Posts by Maria Thomas48

Charles Ramos7 said:So, you're saying what The Administration is doing is actually right? 🤔

It's definitely not right. But honestly, the proposals coming out of the HUB are just the same stuff Greece tried using without seeing any results. Cutting government spending doesn't work. Raising taxes doesn't work either. Now they're starting to talk about different measures, and Ljubo Jurčić is looking into it: "America could have the fastest growing economy without all the blood, sweat, and tears"

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

The only error Ljubo is trying to pull on us is that this money comes from issuing credit. When we talk about banking reform, there needs to be a separation between issuing money and lending it.

We aren't going to hear a proposal like that from the HUB, whether it's from this current Administration or the last one.

Regarding that article, "The Department of the Treasury is in the red, and procrastination isn't an option anymore," there are warnings and suggestions coming straight from the HUB. Up until recently, Governor Roha was the one handling this stuff, but it seems he isn't being quite as compliant lately, so the HUB had to step in and handle the lecture directly.

And what does any of this have to do with banking? It has everything to do with it. Seriously. Handing out money solely as debt—specifically through bank loans—is exactly what triggered the crisis here in America back in 1994. Now, bankers are going to claim that some other method will pull us out of this mess (savings, certain Administration measures, whatever). It’s just a magician's trick. They divert your attention to one thing while the real action is happening somewhere else entirely.

I honestly don't know how much longer the public is going to fall for these little magic tricks from the HUB, but it's getting old. They would be better off just keeping their heads down and praying people haven't caught on. Because once they do, there won't be anything left of those bankers.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Alright, glad to hear it 🙂
In those early posts, he wouldn't shut up about some PhD economist who gave him the full breakdown, so I naturally assumed you were the one behind it.

Glad to hear it. Our American academics spend all their time writing textbooks. Maybe it has to be that way. If everything was perfect, they wouldn't have jobs or anything left to write about.

There’s a good joke about a lawyer and his son who also became a lawyer. The son tells his father he finally settled a dispute over a property line involving a plum tree—they agreed to just cut it down. And the father says, "Son, I spent fifteen years training you on that very same plum tree."😂

Seems like the same principle applies to economics. The checks keep clearing, but the actual problems never get solved because there's really no rush.

Robin Rodriguez5 said:Maria Thomas48, are you actually the economics PhD that Pernar keeps calling his guru?

No, I am not. Pernar wouldn't just make things up like that.

So, I came across some interesting news today: consumer savings have actually started to dip over the last four months.

We're looking at a 0.5% drop in deposits over that four-month stretch. At the exact same time, credit growth was actually up. You could probably conclude from that that people are pulling cash out of their bank accounts, but they aren't really spending it or paying bills through official channels—maybe just fueling the shadow economy.

The thing is, this kind of trend hits the liquidity of the whole banking system pretty hard. Deposits aren't fully covered, and if everyone starts withdrawing, banks could end up short on actual cash, since only a tiny percentage of total deposits is sitting there ready to go. Most of it is tied up in required reserves. What bank owners are going to do when things get tight... well, we'll just have to wait and see.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Look, we are just the kind of nation where everyone wants the lifestyle without wanting to do the heavy lifting. Honestly, you have to start with the people—not with the banks or the monetary system—otherwise, even communism might have actually worked.

The core idea is sound, really. But if you actually sit down and study how money is regulated today, you find undeniable proof that hard work, diligence, and saving money don't guarantee success anymore. Most people can't get ahead for objective reasons, not subjective ones. That's why this whole conversation keeps happening. It's why hard work doesn't pay, companies go bust, people lose their jobs, and homes and apartments end up being auctioned off. And as more people fall into that trap, they become a burden on everyone else through social welfare or early retirement.

Of course, we have the solutions, we just need to actually apply them. How are we supposed to tell our kids that working hard and being frugal always pays off when the math clearly shows that isn't true right now?

Stay smart and stay alive!

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Look, did I actually mention import bans or did you just imagine I did? Because if we're talking about how customs relates to the entire financial sector—well, I guess that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Who was talking about banning imports? I mentioned raising tariff barriers so that importing becomes expensive enough that it actually makes sense to produce things right here in America.

Customs and banking are linked because this whole thing is a scam based on the idea of a free market. The banks are part of the scheme. Just read what I wrote and stop taking my words out of context.

Even Slavko Kulić said the Federal Reserve isn't a public institution at all—it’s certainly not "the people's bank." The Federal Reserve is complicit in this fraud; Rohatinski basically got an award for it. The Fed regulates the market through money supply, but at the same time, they stifle the economy because they keep interest rates high just to prevent trade and business from growing, which would lead to spending earned money on imports.

Instead of this farce that leads to endless debt, we could issue our own currency, though we still need foreign exchange for imports. Even if we only borrowed to cover imports without speeding up the pace, we’d cut new borrowing by about two-thirds. You can tell people until you're blue in the face not to buy imported goods and food, but as long as they're cheaper, people will buy them. To lower our production costs, we need to get capital the cheapest way possible—through issuance, not debt. And that kind of issuance isn't backed by foreign currency, so any money we earn can only be spent on goods we produced ourselves.

I feel like I'm repeating myself constantly. We can live well if we are hardworking and productive. A tariff wall and exchange rate adjustments make that possible. If we have a steady flow of foreign currency from tourism, shipbuilding, and exporting quality food, we can cover our needs for imported goods.

That's the connection: banking, interest rates, customs, manufacturing, and the free market.

Besides, simply changing the exchange rate under the current system won't work because the debt keeps growing anyway; there are just more zeros added to the national currency. That's just another scam. Purchasing power isn't destroyed by interest rates on loans; it's destroyed by devaluing the currency. It creates an illusion of competitiveness, but it doesn't stop the creation of limitless debt. Debt still accumulates through taking foreign loans in hard currency; it's just that buying things is blocked in a different way. In this illusion, economic growth seems possible at first, but then the mounting debt starts to choke it out, and there's no coming back. You can see how this plays out in Mexico. They recently had to take on more debt. Their minister thinks this will do something for the Mexican economy. Time will tell if he was perhaps a bit mistaken in his statement.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:And there it is—that’s your biggest blind spot right there. Economics is a hell of a lot more complicated than simple arithmetic. It’s about strategy, not just adding up 1+1.
Let me throw a little math question your way—if you actually know how to solve it: Suppose this year you produced enough food to sustain 4 million people, but you're tasked with feeding 5 million. How many people die of starvation?

The topic here is banking reform, not agriculture. You're posting in the wrong thread.

Mark Campbell5 said:Oh, we have a planned economy... it’s just built on a foundation of debt. The "plan" is basically to borrow more and more so everything can be bought up dirt cheap later on.

It's the same thing they did in Greece... that's planned... I mean, every economy is technically planned (because you have a plan, right?). Sometimes those plans don't go exactly how people imagined—but those are just bad plans. 🙂

We aren't living in pure capitalism here... that isn't "planned," it just allows for whatever development happens naturally...

That method of planning production and controlling cash flow you're suggesting? That actually gives the state way more leverage when it comes to managing the economy.

Kind of similar to how things functioned back in America.

Personally, I don't think the solution is inherently bad—it all depends on how it's actually carried out...

You're just removing the banks. The underlying system (where the state issues the money instead of private banks) stays exactly the same.

Let's get down to some actual specifics here.

How much do you actually know about the economic foundations of America?

Do you really see similarities between your proposed system and that old model? And if so, how on earth would you import products that we don't even manufacture ourselves?

