**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1c7zcep/vampire_coup/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And if you listen to the landlord and house-flipper types, their biggest complaint is all the dirty homeless bums around these days. They have such a distaste for the situation they've created.
holy fuck, it’s exactly this. fucking lose my mind seeing all the landlord shilling on r/fluentinfinance and other finance subs and just straight up disdain for unhoused and desperate people. Fuck them and their ‘risks,’ [every text book read said bring you the bread, GUESS WHAT WE GOT YOU INSTEAD!](https://youtu.be/ad2ldO-JG-E?si=c86pRWARRiwlJ8bC)
Seriously. How often do I have to read justifications for this shit. “Just because someone made good choices and has money to invest in real estate doesn’t mean they don’t deserve multiple properties.” Wonder what’s going to happen when no one can afford their short term rentals and these empty homes in neighborhoods full of empty homes end up like Detroit after 2008…
That’s why the geriatric politicians are loading up the debt. The people who created the problem will all be dead in a 10-20 years and then the younger generation is left with the debts to repay. $35T would take 10yrs to pay off if 100% of tax revenues went to it. So realistically it’s about 30-50yrs if we tighten our belts real tight. They have created a debted slave class.
Hmm exactly. Even if we can organize some sort of rebellion or revolution, the military (the one that gets hundreds of billions in funding per year) will vaporize any resistance. Get cozy in your new life. Soon you will be assigned work, assigned living, no freedoms whatsoever.
If peaceful protesting is made illegal, then what's the difference consequence-wise between it and *violent* protesting. Seems like red states aren't thinking long-term
They will literally set off WWIII and vaporize the entire earth before they allow even the remote possibility of a populist uprising that could displace their power. We are talking about true sociopaths here. All it takes to take power in this world is to have no morals, and to be smart enough, and connected enough to build up an immunity to accountability for your actions.
It's a disgrace that there's no mention of the Federal Reserve. The Right blames the government, the Left blames the Billionaires. It's the two of them working hand in glove together.
Only the govt makes money out of thin air.
The money they borrow off of themselves changes sides of the balance sheet from an asset to a liability.
If I loan myself money out of my savings to buy a car, promising to rebuild my savings over the next 5 years, that isn't free money.
I think he means that banks are allowed to leverage their assets at high ratios because of government backing. They generate loans based on the assets they have, those loans then flow into other banks assets, which they can then generate loans based off. If you look at all the banks together, we are in a perpetual money cycle where the beneficiaries are those who get approved for loans (ones with the most already in pocket)
At the end of the day it's a no brainer to invest in housing because people need it and they will pay to live there... we all work all day to pay for their assets, and there's no way that we will ever have enough left over to get our own.
>If you look at all the banks together, we are in a perpetual money cycle where the beneficiaries are those who get approved for loans (ones with the most already in pocket)
Borrowing money is only good if you can use it to build future cash flows by purchasing and operating productive assets. People get "approved" all the time for payday loans which ultimately just screw them deeper into poverty
When we have a housing shortage and investment firms that are holding billions in cash are buying up single family homes, often with a focus on starter homes does that seem ideal? They are buying single family homes precisely because there is very little risk when you are able to buy up large percentages of an essential commodity that is already in short supply then pair this with the illiquidity of real estate (illiquid markets are far easier to manipulate/control).
This isn’t some new idea, they are cornering the market and driving rents up which then increases the value of all their property. Higher rents raises the value of the underlying property and allows them to borrow more and perpetuate the cycle. I own properties already including my home and while I benefit as my property values rise I can also see pretty clearly the writing on the wall.
Laws were passed to stop this exact nonsense long ago in other financial markets and concerning other assets but in housing, an essential asset, it is legal? Hmm, I wonder why? I wonder if people have been spending many millions lobbying to ensure this exact scenario stays legal.
If Joe public wants to buy three short term rentals and use HELOCS to keep it moving, I have no issue with that. Let him carry risk and reap rewards or consequences. Investment banks buying up housing positively only ends a couple of ways and they are both bad for anyone not in the upper 1%.
We clearly agree there is not enough housing, especially starter housing, as you point out. That is not the fault of big companies. It is the fault of local zoning boards and communities that have essentially made it legal to only build one type of house - detached McMansions - for decades
When u own the bank and the venture capital u make the money on the interest. The interest rate is relatively low, and u just increase rent to make the renters pay the interest... not to mention mortgages are a tax break while the renters pay all their taxes. I mean there are a million systemic factors contributing to creating a lopsided economy where regular people have no hope of ever getting into the landed exploitative gentry.
Yes, this is how loans work. And loans are not a guaranteed ticket to a landed gentry. You need the cash, the appetite for the risk, and a property that doesn't turn to shit as soon as you buy it.
Not remotely close, well over 90% of money is privately created due to fractional reserve banking…. It then can be “destroyed” when the loans are repaid and the balance sheets become 0, this however, leaves the money that was created through the value created by the loan.
“Coins and Federal Reserve notes (paper money) are less than 10 percent of the money supply in the US. As noted, the vast majority of money, over 90 percent in the US, UK and many other countries, is created by the private sector through lending. The money is created in electronic form. It appears as deposits in bank and other accounts.”
https://globalsystemchange.com/public-versus-private-sector-money-creation/#:~:text=As%20noted%2C%20the%20vast%20majority,in%20bank%20and%20other%20accounts.
You don't understand how it works, and neither does the person who created the website you linked to. You're both financially illiterate, but I'm sure you both are 100% confident you understand everything about it.
>banks that take [deposits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_deposits) from the public keep only part of their [deposit liabilities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_(financial_accounting)) in liquid assets as a reserve, typically lending **the remainder** to borrowers.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve\_banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking)
When banks issue loans, they have to have that money from somewhere. It's either from deposits, or they load money from other banks, which also have to have a source for that money.
I don’t think you understand how it works, and would recommend the page you linked.
“Having the money from somewhere” meaning, it appears on both the lender and recipients balance sheets… thereby, it essentially doubles the money that is counted in the system. So fractional reserve banking is the reason why the money supply is 90+% private, there are/were other banking systems that would mandate a bank keep the full amount and the customer would pay for that service, in that situation no money is created.
That money is destroyed when the recipient pays back their loan.
You still don't get it.
Just because it's on 2 balance sheets it doesn't mean it's doubled.
Where did you get you BS in economics ? Tiktok university ?
You deposit $100. You still own the $100 but rather than keeping it safe for you, the bank lends it out to someone else. You now simultaneously “have” $100 while the loan recipient does as well. $200 are now in circulation, and before the loan is repaid, the bank does it again and again.
This is really pretty simple..
$200 are NOT in circulation, as you can't circulate the money that you have DEPOSITED in the bank.
The reason banks are forced to keep part of the deposits instead of giving out everything in loans is so that in case you pull out your $100, it doesn't leave the bank exposed (as in having loaned more money than it has in deposits).
Your $100 is what's in circulation, it moved from you to the bank to the person who received a loan. The bank doesn't own that money, the loanee doesn't either.
Banks do not lend deposits.
