Posts by Maria Thomas48

crimsonfalcon10 said:Why fight inflation so hard? Isn't inflation the only thing balancing the ratio between savings and debt? That makes it useful! It devalues savings, yes, but it also shrinks the weight of debt. Besides, even Ben is pumping non-credit money into the economy right now. Overnight loan rates are sitting between 0-0.25%, which is basically a handout. On top of that, he's buying up junk bonds that are currently worthless in exchange for dollars... to me, that acts like non-credit money... and despite what people say, that money isn't even truly circulating in the economy...

You talk about the struggle for credit money as if it wouldn't exist without non-credit money... but without that pressure, we wouldn't see any progress at all! Inflation and interest rates constantly push me to increase my income. That is exactly why I invest in my own knowledge. I don't waste my time thinking about how to cut costs; I focus exclusively on how to boost revenue. This is why I maintain that inflation is actually a good thing—it drives people to work harder and improve themselves. Without inflation, the imbalance between savings and debt would become unmanageable, and that instability would eventually break the whole system.

Regarding the velocity of money... perhaps in the long term (over a 10-year period), the velocity is declining, but in the short term, it moves in a sort of sine wave. There will always be moments where circulation speeds up or slows down.

crimsonfalcon10, you're forgetting that inflation expands the money supply. Since you only have access to loans, that means your actual principal engagement just keeps climbing. I showed this using an Excel sheet—debt (assuming purchasing power stays constant) eventually grows by the sum of inflation plus interest. In practice, that means you can't actually pay back the principal because the debt is growing faster than inflation can catch up. It’s basically debt slavery. Is this economic masochism or just a lack of common sense?

Best,

Andrew Booth29 said:Boris is taking a stand against the nirvana fallacy 😬

Hey g. Somied, would you be able to use math to prove that the three-deficit equality isn't actually correct? In his book, Dirk Krueger " Makroekonomik wrote out that equality between the three deficits, though he didn't really draw any specific conclusions from it. I wonder if he was just worried you might call him out for a Nirvana fallacy, or if this is some sort of indirect proof that there's a deliberate gap in economic science. Why specifically at that point?

Best,

Robert Vaughn10 said:Mr. Matthew Patel12, please re-read my previous point if you actually want an informed debate. Must I draw you a map? My assertion remains: people as a whole are corrupt.
Who is this "you," and what government are we talking about? Surely you aren't suggesting that governments act solely in the public interest, or that bankers and politicians aren't deeply entwined through debt? If you truly believe what you're claiming, then I have nothing left to say...

And don't forget about the media. My whole push to get certain truths out there—because there's honestly no other way—has just shown how tightly politics, big banks, economists, and the news media are all tangled up together. And unions? That's a whole different mess.

That’s exactly why I started this thread. We’re just spinning our wheels while time slips away. Honestly, who cares about individual politicians? What matters is the truth behind the crisis. We need to spread that awareness among the public. There's no solution without general awareness. How can we act collectively if 99.99% of people haven't the slightest clue what's actually happening? It isn't enough to just say "politicians don't care." We have to use hard math to prove that the system itself is broken and that we have to force a change. But how do we do that if only ten people in the entire country understand it, while everyone else refuses to believe the obvious truth? We have to work on educating the masses. Just trading insults doesn't get us anywhere.

The three deficits explain everything. We know why money just vanishes into thin air. We know credit isn't a substitute for real value. We know a budget deficit shouldn't be funded by debt because it becomes impossible to pay back. We know that inflation within this specific system inherently leads to a crisis. We know we need a different source—non-credit-based money. Now, the issue is that we're dealing with corruption and all that other stuff. So, what now? For the next ten years, we’ll either spend our time debating or actually moving toward a solution. Mr. Stol has been debating for decades already.

We need to say: "Joining the EU right now isn't a smart move." And then list the exact reasons: "Because they operate under a credit-only constitution which is a scam and doesn't lead to prosperity. Every single EU member state is struggling under massive debt." We have the exact same system here in America, and it needs to change. Everyone needs to realize this instead of being sheep that the shepherds shear whenever they feel like it.

Regards

Matthew Patel12 said:Maria Thomas48, back in the days of the old USA, there was no such thing as non-credit money. There were brief discussions regarding the concept, but they were suppressed almost immediately. It was just a dialogue between myself and Dr. Srećko Ugrin. Dr. Ugrin once mentioned to me that he authored an English-language treatise on non-credit money and dispatched copies to thirty of the most influential institutions globally, yet every single book vanished in transit. While the postal service eventually compensated him for the lost property, such restitution is meaningless when the knowledge itself is gone. Those who rule the world through credit-based money possess an overwhelming level of power. The internet has shifted the landscape, providing us with endless exposure to the mechanics of this dominant credit system. My contention is that non-credit money fosters human virtue, whereas credit-based money breeds corruption. Because credit-based currency is inherently insufficient, people are driven into a desperate, futile struggle to acquire it. With non-credit money, there would be enough for everyone, effectively ending the bitter competition for survival.
Markos, I will provide a brief clarification on how one calculates inflation. If the nominal GDP increases by 10% while the real GDP grows by only 5%, then inflation stands at 5%; consequently, one must write off 5% of the debt to ensure nominal output aligns with real output, thereby neutralizing inflation. One would need to pull these figures from federal agencies, as I lack my own datasets or the means to compile them. I have heard reports that Chinese prices are roughly 45% lower than global averages. My assumption is that China has essentially written off 45% of its credit, turning their goods into a sort of gift to the world.
Miroslav23, an exponential curve can describe the growth of both credit-based and non-credit money; they are simply two distinct trajectories. The credit-money curve tracks a much more aggressive expansion, whereas the non-credit curve shows a more modest rate of growth. However, even a small amount of non-credit money yields a vastly superior utility compared to a massive influx of credit-based money.