And how much of that stuff do we even produce locally to begin with?

Do you have any real data? For instance—say the borders close and we implement this system you're pitching... what kind of mess do you think would pop up as a problem?

Okay. Now we're getting into nonsense territory. First you say a plan is the entry point into a planned economy, and now you're backpedaling and saying we already have a planned economy.

Are you some kind of volunteer at the Atlantic Institute?

I think the solution isn't necessarily bad, it just depends on how it's carried out.....

You're just targeting banks. A system like this (where the government issues money instead of banks) would still be in place.

I am not just suggesting we stop banks from creating money out of thin air, I am suggesting we define a specific place for the entire financial sector—acting as a service that can only take a certain percentage of the profit generated by the actual working economy. That is how anyone would handle it within their own family or business.

Let's start talking about specifics.

How much do you actually know about the economy of America and the foundations it was built on?

Do you honestly think there are similarities to your system? And how exactly would you import products that we don't produce ourselves....

And how much of that stuff do we even manufacture here?

If you had any real data.. say, if the borders closed and your proposed system was put in place... what kind of problems would pop up?

So, this is the second time someone has twisted my words. Where did I ever say that borders should be closed or that nothing could be imported?

I feel like I have repeated myself enough times that I shouldn't bother responding to these rude provocations anymore.

The last thing I will tell you is the difference between the financial system before 1993 and today versus what happens after the solution is implemented:

Before 1993: the government uses primary issuance, banks multiply that influx of money, and we deal with inflation

Today: Money comes in as foreign loans to the government or banks, it gets converted into dollars and high interest rates stifle development just so the foreign currency from those loans can be used to maintain a "stable" exchange rate, facilitate imports, and allow banks to turn dollar profits back into local currency to send back to their home offices. Foreign corporations import cheap goods and make local profits which they then convert to dollars and move the capital out. The whole system moves toward infinite debt.

The Future: The government issues the currency it needs to cover its budget deficit, banks don't multiply the money, and the foreign currency needed for imports comes from exports (like tourism) or significantly smaller foreign loans. This limits overseas spending to what is actually earned, so we aren't spending money we haven't made. Customs barriers would only exist to protect us from cheap imports, allowing us to produce those goods ourselves and pay for them using the currency we issue.

If you haven't caught on by now, you probably never will. If the whole point was just to bait me or push me out onto thin ice, it isn't working. I've sat through countless debates just like this one, and honestly, there's no way to prove me wrong. The math always backs me up.

Mark Campbell5 said:I think we’re both on the same page here—the current economic situation is totally unsustainable. We definitely need to find some kind of fresh way forward.

Your suggestion is interesting, really, and it basically boils down to the government controlling the money supply. But, naturally, if the state takes control of that, they’d have to micromanage a whole bunch of other things too... which just leads us straight into a planned economy. And, well, look at the USSR—that system didn't exactly hold up, did it?

Even if you step back and look at history, any system that tried to lean into that kind of centralized economic planning had an expiration date. It’s because of the laws of physics... things you just can't negotiate with.🙂

Let me try to simplify this a bit, just so I can explain where the fundamental breakdown is happening.

Think about the two basic things you actually need to get anything done: raw materials and energy. You can't manufacture a single thing without having both in stock.

Take a simple pencil, for example. To make one, you need raw materials (the wood and graphite) and energy (to run the machines). If you have the supplies, the power, and the know-how, making a pencil is easy.

The problem is:

Raw materials—they run out.

Energy—it gets converted into useless heat.

So, if you go out and chop down an entire forest to churn out a mountain of pencils, you might end up with a massive pile of cash, but you won't have any more wood or energy left—because you used them all up to get there.

Sure, you could plant a new forest or hunt for a new power source, but even then, resources and energy are finite. Once you've burned through everything, you're still just standing there holding a giant heap of printed paper.

We’re living in a capitalist society right now, and this video explains pretty clearly why we hit these inevitable crises.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

Or, to put it in terms that might click better... try playing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer. You'll realize pretty quickly that unless you keep your resource and energy levels balanced, you're going to lose. Because once the supplies run dry... development just stops.

Right now, we’re facing a world with dwindling amounts of oil—the stuff that effectively powers our entire existence. It’s what they call peak oil.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

And oil provides both the raw materials (think plastics, dyes, fertilizers) and the energy (fuel). Even with people trying to cut back, we're slowly starting to run low.

On top of that, you get the debt crisis. The only way for banks to stay profitable is to keep pumping out loans... if they stop lending, there's no way to pay the money back. That's because that money wasn't "earned" through actual new value; it was injected into the system via debt. We agree on that, don't we?

So, there it is... you've got a financial problem, plus a problem with raw materials and energy. If you want to fix the money side of things, you first have to solve the physical reality of resources and power.

And the only way to deal with the resource and energy issue is to scale back consumption.

The flaw in the closed-loop system you're imagining is that a closed (or even semi-closed) system has to produce *all* its energy and materials internally... and that's where the math fails. People want Levi's jeans from America... and your system collapses because money leaks out of your controlled loop, creating a deficit you can't manage.

So, can you walk me through how your system would actually handle the shortage of raw materials and energy?

Personally, I think the only real solution is to completely change the way we think and approach the whole problem...

The government is already pumping money into things, so we don't exactly have a planned economy anymore. The only difference is that now we're just building up this massive, mounting debt instead. Do we agree on that? If we do, then you're just trying to draw a false comparison to make the solution look bad.

Another thing is just preserving what your money is actually worth. Why does cash lose its value in the first place? Inflation really just comes down to greed and this constant need to cover costs. And those costs just keep climbing as debt piles up. It doesn't make any sense for the government to print money that’s basically losing value as it's being made. But I guess that's just the norm now because the whole credit system can't function without inflation.

Resources really are the bottom line. Let’s be honest, trying to print money without actual resources behind it is just pointless. We're seeing oil production hitting its peak right now, and all the data suggests it's only going to go downhill from here. The population is just too massive. At the rate we're burning through everything, civilization isn't looking at another 500 years. It's more like 50. Maybe less.

So now we’re hearing this whole story about energy reduction—you know, the idea of insulating your house to save money. Honestly, it feels like a massive scam designed to pump cash into the system through more loans. And don't even get me started on solar panels. It's like they want us all to go out and rack up huge debts just so we can supposedly lower our bills later or sell electricity back at some premium price. Everyone is acting like it's a brilliant move. But I have to ask... how does any of this actually pay off if you're just increasing your total debt and there aren't even any other real options on the table?

We definitely need to do something about how we produce energy. It’s an issue. But at the same time, it's just as clear that we can't make the energy crisis our number one priority right now. This wasn't really an issue eighty years ago. Back then, there were fewer people around, so it didn't matter much if a few players decided to profit off some kind of scam. And honestly, I can't even begin to count how many actually good solutions have been tossed aside just because they didn't serve someone's specific interests.

So now we're looking at this situation where the people protecting the interests of economic exploiters just won't lift a finger to let the system return to its natural state. Instead, they’re forcing this absolute rule by the entire financial sector—just pure service-based dominance—right until it hits a point of total unconsciousness.

The solution I laid out—the one Ivan Pernar is actually getting on board with—it basically does one of two things. Either it hands control of the money supply back to the government, which is exactly what they’re trying to do right now by driving up national debt, or it stops the entire financial sector from growing any faster than the actual economy. It's a choice. And honestly, what other option is there? We have to follow these guidelines. That's just how it works.

