Posts by Maria Thomas48

steelfox3 said:If I may jump in here—yes, there is. It's famously known as the London School of Economics. In that model, the President decides who gets credit, rather than worrying about things like reserves, capital, and other bureaucratic nonsense.😁


👋

You guys are clearly stuck in some Q continuum because you have no clue what's actually happening in the world right now.

Maybe check out this documentary: "The Wizard of Oz" — it's a great video about how bankers have been pulling this fake monetary regulation stunt on us for centuries (I had to find an English version with subtitles).

It’s actually pretty nice that Mr. Pernar decided to jump in here and defend his positions.

Forcing the nationalization of banks through aggressive means isn't even necessary. It’s really just a last resort for a society that allows fractional reserve banking to exist in the first place.

Fractional reserve banking creates several specific effects:
.

If we were to hike up the reserve requirement to 50%, this is what happens:


You can clearly see that the sum of free cash and credit wouldn't grow over time. This would essentially kill off money multiplication within the banks and set the stage perfectly for the government to start issuing its own currency.

What would happen if we raised those reserve requirements on the banks? Heh, it would be great. It would immediately become obvious that accounts are basically a scam and there’s no actual cash available. Then, the government could use direct money issuance to grab a massive ownership stake in the bank, effectively nationalizing most of it through totally legal channels. I don't think any private owner would agree to sink that much capital into something with such low returns. And that's the bottom line. Bank profits are way higher than the rest of the economy, which honestly isn't sustainable.

Stay smart, folks.

Any kind of political drama unfolding in the USA always needs to be looked at from an outside perspective. You have to ask yourself who actually benefits when Americans can't get along. Who's really out there fueling the "divide and conquer" fire? It’s honestly just the same old story we've been seeing since the 90s.

That's basically just the setup for the massive financial mess in the USA, which is only going to make things worse. It's also a convenient way to keep people distracted by the fallout instead of looking at the actual root causes. In the States, we're dealing with economic servitude and most Americans can already see their debt spiraling out of control. Living standards are dropping, frustration is climbing. And where is that anger going to be directed? Usually toward people of a different faith, skin color, hair, or eye color.

I'd suggest checking out http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja as a fundamental read to understand why the public is in such a bad spot. Every single conflict seems designed to pivot attention away from that core issue and onto something else entirely. And regarding this economic servitude, the USA is definitely taking on unnecessary debt—probably at least two-thirds of its total value. Not that the average American knows the exact math. But it's roughly equivalent to the total amount of all those predatory loans floating around the country. Isn't that more than enough reason to stir up a conflict rather than fixing the economy? In California, that would be over $3.5 billion.

Money runs the world. Now you know.

Joseph Rivera60 said:The state certainly has various methods at its disposal to inject liquidity into the economy. For instance, until two years ago, the Federal Reserve utilized open market operations through reverse repo transactions or other market instruments like Treasury bills, or through indirect state financing, or even via foreign capital inflows. What is critically important, however, is that the state must have coverage for the issued currency—meaning actual new value. A classic historical example would be the Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm.
According to standard monetary policy literature, if you achieve GDP growth, you essentially facilitate a direct payment for imports without incurring debt.
In short: we should always advocate for the creation of real value!

I've picked up quite a few things since my first post. Generally speaking, I agree that money can only be issued if the workers earning it actually produce something of value. The snag is that exchange rates aren't formed by economic power parity, but rather by supply and demand. If the US had something specific to offer the world, we could export goods and use those earnings to pay off our debts. Dealing with foreign debt and the trade deficit is a whole separate headache, one we're still dealing with today.

To try and pull all these issues together, I started a thread titled "Monetary and Banking System Reform - Utopia or the Only Way Out". In there, I've laid out how economic problems often stem from flawed monetary regulation.

Stay smart and stay safe.

The meeting of economists over at Davos didn't actually solve anything. It just confirms what we already know about the absolute necessity of issuing real money.