Well, Mr. Patel, they might not have officially called it that, but that’s basically how it functioned right up until they printed too much of it.

Best,

Brian Nelson4 said:So, despite knowing how humans work, people actually believe that introducing a scientific method for printing new money will somehow change the behavior of those same flawed individuals. Do you realize, that a scientific method is still subject to change by the same people in charge now??

I'm not even going to touch the gold comments, though I disagree with your arguments entirely.

Where did I ever say that introducing non-credit money would change behavior? My point was that the public needs to be educated. People need to understand how and why money is produced and what actually gives money its value. Criminals have always existed, and they aren't going to stop just because we change the way non-credit money is calculated. They cause damage under the current system too, and nothing changes. If these methods are scientifically verified and everyone knows them, then politicians will finally be backed into a corner. It’s strange when you think about it—seventeen years ago, back when non-credit money was being discussed, there weren't any studies (meaning, I haven't heard of any, and neither have modern economists) regarding the calculation of issuance. I just know that Mr. Stolet had his master's thesis titled "gift card" rejected because the content was supposedly made up since there was no existing literature to reference. Basically, you can't write the first paper on a subject if there isn't already a first paper to serve as a reference. That happened back in the early 80s in the South.Also, I haven't noticed any difference in how macroeconomics is taught in America before or after 1994, but there should be a difference.. It’s not the same thing for a country's economy when credit is the source of money versus when it’s non-credit issuance.

Regarding gold. The mistake is in the logic itself. This isn't really trading anymore; it's more like bartering (which is why some people advocate for it). I give you goods, you give me gold (or other goods). The result is the same. Whether you want to buy with less gold or sell for more gold, you're doing the exact same thing with cash. In short, the community is basically asking for new gold to be brought in so they can save it. While printing paper money is cheap, producing gold costs money. If it were that easy to find, it wouldn't have any value.

How are you going to pay for the production of gold? With the paper money you threw away? Or maybe you'll just start a state-run mine and a mint? Where exactly? The US isn't exactly known for its gold mines.

Regards

sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Robert Vaughn10 said:Robert Vaughn10, it’s obvious this system is backwards. Claiming that not everyone can turn a profit is simply false. How did my ancestors, who answered to no one, generate wealth? They earned an income and spent less than they made. Who is stopping people from living that way today? It becomes complicated once governments step in, spending money that isn't actually theirs. Then there is the banking factor—interest rates, which, as you rightly pointed out, allow them to profit by issuing non-existent money, collecting interest, and frequently gambling on speculation rather than actual production. Trying to fix all of this using your proposed long-term method isn't the answer. The solution isn't just printing more paper; that should be obvious. Progress will only happen when we prioritize labor and production over mere paperwork. That isn't happening now, which is why the whole system is heading toward self-destruction.
Nothing worth having comes easy, which is why I am proposing precious metals to accurately measure created value. Paper is a joke because it’s easily manipulated in any scenario, including yours. You need to account for that variable. While the math might hold up, the social component doesn't. Expecting people to ignore greed and forgo profit at the expense of others is, in my view, unrealistic. We need to eliminate that possibility, and precious metals are the only way to do it.

I agree that not everyone can pull a monetary profit. The issue is that a lack of cash prevents those who actually could from doing so. You have business owners going bankrupt because of bad management or poor investments, regardless of anything else.

People always say: "I would be making money if I just had work." But you can only get work if someone else has the money to pay you for it. When there's a total liquidity crunch, everything falls apart. And we definitely know why. The profiteers just keep accumulating all that cash profit.

It’s especially clear when you look at banks. For them, money is just a tool for operation. The richer a bank gets, the bigger the deficit for everyone else, which means they need more cash. So, it’s pretty obvious that bankers don't want people having a free source of money; they want people to get it through them via loans, essentially staying in a cycle of endless debt.

Going back to the gold standard is pure science fiction. The demand for new money keeps growing because we make lower-quality, disposable goods now. The cost of mining gold is massive and would just add unnecessary expense. Gold and other precious metals are commodities, and they should stay that way. You shouldn't bring them into the main flow of trade. Doing that could trigger deflation and recession. History shows us this happened in the US after the gold rushes ended. And how do you climb out of a recession like that? Only with a sufficient influx of gold, maybe?!