When you look at imports and exports, the money flowing out is just as much of an issue as the money coming in. Nowadays, when there isn't enough cash circulating domestically, countries start relying on foreign inflows just to keep the lights on and the government running. It’s basically a strategy cooked up by the highly developed nations. It worked pretty well for a long time, honestly, until pure greed took over. They started moving all that labor-intensive manufacturing overseas to chase higher margins. But in doing the math, they ended up sabotaging their own economy. You lose that steady stream of capital entering the country, and instead, you get this constant, relentless drain. It’s exactly what happened in the United Kingdom. It's like that old saying goes: you play with fire, you're going to get burned.

How do you stop capital flight? You use customs barriers and exchange rates. Honestly, the whole thing is just a mental hurdle. It’s all in people's heads. How does anyone deal with money flowing out of the country today? You hike up interest rates. That way, you encourage domestic production, and suddenly there isn't enough liquid cash sitting around to fund massive imports. So that basically means importing stuff with lower tariffs is just a carrot on a stick. You can't actually make it work because the exchange rate is tied down by foreign currency reserves, and an expanding economy naturally gravitates toward spending more on imports anyway. The only real way out is killing off economic growth with high interest rates.

We could actually make it possible for everyone to produce domestic goods because imports would become way too expensive. There would be plenty of work, people would stay busy, and we’d only be spending on imports if we were exporting something first. If everything lines up correctly, any minor inflation would really just come from rising energy costs. The real benefit of true money issuance is that there’s actual global solvency coming from domestic labor. MIO funds could work fine because companies would have the liquidity. We wouldn't even need those vague, messy taxes anymore since all costs—including the government's—could be covered. Anyone with the skills could earn money and use it to buy the very products we're making at home (money only has value if there's actually something to buy with it).

But to pull that off, we have to reject joining the European Union. Just look at Roko Šikić's interview and connect it to this solution. The guy is speaking sense. In that show, they’ll include questions and comments from viewers who hit the nail on the head regarding why we shouldn't join the EU. Roko Šikić’s conclusion is basically that the number one priority is ensuring the US doesn't enter the EU, so that afterward, the economy can be organized in a way that serves everyone's best interests.

I'm in total agreement with Roko Šikić here, and I reached these conclusions just by analyzing how money is regulated in the US and the EU. See, ever since 1994, we've been stuck with this system where money is issued as credit, and that is easily our biggest domestic problem, right after the whole issue of not joining the EU. You should check out the video of Nigel Farage's remarks regarding the debt crisis. He said some very heavy truths, maybe even unintentionally.

And we all know why the system can't just be swapped out overnight. Everyone who got burned and had to pay back massive loans might get the idea to sue someone. 🙂 Consequently, the IMF and the World Bank could find themselves suddenly lacking their massive gold reserves before you can even blink. And that time is getting closer. To prevent that, the system has to be pushed into total chaos so they can sneak in a new scam. They've had more than enough time to cook something up, and I honestly think the backup scam is already prepared. All of this can be preempted if a nation emerges with a real solution. If that happens, everyone will try to claw their way out of the debt crisis as fast as possible and sue the bankers (the IMF and World Bank that were giving the orders) for damages. Maybe 2012 was the turning point? This implies that the elections for a new administration, which will likely fall around then, could lead to the victory of new monetary regulation.

Roko Šikić put it roughly like this: there are no lefts or rights. It's just thieves and honest people. It's up to you to decide early enough, vote NO on the EU, and choose the bloc that advocates for ending economic slavery (the debt crisis) through entirely legal reforms. There won't be any nationalization involved; instead, it'll be the state taking control of assets that were issued without 100% backing.
Much of the current banking assets would shift into state ownership, and interest rates would drop. Importing stuff would get harder (more expensive), but we would all live much, much better and actually be able to pay off our debts.

This isn't about closing borders or isolationism. Barter could work, too. Food for oil and technical goods. We have the land to produce food; we just need to make it profitable. The solution is right there in front of you. Listen to common sense and make the best decision for all of us.

Again, here is the link to a very good book: Marko Franciskovic: "The Program for National Survival" where the author explains how a state can survive. You can skip the part about banks, though, because I think I've presented an even better solution for all time.

Stay alive and stay smart!

Mark Campbell5 said:🤔

Alright, let’s just say we’re talking two different languages here... if that's the case, why don't you try explaining it to me? How exactly were you planning to downplay the gap between skyrocketing wealth at the top and what the rest of the population is actually seeing?

I mean, look—you’re the one who actually typed those words. That was your sentence, right? It’s not like someone hacked your account or snatched your password just to ghostwrite your posts for you... you wrote it yourself, didn't you? Just being honest here.

It really all comes down to how you set up the system... I mean, is it even possible to argue that everyone was getting a fair shake in a slave economy? Not really, right?

I mean, look—it’s not enough to just have an economic system in place. That's only half the battle, really. You actually need a political system to back it up, too. It’s like trying to run a high-performance engine without a chassis to hold everything together—what's the point? You can have all the capital and market movement you want, but without the structural framework of a functioning government to oversee the rules of the game, the whole thing just falls apart. Makes sense, right? Or am I just overthinking this?

So, I’m sitting here wondering—do you actually have any other examples of this kind of economic policy that you’re proposing? You know, stuff that could actually work in the real world?

I mean, has anyone actually tried pulling off an economic stunt like this before? Surely someone, somewhere, has already danced with this particular idea—probably ended up tripping over their own feet, though. Has it ever actually worked, or are we just staring at a theoretical mess?

Do you actually think the examples I brought up regarding population decline and keeping the wealthy in check are solid? Or am I just shouting into the void here?

The wealthy rule through debt. Money? It’s just debt—plain and simple. 😁

The bigger the debt, the richer the rich get—mostly because they’re the ones everyone else owes money to. Or, if I’m just quoting you:

Just like any other process that requires time to multiply—you know, give it room to breathe—credit expansion works in much the same way. It creates this apparent surge of new money, which essentially sets the stage and provides the necessary conditions for an economy to actually function properly. It’s all about that momentum, really. Of course, debt to the banks keeps climbing during those periods, along with the sheer volume of money generated through credit. Total debt always ends up being higher than the actual loans issued. That gap—that little discrepancy right there—is basically where the banks make their money.

https://sites.google.com/site/financ...ma-do-rjesenja

Bank owners = the ultra-wealthy

We’re all on the same page there, aren't we?

And weren't we just agreeing earlier that the rich are only getting richer?

So now you’re suggesting we should scale back (control, relativize, whatever) the profits the wealthy are pulling in—even though, let's be honest, those profits are massive.

Back in 2010, major US banks pulled in a combined pre-tax profit of roughly $4.6 billion,

Look, it’s not that I don't get what you're proposing. Honestly, I actually appreciate the effort you've put in—it's clear you've spent quite a bit of time digging into economics and trying to find a way out of these crises. That's already more than most people who just sit around waiting for a miracle to drop from the sky. I respect the hustle and the enthusiasm. 😉

Personally, though? I think you have to look at the big picture—the whole world, really. Our issue isn't just about some local economic glitch in the States; if we're being brutally honest, we might just be a few days or months away from the total collapse of the civilization we live in.

I mean, it’s not just that the economy (viewed as a system for managing resources and energy) will vanish—everything else that makes up a civilization is going to change too.

History has seen this play out before:

The Roman Empire

The Mayans

So, when you propose an economic system, it has to be based on a completely fresh concept, because you're talking about the entire planet here. Right now, no country on Earth has a stable economic foundation, and everything we've tried so far has fallen apart. If you want a reality check on how dire things are, I could tell you China has the most "stable" system, and they're communists...

