Posts by Maria Thomas48

Gregory Williams7 said:Let’s try this one more time. I didn't bother reading your previous post because you simply repeat the same nonsense over and over...

So, what exactly is money? Money serves as a medium of exchange, but it is also a specific measure of labor that someone is willing to perform in return.
In essence, for one dollar, an individual is willing to provide a certain amount of work worth exactly one dollar.

Even though the total supply of money within the system is limited, the potential volume of labor available is limitless, and through that collective effort, all debts can be settled.
Do you understand now?
I am gradually exhausting every possible way to prove this to you. I honestly do not know how else to explain that what you are saying is complete nonsense.

The problem you're missing is that cutting down the volume only works if you start shortening the settlement period. Like, moving from monthly to bi-weekly. Then eventually to weekly, and under current conditions, maybe even daily. If you do that, you actually need less cash on hand to maintain the same level of turnover. You could potentially bump up a portion of the daily pay before and after shifts, but there’s a catch. You wouldn't be able to spend it more often than twice a day. That would be the limit.

You clearly get the math behind this, and honestly, you’re right—it’s peak efficiency. But there's a catch. The transaction fees at the Bank for Banks would absolutely kill you because of how often everyone would be moving money for their employees. The big banks would just end up making even more profit than they do now. You'd also see massive lines everywhere. You'd basically be paying your rent twice a day along with every other little expense. It's just too much friction.

Nobody is really buying into that idea, mostly because of this latest development. There just isn't any other way to cut down the capital requirements while keeping everything theoretically sound. It's called increasing the velocity of money. Economists teach it in textbooks, but they never mention that in most practical scenarios, it's just completely unfeasible.

You say you have endless potential to work, but you’re also short on cash. It doesn't work that way. You can't just sit around waiting for the money to find its way to you because those fixed costs will eat you alive and leave you bankrupt. Money doesn't move any faster than it does. It's obvious once you see payment terms getting pushed back. That's a clear sign that liquidity is drying up. It means they aren't paying everyone in small increments; instead, they pay rarely, but only what was actually billed. And then the deadline just keeps sliding month after month. People used to pull this same trick with Social Security back before the turn of the millennium. They basically figured out how to pay out eleven checks a year instead of twelve. It caused a massive uproar back then.

There were always those kinds of hunters in the murky waters—people who actually had the money, but just intentionally dragged their feet on paying their bills. I wouldn't call them professionals; they were more like business pigs. Take Pfizer, for example. Back when they were pulling in massive profits, they’d push payment terms out to three months. That’s a textbook move from a business pig. Honestly, I never wanted to work for people like that. They can go find some other sucker to act as their interest-free credit line.

I mean, unless you’ve got some other theory for why payments are running late that doesn't involve someone being broke. There has to be something else going on.

Debt repayment is a whole different ballgame. You can't really settle external debts if you don't have enough exports coming in while cash is tight. I mean, if you hand over every single dollar just to pay off what is owed, there’s nothing left for the local economy to circulate. Honestly, I think this kind of situation is going to hit us in about two years. Our debts will eventually outweigh all our foreign savings combined with the Federal Reserve's reserves. The Fed's reserves are just sitting there on deposit, whereas the dollar is out there being issued and circulating. Basically, if you add up all private foreign currency savings and the money held by the Federal Reserve, that's the total pool available to cover the debt. Once those foreign reserves are drained, you won't be able to maintain the exchange rate anymore, and imports will start outweighing exports. That’s why it actually makes sense for the Federal Reserve to take out those foreign currency loans; they need them to keep the exchange rate steady.

Look, we really ought to be exporting more than we’re importing. We've known that since the beginning of time, honestly, and it hasn't done us any favors. If we actually shifted that balance, you'd see new foreign currency flowing into the system—replacing our local tender—and things would finally start working. That is, if people stopped taking out massive loans with interest rates that completely dwarf what we make from exports. But then again, is that even possible for every nation? China is still making it work for now, but how much longer can they keep that up?

Just three years ago, the logic was pretty straightforward. Everyone was saying we needed massive GDP growth and a budget surplus just to chip away at the debt. Now? The goalposts have moved. Apparently, we need to be outperforming China by a landslide and cranking up exports like crazy just to break even after all these years. It’s a different story now.

Best,

Robert Vaughn10 said:Of course the system is inverted; there’s no debating that. But I honestly don't see why you assume one person's production and savings necessitates someone else's loss. If the other party also saves or simply avoids spending what they haven't earned, there is no loss.
It requires rejecting debt and current standards, but it is the only way forward.
By definition, saving means reduced consumption. If the money supply remains constant, prices must drop as production increases. The point is to scale back consumption to realistic levels until you establish a solid position. In fact, this behavior needs to be permanent. Anyone spending more than they can afford is essentially incurring a loss. Under such a framework, we should eliminate the ability to print money and run budget deficits. Once again, your diagnosis of the situation is spot on, but the only solution I see is what I've described. The debts are massive and largely artificial, and I've already told you how to fix it.
You argue that in my proposed system, individuals and companies would go bankrupt because they couldn't pay their taxes. I fail to understand why you think the government would continue spending if it doesn't collect tax revenue. It simply won't spend! That is exactly what we should strive for: everyone being self-reliant and covering their own costs. You're forgetting that if we pulled dollars out of the system to increase their value, prices would fall, which means less tax revenue would be collected nominally. Therefore, your sacrifice would be rewarded with high purchasing power and lower tax burdens. The only rule for the state is to avoid a budget deficit, while people and firms must always produce more than they consume. If you can't manage that, don't participate in the market as a business—just exist as an individual. In that case, living off the land or something similar is acceptable. But you simply do not go into debt or incur costs until you have built up a position. Eventually, the market would surely find its equilibrium through the law of supply and demand.
You cannot spend what you do not have. Hard work and saving are the only winning hands.

Saving money is the golden rule. I’m with you on that. The real issue is that saving assumes someone actually has a surplus to set aside. In reality, not everyone has that luxury. Plus, putting your savings into a bank account is basically just handing them the tools they need to turn a profit off everyone else.

Here’s a little bit of wisdom on how to save some money.

I’m done using my card. I'm just going to hit the ATM for cash instead. $0.00 The fees are just too much, so I end up taking cash instead. It’s pretty simple. These big banks are basically bleeding businesses dry because they snatch up a chunk of every single transaction made with a customer's card. That’s a serious amount of money. The numbers are honestly impressive. This is exactly how anyone who actually knows how to save should be operating.

Let me explain how taxes actually work. Say you’re running a small business. One month, your revenue takes a hit. Nobody cares. You still have to cover Social Security, Medicare, and those other mandatory contributions. It all goes straight into the federal treasury. Your overhead doesn't care about your actual earnings or how much cash you have on hand. If you miss a payment, the interest rates kick in immediately after the 15th. You really don't want to find yourself in that position. Then there's the Chamber of Commerce fees for small business owners. Those just creep up every single year. They pull tens of millions of dollars out of the small business sector alone through those flat fees. For some people, it’s a total gold mine. You simply can't lower your costs because they decide what your expenses are. There’s no way to save money unless you raise your prices. And then everyone starts wondering where inflation is coming from. It’s a cycle. They raise wages—because, hey, they need that tax revenue—so then they raise the minimum contributions based on those higher wages, which forces you to raise your prices again. It just keeps going in a circle. Everything seems fine on paper, but since there isn't enough actual money to fuel this constant upward climb, we end up exactly where we are. We were born foolish, and we’ll probably stay that way. Deep down, I had a feeling things wouldn't end well the moment they started pushing those wage hikes. Every year, wages go up by 4%. What kind of logic is that? Is a day 4% longer every year? It doesn't make sense. Either I have to work 4% faster, or I have to hike my prices. After a few years of this, raising prices is the only option left.

So, they’ve just slammed us with those European energy prices alongside our local wages. It’s a weird setup. ExxonMobil holds about 60% of our domestic oil needs, which leads to some pretty interesting math if you actually sit down and look at it. Since ExxonMobil covers half the market, but domestic oil only accounts for maybe 30% of what we actually use, it means we’re importing about 40% at global market rates. There really isn't a way to save money when it's structured like that. Energy is the biggest hit to the wallet. It doesn't look like we'll be running out of firewood anytime soon, though.

At home, you’ve got trash collection fees calculated by the square foot. Then there’s the local government charging you a sewage fee. And as for the actual yard? Well, they haven't figured out how to charge for that yet. Pure luck, I guess. Then you've got the electric company hitting you with a "system maintenance" fee, acting like they're the only ones in the country with an actual infrastructure. Nobody else seems to have a system, apparently. They could have just called it a minimum usage fee, like how mobile carriers do it, but they didn't. It's like they don't care how much money you actually make. They just grab whatever they want. You'd think we were printing money in our basements or something.

