Posts by Maria Thomas48

Jerry Williams41 said:Who exactly is Roko Šikić?

Roko Šikić is the president of the Love America association. You can find more info at this link.

https://sites.google.com/site/rokosi...sku-roko-sikic

Jerry Williams41 said:Essentially, Maria Thomas48 is onto something, though they seem to struggle with putting it into words, and they've managed to get themselves tangled up in the whole concept of credit-based money creation, which they view as inherently flawed. While the idea of money appearing out of thin air is certainly a point of contention, that’s just how the system operates. If we were distributing soap and nothing else instead of debt, we’d probably be facing an even more absurd crisis.

By the way, Maria Thomas48, what’s your take on how The Dutchman managed to secure independence from the superpower that was Spain back then? My guess is they simply had much more sophisticated banking institutions at their disposal.

Having monetary expansion controlled by banks is the core issue because it creates debt that crushes both the government and the people. Only the state should have the authority to create money, not private entities for their own gain—especially when they do it poorly, triggering endless debt crises.

I honestly believe this specific reform is the only way to exit this crisis without total collapse. And there is a massive pushback against this solution happening right now (Paulson and his crowd; all those pro-European Union ad campaigns; stuff like that).

Based on these fundamental principles—staying out of the European Union and separating money creation from lending—there will be a united front between the Love America association (Roko Šikić) and Ivan Pernar’s Reform Party. That is who I plan to vote for in the next elections. Every other party that ignores these basics is just driving our country toward ruin (Republican Party, Democratic Party, Labor Party, Liberal Party, etc.).

Anyone who actually cares about their country and wants a better life will join us in this fight to escape economic slavery. It is a war, plain and simple. It requires sacrifice and persistence, but it serves the most vital goal for everyone living in America: preserving our national independence. It is just as important as any major conflict we've faced. We are essentially under occupation, and if we don't act, we might be looking at total defeat within five years.

Just look at everything Greece has been forced to sell off to try and shrink its debt, yet it does nothing to stop the debt from growing further. Selling assets and privatization only makes their situation worse.

We could live much more calmly and comfortably outside the European Union if we just reformed and broke free from this economic bondage. We wouldn't have to ruin lives through foreclosures, unemployment, tiny pensions, terrible healthcare, expensive higher education, hopelessness, and all the other symptoms that come with being enslaved to debt-based money. All of this can be fixed once everyone decides to overhaul how we regulate money and banking.

Andrew Booth29 said:If I’m following your logic correctly—and I’m trying here—you’re suggesting that people find fulfillment simply because the numbers on their bank statements are ticking upward? That true human happiness is found by just cranking up the money printers and tossing cash at everyone like it's confetti? 😁

In that scenario, we’d basically have a million capable people sitting around collecting welfare checks, wouldn't we.

Look, we see money expansion happening all the time today, but there’s always some massive debt hidden behind it. It’s important to realize that when someone makes a small profit from their labor—just like any standard American business—they are creating actual new value. Work increases the total value of all available goods. To keep things balanced, you need an appropriate amount of money to match that supply, according to your own supply and demand theory.

Now, it is fundamentally wrong to assume that this ratio of goods to money should be satisfied by money that is essentially just masking someone else's growing debt. Do you see how twisted that logic is? If we have managed to create $33 new goods but ended up being collectively deeper in debt by $40, then it's impossible to pay off that debt through production alone. Globally speaking, our costs are outpacing our income. The more we work and produce under this system, the more debt we actually pile up. Everyone sees it, even those who aren't particularly bright.

It’s called economic slavery. It's rule by debt. To end this, we have to decouple money creation from lending.
Money is being created constantly. So, your whole argument about changing things is pointless. Nothing changes; the only thing that needs to happen is returning the power of issuing money to the state, and the state shouldn't be taking out loans anymore either. Also, banks need to be stripped of their power to expand the money supply through credit, which is just a byproduct of money multiplication.

What is being discussed here isn't some crazy plan to print money recklessly. This is a scientific method proving that solving a debt crisis can be done simply without causing inflation—which is what you're exaggerating because you don't grasp the mechanics. Let me say it again: issuing government money combined with bank money multiplication via fractional reserve banking is what ultimately drives inflation. We saw this with Kennedy's reforms, which I honestly think were just a calculated diversion meant to destroy the value of our currency.

