Posts by Maria Thomas48

Gregory Williams7 said:I am simply grateful to God that people possess enough sense to ensure your ideas die right where they are conceived. If they didn't, we would all be in serious trouble. What kind of nation would tolerate anyone—let alone you—attempting to control product prices? It comes down to competition, supply and demand, and free trade. A modest amount of taxation is all that is required to season the mix.

As for you, stay out of economics.

The author says this:

Quincy:

I mean, come on. You think having that one single formula is enough? Like you could just grab it and suddenly you're running the whole world. It’s almost funny how simple people make it sound. Just one equation and boom—you're in charge of everything. It's not really like that. So, I’ve laid out all the evidence right here. Every single bit of it. And yet, nobody in this thread has actually stepped up to explain one thing. How does the world even keep spinning like this? If we look at even the most optimistic projections out there, they don't give us more than ten years. Ten years. That's it. It just doesn't add up. Once again, you guys are missing the point. Your whole conspiracy theory completely ignores the most basic elements: time and the actual labor involved. You just refuse to accept that part of the equation, because if you did, the whole thing would just fall apart. If people would just accept that there is actual time passing between when a loan is issued and when it’s paid back... it would change everything. Look, if Person A lends money to Person B at time T, and they don't ask for repayment until time T+N, then during that interval N, Person B has to perform some amount of work, let's call it W. A portion of that work—specifically the part that is W minus W1—has to go to Person A as interest. That makes sense. But the remaining part, W1, should stay with Person B. They shouldn't be forced to hoard it as paper assets or whatever instruments were used for the initial exchange. Instead, they should actually use that value. Spend it on someone else, put it into long-term savings, or just use it to improve their quality of life. It's just how it should work. Five hundred years ago, imagine a farmer getting a plot of land from some local nobleman. He’s obligated to hand over a specific amount of grain every single year. But if he just got the land, where is he supposed to get the grain from? It doesn't make sense right away. It had to take time. He had to put in the actual labor first to grow the crop before he could even think about paying that interest. The nobleman wasn't demanding grain out of thin air; he gave him the time necessary to work the soil. Back in high school, I really struggled to wrap my head around the whole time component. It just didn't click at first. But after putting in a massive amount of work and just grinding through the math, it finally made sense. I realized why acceleration is basically just the change in velocity over time. And why velocity is just distance traveled over time. You have to realize that wealth accumulation is really just the difference between the labor put in over time. A slice of that work always goes straight to the creditor—even if they didn't lift a single finger—and whatever is left over belongs to the debtor. As long as time keeps moving and people keep feeding their labor into the system, interest can always be paid back.Look, money isn't really meant for hoarding extra labor. It’s just a tool for swapping goods and services. That's the whole point.

Who exactly is getting those interest payments back, and for what reason? Honestly, we don't even need interest in a money injection system. It’s just a setup designed to keep the whole thing running by forcing inflation on prices. People seem to have this idea stuck in their heads that prices absolutely have to go up, but they don't actually grasp the underlying cause. That's why any talk about maintaining stable prices sounds completely irrational to them. It’s because the entire logic is built on profiting from price gaps, middleman maneuvering, bank interest, and all that other stuff that has nothing to do with actual labor in the real economy. So, where is the profit actually going to come from? Seriously.Honestly, you guys don't seem to care about anything as long as there's still a chance to squeeze out some profit. It’s really just thinking without a single ounce of actual wisdom.

lonehawk5 said:Hey, lonehawk5...

The whole point of this is to make sure that imported inflation doesn't bleed into our pockets... we can't let the cost of goods coming in from overseas drive up prices here in dollars. It just shouldn't happen...

Are you seriously asking if foreign prices are an exogenous or endogenous factor? Man, what kind of question is that... It's obviously both, depending on how deep you want to go down the rabbit hole! Everything is connected... You've got global supply chains being hit by stuff happening halfway across the world, which is totally exogenous, but then you've got domestic demand and local market shifts pulling the strings from the inside too... It’s all just one big, messy loop... Honestly, why even bother splitting them apart when the whole system is such a chaotic wreck?
How exactly are we supposed to have any say in what things cost over in France? Like, seriously... how does an average person living here in the States influence prices on the other side of the Atlantic? It feels totally pointless...
Look, prices change everywhere... from one state to the next, it’s all over the map. And this whole idea that everyone is suddenly going to have some massive "epiphany" and change their entire attitude? Please. It's nothing but a total pipe dream...
Look, you’re stuck with one cold, hard fact: if the price of something goes up and you insist on keeping it at the old rate here in the States, you’re basically just throwing money away... You'll be operating at a loss, plain and simple. It’s basic math!
Another thing... every single "intervention" just opens the door for more gray areas. Keeping prices artificially high? That’s nothing more than ignoring what the market is actually telling us. And you know exactly who ends up footing the bill for that delusion... everyone else...
Thirdly... trying to just push greed aside? That’s ridiculous. It's literally hardwired into us. Greed is part of the human instinct—it's inside every single one of us. Expecting people to just suddenly stop being greedy is pure insanity... so yeah, I'll say it: greed is perfectly normal.
And one last thing... seriously... who actually gets to decide what a fair price is for everything? Who’s the authority here that can just point a finger and say, "Yeah, that's the right amount"? Where does the line even get drawn?...

One more thing... why on earth do you think devaluing the dollar would actually keep prices climbing? Seriously...

I'm not really interested in obsessing over price fluctuations. That’s not my thing. My focus is on building a monetary regulation model that actually holds up over the long haul. I don't care much about competitiveness, productivity, tech breakthroughs, or price parity. Those aren't my priorities, and they won't be. All those factors are just extra layers built on top of the monetary foundation.

Quincy:

How much influence do we actually have here in the States on prices over in France? It’s an interesting thought. I was sitting here thinking about how interconnected everything is lately. You look at the global market and it feels like this massive, tangled web. We make moves here, and suddenly someone halfway across the Atlantic feels the ripple. Or maybe they don't. It's hard to say for sure. Everything is so linked through trade and those big institutions like the IMF or the Federal Reserve. You wonder if a single decision made by the Government here could shift the cost of living in Paris. Probably. But then again, the scale of it is just huge. It's all very complex. Prices change everywhere. It’s just how it works from one country to the next. Thinking that everyone is going to suddenly have this massive "shift" in their attitudes or behavior... honestly, it's nothing more than a utopia. It isn't happening.

We know exactly what's driving this price surge. It comes down to a massive money supply and everyone being buried under credit. Real goods production just isn't keeping pace with that. You could say prices for certain things climb simply because the foreign currency they're priced in is inflating.

Quincy:

It all comes down to this one basic fact. The price of something you need has gone up. If you’re determined to keep paying the old price here in the US, then yeah, you’re definitely going to end up operating at a loss. That's just how the math works.