Just look at the collapse... give it some thought...

I was thinking about statistics—that they need to be adjusted to show the relative amount and wealth of the rich, because logically, as the population grows, the number of wealthy people should also grow.

Quote:Madge

Actually, it depends on how things are organized... it's hard to argue that everyone was fairly compensated for their labor in a slave-based system... isn't that right? Basically, you don't just need an economic system, you need a political system too.

Trade and money existed during slavery.

Quote:Madge

So I'm wondering if you know of any other practical examples of the kind of economic policy you're proposing? Has someone somewhere already actually implemented such an economic idea?

These ideas are very similar to MMT and neo-chartalism.

Quote:Madge

Do you agree that the examples I gave regarding population reduction and controlling the number of wealthy people are good ones?

The population needs to be controlled for the sake of sustainability, given how many people are on Earth. There's no need to control the number of wealthy people. We can all be wealthy. Some through money, some through ideas, some through physical capabilities. The main thing is that one person's happiness shouldn't be built on another's misery.

Quote:Madge

The wealthy rule through debt. Money = debt.😁 The greater the debt, the wealthier the wealthy become (because people owe them). Or, to quote what you wrote: Since this multiplication process takes time, under conditions of credit expansion, there is an apparent addition of money that enables the necessary conditions for the economy to function properly. Of course, debt to banks grows during that time, as does the share of money from loans. Total debt is always greater than issued loans. That difference represents bank income. https://sites.google.com/site/finance...ma-to-resenje Bank owners = the wealthy We agree on that, don't we? And earlier we agreed that the wealthy are getting wealthier and wealthier And now you want to reduce (control/relativize) the profits the wealthy earn (and they earn massive profits). Back in 2010, the banks here in the States pulled in about 4.6 billion dollars in pre-tax profits. It was quite a significant amount for that period. Look, it’s honestly fine if I don't quite follow what you're suggesting. I really do appreciate that you put in the work. It’s obvious you spent a lot of time studying economics and trying to figure out a way to navigate through these crises. Most people just sit around waiting for some magic solution to fall from the sky, so doing the actual legwork is more than most. I genuinely value the effort you're putting in and your enthusiasm. 😉

It feels like we’re looking at a setup where people building wealth through financial services are basically using a rigged playbook designed to grab every cent for themselves. They want total control over all the assets. At the end of the day, the entire financial sector should just be a service provider for the real economy. What would you guys say if your office cleaner suddenly claimed ownership of the company because of some debt you supposedly owe her for cleaning services? It’s just... I don't know. It feels like a strange situation to be in. Just thinking about the logic of it all. It doesn't seem right. 🙂

The idea that money is just debt isn't some rigid dogma being pushed by this solution. It’s not like that. Money stops being mere debt once it becomes a monetized accumulator of surplus value—value that actually comes from the hard work of increasing the total worth of our goods and services.

I personally feel like you have to look at the big picture—the whole world, really. We don't just have an issue with the economic system here in the States. If you take a real, hard look at things, we’re actually just a few days or maybe a few months away from the total collapse of the civilization we live in.

So, it’s not just that the economy—you know, as this whole system for managing resources and energy—is going to vanish. It goes deeper than that. Everything else that actually makes up civilization is going to change too.

Just because civilization could collapse at any given second doesn't mean we should just sit around and let more crap happen in our lives. Things can be fixed. If enough people actually have the will to change things, they can be. It's possible.

If you’re going to propose an economic system, it has to be built from the ground up on a totally new concept. You can't just tweak what exists because you're pitching this to the entire world. Right now, no country on Earth actually has a stable economic system. Everything we’ve tried so far has just fallen apart. Maybe the best way to show how serious this situation really is would be to point out that China has the most stable system of all, and they're communists.

People have to keep moving forward. One friend told me to just let it go and focus on my day job. But I told him, if I can actually be of more service to everyone by writing this stuff out and breaking it all down, then that’s what I need to be doing—as much as I can manage.

Is it actually insane to force people into economic slavery while playing around with tax policy experiments? It feels like we're just destroying the lives of everyday Americans. People are out there working, yet they still can't cover the basic costs of staying alive. For a lot of folks, just surviving feels like a total nightmare.

If we can actually fix this, then what are we just sitting around waiting for? It feels like we’re expecting someone—politicians, labor unions, the media, some big-shot economists—to just hand us the answer on a silver platter. We need to show the masses that the way things are set up right now is nothing more than a total scam. Once people see how rigged the system really is, and once we point them toward a real solution, that's when we can actually start demanding change through protests.

You can see that those Facebook activists really had the spirit, but they lacked an actual, actionable program that could actually change things on the ground. We finally have the actual evidence right in front of us. It explains everything. It shows exactly why all these government measures aren't doing a damn thing and points to precisely what needs to be overhauled first. You see this happening in a lot of different places. Just look at those protests in France a few weeks back—people out in the streets fighting against raising the retirement age, and in the end, nothing really changes. It’s all just noise. Then you look at Greece, how they got buried under all that debt, and honestly, it looks like we're heading down that exact same path here in the States within five years. Time is running out. Once things start getting worse, people aren't going to be acting on logic anymore. It'll just be pure mob mentality taking over.

Instead of trying to spin this around and act like the problem is impossible to solve, you should really join us in spreading actual ideas that end economic slavery here in America. Our government isn't going to lift a finger; they’re just pushing us deeper into the European Union, where changing monetary regulations is basically off the table. They're essentially selling out our country for some minor personal gain. Honestly, anyone with half a brain who doesn't want to see this nation go bankrupt is going to vote against the EU. At the polls, that means voting for Ivan Pernar’s party, or maybe some other group that actually puts overhauling money regulation at the very top of their agenda.

Mark Campbell5 said:Yeah, let's be honest—the system we’re running right now is basically a recipe for total social fragmentation. It feels like we’re being pushed toward this extreme where you're either sitting on a mountain of wealth or you're struggling just to keep the lights on. There really isn't much of a middle ground anymore, is there?

So, what's the real choice here? Are we supposed to be micromanaging the wealth gap—trying to somehow throttle how fast the rich get richer—or are we looking at managing population growth instead? It feels like one of those impossible "pick your poison" scenarios where you're stuck between two equally massive, headache-inducing levers. Which one is it actually going to be?

Now, here’s what I’m actually wondering about:

So, how would you actually go about reining in—or maybe just "balancing out"—the massive surge in wealth among the ultra-rich? It’s one of those questions that sounds simple until you actually start peeling back the layers, isn't it? I mean, we see these numbers climbing every single day, and you have to wonder if there's even a realistic way to pull the reins on that kind of momentum without breaking the whole engine. How do you even begin to approach that level of control?

So, how would I go about controlling population growth? It’s one of those massive, messy questions that makes you want to just stare at a wall for an hour—or maybe grab a coffee and wonder why we even bother. Honestly, where do you even start? You can't just flip a switch like you're dimming the lights in a theater. If you try to force it through heavy-handed legislation, you run straight into the kind of civil unrest that makes current political debates look like a quiet Sunday brunch. People generally don't take kindly to being told how many kids they can have in their own living rooms, right? I suppose if you wanted to be subtle about it—more "nudge" than "shove"—you’d have to look at the systemic stuff. Education, access to healthcare, economic stability... all that good stuff that naturally shifts how people plan their lives. It’s less about control and more about creating a landscape where the math just works out differently for everyone. But then again, that takes decades. Decades! We live in an era of instant gratification; nobody wants to wait forty years to see a policy actually move the needle. Is there a way to do it without being a total tyrant? Maybe. But every time someone suggests a "solution," you start wondering about the unintended consequences. You pull one thread, and suddenly the whole sweater unravels. Is it worth the risk? Probably not. But hey, that's just my two cents while I sit here overthinking things.

