Posts by Maria Thomas48

placidranger said:You're dodging the point again. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the economic momentum that existed before central banks took over the driver's seat. It wasn't even that long ago.

As long as we're operating within a monetary system, we need to look at its long-term viability—not just its survival for a measly 30 years (which is the average lifespan of a single currency).

Gold held its value for centuries—right up until people like you came along and replaced it.

Well, you could look back at things like Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts. That whole mess happened because farmers just couldn't keep up with their taxes. Interesting, right?

Gold held its value for centuries until people like you came along and swapped it out.

Even in the Roman Empire, moving toward gold coinage was basically the start of the end (The Wizard of Oz). Before that, they were mostly using copper.

Melissa Rivera5 said:It’s pretty obvious you didn't bother looking up what full-reserve banking actually is before just jumping in with your own made-up version of reality. Honestly, you're just acting like a total fraud who doesn't know the first thing about this stuff, so there's really no point in even talking to you. Your economic theories would basically wreck the entire country and the global economy until we're all back to living in the Stone Age. I bet you're one of those people who loved the old socialist days, probably because you never had to lift a finger to get a paycheck. I really hope you never get the chance to put any of these ideas into practice, but if you do... well, I guess I hope karma finds you. Bye

Of course I looked into it. There are two sides to this. I was specifically describing the downside. The "better" version is identical to the point I already made. A 50% reserve requirement on deposits is effectively a 100% reserve against loans. That Wikipedia article is useless anyway since it doesn't provide any actual math or diagrams.

All this hostility from you is just a way to mask ignorance and show off how stubborn you can be about being right, even when you're dead wrong. Everything I wrote can be verified with basic math. Your arguments aren't based on mathematical facts; they're just dogmatic statements.

Look, if our country keeps going down this path, we're going to find ourselves in a situation similar to what happened in Greece within five or six years. What would you say is the solution for Greece right now? What should they actually do to dig themselves out of this debt crisis and fix the problem?

placidranger said:You're missing the point. Prosperity is entirely subjective.

If an economy requires constant money printing just to stay afloat, then neither true progress nor actual prosperity is even possible.

And how do we know progress can exist without constant monetary expansion? History proves it—it happened before, and it'll happen again. Everything you've argued falls apart under that reality.

What's really happening here? Trade flows through money. Progress is definitely possible via direct bartering without any currency involved at all. But the government demands taxes be paid in cash, not in goods or services. It's the same deal for banks and corporations. If things worked differently, there wouldn't be this issue in the first place.

As long as we're stuck using a monetary system, we need to focus on its long-term sustainability—not just looking at a window of maybe 30 years, which is basically the average lifespan of a single currency anyway.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Look, if you’re pulling in enough cash that you don't need a loan—or if you’ve actually got the discipline to save up before buying stuff—you’ll be totally fine and won't owe anyone anything. I mean, history pretty much shows that planned economies just end in a total disaster, leaving everyone broke and miserable. I guess the real issue here is that you just don't want to admit that. It isn't about some spreadsheets or whatever; it's more like you might not really grasp the fundamentals of what we're even talking about, or maybe you aren't looking at how things played out in the past. Honestly, high wages, solid exports, and moving toward full reserve banking would solve basically everything you're worried about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-reserve_banking

Proponents argue that full reserve banking would get rid of the whole need for a lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve, which usually steps in to prop up the banking system during a crisis. In this kind of setup, those systemic risks shouldn't even exist. Basically, it means banks would have enough liquid assets on hand to cover every single deposit if everyone tried to withdraw at once. This was actually a huge part of the Social Credit Party proposals.

The full reserve banking stuff you guys are talking about is a total scam. There’s a huge difference between having a 50% mandatory reserve on every deposit to make a profit and being without any reserve at all. Debt would just keep piling up.

For example. I have $33 and I put them in a one-year CD. You take out a loan from $33 and get in debt for $40. I go out, make some quick cash, and put those new $33 back into CDs. Your neighbor takes a loan from $33 and gets in debt for $40. And so on. Over the summer, I make 200 bucks and suddenly I have $6667 in CDs.

Do you see the result here? Money expansion. From an initial $33, we end up with a total of $6667 and $8000 in debt.