Matthew Patel12 said:Gregory Williams7, Maria Thomas48, and I are simply relaying what has already been established as consensus in both the USA and the United Kingdom. On January 25, 2011—which is the day after tomorrow—the BBC is set to air a special program regarding non-credit money, hosted by one of their most prominent journalists. They refer to this concept of non-credit money as "positive money," which serves as the fundamental distinction. This very project currently under debate in Congress also enjoys the backing of Jerome Powell, the Governor of the Federal Reserve. One would be wise to keep a close eye on the developments unfolding in the USA and the United Kingdom. If the implications haven't fully registered yet, they certainly will once you watch the evening news. I expect our domestic networks here in the States will eventually follow suit and report on these global shifts. The truth is becoming impossible to suppress.

Since the United Kingdom and the USA saw their plans to maintain constant foreign surpluses fail—effectively cutting off the inflow of capital—it stands to reason that these nations have started accumulating debt they simply cannot service. They're stuck with two choices. Either they keep piling on debt indefinitely, or they finally undertake a complete overhaul of a broken monetary system.

The issue is that economic science still seems to have a thick piece of tape over its mouth when it comes to the reality of monetary regulation. It's a total paradox; the officially recognized universities are still teaching future economists the wrong way. And the question remains: how long can this go on? The real kicker is, what happens during those years of wasted education? No one ever told us we were being taught incorrectly, even though the actual situation proves there are no solutions being found. Even back in the USSR, they didn't fully grasp the impact of fractional reserve banking on inflation. Back then, Stojan Nenadović had his master's thesis rejected simply because of his own lack of knowledge. There was no threat from abroad at the time because the USSR issued its own currency and the banks were state-owned.

Was the world afraid back then too? Afraid that a single nation might successfully implement a stable currency that could drive development, employment, and perhaps even prevent wars in this region? That would have been a victory for socialism. In fact, non-credit money would provide the most value in a society that has the fewest middlemen in commodity production.

Given the recent talk about privatizing the remaining state-owned companies in America to plug budget holes, I wrote an article regarding the consequences of privatization from a monetary perspective. My final conclusion is that such an operation would almost certainly increase the federal deficit in the future. It would essentially achieve the exact opposite of what is needed. Interestingly, this was suggested by Skeggo, who reportedly sat on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of America when the laws were being aligned with the European System of Central Banks back in 1994, which established an exclusively credit-based system here. That move pretty much guarantees him a permanent spot as a first-rate economic saboteur.

The smart ones lived long!

Dennis Baker34 said:Honestly, give me a break. I’m trying my best to follow this conversation, but then I run into nonsense like this.
With US military bases scattered across every corner of the globe and a massive fleet of nuclear subs patrolling the oceans, the Americans wouldn't just sit there taking a hit like that without hitting back.
A nuclear strike aimed at actually wiping out the USA would pretty much result in the total collapse of human civilization as we know it...

I honestly have no clue what the future holds for the US. If endless debt doesn't get them, maybe it'll be the constant money printing. Oops, actually, some people paid with their lives trying to stop that. Take JFK, for example. He was taken out in such a way that even fifty years later, nobody is quite sure how many shots were actually fired.

So, the most likely scenario here is just political assassinations. This is why I always say it isn't just about the intent to carry something out, but also about education. It feels like we might need to raise the average IQ of the population to fix this. You detect a scam with your brain, not just by looking at it.

Amanda Allen4 said:It is common knowledge that the current global monetary system is built upon fiat money—money without any actual backing—which can be increased infinitely. When you combine that with the mechanics of fractional reserve banking, you get a system that facilitates the systematic looting of capital from the vast majority of people using that money, all to line the pockets of the money elite! This entire setup is legalized by existing state laws, which is fundamentally unjust and serves as the root cause of those devastating crisis cycles that wreck our economy. Attempting to transfer such ill-gotten gains into the government treasury through taxes or other measures doesn't just fail to solve the problem—it’s inherently unfair, because you end up taxing the honest people who earned their money legitimately just as heavily as those who obtained it through this legalized robbery.