I've already pointed out that the way this system treats increasing the money supply is as credit, which leads to infinite debt. I've shown that the community has a path toward lasting monetary profit by leveraging the budget deficit, provided that deficit isn't credited—because credit isn't easily paid back (except through exports or endless foreign investment).

We have two very strong reasons to scrap the credit-only system and introduce non-credit money. I'm not talking about printing money whenever the government feels like it, but rather using a scientific method of calculation.

Sure, we might run into issues maintaining the exchange rate, but it all comes down to unity and understanding the flow of money. The public needs to learn to buy domestic products and stop traveling abroad for summer vacations or skiing trips. Buying unnecessary foreign goods repeatedly hits our exchange rate stability. We need energy and food independence to be our top priority. We also need to fix the waste in the budget (both in agencies and director salaries). We need to overhaul public bidding processes to prevent those unrealistically high prices being tacked on, because that devalues the dollar and leads to inflation and economic crises—basically an undeserved transfer of wealth to a small minority. Stuff like that.

Let's not kid ourselves. All these problems need to be solved right now, not just waiting for some influx of non-credit money.

The tragedy is that economists and politicians won't tell us this. You can see the influence of nearly a century of control over education and politics here.

Simply swapping out the ruling party doesn't lead anywhere. The public has to realize that politicians, whether intentionally or out of ignorance, are leading us toward ruin. Without that realization, nothing changes. Until the people start demanding the end of this credit-only system, there is no way out.

Regards

Gregory Williams7 said:I am in agreement with crimsonfalcon10.

I would simply add that the exchange of goods between nations—where no single country produces everything its citizens desire—is a vital component of this entire dynamic. If I possess an abundance of raw materials for brooms and manufacture those brooms, while you possess the resources for iPods and manufacture those iPods, the sheer volume of units produced is what matters. Eventually, one could trade 1,000 iPods for 1,000 brooms, even if that seems inconceivable to you right now due to the disparity in their perceived value.

Is it the money used in trade that creates the problem?

Suppose we trade 1,000 iPods for 1,000 brooms using money as the medium.
The 1,000 iPods hold the same value as the 1,000 brooms.
However, for the money we utilized, we must pay interest to the entity that issued it to us.

From where does that interest come?

Once we pay that interest, we are left with enough money for only 990 brooms in the next round. In every subsequent round of trade, we find ourselves with less money.

Is that the point you are trying to make, Maria Thomas48?

Not quite. If you took out an external loan, then sure, that's how it works. You have a deficit because you're paying interest. But if you take a loan from a domestic bank, all that interest isn't pure profit for them. A chunk goes toward overhead—salaries, electricity, all that stuff—and it gets cycled back into the economy.

Banks and corporations aren't actually that different. Both want to make money and hit a profit margin where revenue exceeds expenses. The only real distinction is that banks can basically conjure money through the fractional reserve system. Honestly, if banks just operated using real banking with their own capital, I wouldn't have any issues with it.

The way it looks is $33 when a deposit is made, the bank issues an extra $167 and for $200 they collect 7% interest over a year, which is $42,000. At the same time, the saver who put that money down is getting 6% ($2.00). So, the bank's spread is 36% on the deposited cash. Now I have to ask: who wouldn't want to run a business with a 36% annual return on someone else's money?

Bank profits are clearly massive. Because of that, it's a total myth that a bank always has to offer a lower interest rate than what it charges. The rate offered to a depositor is just about attracting funds. And banks aren't trying to build a perpetual motion machine here. For example, if you take a loan at 7% and then put that money right back into the bank to earn a higher interest rate, you'd be winning. The "job" would essentially be taking loans just to park them in the bank for higher returns. It sounds like Eldorado. And it would work, provided there's eventually someone willing to actually take out a business loan and pay it back. Then everyone wins. Except for one thing. The person taking the loan has to dig up the cash to cover all those payouts . And some of those lenders will just want to hoard the cash instead of spending it.

It's the exact same thing, whether you look at how the fractional reserve system multiplies money or how businesses operate. They invest in costs and set higher prices with the goal of hitting a profit or building savings.

But generally speaking, all this profit that doesn't get spent creates a shortage of money in circulation. Generally, if the lender isn't a foreign bank, the money stays within the country, but it's effectively gone because someone is sitting on it as retained earnings.

So, it's pretty foolish to think that someone who profited and saved—and still has that money—is going to follow your advice and start spending their savings. There's no reason to. They continue creating profit through their actions without even thinking about it. That's how I'd think, anyway. Probably how you would too. It's just normal to work so you can save, not so you can create a loss.

If you look at the three types of deficits, you see that not everyone can profit simultaneously, and it's clear that new money needs to be introduced. It's proven that this shouldn't rely solely on credit. The other two options are foreign investment and non-credit government spending. Foreign investment implies that the invested capital eventually has to be paid back, which means an outflow of funds. Long-term, we either face being wiped out or we have to sabotage foreign investors so they can't turn a profit. That won't last long because word gets out, leaving non-credit issuance as our only escape from ruin. The third option is that foreign investment grows faster than it's repaid, indefinitely. I'd love to see that happen.