So, banks charge you fees just for the privilege of paying fees. Yeah, you heard me right—there’s the actual price of a service, and then there's this extra surcharge just for them to pull the money out of your account. It feels totally illegal and goes against what you actually signed up for in your contract, but apparently, the Federal Reserve thinks it's perfectly fine. They usually hide it under some vague line about "executing orders under authority," which isn't even mentioned in the agreement in that way. I don't have any standing orders set up. It's like they think we don't all have our own overhead costs that have nothing to do with the core business. You know, things like envelopes, paper, computer depreciation, wasting time writing invoices, or the cost of getting copies when you get paid. We aren't allowed to charge for those, obviously. But banks? They can do whatever they want without a second thought. They just grab whatever they can get their hands on. My checking account fees at Chase spiked 30% overnight. That's how they make their money.

People just keep using their debit cards for everything, handing over almost half their monthly paycheck to the Bank for Banks in fees every year. It means your suppliers end up making way less because they aren't getting those deductions. Now, just imagine if a million people were pulling in an average salary of $1667. That’s over two billion in potential annual revenue just sitting there if everyone used credit instead. People throw money around like it's nothing, like leaves blowing in the wind. But you feel like a high roller at the grocery store checkout when you tap that card. It’s a luxury lifestyle. We can't afford to be that reckless. Nobody really stops to think about it.

Plus, the government has all these other departments to fund: Customs, the police, the military, and all the various recipients of taxpayer money: political parties, firefighters, privileged retirees, and so on. Then you have the IRS and the healthcare system. Everything costs money. And not everyone is going to shut down their business while they're still in the black. Once you run into debt, you can't just close a small business—though I'm not sure about big corporations. You'll just be left with debts accruing 15% interest. And there aren't any jobs left. The ones who close shop while they still have the cash will save themselves. For a massive corporation, they've accumulated so much capital that liquidating early seems smarter than facing bankruptcy and having all their assets seized later.

Still, none of it works if there isn't a steady flow of new non-credit money coming in.

Best,

Gregory Williams7 said:Maria Thomas48, no offense, but perhaps you should take that Microsoft Excel spreadsheet somewhere else?

The Federal Reserve issues currency. You might read in the news today that the Federal Reserve deposited $300 million in earnings into the budget.
Every other central bank operates the exact same way. The government then injects that money back into the economy via wages and subsidies.

Now, please tell me, which part of this is unclear to you?
Some people choose to hide cash under a mattress, but if someone breaks into their house and steals it, that money returns to circulation.
Others deposit money in a bank, where the bank reinvests it and pays interest, yet that money remains within the system.
Your primary assumption—the very foundation of your entire argument—is a rotten plank you are stubbornly clinging to in this thread. To suggest that in a system where X amount of money is issued at Y interest rate, there is no way for that money to return. That is such nonsense; it is the fundamental error of someone without any formal training.

Honestly, once more, go educate yourself!

The Federal Reserve is really just one link in this whole chain of credit, you know? It’s like a sequence. And honestly, their profit margins don't even come close to what the commercial banks pull in from the rest of the chain. If you actually sit down and look at the numbers, you'll see how much profit those big banks are raking in. We need at least $15 billion in new money flowing through the system every single year, but here you are bragging about having 2% of that in the budget. It's a joke. It's like you're playing the lottery all year long and thinking you've won. $33 Every once in a while, you just get one. $33I guess you’re feeling pretty lucky since you actually pulled it off. $33 And just like that, $5,200 gone.
The Federal Reserve didn't just dream up this whole system out of thin air. Someone else built it. And that person? They’re going to walk away with everything.

You still don't get it. The whole system just can't function without a constant influx of cash to cover those perpetual profits, because there’s always someone else on the other side taking the loss. It isn't even about people being bad at what they do. It’s just that the money eventually runs out. They simply run out of funds to pay themselves.

You still don't get that this whole system is stuck in neutral. It’s simple math. If nobody actually has any cash on hand, you can't just hand out money to everyone and then turn around asking for an extra 3% back. That doesn't work. And if you can't even get off zero, then you aren't moving forward at all. You're just sliding backward into debt and total ruin.

You still don't quite grasp what the end result of inflation actually looks like within this system of constant, baseline money supply. The actual cause of inflation doesn't really matter when you're looking at the bill. It’s just irrelevant to the math.

You can't find the error in my Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the community profits. And that doesn't even worry you? What does that actually mean? I am sitting here proving to you that the very foundation of capitalism—the idea that you can't make continuous profit without consequences—is fundamentally broken, yet you just assume it’s some mistake on my part because the news isn't reporting on it.

When I reach out to the media—TV, newspapers, radio—it’s just total silence. Zero percent response. Basically, they don't care about us. Reading between the lines, it feels like there's this unspoken rule: "There are plenty of great stories out there, just don't you dare tell them." If someone tried to drop this kind of info on a nightly news broadcast or a major network special, people would react like they were reporting an alien invasion aimed at conquering the country. Nobody wants to touch the truth because they're terrified of the fallout. Everyone just wants to protect their own paycheck. I can only really discuss this stuff on a Fringe science program, where things like this actually get aired. But honestly, because those shows cover so much other wild stuff, this looks just as unbelievable. If it had been presented with the right math, it wouldn't seem so fantastical. It would just be reality.
....

You can't just plug your arguments into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. It doesn't work like that. Your claims and all this reasoning you're doing... it’s just pure fog. You're using it to hide the truth.

That’s the truth right there. And honestly, it looks like you ran out of actual arguments once you started throwing around credentials.

Even a PhD in economics confirmed my account. Wait, so he isn't even a college professor!? Look, I don't really need anyone's validation on this, but honestly, it’s just good to know there are still people out there who actually understand how math works.

You can always just hire whoever you want to fix the numbers in a Microsoft Excel sheet whenever you feel like something is off with the Profit Community's math. If you actually stumble upon an error, then give me a shout.

There’s an old saying that really hits home sometimes: It’s better to stay quiet than to go around talking nonsense.

I’ve weighed all the facts and laid out every single claim. I’ve argued my points thoroughly. I'm not bored enough to use this forum just to spout nonsense or go out of my way to annoy people.

This topic matters, and the facts are straight. Honestly, it’s pretty obvious because several people who were arguing with me before have just gone silent. They realized they couldn't use math to prove me wrong, and they clearly don't want to go on the record admitting I actually had it right. I don't hold it against them, though. I get it. Everyone has a right to defend their position. But when you're proven wrong, you also have the right to just walk away from the conversation so you don't end up looking foolish.

Look, I’m not trying to bait economists into an argument here. Usually, they just end up being their own worst enemies by trying to use math to debunk claims that have already been proven mathematically.

Regarding the editing... honestly, just go back and brush up on basic grade school math. You don't need much more than that to grasp the logic behind a closed system. And, obviously, a decent IQ helps. Without those, you're stuck.

There's also this one misconception in your text:

"There are others who will save in a bank, but the bank will rotate that money for them and pay interest, while the money stays in the system" — that's just wrong.

You literally wrote that your money would generate interest (meaning you're pulling a portion of money from others). The total amount of money is finite. Interest accumulates year after year, and eventually, it drains all the remaining real money out of existence. Just try putting yourself in the shoes of Jesus Christ, if he were to put one single cent into a bank for 2,000 years at 3% interest above inflation. Since he isn't dead, he could theoretically step in at any moment and collect his earnings. We're talking roughly $4,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And every year, he'd be pulling in $14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in interest alone.
In better terms, the fact that you have savings means someone else (or several people) is facing an ever-growing loss. It doesn't matter where you keep your cash or who you lend it to. Borrowed money has to be paid back.
The way you return that money to the system is through spending, not saving. You should be spending your money with the losers, not the profiteers. Spending money with the profiteers doesn't really help circulate it back into the system effectively. And let's face it, profiteers wouldn't be called profiteers if they were being wasteful with their cash.

Best,

Robert Vaughn10 said:The issue lies with war profiteers, corruption, and whatever else you want to call it. Money supply isn't actually the core problem here. I don't see why you think high growth is impossible under these conditions. The real hurdle would be kickstarting the avalanche. The system would struggle initially because capital needs to accumulate, but after that, things would accelerate as prices inevitably drop. Eventually, it would all run smooth as silk.
The secret to banking profits is simple: they pay out salaries and issue loans in amounts smaller than the total deposits they hold. That should serve as a built-in regulatory mechanism—if savings levels drop, bank earnings drop too, forcing the system back into equilibrium. The key is just ensuring the outflow remains lower than the inflow. Even if a bank fails, the money supply stays the same or even shrinks, which is actually a good thing. Prices would find a new equilibrium, and people would think twice before lending or saving. It would force labor and production back onto solid ground. There’s no other way. If human greed and corruption outweigh common sense, the whole system collapses. Otherwise, it works. The root cause is corruption and the desire for an easy life without putting in the work.
Forget about sustainable monetary profit if there's no actual labor or savings to back it up.
And I agree, the system is fundamentally broken; there's no debate there. What I'm saying is that the manipulation itself can be turned against those who use it.

Little by little, the work gets done.

I'll admit you've got plenty of optimism, kind of like how Pelé used to be, but after spending these last few months digging through various economic articles and studying historical events, I honestly don't think that outlook is going to hold up.

The first issue you’re running into is how accumulation actually works. While you’re busy stacking up earnings, someone else—or a whole group of people—is sitting there taking a loss. The whole idea is that by accumulating capital, you’re going to make an investment, scale up your production capacity, and try to squeeze even more money out of everyone else. But let's be real, not everyone can pull that off. For some people to be profiting, a lot of others have to end up as losers in the money game.

