As far as running a simulation goes, I honestly don't see the point in wasting my time with it... You’ve essentially backed yourself into a logical corner here—if one single family holds every cent in existence, then that money ceases to function as currency for anyone else (because they'd have to be tapping into some other source of value entirely). All they could really do with that hoard is use it as toilet paper—and even then, only if we're talking about physical cash. They wouldn't be able to trade goods or services with anyone else, which means they'd likely starve to death pretty quickly, or at the very least, end up living in absolute, crushing poverty.
It’s also worth pointing out—and this is a crucial distinction—that this whole "currency debasement" scam can only happen when the government holds a total monopoly over the money supply. Back in the day, when anyone with the resources could mint their own coins, you didn't see inflation triggered by these kinds of systemic manipulations.
It wasn't some sudden "crisis" that forced them to inject new money into the system. The reality—and let's be blunt here—is that they were debasing the coinage, pulling out the gold and silver and mixing in base metals just to manufacture more currency. But this wasn't some strategic move to fix an economic hurdle; it was the Roman state—specifically the Emperor—doing it simply because they wanted cash for their own vanity projects. They loved building roads to nowhere and massive stadiums that nobody actually needed. Of course, that decision backfired spectacularly. You can practically trace the entire collapse of the Roman Empire back to that specific turning point. It’s also worth noting how they tried to implement price controls—basically a desperate attempt to fight the very inflation they caused—focusing primarily on grain, which was the most essential commodity at the time. The inevitable result? A total collapse in grain production. Every monarch throughout the Middle Ages played this same game. Whenever the state treasury ran dry, they’d just hit everyone with a tax disguised as inflation. Honestly, it hasn't changed much. We see the same patterns everywhere—from Germany following World War I, all the way through America and the USA, right down to Zimbabwe.
The fundamental issue here—and I say this quite bluntly—is that you don't actually grasp what money represents. That’s precisely why your simulation is failing to produce anything remotely coherent. 😁 If every single cent in the entire economy were somehow funneled into one family's hands, the very concept of exchange would vanish. We're talking about goods and services no longer moving through the system. In that scenario, money effectively ceases to exist—because, let's be honest, money only holds value as long as there is active commerce to facilitate. And since we know from basic economic reality that such a total vacuum never occurs... You really ought to walk us through your simulation—if you can—so we can pinpoint exactly where your logic went off the rails. 😁
The primary objective of the Federal Reserve is to maintain price stability. Without compromising this core mission, the Federal Reserve supports the economic policies of the United States while operating within the principles of an open market economy and free competition. ..."
Is everything clear now? Or do we need more diagrams?
As an added bonus—if you happen to notice that price stability is measured using a different index here in the States than what the European Central Bank uses (which places much higher weight on things like groceries, for instance)—then maybe you can finally explain the dollar's appreciation against other currencies over the last few years. You know, that famous conspiracy theory about the "import lobby."
It really ought to be specified on the back. You should just enter the digits—no hyphens or anything like that. Just the numbers themselves. Also, if you received your token today, there's a chance it hasn't been activated in the system yet.
Ashley Phillips98 said:Look, guys—honestly, anything you see being blasted in big advertisements isn't going to make you much money (in fact, you'll probably just be lagging behind everyone else). Real, actionable intel always moves through quiet channels. For instance, someone knew the West Gate development was happening near Newark—they kept their mouth shut, bought up the land beforehand, and didn't advertise a single thing about it. (I'm just using that as a bit of an exaggerated example—there are thousands of cases like it)
You won't find that kind of inside track from places like State Farm or JP Morgan Chase. They aren't going to say, "Hey there, lovely people, come grab a loan at a 6% interest rate, buy some land, and wait a few years for West to arrive or for a Formula 1 owner to build a racetrack nearby."
It’s not all insider trading... Some people simply bought land speculatively years ago and sold once the prices spiked. That’s just how the market works, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, if you own a foreign corporation and want to build something here in the States, you’ll go to great lengths to keep things under wraps so you can pick up property for pennies on the dollar. I mean, why would you overpay for land, right?
crimsonseal13 said:Just tell me, what kind of interest rates are we seeing on CDs in the European Union?
Let me tell you something... This is actually part of the problem—interest rates stay unnaturally low, which leaves people who actually want to save with no choice but to dive into much riskier waters—think stocks or real estate. And, as we’ve seen, that tends to have some pretty unpleasant consequences. 😁
Kimberly Nguyen said:Look, any bank can raise the price of a service they offer... hell, they can even roll out entirely new ones whenever they feel like it... I honestly don't get where you're getting this idea that banks can't raise fees without a signature. It's ridiculous. I mean, look at ExxonMobil—they hike up gas prices whenever they want, and they certainly don't ask for my permission or my signature before doing it. That's just a corporate decision. At the end of the day, it's on you to decide whether you accept the new price or walk away.