Then comes the next year. I start withdrawing slowly as the CDs mature. The main question is: Where is my $7333 going to come from? I didn't have it, and I couldn't spend it. Once I withdraw it, I'm just putting it in a safe. The bank still needs to make $667.

People talking about full reserve banking this way are clearly clueless because their math doesn't add up. They assume citizens can only save about 6% and think the scam won't be exposed for a long time. 😂

placidranger said:I honestly find myself wondering how any kind of progress was even possible before they invented printing money...

Progress and prosperity aren't actually the same thing. You could have a world-class mansion built entirely by slaves living in luxury conditions. Is that progress? Sure. Is it prosperity? Not in my book. You just have one group working like slaves with nothing to show for it, while another group runs the show and pockets all the fruits of their labor.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Private money versus giving it back to the government... so you're saying the state should get to decide how much I can earn? That's just silly. It sounds like a planned economy, and we all know those are total failures. Honestly, if you're worried about this stuff, maybe the answer is just properly implementing Islamic banking—where there's an extra focus on making sure banks are actually "full reserve." Then the whole problem is basically solved.
The kind of socio-communism you’re pushing here would just lead us straight into a ditch. I don't think the government should be controlling anything at all.

So, it's better if bankers just fleece us dry for their own gain rather than having no debt and being in control of our own destiny?

Planned economy? A natural disaster doesn't yield a predictable result. If that's the logic, then we don't need a government at all. It’s also pretty logical that you probably support the European Union, where we won't be a real player, just a decorative state.

The government has to plan global supply because it shouldn't need a middleman. It has to plan infrastructure too. We've all seen that privatization doesn't actually improve a nation's financial standing. Which means we could sell everything off and deregulate everything, but there are still no solutions. There's no profit within a state unless you're exporting, which just moves the problem onto other countries. Anyone who carefully read what I wrote over at http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav could have grasped the whole thing and understood the current issue.

And in the end, it just leaves you with a basic Excel spreadsheet that is completely unsolvable for you people. Basically, you can't accept mathematics, but you can talk half-truths with total conviction just to try and prove that a lie is actually the truth.

Melissa Rivera5 said:😵😵😵😵 Look, man, you’re out here acting like we're talking about some isolated island with zero exports, but we're actually talking about a nation that trades. I don't know, is that really that hard to wrap your head around? Like, if you export stuff, money flows in, and then everyone can get paid. You just keep ignoring that part and insisting the country is totally cut off, which honestly feels like you're either clueless or just choosing to ignore reality (and, uh, you're putting words in my mouth by saying I think it's an isolated state).
So, if it's just me and my family trading amongst ourselves, yeah, that's a zero sum game where the total amount of cash stays the same. But, if I suddenly decide to start trading with people outside the family, then the influx of money into the family is huge, and we'll all be driving Aston Martins.
Does that click now? I feel like I've said this four times already, but you just keep obsessing over this idea of an isolated country with nothing but internal trade.

PS
It's called an ad hominem, not qualifying, and that economic principle you were tripping on—the one I just debunked—is "zero sum game." Maybe try picking up some basics.

Just please, get it once. Some people (the big bankers) impose wrong money regulations through credit issuance (Federal Reserve) just to economically enslave nations and their citizens, and yet you guys insist our answer is simply exporting.

If fifteen people trading among themselves doesn't create a net profit, why should one hundred nations trading among themselves? It always ends up being divided into winners and losers—zero sum. The losers take out loans and become even bigger losers because they'll end up having to sell off everything in the country, falling right back into debt again.

By saying this, you're showing that you don't respect the arguments. A nation isn't just some regular family. It has to issue money. Right now, banks do that through credit expansion, and they are essentially enslaving all of us globally with debt that is larger than the actual credit issued.

We need to abolish the ability for private entities to issue money and return that power to the state. That would create the most important condition: any honest work can actually be paid for. Without that, there is no progress. An Excel spreadsheet proves it's impossible to pay everyone if someone is constantly hoarding even the smallest savings (like successful companies, individuals, or banks).

Melissa Rivera5 said:Man, you're talking nonsense. Nobody is talking about some isolated island here. That influx of cash you're obsessing over comes from exports. But to get that, you actually have to produce stuff, which is something you don't seem to be considering at all.