The idea that fractional reserve lending isn't "good" is really only half the story. Look, every business deserves to turn a profit, including a bank. The only real distinction here is that a bank actually has the power to create money out of thin air and then demand a profit on top of that.

When you really stop to look at it, almost every company out there is basically chasing the exact same thing. They’re all just trying to turn a profit. Honestly, there isn't much of a distinction between them and a major bank anymore.

I still don't quite get how you can't see that when everyone is looking to turn a profit, there's an inevitable need to inject new money into the system. It’s staring us right in the face through credit expansion. You can't have real expansion without injecting new capital via the federal budget—but now, thanks to certain laws, that's been blocked. It shouldn't be injecting this much cash, really. I don't know how much more I can explain this. I've already written about it before.

If you really want to see how this whole thing falls apart, just grab a Microsoft Excel sheet and run some numbers. Seriously. Just set up a ten-year projection with a few different entities and the government factored in. Keep it simple at first—strip out inflation and ignore imports entirely. You can even play around with interest rates on loans if you want to get fancy. I’d suggest starting with a target profit margin of maybe 5% of total revenue. At the end of the day, profit is just what's left after you subtract all those costs from your income. It's pretty straightforward once you lay it out.

Just tweak the numbers on the federal surplus or deficit and you’ll see exactly what kind of setup we need for prosperity ten years down the road. There is a lot of data here to sift through, but once you look at it, the result becomes pretty clear.

I know there’s probably zero chance you’re actually going to try building this thing. And honestly, once I finally find some free time, I’ll likely have to be the one to do it myself since I don't have any formal background in economics. It’s a bit of a project. I already put together a Microsoft Excel sheet tracking profits for a closed community over a specific timeframe, and it pretty much proves my entire point. The next step would be to properly cross-reference that data so all seven entities are trading with one another. You'd need to show all seven paying taxes to the government and receiving government contracts, too. If you run that out ten years—with the ability to adjust transaction amounts along the way—it gets interesting. Add in foreign payments, international subsidies, and the Bank for Banks, and you could basically run a rough simulation of everything happening in the country. It won't necessarily hand you a solution to the problem, but it would definitely map out the possible ways things could play out.

It all comes down to the money supply. I’ve touched on this before. It really can't be any clearer than this. If there is already plenty of cash circulating in the system and then you start forcing more and more into it, things shift. A little bit of greed kicks in. Everyone starts hiking up their prices just to grab as much as they can, and that's how you end up with inflation. Part of it comes from actual demand, sure, but a huge chunk of it? That's just pure greed.

When you run out of cash, deflation should technically kick in. It’s actually a great thing if there weren't all this massive debt hanging over everyone's heads. But that's the catch. With deflation, that same debt just keeps growing because you have to work harder and harder just to cover the exact same payment. The bankers? They're just sitting there rubbing their hands together. And honestly, they do the same thing during inflation. When prices go up and money gets tight, everyone starts scrambling for credit, which just makes those loans even more expensive due to the demand. Of course, neither deflation nor inflation lasts forever. In a deflationary spiral, eventually, the money hoarders end up owning everything while anyone running a business at a loss just goes bankrupt. Then you look at inflation. The upside there is that people trying to get rid of devaluing currency keep the commerce moving, even if it feels a bit chaotic. But the downside is obvious—money loses its value, and the real winners are the ones holding the printing press. Banks aren't going to go bust; they'll just settle for thinner margins. They make so much money off private transactions through modern credit card processing anyway that no amount of inflation is ever going to mess with their bottom line.

How do you actually prove there's a hole in the system? It’s pretty simple when you look at it this way. Imagine if the entire system could function without that initial 1% of capital—meaning, what if you just pulled it out? You'd wonder how that's possible. Well, look at how a massive corporation like Home Depot operates. They slash costs year after year, and the shareholders get their cut of the profits without ever touching the principal. According to your logic, that shouldn't threaten the stability of the system. But if you do that consistently, year after year, eventually you've drained every last cent from circulation. That money isn't gone; it’s sitting right there in the shareholders' bank accounts. The system keeps spinning, but only on the basis of bartering goods. Eventually, everyone goes bust because they can't pay their taxes to the government or settle their debts with the Bank for Banks. That’s basically the playbook used during the Greek debt crisis. In that case, things were just dragged out because tourism kept pumping in fresh cash. How do we know that influx won't eventually dry up? If it were enough, they wouldn't be in this mess. It’s just a matter of time before the rest of the country falls into total chaos, tourism revenue drops, and the whole infrastructure collapses under its own weight. After that, all they'll be able to do is sell off pieces of their territory to foreign interests for pennies on the dollar, because they won't have any leverage left to negotiate a fair price.

Look, that’s really the least important part of this whole thing. The most important thing is that once I put together my Microsoft Excel spreadsheet showing exactly how community profits work, everything changes. When I lay it all out and prove that if one group wins, someone else has to lose, people tend to go quiet. If you can't disprove the math, you just don't comment on it. It's funny. Everyone reading this seems to think there's some paradox in my Microsoft Excel sheet, like reality works differently than what the numbers show. But reality isn't different. We have massive debt and our imports are way higher than our exports. That’s not a "nuanced" situation. It’s just a huge deficit.

It seems like none of these economists want to step up and actually own the situation. They won't admit that we need to look at how and why things reached this point. Even the White House refuses to push back against the narrative that everything is perfectly fine and that I’m just wrong. It’s frustrating. I sent out ten different emails to various political parties, representatives, and labor unions, and I didn't get a single response. Not one word from anyone over at the University of Chicago or Harvard. So, I started doing my own thing. Now, whenever I get spam in my inbox, I reply with a PDF link from my website. Finally, I got an email back from an economics PhD who runs his own accounting firm. In one message, he basically told me I was right, though he argued the real issue is the government's reckless spending and the massive surge in borrowing just to fund social programs. Then, in a second email, he says that... Look, you might have the best intentions when it comes to fixing the health of the American economy, but honestly? You’re probably doomed to fail right from the jump. The people pulling the strings on all this debt are making way too much money to ever let go of their grip. It's a closed loop. Every single new loan or old debt being shuffled around generates massive profits for those specific circles. There isn't any realistic path forward where we don't end up stuck in a cycle of endless borrowing, just like what happened over in Greece.

Clearly, there are people out there who can wrap their heads around this. They just think that trying to spread the word about what’s actually driving this whole debt crisis is a lost cause. A total mission impossible. So, I keep coming back to this thread every now and then. I figure, eventually, as the years go by, people will realize I was telling the truth—based entirely on the actual math and the receipts. And once they do, we can finally start asking the real questions:

I just can't help but wonder... why hasn't a single economist ever actually published anything about this before? It's strange. You look at all the papers out there, all the big studies from the Ivy League, and nothing. Just silence on this specific point. It makes you think.
I’ve been thinking about this lately. Why doesn't an economics degree actually sit on a solid scientific foundation? You look at the math involved, and it just feels disconnected. It should be built on mathematics, really. But it isn't. It's strange how that works. Most people assume it's all formulas, but there's a gap there. A real gap. It's like looking at fringe science sometimes. Just a lot of theories floating around without the hard data to anchor them down. I don't know. It just seems off.
Who actually signed those damaging international treaties? And more importantly, what was their reasoning behind it?
The way the head of the Federal Reserve acts and speaks... it all makes sense when you look at this evidence. It’s easy to see why. He didn't exactly go running to the administration to warn them about a looming debt crisis either. I mean, he hands in those reports every single year. You'd think he'd flag the red flags then. But honestly, I’m pretty certain he’s been sitting on this information for a long, long time. Way before I ever caught wind of it.
I mean, I've been thinking about this lately. Why hasn't anyone actually sat down and put together a real, deep-dive analysis on how inflation is hitting the economy under the current system? It seems like such an obvious thing to tackle. You look at everything happening right now, and there’s just this massive gap where a comprehensive study should be. People talk about it, sure, but nobody is really crunching the numbers to see the true impact. It's strange. Just feels like a missed opportunity for some actual clarity.
I just can't wrap my head around it. Why didn't the administration and the President—the same guy who swore on everything he’d be fair and never back down—do something sooner? I mean, they had the data. It wasn't just a guess; it was mathematically proven information. They had the proof right in front of them from the start, yet they just sat there. It doesn't add up.
Why do 99% of people just can't wrap their heads around how a scam actually works? It's honestly baffling. Most folks see the surface level stuff. They look at the obvious lies. But they miss the actual mechanics of the deception. It’s deeper than that. People tend to think scams are about being foolish, but it's more about how reality is reshaped. They trust the structure instead of questioning the foundation. It's a fundamental disconnect in how most people process information. Just a simple lack of perception, really.
...and so on.

What are the main misconceptions out there?