Let’s take a quick look at some recent history—you know, the stuff they don't usually dwell on in textbooks—regarding how certain powers have tried to put a cap on the number of ultra-wealthy individuals out there. It’s a fascinating, if somewhat messy, rabbit hole to fall down. I mean, think about it—how often does a government actually step in to say, "Hey, you've got a bit too much of the pie"? Usually, they're quite happy to let the wealth accumulate, provided it keeps the gears turning, right? But then you get those moments where things shift. Take a look at what happened during certain eras of the mid-20th century in the States—back when the gap between the titans of industry and the average worker was... well, let's just call it "noticeable." There were periods where tax codes were practically designed to ensure that nobody could just sit on a mountain of gold without the Treasury getting its cut. It wasn't necessarily about punishing success, or at least that's the polite way to frame it—it was more about preventing a handful of families from owning everything from the steel mills to the local grocery stores. And isn't it interesting how often these attempts to redistribute or control wealth end up triggering massive shifts in how capital moves? One minute you're tightening the leash on the billionaires, and the next, all that money just migrates to a different corner of the globe before the ink on the legislation is even dry. It’s like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands—you think you've got a grip on it, and then, poof, it’s gone. Does anyone else feel like we're seeing those patterns repeat themselves today? Or am I just overthinking the whole thing while staring at my coffee? Probably both.

It’s funny how history works, isn't it? You look at these massive, sweeping narratives about national identity and suddenly you realize everything we thought we knew might just be a collection of carefully curated myths and convenient omissions. I was digging through some old records recently—you know how I get when I start falling down those rabbit holes—and it really makes you question how much of what we call "truth" is actually just a polished version of events designed to make everyone feel better about the past. Is anyone else feeling this? It feels like every time we think we’ve reached a consensus on a major historical event, some new piece of evidence drops that completely flips the script. It’s almost like looking at a house where you finally notice the foundation is cracked after years of admiring the fresh paint. Does the official story even matter if the underlying reality is so messy? Probably not, but it sure makes for a more comfortable bedtime story for the masses. Just something to chew on while you're sitting there wondering which part of your own history is actually built on sand.

Let’s take a quick look back at some recent history regarding population control—it's a heavy topic, I know, but worth a bit of a deep dive if you have the patience for it. You ever wonder how much influence a government actually has over the sheer number of people living within its borders? It isn't always about subtle policy shifts or tax incentives, either. Sometimes, things get... well, let's just say "intense" is an understatement. There have been moments in modern history where central authorities decided that the math simply didn't add up anymore, and they took drastic steps to balance the scales. It makes you think, doesn't it? About where that line is drawn between public interest and individual autonomy. It’s a slippery slope, and once you start sliding, there’s no telling where you’ll end up.

I was just scrolling through some history archives—you know how those rabbit holes go—and I stumbled upon the documentation regarding Nazi concentration camps. It’s one of those things where you think you have a general idea of the darkness of the 20th century, but then you actually sit down and read the specifics, and it hits you differently. It’s heavy stuff. Truly. It makes you wonder about the sheer scale of organized cruelty—how an entire system can be built, brick by brick, just to facilitate such absolute depravity. It isn't just about the violence itself, though that was horrific enough, but the bureaucracy of it all—the paperwork, the logistics, the way people were treated like mere numbers in a ledger. It's chilling, really. Makes you look at modern systems and realize how fragile our own sense of "civilization" actually is when things start to slide toward extremism. Just something to chew on today, I guess.

I think I’m finally starting to wrap my head around the economic policy you’re actually proposing here... but it makes me wonder—which political system do you think would even be capable of pulling that off?

And while we're on the subject... how exactly do you think the wealthy—or that specific group of people whose numbers you love to "contextualize" and control—would actually react to an idea like yours?

I'm curious about this one. 😁

Controlling the wealthy isn't necessary. I never said that.

The goal should be creating conditions where everyone gets paid fairly for their work and can cover their basic living costs. That doesn't depend on the type of system—whether it's feudalism, capitalism, or whatever.

My ideas aren't aimed at the wealthy, they are aimed at those who rule through debt.

Mark Campbell5 said:For starters:

Today, the world’s wealthy are richer than before the crash and the number of individuals belonging to this highly exclusive club has grown.

source

These stats say the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

Care to explain that one to me?

Of course I can. There was this broad group of wealthy people who just keep getting wealthier, eventually crossing over those fixed wealth thresholds over time.

It would be much more useful if there was some kind of distribution statistic showing where the number of wealthy people sits relative to total global wealth.

But even looking at this data, it's clear the number of ultra-wealthy people grew faster than the general wealthy population, and their assets surged significantly. It means we aren't seeing any movement toward equality, just more divergence.

The percentage growth of the wealthy should also be weighed against population growth.

goldenwolf13 said:I mean, it’s pretty obvious that not everyone is going to be equally successful, right? And honestly, why would they be? It just doesn't make sense. We aren't all built the same way—some people are tall, some are Black, some are born with disabilities—so why on earth would we expect everyone to turn out exactly the same? I guess it’s just human nature.

I honestly don't follow the logic here. In an era where the flow of capital, people, goods, and services is operating at a level that felt like pure science fiction just fifty years ago, why on earth would any nation try to chase autarky? Closing borders and retreating into isolationism just doesn't make sense anymore. Which country can actually afford to do that? Not one. Not the USA, not Japan, not some small developing nation—absolutely nobody. Yet, you seem stuck on this idea of a closed system and you just won't let it go. I suppose red_shrike made a decent point about zero-sum games, but that concept doesn't really apply to modern international trade, nor does it hold up when you look at total state economic activity, if you can even call it that these days.

I mean, look, your math is technically solid—nobody’s really going to dispute the calculations themselves—but the whole thing is built on fundamentally flawed premises. I suppose anyone can claim their model works perfectly if they just bake their own specific assumptions into the foundation, but you can't forget that an assumption is usually where the real trouble starts. 🙂

If you’re actually putting in the work and staying productive, I don't think the bankers are going to skin you alive. Honestly, they're more likely to go after the people who just sit around waiting for a windfall to drop from the sky. And really, I guess there isn't much point in feeling sorry for those types. In most cases, if you're someone who stays active—investing, building things, growing what you have, even if you happen to use a little credit to get there—you probably don't need to spend too much time worrying about what your future looks like.

What kind of chaos? In capitalism, everything is mapped out in minute detail; there isn't really any "chaos" involved. The fact that the state doesn't decide who gets to drink or who pays the bill—leaving that instead to the market—isn't some unpredictable force. There hasn't been a better regulator than the market. Any single individual is still just a person made of flesh and blood with their own biases and worldviews. The market simply reflects the collective preferences of an entire population in a given area. That's why the market is superior.

And why are you so against exporting? You say it's just passing the buck to another country? Well, maybe that’s true, but what’s wrong with that? We have to compete in the marketplace. If we don't export a product today, we'll just be forced to import it tomorrow. It's a market game; you have to compete and occasionally beat someone else just so you don't get crushed. It isn't pretty, and it isn't moral, and we'll all probably burn in hell for it, but that's reality. The sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be...