Prices could stay exactly where they are, provided our currency doesn't just inflate away. It isn't really about losing anything then. It’s just a matter of whether we come out ahead or not.

Quincy:

Another thing... every single "intervention" just creates more room for gray areas. Trying to artificially hold up prices is basically just ignoring what the market is actually feeling right now. And honestly, all of that is eventually going to have to be paid for on someone's back.

You have to pin down exactly what's driving any price hike and figure out how it can actually balance out against everything else. If there isn't any room for things to level off—if it's just one endless climb upward—then you really have to stop and ask yourself what on earth is actually going on.

Quincy:

Thirdly... honestly, trying to just set greed aside doesn't make any sense. It’s basically hardwired into human instinct at this point. Greed exists in every single one of us, so expecting it to just vanish is pretty delusional. So, yeah, I'll say it: greed is just a normal part of being human.

Can we really say that the concept of help has its limits? If there aren't any, how do you even begin to fit that into a finite world? It’s a strange thought. Everything else has boundaries. Resources have boundaries. Time has boundaries. But when you talk about helping, it feels like it just keeps going. If it doesn't have an end point, then fitting it into our limited reality becomes a real puzzle. It’s something I think about quite often. Just trying to make sense of the math on it all.

Quincy:

And finally... right now... who actually has the authority to say what a fair price is for anything? Where does the line get drawn?

That’s a solid question. Honestly, I think it's the most important one. If we could actually figure that out, everything changes. We could basically base a system where prices correct themselves toward a sustainable model that doesn't trigger inflation. It's all about that balance.

One more thing... why do you think reducing the Dollar supply would actually keep prices rising?

The current crisis shows it’s totally possible because inflation stays low.

Dollars leave circulation because people just sit on their savings or pile up profits—money that isn't being spent. You have to make up for that through non-credit issuance. Using credit just builds up even more debt and results in even less actual money moving through the system than what we currently have out there. It’s pretty standard that once you start moving those savings into investments, you’ll need to scale back non-credit issuance to lower the money supply, since the velocity of money is going to speed up. Honestly, George Washington could explain this better than me.

I feel like we already have money supply regulation happening right now through interest rates (like the Federal Reserve's discount rate). That's how the Fed controls prices. 😁.

Best,

Nicole Collins13 said:It’s simple. He’d just shrink the total amount of dollars circulating in the economy. 🤣

Exactly. But if you look at the post above, there are consequences you really have to sit with and think about.

I mean, price controls are the big hurdle right now, but honestly, who wouldn't want stable prices? It's really just the people flipping real estate or playing games with commodities who would hate it. When prices stay steady, all that shady speculation becomes a dead-end job.

William Richardson2 said:Interesting... How then do you explain supply and demand when the medium of exchange isn't money?

It’s not an "idea"—it’s a theory. And if you lack a scientific education, let me clarify: it is an experimentally proven theory. The fact that you’re wading into "serious" economic debates without knowing the basics says everything I need to know about your competence... ☕

Controlling the rate of price increases isn't controlling prices?!?! 😲

I didn't mean that. What I was actually saying is that the whole supply and demand principle—that drive to maximize price—really just explains greed. It’s just a mechanism to squeeze out more profit, regardless of whether the job itself is actually worth it. Take my work, for example. I’m currently redesigning a specific piece of machinery. That first redesign was brutal; I poured about 40 hours into getting the modifications right. If I were billing strictly by the hour, it would have cost north of $1,100. But I know nobody is going to pay that much, so I set the price at $200. Now, by the time I finish the fifth unit, I’ve already recouped my initial investment, yet I’m still charging that same amount. That's greed, plain and simple. Other guys still have to spend all that time and expertise on every single first run just to stay competitive, but my pricing is way higher than what the actual labor is worth at this stage.

I’ve basically given you all a firsthand look at how the laws of supply and demand actually play out in the real world. It's a clear demonstration of the difference between pure greed and what an actual, realistic market price looks like.

Quincy:

That isn't just some random idea. It's a theory. And if you aren't scientifically trained, I should probably mention that it’s an experimentally proven theory. Honestly, the fact that you’re jumping into "serious" economic debates without even knowing this exists says everything anyone needs to know about your actual competence and level of knowledge. ☕ Price growth control isn't actually price control. It really isn't. People get those two things mixed up all the time, but they are completely different concepts. One is about the speed at which things climb, while the other is about setting a hard ceiling. They aren't the same thing. It’s just not. 😲

Stojan Nenadović wouldn't be out there trying to micromanage prices directly. He’d go after the root cause by tightening up the money supply. Some people think that's the superior move, but honestly? I think it just sets the stage for more manufactured crises. When you pull back on the money supply like that, the little guys—the ones operating on thin margins—are the ones who get crushed. Meanwhile, the big players who maximized their profits early on will still have mountains of cash sitting there, giving them enough leverage to keep prices artificially high. It's especially obvious with monopolies. Take certain government-sanctioned roles, like a notary public. It’s a job everyone fights over, yet there’s basically zero accountability involved. They don't need to lower prices because they hold all the cards.

There’s also that whole predatory dumping tactic people use to swallow up the competition. It works like this: you take a business that isn't weighed down by debt—something sitting on a mountain of pure profit—and you use those cash reserves to fund a second venture. You price your products in that new line way below the actual cost of labor, equipment depreciation, and raw materials. Since you're essentially subsidizing the losses with money from your first company, you can afford to bleed out. It's a calculated move to drive your competitor straight into the ground until they can't compete anymore, leaving you to just step in and take their entire market share.

So, what can that company actually do about it? There isn’t really anyone to file a complaint with because, at the end of the day, it all just comes down to supply and demand, right? We don't have any real regulatory body overseeing prices. I remember when AT&T was slashing prices just like this, and they faced some consequences for it. But honestly, there are endless examples like that out there, and proving them is a nightmare—not that the fallout ever actually helps anyone. You really have to sit down and think about the distinction between supply and demand, versus overpricing, versus predatory dumping. This isn't just some issue coming from overseas, either. It's happening right here domestically. You could have one business being overpriced—or maybe just sitting on too much cash without the burden of expensive loans—and because of pure greed, they end up creating a dumping effect in other sectors. Then there’s the whole mess with banking fees. Letting that sector go completely unregulated is just mindless. We don't have a thousand different banks competing; we only have about fifteen major players. They all know each other. It’s not a struggle for them to find ways to squeeze more profit out of everything. Between those random service fees, those "reminders" that are basically just hidden penalties, and the fees for paying off a loan early... it's all just part of the game.

Hey there

lonehawk5 said:@Maria Thomas48

Quincy:

Once the reform hits, the dollar needs to be locked down tight... we're talking total stability while every other currency just goes up in smoke from inflation.

So, how exactly would you pull that off?

Once the reform happens, the Dollar needs to be absolutely stabilized so that every other currency just inflates against it.