Take care.
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Nicole Collins13 said:🙏 🙏 🙏

The issue is already here, it's just that nobody is really paying attention to it. The Federal Reserve keeps the exchange rate steady pretty easily because they issue dollars by depositing foreign currency from international loans. Since some of that money flow ends up as domestic profit while the rest goes toward imports, the Federal Reserve always has enough reserves to hold the line. It’s all going to fall apart when we actually have to start paying down the debt. Once that happens, the demand for dollars will skyrocket and the exchange rate is definitely going to spike.

Best,

Matthew Patel12 said:crimsonfalcon10, you could devise whatever money supply mechanism you find most convenient, yet once implemented, the velocity of money will inevitably begin its deceleration. This is a reality uncovered by Friedman. While Maria Thomas48 expressed appreciation for the clarification I provided, I am more interested in your perspective on the matter. If the velocity of money slows down, then a replenishment of liquidity via non-credit money becomes an absolute necessity.

Well, Matthew Patel12, I’ve touched on this before. We are talking about retained earnings or just personal savings. In a purely credit-based system, the Federal Reserve usually tries to push that money back into circulation by cutting interest rates. It's hard to say much more by just reading textbooks, though, because most economic theories don't really distinguish between a strictly credit-driven system and one that includes non-credit inflows. The issue with saving is that it leads to a shrinking money supply and lower spending, which hurts the economy. So, logically, that gap has to be filled with non-credit money.

Still, there is the issue of maintaining the value of money—something you haven't commented on yet—which brings up the whole problem of earning without actually working. Things like overpaying for jobs, rigged contracts, and stuff like that. This is especially critical when dealing with government spending. Most people here probably think I'm pushing socialist ideas, but I honestly believe it's necessary to maintain currency stability. Without some level of oversight, you risk the currency devaluing or seeing a massive spike in bankruptcies because monetary profits ended up in the wrong hands through unfair means.

Best,

crimsonfalcon10 said:There are several ways to handle this... money intended for circulation is never actually 100% in motion... which means its velocity is realistically lower than what is truly possible... we need to hunt down that frozen cash and force it back into circulation... another way is to shorten payment cycles... if people get paid every single week instead of once a month, you can significantly speed up the flow of money...

So this is where I was waiting for you. It is obvious that you can make circulation work with less money on average, but there is a limit there. You can't just split payments into an infinite number of parts over endless intervals because then you run into massive transaction costs. And for that to actually work, you would have to synchronize every single company and the government onto the exact same payment cycle.

As for speeding up circulation by spending off profits and savings, that is a double-edged sword regarding the ultimate impact on the economy.

I think everything in that direction is just a waste of time since there isn't a permanent solution. That only benefits the big bankers so they can keep mindlessly extracting profit from supplying liquidity.

Regards

crimsonfalcon10 said:You’re making a mistake here... A country might be viewed as a closed system, but it's actually composed of countless open systems! Truly closed systems barely exist. For a nation to function as a closed system, it would need to produce absolutely everything internally, eliminating any need for imports—it would have to be a perfect substitute for every single product on Earth just to work. Furthermore, even if such a state existed, it would still be made up of multiple open systems. If I had a truly closed system within a country, it would essentially be an isolated entity with zero communication with the rest of the nation; you’d have to view that system and the country as two entirely separate things. The moment you introduce any exchange of goods, services, or money between them, the system isn't closed anymore—it's open!

So, let's talk about paying rent... I see people are getting all worked up over open versus closed systems. Let's just say the government is a closed system while my household is an open one. Because if my house were actually a closed system, I wouldn't have to pay rent at all—there would be no money flowing in or out!

So, the government tracks GDP, does it? $33333There's money on the horizon! $333The recovery rate is sitting at 100... now, someone from that collection of open systems just needs to tuck it away! $33 So, there are only 900 units left in circulation... Are the other players in the system ramping up their pace because of the recent economic boom and higher spending? Is the GDP still holding steady at 111.11? $33333So I can just keep paying my rent since my income stays steady... Sure, there's less cash sitting in my bank account at any given moment, but because money flows through my system more frequently, I’ve always got enough on hand to cover the bills!

Does reducing the money supply always lead to a drop in GDP? Does increasing it necessarily trigger inflation or an economic surge? Not necessarily!

If what makes you happy is expanding equations to an open system—basically using the equality of three deficits. To be more precise, when a state balances imports with exports (total trade equals zero), it acts as a virtually money-isolated system.
If there’s a trade deficit with foreign nations, things get even worse regarding the monetary profit within the community.

Sum of monetary profits = budget deficit - trade deficit = - financing deficit

or the full equality of three deficits:

trade deficit = financing deficit + budget deficit

All of this is explained in the translated book Krueger "Macroeconomics" on page 39. You can download the PDF version from the University of California economics department website. It uses the symbols economists typically use, but the essence remains the same.