So, let's be clear: as long as we don't establish a system based on honest money, any attempt by the government to prevent such a capital transfer through the current—even if slightly modified—system will be a total failure. The Kucinich proposal is nowhere near the kind of radical solution needed to actually create honest money; at best, it represents a redistribution scheme designed to serve state fiscal policy—something clearly evidenced by the excerpt you provided (full employment, national economic defense, and so on). Wouldn't it be far more productive to create honest money that provides a solid, lasting foundation for capital accumulation and economic circulation, rather than attempting forced redistribution when a huge chunk of capital has already been hoarded as a direct result of the legal plunder enabled by today's fiat-based monetary system?

It's somewhat difficult to solve this 100% fairly using strictly legalistic terms, but it represents important progress for the future. I haven't quite managed to finish reading the entire bill because of all the legal jargon, but I think I saw that it calls for a 100% reserve requirement for current and business accounts. That takes away a lot of freedom from the banks, and since state money is being reintroduced, it puts banks on a track where they no longer transfer all the nation's wealth; this will allow for what you're talking about—capital accumulation. The reason is simple—new money doesn't create debt, so it can only serve to create capital accumulation for those who are able to save.

I think people still don't realize that the state must be the one to issue money because no one else has the right to do it. Anyone should be able to earn it honestly through trading, running a business, or receiving a paycheck. And that is what gives it value.

Also, it's hard to just cancel the state's obligations. Those obligations could be returned earlier, but it would disrupt the money market and trigger inflation. It isn't as easy to untangle everything as people think. My solution covers a straightforward way to take over most bank assets based on the coverage of issued credits (the multiplication process that replaced state issuance) and thereby creating real savings backed 100%. What that savings can later be invested in under new regulations at significantly lower interest rates (0.5%) is ultimately up to the savers. Besides, converting 15% covered savings into 100% real savings is more than a win for the savers.

The Dennis Kucinich proposal is more than encouraging, especially considering this is a country with a global currency. If the dollar undergoes this transformation, every currency will follow suit!

Amanda Allen4 said:Exactly. That is precisely why the Kucinich Bill doesn't solve anything. Stealing from a thief isn't a solution—after all, the person who steals from a thief is just another thief.

Text of the Kucinich Bill:

To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States, retire public debt and reduce the cost of public investment, and for other public purposes.

Creating a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; providing for public investment in capital infrastructure; ensuring the reduction of public investment costs; retiring public debt; stabilizing the Social Security retirement system; restoring the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernizing and providing stability for the monetary system of the United States, retiring public debt, reducing the cost of public investment, and serving other public purposes.

Where is the theft mentioned there? It just mentions what everyone needs: jobs, reducing debt, pensions, Social Security, and funding capital investments.

That’s pretty cool. It’s an interesting name for a bill, too. I actually just finished putting together a new article on this topic called "From Problems to Solutions". In there, I broke things down more simply—showing how the basic idea that everyone needs to cover their own long-term costs or make a little profit leads right into the core causes and the actual solutions. It should be much easier for everyone to wrap their heads around now.

William Richardson2 said:God, imagine how wonderful the world would be if we let amateurs and ignoramuses solve our problems based on conspiracy documentaries. Why didn't you suggest he watch "Zeitgeist" too? Then we could all just hold hands in a circle, sing "Kumbaya"... and the world would be perfect—no bankers, no money, no work...

It never fails to fascinate me—how people can devour ten different 500-page books on conspiracy theories and the collapse of capitalism or money, yet they can't be bothered to flip through a basic primer on economics or philosophy just to actually know something about the topics they're shouting about.

So, have you actually read this stuff yourself, or are you just guessing?

> is just populist conspiracy fodder aimed at the masses. Watching > or reading > is much more serious business. However, once you've seen both, it becomes clear that every author brings something to the table. For a better grasp of monetary flow, I’d recommend checking out my own articles. None of my pieces (link in signature) conflict with the conclusions in the > video, and I wrote them before I even watched that video.

