But when you actually sit down and crunch the numbers on how much he owes his suppliers—and just imagine the sheer hit he’d take if he actually had to settle those debts using other capital... 🤦 He’s essentially using them to bankroll his own expansion. Interest-free.
Well, here are some concrete figures regarding our favorite "budget-friendly local staple" ( 🤮 ). A dip in revenue? No big deal—they’ll just stretch out the payment terms for their suppliers a little longer 🙂 , and suddenly those profit margins look much more impressive on paper again... meanwhile, short-term liabilities have climbed from roughly $4.4 billion to $4.8 billion . What is there left to say besides 🙂
Not paying your suppliers doesn't directly impact profit. It has an indirect effect, sure, because you aren't paying the interest you would have incurred if you had actually borrowed money to pay those suppliers up.
If it looks like King and tastes like King, then there’s a very high probability it actually *is* King. I mean, would Nestlé really be foolish enough to discount their own branded product like that? It happens all the time—manufacturers selling the exact same product under a different label just to undercut the price. Though, usually, they try to mask it a little bit more than this...
Look... the Netherlands is actually one of the top ten potato producers globally—they hold records for yield per hectare. 😉 Wealthy nations aren't wealthy by accident; it’s because, more or less, they simply do everything better than impoverished ones. They are more efficient, more productive. 😁
Maria Thomas48 said:If you guys actually need details, I'll just mark the half-truths and the wrong stuff in BOLD.
Why are these claims half-truths or just plain lies? Just look at the Federal Reserve statistics; the increase in the money supply was driven by credit, subsidies, and foreign investment (because there aren't any other options). The money supply has grown manifold, yet inflation has stayed within reasonable limits the whole time.
People intentionally refuse to admit that if the sources of the money supply are known, we can assume part of that money carries the inflationary mass while the rest does not. Therefore, using Fed data, we can calculate exactly how much of that is inflationary mass. This assumes the real value of the money supply remains constant. If the inflationary mass is tied to credit (which it is, since other sources are minimal), then you can precisely calculate the interest rates on that debt over time.
If someone has accurate inflation statistics from 1996 to 2009 and the total money supply figures from 1996 to today by year, I would be happy to calculate how much free value remains in the system (mostly pumped up by credit) above the inflationary mass. Basically, the money that didn't cause inflation. This contradicts the claim that all money supply causes inflation . Plus, if you had the yearly debt data, I could piece together quite a bit. The results would likely be interesting. That’s what I asked the Fed for, but they wouldn't run the numbers for me.
In step one, you're arguing for stopping the printing of money?! And credit is exactly what drives that printing. -- That’s the same thing I concluded when I said you shouldn't lend more than can be repaid. In other words, it's the same thought. But that has nothing to do with the actual claim. Inflation is measured by the rising price of goods. That means you need more money for the same item. So, the argument is wrong and lacks any basis . Step two isn't countered by any actual arguments . Step three is just a repetition without any counter-arguments . Step four fails to provide another source of money for the inflationary mass . Step five consists of false claims that contradict Fed statistics regarding the money supply . Total score: zero points. Anyone can have an opinion, but you have to defend it with logic. This narrative doesn't hold water or even relate to the claims being made.
Beyond that, my explanation accounts for everything happening in America and globally (like Greece...).
Just a bitter dose of sugar that leads straight to economic diabetes.
The reason the Federal Reserve doesn't complain about the current state of things is simple. In this kind of crisis, maintaining the exchange rate and "price stability" isn't actually a struggle for them. If the government were ever forced to pay for actual new value through primary issuance, then the Fed would find itself in deep trouble. People would immediately rush to swap their dollars for foreign currency just to buy stuff from abroad. Foreign reserves would evaporate in the blink of an eye, leaving everyone holding a mountain of useless paper and no way to buy anything real. That’s the core issue. You could bypass this by using a global currency that any central bank would have the right to issue based on the national deficit. Of course, we aren't talking about running hot money printers 24/7; I mean under the constant supervision of independent auditors. This would eliminate the need for this type of exchange rate regulation, replacing it with strict oversight of the deficit within every federal budget according to a set formula. Everyone knows this is how the European Central Bank is supposed to function. It wouldn't stop bank lending entirely, but it would provide a way to limit credit expansion because current cash flow projections—which are totally unrealistic right now—would become grounded in reality.
There. Since I’ve pointed out the flaw, I’ve essentially solved the regulatory system too. Now we just need to actually implement it, and the cycle of endless debt will finally break.
