
The Inverted Pyramid Of Debt Banking System.
.
Understand a simple explanation of a bank and why the banking system collapsed as it did.
The banking system collapse was a factor of many things, however, it is advantageous to have a basic understanding of what a bank actually is and why it is so vulnerable. After all, you put all your hard earned cash into it so it probably makes sense to understand how they work, wouldn’t you agree?
The Pictomin above shows a red triangle, a black circle and two arrows. This simple image is a pictorial representation of a bank. Don’t stop reading, I will explain.
The green ball is the actually amount of cash, back up by something of tangible value (like gold), that the bank currently owns. This is the amount of actual substance of worth the bank would have if currency and the effects of currency collapsed and people wanted to reclaim their money back in something solid and tangible. Yes, I know. It is worryingly small.
The red triangle that is balancing on this small ball is the inverted pyramid of debt that the bank has created from this small amount of cash through complex lending schemes and systems such as fractional banking, derivatives and future share buys. As you can see the triangle is pretty unstable, symbolised here by the arrows.
.
The bigger the bank becomes, the larger the triangle becomes and thus the more unstable the bank becomes. Everyone following? Excellent.
.
Over the last 10-15 years the banks debt triangle has been becoming incredibly large and thus the whole system in turn very very unstable as only a very small percentage of the monetary figures being thrown around are backed up against an actually commodity such as gold; the rest of it is just numbers, opinion and in some respect blatant lies and fabrications.
The banks are unstable but when all are operating in this way they tend to just about keep each other standing.
You can imagine, I hope, that if all these unstable structures are balanced very closely to one another, as they are in the real world, then the combined effects of all off them wobbling with just about keep them all upright. This is exactly what was happening before 2008 and the crash. The banks were holding each other up.
However, when consumer confidence goes, such as recently, the highly unstable banks have a tendency to very quickly fall over with the largest banks carrying the largest debt triangle falling first. Once one goes the resulting balancing act is unsettled and they all tend to start toppling unless someone, like the government, uses a vast amount of money to reduce the size of the triangle, pick them up again and once again start the balancing trick, which is exactly what happened.
As is probably obvious to most that have read this far, this is not a sustainable solution and once the banks start lending and creating wealth out of nothing again their triangles will once again start to grow and they will topple they again causing greater pain and misery to all involved, apart from the top guys at the bank who will walk away again having done very well out of the whole affair.
.
Since moving away from the Gold Standard in the 1930s, where currency had to be backed up against something solid such as gold, we have created a system that can create money out of nothing and now we cannot go back.
.
It is worth remembering the Pictomin image when you next put all your faith into a bank. They are very good at creating something from nothing, the only problem being that we then end up with a lot of nothing, also affectionately referred to as currency, floating around which can very easily disappear in an instant.
Why were so many people shocked when the biggest triangle pyramid of debt was broken and over a billion dollars disappeared instantly overnight. The reason being is that it never really existed in the first place, it was just numbers floating around the banks and the stock exchange.
I appreciate that this is quite a simplistic overview of the banking system but it is a good reminder for people to really understand the problems that are very much at the core of banking and why the governments interventions were no more than a buffer to a further more devastating collapse that will be inevitable if the banks are ever allowed to go back to their unmoderated ways. Unfortunately the truth is that they will.
I hope this has spoken to people, I will end on a joke to lighten things up again.
A woman gets on a bus with her baby. The bus driver says: “That’s the ugliest baby that I’ve ever seen. Ugh!” The woman goes to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: “The driver just insulted me!”
The man says: “You go right up there and tell him off – go ahead, I’ll hold your monkey for you.”








9 Comments
the real scary thing is, is that the collapse is only just starting
…hope more people wake up…
Hi Ivan, definitely mate. I have a new ebook about to come out which focuses on giving people a basic understand of the financial world we live in at the moment to help them “wake up”
Why should basing the system on gold be any better? What intrinsic value does gold have? It’s just a traded commodity like money. May as well base it on coffee, or uranium.
You’re overview is a bit simplistic I’m afraid. For banks to make money they have to lend out more than they take in and they always have. It’s a business model which relies on trust and confidence – and sadly that is in short supply now because they have really abused the trust they were given.
What sunk banks in the UK wasn’t bad decisions, but a shortage of cash. Because Brits are such bad savers, UK banks were reliant on the international money markets for liquidity. Once these dried up (because crappy US loans were being used as collateral for complex products that no one understood, so confidence evaporated when no one knew who was holding the worst of the loans) lots of UK financial infrastructure became unstable.
