Can you see how player B can abuse their ability to control other
players and to accumulate a disproportionate amount of assets? I think there’s a structural problem that is the concentration of the banking
sector so in the UK five banks account for 90% of deposits. There’s a general
tendency when an organization gets large and larger and larger and gets very big,
essentially decisions are made without accountability and the temptations of
power strike. In this game, player B has complete control over the flow of money. Have you heard of trickle-down economics? Yeah, money has more buying power at the top of the chain, then less as it goes around, and player B always gets first
dibs. In real life the beneficiaries are the FIRE sectors: Finance Insurance and
Real Estate. Because essentially there is no value added, there’s value extracted.
And so really you need to subtract it from GDP. Has the finance sector the FIRE
sector has it become a cost center? Because this is that as you know is
there a sweet spot where it’s actually serving humanity society and
facilitating business and when it becomes a profit generator in and of
itself it becomes detrimental to the wider to the wider world We can agree that player B is OP. Let’s ask the developers for a fix! Problem is, the
game developer likes to keep winning and there’s no other game to play. When the
judge and advocate are the same entity we’ve got huge conflicts of interests. So the structure has become too concentrated and what is badly needed in
the UK is decentralization. One has to break up the financial sector and have
much smaller units because small banks community banks are locally accountable
you can’t certainly do a crazy project or you know big corruption. There’s a revolving door relationship between banks, who represent private interests,
and policymakers, who are supposed to represent public interests. And the CRAZY
thing is, that we denominate our life savings, the entire sum of our
life’s hard work and labour with money controlled by private interests. that’s
fundamentally unfair. Money which player B can create on a whim and pass around,
with or without the consent of other players. Value is intrinsically
subjective. Who gets to decide the allocation of freshly printed money? That can be actually positive for the economy as long as this money creation is in
line with the creation of new goods and services, implementation of new
technologies and therefore adding value and adding value in the economy is
funded by this money creation if that happens and we’re talking about business
investment, productive loans, productive bank credit you will have no inflation
these loans can also be serviced and repaid you have a stable economy without
problems and with low inequality. In real life, monetary policy tends to err on the side of easier credit creation because it’s easier politically. No politician
wants the ticking time-bomb blow up on their watch, so they kick the problem
along to the next guy. We have to push hard to make sure that our policymakers
are held accountable to us. That’s plan A. If the problem is that private interests
have co-opted a role of policymaking, then it helps to have a neutral,
apolitical form of money. You know, hard money. In a hard money system, a player
can’t arbitrarily create money to push their own narrative. Historically
manipulation of money has been used as a form of pushing political agendas. All
the way back to the Roman Empire where money was repeatedly debased from gold
to silver to bronze to keep the military machine going, until its eventual
implosion. As recently as ending gold-backed currency, in part, to prolong
Vietnam and Korean Wars which the public no longer supported. You guys understand the importance of net neutrality. Defend that. You guys know why the separation of
church and State is a net positive. The next step is to neutralize money. Neutral
money, where its monetary policy is transparent and doesn’t change without
your consent, is the reason why some people are ideologically in love with
Bitcoin. Stay informed, let’s build solutions, PLEASE SUBSCRIBE
for more videos, and PEACE OUT I’ll be back in my next video about
how money ruined my profession of dentistry. So I lower my shoulder, break the door, then run past road blocks Go faster, don’t stop till I see the bullshit’s in my backdrop New horizons, yes this brother flying
Changing my view, making my own rules defiant A Leonidas that didn’t die
My glory is amplified Gonna live to the fullest
My moment in time Brief Before you know it, it can turn to grief
So I’m getting out of my seat Because I feel the beat
And stayed honest Through hardships regardless

3 thoughts on “Prof. Meow explains why we NEED separation of Money and State

  1. Great analysis and great kitty 🙂
    Subscribed!

    PS – are you in japan? (judging by the japanese packaging at the end)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *