TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

There's even more bad news as China's economy exposes a deeper problem in shadow banking. The shadow banking sector is estimated to be worth at least $3,000,000,000,000, and that's in China alone. And it all started with real estate. The country is facing a financial meltdown. Every week, there is a new headline about its impairments.

I work in risk management at MBS. We're making complex mortgage products quickly, but it takes a month to layer them correctly. This means we hold risky assets longer than ideal. If these assets drop by 25%, we'd lose more than our market value. The boss is worried we're in trouble. He's paid to predict the future, but right now, he hears nothing but silence.

I work in risk management at MBS. We package new products combining different ratings, but it takes too long. The assets are essentially mortgages, allowing us to take on more risk without notice. If these assets drop by 25%, we could lose more than our market value. The market is slowing down, and if it stops, it will be much worse. My job is to predict the future, but right now, I hear nothing but silence.

At the end of World War II Asia and Europe were devastated, and the United States emerged as the last man standing, profiting hugely from the war. They ended up, due to isolation, the strongest economy in the world with more than half the world’s gold and half the world’s GDP, with standing industries that could shift from making tanks to making cars and trucks. They did extraordinarily well for a few decades, but then, as described, they began to financialize, and it became more profitable to speculate in investments than to actually invest. In recent years, companies with money often pursue share buybacks rather than expanding research and development or industrial capacity. We are in a stage where the underlying basis for markets is questionable: what are markets for, are they accurate at price discovery, and do they predict productive investment and returns on capital? We are in a transition phase where we’re not sure anymore. There is a huge bubble, and corporations creating these bubbles, with banks that loan money relying on the state because they are too big to fail. Bailouts have totaled trillions since 2008, as the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan pumped trillions of dollars, with help from Gulf Cooperation Council countries to bail out banks in Britain, the United States, and Europe. It’s fascinating because China, since the financial crisis, has also created about 17 to 18 trillion dollars. China has actually been leading in creation of money, while investing that money in building 50,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, a space program, massive industries, and the Belt and Road initiative—real investment and so on. The enormous difference between the two is notable, but how far can states—the United States, Britain, the EU, and Japan—borrow and pump money into the market to keep this bubble going? We don’t know. Bubbles are hard to gauge in terms of expansion and when they break, which is why they can be sustained so long; the bursting of a bubble is painful, and no policymaker wants responsibility. China is interesting and is the only case in history of a property bubble being deflated without collapsing the real economy, deflating its property bubble over five or six years while the economy continued to grow—not at 8% but at 5%—and continued to expand. That is worth studying because other countries let property bubbles run until they burst, causing wider harm and deflation. Japan, for example, has had thirty years of zero growth since it began quantitative easing three decades ago, a growth killer because it protected existing companies, banks, and properties and never really recovered. Europe has had zero growth for about fifteen years since 2007. The United States sustains growth largely by buying it from the rest of the world—acquiring profitable companies or getting them to list on NASDAQ and then earning rents from profitable companies wherever they are—while the US economy has been largely hollowed out. It’s an interesting time to watch monetary dynamics, because this doesn’t go on forever.

The Fed operates on behalf of a few Wall Street banks, acting as a pump to strip mine wealth and equity from the American middle class. Companies and financial institutions used to make investments based on factory visits, management teams, production, financial figures, bank books, and inventory. Now, Wall Street only focuses on the Fed's next move. The country has been financialized, and industry has left for China through outsourcing.

Banks don't lend money; they purchase securities. When someone seeks a loan and signs the contract, they issue a promissory note, which the bank purchases. The money isn't transferred; it's already within the bank. A deposit is the bank's record of its debt to the public. The money a person thinks they're getting as a loan is simply the bank's record of the money it owes them.

The Fed operates as a pump on behalf of Wall Street banks, strip-mining wealth from the American middle class. Companies and financial institutions used to invest based on factory visits, management, production, and financial figures. Now, Wall Street only focuses on the Fed's next move. The country has been financialized, and industry has been outsourced to China.

Banks don't lend money; they purchase securities. When someone seeks a loan and signs the contract, they issue a promissory note, which the bank purchases. The money isn't transferred; it's already within the bank. A deposit is the bank's record of its debt to the public. The money the bank owes is what people perceive as the money they are getting.

Funds under the guise of so called subscription based trust product investments transitioned from wealth management companies to the group's company's headquarters then were directed to various investments under the group. Hence, a closed loop of self funding and self investment within those four groups was formed. For years, the outlook continues, whenever the Zhongzhou Group and its wealth management platforms faced liquidity challenges, the company could reassure the market quite swiftly due to the company's enormous scale and its ability to juggle funds internally among various subsidiary companies and products. Quote, investors usually brought their explanations, end quote. The once popular p to p industry in China has now completely ceased operations due to regulatory oversight with the crackdown beginning in 02/2018.

