The author, in attempting to argue that the Federal Reserve system is a giant conspiracy designed to enrich the banking elites at the expense of the citizenry, makes the following argument (p. 76):
Consider that when a person deposits $50 in a bank, this is in effect a loan to the bank since it must be repaid on demand. Therefore, on the books the $50 is considered a libaility. However, the bank then loans the $50 to someone else who must repay it with interest. Now the $50 is considered an asset. The same $50 is both an asset and a liability, thus counteracting each other, proving that money is essentially worthless.
Does anyone else that actually reads this want to comment on this argument before I do? I’m having a very difficult time swallowing it, as I can’t help but feel that in making this argument, the author is neglecting an important philosophical principle. If only I had paid more attention in my philosophy classes…