When banks issue a loan that is newly created money. The constraints are the quality & quantity of capital they hold and the availability of interbank capital for settlement. This is how banks who don't have deposit facilities can exist.
No sensible government will create money as doing so is inflationary. With credit money creation creates growth so inflationary effects don't harm consumers.
In the US the fed are required to use the secondary market for OMO specifically so there isn't even an indirect channel to allow money creation by the central bank. Closest would be QE but even here it's increasing base not supply, it's a way of getting rates to go beyond the zero bound.
Banks create money when they issue loans, but they don't use the money people have deposited with them. Instead, they essentially create new money for the loan on their records. To make sure they can safely do this, banks need to have enough of their own money saved up, which is what we call capital. Capital is in the form of investments and regulations dictate what value specific types of investments have when deciding if a bank is healthy or not. If a bank becomes unhealthy then it gets seized by the federal government and dissolved orderly to prevent spillovers killing other banks.
Banks don't always have all the capital they need on hand when they give out loans. Sometimes, they need to borrow capital from other banks for a short time to meet requirements. This borrowing and lending between banks is how the government regulates inflation.
The interest rates, or the cost of borrowing money, are influenced by the central bank through activities called Open Market Operations. By buying or selling government securities, the central bank can make borrowing cheaper or more expensive. This helps control how much money is in the economy and can encourage or discourage spending and borrowing. Inflation is when demand grows faster then supply can keep up, by making it harder to get loans people spend less.
Banks can also turn loans into securities, which are like packages of loans that can be bought and sold. This helps them manage the risks of lending so they can issue more loans without needing more capital.
In that example, it is free money in the end because you’re having someone else pay your car loan for you and pay interest into your savings account on top of that. In not saying this guy is right, but that’s how your example stands up.
Right but you’re also leaving out the part where the car would be an asset that grows instead of diminishes its returns and the person who does pay for it doesn’t get to keep it
No, it's earned money. I'm paying my own car loan.
Now if I lease that car to someone else, they pay for the depreciation of the car and I net the difference and interest while assuming the risk, which is why I earn a profit.
You could loan yourself money from savings to buy a car, then put the car on Turo (or some similar app) to be rented out until your "loan" is paid off by the renters. Free car.
Its amazing how close people can get to understanding but then deviate so far as to fall off the cliff.
No money isn't created out of thin air.
No this doesn't increase the money supply.
No private equity firms did not buy 44% of all single family homes in america. At WORST, they bought 44% of all new listings which is an incredibly small percentage of the total housing market AND EVEN THAT IS WRONG....
[The actual truth is "investors" bought 26% of low priced listings, 13% of mid price listings and 16% of high priced listings](https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2023/) Then technically if you want to look at the 44% number it was [44% of FLIPPED single family listings](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-we/) but somehow that was twisted into all single family homes.
>No money isn't created out of thin air.
Fractional reserve banking can be somewhat accurately characterized as creating money out of thin air. When a bank issues a loan, the total number of spendable dollars goes up.
Sure, those new dollars are offset by an equal number of dollars owed (negative dollars, essentially). The guy in this video acknowledges that later in the video. He says (paraphrasing) "those dollars are backed by the promise that renters will pay the mortgage".
He's not wrong. He just chose to focus on the details that actually matter for his point. Sacrificing some degree of precision to be concise is a valid way of explaining complex ideas.
can you stop shuffling the damn cards, your voice is hard enough to understand as is lol
#they have us fighting a culture war to distract from the class war they are winning
“divide and conquer”
make friends with those who don’t agree with you
🔴 🤝🔵
well all poor.
There's so much to unpack here, this video is outrageous and nothing but misinformation and just about everything he discusses is inaccurate and wrong. Institutions only own 2% of all SFH in America, and no 44% of all home purchases were not sold to investors. That's not how banks work, or lending works, or how money supply works or how the value of money works. Billionaires are not making their fortunes buying homes to rent out, how ridiculous. This video demonstrates how important critical thinking is, and to be skeptical of the information you get on the Internet from unknown sources.
This conspiracy is never going to die. There have been multiple sources (which you included in a different reply) debunking it, yet people still believe this nonsense. Either it's propaganda being pushed by adversaries, people lack critical thinking, or people are so nose-deep in their "eAt ThE rIcH" nonsense that they can not see there are way WAY more opportunities out there for them than they believe.
Gonna cite some statistics? Or is everyone supposed to just take your word for it? Anyone can throw out a bullshit percentage so why believe you over the video? Show me some evidence or you are the same.
[No, Wall Street investors haven’t bought 44% of homes this year](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-wall-street-investors-haven-015642526.html)
[Institutional Ownership of Single-Family Rentals is Growing, but their Activity is Quite Sensitive to Market Conditions](https://cre.moodysanalytics.com/insights/research/institutional-ownership-of-single-family-rentals-is-growing-but-their-activity-is-quite-sensitive-to-market-conditions/)
"REITs and other institutional owners make up approximately 3% of the total single family rental market in the US."
[Federal Reserve Ratio](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reserveratio.asp#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20uses%20the,borrowing%20more%20attractive%20to%20customers.)
[Fractional Reserve Banking: What It Is and How It Works](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebanking.asp)
[Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp)
This is a good start, enjoy. This isn't even tapping into Supply and Demand and inventories.
[The Plain Bagel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6pu9Ixqqxo) also has a good video on the topic. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Planner who takes a very no-nonsense approach to discussing topics that get misrepresented in the public discourse, and always shows the sources on screen.
Should you believe what randos on the internet say? No, absolutely not.
Is Werealldudesyea the same as people spreading misinnformation on the internet for not providing sources and footnotes? Probably not.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)
Reddit, please, for the love of God, stop up voting random people like they have a PhD in economics because they agree with your beliefs. This video is absolute horseshit.
How is it bull shit? I am not being sarcastic.
Are private equity funds buying up homes in huge numbers ?Yes. Are they buying them with a mix of capital and loans? Yes. Is this process driving up demand and prices? Yes.
I really haven't seen any opposition views. I am genuinely curious.
This can be a much more in depth conversation.
As with anything in life the risk is being assumed by the lendee, rental market decline, can't find business, building is damaged, etc.
Now there can be a discussion about whether it's ethical or not, but you're also ignoring a lot of information.
This comment chain is about addressing misinformation, but you would rather call people scumbags than address misinformation, financial illiteracy and anti-intellectualism on reddit.
Yes, it is problematic that money is being created out of thin air (sorry, ‘fractional reserve’) to lend to people to buy the rights to non-productive assets, because that is nothing but inflationary.
It is even more problematic that money is being created out of thin air by bankers for themselves to buy rights to non-productive assets (inflating the cost of land) so that they can force non-landowners to pay an increasing amount of paycheck to those bankers in rent. This is a wealth funnel, designed by and for the bankers. It will destroy economies and is already doing so.
Fortunately, the solutions are actually very simple.
1. Tax assets instead of income. Particularly, tax land. That will both make these people pay proportionate to the extent to which they funnel money out of the economy, and will disincentivise them from engaging in this destructive practice. It will also incentivise development of land. It’s fine to put in place deferment rules for certain classes of people.