The whole point is to stop import inflation from hitting us, so the price of imported goods doesn't spike in Dollars. You can reach absolute stability if you just maintain price increases. What’s the reason for any price increase if nothing else is changing? It’s either greed or poor yields—just bad productivity. Should we legitimize greed as "normal" and call price controls "abnormal"? If the government agrees to print extra money just to cover increased profits, then fine. It doesn't have to happen, say, during a bad harvest year—but that implies prices should drop back down when the harvest is normal again. The issue is that an increased price, even if it isn't creating actual profit for someone, ends up as a cost for everyone else. People should realize this is their contribution to keeping prices steady if, for example, last year's crop was a bust. Everyone ought to participate by taking a smaller profit. If that becomes the constant state of things, then you really have to start thinking about adjusting prices.

Again, if everyone is hiking prices, no new capital is actually being created; you're just multiplying the numbers, and that process gets messy because you have to calculate future inflation right into the product price.

wiredotter12 said:Maria Thomas48, first off... I respect the sheer amount of time and effort you put into deconstructing the mechanics of the financial system and the nature of money itself.

Your point about issuing currency backed by future production and services caught my attention. Since we are currently drowning in a massive mess here in America, and this could potentially be an escape route... can you elaborate? What does that look like specifically for the US?
The issue is that Beethoven might prefer adjusting interest rates instead, which would likely collapse the American financial system and trap us in permanent debt slavery, despite his earlier comments about the other option...
http://www.business.com/news/...will-happen
http://seebiz.com/macroeconomics/h...oru,97867.html
http://seebiz.com/macroeconomics/h...fi!,97858.html

Thanks. Regards.

I’ve talked about this quite a bit already. I try not to just copy and paste my old stuff, so it makes sense that some of these posts end up being pretty short.

Here is the simplest way to look at it. The fundamental flaw in the whole system is that money eventually ends up as someone’s profit, and that profit naturally tends to pile up. That isn't necessarily an issue on its own, provided there was some kind of mechanism in place to balance it out. But the current setup is just a mess—a total imitation of European Union models adopted back in the mid-90s because our experts didn't really know any better. It relies entirely on injecting money while simultaneously building up even larger debts. This works because fractional reserve banking allows money to be virtually multiplied—which is basically just fabrication—and the only thing stopping the entire system from collapsing is the Federal Reserve issuing more money, though even that is just more credit. Creating debt inevitably creates a need for inflation. Anyone actually studying economics knows that you have to trigger inflation just to pay off old debt with even bigger new loans.

So, the components of fraud are basically this:

Banks just create money out of thin air, and they're basically just cranking out more and more debt in the process. It's how it works.
The Federal Reserve basically just functions as a service provider for commercial banks. It’s all an illusion to make people think the government actually holds any kind of real monetary control. In reality, they don't have anything at all.

Element Solutions provides these:
Stop letting banks multiply the money in circulation.
The government needs to return that money to the people. It’s just common sense. All that cash being pumped out—it has to go back. Just a simple reversal.
We should be using active measures to keep those price hikes under control. It’s just common sense. If we don't step in, things are going to spiral.
We really need to talk about capping lending profits if we want this whole system to actually last. It’s pretty simple. If you let interest margins run wild without any oversight, the entire financial structure becomes unstable. You can't just chase short-term gains forever and expect the foundation to hold up. It's about long-term sustainability. We need limits in place to ensure the stability of the market. Otherwise, we're just building on sand.

Steps 1 and 2 are basically linked. They work together to get the economy moving, regardless of whatever mess we're starting from. Step 3 is more about keeping things steady—specifically stopping inflation from spiking and making sure wages don't just bleed out because someone ended up with an unreasonably high paycheck. Then there's Step 4. That one is all about long-term growth for both the economy and the banks.

Our economists just can't seem to wrap their heads around this one. It’s pretty simple math, really. If the government issues currency for everyone to use, then logically, they have to guarantee its long-term stability. They should also ensure it's distributed based on actual contribution and that any potential profits from lending are shared out fairly. To me, that's just basic fair play for everyone involved. It's common sense.

All those points in the reform are positive, really. But honestly, most people around here just have one thing on their minds: how to hike up prices and squeeze out every cent. They want to park their cash in a savings account and pull better returns than they’d ever get from starting a real business. It's all about that quick payout. To me, it feels like pure greed. There's just no long-term foundation there for anything to actually last.

A Donkey can carry 120 pounds. But if you try to push it too far, loading it down with everything you own just to move more at once, the animal dies. Business works the exact same way. Greed is what leads to a total collapse. I was walking through the local Farmer's Market today and saw ten different stalls all selling mandarins, and every single one of them had a price tag. $2.75What kind of supply and demand law is that if everyone is charging the exact same price? If this were actually a rule-of-law country, the inspectors would show up, see they're all fixing prices together, and strip them down to nothing just so nobody gets any bright ideas about price-fixing. It’s the same thing with any other product. It’s basically playing games with the consumer. And if they keep doing it, I’d say pull their business license for a month, then move to three, then six, then twelve, and eventually just ban them from the industry entirely. Laws should be used to build a culture of real competition, not a system designed to coordinate high prices.

And yeah, back to the whole money printing thing again. It’s actually pretty standard for the federal budget to run a deficit—it's how you build up cash reserves and generate profit in the long run. That deficit should basically be covered by direct injections from the Federal Reserve. We're talking somewhere between 3.6% and 5% of the total money supply. In US terms, that would be around 12 billion dollars, and if we weren't dealing with all this heavy importing, we could probably save a massive chunk of that. $1000 It’s per capita, annually. Of course, once you factor in corporate profits, the actual amount isn't that massive. It isn't really a huge sum of money. Half of those funds definitely need to go toward things like pensions, tuition, child benefits, and all that. Then the other half should be directed toward priority goals that provide the most benefit to the entire community in the shortest amount of time—things like infrastructure maintenance, roads, rail systems, and so on. That's where the big issues start popping up, though. You get stuck with problems involving rigged bidding processes, corruption, and services that don't actually exist.

The scale of money supply needs to be regulated. It has to stay within what the population can actually handle when it comes to ramping up production, jobs, and overall efficiency. If you pump more cash into the economy than the businesses can actually put to work, you just end up creating inflation. That's how it works.

It’s a completely different way of looking at business and making money than what we've seen before. Up until now, we’ve basically just worshipped companies that pull in massive profits, but now we really need to stop and think about what that actually does to society as a whole. If a corporation is raking in insane amounts of cash while contributing next to nothing—meaning they aren't putting in much actual labor or specialized knowledge—then that company is essentially just shifting costs onto everyone else. It devalues our currency and fuels inflation.