And following a similar line of thought, we had another genius like Paulson:

"We can, therefore, produce money that covers newly created value. The Federal Reserve is making a mistake by basing the money supply on the Euro rather than on American production."

Everything there is correct, except for one thing: that money shouldn't be issued as debt, and banks shouldn't be allowed to increase the money supply through lending. Since that part is missing, the whole thing feels like just another attempt to sabotage the real solution.

Anyone who actually understands macroeconomics through cash flow—the way I described it—couldn't fall for this nonsense. The more people push this, the more embarrassing it is for economic education.

Do you see the difference now between printing money with bank multiplication and printing money without it? Do I really need to repeat myself? They aren't the same. There is a massive difference.

Andrew Booth29 said:I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. By definition, total costs must equal total revenue within a closed system—it’s a fundamental accounting identity, something you actually noted on your own page. A transaction is an exchange, plain and simple; there are always two sides to the coin—one party hands over the cash, and the other receives that exact same amount.
So, I’m asking you to please define your terms precisely, because it’s clear we aren't talking about the same thing. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood something on my end, but let's get our definitions straight.

And what's the point of all that? You guys are missing the money supply, right? Am I supposed to be the one to point that out, or are you? It's right there in the article: https://sites.google.com/site/financ...ma-do-rjesenja. Do I really need to copy the whole thing into this thread? Everything is laid out there and it's all correct.

Andrew Booth29 said:No, I am being serious here. I’ve been looking through your pages, and I distinctly remember seeing a formula stating that total revenue must equal total expenses. Now, suddenly, you're showing costs—or expenses, if we're being precise—exceeding the revenue. So, I’m just wondering: where am I missing the mark? Perhaps we aren't even using the same terminology?

I mean, who even sent you guys to those sites in the first place? All I asked was for you to demonstrate that you can handle a basic task—one based on hard work, diligence, and eventually achieving some modest savings. You know, the very thing everyone swears is the roadmap to success.

All this mocking about things we aren't even discussing... it really just feels like a way to dodge the question regarding whether you actually have the competence to speak accurately and professionally on the subject. Is this how you handled your exams back in college?

The constant pivoting away from the actual topics—inflation, the idea of money creation being debt, and the impossibility of covering costs—just shows that you refuse to admit I'm right, no matter what. Instead, you're just using technicalities and deflecting to try and score points.👎

Andrew Booth29 said:Something told me you wouldn't be able to put that into words... 🤣

I have a gut feeling this is a deliberate attempt to dodge the subject. It’s a classic move—when someone can't prove their point, they just start insulting the other person instead. It's a transparent tactic. I really don't want to sink to that level of conversation. Go find some fool willing to teach you macroeconomics.

Andrew Booth29 said:Can you actually define what constitutes a cost versus what qualifies as revenue?

It is all right there in any standard American economics textbook. Just come back once you have actually learned the material.

Andrew Booth29 said:Economics isn't some magic wand designed to fix every single imaginary problem someone manages to dream up. Seriously—tell me, how is economics supposed to solve this one: a tiny town of maybe a hundred people where every single resident insists on walking on eyelashes? How? How exactly is Chartalism going to provide a solution for that? 🤷

The kind of economics you’re pushing can't even tackle the fundamental issue, which is that globally, costs are outstripping revenue.

Give that theory a rest!

Andrew Booth29 said:Maria Thomas48, you’ve laid out this completely useless, ill-defined imaginary framework that bears absolutely zero resemblance to how life actually works. You’ve essentially just conjured up a group of people obsessed with hoarding cash and then... you stopped there.
And honestly, what am I even supposed to say to that—aside from noting that I don't have the patience for these kinds of childish fantasies? 🤷

Regardless, in this little system you've dreamed up, everyone can just save money by pulling currency out of the market. But let's be real—they can't do that forever. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I have to point it out: people aren't immortal. And Santa Claus isn't real either.