Robert Vaughn10 lacks the ability to look at the big picture. That doesn't make him a bad person, but his intellectual progress is limited because of it. Even after I've written dozens of posts and pointed him toward solid material he doesn't necessarily have to accept blindly, there is no shift in thinking. There is simply no progress.

While a lot of you are just lurking on the discussion thinking I'm just fueling up some conspiracy theory, unfortunately, this isn't a theory. It's proving a harsh reality. The problem is that this is mathematical proof tied to economic activity. These laws have to work for billions of people just as much as they do for a handful of individuals; an economy can be tested on just a few subjects to verify its viability. We start from the assumption that any subject can be multiplied at will.

Every single one of you knows this nonsense about business profitability. You just don't want to believe it. Take two people with $100 each. Now, conduct a barter exchange using cash. It's immediately obvious that whoever spends less than they earn accumulates wealth and leaves the other person broke. I see it instantly, but many of you don't. Now, imagine every subject is multiplied 2 million times until you have 4 million subjects, but the result remains identical. If half the group saves, the other half is left with nothing. Of course, there are countless combinations between all participants, but generally, when you tally everything up, you get an XLS spreadsheet showing "community profit," which shows nothing can be done except state the truth: there is no profit in the community. And that doesn't depend on whether you use cash or gold. It doesn't even depend on the level of corruption.

95% of you refuse to believe this is true. You all think you can live normally in a system where there is a finite amount of money. I'm telling you, that's only possible if nobody saves. The author of "Seven Deadly Economic Sins" confirmed this. What some people view as a sign of poor performance or ignorance is, for me, proof that the math is correct. Economic activity boils down to a game of poker where weak players slowly drop out, then the stronger ones, then the strongest, until only one is left. It's a continuous process, and we won't live to see the end of it. Once 50% of subjects go bankrupt, society will descend into chaos. The struggle over scraps of income will be catastrophic.

And all of this just so someone, somewhere, can prove that math is right, even though we refuse to believe in it.

I can just keep repeating what they tell us over and over again: we need investments to get things moving. But logic says: where exactly does that money come from? It’s easy to prove there isn't any capital accumulation happening in this country (imports equal exports). And if it isn't happening here, it isn't happening anywhere on the planet. So, back to logic. Investments have to pay off. That means you need capital accumulation to cover the repayment. If it was impossible to achieve capital accumulation before the investment, why would it suddenly be possible after? You might accumulate the investment itself, but you won't accumulate the cash needed to make the investment profitable (imports = exports). Expanding that view to the entire globe means there is no profitability on a global scale.

So how does profit happen? Through credit. But wait—if there is no profitability anywhere in the world, then there won't be any in the future either. This means the credit we take out today can't be paid back tomorrow, because tomorrow will be just as unprofitable as yesterday. The only way tomorrow becomes "profitable" is if we take out an even larger credit tomorrow. And so it goes, day after day. The debt just keeps piling up, and we aren't getting any smarter about it.

That's why watching this farce regarding taking out loans to cover budget deficits is so depressing.
There was a former minister who knew perfectly well that paying back these loans was impossible, and he’d just grin from ear to ear every time someone brought up the budget deficit. Now you see why he was laughing. Honestly, who wouldn't? He was being ridiculous. He was chasing money he couldn't possibly repay, and the people lending it to him knew that too; they were just hoping they wouldn't be the last ones holding the bag. It's always the last person who loses everything, while the stakes just keep getting higher and higher.

Let me propose something to you: I'll give you $200 billion, but I want 7% interest on that money. Would you agree? Smart people probably wouldn't. The real answer is: we can just print our own bills and not pay anyone rent (sort of like how Northerners answered during the Civil War). The fact that there isn't actual backing for that money doesn't even matter. Any reserve held in precious metals is insufficient in the long run anyway (which is what caused the collapse of all systems based on the gold standard). So, it's basically irrelevant whether we actually have it at the start. What matters is that the money is accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. You'd need to inject it through the budget deficit every year (about 3.5 to 5% of the total mass) and balance it out through foreign trade. Then, you just have to eliminate money multiplication in the banks to prevent inflation, and you've got a solution. We'd have a system designed for the community and in service to it.

