Posts by Maria Thomas48

Robert Vaughn10 said:And what else should a sentence be made of if not words?
If you can't follow an answer that you deem "too dense" when it's actually incredibly simple, then we're done here.

I honestly feel like you guys are just trying to kill me with a massive wave of stupidity.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Look, you’re stubbornly refusing to accept that people are inherently corruptible.
They break eventually. That’s the root of the issue. It’s the only issue.
If I can't make you understand that, there's no point in talking.
Forget this entire system and its statistics; it's finished. It's already dead; we're just waiting for the execution. Deflation isn't a logical solution because it would trigger a revolution. Inflation or hyperinflation, however, wipes out debt—which will be a disaster for many—while capital migrates into precious metals, resetting all values to positive territory.
The goal should be simple: pull the rug out from under the speculators. As long as there is even a tiny loophole in the law, speculators will find a way to exploit it and poison the system. That must be prevented at all costs. I suggest a maximum cap of 20%—making it difficult enough to discourage them—but apparently, we have to learn the hard way. Good intentions don't matter much if you aren't actually competent. Once people realize "easy money" is gone and start saving again, things will balance out. People will finally value creation over consuming nothingness fueled by debt.
And then what? If everyone holds gold and silver, or if you're paid in real currency? The priority is eliminating interest and this current structure, because that's where the real money is manufactured and drained. Once a true standard is established, no matter how harsh the transition, you'll come out on top. But globally, we will pay for this through a temporary drop in living standards. We have to, because we allowed corruption to creep in. Some saw that coming back in the late '70s... so a decline in the standard of living is now inevitable. There's no avoiding it.
My advice: adapt to reality instead of trying to bend the world to fit your desires, no matter how noble they may be.
So, one last time: people are corruptible and prone to decay. You, me, anyone—nobody is perfect.
But the system must function flawlessly—if it's ever going to function at all—because it only takes one failure to ruin the work of nine others. We shouldn't be offering similar short-term fixes for a long-term problem. Once a certain level of stability is achieved through sheer effort, the pace should slow down and move into maintenance mode.
It is fundamentally wrong for anyone to print money—be it a bank, the government, or any other entity.
Forget the deficit.

There are just so many words scattered across all these different sentences that I can't even begin to wrap my head around what the actual point of the reply is. 😕

Robert Vaughn10 said:Just a few points, as it seems we aren't on the same page.
Who said anything about taking out a loan? You save money; then you have the capacity to borrow easily.
And if a loan is taken, it should be repaid in gold or hard currency. I prefer precious metals—there’s no room for fraud there. That way, the lender will think twice about who they lend to and why. I don't know where this idea comes from that transfers can't be made in gold if prices skyrocket. Just because you dislike the idea doesn't mean it isn't reality. Yes, manipulation happens; one must adapt to it.
Regarding slavery: if you insist everything boils down to mathematics, you're wrong. Humans are driven by subjective impulses and assessments. Let's look at that math.
That math shows that the US imports twice as much as it exports. That is a roadmap to bankruptcy. If we are importing twice as much, we have to ask why. The answer lies in people's desire to live comfortably. It isn't about how they do it; it's just that they want comfort and a certain sense of "dignity." And if you'll permit my subjective impression, you seem to be heading in that same direction.
Printing money is an evil. You, or those who follow you, claim to be the "good ones" who won't print. Sure. Very convincing.
As for your claim that debt cannot be wiped out by inflation or hyperinflation...
You are looking at the big picture, which is fine, but you're ignoring the dynamics. Inflation is a process, and it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to manage. Once again, I point to the USA. Look at the numbers; you'll see that hyperinflation is already becoming almost inevitable. It only takes a massive influx of cash into a single asset class—say, food or energy—for overall confidence in the currency to vanish. It is perfectly logical that money flows into those specific classes because food and energy are necessities. When credit is abundant, prices in almost every other asset class tend to drop. Capital flows toward survival essentials... leading to inflation and hyperinflation. This $600 billion is intended specifically to offset all the value "killed" by loan repayments.
Eventually, when you no longer want a mere representative of value, paper becomes what it truly is.
On the other hand, one must acknowledge the fact that the world developed quite well under the gold standard until 1971.
The existence of wars was merely a reflection of human greed. Today, wars aren't fought on battlefields; everything is handled remotely. The core issue remains human greed; only the effects and models have changed. That is the problem we need to solve. We must address the root cause rather than clinging to an obsolete model of paper money and printing presses where it isn't Jerry doing the printing, but Mark.
As much desire for comfort leads to slavery, as much modesty leads to freedom.
My ancestors lived this way, and we will continue to do so.

Well, I think I made it clear that there aren't actually any conditions for accumulating capital, or saving. About 86% of savings is just minimums pulled from someone else's debt, and generally speaking, isn't about 95% of all money in the world currently consist of credit? There's just no solution for paying interest on almost all leased money. It's basically a pyramid scheme where the source is the central banks. Even in England right now, they're struggling because their debt outweighs the actual money in the country.

I don't really get why everyone is insisting on moving everything into precious metals. Replacing currency with gold doesn't change the math of a national budget at all. Just look at the numbers. Currency doesn't change the bottom line. Doesn't matter if it's the Dollar, the Euro, or the Swiss Franc, or gold. Based on how the math works, the government would have to create extra money every single year just to maintain global profit within the state. The alternative is an economic disaster caused by a total lack of cash (for those actually trying to make a living). So the question is whether it's easier to print colored paper and guarantee its value, or hunt for gold and stuff it into a vault just to issue more paper backed by that gold. Gold only makes sense if the currency isn't stable. If the currency stays stable, gold is redundant. And stability in a currency comes from adding a certain amount of supply. If someone suddenly figured out how to turn lead into gold, gold would become worthless because there would be way more than needed to cover the newly created value from labor.