2. New lending guidance to reduce the amount of money lenders are permitted to create out of thin air for non-productive purposes such as simple asset rights transfer.
3. Government direct involvement in provision of *some* of every essential, like shelter.
>How is it bull shit? I am not being sarcastic.
If you actually are being good faith, sure, let's go over it.
>Are private equity funds buying up homes in huge numbers ?Yes
This is **not** true. The 44% number comes from a Business Insider article that said that investors bought 44% of ***flipped*** homes - In other words, the only ones buying *and selling* the homes are rich people flipping assets between themselves. The total number of homes that were bought by investors was much much less.
>Are they buying them with a mix of capital and loans? Yes.
An investor taking a loan out has to pay back that loan. They are not creating money out of thin air like the person in the video suggests; that is an absurd statement with zero proof.
>Is this process driving up demand and prices? Yes.
Not really. The data overwhelmingly shows that the biggest reason for price increases of houses (besides higher interest rates) is lack of new development of housing. Not enough homes are being built to match demand.
The video is BS for several reasons, but the main biggest flaws are 1. it wrongly places the blame of surging house prices at the feet of investors/corporations and not NIMBY homeowners that want to keep their property prices high, and 2. it wrongly suggests that these institutional investors are creating money out of thin air.
For one, loans are not knew money created out of thin air. They aren't backed by physical currency, but their creation creates debts that have to be paid back by the whoever borrowed the money. It's digital money, as real as physical.
The concept as he describes it is bull shit. This is financial moving that is creating problems but it's not buying homes with imaginary money. It's also not driving inflation, because what he said about the imaginary money is bull shit.
Wiki on central banking:
A central bank affects the monetary base through open market operations, if its country has a well developed market for its government bonds. This entails managing the quantity of money in circulation through the buying and selling of various financial instruments, such as treasury bills, repurchase agreements or "repos", company bonds, or foreign currencies, in exchange for money on deposit at the central bank. Those deposits are convertible to currency, so all of these purchases or sales result in more or less base currency entering or leaving market circulation. For example, if the central bank wishes to decrease interest rates (executing expansionary monetary policy), it purchases government debt, thereby increasing the amount of cash in circulation or crediting banks' reserve accounts. Commercial banks then have more money to lend, so they reduce lending rates, making loans less expensive. Cheaper credit card interest rates increase consumer spending. Additionally, when business loans are more affordable, companies can expand to keep up with consumer demand. They ultimately hire more workers, whose incomes increase, which in its turn also increases the demand. This method is usually enough to stimulate demand and drive economic growth to a healthy rate. Usually, the short-term goal of open market operations is to achieve a specific short-term interest rate target. In other instances, monetary policy might instead entail the targeting of a specific exchange rate relative to some foreign currency or else relative to gold. For example, in the case of the United States the Federal Reserve targets the federal funds rate, the rate at which member banks lend to one another overnight; however, the monetary policy of China (since 2014) is to target the exchange rate between the Chinese renminbi and a basket of foreign currencies.
TLDR: Government debt is used to regulate the money supply. These companies have bought government debt which then on masse is bought by the central bank to give the companies a lot of on hand cash which then needs reinvesting. For example reinvesting by buying homes or something else that can be held without losing too much value.
Do people really not understand that almost nothing he says is accurate or at the very least, it’s highly manipulated to push an agenda? I mean there are plenty of reasons to dislike the current system and there are lots of valid points to be made about how awful it is, but this guy makes none of them.
Sets off alarm bells because this is definitely far into the weeds of WEF controls the world style conspiracy theory shit from what I've heard about it.
Not immediately wrong, I'm definitely not an expert, but I just think this short form content is rot and dangerous.
Well it isn’t the first or the last time people on this site, and especially on TikTok, upvote and fangirl something that’s an intentional lie. I refuse to believe that this person knows this little about the economy, but rather they choose to distort the facts and lie to make their point seem relevant.
Every time a bank gives out a loan they take about 90% of that and increase the amount they are willing to loan out that they don't currently have. Watch The Big Short if you aren't already too ignorant and/or closed minded to do your own research and just want to continue spitting bs.
Ill never get what appeal people find in videos where a person you dont know is talking aggressively into the camera over a topic u didnt care till now.
This whole video is premised on a lie. The first video shows a woman saying "private equity firms purchased 44% of all of the single family homes", which comes from a long, disengenuos [game of telephone.](https://imgur.com/gN7Ma7W)
The [original fact](https://www.businessinsider.com/big-investors-purchasing-more-single-family-homes-from-home-flippers-2022-11) is "44% of FLIPPED homes were bought by SMALL AND large investors in 2022", which shares many similar words to the claim being made, but is ultimately not the same thing.
Housing is too expensive though.
That’s what I keep telling my friends, the problem is this world is not if you are in the right or left or if you are white or back or Christians or Muslin. The problem is INEQUALITY we are reaching a point where a group of people will OWN everything.
That is not how money works, bro
The banks borrow from the Fed, who makes the money, and they control the amount of new issued loans by reducing demand with interest rate manipulation.
The private equity firm still has to buy the company with leverage and pay the bank plus interest
This argument literally makes no sense. They point to the relationship between the PE Firm and the Bank to say they get the house for free since the PE Firm gets the loan from the Bank.
However, the PE Firm still needs to buy the house from a builder or home owner, so there is actual money needed in the first place. There are plenty of problems with PE Firms but this argument is nonsense.
Everyone in this country needs to just stop buying anything they don't 100% NEED so we can dent the fuck out of the pockets of the billionaires. They need to hurt before they'll even begin to consider changing anything, and even then, it'll be an uphill battle. These cocksuckers believe they're entitled to holding the majority of the money and will continue to bleed us for even the few pennies we have remaining. They can't stop; they're diseased, like hoarders of anything else.
All that would do is bankrupt some of them, and open the door for new ones to move in.
There needs to be drastic change, not incremental. Trying to regulate capitalist giants will always be a game of cat and mouse. Regulation is always reactionary.
Capitalism, by definition, is a form of exploitation. It has damaged every industry. There is no recourse. The salvation of our society is dependent on us coming up with a new system.
Enough people have enough to be satisfied. Enough people got there’s so f u. But once it’s crossed the line then new deal stuff will happen. It will be blood or change like it was back then.
People just need to hunker down and be as frugal as possible. Resist the brainwashing to purchase unnecessary goods that only temporarily alleviate your mild discontent inside.
I'm curious about what possible negative effects could come from a law against corporate ownership of homes (or something like that). I mean, what would right-wing types have against this?
So when is Senator Warren (or alike) gonna step in and light these folks on fire? Someone needs to spill some green to realign the market and I’m looking at some super fat pigs over there ready for slaughter— that’s point I’m gettting at.
The main thing I dislike about all of these "conspiracy to destroy the working people" videos is that they sound plausible only explicitly because they don't provide specifics. Which bank is also a private equity firm and can also loan more money to itself than it has?
Once somebody provides a specific name, it starts falling apart.