As for those jabs at my intelligence, I think Jesus said it best:
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Flaunting my IQ doesn't interest me. I didn't start this thread to outsmart anyone or brag about some specific number—numbers don't mean much if you haven't used your brain to apply them effectively. My goal was to use logic to prove that this entire financial system is unsustainable. Over the last few months, more mathematical arguments have surfaced that prove this point beyond any doubt.
That’s why I hold back from typing out the first thing that comes to mind when I read nonsense. Labeling someone isn't a valid argument in a debate. One insult just invites another, and that's a loop I'm not interested in joining. Being arrogant and rude is usually the exact opposite of being an intellectual.
Regards.
P.S. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me toward where I can find exact data on inflation (I have that part covered), the total money supply (in hard numbers), and the national debt (in hard numbers) broken down by year.
Well, you might as well just write down the answer now—you know, so some poor traveler stumbling upon this thread in the future actually finds a solution to the mess. 😁
I’m not quite sure what you mean by "take advantage of." You aren't just grabbing cash out of thin air—you're essentially earning the right to access credit based on specific terms laid out in your savings agreement. It’s all right there in the fine print, including the maximum credit amount you'll qualify for (and honestly, it's worth a quick read through the general terms those contracts usually attach to). If that amount doesn't cover your needs, you'll just have to bridge the gap with another loan, under whatever market conditions happen to be in play when you actually go to apply.
If you head over to the JPMorgan Chase website, you'll see a notice posted there... They actually have a built-in loan calculator on the site too, so you might as well plug in your own numbers and see where you stand.
"The USA Has the highest debt-to-GDP level of Any industrialized country, sitting at a staggering 227% of GDP. The government has poured money into useless infrastructure, kept interest rates pinned at practically zero for ten years, leaned heavily on massive quantitative easing, pumped in Keynesian stimulus, and—on occasion—even dumped dollars to grab more.
And what’s the payoff? Two decades of absolute stagnation. We're looking at a near-constant economic slump. The Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at 38,900 back in 1990, yet here it sits at 10,800—a brutal 72% drop after twenty years.
Paul McCulley Wants USA to go " All in " this brings to mind a frequently cited definition of insanity.
It really does make you wonder about that old saying.
Definitions of Insanity
In One Sentence: Insanity is just repeating the exact same mistakes indefinitely while praying for a different outcome. In Two Words: Paul McCulley In One Word: Keynesianism In Another Word: Monetarism
The truth is, the USA Has already goniti " All in. It IT Has tried everything under The Sun for Two decades including Keynesianism, Monetarism, and intentionally devaluing its own currency. After all that, the only real legacy is a mountain of debt totaling 227% of GDP.
It is frankly baffling how some people can look at twenty years of systemic failure and still claim to have learned absolutely nothing."
Forget those cheap analogies. Money hasn't just vanished into thin air. In fact, there’s actually way more money circulating now than there used to be—unless you're looking at the dwindling amount of cash sitting in local bank vaults across the states. Though, even then, you can only count that money conditionally at best. At the end of the day, the sheer volume of the money supply isn't what actually makes an economy tick.
You could argue that even here in America, we’ve got, say, a million residential units sitting there with an average value of around $50,000 each. That adds up to $50 billion just like that. Even if we take a conservative approach and cut that in half—let's call it $25 billion—why on earth aren't people actually starting to spend that kind of wealth?
I honestly don't get why people assume that just because there’s a balance sitting in their bank account, that money is somehow just idling away—doing nothing at all. In reality, it’s more accurate to say that money can't actually "sit" there. It’s already being put to work in someone else's hands. Besides, the wealthy aren't exactly hoarding massive piles of cash in checking accounts. If anything, when it comes to liquidity, they’re essentially net debtors. So, regardless of whatever theories you might be hearing about, don't expect the rich to come to your rescue.
We have to dial back the spending—plain and simple—because we’re burning through resources way faster than we’re actually producing them. This kind of imbalance can't just carry on indefinitely. I mean, isn't that pretty obvious? And now everyone is out there dreaming up this fantasy version of a recession where consumption stays high. But what kind of recession would that even be if you don't actually feel the squeeze?
I honestly don't see how one could even attempt a different response to such a mindless analogy—it’s completely disconnected from reality, isn't it? Aside from being equally flawed, of course.
And honestly, the most interesting part about what we’re seeing here is that this drop in spending is actually just a straightforward consequence of people finally aligning their consumption with their actual income. You can't maintain that kind of imbalance forever—it's mathematically impossible. And frankly? Trying to prop it up indefinitely is nothing short of suicidal.
It’s just as obvious to you what would happen if someone just shot you—imagine having five liters of distilled water forced straight into your bloodstream...