Capitalism can work without constant infusions of new money. I mean, if total collapse is just part of the capitalist cycle, then sure, it can function that way too.
Inflation comes down to printing money. It’s just that. In this system, it all boils down to necessity and pure greed, driven by massive credit expansion.
Supply and demand will sort everything out eventually. It’s a given. But honestly? We might end up doing it all through bartering instead of using actual cash.
- The system goes through these periodic crises and then recovers—but in this setup, it never really stays up—it’s more like a yo-yo effect you see with people struggling with weight issues.
- Paying back loans is just as easy when there isn't credit expansion—theoretically, sure, but once people lose their jobs during a crisis, they realize it isn't actually easy. Right now, there isn't any credit expansion, so I'd suggest not taking on debt because money is scarce.
- If I get an economics degree, I can outsmart the crisis—that's a complete delusion. You're better off chopping wood in the forest—it's a guaranteed living as long as the trees are still standing.
- I'll pay back the loan from my income—doesn't work if everyone else is also taking out loans.
- This system has no end point—it ends when banks completely shut down lending because existing debts simply can't be repaid.
- We aren't too indebted yet, so we can afford to borrow more—totally wrong and unprofessional. Without analyzing whether current debts can actually be repaid, that statement is just pure stupidity.
- It's either something or nothing—in this system, we already know how it ends: total anarchy.
- Banks will go bankrupt and I won't have to pay my debt—well, you have examples where you still have to pay a non-existent bank (like one in Ljubljana)—HA! Man, I'd love to see that happen.
- Let's just swap the political party in power or change the administration and the economy will magically revive—completely wrong. Unless, of course, we all want to be slaves working for nothing.

Here are the biggest misconceptions regarding a system based exclusively on the credit issuance of new money.

Sorry for the long post, but I felt the need to recap everything.

We've covered all these topics already, and at the end of the day, the only thing left is for one of you to build a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet similar to mine, outline a precise procedure, and create prosperity for everyone within ten years. Well, if anyone pulls that off, they should let the government know immediately, because they are sitting around waiting for a miracle to save us in a system like this. Instead, they should be using actual science to seek a long-term solution by changing the regulations on new money supply.

Regards,

http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/
Profit_zajednice.xls

Robert Vaughn10 said:Maria Thomas48, let’s look at this logically. Imagine we agree to stop printing money entirely. Every single bit of labor and every product produced gets paid for fairly and immediately. We also agree that a portion of what we earn goes straight into savings, and only a fraction of those funds can be used for credit. To make it work, a community, a group of citizens, or even a private firm would commit their labor and earnings to support the Bank for Banks and its staff. Crucially, total earnings plus any credit taken cannot exceed the actual amount deposited in the bank.
Doesn't it seem like this would force everyone to actually work to earn something? Competition would naturally drive prices down, keeping the whole system sustainable. That’s the core of it; anything else is just pointless noise.

It’s all good. I mean, you’re talking about what real banking actually looks like. But let's be honest, real banking hits a massive wall when it comes to funding things like war zones or major natural disasters. It just doesn't work that way. You might manage to curb inflation, or maybe even trigger some deflation, but you aren't going to see rapid growth or any kind of quick development. And if you add those constant profiteers into the mix—the ones who just sit there collecting money—then a society like that isn't going to stay happy for very long.

I’d really like to see a specific Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Just a simple one with a few different subjects and a country over a ten-year stretch. Let's keep the money amount fixed—no imports, no inflation—just to see what kind of monetary prosperity we could actually achieve. And why focus on money? Because honestly, no amount of hard work matters if there isn't any cash available to pay for it. That’s the reality facing the US right now. There’s just a lack of liquidity. You could earn plenty if someone actually had the funds to pay you for your labor. But nobody has the money to pay you, and then it just becomes this endless loop.

If you look at countries as massive, singular entities, you start to see the math clearly. If one or more of them are running a surplus, then the others are inevitably running a deficit. That’s where the whole thing falls apart. Money is a finite resource. Everything else out there is just credit being issued that eventually has to be paid back with interest. People love to talk about how importing less than what you export is the solution, but that logic doesn't hold up. It’s physically impossible for everyone to do that at the same time.

You’re going to need an influx of new cash, and I don't mean through more loans. I keep trying to point this out so people will finally see that the entire system is built on a broken foundation, and because of that, most good people are being led straight toward a cliff. It’s simple math. Any company stays afloat as long as the money coming in exceeds the expenses. If one firm operates at a loss, they aren't just losing money—they are essentially creating profit for someone else. But you can't just turn every single business into a loser just to make sure others look successful. That’s how a poker game works. And in poker, there isn't a group of winners; there is only the one person who walks away with everything at the end. Is it really that hard to see who is positioned to take it all? It'll be the Bank for Banks, the Federal Reserve. They're the only ones with the power to issue money out of thin air and then demand that same money back, plus interest. Everyone needs that cash because it's the only way to pay for anything. Eventually, the commercial banks are going to go bust because they won't be able to collect what they're owed.

It’s basically like you're printing legal tender just to cover your own tracks. You bake the inflation right into the system, then turn around later and ask for an extra 3% just to make up for it. It’s a cycle. Just be careful—you're the one holding the printing press here. I can't help but wonder how that whole scheme actually plays out once enough time passes.

There’s one version where the masses show up armed with pitchforks and axes just to burn down your bakery. Then there’s the other version, where everyone hands over their property to you and becomes your slave just to work for some pennies. Personally, I think the first scenario looks more likely. For that second one to happen, you'd have to be living in a totally delusional utopia.

There’s an old saying that sticks with me. You can fool some people all of the time. You can fool everyone for a little while. But you just can't fool everybody all of the time. It's one of those things that stays true. Always.

It’s really just a question of how long you can play games with everyone and pretend everything is fine before it all eventually blows up into a revolution.

The flexible monetary system—you know, that whole setup where the Federal Reserve has the sole power to issue credit—is nothing more than an obvious scam. It’s plain as day. And honestly, any economist out there claiming otherwise is just an accomplice to the whole thing. If you actually look at the math, it’s scientifically proven that this entire system isn't sustainable in the long run. It’s a trap. It eventually leads everything toward total ruin, starting with the weaker players and the lazy ones, and then it moves on to everyone else.

Hey there
http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/

Gregory Williams7 said:I disagree. I understand how the system works, and quite frankly, I have no need for its assistance. For those who struggle to grasp these mechanics, however, such guidance is essential. But knowledge comes at a price. It takes a full year at a business school to truly master it. $1667The postgraduate tuition is $3,000. If someone wants to pay it, that is their prerogative. I have already explained how things work at a forum level. You seem unable to grasp the concept. Pay for your degree first. Only then can we have a conversation.

It is a clear demonstration that your argument lacks foundation. The financial system—complete with inflation and interest rates—has existed since the very invention of currency, and it hasn't collapsed yet. Therefore, one of us must be mistaken. Which one is it?

It sounds like you really charged people for that knowledge back in your college days since you're guarding it so closely.

And I see Pelé is guarding it too. Probably went to the same school—back when things weren't quite as expensive.

Actually, it's an old tactic. You can manipulate an uneducated crowd as much as you want.

You just haven't realized yet that there are people who manipulate the manipulators.

When it comes to building a sustainable financial system for the community under current conditions, all your professors would probably fail the test. It's the exact same issue I challenged you to solve in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. So, don't try to act smarter than them. You're just hurting your own credibility as a serious debater.

Just as a side note, I finished my degree with honors, but I don't go pointing people toward college every time they ask me a question.

Best regards

Gregory Williams7 said:Nostradamus:
Banks can be forced into losses through several methods: defaulting on debt (writing off uncollectible loans as losses), taking out loans in a currency that eventually devalues against the local currency, or even just keeping savings in a specific bank where interest payments count against them, and so on.

As you can see, there are numerous ways to drive a bank into a deficit. The system is designed around a fixed ratio of depositors to debtors. It was never intended for a scenario where everyone saves, or where everyone takes out loans simultaneously. If that happens, the entire system collapses. That is the point you seem to be missing.
What happened to your friend is simply his own misfortune. It doesn't affect me, as I have conducted business profitably for years. I reinvest my profits and help others generate their own. It is a self-sustaining cycle—a perpetual motion machine governed by the laws of supply and demand. Just because you cannot grasp it does not mean it isn't working. 😉

Robert Vaughn10:
I agree with your assessment, but I still believe that taking out a loan in a specific currency just because you hope you won't have to pay it back is a mistake. That applies to both individuals and the government. You see certain things, and I see them too. I agree that the dollar will drop significantly at some point. However, that remains speculation by definition. You might be right today, but tomorrow that gamble could come back to haunt you. Furthermore, if you look at current banking offerings, no major bank is approving loans in U.S. dollars right now.

Maybe you could actually put that perpetual motion idea on paper with some actual math. Show where the money for the profit comes from. A real analysis. Start with the initial cash holdings of everyone in the country—you, the people who will also profit, and everyone else. Project it out, say, ten years. Then show the financial status of the rest of the country, the federal government, your own standing, and the standing of those who were supposed to earn alongside you. A real long-term plan. Assume the country has a zero balance of trade with foreign nations. Zero inflation. Perfect conditions.

If you can't do that, then it's just a bedtime story or a pure utopia (to be more technical).

Put it in an Excel sheet so it's transparent, instead of this wall of text full of buzzwords about hard work, effort, saving, smart investing, bartering, and all that. I only care about making money. We all know you don't make a profit from labor; you just exchange labor for money.

Regards.