For those who want to understand more about why the gold standard fails, I'll explain how it happens. First, the government has to collect as much gold as possible to issue banknotes. After a while (based on the link between the budget deficit and state profit), the state spends all its notes. Then they realize what they've done and start issuing more than they have gold for, and eventually, the people who actually know the truth about the gold reserves pull their money out, leaving behind a mountain of cash backed by nothing. That isn't necessarily the problem itself, unless you believe the idea that money is worthless without that backing. There are many ways to reach ruin. It also depends on the balance of trade with foreign nations.

So, call it a conspiracy theory or call it cold, hard reality—it's a fact, and everything else is just fog.

Long live the wise!

Robert Vaughn10 said:I honestly have no idea what kind of industry we're discussing regarding the Roman Empire. Regardless, they collapsed once they could no longer pay their debts credibly. But the fact remains: the USA developed—it didn't stagnate—and the purchasing power of money actually increased. If you want growth without actual substance, I have to tell you: that isn't happening. When I say "actual," I'm looking at the broader context.
Also, you seem to ignore that no growth can go on forever; a crash follows eventually. The very fact that you claim something needs constant expansion proves the failure of such a system. That’s exactly what we’ve had so far, except you're just offering it in a slightly milder, different package. And why should we "grow" at all if there's no foundation for it? It's far more important to shift the economic weight from production toward consumption capacity. Too much is built on credit, and that needs to be cut back so that creditors are forced to think twice about who they lend to and why. The system I advocate for admittedly starts under much tougher conditions with a slower growth rate, but it is significantly more secure in every sense. Once that plane is in the air, it's nearly impossible to shoot down. I think you rely too heavily on raw numbers and not enough on perspective and actual ability to consume. I don't care about GDP if I can't afford to buy things. That’s why my system works: it forces everyone to actually earn their money rather than relying on "easy money" or credit. If prices drop as a result—and people call it a recession because the nominal GDP looks smaller—so be it. In reality, that is how you achieve true standard growth. Everything broken in this current system needs to be ripped out, and the good parts kept.
Just to be clear: no massive bureaucracy, no easy handouts...
And here's a little snapshot from 1966 from my father's life to wrap things up...
When my father went on his high school graduation trip for fifteen days, his mother didn't pack him meat or liver; she packed spleen and ten hard-boiled eggs for the whole trip. People had vineyards, cows, horses, pigs—life was modest, but genuinely abundant. That’s how things were done, and that’s how progress happened. A practical, real-world example... and one that actually worked...
And yes, he did get some pocket money, so he ended up buying chocolate bars when nobody else could find any...

I didn't actually say the economy *has* to grow. What I said was that you have to add deposited value for the system to function. If you don't, there’s no profit source and you end up in a recession. It feels like nobody here has actually looked at history or understands what drives the ups and downs of the USA.

A system without new money being added is basically the same thing as when credit expansion hits a wall—where credit levels just stay flat. You end up with a liquidity crunch regardless of how much cash is technically sitting somewhere else.

The bolded part is the main point. If that doesn't make sense, then there isn't really anything left to talk about.

