Sure, you might see minor discrepancies popping up between markets—though they usually don't stick around long—but for the most part, the math stays sound. When it doesn't? Well, that’s just a golden opportunity for profit, and someone is always there to swoop in and snap those gaps shut immediately. Most major financial institutions will jump straight into the arbitrage process the second they spot any kind of imbalance.
And what of it? The previous administration was absolutely obsessed with conspiracy theories—always wondering if the public would just sit there and take it submissively. It left people with this lingering paranoia. These kinds of topics are really nothing more than a continuation of the propaganda we've been dealing with for the last thirty years.
On a global scale, America’s water reserves are practically negligible—almost insignificant, really. Besides, over 90% of our water consumption goes straight to agriculture, and let’s face it: desalination is actually cheaper than trying to transport water from elsewhere (assuming we even have enough to move). If you honestly believe someone is going to trade gold bullion just to get 20 liters of water to grow a single head of lettuce, then you are seriously mistaken. Our geographic positioning isn't exactly a winning hand either. Honestly, people need to finally toss those outdated textbooks from thirty years ago into the trash.
Andrew Booth29 said:The Federal Reserve always jumps in to play savior and organizes bailouts for the EU... Now we just wait to see if they reopen those currency swaps, assuming they haven't already. 😬
"The wave-like motion hitting the economic system—those repetitive cycles where booms are inevitably met by depressions—is simply the unavoidable consequence of trying, over and over again, to force down market interest rates through credit expansion. There is no way to dodge the ultimate collapse of a boom fueled by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner or later." - LvM
🧐
There you go—the conspiracy theorists are actually right for once. The Federal Reserve stepped in to rescue the European Union, just like everyone predicted. 🤣
And who is going to step in and save anyone at this point? It’s hard to say... honestly, it's just a complete mess. 🤣
LvM is a legend—think about how this applies to the US today (and beyond):
"In the eyes of cranks and demagogues, interest is a product of the sinister machinations of rugged exploiters. The age-old disapprobation of interest has been fully revived by modern interventionism. It clings to the dogma that it is one of the foremost duties of good government to lower the rate of interest as far as possible or to abolish it altogether. All present-day governments are fanatically committed to an easy money policy."
🙏
China is staring down a "hard landing," and Japan is teetering on the edge of an epic tragedy...
Honestly, my favorite kind of thing is watching these conspiracy theories surface just to defend failing ideological positions. The EU is a sinking ship—and frankly, most of the blame lies with them. The Federal Reserve has stepped in to bail out the EU several times during this crisis, and I fully expect they’ll do it again.
The Federal Reserve always jumps in to play savior and organizes bailouts for the EU... Now we just wait to see if they reopen those currency swaps, assuming they haven't already. 😬
"The wave-like motion hitting the economic system—those repetitive cycles where booms are inevitably met by depressions—is simply the unavoidable consequence of trying, over and over again, to force down market interest rates through credit expansion. There is no way to dodge the ultimate collapse of a boom fueled by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner or later." - LvM
There’s really no reason for the southern members to stick around the EU if those transfers from the north are cut off—and conversely, there’s zero reason for the northern countries to stay in the union if those transfers keep flowing. The game of chicken... 😬 Either we see a breakup, or the northern nations take over via forced administration of the south. Honestly? The second option is doomed from the start for more reasons than I care to list. A breakup of the EU might actually be the refreshing shake-up needed to allow for a recovery, even if the initial fallout would be incredibly painful. Trade would likely remain more or less free, and nations would still cooperate—just as independent, sovereign states.
copperhound122 said:So, if that's the case, what exactly is the issue regarding liquidity for banks within the European Union? They have a massive pile of solvent savers behind them. Perhaps the real issue lies in those very savers fleeing the Eurozone for the "liquid" zones of the independent monetary systems in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, or the USA. It is almost as if those countries believe they can guarantee the liquidity and solvency of European Union banks simply by hoarding Euros. It would be quite enough for the Eurozone to attempt to buy up banks using "liquid" funds—using the Francs, Dollars, and Pounds they currently hold to recapitalize an "independent" monetary system that is, in turn, trying to sell them "cheap" Euros. It's a strange logic, acting as if the Eurozone is a buyer capable of guaranteeing the liquidity of the Pound, the Franc, or the Dollar just because they possess the Euro.