The gold standard was the rule because it actually had some material foundation in physical gold, whereas today everything just runs on trust. I can wrap my head around being against the gold standard or against modern Wall Street by [Equivalent Name], but being against both at once... I don't quite follow that logic, I guess.

1. The government isn't the only entity creating money. On top of primary issuance, you have secondary issuance, and even tertiary issuance in the form of vouchers distributed through compensations, similar to what Konzum does. If you strip banks of their ability for secondary issuance, then what is the point of having banks at all?
2. Okay, fine—tomorrow the Fed decides to jack up interest rates on everything we import! The day after, you'll be standing outside their office, starving and thirsty, because the grocery stores are empty. The US imports essential food items, and why? Because our domestic food is too expensive. And why is it expensive? Because there are maybe two or three major producers in the country, while thousands of "farmers" are just sitting around waiting for subsidies, chilling out in Lamborghinis disguised as tractors!! In a situation like that, you really think introducing tariffs is the answer??

I'm not saying everyone needs to be a massive success, but it just doesn't make sense that being unsuccessful automatically means you end up in debt. If you aren't making it, your long-term balance should essentially sit at zero. That isn't what we're seeing today. People are taking out loans just to cover their basic living expenses. Of course, there are those who just spend money they don't have on things they don't need, but I'm not really talking about them. Losers will always be losers. I’m talking about the people who work hard every single day but still can't make ends meet without falling into a deficit. The whole issue comes down to how money is regulated. You can see the proof if you look at an XLS spreadsheet. Every single transaction represents a service, a product, or a tax payment. It all ties back to that.

I just don't get the logic behind trying to chase autarky in today's world. We’re living in an era where the flow of capital, people, goods, and services is at a level that people fifty years ago only dreamed of in sci-fi novels. Which country can actually afford to close its borders and retreat into isolation? NONE. Not the USA, not Japan, not some small nation, absolutely nobody. Yet, you're still stuck insisting on a closed system. red_shrike explained the zero-sum game perfectly, but that concept doesn't exist in modern international trade, and it certainly doesn't apply to total state business, if you can even call it that.

I’ve been running my analysis on a closed system, but honestly, that's just an illusion. Even if you have imports and exports, the system is essentially a closed loop financially. You aren't seeing capital flow there; you're seeing the movement of goods. The math I laid out only holds up when you have a balanced trade deficit. Keeping trade balanced is vital if you want to maintain the value of the dollar. I assume I don't need to break that part down. If you export a ton but barely import anything, you end up sitting on a massive pile of foreign currency while facing a shortage of actual goods. You need that foreign cash to buy products from abroad and to pay off your debts. Look, accumulating foreign reserves is definitely better than being in the red, but you have to realize there's a real risk of triggering inflation. Because of that, money supply would have to be tightened. Then, you'd have to make up for that gap through taxes. This only becomes necessary when the economy can't turn that extra influx of cash into new goods and services—basically, once we hit full employment.

Look, your math is solid—I’m giving you an A on that. Nobody is questioning the calculations themselves. But the whole thing is built on completely flawed principles. Anyone can cook up a theory and then just claim their model works perfectly because they've rigged the starting assumptions to fit. Just don't forget that a bad assumption is usually where the whole damn thing falls apart. 🙂

The principles are sound. If you look at the Earth as one isolated system, then the formulas have to apply to it. By that logic, it turns out that doing anything on this planet is globally unprofitable. The proof is right there in the numbers—we’re sitting on a mountain of debt that far exceeds any actual real-world value. If everything were functioning normally, the total amount of money in circulation, even being less than the debt itself, should still be trailing behind the true value of our assets. But it isn't.

Look, if you’re actually out there putting in the work and staying productive, the Wall Street guys aren't going to skin you alive. They aren't coming for you. Instead, they'll be looking at the people who just sit around waiting for a miracle or a handout from above. And honestly? You shouldn't feel bad for them. If you’re someone who is actively working, investing, and building something—even if you have to take out some loans to make it happen—you generally don't need to lose sleep over what the future holds. You've built something real.

The premise is just wrong. If it’s easy to prove that the system is destroying lives because it's fundamentally broken, then we can't exactly build a future on top of it. All the global statistics show that the number of wealthy people amassing massive fortunes is actually shrinking. That is a direct consequence of this whole poker-style setup. You can see it right there in the math. Honestly, who can even celebrate their own savings when they know that those savings just created an even bigger debt for someone else on the other side?

What element are we even talking about? In a capitalist system, everything is mapped out down to the smallest detail. There’s no such thing as some uncontrollable force of nature here. The fact that the government doesn't get to decide who drinks and who pays—leaving that entirely up to the market instead—that isn't some chaotic "element." Honestly, there has never been a better regulator than the free market. It’s just how it works. You have to remember that any single individual is still just a person made of flesh and blood, driven by their own little preferences and personal worldviews. But the market? The market reflects the collective preferences of the entire population in an area. That is exactly why the market is superior.

Wrong again. Based on those ideas, it’s actually top-tier. It’s just the law of the jungle out there. The strong take what they want and everyone else just watches it happen. That's how things work. It's simple. No way around it.Then you don't even need a government or all those massive institutions. It just becomes a matter of the strongest person winning. Simple as that. No errors.

The law of supply and demand... it’s all well and good, but it doesn't actually explain how we reach prosperity. It just describes the movement. It doesn't give you the roadmap to actual well-being.

So, why are you so against exporting? You say we’re just passing the buck to another country. I mean, sure, maybe that’s true, but what’s actually wrong with that? We have to fight for space in the market. If we don't export a product today, we’ll just be stuck importing the exact same thing tomorrow. It’s a market game. You have to compete and, honestly, you have to screw someone else over just so they don't screw you over first. It isn't pretty, and it isn't moral, and we'll probably all end up in hell for it, but that’s just reality. The sooner we accept that, the better off we'll be.

I’m not against exporting goods. I really am not. My issue is this constant trade deficit we're running—that gap that just keeps growing until the debts become unmanageable. You can't run a country like this. It feels like we're playing high-stakes poker with the lives and futures of 330 million Americans. Right now, it’s basically a lottery. And when you're an emerging economy trying to change the game, the odds are stacked heavily against you. Every single one of those people deserves the chance to live their best possible life. That shouldn't be a dream. It’s actually achievable if a nation manages its resources, its people, and its expertise correctly. So, why waste our people and our natural wealth? Why let everything go to waste just because we refuse to actually put our knowledge to work?

Excessive exporting is basically just another way to deplete our own resources. We're burning through what we have just to manufacture extra cash that we could honestly just create through simple money printing. It feels pretty mindless when you look at it that way. And clearly, nobody is even giving this any thought.

The gold standard worked because there was actual, tangible value backing everything up—real gold you could touch. Nowadays, the whole system just runs on pure trust. I get why you might be against the gold standard, and I totally get being skeptical of modern banking, but being against both at the same time? I honestly don't follow that logic.

I mean, it’s like people just don't get that money only works if it's actually tied to creating value. It feels pretty pointless to try and manufacture double the value—one sitting uselessly in a vault as gold and the other being actual useful goods. It's just a total waste of resources. Honestly, it's just busywork.

The gold standard mattered because it allowed banks to expand credit without much worry. People trusted it because of the gold reserves. But honestly, it’s all a scam. The demand for money supply grew way past the actual amount of gold available. It was bound to fail, especially when other countries—the ones swimming in dollars—started demanding their gold back.