Quincy:

The only thing is, maybe Beethoven would be conducting the tempo right now. He could have practically dismantled the entire American financial system if he had, you know, played those same notes back then. It’s crazy to think about how easily he could have steered us straight into total debt slavery, especially considering what he was saying earlier about all this. The economic outlook is shifting. People keep asking what’s actually going to happen next with the markets and the Fed, and honestly, there isn't one simple answer. Everything feels like it's in flux right now. You look at the data coming out of the Federal Reserve and you see these patterns, but then the reality on the ground feels different. It’s hard to pin down. There’s this constant tension between inflation concerns and the fear of a slowdown. Some analysts are convinced we're heading toward a major correction, while others think we're just seeing a standard cycle. I tend to sit somewhere in the middle. It’s not about picking a side; it’s about watching how the pieces move. I was reading some theories earlier—kind of similar to what Maria Thomas48 was mentioning in that other thread—about how interest rates will dictate the next few months. If the Fed holds steady, the markets might react one way, but if they pivot, everything changes. It’s all very interconnected. Even things that seem unrelated, like supply chain shifts or consumer spending habits in places like Chicago or New York, end up feeding back into the larger macro picture. It’s easy to get caught up in the panic or the hype. I try not to. I just watch the numbers. They don't lie, even if they don't tell the whole story either. We’ll see how it plays out. It's just one of those periods where everyone is waiting for the next big signal. The economy is shifting again. It’s hard to keep up with all the moving parts lately. You look at the latest data coming out of the Federal Reserve and you realize how much everything is tied together. Inflation, interest rates, the way people are spending money—it's all one big web. I was reading about some of these macroeconomic trends earlier. It's interesting how certain sectors just react differently than others. Some people think things are headed for a massive correction, while others are convinced we're just seeing a standard cycle. I tend to stay pretty neutral on it. It’s easy to get caught up in the panic or the hype, but if you just look at the numbers, they tell a very specific story. It's not always as dramatic as the news makes it sound. There’s this idea that consumer spending is the only thing keeping us afloat right now. That might be true, or it might be a temporary cushion. Everything feels a bit fragmented. One day the job market looks incredibly strong, and the next, you hear about layoffs in tech or manufacturing. It's just constant movement. It's like when you go to a local Farmer's Market and see how prices for basic goods have changed compared to last year. It's tangible. You don't need a PhD to see that the cost of living is playing out in real-time. People are feeling it. Whether that leads to a major shift in policy from Congress or just a slow grind stays to be seen. I'm just watching it unfold. No need to rush to conclusions. Just observing. The Federal Reserve is making moves again. It’s all about those interest rates and how they ripple through everything we touch. People are talking about whether the economy is actually cooling down or if we're just hitting a temporary plateau. I was looking at some data earlier, and it feels like we're in this weird limbo where nobody quite knows if a recession is coming or if we've somehow dodged the bullet entirely. It’s easy to get lost in the numbers, though. You see these headlines about inflation and employment, and it starts to feel like a giant puzzle where the pieces keep changing shape while you're trying to fit them together. Some analysts think the Fed is being too cautious, while others say they should have pivoted months ago. Personally, I don't think there's a right answer, just different ways of looking at the same messy reality. It reminds me of when I was walking through the Farmer's Market last weekend. Everything seemed fine on the surface—prices were steady, people were buying their groceries—but you could tell there was a bit of tension in the air regarding how much things actually cost compared to last year. It's that same disconnect between the big macroeconomic theories and what people are feeling when they pull out their wallets. Anyway, the situation remains uncertain. We'll just have to watch how the next round of meetings goes and see which way the wind blows. It's all very much up in the air. Thanks, cheers.

We’re already stuck in a dead end. We owe way more than there's actually any money in the country. To be honest, that money doesn't even really exist anymore because it's just fiction on some balance sheet—it's all unbacked.

It’s pretty obvious to everyone that if we're constantly importing more than we're exporting, we aren't actually going anywhere. We just sit around patting ourselves on the back and hoping things might look better tomorrow. Plus, there's really no reason to be racking up all this national debt just to chase profits for the country. I don't even need to explain that part, right? It's just how it works.

The US needs at least 20 billion dollars in new money every single year. If you take out 7 billion that goes straight toward imports, we’re looking at a gap of 13 billion. You could probably trim that down a bit more by cutting interest payments and what we earn on loans. So, it looks like an issuance of 12 billion would likely be enough.

After the reforms, the Dollar should absolutely stabilize while every other currency just inflates away. I mean, we could follow their lead and the government would end up with extra cash, but that totally kills any long-term sustainability for pension funds. It’s pretty simple. If pension funds are accumulating capital for future spending, you don't want the value of that money dropping. That's the ideal scenario. There shouldn't be a need to lose 2% of a fund's total value every single year just to cover management fees. Honestly, it feels like a lot of busy work—just charging people for doing next to nothing. And when you look at forty years of working, those losses aren't exactly negligible. Instead, these funds could lend that capital out at competitive interest rates—maybe around 2% real interest, capped at 50% of the total pool to prevent money multiplication issues—and that would support the economy in the best possible way.

The heavy lifting involved in organizing the economy and the financial sector... that’s work for actual experts. Real specialists. It's just one of those things. Still, it's a lot to ask of me to provide some perfectly polished, end-to-end solution that covers every single detail. That's not really how this works.

The direction we take really matters. It’s about having a clear vision instead of just running random experiments on the entire nation. I’m not sure where everyone else stands on this, but honestly, it would be great if people started promoting this specific approach to others. In my view, this is the pivot we need. It’s the kind of shift that actually gets things moving and provides a permanent solution for the future.

There’s still this lingering question about how to handle bank assets if they end up uncovered after interest rates jump over 50% or 100% on non-term accounts—you know, checking and savings accounts that aren't locked away. It would probably be best to recapitalize them via a federal decree or just move those uncovered assets into a new state-run bank. All that interest income from the new bank would flow straight back into the U.S. Treasury. Interest on fixed deposits would probably cap out at maybe 1% annually. Which actually makes sense, because honestly, the currency shouldn't be losing value anyway.

The whole issue with the balance of payments deficit and the exchange rate remains unresolved. There are plenty of ways to fix it. For example, we could look at barter systems, or maybe have importers buy foreign currency directly from exporters, or just borrow specifically to cover the gap between imports and exports. If we went with that last option, we’d need roughly $50 billion a year. That’s three times less borrowing than what we're doing right now. Our debt is growing by 14 to 17% every single year. In reality, it might be slightly lower, but it's still a disaster. At that pace, you see Americans and Greeks—well, the Greeks used to—borrowing too. Most of all that money is basically just paying rent on credit money, covering imports, and a little bit going toward profit.

With this plan, we could handle domestic needs through non-credit issuance. It would cut down the interest burden to a model that's actually sustainable, and we really need to start addressing our import problem. We can do a lot more on our own. We shouldn't be buying imports if there's decent domestic stuff available; the benefits are twofold. I'm talking about food—meat, fruit, vegetables, things like that—and services, like vacations. We simply cannot afford to spend our money on overseas trips. It's pure wastefulness, and it's going to ruin us.