Quite simply, why should banks outside the Eurozone even be permitted to operate within the European Union and the EU at all? If they want to act independently, they ought to conduct business as independent monetary entities in Africa, the USA, or Asia—entirely "independent" of the Euro, the EU, the Eurozone, or any EU guarantees. Besides, if they truly feel the need to enter the Eurozone, the British could always just use Greece as an example; they could bail them out with Pounds and fold them into the UK monetary system, assuming they are actually as "solidary" with the Eurozone and the EU as they claim to be.
The issue for Eurozone banks isn't fundamentally about liquidity; it's that they are insolvent. People aren't just worried about cash flow—they're terrified of losing their deposits, so they move that money elsewhere: to Switzerland, the USA, or more stable European Union members like Germany and Austria.
copperhound122 said:I wonder if the countries within the Eurozone, driven by this sheer terror of a "non-binding" breakup of the European Union, will eventually just cave in and let the United Kingdom dictate monetary policy for the whole Eurozone. It’s a ridiculous thought, really—using the money of Eurozone nations while their own Pounds remain perfectly safe in Swiss banks, where they can manipulate their own "transactions" and the exchange rate of the Franc at will. Especially now, seeing how the "stunned" Greeks—who aren't much different from the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Irishmen, or Icelanders—have essentially "strengthened" themselves by shifting away from the Euro, leaving Eurozone banks insolvent after pulling their cash out. I guess one might think it isn't an issue, but what happens if the European Union raises the threshold for the Euro to combat that insolvency? That would effectively pull all the Euro tied to the Franc, the Dollar, and the Pound out of circulation. Of course, it could stay linked, but then the guarantee for those transferred Euros held in foreign currencies in banks outside the Eurozone would have to fall on the shoulders of US, UK, and Swiss banks, given their independent monetary systems.
But honestly, it doesn't seem to be a problem for the people in the United Kingdom. They have plenty of money sitting in private accounts, practically begging to be used to protect the Pound. I mean, didn't we see those "anonymous" patriots a year or two ago, willing to hand over their own private wealth to the state just to preserve the independence of the UK monetary system and the Pound?
Withdrawing deposits doesn't make a bank insolvent. It makes them illiquid, sure, but not necessarily insolvent. 😁 The causality is actually reversed here—deposits are withdrawn because the banks *are* already insolvent.
If I’m following your logic correctly—and I’m trying here—you’re suggesting that people find fulfillment simply because the numbers on their bank statements are ticking upward? That true human happiness is found by just cranking up the money printers and tossing cash at everyone like it's confetti? 😁
I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. By definition, total costs must equal total revenue within a closed system—it’s a fundamental accounting identity, something you actually noted on your own page. A transaction is an exchange, plain and simple; there are always two sides to the coin—one party hands over the cash, and the other receives that exact same amount. So, I’m asking you to please define your terms precisely, because it’s clear we aren't talking about the same thing. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood something on my end, but let's get our definitions straight.
No, I am being serious here. I’ve been looking through your pages, and I distinctly remember seeing a formula stating that total revenue must equal total expenses. Now, suddenly, you're showing costs—or expenses, if we're being precise—exceeding the revenue. So, I’m just wondering: where am I missing the mark? Perhaps we aren't even using the same terminology?
Economics isn't some magic wand designed to fix every single imaginary problem someone manages to dream up. Seriously—tell me, how is economics supposed to solve this one: a tiny town of maybe a hundred people where every single resident insists on walking on eyelashes? How? How exactly is Chartalism going to provide a solution for that? 🤷