Bravo, we're getting closer to the point now. So, basically, 4.5 million people can't live in prosperity if there isn't an outside market.

By that logic, the entire planet couldn't live in prosperity without interplanetary exports. So we just wait. Maybe that was the whole meaning behind 2012?

Melissa Rivera5 said:I see how it is. You and people like you are just plain old lazy, honestly. I guess you just expect everyone else to do the heavy lifting for you because you think you're some kind of big deal. I guess I'm just gonna say it... P.Look, you’re being pretty personal here. I don't think you have any clue about how economics actually works, let alone regulation or how to actually tackle inflation. Honestly, what you're suggesting feels way more like a planned economy or some kind of social communism than anything resembling actual democracy or capitalism.
I guess it’s because of people like you—folks who just don't want to put in the work and instead blame everyone else for their own mess, while simultaneously acting like money is evil and making poverty seem some kind of virtue—that we ended up stuck exactly where we are.

So now we've moved the goalposts to qualifications. You can't win an argument, so you just claim you're qualified to have the argument instead. Nice move.

Here is something to chew on: An Excel trading spreadsheet within a closed system

You can swap out the transactions and watch what happens. The result always points back to the same thing: for every single entity to turn a profit or at least break even, the government has to run a deficit. And that deficit gets covered by issuing debt. No banks involved.

No empty buzzwords here—just pure math.

goldenwolf13 said:Of course we can't just have 4.5 million versions of Ivica Todorić. Someone actually has to be the maid, the chef, the machinist, the doctor, or the business owner... this isn't some Platonic utopia, it's real life. Honestly, 200 Todorićs would be plenty for us. 🙂

I know it’s probably a bit tough to swallow the fact that we’re all going to have to actually WORK, but there really isn't any other way. The government isn't handing out checks anymore. It’s not even that they don't want to, it's just that the money isn't there. You're going to have to put in the hours and zaraditi for yourself, just like I do and everyone else who wants to live an honest life...

That is just a crude example which basically means: We cannot have every single citizen be successful (meaning they save money or cover their costs through their labor) because that is impossible right now. And that has absolutely nothing to do with work ethic; it's about how money is regulated within the country.

Take your own family as an example. If you were all trading within the family, how would you manage to make sure everyone covers their expenses from their work, and some even manage to save? It is an impossible mission without adding more money (either via an outside influx or by issuing it yourselves).

If you can't figure out the money regulation for your own working family, why do you think it works for the entire country?

Jerry Williams41 said:Since Pernar has basically adopted everything from the ideas of Nostradamus, we really ought to just rename this entire thread Banking by Nostradamus.

The difference is that I don't care about a political career. Pernar needs a platform if he wants to break through in the political scene. And I have nothing against using that platform. Especially since we can say it guarantees results without any guesswork.

Everything is clean, simple, and easy to grasp. You just have to toss out the half-truths and the empty slogans we hear today. Like investigators would say: "Follow the money." That is exactly what I and Pernar do. Everything is explained through the flow of money. Simple math simulations reveal things you won't find in macroeconomics textbooks.

The most common complaints about this reform are usually:

1. Inflation - but actually, it is an anti-inflationary reform with a stable dollar
2. Controlling unnecessary price hikes - again, an anti-inflationary measure
3. Constant money supply - A developmental measure that works wonders when combined with no inflation—there are no crises dictated by big capital. No interest rate changes
4. Tariffs - there is no national development without defending against unnecessary imports—buying things we haven't earned
5. Cutting interest rates - everyone who held onto their money hoping it would work for them will see low returns because the dollar is stable, and money won't be sitting in banks anymore; instead, the government will issue it in the necessary amounts (which is less than what happens during credit expansion)

Not a single political party offers such a solid foundational program that serves as a basis for progress. They don't have the guts to fight for their own country. Everyone is just thinking about their own pockets. A country that doesn't issue its own currency is destined to fail under endless debt (like Japan, Italy, Germany, ...).