Banks are broke due to fractional reserve banking allowing lending money they don't have. Central banks engage in counterfeiting through quantitative easing, manipulating interest rates. Politicians and central banks create moral hazard. Taxpayers bear the burden when banks fail. Without consequences, this cycle will persist.

A thousand years after the death of Christ, money changers, those who loan out and manipulate the quantity of money, were active in medieval England. They were not bankers per se; the money changers generally were the goldsmiths. They were the first bankers because they started keeping other people's gold for safekeeping in their vaults. The first paper money was merely a receipt for gold left at the goldsmith. Paper money caught on because it was more convenient than carrying around a lot of heavy gold and silver coins. Eventually, goldsmiths noticed that only a small fraction of the depositors ever came in and demanded their gold at any one time. Goldsmiths started cheating on the system. They discovered that they could print more money than they had gold, and usually, no one would be the wiser. Then they could loan out this extra money and collect interest on it. This was the birth of fractional reserve banking, that is, loaning out many times more money than you have assets on deposit. So, if a thousand dollars in gold were deposited with them, they could loan out about $10,000 in paper money and draw interest payments on it, and no one would ever discover the deception. By this means, goldsmiths gradually accumulated more and more wealth and used this wealth to accumulate more and more gold. Today, this practice of loaning out more money than there are reserves is known as fractional reserve banking. Every bank in The United States is allowed to loan out at least 10 times more money than they actually have. That's why they get rich on charging, let's say, 8% interest. It's not really 8% per year, which is their income. It's 80%. That's why bank buildings are always the largest in town. But does that mean that all interest or all banking should be illegal? Hardly. In the Middle Ages, canon law, the law of the Catholic Church, forbade charging interest on loans. This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. They taught that the purpose of money was to serve the members of society to facilitate the exchange of goods needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest, in their belief, hindered this purpose by putting an unnecessary burden on the use of money. In other words, interest was contrary to reason and justice. Reflecting Church law in the Middle Ages, Europe forbade charging interest on loans and made it a crime called usury. As commerce grew, and therefore opportunities for investment arose in the late Middle Ages, it came to be recognized that to loan money had a cost for the lender, both in risk and in lost opportunity. So some charges were allowed, but not interest per se. But all moralists, no matter what religion, condemn fraud, oppression of the poor, and injustice is clearly immoral. As we will see, fractional reserve lending is rooted in a fraud, results in widespread poverty, and reduces the value of everyone else's money. The ancient goldsmiths discovered that extra profits could be made by rowing the economy between easy money and tight money. When they made money easier to borrow, then the amount of money in circulation expanded. Money was plentiful. People took out more loans to expand their businesses. But then, the money changers would tighten the money supply. They would make loans more difficult to get. What would happen? Just what happens today. A certain percentage of people could not repay their previous loans and could not take out new loans to repay the old ones. Therefore, they went bankrupt and had to sell their assets to the goldsmiths for pennies on the dollar. The same thing is still going on today. Only today, we call this rowing of the economy up and down the business cycle. Like Julius Caesar, King Henry the first

The banking system in the United States relies solely on public confidence, which is based on the soundness of the product, not marketing. Confidence is crucial because the banking system does not actually have the money it appears to.

The Fed operates like a pump, benefiting a few Wall Street banks while stripping wealth from the American middle class. In the past, investments were based on evaluating factories and management teams across the country. Now, the focus is solely on the Fed's actions. This shift has led to the financialization of our economy and the outsourcing of industry, with much of it moving to China.

Speaker 0 questions systemic risk in the Chinese economy, referencing the 2008 financial crisis and the domino effect if a large bank fails. Speaker 1 says: 'the total amount of, the debt to the nonfinancial sector in China. It's about 370,000,000,000,000.' The shadow banking sector 'account for about 77% of it,' while 'The commercial bank themselves account for 65 percent' and are 'the backbone of the Chinese financial system.' Consequently, risk and losses may fall back to commercial banks as they are 'the lender to those shadow bank through those shadow bank to the to the developer child property developer and to the local government financing vehicle and also to some of those private enterprises with less than credit.' He adds that the 'market proport proport of the shuttle banking system to the formal banking system' signals risk; the Chinese government is 'unlikely to pay them out,' but will 'broker some of those SSLs and so on in restructuring.'