It seems like every single time economists can't figure something out, they just declare it unrealistic or impossible. But there is an answer found within the economic framework of Chartalism. It just proves that the current economic theory being used in the real world simply doesn't hold water.

We can only move forward once we get rid of bad theories—both in practice and in our heads. People keep clinging to one specific theory and tossing everything else aside, even though this particular theory fails to solve a very practical task: ensuring that everyone's hard work is equally rewarded with a small monetary profit from their labor.

The way banking works right now creates money as debt, which offers a fake solution to the problem while just resulting in even more debt. Over time, that debt grows and ends up destroying people's lives and standards of living. What is the ultimate goal here? To control money as debt and make everyone dependent on it—basically making them slaves who obey the bankers.

Are you a banker?

Andrew Booth29 said:The average salary here in America is $1.75, while the primary money supply sits at over $60 billion. Anyone could theoretically tuck away $10 every single month. But honestly, does that even matter? What is this thought experiment actually supposed to prove? 🤷
Not with the reality of things, certainly not.
It seems to me you’re just fascinated by this accounting identity—this idea that savings and investment are two sides of the same coin. But look, for someone to invest, someone else has to save. One group saves, while the other invests. To have saving at all, you actually need—well, you need two parties. Saving is essentially just a transfer of consumption from the saver to the debtor. There isn't anything controversial about that.

I wasn't asking you for an example based on America. I was asking about the example provided in the problem itself. It's a practical scenario meant to show whether or not you actually know how to solve the problem. If you don't know how to solve it, then please don't spread misinformation because your knowledge is lacking. Either educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism and then maybe we can figure out the solution together.

Andrew Booth29 said:I honestly don't see what's so difficult about this problem. If everyone just puts $10 into their savings account every month, then at the end of the year, everyone ends up with $120 in their accounts. Can we please move on to something actually challenging?

But seriously, why on earth would anyone bother trying to save a single dollar a day? 🤷

Now go ahead and prove that it’s actually possible. And explain how. Where on earth are you going to pull 360 million dollars in savings from?

Andrew Booth29 said:Just take a quick look at the history of hyperinflation and everything becomes crystal clear. There isn’t much mystery left once you peel back the layers. Keynesianism has failed in practice more times than I can count—so why should this time be any different? But people have an insatiable appetite for a free lunch, and there’s always some politician or economist ready to serve it up. It’s like those "miracle cures" for arthritis—everyone knows they’re snake oil, yet people keep lining up to buy them anyway.
As for those equations of yours, I really have no interest in wasting my time debating meaningless, misinterpreted accounting identities. 😉

Honestly, I couldn't care less about what professors or Nobel Prize winners have to say if they can't actually provide a solution that works in the real world.

As for those equations of yours, I really don't have any interest in messing around with senseless accounting identities that people just end up misinterpreting anyway. 😉

I wasn't actually asking you about my evidence. I was just making a polite request for you to finally decide once and for all whether you actually understand economics, or if you’re just reciting dogmas that nobody is allowed to question.

This is a concrete issue, and it has nothing to do with my formulas. It’s about the lives of millions of people. How are you actually going to create conditions where someone working sixteen hours a day can save a single dollar? If that's too hard, then just show me how they can save one cent. Just prove you know how to solve the actual problem instead of just pouring dogma out of various textbooks.

Here’s another simple task:

Imagine a country with a million people ready to work. Now, picture a nation that maintains a perfectly balanced trade deficit. Within that setup, you could force every single one of those people to grind away for sixteen hours a day in whatever jobs you assign them, and yet, they would only ever be able to save a single dollar from their earnings each day. And you could keep that cycle going forever.

What’s actually wrong with this prompt? It asks if it's wrong to suggest that every hardworking person should be able to set aside a tiny bit of savings from their labor. Is that really such a problematic thing to say?
Is this really an unsolvable puzzle for economists? It’s such a minor thing, yet somehow it stays a massive headache. And then you have people being handed the Nobel Prize in Economics every single year. It’s funny how nobody seems to actually fix it. What a coincidence.