Well, you can clearly see the state's monetary balance in an open system. Without a positive monetary balance, the state loses money, the economy works at a loss in total, and everything heads 100% toward a crisis. Every economist knows this, but they don't realize that by balancing the trade account (exports=imports), a reduction occurs which shows that:

Sum of monetary profits = budget deficit = - financing deficit

Which implies the following. The money savings realized by entities (companies and individuals) are then actually financed by the government budget deficit. If the state took out credit for the deficit, then it means it has to pay back more than it borrowed. Or rather, it needs to pay back more than the economy actually generated in monetary profit.

Our economists fail to see that almost direct link between monetary profit and the budget deficit. In reality, it differs because of the trade balance. That's why I try to find a solution for all countries at once and I balance the trade accounts (through swapping). That way, no single country pays off the debts of others.

Is it clearer now?

It's even easier to prove that a money-isolated community suffers a monetary loss in circulation because one part of the entities keeps accumulating monetary profit, which is explained by the slowing down of circulation. This happens because the monetary profit accumulates and is then invested.

How will you solve the monetary loss in circulation? By speeding up the circulation of the remaining money. Genius. You're close to a Nobel Prize (big money is smiling at you). Just explain it to Šuker and we'll be set. You haven't managed to convince me how the household budget would function then, or where that acceleration comes from. I know practically how it could be done, but I'd like to hear from you how to make all payments at the same time with less money in the system.

Mr. Matthew Patel12, thanks for explaining the slowing of money circulation. I have nothing to add.

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

John Doe, look, I’m no economic analyst. Even the top-tier pros get their forecasts wrong all the time.

I’m looking at this through the lens of a closed system—you know, a nation with its own budget and private entities. The whole point is that a system has to be able to function in isolation, just like any country does on a global scale. If you deny that, you're basically arguing that the entire planet can't function.

You have to realize that China, which is pulling in record surpluses, has to put that money somewhere. And they put it into the USA. That’s how Americans profited from those investments. There’s actually a recent article showing that China has its own risk assessment house for credit ratings, and they’ve flagged the USA as a really poor place to invest right now. Plus, the USA and the European Union handle public debt financing differently—though you could argue the Federal Reserve's interventions during the crisis in Greece were essentially illegal exceptions to the rule.

The global economy doesn't interest me that much. I only see it as a collection of examples where certain actions just fail to reduce debt in the long run.

You still haven't really answered my question about what happens to rent payments when the velocity of money speeds up. You explained how increased circulation comes from higher production and a rising GDP. But I want to know what happens when production stays the same but everything just gets more expensive. Here is the real question: how are you supposed to pay an ever-increasing rent if the velocity of money increases tenfold while the actual amount of cash decreases? How does that work in the real world?

Best,

crimsonfalcon10, could you walk me through how money velocity actually speeds up by, say, ten times using a household budget as an example? I’m assuming you get the idea that the amount of cash you're holding onto is inversely proportional to how fast it circulates. Like, if the velocity were infinite, you’d effectively have almost zero money left in your pocket.

And just to reiterate: you can't fix someone's poverty by handing them a loan. It just leaves them even more broke. It's the same deal with any nation under this kind of system—you can't bail out a country because the only way to actually pay off debt is to be hyper-focused on exports and basically dump the entire debt burden onto the countries you're selling to.

Best,

Here’s the projection for the USA’s inflation-driven debt—the kind of mess you create when you try to use credit to offset a drop in purchasing power. It’s basically financial masochism in action.

Brian Nelson4 said:A few questions here:

• How does this new currency actually enter the system? Does the "government" pay for services using it? Sounds fine on paper. It could potentially replace taxes. But there's the catch: government equals politicians equals the elite equals human nature equals manipulation equals inflation equals shit..."
• What stops whoever is issuing any kind of unbacked currency from overprinting during a war under the guise of "national interest"? History shows us exactly how that ends. Even if you have some percentage of gold backing, or carbon "units," or whatever... it’s still too easy to overdo the issuance through political decrees or simple manipulation.

But what counts as actual, real backing for this non-credit money? Just some political decree that's subject to change? 😁

The data on non-credit money demand basically shows one thing. It just can't act as a substitute for taxation.

Real backing for non-credit money comes from active production, not just sitting around doing nothing. You have to actually earn non-credit money; it only represents a small slice of a product's total price. Basically, it’s the profit that isn't immediately reinvested—it's how you turn surplus value into new capital. If you let that accumulate, you can use it for future investments, which means you won't need to inject as much non-credit money into the system later on. This is exactly what Mr. Stole was getting at. It’s the cycle everyone talks about: working, saving, and then investing. But that only works if the amount of non-credit money being issued is exactly what is actually needed.

Because of that whole idea that you shouldn't get something for nothing, social assistance shouldn't just be handed out for free. It really should require some kind of community service in return. I know there are already some small towns over in the States where they actually implement this kind of thing.

Funding a war—or even just defense—is an exceptional circumstance in any stable nation, provided all the other laws actually hold up. To be honest, I couldn't care less about what happens to the economy during wartime.