Gregory Williams7 said:Maria Thomas48:
It is impossible for everyone to maintain a constant surplus, just as it is impossible for everyone to remain in a perpetual deficit. The fundamental concept is that total consumption should ideally mirror total production. This balance shifts over time. Today, China might hold a surplus while a nation like Greece runs a deficit, but in five years, those positions could easily flip. The essential point is that the net sum always equals zero. The system is designed to be self-correcting, allowing individuals to maintain their own equilibrium.

Robert Vaughn10:
Your vision of the future seems entirely dependent on the inflation of the dollar. We must remember that the dollar remains the world's primary reserve currency; it carries significant weight because people believe in its value, and there is a reason for that confidence. If the major players stopped valuing the dollar, the rest would follow quickly, and the currency would become worthless. That hasn't happened yet. In my view, it would be irresponsible to base an entire government economy on the speculative gamble that the dollar will lose value. I have nothing against Suker taking out loans in dollars—in fact, I much prefer seeing him borrow in dollars rather than euros—but these are still debts that must be repaid! Let them borrow in dollars if the rates are better, but not under the assumption that inflation will magically erase the debt! Every debt eventually comes due.

So how exactly do you think you force banks to take losses?

Also, that surplus belongs to someone else's savings. So, are you actually arguing for a society where long-term saving is basically forbidden?

Companies that break even over the long haul don't provide anything to the owners—they just benefit the employees—so those companies eventually get liquidated. I saw this with a friend of mine after fifteen years on the job. He just walked away because he decided the effort wasn't worth the payoff.

and so on.

Originally, the rule was that profitable businesses had to survive. Now, suddenly, we're hearing that they should be forced to take losses just to bail out others? It’s probably because there’s no other way when you have a fixed amount of money circulating in the community.

But that doesn't work in the real world. Only Robin Hood could actually balance the books like that.

Best,

I finally finished putting together an Excel spreadsheet that acts as a proof of concept for how private sector profits directly link to the government budget deficit. You can grab the file here at ProfitCompany.xls or just head over to my website and find the attachment at the bottom of the page.

The sheet is locked so you can't mess with the fixed revenue numbers, but I left the expenses—those white cells—wide open for you to play with. That way, you can model out a budget that results in either a deficit or a surplus. If you follow the logic used in this specific workbook, you could even build your own xls files with entirely different transaction sets.

Now you can tweak the amounts as much as you want to see how it impacts private sector cash profits. Anyone sitting with a negative balance will end up as a loser if they keep that same sign on their balance. On the flip side, those with a positive balance who maintain it through subsequent periods become profitable entities with actual cash in hand.

I should also mention that the new $500 million credit line taken out by our Government increases the total debt when you factor in the interest costs. According to Suker, that isn't considered additional debt. Sure, it might seem relatively small, but we’ve essentially pushed more debt into the future because we couldn't cover the current installment right now. And honestly, who's to say we won't have more money to pay it off in a year or two? The reality is that repayment installments just keep getting larger every year because the underlying debt itself keeps growing.

Best to everyone.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Maria Thomas48, printing money just devalues currencies, which subsequently degrades our debt since bond interest rates are fixed. You mentioned yourself that debt equals money. Therefore, as money loses value, the debt becomes less "valuable" too. You cannot issue currency without reducing the weight of debt in that specific currency. Since all global currencies are inflating—and given how rapidly the dollar is inflating, to put it mildly—it would be sensible to shift at least a portion of the debt into dollars to wipe it out. Perhaps the Euro could be protected by a higher gold price following the dollar's devaluation.
You are far too preoccupied with the national debt. What actually concerns me is that this debt is completely unmanaged. I am much more worried about individual debt and those entities that took on variable interest rates. That is where the core problem lies. To reiterate: if American citizens are paying $1 billion in annual interest alone, they have only themselves to blame, along with the rest of the world. Everyone must answer for their own financial decisions if they expect to manage money reasonably. Change needs to happen at the household level. Every individual needs a sustainable balance sheet, and only then will the system itself become sustainable.
I believe you are entirely mistaken in claiming it is impossible for everyone in a community to profit without someone else losing out. It is possible for one party to profit without causing a loss to another. The trick is ensuring that those without solid collateral do not take on debt they cannot repay in cash. If someone lacks the means, they simply shouldn't borrow; that way, they won't end up in the red. This brings us to a harsh truth. If Americans didn't go into debt, banks wouldn't find it so easy to turn a profit unless someone were actively risking capital through investment. For the system to remain viable, we would need an agreement where money isn't just issued, where banks don't charge arbitrary interest, or where interest rates are balanced between savings and loans to sustain both savers and borrowers. This implies creating actual new value, from which only a fraction goes to banks as a service fee. Those incapable of adding value should not be borrowing. The order should be: savings first, then credit expansion, governed by a specific set of agreed-upon rules.
Essentially, bailouts and money printing should be banned. That would force everyone to think twice before borrowing or taking a loan. This would lead to a much finer equilibrium in interest rates. Furthermore, if someone does choose to go into debt, they must bear full responsibility for that decision.
And if they fail, it's fine. They invested poorly. That is the essence of a market. If you can't afford it, don't borrow.
Regarding the current situation, one should start saving immediately at every level and capitalize on the fact that all global currencies are inflating, especially the dollar.
Again, your observations are sharp, but your solutions strangely mirror those who advocate for quantitative easing. Once currencies devalue to the point of being worthless wallpaper, even your debt will effectively hit zero.☕
It is essentially the same debate between deflationists and inflationists in the US.
Deflationists argue that debts and credits are so massive that no amount of money printing can offset the deflationary pressures. They fail to realize that only real, physical money actually circulates in the system, and increasing that mass inevitably drives up the prices of all asset classes that must still be paid for with paper. Since everyone "must" eat and consume energy, consumption cannot drop significantly; this leads to inflation and relative price increases in food and energy, driving up all costs. When 99% of people can no longer even contemplate certain asset classes, there practically won't be a market left for those assets.😉
The idea that there is no long-term market is unsustainable.
So, all you really need to do is change your lifestyle, embrace the principle of saving, and ensure you don't liquidate the very resources that will sustain you in the future.Protecting yourself as an individual is one thing. Regarding the state of the nation, I’ve already laid out how you reverse the trend: stack dollars, buy gold, and wait out the inflation while watching those drowning in debt struggle for air. Since everyone is leveraged, some kind of equilibrium is inevitable—whether you like it or not. The system is already pushed to its breaking point when it comes to everyday Americans.

I'm pretty swamped with work right now, so I won't have time to sit down and write out a massive, detailed breakdown. But I'll eventually show you an example that proves your point doesn't hold water. This whole idea of "monetary profit versus loss" is exactly what economists can't seem to wrap their heads around.

Best,

Robert Vaughn10 said:Maria Thomas48, I unfortunately don't follow your logic.
Look, you have to save money. Is it really that hard to grasp the concept that you need to produce more than you consume? There isn't another way. I can't generate profit for someone who lives like that. If a person runs such a massive deficit that they're hemorrhaging $1 billion in interest annually, there’s nothing I can do until they decide to help themselves.
If you need to cut the power, cut it. If you need to live on bread and milk to get by, do it. If you need to hold onto last year's textbooks to stay afloat, then do that—whatever it takes to fix your finances.
A deficit is simply a deficit; the only cure is a surplus.
If you won't accept that reality, then there are no solutions.
Sustainable profit requires constant work and, more importantly, a surplus.
My ancestors are proof enough of that for me.
And that serves as my evidence for point two, which is more than sufficient.
All the trouble started the moment people began spending more than they earned. That is the root of the problem, and that is how it must be solved. Period.

Did I ever actually say any of that stuff you're bringing up shouldn't be done? No. I didn't.

You can't really mix business with family. A household builds its income and savings based on outside earnings. It’s just understood that those funds aren't coming from anywhere else—they come from hard work and a decent paycheck.

If you project that onto the whole country, then it implies we really ought to be focused on exports. But if that's the case, it also means we don't actually need our own currency. It’s like when you’re dealing with family—you end up using someone else's money instead of your own. So, what’s even the point of having our own money then? That's the first question.

The other issue is pretty obvious. You can't have every single country hitting those kinds of export numbers at the same time. It just doesn't work like that. At the end of the day, someone's massive export has to be someone else's import. It's basic math.

It’s the same issue within any community made up of families. It just isn't possible for every single family—or every individual entity—to maintain a positive balance all at once. If certain families are constantly pulling ahead with a surplus, then others are inevitably left in the red. It's basic math. One side wins, the other loses.

Look, you have a country that acts as the legal issuer of currency. Did we basically legislate ourselves out of that ability? Think about a medieval kingdom that doesn't mint its own coins, but instead just borrows them from others in ever-increasing amounts based on population and demand. When it comes time to pay those loans back with interest, they’re stuck—they can only cover it by taking out even bigger loans because the mint is effectively shuttered. That’s the core issue right there. Imagine if the population jumps by 30%. You’re going to need more money to handle all that extra circulation. That whole theory about speeding up the velocity of money just doesn't hold water; it's a trick concept that fails in practice. If it actually worked, we could run the entire economy on a single dollar. But where would that dollar come from? The mint isn't producing anything. It’s impossible, plain and simple. You can see it clearly. Even if everyone works harder, they're all chasing the exact same mass of money, which theoretically should increase the value of the coins. That’s great for the people who managed to save up a bunch of cash beforehand. In a perfect world, that would mean products should get cheaper. But I honestly don't know how long that deflationary trend can actually last. Besides, it ends up feeling like the harder you work, the less you actually earn. It’s just not an incentive at all.