The flow of money explains everything:

-Why privatization fails
-Why mutual funds fail
-Why tax policy can't find a solution
-Why debts are rising in all countries
-Why inflation doesn't hurt the banks
-Why a drop in credit expansion leads to crisis, while growth leads to inflation
-Why the government has to take out loans for the budget deficit
-Why we have a budget deficit in the first place
-Why companies go bankrupt one after another across various industries
-Why we can't get rid of loss-makers
-Why extending work years for retirement is a scam
-Why new investments can't jumpstart the economy and reverse the trend
-Why debts grow at an abnormal speed
-Why free trade is a hoax
-Why the European Union is a scam
-Why foreign investment is ultimately bad
-Why Greece can't function without a revolution on the green branch (when they lack sense)
-Why the euro falls (because the banks' appetite for earning from Greece and other countries is unsustainable)
-Why the euro will fail
-Why our only option in the EU will be accumulating debt
-Why fractional reserve banking is just a simulation of money issuance
-Why inflation is merely a consequence of greed and the inability to cover costs
-Why the credit system creates inflation
-Why low interest rates don't solve the debt problem
-Why government control over these banks doesn't solve the problem
-Why selling off state assets is unnecessary to exit a crisis
-Why interest rates are linked to trade surpluses, not to a country's risk
-Why even countries with the best exports continue to increase their debts
-etc.

So now you tell me, which economist have you heard lately that gave a correct answer to all these questions?

goldenwolf13 said:This is honestly the simplest and most accurate way to put it!!

So what's the alternative? Just sit around crying about how life is hard and wait for the government to send us social security checks? How do you even survive on welfare? Or do you actually have some motivation to get moving and zaraditi some dollars? There isn't a single country in the world that isn't in debt, and there certainly isn't a country where labor isn't profitable (at least in theory). Even Zimbabwe, with inflation measured in trillions of percent, isn't like that. Let alone the USA...

Well, obviously you wouldn't do something if you calculated—or even just suspected—that it wasn't profitable. In our case, "making work profitable" won't result in some grand macroeconomic masterstroke; it would mostly just stop bleeding the government dry. Just look at a standard paycheck. Almost 50% vanishes into taxes, which eventually gets redistributed to fraudulent disability claimants, retirees who are basically thirty-five, and various social cases that don't even bother looking for work—not to mention certain minority groups who get special treatment because they vote for the Republican Party. Instead of that, you COULD create a situation where the tax burden is significantly lower, which would boost both domestic investment and individual spending. It really just comes down to whether anyone has the willpower or the guts to do it...

We aren't going to reach Greece's level even if we triple our debt!! It sounds ridiculous, but compared to them, we're basically industrious Japanese workers!! I mean, what products have they actually manufactured and exported? Metaxa? Ouzo? An olive branch? They survive on a few months of tourism while the national budget is brutally drained by excessively high pension payouts. That's the only area where we really resemble them. Our debt is "only" at 62% of GDP, while the European Union wants it under 60%. So, forget Greece. I'm not saying things are perfect here—far from it—but saying we are like Greece, or that we are heading there, is nowhere near the truth...

Exactly. Tell us slaves that we just need to work and not worry about ever being free. Look around, everyone else is a slave too. Just grind and forget about retirement.😂

Of course you aren't going to work if you think—or have calculated—that it isn't worth it. In this country, making work "profitable" won't be achieved through some grand macroeconomic maneuver; it's about relieving the burden on the state. Just look at a standard paycheck. Almost 50% disappears into taxes, which then gets redistributed to fake disability claimants, retirees who should be working, social cases who won't even try to find a job, and various minority groups who get special treatment because they vote for the Republican Party... instead, you COULD create a situation where the tax burden is much lower, which would boost both domestic investment and individual spending. It's just a matter of will and courage...

Wait, why am I even typing like this? I'm not talking about isolated incidents here, I'm talking about the entire nation. If you can prove to me that 4.5 million Ivica Todorić types can actually succeed, then more power to you.

We won't catch up to Greece even if we take on three times this much debt!! It sounds ridiculous, but we act like hardworking Japanese people!! What products have they even manufactured and exported? Metaxa? Ouzo? An olive branch? They live off a few months of tourism and brutally drain the national budget with excessive pension payouts. That's the only area where we really resemble them. Our debt is "only" at 62% of GDP, and the European Union wants 60%. Forget Greece, forget all that... I'm not saying things are perfect here, far from it, but saying we are like Greece or aiming for that is nowhere near the truth...