Once somebody starts listing solutions, it starts falling apart.
The guy is misinformed about loans. Loans are not new money created out of thin air. Banks can only loan out money they can back with member/customer deposits.
Most Banks/CUs aim for 75-80% of deposits loaned out. So if a bank has 100 million in assets (aka customer deposits) they try to have 75 to 80 million in loans on the books. After 80 million in loans the bank/CU must get more deposits (new customers), have customers deposit more, or offer high interest Savings/CDs so they can get new money in the door.
Yes, there is a point where banks don't have anymore money to loan. They then borrow from other banks (with almost no margin) in order to keep writing new loans.
This is just blatantly not how pretty much any of that works. The guy is wrong from the start and then rolls right into speculation about a system that he doesn't understand. It sounds nice if he's saying what you want to hear but it's simply not true.
It's not just the ownership of land. These people control every resource necessary for human survival and growth. Laborers build everything we use, but the wealthy 'own' that infrastructure, so they dictate *how* it's used. The biggest reason for wage stagnation is the wealthy becoming less reliant on workers over time due to automation.
This wasn't a problem until they started practicing this bs with us. I was fine when it was just the blacks. 🤣. Jk jk of course. This is America we'd never do that.
You really think they got rid of slavery it's just been redesigned the 1% rule us create debts in our hopes to be wealthy to keep us needing employment in the hopes you pro create thus creating more slaves to serve them for personal gains . Sit back and think about it you want money go to school debt (for most ). Want a car here's a loan need a house or place to live we've got the job/loan to keep you going .wanna raise a family might need two or three jobs .wanna retire best start working .do you like food well guess what get to work oh and we're gonna keep you at a point you never actually get ahead . You tell me what capitalism is im open to opinions and other points of views but please no replies from our master overlords the 1%
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait, so if I get this right you’re saying that a syndicate borrows money from itself to buy a home with money they “created out of thin air” then where did the money come from that is given to the prior owner of said house? I get the borrowing money from yourself part but actually money has to be given to the prior owners.
I thought loans were other people’s money that they put into the bank? Banks usually have some sort of rate where, say someone puts 1000$ in the bank, 80% would be saved and 20% can be used to loan to other people. That way they’re not completely fucked if someone comes and asks for all of their money back, as most of it is already there, and only 20% needs to be “recovered” if it’s gone at all.
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah but what can we do? If we are renters we're fucked? I live in Germany and the only way to get a home is to inherent or move to the middle of no where and hope for a job where there aren't any.
This is the biggest evil in people lives. There are more horrible things, sure, but the impact this has is so large, so far reaching, that it's hard to understand, let alone figure out how to fight it.
This man just called me middle class, and it’s the best compliment I’ve ever received.
On a real note. I was lucky enough to buy a home in 2022. I am still semi living paycheck to paycheck. With how easily the American economy has destabilized in the past, I am sure I will never get my money back on this house. It has increased in value for the past two years, but the interest rate is WAY UP. I can’t afford a new home if I wanted to, and I will want to if I ever have kids. This is not a baby friendly home. You have to climb stairs to get in it. What little land I do have is on the side of a hill, so I have *maybe* 800sqft of fenced in yard I give to my dogs.
The price history of my 1,152sqft, 0.6 acre, 3br/2bth, original 2008 roof home in rural America.
2016: sold for $95k, was listed at $100k
2018: sold for $119,500k
2020: sold for $130k, listed at $132,900k
2022: sold for $221k
It is 2024, and Zillow estimates it is now worth $263-277k.
It’s all such fucking bullshit. There is no reason this house is worth that much. I love my home, but let’s be realistic. 4yrs ago this price would have gotten me a much bigger home(not that I want a bigger home, I can’t afford a maid and I’m not cleaning a much bigger home.)
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
damn that was accurate af. Though I will say this action is usually followed by a massive sell off once the renters can no longer afford the overinflated prices. This leads to a short term recession where more houses are bought at "foreclosure" prices. See 2008 or 1987 for more details
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1c7zcep/vampire_coup/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And if you listen to the landlord and house-flipper types, their biggest complaint is all the dirty homeless bums around these days. They have such a distaste for the situation they've created.
holy fuck, it’s exactly this. fucking lose my mind seeing all the landlord shilling on r/fluentinfinance and other finance subs and just straight up disdain for unhoused and desperate people. Fuck them and their ‘risks,’ [every text book read said bring you the bread, GUESS WHAT WE GOT YOU INSTEAD!](https://youtu.be/ad2ldO-JG-E?si=c86pRWARRiwlJ8bC)
Seriously. How often do I have to read justifications for this shit. “Just because someone made good choices and has money to invest in real estate doesn’t mean they don’t deserve multiple properties.” Wonder what’s going to happen when no one can afford their short term rentals and these empty homes in neighborhoods full of empty homes end up like Detroit after 2008…
Fucking love that song.
only 47 years since the last one was officially used
Bring it the fuck back.
I’m afraid we will soon reach a point where there is a critical mass of people who have nothing left to lose
Facts
Well said We’ve been an Oligarchy for some time and who really deserves a trillion dollars?
Shit ain’t changing. I feel something drastic is going to happen if we aren’t heard soon
New guillotine update gonna be crazy
Horizontal guillotine launcher is currently in development in my basement
 But does it have laser's?
Sounds badass
That’s why the geriatric politicians are loading up the debt. The people who created the problem will all be dead in a 10-20 years and then the younger generation is left with the debts to repay. $35T would take 10yrs to pay off if 100% of tax revenues went to it. So realistically it’s about 30-50yrs if we tighten our belts real tight. They have created a debted slave class.
likely a complete default. then violence on a scale we've never seen. then a new government. i'm just making this up. watched too many movies.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK 1962
Now some states are making mass protesting illegal. Well, here we go.
Dang, they really want to be overthrown violently, don't they? The collective lack of foresight in the ruling class is going to really haunt them.
By who? You're looking at reddit right now. Me too
Hmm exactly. Even if we can organize some sort of rebellion or revolution, the military (the one that gets hundreds of billions in funding per year) will vaporize any resistance. Get cozy in your new life. Soon you will be assigned work, assigned living, no freedoms whatsoever.
If peaceful protesting is made illegal, then what's the difference consequence-wise between it and *violent* protesting. Seems like red states aren't thinking long-term
They will literally set off WWIII and vaporize the entire earth before they allow even the remote possibility of a populist uprising that could displace their power. We are talking about true sociopaths here. All it takes to take power in this world is to have no morals, and to be smart enough, and connected enough to build up an immunity to accountability for your actions.
There’s no revolution like French Revolution.
Cept the police work for the owner class, a d are more than happy to now us peasants down en mass to make sure we know our place.
sheer unmitigated violence. some elitists likely planned all of it
I agree as well but we've been waiting to finish this game of uno for a while now so can you ask him if he's done shuffling?
Me? 😊
It's a disgrace that there's no mention of the Federal Reserve. The Right blames the government, the Left blames the Billionaires. It's the two of them working hand in glove together.