1. The government isn't the only entity creating money. You have primary issuance, then secondary, and even tertiary in the form of vouchers or similar things distributed through compensations. If you take away a bank's ability to perform secondary issuance, then what's the point of having banks at all?

All money issuance except for the state's needs to be killed off. No one else in the country should be able to expand the money supply. We aren't talking about eliminating secondary issuance entirely. We just need to stop the multiplication through deposits. You achieve this with a reserve requirement of 50%. That way, through multiple deposit cycles from issued loans, you can't artificially inflate the money supply. Theoretically, 100% ends up in the reserve fund, which matches the total sum of issued credits. The initial cash isn't being turned into a larger volume of credit.

2. Okay, suppose the Fed hikes interest rates on everything we import tomorrow. The day after, you'll be standing outside their window, hungry and thirsty, because the grocery stores are empty. The US imports basic food staples. Why? Because our domestic food is too expensive. And why is it expensive? Because there are basically two and a half real producers in the whole country, and thousands of "farmers" who are just waiting for subsidies while chilling in Lamborghinis with their tractors!! Would you really want to introduce tariffs in a situation like that??

That is a pretty extreme claim. While they try to convince us we can produce enough food for many times more people, you're arguing that it's impossible. Subsidies are mainly used for national production planning. If the US needs wheat and it can be grown domestically, it's cheaper to give out subsidies than to grow something else, sell it on the global market, and use that money to buy wheat. Subsidies are just subsidies; they aren't the only way to make a profit. Things have become so distorted here that food production only stays afloat because of those subsidies.

A policy of cheap imports is fatal for our own production. Nothing imported is actually cheap unless something else was exported to generate the foreign currency needed to pay for it. The negative gap in the balance of payments with foreign nations creates an exponentially growing debt. Today, we only have the foreign currency to buy imports because the government borrows from abroad, and the Federal Reserve issues dollars to the state. Ivan Pernar has said this multiple times. This illusion of having enough currency for imports while removing tariff barriers ultimately destroys our economy (while the debt keeps climbing). And who was pushing for free trade? The very people providing the loans. How interesting. It's one of the pillars of the IMF's destruction program. It's also worth noting that the external debt is unnecessarily large because we borrow abroad to cover domestic transactions (which causes inflation and money supply expansion), and then the banks charge us constant interest on an ever-growing principal. It's total nonsense!

I haven't written my article on importing and buying foreign goods yet, but I will.

There is this book by Mark Francis "Survival". I wouldn't say I agree with everything, but the man offers a lot of solid thoughts regarding the state. Maybe it will be easier to digest what we are discussing here once you read that book. I recommend it.

placidranger said:You’re talking nonsense in every single post, man. Some of the basics you seem to miss include understanding what money actually is—its role, its function—and how banks and credit systems actually work. Plenty of people have been pointing out your mistakes since day one of your posting history.
I'll admit, your early stuff caught my attention—it was interesting enough—but the further I read, the less sense it made. The absolute peak of it all had to be that Excel spreadsheet you used to "prove" the entire system is unsustainable.
Or take your assumption that regulators will suddenly become honest in some new system just because they're "good people at heart."..

And when exactly has this specific model ever been tested?

Controlling the money supply has been tried countless times. 😉
The specific variations don't matter—it has never worked.

So, you're telling me you can't provide a single citation? Not one?

An Excel spreadsheet is the ultimate truth for anyone who doesn't trust Tomica. If you don't want to rely on someone's word or some fancy formulas, then you just have to look at the raw math. This spreadsheet shows exactly how there is zero profit being made at the national level. I've been grinding away at this like it’s a 24/7 job. It's just the brutal truth.

We’ve already got emission regulators everywhere, including the private sector. If you’re starting to doubt what other people are doing, I'm actually volunteering here. I can step in and handle the money laundering oversight myself.

Money supply regulation has been tested more times than I can count. It’s one of those things people act like is some grand mystery, but we've seen the playbook run over and over again. We've watched the Fed pull the levers, tweak interest rates, and flood the system with liquidity, time and time after time. It's all very predictable when you look at the history of it. Just another cycle in the machine. 😉
The specific shapes don't really matter—it never worked out anyway.

That isn't true. Just watch the movie. secret oz.

The core truth here is that the government is the only entity capable of actually creating money. You can't argue with that reality. Anyone suggesting we lean into heavy regulation instead would basically be selling out the people. If banks are currently allowed to manipulate the money supply and effectively strangle the economy, then the state should have the power to manage it without causing all that damage. We also need to look at how much capital is leaking out through imports. We should be using customs barriers to control that outflow. The goal is to create a system where we are internally employed and productive, while making imported goods more expensive. This is really just a reflection of where our development stands right now. Once we actually grow and ramp up our exports, we could start lowering those tariffs to a certain point. After we clear out the national debt, the ideal setup is a balanced trade position with foreign nations. That’s how you maintain stability without messing things up. money vs. goods What actually happens when a country becomes a massive exporter—take China, for example. It’s an interesting dynamic. You have this huge influx of capital coming in from all over the world because everyone is buying their goods. It changes the whole structural makeup of the economy. It creates jobs, sure, but it also creates a heavy reliance on global demand. If people stop buying, things get shaky pretty fast. It’s a lot of pressure to keep that engine running constantly. Everything starts revolving around keeping those export numbers high. It's a very specific kind of economic weight to carry.

placidranger said:You either forgot or you aren't aware that there are countless different schools of thought within what we call economic science—many of which contradict each other entirely. A huge number of people in this thread don't agree with current monetary policy in America or elsewhere.

Similarly, a certain number of people disagree with the theories taught in universities. These academic theories are used by governments, and even when they follow the "textbook" advice perfectly, the results don't match the predictions. Therefore, the theories are flawed.

However, just because the government and academia are wrong doesn't automatically mean you're right. When you spout nonsense like this, it's obvious you haven't grasped the fundamentals of economics. You mentioned it—that "flawed knowledge" being used while everyone refuses to admit it's useless—but your proposed solution is definitely not the answer. That principle has been tried before, and it failed.

So, what exactly was the nonsense I said?

And when exactly was this tried in this specific way?

brightlynx11 said:Quantity theory of money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money

That isn't his theory. 🙄

The real difference lies in where the money entering the system actually comes from. Nenadović concluded that the only valid solution is non-credit based, specifically through government issuance. Under that model, obviously, banks aren't allowed to trigger credit expansion.

I'm not trying to hand over some magic bullet solution here. I'm just presenting the evidence and a potential path out of this mess through monetary regulation reform. The current way we regulate money is basically a scam. Once you see that, you know exactly what needs to happen.

A plan to escape a crisis is really just a framework with set guidelines. It explains why we have to cap how much the financial sector can earn and why. It also covers why prices can't just be hiked up without any oversight. That usually ties back to either wanting more cash for the same amount of work—which devalues the dollar—or simply being unable to cover costs when prices rise without that devaluation happening.

slywolf57 said:Nostradamus, could you drop a link to the post where you lay out your system? I’d rather not dig through the entire thread...

Are you certain your model is actually sustainable? So far, every single system has proven to be unsustainable. It's possible a stable monetary system doesn't even exist—perhaps economists intentionally designed this one to run for a few centuries before it collapses under its own weight, breaks everyone's back, and forces us to start all over again.