We aren't going to catch up to Greece; we're going to be in the exact same mess Greece is in today within six years. We are six years behind them. The first crisis will hit immediately after (if) we join the European Union. And they won't help us anymore, because once you're in the European Union, there is no rescue coming.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, it would probably make it way harder for people to just rack up all kinds of loans for stupid stuff, you know? Plus, banks wouldn't be operating on fractional reserves anymore. I guess that basically means inflation could potentially drop down to, like, under 0.5% in reality. Of course, since you'd have to work harder and fund projects without relying on credit—using actual cash you've saved or maybe earned working abroad—it would pretty much drive inflation down to almost nothing. It might even lower the risk of economic crashes and stop them from happening so often, I suppose.

If that were actually true, countries following strict Islamic banking models would hit a massive depression pretty quickly if they didn't get money coming in from abroad.

From what I can see, they don't really have that cycle where credit issuance and deposits move together. So, there’s still a chance for credit expansion to happen. The only thing keeping them afloat is shared loss models. But overall, there isn't much benefit for the state. The money people save isn't truly safe; it could just vanish. It's almost like putting it into some kind of investment fund.

In our current banking system, we see how money from companies and citizens gets used to fund loans. Because of that, the fate of the bank becomes tied to its business clients—people who aren't even saving, they just have accounts at those banks. That’s why a bank failing is such a big deal, and why the government usually ends up bailing them out.

Nathan Kelly5 said:Controlled money printing? Let’s be clear: today, money is printed with actual backing. What you’re advocating for is printing money without any reserves at all. I’m not sure you realize that if we just flooded the market with unbacked currency, the sudden surge in supply would trigger a rapid devaluation of the dollar. To put it simply: you can't just print money out of thin air. $33If you’re working with just ten bucks, the ratio shifts from 7 to 10. At that point, everything you're doing becomes essentially pointless. You're just fueling inflation, devaluing the currency, and destabilizing the economy all at once. It's basically just moving money from one empty pocket to another.

Stop banks from accumulating debt? Good grief. Let’s take that logic further: imagine we just amended the Constitution to abolish banking and all forms of borrowing entirely. There. No banks, no interest, no debt, no credit. Happy now?

Where exactly do you think the problem lies in America? It should be obvious that the issue stems from sluggish economic activity, low employment rates, bloated government spending, systemic inefficiency, and low productivity. A massive shadow economy combined with a GDP that can't keep pace with rising costs doesn't help. We have an oversupply of labor but a shortage of capital, skilled workers, and technology.

So, instead of spinning your wheels and moving nothing from one empty vessel to another, maybe use that extra free time to brainstorm actual ways to stimulate the economy, lower unemployment, boost productivity, or drive exports.

I honestly don't know how to respond to such nonsense. You've built this entire philosophy around the idea that printing unbacked money and stripping banks of their functionality will somehow fix things—a concept even a high schooler would recognize as nonsensical. Reading your posts feels like being lectured on something that isn't even true.

Where did you find this info about money being printed in a controlled way today? Debt is what gets printed, not money. Credit is debt!

Preventing banks from accumulating debt altogether? That's absolute nonsense... let's try this: imagine for a second we abolish banks and borrowing through the Constitution. That's it. No banks, no interest, no debt, no borrowing. See?

Yeah, that's exactly what I did, and I concluded that something isn't right: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...zavni-proracun

There are no banks here, but there are obvious problems.

Where do you see the problem in America? It should be obvious that the issue lies in weak economic activity, low employment, massive government spending, inefficiency, lack of productivity, a huge shadow economy, and a small GDP that isn't enough to cover rising costs. Too much labor supply, too little capital, too few educated people, lacking technology, etc., etc.

So since you clearly have extra time on your hands, maybe spend it coming up with ideas to stimulate the economy, boost growth, reduce unemployment, increase productivity, exports, etc., etc., instead of just moving things from one empty hole to another..

The primary problem in America is money acting as debt. Money is the foundation of everything's development. Everything comes down to price and profitability. I used math to determine that work in America (if the trade balance were balanced and there were no credits) is simply not profitable. With a trade deficit, working becomes even less profitable globally, especially because our money is essentially debt.

