Value is determined by direct gains in production as a result of a fixed set of capital allocated to areas where such production is both heterogeneous and distributed as widely and evenly as the market dictates. Simply, it's a fair price for a fair unit of work.

This is simply the redistribution of tax revenue from the central bank of the US (which is itself privately held by a cabal of banks by way of owning the 12 regional feds forming the FOMC) to the banks themselves.

The question shouldn't be "what's real value", the question is are we okay with concentration of US wealth to a cabal of multinational banks that, in turn, distribute it to wherever they deem money-worthy? Because, increasingly, that hasn't been the US. Why would we be okay with that?

> Value is determined by direct gains in production

Value is determined by value added? How did you measure the difference?

> Simply, it's a fair price for a fair unit of work.

By labour? This just moves the question along to be "why is labour value?"

> The question shouldn't be "what's real value", the question is are we okay with concentration of US wealth to a cabal of multinational banks that, in turn, distribute it to wherever they deem money-worthy?

I raised the question of what value is because of the rhetorical assertion that banks don't create 'real value'. Before you can decide whether to be concerned about 'real value' it helps to establish what it is.

> Because, increasingly, that hasn't been the US. Why would we be okay with that?

I'm Australian and I'm OK with that. Do you suppose that when money is invested overseas it miraculously disappears, never to be seen again?