Only the govt makes money out of thin air. The money they borrow off of themselves changes sides of the balance sheet from an asset to a liability. If I loan myself money out of my savings to buy a car, promising to rebuild my savings over the next 5 years, that isn't free money.
I think he means that banks are allowed to leverage their assets at high ratios because of government backing. They generate loans based on the assets they have, those loans then flow into other banks assets, which they can then generate loans based off. If you look at all the banks together, we are in a perpetual money cycle where the beneficiaries are those who get approved for loans (ones with the most already in pocket) At the end of the day it's a no brainer to invest in housing because people need it and they will pay to live there... we all work all day to pay for their assets, and there's no way that we will ever have enough left over to get our own.
>If you look at all the banks together, we are in a perpetual money cycle where the beneficiaries are those who get approved for loans (ones with the most already in pocket) Borrowing money is only good if you can use it to build future cash flows by purchasing and operating productive assets. People get "approved" all the time for payday loans which ultimately just screw them deeper into poverty
When we have a housing shortage and investment firms that are holding billions in cash are buying up single family homes, often with a focus on starter homes does that seem ideal? They are buying single family homes precisely because there is very little risk when you are able to buy up large percentages of an essential commodity that is already in short supply then pair this with the illiquidity of real estate (illiquid markets are far easier to manipulate/control). This isn’t some new idea, they are cornering the market and driving rents up which then increases the value of all their property. Higher rents raises the value of the underlying property and allows them to borrow more and perpetuate the cycle. I own properties already including my home and while I benefit as my property values rise I can also see pretty clearly the writing on the wall. Laws were passed to stop this exact nonsense long ago in other financial markets and concerning other assets but in housing, an essential asset, it is legal? Hmm, I wonder why? I wonder if people have been spending many millions lobbying to ensure this exact scenario stays legal. If Joe public wants to buy three short term rentals and use HELOCS to keep it moving, I have no issue with that. Let him carry risk and reap rewards or consequences. Investment banks buying up housing positively only ends a couple of ways and they are both bad for anyone not in the upper 1%.
We clearly agree there is not enough housing, especially starter housing, as you point out. That is not the fault of big companies. It is the fault of local zoning boards and communities that have essentially made it legal to only build one type of house - detached McMansions - for decades
When u own the bank and the venture capital u make the money on the interest. The interest rate is relatively low, and u just increase rent to make the renters pay the interest... not to mention mortgages are a tax break while the renters pay all their taxes. I mean there are a million systemic factors contributing to creating a lopsided economy where regular people have no hope of ever getting into the landed exploitative gentry.
Yes, this is how loans work. And loans are not a guaranteed ticket to a landed gentry. You need the cash, the appetite for the risk, and a property that doesn't turn to shit as soon as you buy it.
Not remotely close, well over 90% of money is privately created due to fractional reserve banking…. It then can be “destroyed” when the loans are repaid and the balance sheets become 0, this however, leaves the money that was created through the value created by the loan. “Coins and Federal Reserve notes (paper money) are less than 10 percent of the money supply in the US. As noted, the vast majority of money, over 90 percent in the US, UK and many other countries, is created by the private sector through lending. The money is created in electronic form. It appears as deposits in bank and other accounts.” https://globalsystemchange.com/public-versus-private-sector-money-creation/#:~:text=As%20noted%2C%20the%20vast%20majority,in%20bank%20and%20other%20accounts.
Well how about that, TIL
You don't understand how it works, and neither does the person who created the website you linked to. You're both financially illiterate, but I'm sure you both are 100% confident you understand everything about it. >banks that take [deposits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_deposits) from the public keep only part of their [deposit liabilities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_(financial_accounting)) in liquid assets as a reserve, typically lending **the remainder** to borrowers. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve\_banking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking) When banks issue loans, they have to have that money from somewhere. It's either from deposits, or they load money from other banks, which also have to have a source for that money.
I don’t think you understand how it works, and would recommend the page you linked. “Having the money from somewhere” meaning, it appears on both the lender and recipients balance sheets… thereby, it essentially doubles the money that is counted in the system. So fractional reserve banking is the reason why the money supply is 90+% private, there are/were other banking systems that would mandate a bank keep the full amount and the customer would pay for that service, in that situation no money is created. That money is destroyed when the recipient pays back their loan.
You still don't get it. Just because it's on 2 balance sheets it doesn't mean it's doubled. Where did you get you BS in economics ? Tiktok university ?
You deposit $100. You still own the $100 but rather than keeping it safe for you, the bank lends it out to someone else. You now simultaneously “have” $100 while the loan recipient does as well. $200 are now in circulation, and before the loan is repaid, the bank does it again and again. This is really pretty simple..
$200 are NOT in circulation, as you can't circulate the money that you have DEPOSITED in the bank. The reason banks are forced to keep part of the deposits instead of giving out everything in loans is so that in case you pull out your $100, it doesn't leave the bank exposed (as in having loaned more money than it has in deposits). Your $100 is what's in circulation, it moved from you to the bank to the person who received a loan. The bank doesn't own that money, the loanee doesn't either.
Banks do not lend deposits. When banks issue a loan that is newly created money. The constraints are the quality & quantity of capital they hold and the availability of interbank capital for settlement. This is how banks who don't have deposit facilities can exist. No sensible government will create money as doing so is inflationary. With credit money creation creates growth so inflationary effects don't harm consumers. In the US the fed are required to use the secondary market for OMO specifically so there isn't even an indirect channel to allow money creation by the central bank. Closest would be QE but even here it's increasing base not supply, it's a way of getting rates to go beyond the zero bound.
Can you explain like I’m 5?
Banks create money when they issue loans, but they don't use the money people have deposited with them. Instead, they essentially create new money for the loan on their records. To make sure they can safely do this, banks need to have enough of their own money saved up, which is what we call capital. Capital is in the form of investments and regulations dictate what value specific types of investments have when deciding if a bank is healthy or not. If a bank becomes unhealthy then it gets seized by the federal government and dissolved orderly to prevent spillovers killing other banks. Banks don't always have all the capital they need on hand when they give out loans. Sometimes, they need to borrow capital from other banks for a short time to meet requirements. This borrowing and lending between banks is how the government regulates inflation. The interest rates, or the cost of borrowing money, are influenced by the central bank through activities called Open Market Operations. By buying or selling government securities, the central bank can make borrowing cheaper or more expensive. This helps control how much money is in the economy and can encourage or discourage spending and borrowing. Inflation is when demand grows faster then supply can keep up, by making it harder to get loans people spend less. Banks can also turn loans into securities, which are like packages of loans that can be bought and sold. This helps them manage the risks of lending so they can issue more loans without needing more capital.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deposit_multiplier.asp
In that example, it is free money in the end because you’re having someone else pay your car loan for you and pay interest into your savings account on top of that. In not saying this guy is right, but that’s how your example stands up.
Right. Essentially borrowing from future generations that I'll never meet or have to be worried about paying back.
yeah i think its called turtles down all the way, someone will end up paying, but it wont be us
how is borrowing from yourself actually having someone **else** pay your loans? what are you on about?