A real stimulus for the economy is creating conditions where work is actually profitable. If we have global profitability in labor, then we have a reason to produce and work. It can't work the other way around! Would you take a job if someone told you: "Do it, and then we'll see if it ends up being profitable"? Probably not. I ran the numbers for the whole country and the result was: there is no profitability in labor. No kind of work has created capital accumulation. And if there is no global accumulation of capital, there is no way to pay off debts.😕

Export-heavy countries have capital accumulation from exports, but their internal banking systems produce even more debt for them. China has a major problem with inflation. Their move was to raise reserve requirements for banks. Specifically, reducing money multiplication. That is a rare move that shows which direction needs to be taken. Only they can do that because they have a surplus in trade.

Please, just take a second and actually read what I’ve put here. Just set aside all that nonsense about printing money for a moment. We aren't talking about handouts; we're talking about creating new value, and you can't have an increase in value without a corresponding increase in real money supply.

Also, it's strange how nobody seems to want to touch that article regarding the bleached state budget. What happened? Did everyone suddenly lose their voices? Is there some kind of cover-up? Because the full truth is being completely misinterpreted by the mainstream media.

Then there is this piece on the actual fallout from inflation:



Take a look at the image above. It’s pretty simple, really. Even someone who isn't paying attention should see that pumping out money through credit eventually leads to nothing but endless debt.

The UK recently realized they’ve racked up more debt than they actually have liquid cash in the country. This chart explains exactly why.

It’s interesting because I put this together over a year ago, and the timing where debt overtakes the money supply lines up perfectly with my prediction that we'd end up facing a situation just like modern-day Greece.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Okay, I guess some people here aren't quite catching my drift. Until we actually start building factories and working the land—you know, in areas where it makes sense based on the soil, the weather, our expertise, whatever—our economic situation isn't going to improve. Not even in theory. All this talk about how interest rates are too high to make anything worth it... I don't know, it just sounds like typical excuses from people waiting for some magic fix to happen out of nowhere. We really need to work harder and smarter, and maybe take out fewer loans. And when I say work harder, I mean doing things legally, paying the taxes and fees that are supposed to go in instead of everything being under the table.
Personally, I find it kind of hilarious how everyone always wants to trade with the government. I mean, that’s basically just trading with ourselves, right? Just moving money between taxpayers. We should be focusing on manufacturing and exports. As for tourism, yeah, that’s definitely a huge part of the income, and we shouldn't sleep on that either.
Just so there's no confusion, I am planning to start my own business and get into manufacturing myself, but I already know how people will react: they’ll probably label me some evil capitalist who's just stealing from "good, moral citizens" out of pure greed. At the same time, they'll wonder why I'm not just living off government checks and welfare. It was like that with, say, Anheuser-Busch. Or back when my parents bought land using money they Earned from a private company, people immediately jumped on them, claiming the Republican Party must have given it to them for free and asking who they think they are to deserve anything when others might deserve more. It never even crossed anyone's mind that they bought it with EARNED money. Look, guys, if you don't work, you won't Earn. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's definitely no economy without industry. All this whining about interest rates is just nonsense. Wake up, people! We need to start WORKING, not sitting around waiting for someone to hand us something on a silver platter.

Looking at how things work right now, it’s pretty obvious. The only way to actually make money is through exporting goods or producing what we currently have to import.

But it would be foolish to ignore what other countries have done. Japan, Germany, Norway, and several other major exporters are all piling up debt too. Just look at Germany—they saw their debt jump by 26% in just 12 months. It all lines up with how money regulation works, I guess, but it also shows that this isn't a long-term fix.

We aren't talking about some temporary fix here; we are talking about a permanent solution. This isn't like the current programs being shoved in front of us that might fail any day. This isn't just a single step forward. It’s a transition into a whole new era where we aren't stuck in economic slavery or ruled by debt.

Nathan Kelly5 said:The "PIGS" nations—Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain—along with us, represent the group hit hardest by the crisis and crushed by debt. They tend to share that Mediterranean, laid-back, high-spending mindset. If it were purely about the population's attitude, why wouldn't we see countries like Sweden, Denmark, or Finland on this list?

