reSee.it - 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.

Speaker 0 describes fractional reserve banking. When you deposit $100, the bank keeps just $10 in reserve and loans out the remaining 90 at interest. That $90 gets deposited into another bank, which keeps 9 and loans out 81 at interest. This cycle repeats and is called fractional reserve banking, a system that legally allows banks to lend or invest 90% of your deposits, effectively circulating new money into the economy. Wealthy investors and big corporations are the first to get access to big loans at low interest rates. With this loan, they buy real estate, stocks and businesses before the money circulates through the broader economy. By the time those funds trickle down to the working class, they have already triggered inflation. The result? The banks collect interest by loaning out money that didn't belong to them. The rich use borrowed capital from the bank to acquire assets that skyrocket in value, easily covering their low interest loans. And the working class are required to pay higher prices for rent and food, because the money supply has expanded, while the number of actual goods are the same. And that's how the rich keep getting rich and the poor become more poor.

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 video opens with a field of over 10,000 Netavie Chinese EVs and BYD cars, all 2021 models, with license plates and fully registered, yet left to rot. The host claims that these cars are counted in China’s EV sales statistics, helping China appear to outpace the rest of the world in EV adoption. The argument is that China uses shortcuts and facades: large numbers of cars are parked in fields but are not actually sold. BYD and other brands allegedly register and put cars on the market to claim they have sold them, while surplus vehicles are dumped into fields. The host then connects this practice to broader “investment schemes” in China. He describes a pattern where fly-by-night investment schemes attract capital around new ideas, such as bicycle sharing, which created mountains of discarded bikes as investors poured money in. When these schemes collapsed, people moved on to shared electric vehicles. A documentary referenced, No Place to Place, shows drone footage of abandoned shared bikes and later, fields of abandoned electric vehicles in 2019, illustrating the shift from bikes to shared cars as the new money grab. According to the host, the shared-car model was viable in theory but pursued as a Ponzi-like scheme: companies pumped out vehicles to continue receiving investments without solid market research or viability, leading to vast fields of abandoned vehicles that will rot. Since these are electric, their batteries add a second layer of environmental concern. The batteries require complex mining and chemical processes, with alleged human rights abuses such as child or slave labor in battery production. The discarded cars therefore create environmental damage not only from manufacturing but also from long-term disposal and leakage of chemicals. The host argues that this practice causes environmental damage twice: first in the creation of the cars and their batteries, and second in their abandonment and degradation in the fields. He contends that China’s green-initiative image is largely a facade designed to attract investment, enabling profiteering from wasteful projects rather than genuine environmental benefit. He asserts that China’s opacity shields such activities from scrutiny; in the West, similar actions would attract media attention, fines, and accountability, but in China, these issues remain unaddressed. The overall claim is that China’s touted green technology leadership masks environmental crimes and profit-driven schemes that rely on misleading sales figures and large, abandoned fleets of electric vehicles, and that investors should think twice before investing in China.

Clayton introduces a concern about a new set of Wall Street mechanisms that could profit from a future economic disruption, likening it to preparations seen before the 2008 housing collapse. He invites economist David Morgan, author of the Morgan Report and Second Chance, to unpack what’s happening and how it relates to past crises. David Morgan presents a top-down view of the current environment. He argues that inflation is not going away and is embedded in the system, requiring debasement to survive. The core message is that sound money equals freedom; fiat currency systems historically end with loss of purchasing power, and gold and silver are money outside the system. Debt levels globally are beyond anything in history, central banks are trapped, and rates cannot stay high; yet rates cannot stay low in a way that would quell inflation, creating a dilemma for the market. He suggests the market may ratchet higher inflation even as rates go higher, requiring yields that entice holders to retain dollars longer. He notes a growing social and political awakening, but emphasizes that the economic setup tends to widen the wealth gap, portraying the moment as revolution-time. Clayton cites Moody’s lowering its outlook on US BDCs from stable to negative and uses the Big Mac index as an illustration of currency debasement. He asks how the same mechanisms seen with credit default swaps in 2008 are reappearing, but this time relating to private credit rather than mortgages. Morgan explains that insiders can influence the market and use leverage through financial instruments, including ETFs with two- or three-times leverage. He notes the investment banks underwrite many derivative products and can disseminate information counter to the direction they want the market to move, then position themselves to benefit. He asserts that following the money is often closer to the truth than other methodologies and that insiders front-run common narratives through signaling. Regarding information flow, Morgan says “wars are bankers’ wars” and that insiders signal the likely direction of oil and interest-rate markets, using outsized options activity ahead of political shifts to steer market outcomes. He describes a pattern where private sector bets help shape market moves, suggesting a lack of transparency in how information is released and acted upon. The key mechanism now, Morgan argues, is a hedge against trouble in the private credit market, rather than mortgage bets of 2008. Private credit refers to loans outside the traditional banking system—capital from investment funds, pension funds, wealth managers, private equity—that lend at high rates. He stresses that private credit is illiquid, not publicly traded, and often not transparently valued, making it vulnerable to mark-to-market distortions and execution risk. The loans typically involve real estate and other private investments; many are not easily sold, and private loans may be carried at par even when their real value has declined. Morgan cautions that federal backstops for private equity are uncertain; bailouts depend on who is connected within the system, echoing concerns about favoritism over pure capitalism. He argues that higher interest rates would squeeze private equity liquidity and raise defaults, exposing a fragile, yield-driven market sustained by easy money. He maintains that private credit represents claims on future cash flows that may not materialize, making the system highly sensitive to confidence and liquidity. In closing, Morgan reiterates that no one is exempt from potential systemic failure, even if an individual believes they are insulated. The overall message emphasizes heightened risk in private credit, potential defaults, and the possibility of a broader market disruption that could impact ordinary Americans through higher rates and tighter liquidity.

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.

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 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.

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.