Look, if the headcount isn't working for you? Just change it. If the hours don't fit the schedule? Change them. If the daily savings aren't hitting the mark—just make sure they stay above zero—then change that too. But seriously, just say it once. I don't know how to fix this. Just stop talking about things you don't understand, can't grasp, or simply refuse to wrap your head around.

You can't honestly tell me that the profitability of what these people are doing is questionable and then claim you don't have a solution, if you actually understand economics. It’s pretty simple. The whole point of the task is that they just execute while you dictate exactly what needs to be done. There is no room to talk about incompetence or the laws of the market here. You define everything. Once you set those parameters, success becomes inevitable. Or maybe it doesn't, if you don't actually know how to run the show?

Andrew Booth29 said:Comparing a legitimate scientific paper—one actually grounded in historical facts and hard data—to nothing more than mindless blathering that offers zero substance beyond empty rhetoric is frankly ridiculous. It isn’t even worth a response. Jerome Powell seems to be nursing political ambitions now, peddling all those "milk and honey" promises to anyone listening. It’s just cheap, bottom-tier populism.

So, I guess Kenezijanizam is just blathering too? Who knew. That's definitely not how they teach it in college. If we didn't already know, Jurčić is a university professor.

Anyway, what about the assignment. Has anyone from your list actually solved it?

Andrew Booth29 said:Peter Thiel has written an excellent book on this subject—it is essentially what he has dedicated his entire life to studying. 😉

Bringing up professors is an illusion. Take Jerome Powell for example: America could have the fastest growing economy without any blood, sweat, or tears where he uses these specific words:

"We can produce money that covers newly created value. The Federal Reserve is making a mistake because they don't base the money supply on American production, but rather on the dollar."

So, he’s essentially calling for classic inflation. It just goes to show that being a professor, or even a Nobel laureate, doesn't mean you're right. It just means you were good at convincing other people of a theory that might eventually fall apart. Just like Kenezianism. A decent theory that didn't last. And the guy spent his entire life on it. Maybe he was paid to cook up a flawed theory? I've concluded there's no way he could build an entire theory without realizing it couldn't survive long-term in a system based solely on credit money. The theory had a built-in error from the start!

Therefore, quoting any economist who hasn't demonstrated a working method—proven by practice in an actual country—is just selling snake oil, and people should be called out for it. You're just confusing people, and honestly, it feels like intentional obstruction to keep them away from real solutions.

I've already told you all to stop trolling the topic with your manipulations. You can't even solve a basic economic math problem:

In a country with a million able-bodied people that maintains a balanced trade with foreign nations, make it so that everyone—working 16 hours a day at jobs you assign them—can save exactly one dollar per day from their labor. And keep it going indefinitely. Now tell me how you'll pull that off. If you don't have the answer, you're better off staying quiet.

As you can see, a saving of $122 per year is tiny, yet unsustainable for everyone. Not to mention how much debt we already have per capita, and we still don't know how to achieve a saving of $122 per year?

Jesse Sullivan2 said:This whole mess... it’s not just an American thing, it’s the global economy acting up, and honestly? Some people are loving it. There are players out there so massive they basically dictate terms to entire governments. And here we are in the States, just following whatever trends decide to roll our way. The next big move on the agenda is joining the European Union—which, if you ask me, feels like just another scheme designed to line the pockets of the elite while folks like me get left behind.

Of course they are. Just look at the so-called "solution" the European Union pushed for Greece. It was never about fixing anything; it was just about keeping the system on life support for as long as possible. The debt in Greece is just going to keep climbing regardless. Sure, interest rates might drop slightly, but that won't matter much in the long run because the principal amount keeps ballooning anyway.

Andrew Booth29 said:Actually, no. Hyperinflation hits when the government starts printing non-credit money—basically just monetizing its own debt to plug a massive deficit.
Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, sure, but hyperinflation? That’s a purely political one. 🧐

I would really appreciate it if you guys stopped spreading misinformation. I know you all know what the truth actually is.