It really comes down to the balance of payments. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=145&l=en. Look at Norway or Finland; they are strong exporters. There's a basic formula here:

Budget Deficit = Current Account Deficit + Financing Deficit (savings)

It's pretty clear that any country running a current account surplus has the capacity to trim its budget deficit. Basically, capital is flowing into those countries, which serves as a source of global profit from labor. But that isn't a real solution, just a band-aid. That incoming capital gets multiplied through the banking sector at lower interest rates, and you still end up with rising debt levels for businesses and households within the country. Once again, bank debt ends up exceeding the actual money in circulation. Even a tiny hiccup in exports can bring these economies to their knees almost instantly. And that's exactly why this crisis spread globally.

I don't know. It just seems like everything is moving so fast lately. One day you're looking at one thing, and the next, the whole landscape has shifted under your feet. It's hard to stay grounded when the ground keeps moving. I was thinking about it earlier, just staring at my screen, wondering if anyone else feels that constant sense of flux. It’s quiet, though. Just a lot of noise that doesn't actually mean anything. Anyway, just some thoughts. The user says:
It feels like you’ve basically re-engineered the entire field of macroeconomics just to make sure everything fits inside your own little theory. Look, I get it—there's definitely a psychological component to inflation, maybe even the biggest part of it, but you can't just ignore that. It's baked into the very nature of how inflation works. You can't escape it. It reminds me of what happened back in the day when we tried to fund deficits simply by printing more money... you remember how things went in America, right? And we all know exactly where that path leads.

It isn’t really about the government. It’s about the people. Around here, we have always spent more than we actually make—honestly, we usually spend even more than that. That is the core of the issue. Pernar talks about how you take out a $1,000 loan today, then an $1,100 loan tomorrow, and nobody is forcing you to do that. Either you're just overspending, for lack of a better word, or you aren't earning enough. But neither one of those problems gets solved by taking out loans to cover daily expenses, and it certainly doesn't get fixed by printing more money.

It’s not even really my own theory. It’s just the truth. Anyone could go out and find it if they actually looked.

Look, can we please just stop linking controlled money supply with this frantic, mindless printing? It’s not that complicated. Everyone knows exactly what the goal is here.

Make state money issuance exclusive if you want to actually boost the money supply.
We need to stop banks from being able to just inflate the money supply or pile up endless layers of debt whenever they feel like it.

Non-credit-based policy is basically a tool for national financial sovereignty. But like any kind of weapon—or any kind of power, really—if you handle it the wrong way, you’re going to cause some serious damage. You can't just possess a powerful weapon and expect it to be impossible to misuse. It's just how things work.

I’m saying it again because I know exactly why Marković's reform fell apart: the government's money supply was essentially fighting a losing battle against massive credit expansion from the banks. That was a deliberate move designed to systematically dismantle the American economy. You can't claim to be an expert on par with someone like Marković and somehow not realize the fallout of those actions. It’s nothing short of high treason. Honestly, Ante Marković should be facing trial for treason.

Next up in line was Škegro, one of those guys responsible for pegging the currency to credit lines. It turned out to be a disaster, basically ballooning the old America debt by fifteen times. Then you look at how they aligned the Federal Reserve's laws with the European Central Bank, and that just pushed America right down a path of ever-accelerating debt. When you're doubling the national debt every four or five years, you're looking at an annual growth rate of 15 to 19%. Honestly, I don't know of any business model that can actually pay that back. I really don't.

Regarding that point about Pernar, he actually just pulled that example straight from my own analysis. I can't really make sense of this. It looks like you just sent me a single word, "article," without any context or the actual content you want me to work on. If you have a specific piece of writing you need me to overhaul, just paste it here. I'll take that source text and rebuild it from the ground up—making sure everything sounds like it belongs in the States, swapping out all those foreign references for things like the Fed or major US corporations, and keeping the tone exactly how it needs to be. Just send over the text whenever you're ready.It just shows how keeping those banking profits on hand creates this massive debt pile and a huge cost down the road. It’s basically a recipe for a debt crisis.