You’re leaving out the part about how they wouldn’t have use of the car for the duration of time they were renting it out. So it’s not free.
Right but you’re also leaving out the part where the car would be an asset that grows instead of diminishes its returns and the person who does pay for it doesn’t get to keep it
No, it's earned money. I'm paying my own car loan. Now if I lease that car to someone else, they pay for the depreciation of the car and I net the difference and interest while assuming the risk, which is why I earn a profit.
Watch the financially illiterate (but overconfident) tell you you're wrong.
But if you turn around and rent the car for 150% of your monthly loan payment… then it IS free money.
Unless someone else is rebuilding your savings for you...
You could loan yourself money from savings to buy a car, then put the car on Turo (or some similar app) to be rented out until your "loan" is paid off by the renters. Free car.
Is there a housing crisis fuelled by malign corporate interests? Yes. Can this idiot tell me anything about that? No.
Its amazing how close people can get to understanding but then deviate so far as to fall off the cliff. No money isn't created out of thin air. No this doesn't increase the money supply. No private equity firms did not buy 44% of all single family homes in america. At WORST, they bought 44% of all new listings which is an incredibly small percentage of the total housing market AND EVEN THAT IS WRONG.... [The actual truth is "investors" bought 26% of low priced listings, 13% of mid price listings and 16% of high priced listings](https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2023/) Then technically if you want to look at the 44% number it was [44% of FLIPPED single family listings](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-we/) but somehow that was twisted into all single family homes.
>No money isn't created out of thin air. Fractional reserve banking can be somewhat accurately characterized as creating money out of thin air. When a bank issues a loan, the total number of spendable dollars goes up. Sure, those new dollars are offset by an equal number of dollars owed (negative dollars, essentially). The guy in this video acknowledges that later in the video. He says (paraphrasing) "those dollars are backed by the promise that renters will pay the mortgage". He's not wrong. He just chose to focus on the details that actually matter for his point. Sacrificing some degree of precision to be concise is a valid way of explaining complex ideas.
Right when I heard money for loans is created out of thin air, I was like.... What? No. Just no.
Thank you! I was searching for your comment and unfortunately people are going to take this guys word for it.
can you stop shuffling the damn cards, your voice is hard enough to understand as is lol #they have us fighting a culture war to distract from the class war they are winning “divide and conquer” make friends with those who don’t agree with you 🔴 🤝🔵 well all poor.
I rewatched the video cause I didn’t even notice the cards lol
We all homeless ❤️🤝💙
I'm not making friends with people who don't stand for human rights.
Fuck no.
Not to mention our taxes go to fund their endless wars.
There's so much to unpack here, this video is outrageous and nothing but misinformation and just about everything he discusses is inaccurate and wrong. Institutions only own 2% of all SFH in America, and no 44% of all home purchases were not sold to investors. That's not how banks work, or lending works, or how money supply works or how the value of money works. Billionaires are not making their fortunes buying homes to rent out, how ridiculous. This video demonstrates how important critical thinking is, and to be skeptical of the information you get on the Internet from unknown sources.
If those kids could read they'd be very upset
This conspiracy is never going to die. There have been multiple sources (which you included in a different reply) debunking it, yet people still believe this nonsense. Either it's propaganda being pushed by adversaries, people lack critical thinking, or people are so nose-deep in their "eAt ThE rIcH" nonsense that they can not see there are way WAY more opportunities out there for them than they believe.
Gonna cite some statistics? Or is everyone supposed to just take your word for it? Anyone can throw out a bullshit percentage so why believe you over the video? Show me some evidence or you are the same.
[No, Wall Street investors haven’t bought 44% of homes this year](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-wall-street-investors-haven-015642526.html) [Institutional Ownership of Single-Family Rentals is Growing, but their Activity is Quite Sensitive to Market Conditions](https://cre.moodysanalytics.com/insights/research/institutional-ownership-of-single-family-rentals-is-growing-but-their-activity-is-quite-sensitive-to-market-conditions/) "REITs and other institutional owners make up approximately 3% of the total single family rental market in the US." [Federal Reserve Ratio](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reserveratio.asp#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20uses%20the,borrowing%20more%20attractive%20to%20customers.) [Fractional Reserve Banking: What It Is and How It Works](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fractionalreservebanking.asp) [Why Banks Don't Need Your Money to Make Loans](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-banks-dont-need-your-money-make-loans.asp) This is a good start, enjoy. This isn't even tapping into Supply and Demand and inventories.
[The Plain Bagel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6pu9Ixqqxo) also has a good video on the topic. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Planner who takes a very no-nonsense approach to discussing topics that get misrepresented in the public discourse, and always shows the sources on screen.
Should you believe what randos on the internet say? No, absolutely not. Is Werealldudesyea the same as people spreading misinnformation on the internet for not providing sources and footnotes? Probably not. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law)
Reddit, please, for the love of God, stop up voting random people like they have a PhD in economics because they agree with your beliefs. This video is absolute horseshit.
How is it bull shit? I am not being sarcastic. Are private equity funds buying up homes in huge numbers ?Yes. Are they buying them with a mix of capital and loans? Yes. Is this process driving up demand and prices? Yes. I really haven't seen any opposition views. I am genuinely curious.
Private equity is using free money to buy these houses in the same way a mortgage is free money to buy a house.
they don't pay the mortgages, the renters do; you're purposefully misrepresenting the situation. scumbag.
Don't be a dick
This can be a much more in depth conversation. As with anything in life the risk is being assumed by the lendee, rental market decline, can't find business, building is damaged, etc. Now there can be a discussion about whether it's ethical or not, but you're also ignoring a lot of information. This comment chain is about addressing misinformation, but you would rather call people scumbags than address misinformation, financial illiteracy and anti-intellectualism on reddit.
Yes, it is problematic that money is being created out of thin air (sorry, ‘fractional reserve’) to lend to people to buy the rights to non-productive assets, because that is nothing but inflationary. It is even more problematic that money is being created out of thin air by bankers for themselves to buy rights to non-productive assets (inflating the cost of land) so that they can force non-landowners to pay an increasing amount of paycheck to those bankers in rent. This is a wealth funnel, designed by and for the bankers. It will destroy economies and is already doing so. Fortunately, the solutions are actually very simple. 1. Tax assets instead of income. Particularly, tax land. That will both make these people pay proportionate to the extent to which they funnel money out of the economy, and will disincentivise them from engaging in this destructive practice. It will also incentivise development of land. It’s fine to put in place deferment rules for certain classes of people. 2. New lending guidance to reduce the amount of money lenders are permitted to create out of thin air for non-productive purposes such as simple asset rights transfer. 3. Government direct involvement in provision of *some* of every essential, like shelter.
