The how, my version... just a theory.

They do it by creating 'perceived' wealth effortlessly out of thin air, and then annexing real wealth through the tax code, but more inportantly through inflation (the hidden tax). Try to think of it as financial feudalism.


They don't care about collecting paper which is worthless anyway, and they have the sole power to create as much of it as they could possibly want. What they can't do is make paper produce 'real' wealth. They need people willing to accept paper with numbers and faces and signatures on it to do that.


"Here's some paper so you can get started building that house/factory/store. What's that, you've run out of paper to give us back, that's okay, we'll just take the house/factory/store. Would anybody like some more paper?"


Yes of course, and after a period of fantastic expansion, they slam the brakes on the magic paper/credit machine and wait for the serfs to run out of paper. Once the factories, appartment complexes, shopping centers, corporations, media outlets are recentralized in their hands, you start hearing the siren song of "paper, paper, paper for everyone!".


Most banks are solvent, but they won't lend, why? Because they WANT more deed/share holders to run out of paper. Once the real economy is re-consolidated by the paper economy, it will be time to put everyone back to work, gotta get that paper yo! And so the paper/credit machine will start rolling again at a fever pitch, so by the time you cash your paycheck and get to the grocercy store, YOUR money is already worth less, buys less. So you have to just work harder! By the time you retire, you can't even live off the pension. You scratch your head wondering how you worked hard all your life and are struggling to get by.


Productive effort creates wealth, but over time, your share of the fruits of your labour becomes smaller and smaller as the inflation erodes the quality of your life and taxation shackles your ability to compete.


Well, that's my version of "the business cycle" anyway.


If only Mises was studied as much as Keynes.


Sorry in advance if this post is annoying or seems stupid or simplistic to anyone, but that is what I see.