I am writing a Mises Daily on this "they need more inflation to pay the interest" claim, and I am linking to Zeitgeist Addendum so people know what the position is. Boy oh boy, this is really a great description from 3:00 to about 18:00. After that I stop endorsing their presentation, but in that stretch it's really solid (and not something I would have fully "gotten" a few years ago).
I note that the film emphasizes that the source of value of the new funny money is the purchasing power that is stolen from the existing money. We should ALWAYS point that out FIRST because it is not only true, but it is not something that requires evidentiary or statistical proof and it is incapable of being refuted by such methods. You can thus immediately place the burden of defending such theft and fraud upon the advocates of central banking which, if nothing else, will totally throw them off their game and narrative. You can then quickly point out that economic calculation is virtually impossible under such a system which is the true basis of the ABCT. This way, you can explain the ABCT to laypeople in 120 seconds.
What was that bit about the Greenback being something the Founders intended???
Also, can you make one of your next pieces attacking the concept of wage slavery?
I just watched the whole thing. It just makes me exponentially angrier as it goers on.
Yes, after the 18:00 minute mark, it loses it's way- I stopped after about the 30 minute mark, but I may go back later today and watch the rest. There seems to be some sort of bias against the idea of interest, but if someone can show me a way to get people to defer consumption that doesn't involve theft/coercion, I am all ears.
I haven't watched the whole thing, but I've heard people who endorse it claim that there is some kind of huge free lunch if you just let the government print money and spend it without having a fractional reserve system. I just don't see it — wouldn't you still be debasing the currency? This idea that individuals are enslaved by their voluntarily assumed debts doesn't make much sense either. I look forward to reading your commentary.
I don't see why anybody has to pay any special attention to these cranks. Debunking their economic fallacies is to simply debunk the fallacies of the socialist commonwealth. That is all.
I just watched the first 20 min. I'm confused Bob, are you saying you endorse the idea that they need more inflation to pay the interest?
I agree there is a pretty good description of money creation and fractional reserve banking in there, but I saw a few economic errors within the first 18 min.
The "Debt=Money" idea seems completely off. True, debt creation accompanies money creation, but since the end of the gold standard money is no longer a real debt. If it were a debt, I could bring my notes to the Fed and demand repayment of the debt (i.e. the gold window), but as it stands, owning FRNs doesn't mean the Fed owes me anything.
It seems like this type of thinking about interest is almost completely backwards too. Interest does not cause or necessitate inflation. One thing that mainstream economists are right about is that to quell inflation you raise interest rates.
I've heard from people who follow the "zeitgeist" way of thinking that "obviously high interest rates cause inflation, look at the German hyperinflation, their interest rates were 900%!". It can be hard to explain that the real interest rate can actually be negative, despite a high nominal interest rate.