Jesse Sullivan2 said:It’s funny how "crises" always seem to leave certain people even richer than they were before.
And honestly, looking at how the Roman Empire started falling apart because of their own economic choices compared to the crashes we've seen in America over the last century... man, you start to think there's always someone pulling the strings behind the scenes 😁

Like what was said above, America isn't going to just wiggle its way out of this current financial mess. We're all too deeply entrenched in this system, and honestly, the rest of the world is too. The only way things actually change is if the entire American public wakes up and shifts their mindset completely.

America can definitely break free from this crisis. But it requires actual knowledge, not just some rigid, dogmatic economic theory.

The situation in the European Union might look patched up right now, but nothing has actually changed. They didn't prevent the crisis; they just dragged out the agony. The goal is pretty obvious: keep this system running as long as possible so they can squeeze out as much profit as they can. Printing money as debt is basically just a scam and a robbery.

The shift in mindset needs to focus on this: We don't need more credit; we need more actual, real money to pay back the credit we already have! Don't listen to Dalicia or North calling for lower interest rates. Just use common sense. Common sense says it's impossible to pay back more than the cash you actually possess. And it's been known for a long time now that the debts are way higher than the money available.

fadedwolf20 said:I totally see where you're coming from there! But honestly, I don't think your fix is much better, either. If you hand over total control of primary currency issuance to the states, you're basically begging for hyperinflation to kick in...

Regarding the gold standard—I was reading through this thread earlier and it seems like that would basically force everyone into "saver mode" because the value of the dollar would just climb, which pretty much kills any incentive for people to actually invest. So, we really need to find some kind of middle ground here. What if we let credit expansion happen for a bit, and then once the debt gets too crazy, we pivot back to a gold standard to steady the economy? Then maybe switch back again once things settle down? Just a constant loop to keep us balanced!

I'm not sure how much everyone here knows about this, but hyperinflation—the kind that hits when a government starts printing money like there's no tomorrow—is tied directly to the simultaneous expansion of credit. Basically, if you could actually decouple the creation of money from the lending process, we wouldn't be seeing hyperinflationary spikes. For it to truly spiral, the state would have to go completely overboard with the actual printing. That’s why the whole process needs to be handled by science, not just politicians making calls based on whatever is convenient for them.

I was reading through this thread about the gold standard, and I’ve been thinking. It seems like some people here would favor it just because it rewards savers—since money actually gains value over time—but that also ends up killing any incentive for investors to take risks. You kind of need to find a middle ground somewhere. Maybe we could allow for credit expansion for a while, and then once the debt starts piling up too high, trigger a return to the gold standard to stabilize things? Just loop it like that. A cycle to keep the economy steady.

Haha, that’s exactly how they’d manage to get rid of all the gold. Honestly, that’s pretty much why the gold standard collapsed in the first place.

fadedwolf20 said:Hold up! Even Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are swimming in debt... honestly, every single country is deep in the red. Like, seriously?! Who are they even borrowing from? Are they sending checks to Martians or something? 😕

I didn't need to look at Sweden or Denmark to realize one inescapable thing: we spend every single day working and building things, and yet the result is just an ever-growing mountain of debt.

The whole thing is intentional, not some accident. And the people who created this mess aren't going to be the ones to fix it. We’re the only ones who can. A recent CNN poll really shows how uninformed most people actually are. It was about supporting the new administration's austerity measures: http://edition.cnn.com/politics/us-economy-news...example. All those folks cheering for budget cuts and giving up their own rights under this new government wouldn't feel that way if they understood that austerity isn't the answer. It just shows how much brainwashing has happened. You see the same pattern in other countries where the situation is even worse. There's even an article by Nobel laureate Paul Krugman arguing that austerity is a mistake: http://nytimes.com/opinion/paul-krugman-crisis-austerity

It’s obvious the government needs to spend money rationally—getting the most bang for their buck—but the issue isn't about saving money. It's about how that money is being spent. If you just keep spending more to create even more debt, then obviously, that debt is just going to pile up.

Minister Dalić finally weighed in with her response: "Lower interest rates". It’s the same old story, really. She keeps making these misguided demands. You have the government trying to cut costs while simultaneously telling banks to slash rates. None of these measures actually solve anything. Honestly, I get the feeling this is just a scripted performance meant for the general public—a way to dull people's senses and distract everyone from finding any real solutions.