On the energy front, the focus should be on cutting down energy imports, offsetting them with domestic production, and pushing toward true energy independence.

So, that’s the gist of it. We need to start moving away from buying imported goods and get to work on reforming the monetary and banking systems. Then, naturally, people can earn their money fairly, because that's the only way to guarantee its stability and value.

By the way, in case you didn't know, the White House rejected this entire plan. Their priority is getting the U.S. fully integrated into the European Union, and this plan doesn't fit that agenda. You can only view that move as staying the course toward destroying the country—with consequences that will be much worse than losing a war. This administration is leading us straight toward total economic enslavement, and they aren't budging. Any true patriot should see this and fight to turn things around as soon as possible.

Stay alive and stay smart.

Amanda Allen4 said:Every single price control measure just ends up triggering shortages. If we let this happen again, we'll be forced to drive all the way to Trieste just to pick up basic daily necessities—not to mention waiting two years just to get a phone line installed!

Where does this idea come from—that price controls cause shortages? We aren't talking about setting hard limits on prices, but rather controlling how much they grow. What really matters is adjusting prices and wages to a level that makes sense based on participation, you know, comparing them to similar companies. For example, a successful corporation could pay its CEO $150,000, but the question is whether that’s an appropriate salary for the work done or if it's just a way to drain the company's accumulated wealth without any actual effort behind it.

The bottom line is that money has to be earned through labor and production. Generating profit with minimal work just devalues the dollar and serves as a way to grab more than what was actually contributed.

Amanda Allen4 said:Your proposal (see above) still relies on the idea of a government monopoly over currency (fiat money) rather than letting its market value dictate its worth—so let's be honest, this isn't some radical overhaul of the global monetary system. As long as there is even a shred of a free market for goods and services—which inherently means prices are formed through supply and demand—this little experiment of yours is never going to yield positive results.

First off. The government doesn't have a monopoly on money. They just borrow it.

The market value of issued money is essentially the same as unbacked credit. Only the former doesn't create debt.🙂

I saw someone on Wikipedia mention that the value of issued currency drops over time because the government refuses to back its value (like how they used to change the precious metal standards). That's why I mentioned that the value of issued money could be guaranteed through price controls. You could also try reducing the supply, but generally, that wouldn't be enough to break inflationary pressure. It's because the supply of goods is so broad. There is no sense in the government issuing infinite amounts of money. None. So, the money supply has to align with the supply of labor that creates new value. Because the range of goods is so wide, it's possible for certain items to see unrealistic price hikes, which devalues the money.

Supply and demand principles really just explain greed for money. For instance, a manufacturer raises prices until they hit their maximum profit. That makes sense if the product is for export (and they really go at it there). In a domestic market, though, that's counterproductive. It ends up requiring more and more money for the same amount of work, while the government has promised to guarantee its value. This means they have to intervene. The EU intervened because kerosene prices were spiking. And all of that was just following market laws. Higher prices for everyone are better for everyone.

You guys are attacking price controls and the issuance of non-credit-based money, yet you clearly realize that a system based on credit money isn't going anywhere and couldn't get started in the first place, right? A non-credit money system can always move forward without running into these issues.

Also, in a credit-based system, inflation is something you adjust rather than eliminate, because new credits have to be issued in larger amounts just so old ones can be paid back. It keeps going, like a massive wave. But staying on top of that wave gets harder every time, and every little disturbance turns into a disaster (like this crisis in the EU).

The whole philosophy behind government-issued money is that banks shouldn't be allowed to multiply it through loans. That’s the point and the key to initial price stability. Instability comes from banking greed and the massive issuance of counterfeit money (fractional reserve banking). I realized this immediately once it became clear to me that banks replaced the issuance of regular money with credit. That needs to be abolished.

Some movements for non-credit money don't seem to see this (bendyson.com), and I doubt their intentions are honest. Maybe it's a setup by bankers to make the movement look discredited by failing.

Live long and stay smart.

Over the last week, I’ve been laying out the details for a plan to exit this monetary and financial crisis. It stands as the first truly actionable proposal to get us out of this mess.

The core idea is shifting money creation directly to the state. We need to stop the multiplication of money through deposits that aren't meant for earning interest, and we have to prevent high-interest money multiplication in savings accounts. We also need price controls to keep inflation from spiraling. This sets a solid monetary foundation. From there, you can actually start building and growing the economy.

Initially, issuing new money should account for about 5% of the money supply—roughly 12 billion dollars. Half of that would go straight into pension funds, and the other half into programs designed to spark development.

For people currently paying off loans, I'm projecting real interest rates would sit around 2% per year.

You can find similar programs online at bendyson.com, or maybe Positive Money. But honestly, their chances of lasting success seem slim. They lack price controls, and in some cases, they don't even address the ban on banking money multiplication.

Success really hinges on three specific factors:

1. Controlled money issuance targeted at real goals.
2. Eliminating money multiplication within the banking sector.
3. Implementing price controls.

If you skip point two or three, you just end up with a system like what we had under socialism, which will inevitably drift toward hyperinflation.

Moving to this model would reduce debt accumulation by about ten times.

As far as I can see, this is the only feasible way to reform the monetary system. It gives us all the benefits of classic credit expansion without the massive debt buildup.

I'd really like to hear from people who want to debate the feasibility or offer alternatives to this plan. I've already sent the proposal over to the Government and President Josipović. I'm genuinely curious to see what they think. Or if they'll just stick to the usual: "We have our own program, it's fine, we don't need anything else!"

The full program is in the link at the very bottom of my signature.

After thinking about it for a long time, if nobody wants to actually deal with the mounting debt problem, there’s really only one move left: dumping $15 billion in foreign loans into investments.

Anyone who felt the sting of the crisis can celebrate now, because this basically just masks the issue for a few years. When it resurfaces, we’ll be staring down double the foreign debt. My guess? Within four years, we're looking at $150 billion or maybe even more.

Everyone should just be happy because these investments will bump up credit availability, which had been stuck due to the money supply multiplier ceiling. Still, I wouldn't recommend taking out any loans that extend past 2014.

That $15 billion investment might create opportunities for an extra $75 billion in profit—basically increasing savings. That means you could realistically expect the total debt to banks to hit $125 billion.

And you can thank the laws that let banks essentially manufacture money through multiplication and the lack of non-credit money issuance. There isn't any actual cash to pay off the debts, and God knows when there will be—maybe once people start using their heads. 😕

It's Wonderland, depending on how you look at it. We'll soon be just like Greece. First it's milk and honey, then it's blood and tears.

Stay smart, if you can!