They can't force you into a different bundle or a specific "fan" tier without your consent, sure... but they absolutely have the right to shut down a specific package or tier altogether.
There’s actually a massive difference between buying a gallon of gas and maintaining a bank account. With an account, you have a binding contract between two parties—the bank and the client. That’s how it works in theory, anyway. In practice? Banks draft these contracts so aggressively that they basically give themselves the power to do whatever they want. 😁
Maria Thomas48 said:I don't get how they aren't a monopoly when they literally had to pay millions in fines for monopolistic behavior. Right. They made a few tiny tweaks to their S.A. and released some documents and suddenly, just like that, they aren't a monopolist anymore.
Just because someone pays a fine for being a monopoly doesn't mean they actually hold one. 😁 To be a true monopolist by definition, you have to actively use force to block any competition from entering the market. Since Microsoft doesn't have that kind of power, they don't qualify. I mean, if you really wanted to, you could just install a free operating system right now.
Maria Thomas48 said:Hyper-production and pricing don't necessarily have to be linked when you're dealing with a monopoly. Take Microsoft, for instance. They can sell their software in whatever volume they want without any thought about lowering prices. Actually, the price of every new product they release is usually higher. So, based on market postulates, Microsoft should be causing economic instability because hyper-production is happening—there’s no shortage of what they make, except for old stuff—yet the price stays the same or close to it. Basically, wealth just accumulates. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a solid example. But that isn't really the point I'm interested in anyway. Market relationships are so complex that only top-tier mathematicians have managed to solve them and create equations that actually describe how a market works.
The main thing is money as a medium of exchange. Whoever produces that money can basically buy all newly created value for the mere cost of paper, ink, and printing.
Hyperproduction is a total myth... Human desires are essentially limitless—honestly, who wouldn't want to consume more? So, claiming that "overproduction" is some kind of fundamental cause for a crisis? It just doesn't hold water. 😁 I mean, let’s be real: everyone is striving to produce as much as possible. What actually happens—and this is what Gregory Williams7 correctly points out—is that certain goods might be overproduced relative to actual demand. In those cases, the producer takes the hit, because they can't collect more than what they poured into the production factors in the first place. Their loss isn't caused by a "lack of cash," but rather by a massive miscalculation regarding how much people actually wanted their stuff. If I recall correctly, even Adam Smith touched on this logic. 😉
Look, the fact that fewer people are working in manufacturing isn't necessarily a bad thing. It’s just a reality of the modern era—a trend hitting every developed nation across America as productivity climbs and capital starts to pool in different places. 😁
That’s exactly why banks have those specific account numbers where you just drop in a reference code—it's all about the transaction ID. 😁 And honestly, those reference fields are surprisingly flexible regarding what they actually accept. At the end of the day, it really just comes down to whether the parent bank—say, JP Morgan Chase or Bank of America—feels like being helpful or not. If there's enough goodwill on their end, everything clears just fine.
Just a word of caution—they’re absolutely going to try and upsell you on a checking account or some other nonsense... You really have to be persistent and just dig your heels in. 😁 I’d bet anything their initial reaction will be: "Well, why don't you just open a checking account? We'll even throw in a debit card..." 😂
Look, it really comes down to the bank's internal policies regarding how they handle savings accounts... They should be the ones walking you through exactly what needs to be noted in the payment order—if that's even an option available to you. You can't just walk in and toss cash onto a fixed-term CD, for instance, because those usually involve signing a contract that spells out all the fine print and restrictions. That said, there are other types of savings models where you have more flexibility to deposit whatever amount you want, whenever you feel like it. My advice? Just get yourself down to a JP Morgan Chase branch and talk to them directly. 😁
They really need to clear this up with JP Morgan Chase—it’s on their end to ensure everything is properly supported. A savings account has its own specific routing info, so theoretically, you should be able to make the deposit without an issue. Bank of America will probably process the transfer (in dollars, obviously), but the real question remains: what happens once those funds actually land at JP Morgan Chase?
You aren't going to walk out of the bank with a credit card in your hand immediately... No, what you'll actually get is a debit card—one that lets you spend whatever happens to be sitting in your checking account at that moment. Now, if you’re looking for a real credit card, you have to prove you’re actually creditworthy, which usually means having a steady stream of income to back it up. I think someone earlier in the thread was asking about the whole mess of different card types and how they work for online shopping anyway.