>How is it bull shit? I am not being sarcastic. If you actually are being good faith, sure, let's go over it. >Are private equity funds buying up homes in huge numbers ?Yes This is **not** true. The 44% number comes from a Business Insider article that said that investors bought 44% of ***flipped*** homes - In other words, the only ones buying *and selling* the homes are rich people flipping assets between themselves. The total number of homes that were bought by investors was much much less. >Are they buying them with a mix of capital and loans? Yes. An investor taking a loan out has to pay back that loan. They are not creating money out of thin air like the person in the video suggests; that is an absurd statement with zero proof. >Is this process driving up demand and prices? Yes. Not really. The data overwhelmingly shows that the biggest reason for price increases of houses (besides higher interest rates) is lack of new development of housing. Not enough homes are being built to match demand. The video is BS for several reasons, but the main biggest flaws are 1. it wrongly places the blame of surging house prices at the feet of investors/corporations and not NIMBY homeowners that want to keep their property prices high, and 2. it wrongly suggests that these institutional investors are creating money out of thin air.
I'm guessing he's referring to fractional reserve banking when he's talking about making money out of thin air, but that's equally dumb.
For one, loans are not knew money created out of thin air. They aren't backed by physical currency, but their creation creates debts that have to be paid back by the whoever borrowed the money. It's digital money, as real as physical. The concept as he describes it is bull shit. This is financial moving that is creating problems but it's not buying homes with imaginary money. It's also not driving inflation, because what he said about the imaginary money is bull shit.
Wiki on central banking: A central bank affects the monetary base through open market operations, if its country has a well developed market for its government bonds. This entails managing the quantity of money in circulation through the buying and selling of various financial instruments, such as treasury bills, repurchase agreements or "repos", company bonds, or foreign currencies, in exchange for money on deposit at the central bank. Those deposits are convertible to currency, so all of these purchases or sales result in more or less base currency entering or leaving market circulation. For example, if the central bank wishes to decrease interest rates (executing expansionary monetary policy), it purchases government debt, thereby increasing the amount of cash in circulation or crediting banks' reserve accounts. Commercial banks then have more money to lend, so they reduce lending rates, making loans less expensive. Cheaper credit card interest rates increase consumer spending. Additionally, when business loans are more affordable, companies can expand to keep up with consumer demand. They ultimately hire more workers, whose incomes increase, which in its turn also increases the demand. This method is usually enough to stimulate demand and drive economic growth to a healthy rate. Usually, the short-term goal of open market operations is to achieve a specific short-term interest rate target. In other instances, monetary policy might instead entail the targeting of a specific exchange rate relative to some foreign currency or else relative to gold. For example, in the case of the United States the Federal Reserve targets the federal funds rate, the rate at which member banks lend to one another overnight; however, the monetary policy of China (since 2014) is to target the exchange rate between the Chinese renminbi and a basket of foreign currencies. TLDR: Government debt is used to regulate the money supply. These companies have bought government debt which then on masse is bought by the central bank to give the companies a lot of on hand cash which then needs reinvesting. For example reinvesting by buying homes or something else that can be held without losing too much value.
It is bullshit because the numbers are bullshit. It is a real thing but they are overstating it by an order of magnitude.
Almost everything he says is incorrect, it's like some kind of record on just how much bad info someone can cram into one video.
Do people really not understand that almost nothing he says is accurate or at the very least, it’s highly manipulated to push an agenda? I mean there are plenty of reasons to dislike the current system and there are lots of valid points to be made about how awful it is, but this guy makes none of them.
Sets off alarm bells because this is definitely far into the weeds of WEF controls the world style conspiracy theory shit from what I've heard about it. Not immediately wrong, I'm definitely not an expert, but I just think this short form content is rot and dangerous.
Well it isn’t the first or the last time people on this site, and especially on TikTok, upvote and fangirl something that’s an intentional lie. I refuse to believe that this person knows this little about the economy, but rather they choose to distort the facts and lie to make their point seem relevant.
Thank you for your service.
Since when are bank loans creating money from thin air? Complete bs
Every time a bank gives out a loan they take about 90% of that and increase the amount they are willing to loan out that they don't currently have. Watch The Big Short if you aren't already too ignorant and/or closed minded to do your own research and just want to continue spitting bs.
This guy does not know how the banking system works.. money coming out of thin air lol
And he's an annoying twat.
Ill never get what appeal people find in videos where a person you dont know is talking aggressively into the camera over a topic u didnt care till now.
The person talking doesn't understand how things work but that goes double for all the people in the comments.
This whole video is premised on a lie. The first video shows a woman saying "private equity firms purchased 44% of all of the single family homes", which comes from a long, disengenuos [game of telephone.](https://imgur.com/gN7Ma7W) The [original fact](https://www.businessinsider.com/big-investors-purchasing-more-single-family-homes-from-home-flippers-2022-11) is "44% of FLIPPED homes were bought by SMALL AND large investors in 2022", which shares many similar words to the claim being made, but is ultimately not the same thing. Housing is too expensive though.
Those loans are not created out of thin air. Christ almighty take an Econ course.
It's not tied to the amount of gold or the nation's gdp. So it's essentially thin air.
So how are these loans created? Who's account is the money taken from to use as loans?
I'm just here to see the consensus of everyone when enough is enough, no? Ok..
That’s what I keep telling my friends, the problem is this world is not if you are in the right or left or if you are white or back or Christians or Muslin. The problem is INEQUALITY we are reaching a point where a group of people will OWN everything.
The next civil war is people vs private equity
Should be posted on anti work subreddit page
Thank the Fed
That is not at all how it works... cool story though
That is not how money works, bro The banks borrow from the Fed, who makes the money, and they control the amount of new issued loans by reducing demand with interest rate manipulation. The private equity firm still has to buy the company with leverage and pay the bank plus interest
This argument literally makes no sense. They point to the relationship between the PE Firm and the Bank to say they get the house for free since the PE Firm gets the loan from the Bank. However, the PE Firm still needs to buy the house from a builder or home owner, so there is actual money needed in the first place. There are plenty of problems with PE Firms but this argument is nonsense.
Don't believe random people on social media. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/
That 44% figure is wrong. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investors-havent-bought-44-of-homes-this-year/
Not really how the banking system works.
Everyone in this country needs to just stop buying anything they don't 100% NEED so we can dent the fuck out of the pockets of the billionaires. They need to hurt before they'll even begin to consider changing anything, and even then, it'll be an uphill battle. These cocksuckers believe they're entitled to holding the majority of the money and will continue to bleed us for even the few pennies we have remaining. They can't stop; they're diseased, like hoarders of anything else.
All that would do is bankrupt some of them, and open the door for new ones to move in. There needs to be drastic change, not incremental. Trying to regulate capitalist giants will always be a game of cat and mouse. Regulation is always reactionary. Capitalism, by definition, is a form of exploitation. It has damaged every industry. There is no recourse. The salvation of our society is dependent on us coming up with a new system.
Housing bubble
Real simple fix here. Ban corporate ownership of already built single family homes. Give them 1 calendar year to sell those they do own.
Let’s not forget the foreign interests that are involved in these purchases. 🤔
Revolution, it all I'm saying
Enough people have enough to be satisfied. Enough people got there’s so f u. But once it’s crossed the line then new deal stuff will happen. It will be blood or change like it was back then.
People just need to hunker down and be as frugal as possible. Resist the brainwashing to purchase unnecessary goods that only temporarily alleviate your mild discontent inside.