Who exactly is forcing us into this debt cycle? It’s pretty simple. There's just no cash left. The government budget is bone dry, and since that’s the only way they can actually pull money together, they have to lean on credit. It’s how things work now. Taking out a loan today basically creates the capital needed to chase profits—you know, that growing pool of savings—because there isn't any other path available. Then tomorrow comes, and the only solution is to take out another loan, just an even bigger one this time. You can see the pattern clearly from the examples we're seeing.

Are we spending way too much? Are we living beyond our means? Yeah, probably. It’s because we’re running on credit. And credit is just a debt that hits you harder tomorrow. Without credit, there isn't any money. You can practically count on one hand the number of companies out there that actually operate using their own accumulated capital instead of borrowing.

Does anyone here actually have the skills to put something together? A closed system. That's how it works. Everything stays within its own loop. No outside influence, no external variables coming in to mess with the math. It just cycles on itself. Just a self-contained loop. Always has been. How would you even prove that living on exactly what you earn—no more, no less—is actually doable? I honestly can't wrap my head around it without someone injecting extra cash into the equation. There’s really only one scenario where you don't need to add money to make the math work, and that’s when absolutely nobody is making a profit. But that’s a situation none of us actually want to be in. If there's no profit, there's no savings, and the business just isn't growing.

Anyone who can actually prove there's a way out of this system where the total amount of money stays constant deserves a Nobel Prize. Honestly, if someone comes up with a solution that's actually viable and sustainable, I’ll officially admit my own idea was wrong.🙂. I'm just sitting here waiting for you Nobel laureates to show up!

Melissa Rivera5 said:You're talking nonsense. Inflation comes from pure greed... man, I guess you just don't get the concept. Obviously, inflation happens because of money printing and increasing the supply. If you have $33 and then you print another 100, of course every single bill is gonna lose 50% of its value. It’s not like they lose value just because someone is being greedy. Plus, where did I even mention an isolated country or a specific system? What you're saying right now is just empty rhetoric.

Inflation comes from credit! Credit is a cost that can't be covered—since money is issued as even more debt. Raising prices is the only way out. I don't know why people struggle with such simple things.

For example, if you run a profitable business, when do you raise prices? Only when your costs go up or if you're just being greedy. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money other people have. You can really see the indoctrination from twisted knowledge here.

Nathan Kelly5 said:I don't quite follow. You're suggesting development should be funded through money printing rather than credit? Even if you increase the supply, the total value remains the same—you're just diluting the value of every dollar in circulation.

The banks are pulling a money expansion move right now. Why aren't we trying to stop them? Credit keeps climbing, and at the end of the day, the money supply is just credit.

The loss in currency value isn't really an issue because the influx is tiny—maybe 3.5 to 5% a year. Because of that, banks can keep expanding credit for years on end. It seems insignificant at first, but eventually, all that debt builds up and leads to endless crises.

Where does inflation actually come from? It's not from having too much money. It comes from greed and the inability to cover costs. Take a look at this article.

Even when prices drop, it doesn't mean manufacturers are finally covering their overhead; they're just trying to minimize the damage because there's a lack of liquidity in the system. I've written a bunch of pieces that push back against the usual economic clichés. Read them all. You'll see how much you've been misled.

Melissa Rivera5 said:If you quit before you even get off the starting block, well, obviously you aren't going to get anywhere. I mean, everything you're saying sounds less like an excuse for why things aren't working and more like just sitting around feeling sorry for yourself (and, honestly, just waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting while we all get a paycheck). Don't get me wrong, but you're talking nonsense here. Obviously, the budget gets filled through taxes, and yeah, it's totally possible for everyone to make good money and live a decent life.

You can always prove that theory wrong. Just take one isolated country, and fill it with a Baker, a farmer, and a Miller. The Baker works a steady job in public service. The Miller processes grain into flour.

Now just pick any starting point and try to create prosperity for everyone using nothing but a constant, fixed amount of money. Then you'll see exactly what happens with an idea like yours.

If that example isn't clear enough, just add a bank to the mix—maybe just one employee who also owns the whole thing. Show me how their wallets look year after year. If you actually pull it off, let me know. Because none of them are actually producing anything new here. They could work sixteen hours a day and it wouldn't change a thing.