It’s pretty obvious that you need actual work backing up your cash flow. If someone is pulling in massive profits without doing much real labor, they’re essentially just inflating the currency—especially when they’re dealing directly with the government. My take is that any company wanting to land federal contracts in the future should have to agree to profit caps based on their total revenue. This shouldn't just apply to the big corporations either; it needs to extend to their suppliers and employees too. The government simply can't afford to be reckless with spending. When they are, it just ends up siphoning wealth away from the entire community and concentrating it into the hands of a tiny few.

I’m not saying all this because I'm some kind of dreamer or because I wish things worked this way. It isn't about idealism. These are just logical conclusions drawn from the equations. Money only actually holds value if it is literally earned through work. That is what gives it any real standing against another currency.

I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on using the velocity of money as a fix for liquidity shortages. But what I really need is some clarity here. If we assume the velocity of money increases by 4% every single year—and stays that way indefinitely—then the math gets interesting. At that rate, the velocity should double every 17 years or so. Following that logic, over an 85-year span, you’re looking at a 32-fold increase in speed.

Advocating for the way things are right now is just plain crazy. There’s no way for the current system to actually offset inflation, other than through exponential borrowing—which we already know is impossible to pay back. Every time they hike up wages, it just speeds up our slide toward a total collapse. At the end of the day, inflation is just what happens when credit expands, and that expansion only happens because people can't settle their debts without taking out even bigger loans. It's basically the Davor Šuker method. That's just how it works.

Without credit, the whole system would just grind to a halt within a few years, sliding straight into deflation and recession. It’s inevitable. It happens the moment lenders decide to tighten the tap. But here is the thing. That move would basically be suicide for them too, because once that starts happening, people will finally start looking for actual alternatives. That is exactly why Greece was handed those loans—it was just a way to buy more time. It is the same reason they come up with these bank taxes. They keep inventing new things just to stall for time. Reducing the budget deficit is just another one of those fabrications used to keep the clock ticking.

When you realize that a community's entire profit engine relies on exports, outside investments, and running a budget deficit, then everything becomes clear. It's just how the math works out. When we cut back on the deficit, the community ends up walking away with less profit. It's just how it works. You tighten the belt, you lose that extra cushion. Simple as that.It’s just going to drag more companies straight into bankruptcy. You’d have to offset that somehow—maybe through massive exports, new investments, or just piling on even larger amounts of debt. But honestly, the only way for the community to actually see a steady stream of cash profit is through a budget deficit. Of course, that has to be non-credit based. These are just facts. Even the famous economists don't really grasp this, and they spend half their time arguing for a balanced budget instead.

It’s kind of strange, isn't it? You can only really find information about non-credit money online. Not a single mainstream news outlet seems to care about it. All these claims about how unsustainable the system is... they aren't backed up by any actual math. If people actually laid out the mathematics—just like I have done here—solutions would show up immediately.

Here is that derivation again, which holds true for a closed community without credit:



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

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, those 2% don't have the slightest grasp of macroeconomics, much less you do personally. If anyone here actually understands the mechanics at play, it’s myself and Maria Thomas48. If you bother to read closely, you might eventually catch up. I have reached out to everyone, yet not a single soul has bothered to reply. Now, my article, "non-credit money as a gift," has been published in the Communist web magazine. It appears the Communists will be led by the grandson of Josip Broz Marshall, a man named Josip Joško Broz. If these radicals adopt non-credit money as their core platform, they will conquer the entire globe within two years, establishing a world order non-credit money that will effectively send the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds into the dustbin of history. That 2% of yours will sit in silence watching it unfold, while the other 98% of people on this planet finally begin to live lives worthy of human beings.
Maria Thomas48, non-credit money
will undoubtedly prove superior to gold. Non-credit money can simply be injected into circulation—or, if necessary, pulled back from the market entirely. Dealing with gold is far more cumbersome; frankly, gold was rendered obsolete a long time ago.

Matthew Patel12, thanks for the high praise, but I can't accept that assessment in general. My knowledge of economics is really just knowledge regarding money regulation, and it's based on logical conclusions I've drawn from the equality of three deficits. Sure, I skimmed through some macroeconomics once or twice, but I definitely can't claim I could step in and replace the Chair of the Federal Reserve. I have no intention of building a career as an economist or as some leader of a new era. This whole initiative is purely for the common good—to educate the public and wake people up to the fact that reality isn't what they show on TV or how politicians and union leaders talk.

Here's an example of misplaced focus. In downtown Chicago, an environmental group is fighting against the construction of a single shopping center. There was some shady business involved, but it was all legal. It caused a huge fuss and panic, with hundreds of police officers out there for months. Meanwhile, something million times more important—a proven betrayal by the state against all citizens of the USA—passes without any comment, let alone any action. And plenty of forum users are actually fighting to defend the existing system. None of them realize that when the Federal Reserve established an exclusively credit-based system back in 1994, it was a massive betrayal of the American people. Everyone thinks these are exaggerations or bad judgments. Through mathematics, I've proven that under this setup, the state is headed straight for economic collapse and debt slavery. And I've been talking about this for months now. At first, I thought news like this might be life-threatening, but it turns out that human disbelief is the best way to keep the secret of the biggest financial fraud and betrayal hidden.