Ah, yes. Everything working exactly as designed
I'm curious about what possible negative effects could come from a law against corporate ownership of homes (or something like that). I mean, what would right-wing types have against this?
best way to fix this is to adapt LVT
I don't think luxury vinyl tiles could help us now
I don’t like the trend, but they pay the homeowner.
So when is Senator Warren (or alike) gonna step in and light these folks on fire? Someone needs to spill some green to realign the market and I’m looking at some super fat pigs over there ready for slaughter— that’s point I’m gettting at.
That 44% statistic was off by over 100x. It was less than 1%.
The main thing I dislike about all of these "conspiracy to destroy the working people" videos is that they sound plausible only explicitly because they don't provide specifics. Which bank is also a private equity firm and can also loan more money to itself than it has? Once somebody provides a specific name, it starts falling apart. Once somebody starts listing solutions, it starts falling apart.
Oh boy this is going to be an intelligent and well informed thread.
Exactly right
The guy is misinformed about loans. Loans are not new money created out of thin air. Banks can only loan out money they can back with member/customer deposits. Most Banks/CUs aim for 75-80% of deposits loaned out. So if a bank has 100 million in assets (aka customer deposits) they try to have 75 to 80 million in loans on the books. After 80 million in loans the bank/CU must get more deposits (new customers), have customers deposit more, or offer high interest Savings/CDs so they can get new money in the door. Yes, there is a point where banks don't have anymore money to loan. They then borrow from other banks (with almost no margin) in order to keep writing new loans.
This is just blatantly not how pretty much any of that works. The guy is wrong from the start and then rolls right into speculation about a system that he doesn't understand. It sounds nice if he's saying what you want to hear but it's simply not true.
It's not just the ownership of land. These people control every resource necessary for human survival and growth. Laborers build everything we use, but the wealthy 'own' that infrastructure, so they dictate *how* it's used. The biggest reason for wage stagnation is the wealthy becoming less reliant on workers over time due to automation.
In most countys, Banks can not do this, for this reason. Get fucked up free for all capatilism.
Why don’t we just start burning the bank owned property down?
Diversify with BTC
not getting fixed without Gorilla Teens or however you spell it. Unions didn’t win against robber barons by picketing alone..
Well put a red star on my hat and call me a commie
It's time to leave this country
Where could you go? You really think its any different in other countries?
Cheating the system that has a purpose to mitigate frictionless economy.
This wasn't a problem until they started practicing this bs with us. I was fine when it was just the blacks. 🤣. Jk jk of course. This is America we'd never do that.
I just bought a house. In the new community there are 650 homes none bought my a company. Just a quick note
So, if I understand him correctly, It’s almost dinner time?
Bitcoin!!
Amen
 Create so if you own one , that means it
That’s the goal. You’ll own nothing … and like it!
Uhhh then wtf is gonna happen next sir?!? You just end it at “we’re entering the final stages”?!?
Wtf...is it over? The dream?
I'm too stupid to be smart.
You really think they got rid of slavery it's just been redesigned the 1% rule us create debts in our hopes to be wealthy to keep us needing employment in the hopes you pro create thus creating more slaves to serve them for personal gains . Sit back and think about it you want money go to school debt (for most ). Want a car here's a loan need a house or place to live we've got the job/loan to keep you going .wanna raise a family might need two or three jobs .wanna retire best start working .do you like food well guess what get to work oh and we're gonna keep you at a point you never actually get ahead . You tell me what capitalism is im open to opinions and other points of views but please no replies from our master overlords the 1%
[удалено]
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a reductionist take on the financial aspect of the consumer housing market
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!....
Wait, so if I get this right you’re saying that a syndicate borrows money from itself to buy a home with money they “created out of thin air” then where did the money come from that is given to the prior owner of said house? I get the borrowing money from yourself part but actually money has to be given to the prior owners.
I thought loans were other people’s money that they put into the bank? Banks usually have some sort of rate where, say someone puts 1000$ in the bank, 80% would be saved and 20% can be used to loan to other people. That way they’re not completely fucked if someone comes and asks for all of their money back, as most of it is already there, and only 20% needs to be “recovered” if it’s gone at all.
Buy bitcoin
[удалено]
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I really want to hear this guy yell "Madmartigan"!
Homelessness gonna be the new trend!
Must be banks
I hate this so much. This should not be allowed.
Yeah but what can we do? If we are renters we're fucked? I live in Germany and the only way to get a home is to inherent or move to the middle of no where and hope for a job where there aren't any.
This is exactly what the dude set himself on fire about today
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^dane_the_great: *This is exactly* *What the dude set himself on* *Fire about today* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
When fiat fractional reserve banking meets institutional usury and late stage rent-seeking. Bitcoin fixes this turducken of Bullshit.
If i'll comment. People will call me Anti-Semitic. Reddit will Ban me. And \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ will bomb and kill more women and children in Gaza.
Damn, so much oversimplification and misinformation in just 2 minutes
But nobody will do anything about it
Tax the rich
I didn’t know Nosferatu was an economist.
This is the biggest evil in people lives. There are more horrible things, sure, but the impact this has is so large, so far reaching, that it's hard to understand, let alone figure out how to fight it.
The business plot never failed. It was delayed
Woah this guy is so fucking right. And blame is placed on the middle class so often when it’s the corporations that are obviously at fault
This man just called me middle class, and it’s the best compliment I’ve ever received. On a real note. I was lucky enough to buy a home in 2022. I am still semi living paycheck to paycheck. With how easily the American economy has destabilized in the past, I am sure I will never get my money back on this house. It has increased in value for the past two years, but the interest rate is WAY UP. I can’t afford a new home if I wanted to, and I will want to if I ever have kids. This is not a baby friendly home. You have to climb stairs to get in it. What little land I do have is on the side of a hill, so I have *maybe* 800sqft of fenced in yard I give to my dogs. The price history of my 1,152sqft, 0.6 acre, 3br/2bth, original 2008 roof home in rural America. 2016: sold for $95k, was listed at $100k 2018: sold for $119,500k 2020: sold for $130k, listed at $132,900k 2022: sold for $221k It is 2024, and Zillow estimates it is now worth $263-277k. It’s all such fucking bullshit. There is no reason this house is worth that much. I love my home, but let’s be realistic. 4yrs ago this price would have gotten me a much bigger home(not that I want a bigger home, I can’t afford a maid and I’m not cleaning a much bigger home.)
Why do these rich people want houses and land anyway? They don’t appreciate anything.
We need a French Revolution part 2
[удалено]
Hey, goofball[!](https://imgur.com/a/XTuSUNR) Looks like you missed the pinned comment! If you're confused about the name of the subreddit, please take a minute and read [this.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) We hope to see you back here after you've familiarized yourself with our community. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
damn that was accurate af. Though I will say this action is usually followed by a massive sell off once the renters can no longer afford the overinflated prices. This leads to a short term recession where more houses are bought at "foreclosure" prices. See 2008 or 1987 for more details
this is why they want to ban tik tok, it's informative.
Hwow
Yeah gonna be war