My philosophy on how to identify problems is right here: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja

An outline for getting out of this crisis by reforming money regulation: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...izlaz-iz-krize

It’s sustainable. It stays stable. It works perfectly fine within capitalism, though it wouldn't fit in a completely unregulated free market. I should probably mention the late George Washington from Mexico, who laid this out using economic formulas. His theory basically argues that when money circulation slows down because people start saving more, that shortage has to be compensated for. Anyone who knows their economics can take a look at it.

placidranger said:What a way to read history. 🙏-
The issue was always the tax rate itself. Period. Look—a landlord or local authority had the power to lower those taxes to prevent an uprising. It’s not about how much money is circulating; it's about the squeeze.

Introducing gold coinage into the Roman Empire was essentially the beginning of the end (The Wizard of Oz). They were using copper before that.

And what about the USA? They made massive strides during periods of deflation when prices dropped under the gold standard.

I should probably carve it into a stone tablet: you can't fix monetary problems through tax policy. It doesn't work that way. If you collect less in taxes, there's less spending. And if spending drops, where is the farmer supposed to get his money? Someone else—not the farmer—would have to go into the red to make that math work. Usually, that's the people actually generating the wealth.

What about the USA? They progressed just fine with deflation and falling prices under the gold standard later on.

I don't find the situation in the USA interesting because I don't know enough about it. The gold standard was a scam. Once you have banks multiplying money, the gold standard becomes a total fraud. Money isn't actually backed by gold because the banks have already multiplied it. In >, they basically point out how the gold standard is used to create economic slavery. Having a limited supply of gold just blocks the growth of the money supply, which needs to keep up with the actual value being created in the economy.

Gold is too expensive to acquire, so using any kind of metal standard to guarantee value is just foolish and unnecessary. Only someone looking to destroy the country would suggest bringing back the gold standard.

I don't know. It just feels like things are moving in a direction that doesn't quite make sense. Sometimes you look at the numbers and the way everything is being handled by the Federal Reserve, and it just doesn't add up. It’s like we’re all just watching a slow-motion train wreck. I'm not trying to be dramatic, I really am, I just think people should pay more attention. There isn't much else to say about it. kaže:
It’s honestly fascinating to me how people like you operate. You go ahead and blast your theories across every single forum and news site out there. You send off emails to dozens, even hundreds, of different addresses—hitting up all those big-shot economists and major institutions—only to have everyone just completely ignore or reject you. And yet, you don't even stop to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you might be slightly off base. Sure, there’s always a small group that backs you up, but they’re mostly uneducated types who just exist to boost your ego and shut down any actual critical thinking. It's fine, really. Luckily, we aren't living in an era where someone like you could actually gain any real influence. That would be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Look, here’s how things stand. Let’s say I’m a recognized economist and analyst. I’m sixty years old and I’ve written thirty books. Then I get an email from some guy claiming he can draw all sorts of conclusions just by looking at the equality of three deficits. What am I supposed to do with that? Plan A is I don't respond. Plan B is I stall him—I write back saying I'll get in touch. Plan C is I write a mountain of empty platitudes just to back up the idea that he's wrong. Plan D is I tell him he's actually right.

So, I’ve had a chance to look through all the different proposals being thrown around in the replies. It seems like Plan D was really only ever mentioned by people who don't actually deal with economics in their day-to-day lives.

Why does it work that way? Honestly, it’s because admitting I’m right—and I am, since I’m just applying standard economic formulas using layman's terms—would force every single one of those economists to actually pass that knowledge on. Just think about it. Imagine you're a macroeconomics professor at some big state university. What would you even do? Would you stand up in front of your students and tell them to rip half their textbook to shreds because the author got it wrong? No one would listen. They'd label you crazy immediately, and if you ever managed to land a job, you'd be out on the street before you knew it.

Look, you just can't work against yourself. It’s pretty simple. You don't get two lives, so if you mess this one up, that's it. You're done.

Just imagine if you were an economist working for the Administration. You get another memo outlining some grand scheme to fix the crisis, and then what? Honestly, you’re just a number. You're completely replaceable. Besides, there is zero chance the Administration is going to pivot on policies they have been running for decades just because of one email. The paycheck keeps clearing regardless. People can bark all they want, but the wheels keep turning.

Just imagine you’re sitting there as an editor-in-chief for a major newspaper or a political party, and someone hands you a piece that completely goes against the grain. It’s totally outside the mainstream. Your first instinct would be to run it by your lead economic consultant to see if they can make sense of it. But honestly? They’d be just as lost as some professor at a state university. Not to repeat myself here, but it’s the same story every time.

So, what’s the bottom line here? Honestly, not one single big-shot economist has actually used math to disprove what I'm saying. Not one. Your letter is basically just a carbon copy of some economics professor who also claimed my model was too thin. It’s like, even in this simplified version, the logic holds up, but people keep insisting I need to make it more complex. I don't really get why. In every calculation, there's always this missing chunk of money—the savings part—and I have no idea where that's supposed to come from if I add more layers to the model. Yet, the Federal Reserve statistics show that savings (even if it's just numbers on a screen) are growing. It doesn't add up.

The changes we’re talking about? They aren't just optional. They're inevitable. This whole philosophy regarding how money works needs to be backed up by a real, actual economic strategy from The Administration. There is so much work to be done there. It should be left to the experts, the people who actually know their craft. That ought to have been their job all along. Instead, we're stuck here, just regular people, having to grab a calculator and prove that these highly educated economists are basically selling us a load of nonsense.

Honestly, if a whole bunch of people with economics degrees can't wrap their heads around the fact that their professors were basically feeding them fairy tales, that’s on them. It’s their own problem. If I were in their shoes, I’d walk right up to those instructors and demand answers. Like, seriously, what was that all about? Why am I only hearing the truth now? You can't claim to be an expert if you were taught fundamentally wrong stuff from day one. And look, the connection between budget deficits and printing money isn't some new discovery either; people have known that since the 1920s. Simple as that.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism). This economic school of thought basically assigns banks the wrong role—they don't seem to see any issue with low interest rates.

Which means my theory isn't actually new. The theory itself has been around for 90 years. You just have to combine it with measures to prevent money multiplication and you have a solution right there. Everything else is just about protecting the economy and keeping inflation in check.

Besides, you have the website prosperityuk.com/. They've been publishing almost identical stuff for over 10 years now. There is also Simon Dixon's blog, and he is an economist by trade.

When I was writing my first articles, I didn't know about those links. But the result of my own thinking—based on pure math—is nearly identical. So, pointing me toward economics textbooks feels like nothing more than an attempt at indoctrination. I've read all those theories about falling employment and GDP, usury, the quantity theory of money, sustainable sovereign debt, and all that. None of it impressed me at all. For instance, they claim capital should flow toward higher interest rates, which should theoretically equalize them. Yeah, right. In practice, that’s just not how it works. High interest rates usually just mean the economy is in the gutter and isn't generating more exports than imports. And then the country can't fix the economy because its capital is too expensive, making it uncompetitive again. Heh, funny, but true.

Some good people suggested I read the laws, so I looked through the Federal Reserve Act and the ECB statutes (which were just images back then, not searchable text, so I couldn't even use keywords). What I found in those laws was the most important thing: money is currently being issued as even greater debt. Debt that banks take on and inflate for their own profit when they lend it out further.

That effectively renders all those textbook theories useless. Issuing money as even more debt leads only to infinite debt. Every bit of profit retained increases that exponentially over time. And in this system, they try to kill inflation with high interest rates. But they aren't just killing inflation; they're killing the economy too. It seems like it isn't a problem in theory, but in practice, it definitely is.

So that's it. All these theories that every economist knows by heart, yet none of them know how to actually exit a debt crisis. The reason is flawed knowledge. And nobody wants to admit that. Your post is just more proof of that.