The latest update is that I briefly got in touch with an economist and professor. In his email, he said he didn't want to debate the topic and gave his opinion. Well, obviously, he doesn't have time for debates with a layman, but he didn't even bother checking my evidence. He rejected it a priori, assuming it wouldn't hold water. I told him I'd be happy if he could disprove it using mathematics. I don't think anything will come of it. He'll just keep teaching his students incorrectly (just like everywhere else). Still, it's progress. Out of about ten emails to former classmates from college, this was the only response. Everyone else ignores my emails.

And I'd like to tell all the "doubting Thomases" out there that it's much easier to attack something than to defend it. So, as far as I'm concerned, I am right until you prove otherwise using mathematics. Exactly the same way I proved it.

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

Matthew Patel12 said:Mr. crimsonfalcon10, inflation isn't some necessary evil; it's purely destructive, and within a non-credit money system, it simply doesn't exist.
Maria Thomas48, the formula I proposed for providing real backing to non-credit money remains the only logical path, given that gold carries an exorbitant cost, whereas an ideal cost should be zero.

Well, obviously, the process of acquiring pure gold creates too much extra cost. I was looking at this from the perspective of people needing a standard unit of value. Non-credit money could provide a stable value just like gold—maybe even better, since gold is just a commodity where price depends on supply and demand.

Miroslav23, your explanation is actually quite funny, if you think about it. Mostly because it shows you don't quite get how things work here. Money isn't being printed anymore; it's being issued through credit. You should probably look up the Federal Reserve Act or the statutes governing the Federal Reserve. Most money issuance happens via loans. The only real cash flow is the interest paid by the central bank to commercial banks on their deposits. That amount is tiny, and it's way smaller than the inflation caused by all that credit expansion.

Best,

Brian Nelson4 said:So, I guess thieves are also responsible for our "progress" now. 😬

One question on this topic: How does fiat currency actually differ from commodity-based money, like gold?

Right now, you can't really equate money with gold because the gold standard was abandoned for several different reasons.

Non-credit money could potentially replace the gold standard, provided there is controlled issuance—meaning it actually has real backing.

Money acting as credit, which is how things work today, just hides an even larger debt behind itself and leads straight to ruin. I don't see much point in explaining that again.

Politicians aren't going to provide the solution. We saw that at the G20 meeting. When trying to reach out to various parties here in America, the result is zero. I suppose there are two possible explanations. Either they trust their economists blindly, or they simply don't care about the nation's well-being. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe the second one is true, though intelligence plays a role too. I reached out to a local Republican who is just a small-timer but active within the party. He passed my evidence along to an economist acquaintance, and then everything just stopped. That economist never contacted me, and the Republican never got back to me either. It’s obvious the guy just isn't smart enough to connect all the evidence, like a puzzle, into one final picture to understand what's happening. It doesn't surprise me, since my old college classmates had similar issues with perception, even though they were all top-tier students.

Regards

crimsonfalcon10 said:Few economists truly grasp the core of their own field... what you've laid out here is the truth. Inflation is essentially a scam against savers, yet it remains a necessity for progress. It serves as a constant nudge, forcing people to work harder and refine their skills because it erodes accumulated value. You can't just sit back and rely on interest from old savings to fund a carefree retirement. People simply need to realize they have to stay active and keep learning throughout their entire lives; very few will ever be able to live solely off what they've already produced.

Maybe it would have been more appropriate if Sisyphus had answered me instead of crimsonfalcon10. If anyone wants to be a masochist, that's their call. But honestly, anyone advocating for preserving this credit-based system is just being a masochist.

I feel like I've shown countless times that the current system has a deliberate flaw designed to prevent actual prosperity. I lay it out using logic, math, and undeniable examples, and the response I get is always something like: "That doesn't apply to us. We want to work until we're 95. We want our past labor to turn into nothing so we're forced to keep working." That’s just how a 20-year-old thinks. By the time you hit 60, you'll be completely burnt out from the factories, the shifts, the bosses, the meager paychecks, and you'll be counting down the days until retirement—even if it's for pennies—just so you don't have to look at the same faces at work every single day. And now you're telling me it's fine for my savings to just evaporate on its own right when I need them most, at a time when I won't be able to pick up extra side gigs after hours. That is pure, unadulterated masochism.

The government moved to push the women's retirement age up to 65 today. What happens in twenty years? Maybe we'll be working until 75? They try to "fix" flaws in the Constitution by just extending the working life. What's the limit here—working until death or becoming disabled? If they keep applying this logic, I'm certain we'll see a massive spike in disability claims. You could also expect an increase in suicides among older, capable people because some might prefer that over being left disabled by some "accidental" mishap.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it's the main point. Working forever isn't the answer. We should be using our brains to find a better way. Labor alone won't pull us out of a crisis (look at Japan for example). We need to expose this scam as soon as possible, rather than defending it as the only viable solution. I assume you all want a better future for your kids. By supporting this system, you're ensuring they won't have one (unless you happen to be a banker).