I guess I’m drifting a bit from the main topic here. But look, the core issue is that a community with a fixed amount of money works exactly like a game of poker. In the end, one person walks away with everything. Everyone else—those who weren't as productive, maybe just worked less hard, or simply didn't have the same head start—ends up with nothing at all. I think Americans have already seen this play out before. It actually explains why things completely shifted once the Gold Rush hit. You suddenly had this massive influx of new money backed by gold entering the system.

But look, our legal system has basically outlawed the existence of new physical cash. All they allow is credit. And honestly, money coming from abroad is just as real. It’s hard to say what percentage of actual money exists that isn't someone else's debt. That’s all thanks to Americans and everyone else out there who only produces credit. Of course, the Federal Reserve does the same thing, though their hands are pretty tied because they're constantly sweating over keeping the dollar stable.

It’s just pure absurdity over in Europe. The Federal Reserve was set up with this specific amount of capital, yet their charter says they’re only supposed to issue credit. Honestly, if that was their only job, they wouldn't have needed any initial capital at all since they hold a total monopoly on issuing the dollar. They could just print as much as they wanted. That’s exactly what they’re doing now because you can't keep operating forever based solely on that starting capital. It’s basically a perpetual motion machine. And besides that, it just proves the whole system couldn't actually start from scratch. If the initial capital were zero, nobody would own any dollars. They would just issue them to everyone as credit and then try to collect them back with interest later. Yeah, right. You can see immediately that wouldn't work. Even if you gave the money to the best people and kept it away from everyone else, you still see that money can't just multiply itself enough to pay back those interest rates.

By the way, they just sold this little trick to Americans recently. If you actually bothered to read closely, they basically said: We aren't going to hand out credit to everyone, only to those who can actually pay it back.
The logic goes like this. You can't pull X amount out, so maybe you try pulling X/3 instead. Think about it. But if you take three times as long, you end up with X again. And the only money moving through the system comes from these loans. It’s obvious right away that the people taking these loans have to essentially rob—or earn from—everyone else who didn't take one just so they can pay it back. And they have to do that three times over. That’s the "solution." Just pure nonsense, where you only see the result of the deception after three times the duration has passed. There isn't any real cash available to cover the interest.

We inherited this same stunt here, so the Government immediately decided to only offer credit to the "best" candidates. But who are these "best" people? They're the ones already stuck and unable to move forward without credit in the first place. It's ridiculous. If someone is struggling now, they’ll just struggle easier later because they've loaded themselves down with debt that costs money. I might actually believe there was a new credit expansion on the horizon. That's what Janet Yellen promised, but they shut her down. It's a mixed bag. Everyone taking these loans will find it harder to repay them because there aren't any massive new investments happening. My advice to everyone would be to expect an even bigger crisis. And it seems perfectly clear to me that the forward-thinking people who still run profitable companies are laying off workers before they get buried under debt. Better to live decently on current capital than to wait, go bust, and end up with nothing. Look at Walmart. This whole game of opening more locations won't last long. Everything will only shift once there is enough new money circulating. Enough money, because the banks are demanding massive interest rates on the loans they've already issued.

So, keep a close eye on the situation in Greece. There isn't any difference. They are just further along in the debt cycle.

There is no wisdom in this. Working hard, saving money, and all the "right" behaviors just slow down the endless borrowing, but they can't stop it. It's been shown that even inflation within a system like this leads to a crisis. Slowly, but surely. Time will show that everything I'm saying is true.

Robert Vaughn10 said:It seemed obvious to me that the only way to fund profit is by creating actual value, so I didn't bother replying.
And that is the path we need to follow here, using a combination of strategies. Saving, investing those savings, and on the other side of the scale, taking on dollar-denominated debt to buy gold. Saving leads to a drop in GDP, but that is an absolute necessity if you want a proper restructuring. Anything else is just wishful thinking.
So, the direct answer to your question is one word: saving. Not some dark cloud theory about running a $7 billion deficit in the current account every month.
My ancestors might have been considered stingy by modern standards, but they lived in a surplus and nobody could touch them.
The only way to generate profit is through the rule of law, market relations, and creating real value. All these conditions must be met if success is the goal.
Printing money isn't a solution, unless it triggers economic growth—though I fail to see why we would even bother printing more money in the first place.
Prices would eventually drop, find a new equilibrium, and things would stabilize again.
Based on your spreadsheet, points 2, 4, and 5 are the ones to watch.
Point 1 is out of the question, and point 3 is something we'd prefer to minimize since it carries high interest rates.
The obvious answer is that you must save and consolidate before you can expand. It requires discipline and sacrifice, but the long-term payoff is better because you actually respect what you've earned. What interests me is whether it’s possible to build a permanently stable system. As you noted, growth in China could be temporary if they end up consuming more than they produce, and that ratio will likely shift once exports aren't enough to carry them.
But then again, we wouldn't have anything to talk about on this forum...

If you meant doing that by mining gold, then yeah, you're on the right track. Otherwise, banks don't care about new value unless it gets converted into cash. And how are you going to turn new value into new money if you only have the existing money? You can only pull that off by digging up gold. Then the Federal Reserve will just issue new dollars immediately.

And you also haven't proven how you’ll manage to make a permanent monetary profit through these methods in total.

2 - Other entities (domestic investors and consumers)
4 - Foreign investors
5 - The gap between exports and imports plus foreign subsidies

That would mean one of those sources is what injects the money used for profit. Exports could be one, but it isn't a solution for 99% of countries; we see that in practice. Gregory Williams feels the same way. It's hard to rely on steady foreign investment to provide profit for an entire country. And domestic money supplies—which are basically someone else's old savings being spent, causing those subjects to take a monetary loss during that period—aren't a permanent source of money for profit. Maybe for a little while, but not permanently. In reality, in total, the community doesn't see a monetary profit when the profit comes from category 2. There isn't any new money there, just moving things from one hand to a profiteer's hand. When someone profits permanently, it's known that others are taking a monetary loss to cover it. The sum is zero. Mathematical equations prove this. I could show you an example of how it works. That's why a crisis eventually has to develop.

Anyway, I've already said all this, but nobody seems to get the point. There's an old saying: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." In a country without an inflow of new money, the saying goes: "You can't have a monetary profit unless someone else is taking a massive loss."

brightlynx11 said:http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...10/spn1003.pdf

Check this out. Read it and maybe the world will finally make sense to you. 🙂

The whole thing is really just a lecture on basic principles. It’s like telling workers, "hey, if you just make high-quality, durable goods, you'll be the best in the business." Simple enough.

And the text itself explicitly states:

A caveat before we start: the paper focuses on general principles.

All those theories... economists already know them all. But they don't actually lead to anything. I mean, think about it. How is it that no other nation—except maybe China, though I think that's temporary—has managed to pull it off? And even with China, we know how they did it, but we can't just replicate that model everywhere else.

The real key is identifying a sustainable way for a society to generate profit, and then proving that it can work long-term for every nation simultaneously. If a community doesn't have a reliable engine for profit, a crisis is inevitable. You see the proof in infrastructure spending.

You guys are getting completely off track here. It really doesn't matter who does what or whether they're doing it right or wrong. That’s all personal stuff.

We need to reach an agreement on permanent ways to generate profit. The possible sources are:

1 - The community budget deficit
2 - Other entities (domestic investors and consumers)
3 - Banks during periods of credit expansion
4 - Foreign investors
5 - The trade balance plus foreign subsidies

Does anyone have anything constructive to add? In your opinion, what would be a permanent indirect source of profit (in actual cash terms)? Like, a source that won't just burn through itself over time, and what is it currently? Please include some reasoning if you can.

All this talk about business experiences and "this happened to me" is irrelevant. That's just a matter of entrepreneurial freedom and adapting to market conditions. It isn't important for this specific analysis. This discussion is about the prerequisite that allows any business to actually exist and grow or evolve into something else.

Everyone keeps talking about saving, accumulation, smart investing, balanced federal budgets, and so on. But the prerequisite for saving is being able to turn a profit somewhere. So, I want to hear it: where can one profit permanently and indirectly? Can anyone provide an argued case?

Also, if the system doesn't allow for profit within the community, then that community won't be able to pay back its loans. Just make sure that profit isn't indirectly tied to new debt. If that happens, you can't repay the loans and the debt just keeps climbing. (It reminds me of that period when the government went all out on massive infrastructure projects—like huge highway expansions—and GDP shot up. Sales tax was rolling in. Wages were rising. People felt wealthy. They borrowed heavily. Mortgage rates shifted. Every small developer was building condos. It looked like heaven on earth. But even back then, it was clear to me that GDP growth driven by pure investment creates an illusion of prosperity; the real situation always surfaces once the credit expansion ends.)