Robert Vaughn10 said:I don't even need to read it. It's all obvious.
When the gold standard was introduced, all that drained capital had to be paid back to the American people in gold and silver, as that is the only legal tender under their Constitution. Similarly, the European Union should return the money used for bailouts to the taxpayers of specific member states, adjusted for the purchasing power at that time... or perhaps in metal, if inflation hits... actually, definitely in metal.
The same applies to the US. We need a thorough investigation into the constitutionality of how privatization was handled and when it occurred. Furthermore, the state owes its taxpayers the very money used to bail out institutions like JP Morgan Chase. That should clearly be returned in silver and gold, especially if inflation occurs—which is almost a certainty. You can't bail out some people and not others; that violates the principle that everyone is equal under the Constitution.
If you follow the money trail—who bought what with which bank's credit, and which bank was bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers using loans meant for resource acquisition—it becomes clear that everything needs to be paid back. Everything has an origin.
But understand one thing: we are a small player, just a tiny boat in a vast ocean of global capital. What happens to us will be the same as everyone else... debt crushes everyone eventually.
Not to mention, you can't charge interest on money that doesn't exist. The entire premise should be challenged on constitutional grounds if there's any basis for it. I believe we could demand the repayment of drained profits and interest in gold and silver; we have the math ready.
It’s a mess, but it needs to be thought through and structured properly.
So, when I advocate for a gold or even a silver standard, remember that this coin has many sides.
As for history, the effectiveness of metal is proven.
1. The fall of the Roman Empire when they abandoned the gold standard.
2. The Rise of the USA during the 19th and first half of the 20th century while they were on the gold standard.
Conclusion: it works.

I don't think your arguments hold up. Both those periods of growth were tied to industrial revolutions. If you read "Century War - William F. Engdahl" you'll realize the issue is actually about maintaining the gold standard. It's also worth watching the "The Money Masters" video where the authors also argue against that standard.

Gold, or any standard based on deposited value, just doesn't work over the long term. You simply can't grasp that those deposited values always need to increase for an economy to function. It's the exact same thing as when credit expansion stops. You end up with a depression regardless of how much money exists. It stays with the people who see that everyone else has run out of money to earn, so investment in business stops (a predictable tactic by
banks).

Live long and be smart!

I found something for anyone looking to dig a little deeper Warren Mosler "7 Deadly Economic Policy Frauds"

It's all in English, but it breaks down how financing the USA budget deficit through credit leads straight into seven specific deceptions. The author is a big proponent of Chartalism. If your English is up to par, you’ll find some really solid, well-argued breakdowns of these frauds. If you aren't feeling too confident with your English, you can always run parts of it through a translator.

Stay smart out there.

Robert Vaughn10 said:You keep jumping in and muddying the waters. That isn't how a productive conversation works.
Two decades ago, my family and I were already pointing out that corruption is the fundamental issue, and we have the evidence to back it up. I am not some puppet of the media; I’ve maintained my course, and I intend to keep doing so. Besides, did I ever claim this system was functional? Not once. In fact, the system is completely broken—you just refuse to overhaul it, preferring to ignore the rot and stick to the status quo.
The core issue is your refusal to move past outdated concepts of paper currency and money itself. My analysis focuses on honest money strictly as a medium of exchange—specifically regarding its production and the absence of debt erasure—rather than focusing on money as an end in itself. Centering everything around money is precisely why we are stuck. Instead of obsessing over GDP, interest rates, and endless statistics, the focus should shift toward actual production and the capacity to consume from that production. Naturally, this assumes we preserve our existing resources. Debt isn't the dealbreaker if it's managed through sensible spending cuts, but the real nightmare is selling off assets like ExxonMobil, Pfizer, or Kraft Heinz. This is what we were discussing twenty years ago, and it remains true today. We have the proof. Even when we lost political ground because of these stances, we didn't abandon our principles. Then and now.
So, my stance remains: corruption and the pursuit of pure profit are the root problems.
Once those ideas are discarded, we can actually discuss how to outmaneuver those who have consolidated most of the wealth into gold, ensuring wealth is distributed more evenly and balanced. There is a wide spectrum of solutions available, provided one is willing to reject greed, corruption, and this interest-based system. If you aren't willing to walk that path, you'll simply learn the hard way.
It is impossible to solve this without cooperating with people like you; otherwise, we are merely applying half-measures rather than addressing the whole problem.

The problem comes down to ignorance again. If we had known twenty years ago that changing ownership doesn't fix a nation's long-term problems—something we were taught by the IMF—we would have known this could be solved with non-credit money.