Speaker 0: So who are the people that actually get to be inflation? Well, they're the ones that are climbing up the network. They're the compromised ones. Why? What do they get? They get 0% money. The most corrupt money in the world is quantitative easing. Right? You essentially get the banks to buy the government's debt, and then central banks, put it on their balance sheet. So this is just pure corruption. This is below interest money. What about the banks? They get to create it for free. You know, they actually get to create it. They get a thousand decks on you you're paying 10%. They get they get to lever that up a 100 times. They get a thousand percent. And remember, this is all a debt based Ponzi scheme. The money to pay the interest doesn't exist, so you gotta find another person to take on the debt. You're either if you have a positive money in your in your bank balance, it's because somebody else is in debt. The money doesn't exist unless somebody else is in debt, and the money to pay the interest doesn't exist. So we create this economic environment where your money is continually being debased, and then you need to speculate in order to beat inflation. Now if you do a bit of speculation and you just invest some of your money in stocks, what happens? You're suddenly like, I don't know what stock to buy. I'm I'm not a professional trader. So there's a company out there, BlackRock, that will just buy all the stocks for me, and I just can give them a £100 a month or something. And, now I don't need to figure out what stock to buy. Okay. So now BlackRock is taking everyone's investment money that can't be bothered to figure out what stock through ETFs and index ones. Then they're taking everyone's pension. Then they're taking everyone's insurance contributions because you're trying to hedge some of the risk. And then when you get your house, you have to have insurance. And so where did BlackRock and all the asset managers in this financial industrial complex get all the money? It's your money. You paid for it. So then what do they do? Well, the banks create all of these. They they create new money every time they issue a mortgage. And then they say, do you know what? I don't even wanna take the risk of these mortgages anymore. What if can I just package it up and give it to someone else? So Larry Fink says, yeah. I've got all this money. All these people are putting these pension money in. Why don't we create something called a mortgage backed security? Let's package up all of these mortgages. Just put them into one product. And then what I can do is we can slap a credit rating on it. And if everyone complies, then they get this credit rating. Credit rating is not it's about compliance with the network. So now you've got all the banks are creating the money, and then they create these mortgage backed securities that allows them to control effectively all the real estate and transfer it. But who do they sell it to? They sell it to you. And so they created the money. They created the mortgage backed security, and then they sold it to your pension. So you paid for the very system for them to get the 0% money in the first place, and they're charging a fee for it. And what else do they get? They get a board seat on every company.

Speaker 0 argues that China’s economy faces a new threat described as involution, where prices are driven downward by competition rather than up. In many countries, governments complain when prices are too high; in China, the government is angry when prices are too low. Companies are cutting prices to gain market share, and this has forced others to follow, leading to a cycle in which profits plummet and no one gains lasting market share. The phenomenon is linked to aover supply, as many firms have been nurtured by local governments. This has helped certain industries become world-leading—such as solar panels and lithium batteries—but has also resulted in an oversupply of these goods with insufficient demand to meet the production capacity. One concrete example is the automobile industry, where there are now about 130 domestic car companies competing for sales. Discounting is so aggressive that an electric car, the BYD Seagull, can be bought for less than $8,000. While this may seem advantageous for households, the report cautions that profits have fallen, wage growth has stalled, and employment appears weak as a result. The piece notes that China has faced a similar issue before. About a decade ago, a long period of falling industrial prices occurred, and the government responded by cutting capacity in industries like steel and coal to curb production. That approach was crude but effective, leading to higher prices and increased profit margins. However, involution this time is more widespread and different in character. Several reasons differentiate the current involution from the past: many involved firms are privately owned, giving the government less direct control; the sectors affected are high-tech with modern facilities, unlike the older, more polluting plants targeted previously. An alternative strategy some have proposed is flooding foreign markets with goods, but partner countries are pushing back against this approach. Ultimately, the suggested remedy is to boost domestic demand rather than simply curb supply. The report emphasizes that the best response to falling prices is to stimulate demand so that production can be sustained without sacrificing profitability. The piece concludes by highlighting Xi Jinping’s commitment to viewing manufacturing as a core pillar of China’s economy. If customers remain hard to find, the leadership may need to engage in introspection to address involution, because manufacturing’s prominence in the economy is a foundational element of his vision for China.