Best,

Gregory Williams7 said:Don't be so naive. If that single formula were truly all you needed, wouldn't anyone be able to rule the world? It sounds simple enough, doesn't it? But we know better.

Even after providing all the evidence at my disposal, not one of you has offered an explanation. How does the world continue to function today when even your most optimistic projections suggest we have no more than ten years left?

Once again, you have failed to see that your conspiracy theory completely overlooks the most fundamental component. Times change. Is anything truly permanent? It appears you have provided only a single letter. Please provide the full text you wish for me to rewrite. Once provided, I will craft it into a unique, professional American English piece while strictly adhering to your formatting and substitution guidelines. Is there such a thing as too much overtime? We find ourselves constantly chasing the extra paycheck, yet we rarely stop to consider the cost. Is the pursuit of additional hours truly worth the exhaustion? Perhaps we should reconsider our priorities.You consistently refuse to acknowledge it. You reject it systematically because if you did, your entire theory would fall apart.
What would happen if you finally decided to accept that? What exactly constitutes the interval between the disbursement of a loan and its final repayment? Is it merely a matter of simple arithmetic, or does it involve more complex considerations? Time flows continuously during this period.Consider this scenario: Person A extends credit to Person B at time T, with repayment deferred until time T+n. During that interval, Person B is required to perform a certain amount of labor, W. From this total work, a portion—specifically the difference between W and W1—must be paid to Person A as interest. What happens to W1? It remains with Person B. However, they should not simply accumulate it as paper assets through exchange. Instead, they ought to utilize it to fund credit for others, invest in durable forms of savings, or simply improve their overall quality of life. Is that not how value should circulate?

Five hundred years ago, a farmer was granted land by a nobleman. In exchange, he was required to provide a specific amount of grain every single year. But where does a man find such grain if he has only just received the land? It had to be produced from the soil itself. Times change. Is that not always the case? Even the common man was forced to comply. Save work. In order for the grain to be harvested and for him to cover his own costs, what must happen? What becomes of our interest rates?A nobleman didn't just demand grain out of nowhere. He gave it. Times change. What remains? Peasant. It is functioning..

When I was in high school, I struggled to grasp the concept of time as a dimension. It didn't click. But after a great deal of effort and study, everything changed. I finally understood why acceleration is defined as the change in velocity over time. Why is velocity simply distance divided by time? It all makes sense now.

You must also understand that changes in wealth represent the difference in labor invested over time. A portion of that labor is allocated to the creditor, regardless of whether they performed any actual work, while the remainder stays with the debtor.

As long as time continues to pass and people continue to pour their labor into the system, interest can always be recovered. Money should not be viewed as a tool for accumulating surplus labor. Instead, it serves as a medium for the exchange of goods and work.

Don't you see? If I give you cash and demand more back in exchange to turn a profit—and I do this repeatedly as I please—my accumulated profit shrinks the amount of money actually circulating, which eventually leaves you broke. Mr. Stole made a good point about how turning part of that labor into savings or profit technically slows down circulation, leaving you short on the cash needed to keep things moving. That shortage turns you into debt slavery because the only way to expand the money supply is through credit. And the reason this happens is that the Government basically handed control of the money over to the banks. It's literal. Banks have a franchise to issue money, yet in most cases, they aren't even using their own capital to do it. Then, when a banking crisis hits, the Government usually steps in to bail them out.

Banks also drive inflation because during credit expansion, they don't care about the current supply of goods or actual demand; they only care about boosting their profits.

Those of you who are constantly terrified of inflation should really be pushing for real banking. If you did, you'd realize the lack of fresh cash is just a result of slowed circulation caused by all that saving and profit-taking.

The first steps I would take to end this cycle of debt slavery would be:

1. Shift to real banking. Any bank that can't pay its debt back to the Federal Reserve for issued credit would have to forfeit its claims against the Federal Reserve's assets (since 86% of credit placement is essentially non-existent money). In that case, $20 billion in interest claims against banks would drop down to $2.8 billion.

2. The Government would finance its deficit by issuing money based on an agreed-upon maximum calculation—basically stretching itself as far as it can go. That would be roughly the minimum amount equal to the earnings on taken credits (about $17.2 billion, or 5% of GDP).

3. Anyone unable to repay their credit would become a recipient of state assistance.🙂

Isn't it absurd that the Government finances itself through the bait set by banks, which they produced with the help of the Federal Reserve via their 14% share? With my moves, the Government could break its own debt cycle.

See? It's possible, if you actually think about it.

Regards

Paul Anderson2 said:Yeah, let’s put it this way. Suppose our central bank somehow prints a mountain of dollars. Or even better, an even bigger mountain of Euros. They just hand out $500 to every citizen, or they cut taxes, so everyone basically has more cash in their pocket than before.

Then everyone heads down to the store to pick up a new phone or a TV. That clears out the imported goods sitting in warehouses and keeps manufacturing in China humming along.

Meanwhile, since everyone suddenly has extra cash, more expensive houses start selling, and some people might decide to buy land they couldn't afford before... so, I guess prices start creeping up a bit.

In the end, everyone’s got their gadgets and cars, but housing and land prices go through the roof. That’s pretty much what happened here in America, except we didn't print the money; we borrowed it from overseas instead. It ends up being the same thing—the only difference is we actually have to pay it back.☕

It's pretty obvious that we live in small economies where the playbooks used by giant economies don't really apply. A dollar is a dollar, and a local currency is just a local currency. America runs the world, while a small nation in the US doesn't carry nearly the same weight, and its currency reflects that.

I don't think you get it. It isn't just that you have to return the principal, you also have to find the money to cover the interest, and according to the law, new money isn't issued without credit obligations?? That's the core of the scam—credit money and stripping away monetary power.

Is that enough for you to see through the deception? Also, the current system generates inflation through credit expansion, so there's no problem there. Isn't inflation something to worry about? Especially since there isn't any real money to pay it off. It feels like jumping off a skyscraper to me. You're falling faster and faster, and you're just comforting yourself because you can fall even faster. Only the skyscraper isn't infinitely tall, and the jump ends in a catastrophe.

Regards

I was watching the session at the Capitol today, and it wasn't until the very end that Ljubo Jurčić brought up the possibility of using money issuance, arguing that it really ought to be backed by actual goods and services being produced. He touched on that whole issue of uncontrolled money printing, something people remember from the days of the Mexican Revolution.

It’s a shame he didn't point out that this might actually be our only realistic way out of this debt crisis, especially considering he was speaking to a half-empty room in Congress.

Since we're talking about the national budget, I have this perfect example of a balanced budget that shows some pretty interesting consequences:

"Imagine a country functions like a service provider—think of road workers, farmers, and millers. The road worker is in public service. Every year, he earns 99 gold coins for his work. From that, he pays the farmer 66 gold coins for food. Then, the farmer takes those 66 gold coins and pays the miller 33 gold coins, plus maybe some food through bartering. Now, for the government to get its budget back up to 99 gold coins, it charges each of them 33 gold coins in taxes. In the end, the state again has 99 gold coins to fund public services.