Regards

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

You could look at it that way within the credit system. Every single dollar someone decides to hold onto basically creates a shortage of cash in circulation. But honestly, locking your money away in a bank account doesn't really change the math or make things any better.

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

Yes and no. As an economist, you get it—banks can issue multiple times more in loans based on just your single deposit. From a development standpoint, that’s great, but economically speaking, it creates this massive surge in the money supply that inevitably drives up inflation. It almost feels like you'd be better off not giving your savings to the bank at all. Of course, that only works if every single saver does the exact same thing. If they did, the bank wouldn't have the deposits necessary to hand out those huge loans, and any resulting crisis would be minor. We could actually address the issues much sooner. But instead, we just keep stacking up debt, while only a tiny fraction of people ever bother to write about actual solutions.

Besides that—and I’ve already touched on this in my previous posts—when you leave money sitting in a bank, they're basically using your deposit as leverage to pull even more cash into circulation. It’s how they play with both your account and theirs. Even when people try to save, it doesn't actually help the economy much because there isn't enough non-credit money flowing in to keep things moving. If there was a steady stream of non-credit money flowing in, we could actually put loans to work for real development. You could take those credits, use them to build things, and then just pay them back using that non-credit inflow. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.It’s all just one big scam, honestly. Once you hit a certain volume of debt, you simply can't pay it back anymore. The interest rates end up eclipsing the actual principal you started with. It's just how it works.

Gregory Williams7 said:

Take yourself, for example. You claim to have saved money. How exactly does that happen? It is simple. You identify a source of capital and exchange a portion of your labor for it. In your wallet, you see a tangible accumulation of savings from your wages. However, the rest of the system currently perceives this as a cash outflow. I am not referring to the value of the service you provided, but strictly the movement of currency. If a million workers attempt to act in this exact same manner, the system experiences a million simultaneous cash outflows. If those workers accumulate their earnings over the years, the system accumulates a massive deficit in circulating liquidity. Economists describe this phenomenon as a slowdown in the velocity of money. This outcome is both natural and predictable. Who wouldn't want to possess savings after decades of hard work? Yet, your demand to prevent the introduction of non-credit money directly contradicts your own goal: the desire to increase your savings and physically materialize your past labor through currency.

That is precisely why hoarding cash is the worst kind of saving. And keeping that money "under the mattress"? That is even worse. It is a practice that actively harms the economy.
Banks reinvest that capital when it sits in savings accounts. That reinvested money stays in circulation. It cycles through the economy multiple times. I lend it to you, you spend it. Then someone else spends it with you. Is that not how the engine turns?

The current financial architecture, defined by interest rates and inflation, essentially forces people to keep their capital in constant motion. It effectively penalizes those who attempt to save in any asset that is being bled dry by the system. Think back to the era of the gold standard. When you saved gold, you were essentially pulling it out of circulation. Theoretically, that could lead to a liquidity crisis or a shortage of money. Today, however, through various systemic manipulations, we have engineered a landscape where such a thing is simply no longer profitable. Why would anyone choose to withdraw?

I think you might have skimmed over my previous posts. The whole system is basically a scam, and you can see it clearly just by looking at inflation. That whole "buy low, sell high" cycle—basically just middleman profiteering—is one of the main triggers for inflation. No actual new value is being added to the world, yet everyone is hunting for a profit. It’s only natural that the money supply has to inflate. On top of that, inflation is actually a practical way they've tried to manage things, like taking out massive new loans just to pay off the old ones. But honestly, it's hard to pull off long-term because when you're inflating the money supply to cover debt, you end up drowning in the sum of the interest plus the inflation itself. A Eureka for economists? The logical conclusion here is simple: any positive bank interest rate eventually leads to infinite debt, faster or slower, because of that inflationary borrowing. You're essentially increasing the money supply through credit just to stay afloat. I find myself wondering... should I really be the one breaking the ice and writing about stuff that people should have figured out a long time ago?

It’s honestly wild that an economist can look at a system with a finite amount of money and actually believe it’s a viable solution. Take the EU, for example. If they were to somehow double their population over the next 200 years—though who even knows what the world will look like then—how could you possibly think the current money supply would still be enough? You're basically assuming that in two centuries, absolutely nobody will manage to save a single cent or pull any capital out of circulation. It's a strange way to look at things. I suppose if we were dealing with a population shrinking by 3% every year, the math might make sense, but under these conditions? Not really.

Hey there.

I was looking through this site again today—sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home—and it really gets you thinking about how everything is interconnected. It’s one of those corners of the internet that just sits there, quietly making points about the way our financial systems actually function under the hood. Most people don't spend much time digging into the structural mechanics of money, they just accept the status quo, I guess. But if you look closely at the way capital flows, especially when you start applying some of those classic economic theories we all studied, things start to look a bit different. It's about the foundation. If the foundation is shaky, the whole house is eventually going to tilt. Just an observation.