Speaker 0 argues that despite claims that the United States kidnapped Maduro in Venezuela to seize oil resources, the true motive was to counter China. China, according to the speaker, has tools and weapons that could destabilize the U.S. dollar, which would impact civil markets. At the start of the year, China announced it would restrict exports of its silver, and since China dominates the silver market, this caused the price of silver to surge. The speaker asserts that if the United States embargoed China's oil, China could dump its U.S. Treasuries and cause financial havoc, potentially destroying both nations. A central metaphor is presented: a ladder over an abyss, with both China and the United States attempting to climb it together. The United States supposedly insists on remaining higher than China; if the U.S. goes too far and falls behind, the latter destabilizes and both fall into the abyss. Conversely, if China overtakes and climbs too far, they both fall. The speaker contends that the American financial industry currently lacks the capacity to self-correct, and a market collapse could pull the entire economy down. Another major problem cited is over-financialization. Regarding silver, the speaker asserts that China needs silver, but in the United States it is used for speculation, describing silver as “really just paper silver.” They claim that some companies, such as JPMorgan, are significantly overleveraged—“300 to one”—so every ounce of silver they hold is promised 300 on paper. The speaker then shifts to a geopolitical forecast: “This war will be settled in Odessa.” NATO, they claim, will commit to defending Odessa; Russia will encircle and blockade, and NATO will be unable to hold on. Europeans would be forced to be conscripted to fight in Odessa, would refuse, and civil war would ensue across Europe. The timeframe is given as five to ten years, with a note that it would be a slow death for Europe, and that some aspects are expected to unfold “this year.”

Banks are broke due to fractional reserve banking allowing lending of money they don't have. Central banks engage in counterfeiting through quantitative easing. Governments and central banks manipulate interest rates, not retail banks. Taxpayers bear the cost of bank failures. Without consequences for bankers and politicians, this cycle will persist.

Banks like Santander, Deutsche Bank, and Royal Bank of Scotland are broke due to fractional reserve banking, allowing them to lend money they don't possess. This practice is a criminal scandal that has been ongoing for too long.

This isn't a recession. This isn't even a crisis in the traditional sense. What we're witnessing is the complete unraveling of the economic model that powered the world's second largest economy for four decades. And the West, we're completely unprepared for what comes next. For forty years, China's growth seemed unstoppable. Double digit GDP increases, gleaming cities rising from farmland, a manufacturing powerhouse that became the world's factory. Western corporations moved their supply chains there. Emerging markets tied their futures to Chinese demand. Everyone believed the twenty first century would belong to Beijing. But beneath the surface, something was fundamentally broken. The property sector that once drove 30% of China's economy has imploded. Evergrande, with its 300,000,000,000 in liabilities, was just the first domino. Country Garden followed, then China, South City. Now even state backed developers are failing.

A man questions a judge about how banks supposedly operate with borrowed funds. He presents a scenario: “I gave you the equivalent of $200,000. You returned the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest. Do you think I’m stupid?” He asserts that banks and Congress allow practices where banks breach written agreements, use false or misleading advertising, act without written permission or the borrower’s knowledge, and transfer actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, then return it as a loan. The man asks if, in this system, the borrower’s actual cash value funds the bank loan check and how the bank then uses those funds. The other participant, identified as a borrower in the discussion, responds that the borrower “got a check in the house.” The man pushes: is it true the actual cash value funding the loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the borrower “for free”? He states, “No equal consideration. They got it from you for free,” and presses that the bank’s policy is to transfer the borrower’s cash value from the check to themselves and keep the money as the bank’s property, which they then loan out back to the borrower as if they own it and loan their own money. The other participant answers affirmatively, though notes not being present at the time to know the borrower’s intent. The man asks further: if a lender loans a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refuses to repay, is the lender damaged? The reply: yes, the lender is damaged if the loan isn’t repaid. He asks whether the bank’s practice is to take the borrower’s actual cash value, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return it to the borrower. The response: the bank returns the funds, but as a loan to the borrower. The man clarifies: was the cash value returned as the bank loan to the borrower or as return of the money the bank took? Answer: as a loan. The man concludes, “So how did the bank get the borrower’s money for free? … It doesn’t make any sense.” A narrator then frames the scene: a man discussing banking with a judge, summarizing the exchange about funding checks with the borrower’s name, and the judge’s reaction that “all the banks are doing this” and that Congress allows it. The narrator describes the process in which you apply for a loan, a check with your name is issued, the bank takes it, and then “gives it back to you as a loan plus interest,” sourced from your own funds. He asserts there is no equal consideration and suggests people don’t understand truth in lending. The speaker claims that if the public understood the financial system, there would be a revolution, but people prefer to “dance.”

The treasury creates currency and deposits it into government branches, which politicians then use for deficit spending on public works, social programs, and war. Government employees, contractors, and soldiers deposit their pay in banks. When you deposit currency in a bank, you are loaning it to them, and they can use it as they please, including investing in the stock market and lending it out at a profit. This is where fractional reserve lending comes into play, allowing banks to reserve only a fraction of deposits.

Banks don't lend money; they purchase securities. When you sign a loan contract, you're issuing a promissory note, which the bank purchases. This is different from what banks present to the public. You might ask, "How do I get my money?" The bank will say it's in your account. No money is actually transferred. It's already within the bank because a deposit is simply the bank's record of its debt to the public. Now, the bank owes you money, and its record of that debt is what you perceive as money. That's all it is.