Why is this example worth looking at? Well, the GDP here is 99+66+33=198 gold coins. The state budget is 99 gold coins, which is exactly 50% of the GDP. It looks a lot like our current situation. But let's look at what happened to the wallets of the road worker, the farmer, and the miller. At the end of the day, they all ended up with a profit of 33 gold coins, which the government had to take away via a 100% income tax just to fill its own coffers. Nobody actually managed to make any money. Basically, they all worked the entire year for nothing, and their only real earnings were in goods through barter, not cash. If any one of them had actually tried to save anything, the others would have definitely ended up in debt to pay their taxes.

That was an example of a balanced budget. This scenario shows that in such a case, the total sum of monetary earnings for the citizens equals zero. That’s also the scenario where no single citizen falls into monetary debt. Of course, that assumes a 100% tax on profits.

And here is the important part. Only if the state were to mint some new gold coins and collect much less in taxes would the total earnings within the community actually turn positive. So, how does that sit with American law regarding the Federal Reserve? The rule says there is no minting of money (except for special circumstances), yet new money is being issued just to service even larger debts. Looking at the example, it's clear there isn't enough money to pay off interest on the debt because the money supply isn't expanding. Only the Federal Reserve can issue dollars, but they can legally claim more dollars in credit than they actually issued. If anyone actually looked closely at whether those dollars exist, it would be immediately obvious that the whole thing doesn't hold water. "

Best,

Hearing rumors about ending the Federal Reserve, I reached out to an old schoolmate who’s been living in the States for ten years now. He’s pretty much indifferent to politics, and honestly, he actually learned about the whole Federal Reserve issue from me. If he represents the average person, then the general public really has no clue how the Federal Reserve operates or why we might need to change the laws.

On a different note, daily life seems to be heading exactly where I predicted. There’s no money, and there won't be any (you can barely notice the tourism impact), while our government just keeps cooking up new ways to cloud the reality of things. They’ll probably hike the sales tax or maybe try taxing bankers. The opposition is clueless too. One side claims they can slash billions in spending, while the other says investments will end the crisis. Anyone following this thread knows the result will just be us sliding toward a situation like Greece's, regardless of the debt levels.

Now, economists are acting all smart, claiming the government's moves won't work. And some of them were even part of the team that designed the original bailout programs. That’s the only proof you need of their incompetence. It’s easy to say "this isn't working." You should be saying exactly what needs to be done—and making sure it's actually true!

And we know exactly what needs to happen:

- Publicly disclose the real reason for this total collapse (the laws governing the central bank)
- Find solutions through public debate—explain why and how the state should issue money (instead of banks doing it through endless credit loops)
- Pass the legislation and start implementation
.....
- Halt access to the EU
- Stop paying interest whenever possible
- Start issuing non-credit money
- Educate the people on the massive value of buying domestic products
- Develop a strategy for energy and food independence
- Tie all social benefits to community service for reduced hours (there is no money without work)
- Cut down the number of unnecessary people in administration
- etc.

Regards
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. Maria Thomas48, what happens if someone runs for President in the USA on a platform centered entirely on ending the Federal Reserve, and the people actually cast their votes for them? We already have Ron Paul in the mix, and Dennis Kucinich might follow suit. Given that Ron Paul currently commands a majority in the House of Representatives along with 32 senators, he would only need to secure another 19 senators to tip the scales.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the banking lobby was cheering for both sides. Just abolishing the Federal Reserve means you have to pass new laws to make it work. If they pass the wrong law, you might end up with two different stories. One is good: We don't have the Federal Reserve—Hura. Aliii, we end up with a new law that is even worse than the one about the Federal Reserve.

How do you even push through a solid foundational law regarding money regulation when economics departments are still teaching the old way (the banking way)? How can that happen when bankers control the media? They really should be running an active campaign against the credit system right now just to spark a public debate on solutions. Maybe I'm just poorly informed, but I'm not hearing anything about it. I'll check into it because I have a school friend in America. And I believe this would be discussed at the G20 summit too, since other countries also use a pure credit system. If the public doesn't get involved and the economic experts mostly stay silent, I am certain a new law could just be another massive deception lasting 100 years.

Regards

sites.google.com/financijskisustav/home

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, the solution lies in debt forgiveness. I am uncertain whether China operates under a specific theory or if this is merely incidental, but they effectively write off 45% of their loans, essentially turning them into gifts. This allows China to maintain prices that are 45% lower than those found in the USA. In response, the USA demands that China appreciate the yuan by 45%. The true exit strategy is for the USA to forgive its own debts to drive down costs. Had mortgage debts been wiped clean, for instance, we wouldn't be facing these crises at all. However, the inevitable outcry will be that loans weren't repaid and interest wasn't collected. A loan can be serviced for decades—perhaps even fully satisfied in reality—yet officially, it remains unpaid and the interest uncollected. We see prominent citizens in the USA committing horrific acts of violence against their families because they cannot satisfy creditors who already possess far too much wealth. You and I are proposing something that could resolve this crisis peacefully, yet those opposing us are merely fighting to preserve the credit-based money system. They are protecting the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. One day, the entire structure will collapse. Perhaps people will finally realize that your suggestions were reasonable when they find the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds hanging in the middle of New York City. Ever since its inception, the Federal Reserve has remained uncontrolled. Congressman Ron Paul authored the book End the Federal Reserve, and he is nearing a majority in Congress that should finally terminate the rule of the Fed. We are approaching the centennial mark since the Fed seized the right to create money. That moment will signal the end of the Federal Reserve, and once that happens, everything else will change as well. Let us hope it happens through peaceful means.

Judging by our politicians, I wouldn't pin too many hopes on ending the Federal Reserve through a political decision.

Regards

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, within a system of pure non-credit money, savings are essentially converted into credit, which becomes a private transaction between the bank and its clients. It is vital that banks refrain from creating new money through credit; instead, new money should be issued solely by the state as non-credit money. This type of currency is necessary to facilitate additional production, a point where you are entirely correct. Perhaps China is currently navigating that specific phase. However, the USA has entered a stage characterized by a decelerating velocity of money. While increasing production efficiency drives up supply, an increase in consumption rationality leads to a slowing velocity of money and a subsequent drop in demand. This imbalance is also offset by non-credit money. The amount of non-credit money required to support increased production is precisely equal to the amount needed to counter decreased consumption. Friedman proved this principle, though he failed to realize that non-credit money is the ultimate solution. Boson stated at the G20 summit, "We propose a system of non-credit money, where the creation of money is decoupled from lending." The headline of that piece reads, "To solve this crisis, we must think outside the box." Money is created as a gift and lent as credit. If we simply decouple the creation of money from the act of lending, our monetary problems will vanish.