I am arguing that the banking system needs to align with what the economy can actually handle. And that is impossible without defining money issuance on a non-credit basis and stopping banks from multiplying money. That is just the first step toward further social progress. I'm not ruling out the fight against corruption, but I can't put it at number one because the math shows that national debt grows regardless of how corrupt things are, while the economy withers due to a lack of cash. Basically, your priorities are wrong. It's like having a car without wheels; you can change the driver, but the car still isn't going anywhere.

Robert Vaughn10 said:And why is it any surprise that only the few who haven't been brainwashed by the media actually see what's happening? You keep shifting the goalposts. I said corruption is systemic because it’s human nature. What some bankers supposedly said isn't my concern.
And that's exactly why the people in this country are no longer in control: they allowed it. That is the sole reason. If you want to stick to math, then take a look at the sheer amount of wasteful spending from the 1990s to now... and consider the root cause of those expenses, one way or another.

You guys are trying to pin the whole financial system issue on people being corrupt.

Your math is completely off. No amount of saving can fix the problem of an unusable financial system. It’s easy to see if you just look at three subjects (a road builder, a miller, and a farmer). Entities within a state only realize global profits when the state runs a deficit (imports equaling exports). Because of that rule, it’s clear a state can't pay off foreign debt using the profits from its own entities. And when there is significant export growth over imports or investments, banks just step in by issuing low-interest credit, snatching away real potential earnings from business owners while simultaneously creating inflation. Even if some governments feel successful under those conditions, it doesn't change the fact that the debt from issued credit must be repaid through new exports or investments. The amount of money in circulation grows because it's credit, and that credit money pushes out the real stuff.

So we end up back with those same unsolvable problems I mentioned before. With theft and corruption or without it, the result is almost identical. The only difference is how people perceive the cause, and there's a higher chance that the wrong cause is blamed for the bad situation (you're falling for media influence). If all the politicians and the media claim that corruption is leading us into a bad economic state, then you should know the truth is probably the exact opposite. It was the same thing with joining the European Union.

Would everything be fine without corruption? Yeah, right. Prove it!!

Robert Vaughn10 said:You just can't seem to grasp that corruption is the root cause here.
And you think I’m not fighting for this country?
Back in 1990, my family was already sounding the alarms about the fallout from corruption—and yes, I have the receipts to prove it. Where were you then? Not to mention the significant financial hit I took because of government mismanagement. So, please, stop spreading misinformation and trying to muddy the waters when there are clear counterarguments. This isn't the first time you've been practically insulting, though I stayed quiet just to keep this discussion civil.
The bottom line is this: once you strip away the corruption, the greed, and the obsession with profit, then we can talk. All I want is to live a normal life, much like how the world functioned until 1971 under the gold standard.

They teorovat that corrupt governments drive nations toward bad policy, essentially setting them up for ruin—all orchestrated by big bankers back in the 80s. That's the idea in the book "Century War - William F. Engdahl".

Corruption and greed aren't visible in those formulas trying to link budget deficits to national profits. Is it just you guys who see that?

Robert Vaughn10 said:Man, I’m with you—it’s a total scam.
But look at the root of the issue here. Do you actually want profit, or not?
If you do, you're just taking it from someone else... and that isn't right.
On the other hand, we should be aiming for a system built on absolute precision—nothing more, nothing less. No "profit," but no theft either.
If you're chasing profit, how are you any different from the people who are actually stealing?
Forget the word "profit." Instead, stick to the principle of an exact weight, an accurate measurement.
And yeah... they used to mix in copper and create all sorts of discrepancies. But nowadays, we know exactly how much gold is in a coin versus how much copper. We look at the pure mass of the gold, not just the total weight of the coin. Once they started adding copper, they failed. It was inevitable.

You can't just ignore profit when development itself depends on money. That is why the Venus project exists—to move toward a system where we eliminate traditional money and focus on sustainable growth. But honestly, current understanding of how money works is so flawed that it acts as a massive barrier to even grasping the core issue. The first step really has to be demystifying money and its issuance. That is what this is about. As long as our progress relies on creating new money, we can't realistically push for a gold standard or stick with the credit-based system we have now.