Best,

Thomas Morales13 said:I agree, that's a healthy way to look at it, and ideally, it should work that way. However, things fall apart when politicians fail to maintain a level playing field that allows for genuine competition—something we struggle with quite a bit here in the States.
After all, we aren't operating under the same structural efficiency as Germany..
Even in parts of the US where the "Wild West" mentality dominates, a talented and persistent individual can still climb the ladder through sheer grit...
But, I apologize if I kept bringing my local perspective into this when you didn't ask for it.

It’s a mistake to assume only the top performers need to make a profit. Once the weaker players get weeded out during a certain cycle, the winners end up profiting off those who were just hovering in the middle. Eventually, once those middle guys fall away too, there’s simply no market left to extract profit from. That's basically the situation in America right now. Losers exist because someone else is making money. If you eliminate the current losers, you just have to find the next group to take their place. That's why you see companies collapsing one after another. You only need a few massive, consistently profitable entities—like the big banks—and it's just a matter of time before they drag everyone else into bankruptcy. This assumes the budget deficit is zero and there isn't even any imports coming in. Credit expansion used to hide all of this, but now everything is surfacing because there aren't any more naive people (or any chance) left to take out loans.

The real way to handle it is to let the less efficient ones operate without making a profit, meaning they don't save anything from their labor. They become decent consumers, even if they are terrible at managing their own cash. And of course, the absolute worst performers have to go bankrupt. Under those conditions, you start to see that there really does need to be an influx of new money.

I don't want to just parrot what you wrote Robert Vaughn10, but it feels like you're sidestepping the question about where a community actually finds its long-term profit drivers.

That’s why I brought it up. Fine. Let's just drop the potential solution for a second and look at the facts. What happens? We can't even reach an agreement on where new capital enters the ecosystem. And we have to realize that any influx of new money—whether it's through credit, exports, foreign investment, or international grants—is basically the indirect engine for profit within a community.

We really need to get on the same page about that first.

Robert Vaughn10 said:

Maria Thomas48 As stated by:
The thought is on point, but it’s incomplete. We all want to see a return that actually exceeds what we put in.

Yes, absolutely.

Even if it is... Gregory Williams7 I’ve stated it before: it is mathematically impossible for every nation to run a trade surplus at the same time.

I’m talking about achieving a better balance, not just fixing a deficit.

If some people are constantly pulling ahead, someone else is inevitably falling behind. It’s basic math—if they're always in the black, the rest of us are stuck in the red.

It doesn't hold water if you're actually creating new value.

Regarding the currency situation. The issue only exists if we end up with more domestic cash than foreign reserves. But that’s just a failure of logic. After all, what makes those foreign reserves valuable to us if our own currency holds no value for anyone else?

The reality is we’re importing twice as much as we’re exporting. In the Eurozone, import coverage sits at roughly 86% of exports.
No economy can survive with a ratio as broken as ours. Foreigners aren't interested in our currency, and frankly, they shouldn't be. That’s what the market decides—there's no arguing with that reality. If we actually focused on increasing production and exporting high-quality goods to bring in foreign exchange, maybe the conversation would be different.

Here’s the answer. When you overprint money beyond the actual value of newly created goods, that currency becomes non-convertible.

Now it’s practically impossible to convert outside the borders of the US, yet there isn't even an offering on the market.
The solution lies in fiscal discipline and production. Specifically, it comes down to that hard reality of fiscal discipline that forces your hand.

I’ve proven that creating any kind of new value requires a massive amount of capital that simply isn't there. Up until now, we've just masked the deficit by piling on debt. My findings show that within a closed system, those loans can never actually be repaid. In an open economy, Gregory Williams7 reached the same conclusion: it is mathematically impossible for everyone to maintain a trade surplus to fuel money supply. He’s right.

First, you have to actually create value. Only then can you print money to reflect that reality. Right now, we simply aren't producing enough. To get this whole engine running again, we're going to need a combination of sacrifice and much smarter capital allocation.

So, what now? Call me crazy and move on. My logical conclusions based on the evidence—which I simply copied and reformatted using different symbols—are correct.

I didn't call you crazy, and please don't drag me into that. We're just having a discussion.

You clearly can't grasp how debt is generated solely through inflation within the credit system.

Everyone is in debt, and pretty much every currency inflates.
This applies especially to the dollar, which requires massive borrowing because it's headed for a collapse soon. You need to flip your perspective on this one.☕
As far as we're concerned, we just need to reverse the trend to get debt under control. That requires sacrifice, discipline, saving, and investing. Most citizens are actually doing this, but unfortunately, the Government isn't. In that sense, GDP being tied up in debt and imports isn't as vital as increasing the share of domestic production in the GDP. If we do that, consumption becomes easy and prices stay lower.😉

Everything you said makes sense, really, but if you actually sit down and read the Federal Reserve Act, you'll see that what you're suggesting just isn't possible. A few months back, I was right there with you, thinking that’s exactly the move we need to make. But the law says no. You can't just print money to fund the government budget because the law strictly prohibits it. It doesn't matter if you create some kind of global miracle or become incredibly productive—you aren't allowed to issue real money to cover those costs. The only way to get cash is through taking out a loan, whether it's you or someone else, and then that money gets spent. It’s the same deal with the Federal Reserve statutes. There is no direct financing for the state. No free money issuance. Just loans that have to be paid back with interest. Do I really need to start quoting the actual text for you all, or are you going to go educate yourselves?

Of course, people need to work. I agree with that part. But let's be real—no amount of hard work is actually going to pull you out from under a mountain of debt. It just doesn't work like that. Even if you just look at a modest 3% inflation rate over twenty years, when you factor in a bank interest rate of 7.5%, you're looking at interest that eats away at the principal until the debt itself ends up being larger than the original amount. It's just math.

There’s this fundamental confusion when people talk about newly created value. In my view, you have to categorize it as monetary profit combined with private savings. If you take the sum of all profits—minus any losses, obviously—and add that to total savings within a closed community that isn't using credit, that number indirectly matches the community's budget deficit. It’s just basic math. If there isn't a budget deficit, then it's just simple math. If someone is continuously generating a cash profit, then others have to take an equal amount of cash loss in total. It’s just how it works.They could have generated billions in turnover, but the actual cash loss they took just balances out against someone else's profit. It’s a zero-sum thing. You see economists constantly arguing about this, mostly because they can't agree on how to logically interpret the formulas—the ones Professor Dirk Krueger laid out in his book. I’ve actually demonstrated this with an example that nobody can really argue with. But people always seem to skip over that part.

The logical conclusion here is that... It just doesn't work that way. You can't have one entity, or even a whole group of them, running a massive deficit forever and expecting it to just stay a bottomless pit of profit for everyone else on the profitable side. It's mathematically impossible. Eventually, the math catches up to you.The only real scenario where that works is when the entity itself is actually printing the money. In an open economy, you're looking at export revenue—which isn't exactly a universal fix for like 99% of nations out there. It would basically mean the government needs to be issuing real money. But that's actually against the law.It’s pretty obvious that you can't just print money whenever you feel like it; there has to be some actual math behind it. Everyone is terrified of inflation. But has anyone actually looked at how our money supply was growing back in the day? It was spiking at 30% annually, and now it has dropped down to around 14%. And yet, that didn't trigger a proportional jump in inflation. The trick is all in having enough foreign exchange reserves built up from depositing loan proceeds. That's how the Federal Reserve maintained MES—macroeconomic stability—by swapping currency to cover imports.

Look, we shouldn't be obsessing over the implementation side of things right now. That’s not the real issue. The core problem is proving that there's a genuine shortage of real money supply. You can get by without addressing that for a little while, sure, but it isn't sustainable in the long run. Eventually, the economic wizards will figure out how to handle the execution part. In the US, that kind of thing is actually a relatively easy task to manage.

If you actually take the time to read that response from the Treasury Department, you’ll notice how they worded it. It’s carefully crafted so they don't have to judge me or claim I’m wrong. They aren't saying I'm right either. They just frame it as choosing a different direction for economic policy. They didn't say their path is bad or flawed. They basically just said, "this is the direction we're taking because it works for us." They didn't even attempt to counter my point about how you can't pay back debt fueled by a state deficit. It makes you wonder if they're smart enough to avoid discrediting themselves as experts—both now and as things play out down the road. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't be able to write something like, "We know you're right, but the law won't let us do better." I'd look like a complete idiot and probably lose my job on the spot. It’s easy for someone like me, a total layman when it comes to economics, to throw evidence around at actual economists. If I were an economist, the second I spoke up, I’d be labeled and discredited as an expert. I'd be out of a job. And all just to prove that I know how to think for myself? Honestly, it's a good thing I'm not an economist.

I wouldn't recommend economics students asking their professors these kinds of questions before they graduate, either. You never really know how many of them are true intellectuals and how many are just... others. Intellectuals are the ones who fight for their country using their knowledge. The others are just highly educated.

I still can't wrap my head around economists who see that my logic lines up perfectly with the situation here in the US and across the globe, yet they still insist the cause of the crisis and massive debt is something else entirely.