Mr. Patel. You managed to pack a lot of heavy concepts into just a few sentences here. I agree with all of it. The big question remains, though—how do we actually manage the transition to a non-credit money system? Interest-bearing debts eventually exceed the physical capacity to convert labor into monetary profit without losing value in the currency itself. You don't talk about that part very often.

Regards

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. Maria Thomas48, an issue regarding non-credit money isn't something that can be accounted for through labor alone. Labor represents merely one segment of the total cost structure. It was only Mark who operated under the delusion that work was the sole variable of importance. According to my own formula, it becomes clear that supply and demand carry equal weight in this equation. If supply and demand reach equilibrium, then the introduction of new money becomes entirely unnecessary. For money to function, supply must exceed demand. That specific surplus—once adjusted by the velocity of circulation—determines the exact volume of currency required in circulation. This surplus serves as the fundamental backing for money, which essentially necessitates that money be treated as a gift. No amount of gold, silver, or credit can substitute for that reality.

Mathematically, that might hold up. But those formulas you're using don't actually show where this supply and demand imbalance comes from. The real cause lies in the combination of increased production and rising savings rates. Savings naturally drive down consumption—it’s just common sense, really, because once people have met their basic needs with less money, they stop spending. So, you end up with this surge in production that can't be placed on the market because there isn't enough cash circulating to cover it. That's where non-credit money becomes necessary. It's a gap, and trying to patch it solely with credit is just a mistake. Some of that non-credit money flows into profits, while the rest goes back into circulation, trickling down through various profit margins along the entire production chain. It is worth noting, though, that this surplus of supply stems directly from human labor—the so-called added value. Once production costs are covered, that value is what fundamentally creates earnings.

The whole point of issuing non-credit money is really just about turning a slice of total turnover into global cash savings—basically profit—within a closed monetary system. Since people are the ones who actually need the money, and people participate through labor, there’s this logical link where work essentially gets converted into a portion of that cash saving. It’s only a portion, though, because most of it just goes toward paying suppliers. Then those suppliers have their own profits and their own overhead to deal with. It's a cycle. Without injecting non-credit money into the mix, the only way to achieve any kind of monetary profit would be to rely on the financial losses of everyone else. If you run that loop over and over, you inevitably trigger an economic and financial crisis.

Access to credit basically paves the way for financial growth, helping businesses expand production and actually hire more people. It isn’t some magic wand that guarantees everyone will strike it rich. It just means there's a much smaller chance that a company with a killer product will go under simply because they lacked the liquid cash to scale up.

Here's an example. Why barbershops are failing. It isn't because the stylists lack skill or because they’re charging too much. They're struggling because the average blue-collar worker just doesn't have any extra cash left over to spend on personal grooming.

It’s actually pretty hard to pin down the exact amount of non-credit money floating around right now because the entire financial system has spiraled into this massive debt crisis. We’ve honestly been in a total mess for quite a while now, but nobody really wants to admit it. We’re looking at sixteen years of non-credit money supply gaps alongside even deeper levels of debt.

We really need to pivot toward non-credit-based money systems. At the same time, we have to take some massive, serious steps to actually tackle this debt crisis—I’m talking about direct government intervention in interest rates and total debt amounts. But here's the thing: you can't really do that while being part of the EU. Not at least for now. The administration and all these politicians... they just have the wrong objectives. They're basically lying to us about what the end results will actually mean for the country. Honestly, joining the EU was probably the worst move we could have made. Once that happens, you're stuck trying to convince 500 million people that the whole system is just one big scam. It’s just funny how much people love the system. Even when everyone is staring down the barrel of a massive financial meltdown, most folks still insist the problem lies somewhere else entirely. It's the same story in a hundred different countries. Honestly, you don't even need to look deep into it—just one glance at the terrible statistics tells you that something is seriously broken.Massive progress and endless construction everywhere, but the end result is just a mountain of debt used to generate infinite profit. Honestly, people need to wake up and just do the math.



It's just a basic logical reality. You don't even need to run the numbers to see that the whole system is broken and fundamentally dishonest.

Best,

Gregory Williams7 said:Money is defined as a medium of exchange for goods and services.

Because of this definition, the system requires enough liquidity to ensure that all transactions proceed without friction.

Money is not a vehicle for savings. By definition, it is a mistake to maintain enough cash reserves for everyone to save in currency, as this inevitably triggers inflation—leading first to galloping inflation and ultimately to hyperinflation.

True savings are found in real assets: vacation homes, farmland, canned goods, tea, cigarettes, or other tangible stores of value that hold their worth over the long term and offer practical utility.
I realize it is easiest to reduce the concept of saving to the mere accumulation of paper. This is especially true when dealing with bank accounts where one loses track of the actual physical currency involved. However, in practice, paper money is not designed for that purpose. Your theory is flawed because its fundamental premise—that one should save in currency—is incorrect.

Fair enough. The idea itself makes sense, but it’s just not doable right now. Big multinational corporations, major banks, and all the massive capitalists out there hoard cash for very practical reasons. If you tie everything up in real estate, you run into liquidity issues when you actually need the capital.

Also, I personally think most of us think about cash savings first, and then once we have enough, we look into investing in something tangible and solid (which requires a bigger chunk of change). Right now, we can't even reach a stage where national-level savings are being built up, because the credit system just keeps creating debt and funneling earnings directly into the hands of lenders.

Best,

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, there is no distinction between a mathematical formula and reality; they are one and the same. You plug actual figures into a formula and you receive an actual result. If you input flawed data, the outcome will simply reflect those flaws. The result is invariably accurate because it precisely quantifies the amount of non-performing capital required. One must simply provide the correct variables to achieve a correct conclusion. Mathematics remains an exact science, regardless of opinion.

Sure, math is exact, but the amount of non-credit money being released has to be balanced by actual labor to keep the value steady. A lot of that money ends up sitting in savings—basically profit. That isn't an issue as long as there's room to grow employment and invest in things that create jobs. That’s how you back the money supply with real work. Once you hit a ceiling on employment, things change. We can see this happening in China right now with the effects of excess money—spending on luxury goods is climbing. In a way, that's fine because it creates ways to spend up those savings. Space tourism is a good example of that too. Extra cash opens up possibilities that wouldn't exist if we were always stuck with the same fixed amount of money. But, it also opens the door for price gouging on everyday essentials. It happened then and it'll happen again. Also, excess money gets dumped into real estate purely for speculation and profit, which is a problem since housing is a basic necessity. Rising home prices without rising wages doesn't lead to prosperity. The government contributes to this too through real estate transaction taxes. I think any tax on property transfers just drives prices higher. And taxing wealth itself is pretty questionable. Wealth doesn't just create money out of thin air. You should be taxing added value instead.

Best,
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home