Banking is risky, yes, because their business model relies on people not all taking their money out at once, but it should be sustainable. After all, the idea of capital reserves are that even with very large banks the proportionate size of your ball (!) grows with the size of the bank and most of the time, people don’t all need their money at once.
Argue that the ball should be bigger, or that the bank should be smaller so that it doesn’t represent a systemic risk, but don’t throw the banker out with the bathwater.
Otherwise, I love your work.
Hi Jon,
Great to have a debate on the topic.
I would not necessarily say that basing the system on gold would be any better, after all, without the increased money supply through credit world society would not have been able to grow as quickly as it has. That being said, the fiat system we are in at the moment is grosly unfair and greed based on confidence and excessive monetary supply not backed up by anything of value is problematic.
Gold is not simply a traded commodity like money. There is a finite amount of it in supply, unlike money which can be increased in many ways. Other precious metals such as uranium can also be used as a storage medium for value but none are as easily assessable or in such large demand as gold.
What sunk banks WAS bad decisions as well as the greed of lenders and borrowers. In the ever quickening race to invent more creative money vehicles and ways of creating money from nothing we got excessive fractional reserve banking practices which leveraged money over 30 times and more, combined with sub prime morgatage scams where a big game of hot potato was played with d and e rated products cleverly disguised as “AAA” investments and then the whole derivatives markets which are an abomination. Couple this with futures, short selling, fixed IPO’s and insider trading and actually the whole monatary systems of which banking plays the biggest part is highly complex and highly corrupt.
Only one very small part of where banks make their money relies on fractional reserve banking or “people not taking all their money out at once”.
Feel free to get a discussion going and thanks for the comment.
Hi Jonny,
In the UK not a single bank was sunk by bad credit decisioning. The worst losses from UK mortgages in the worst case economic scenarios resulted in losses of something like £100bn to all UK banks (according to stress tests and MLAR data) which simply wouldn’t have been enough to have the effect that running out of cash did.
Simplistically, banks lend money at say 4% and borrow it at 3.5%. The spread funds their admin costs. The trouble was that the US and UK (in fact almost everywhere except Germany) in the west wasn’t saving enough to meet the credit demands of those economies. So money was taken from other sources -Securitisation – in itself this isn’t the problem – after all, spreading the risk of lending across a broader base than simply one bank is unarguably a good idea. The problem was that the Ratings Agencies were so conflicted by their fee structures that they rated crappy pools of loans as good in exchange for continued mandates.
Second, big banks then used the approval of the ratings agency’s ratings to buy huge slugs of other banks’ originated debt which they didn’t understand or really do due diligence on. The principal/ agent problem meant that managers at the banks were remunerated for short term profits (which these pools offered because they were mostly sub prime mortgages on monstrous interest rates) rather than the long term existential risk that they posed to the financial system. Loads of people made a fortune from these loans.
The ultimate problem was therefore the breakdown of the relationship between the suppliers of capital to acquire the pools of loans, and those charged with managing their money, and the Ratings Agencies’ complicity being used to short- circuit the principle of caveat emptor.
You and I are both too young to remember credit rationing – but decades ago, when you wanted to buy a house in the UK, you had to go and see your bank manager, and he decided if you got a loan or not. The trouble was that he didn’t have that much money to lend, so hardly anyone got a mortgage.
If you’re happy to sacrifice the principle of a homeowning democratic society as a societal “good”, then chuck securitisation away. But no young person or person with any bad credit history will ever get a mortgage in the west again.
But if you’re coming down on securitisation for it’s own sake, then you need to also look at the far larger industry of re-insurance – I imagine the denizens of Bermuda and Zurich will take you to task then!
Don’t obfuscate with futures, IPOs and derivatives – they are symptoms, not the cause!!
Its worth noting this isn’t the case for all banks around the world. Although Australia isn’t the best example – each dollar deposited in an Australian bank is backed by the Australian Government.
And although storing wealth in Gold or Silver is a very sensible idea, don’t discount banks completely. Remember banks have been around for a very long time – outlasting Governments, many recessions and a couple of depressions. Its about choice and doing due diligence on the bank and whats behind it.
My advice is just stay away from any U.S bank
Hi Anthony,
The thing is that the US Banks are also backed by the US Government, thats the problem.
Banking systems have been around for a very long time and they play a key role in the overall money game definately and we can’t live without them these days. As you say though, it is about due diligence when picking a bank and this comes first and foremost from having a strong financial intelligence and understanding how the game is played.
Thanks for the comment man.
- Jonny
Sooo true, and eventually the fact that the current currency has no intrinsic value will lead without any doubt to a final collapse. You can’t fool every one all the time…
Hi Abe,
Without a doubt, it all depends on when. Thanks for the comment.
- Jonny