Even Soimed pointed out in an old post regarding my topic that Japan has tried every possible variation of economic policy, and the result is always the same: growing debt. Do we really need to go through everything Japan went through just to prove that high-tech equipment, education, hard work, and all that doesn't lead to lower debt? I don't think so. We have to accept the fact that besides those qualities, something else is driving the bad results. And that is exclusively the credit-based financial system. It's proven. You can't pay back budget deficit debt with more credit when there isn't a flow of real money into the system. Period.

This realization is factual. It’s not some groundbreaking discovery. The people who set up this current system know it very well. In fact, that's exactly why the system was designed this way. The reason isn't MES; it's a sneaky, wrapped-up way of stripping assets.

And now we see these supposedly great leaders in the EU acting like they're actually working to solve the Greek problem. Everyone knows that under the current system, Greece has zero chance of paying off its debts (just like any other nation). They can't tell the truth, and handing out more credit is like trying to fill a black hole. It serves no purpose other than buying time and inflating the debt further.

The same thing awaits America. We can't pay off our debts, theoretically or practically. Even if we developed as much as Japan, we would just end up with even larger debts.
Wake up, people, before it's too late. The credit system is the sole reason for the current crisis in every nation. The system breaks every country. Developed nations face even higher totals because they had the collateral to take out even bigger loans—and loans are the only source of new money, since 95% of the money in circulation comes from credit.

So, let's start from the beginning. We need to agree on permanent ways to generate profit. The possible sources are:

1 - The community budget deficit
2 - Other entities (domestic investors and consumers)
3 - Banks during periods of credit expansion
4 - Foreign investors
5 - The difference between exports and imports + foreign subsidies

In my view, the only permanent sources of profit in the current credit system are positions 1 and 3 (by taking on increasingly larger amounts of debt). Position five isn't a solution for most countries (99%).

With primary issuance via the budget, the only permanent source of profit is position 1. There is no need—and borrowing should be limited so it doesn't become impossible to repay—to take out infinite loans. Banks should probably be removed from the list of profit sources altogether because loans have to be repaid with interest. The definition of profit I'm using in my text is the monetary difference between revenue and costs. The exchange of goods and physical wealth doesn't matter here. The reason is simple: you can't pay back bank debts with physical goods.

Those are just my sound logical thoughts. You won't find these conclusions in Dirk Krueger's "Macroeconomics." Everything else is just the same old story.

That's where we need to start. Everything else is just fairy tales.

Gregory Williams7 said:Perhaps you are right... yes, I finally see the truth. Rohatinski is insane, everyone at the Federal Reserve is out of their minds, and the ministers along with their advisors are equally deranged. Absolutely no one offers a single coherent argument (even though you have five pages of arguments written right here). Analysts at the university, everyone on this subforum—everyone is crazy. Only you are the wise one in this world who truly understands the reality of the situation!

Do you also see something that isn't quite right?

Take some time to read the Statute of the Federal Reserve when you can. Perhaps you will notice that the primary task of the Federal Reserve is price stability. Yet, you think you've found the solution by printing money to fix every systemic issue. Please...
I am being serious; this isn't an economics discussion anymore. This belongs in the alternative theories section. We are talking about cultists or Masons or whatever they call themselves, people obsessed with control. If you move this topic there, you might actually find followers. Here, people will simply mock you.

I must admit, I am genuinely, truly fascinated by your stubbornness.
Let me ask you sincerely once more: who has to tell you that what you wrote is nonsense before you believe it is nonsense? Name just one person, anyone at all, and I will personally translate and email your ideas to them if necessary. I am not joking; I am genuinely curious if you respect any authority higher than yourself, or if you consider yourself the absolute authority on this matter?
As for your career, if you haven't chosen a path yet, you would make a perfect kamikaze pilot. In any case, stay away from economics. I predict a swift and painful end to your professional life.

P.S. My mind is critical enough to recognize when someone is peddling garbage disguised as "expertise." All your citations and conclusions can be ignored the moment the core idea of printing money is revealed. That is pure nonsense.
There is a thread titled "CURRENCY DEVALUATION vs Status Quo" started by a freelancer last year. Go through those seventy pages of discussion. Either close this thread or move it to the alternative section so you stop embarrassing yourself; this has gone too far. I honestly don't know how you sleep at night knowing what you write here.

Just raw text without any actual arguments. First off, the mathematical derivation for a closed system (without credit) is correct. The example shows it can't be any other way. If you can't draw logical conclusions from that, it doesn't mean I'm crazy; it means a lot of others are just foolish. Beyond that, I already pointed out that Rohatinski knows all of this, he just doesn't care. He's not a crazy man; he won't publish it. He'd lose his job immediately and might end up in a mental hospital (not because of himself, but because of the impact on others). And he really doesn't need that. He has a nice job and a good salary. Don't underestimate Rohatinski; he knows much more than you think, he just won't say it.

And regarding posts that rely on credentials, that just shows a lack of arguments to actually counter what was said.

When you can't prove something, the easiest thing to do is try to discredit your opponent using their qualifications. Smart people will realize that the person throwing around credentials actually has no clue and is just using them as a shield. It would be better if you didn't post on topics you don't understand and never will.

Regards

http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/

Robert Vaughn10 said:Maria Thomas48, some of your observations are actually quite solid, but your prescription is flawed.
The one point where we align is that banks are essentially charging interest on money that doesn't exist. This might actually work if lending standards were rigorous—if loans weren't being handed out to anyone without a shred of criteria. Everything in life requires balance, and right now, there is none here.
Increasing the primary issuance won't solve a thing; it would just drive up prices and tank the exchange rate. If you wanted to stabilize the currency, you'd end up bleeding foreign reserves, which is the last thing we need.
Before anything else, we need to examine what methods are available to reduce illiquidity without resorting to primary issuance.
What the US needs in this situation is a sharp cut in public spending—specifically cutting everything that doesn't yield a fast or relatively quick return—so that real capital can be funneled into production. I wouldn't mind if GDP dropped another 10% if it meant imports dropped along with it. That is the core issue. Our import-to-export ratio is skewed, and that is where the fundamental deficit in the American economy lies. I’d even argue that American banks have been relatively controlled with their lending; we haven't seen the kind of excesses you see in places like... well, nowhere else really. Fundamentally, you cannot spend more than you earn, and that is how this has to be fixed. Tighten the belt to realistic levels instead of printing paper, because printing solves nothing.

The thought process is headed in the right direction, but there's a missing piece. We all want to make more than we put in.

Even Gregory Williams7 concluded in some earlier posts that it's impossible for every single country to maintain a trade surplus. It never occurred to him that the exact same logic applies to individual entities. Meaning, not everyone can be making a profit (in cash). If some people are constantly winning, it has to hit someone else, and those people end up in the red.

And regarding the currency. The issue arises if there's more domestic currency floating around than there is foreign reserve. But that’s just a fundamental flaw in the system. Why would our reserves (foreign currency) be valuable to us, while our own currency wouldn't be worth anything to foreigners?

Here is the answer. When you overdo it and print way too much money relative to the actual value of newly created goods, that money becomes non-convertible.

I have demonstrated that to realize any kind of newly created value, there isn't enough money available. Up until now, this has been covered by loans. I have also shown that these loans cannot be paid back within a closed system. In an open system, Gregory Williams made the same point about how not everyone can have a trade surplus to fuel the money supply. And he is right about that.

So, what happens now. Call me crazy and move on. My logical conclusions based on the evidence—which I've simply restated using different symbols—are correct.

You just can't grasp how debt is generated solely through inflation within a credit-based system.

Opinions aren't going to save us, only reasoned evidence will. I think it's time to start using your heads before it's too late.

Even the government doesn't want to admit my conclusions are wrong; they just don't want to change the status quo they currently hold. This is the best we can do. There is nothing better, and there never will be. No amount of evidence can sway them—economics has become a religion. It's about having faith, not seeking the truth.

Regards

The truth will set us free

Gregory Williams7 said:Hehe 😁 So, you think you’re being clever. You believe you’re some enlightened expert in your position, yet you still refuse to see reason. Tell me, please, who would it take to convince you that you've lost your grip on reality? Everything you're writing here is nothing more than a heap of nonsense. In my opinion, this belongs on an alternative forum rather than cluttering up a discussion about the economy.

And yes, truth will set you free... so perhaps pick up a book.

The idea that there won't be enough money to repay loans... good grief. 🙂 That is quite possibly the most foolish thing I have ever heard. What happens when that portion of the loan is repaid? Does the money simply vanish? No, it doesn't. It flows right back into the system through various stimulus measures and settles at the bottom of the pyramid. Money has been circulating this way for centuries, and now you think you've discovered something revolutionary? My goodness. 🙂 Please ask the moderator to move this thread to the alternative section. 🙂

I'd notice that the claim that I'm crazy isn't backed up by any actual arguments. Just like the response from the Treasury isn't.

The fact that the truth isn't what you imagine it to be is your problem, and honestly a failure of the school system for not teaching you how to have a critical mind.

It's pretty dense to suggest that loan money returns to the system. That money was created out of thin air and it needs to turn into nothing once the debt is repaid. Only the interest is real. Seems like there's zero understanding of how a flexible monetary system works.

For homework, go read the Statute of the ECB and the laws governing the Federal Reserve.

Regards