Because the global financial system is built on credit, a tiny minority can trigger crises and amass infinite economic power through things like interest rates, capital flight, or oil prices.

So how do you fight back? By telling the truth about the system and its consequences.

Every single time you see workers striking because of economic issues—things like unpaid wages, shuttered factories, forced retirement age increases, low pay, meager pensions, terrible health insurance, crumbling infrastructure, and so on—just remember that "money drives everything." Also, remember that we effectively handed over that power for nothing.

The secret to issuing money without causing inflation is actually known now—non-credit money. We don't need to kill the economy just to rein in inflation anymore. Of course, that isn't what the people who want to keep us economically shackled want to hear. So, should we just give up and wait for divine intervention to fix it? No. You just need to change a few laws and explain the whole mechanism to everyone.

But look at what happens instead: reports on economic struggles get buried while entertainment programs get more channels. The news focuses on trivialities—like some story about tigers being born in captivity—instead of the important stuff. Even you, Robert Vaughn10, regardless of your right to defend your views, are participating in the misinformation and the distraction. Any intellectual in this country, whether they hold a PhD or not, ought to be fighting for their nation and their future. It is truly sad to see people who cannot see far enough to realize that collapse is inevitable trying to relativize my evidence, downplay its importance, or just cloud the issue with other problems.

No one is coming to save us unless we help ourselves by facing the truth about the system and our current situation. So, I am calling on anyone following this thread to spread this information further. Non-credit money and banning the multiplication of money within banks is the only real, lasting solution for a healthy financial system..

While many of you rely on living off interest, only a very few will actually make it. Don't turn your life into a lottery; change it by advocating for the real solution. This matters for all of us, for our children, and our grandchildren.

When talking about social cohesion, non-credit money is actually what fosters it, because it allows everyone to turn their labor into earnings for themselves and their families. That is the source of satisfaction that will drive unity and effort toward further progress.

Stay smart and stay alive!

Robert Vaughn10 said:You have to be joking...
Corruption is the starting point and the very root of the problem. It permeates everything, driven entirely by human greed. So please, spare me your "truths."
A system should function automatically, rather than constantly being subject to some supposed "miracle fix." I sincerely hope we’ve seen enough of these "solutions" throughout history.

Let's get specific then. Back during the Roman Empire, they dealt with budget deficits by debasing their coins—basically mixing copper into the gold. That proves the underlying math hasn't changed in over two thousand years. The issue is just how you apply the solution. They didn't have paper money back then, but the core problem was identical. You’re arguing for keeping gold coins in circulation, but it doesn't work—the Romans proved that through practice millennia ago.

So, I laid out the community profit math to show that this isn't about what currency you use or what era you're in. The solution is independent of both. It's timeless.

The government has the option to change its approach and revert to old ways, but that doesn't make the current solution any less optimal. This isn't actually about corruption. It's about general ignorance. Especially when it comes to economic sciences. I've already written about this, and I don't want to keep repeating myself.

Tax policy is basically an add-on to monetary policy. A bad tax policy can certainly cause havoc, but no amount of tax policy can fix a broken monetary policy (as J. K. Rowling might say). Macroeconomists really ought to know that instead of acting like complete amateurs. Most of them look like they're putting on a stage performance rather than acting like scientists who actually understand their field. That's pretty much all there is to say about stupidity being the reason we're in this mess.

Saying corruption is the only issue doesn't help us, because that would imply everything else would be perfect if we just stopped the corruption. Yeah, right. Prove it.

Those are just political platitudes designed to distract you from the real culprit—global economic fraud and incompetence on the other side.

Long live the smart ones.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Are you actually serious?
Ha, ha.
Corruption is stupidity, but clearly, you haven't caught on yet.

The topic here is the financial system and where the money actually comes from. It’s just foolish to claim that corruption is the reason people refuse to accept the truth about how the system works. Or honestly, it's more like stupidity is what keeps people from realizing that corruption isn't the root cause. It's just a byproduct of the stupidity of those making these claims.