In the documentary "The Money Masters," they say it quite clearly at the very end: Advocating for a return to the gold standard is a mistake. The government needs to issue its own money, which effectively cuts banks out of the money issuance process.

A nation that doesn't issue its own (real) money has no control over its own economic destiny. The decision belongs to whoever issues the money—basically, whoever controls most of the money. Since 80% of the money in America is credit, I assume it's pretty obvious who is calling the shots on the economic situation. What kind of adjustment can a country like this make to become a prosperous nation? That kind of adjustment doesn't exist. The people running the economy already know exactly when the opportunity arises to invest in one thing or another. It's like playing the lottery against people who always win the jackpot. You might pick up a few crumbs, but the rest of the people globally just lose.

Stay smart and stay alive.

Robert Vaughn10 said:Quincy:

Maria Thomas48 Asks: Your perspective still aligns perfectly with a system built entirely on credit. If you attempt to implement commodity-based measures using finite resources, you’re headed for massive trouble down the road. According to 1996 data, two-thirds of the world's gold is held by The Money Masters, specifically through the IMF and the World Bank. How exactly do you plan on getting your hands on that much gold? If you give them the authority to print money, you won't even have any money left of your own. And let's be honest—they only issue currency for the purpose of lending it out.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. In the system I’m advocating for, debt doesn't even exist—gold isn't someone else's liability. We should have been thinking ahead instead of running massive deficits and turning a blind eye to corruption. Now, we're just past the point of easy fixes. And frankly, why would you or I be any more honest than the people currently in power? If we aren't, then the next generation will just fall into the same traps and return to business as usual. You have to solve the problem at the root rather than assuming we're somehow morally superior to the people stealing from us right now. We basically robbed ourselves by allowing corruption to take hold, and this is the bill coming due. My family saw it clearly back in the early 90s, right after the elections: the foundation was fundamentally broken. This isn't just an economic issue; it goes much deeper. That is where the solution lies. Period.

Quincy:

Doesn't it bother you that the entire system currently hinges on bank interest rates decided by a tiny handful of people? Everyone wants a piece of the action and a slice of the profit, but nobody seems concerned that there isn't any actual money coming in to cover it all. The idea that debt will simply vanish is baseless. Debt is nothing more than a lever used to exert pressure and maintain control. It works because you can't settle it with physical goods; you have to pay it back using money that hasn't even been printed yet—interest. The only logical alternative is paying in gold. Honestly, I suspect any creditor would jump at the chance to be paid in gold. It allows lenders to hoard the metal as collateral for issuing more credit, while the rest of us just get worked harder. The mere concept of spending money you don't actually have—relying on credit to bridge the gap—is nothing more than a fast track to modern-day debt slavery. My plan addresses the internal financial framework directly. You have to balance that trade deficit through active intervention; you simply cannot offset a trade debt like that. By implementing a non-credit-based system across all nations, the desperate need to export just to stay afloat disappears. It would make managing those trade imbalances significantly easier. The solution lies in implementing a unified currency or converting all non-credit currencies held against agreed-upon issuances. Here is the only thing worth noting: a massive currency outflow suggests we might actually have the opportunity to scale back the issuance of non-credible money, given that the local money supply has shrunk. For this to work, the outflow must remain lower than the rate of money creation. If we cross that line, the government could find itself completely stranded, lacking any foundation to issue new currency. Essentially, we need to ensure the flow of capital with foreign markets remains balanced.

Debt gets erased by inflation. If that money printing goes unchecked, debt simply vanishes in the middle of hyperinflation. Just look at the US budget deficit compared to the rate of new money issuance. It’s mathematically impossible for the dollar to avoid hyperinflation at this level of spending and insolvency—unless they slash consumption, in which case we just deal with massive inflation instead. As the dollar collapses, everything else follows. Real wealth shifts straight into gold. The illusion of debt disappears.😉
If we aren't capable of living modestly and rebuilding the entire system from the ground up through actual labor and production, then we’ve essentially earned our own subjugation. Constant whining about who is to blame won't change anything. We need to adapt—live more simply and stay out of debt—rather than just reinventing the exact same broken system that someone will inevitably exploit again in 50 or 100 years, just like they have for the last two decades.
People are inherently corruptible, and we need to get ahead of that decisively.

Paying with gold? How do you even take out a loan then? In gold? The bank still just keeps a piece of paper saying you owe them money! What's the difference? It just shows up when you take the credit. There's no actual difference.

Debt gets wiped out by inflation, and if that issuance is totally out of control, the debt completely disappears during hyperinflation. Just look at the US numbers regarding budget deficits and new money issuance, and you'll see it's impossible for the dollar not to hyperinflate given this level of spending and default, or at least inflate heavily if spending slows down. Everything falls along with the dollar, and the transfer of real wealth moves into gold. The illusion of debt vanishes.😉
If we aren't capable of living modestly and restarting the system from scratch through actual work and production, then we've basically earned our slavery. Constantly whining about whose fault it is won't help anything.

First off, that theory about wiping out debt through hyperinflation doesn't work in a system based entirely on credit. That worked when the state issued the money. When a credit institution does it, inflation doesn't make the debt disappear. I've posted proof of this several times before.
Wealth transfer can't move into gold because then gold prices would hit the stratosphere, and interestingly enough, the IMF and the World Bank hold massive gold reserves. Isn't that just market manipulation?!
Who is even talking about someone else being to blame? If you don't feel like a slave, that's subjective. Mathematics shows the relationship is purely one of servitude. There is no way to escape economic slavery except by changing the laws that establish it.

We need to adapt, live more modestly, and stay out of debt, rather than inventing essentially the same system that someone will just abuse again in 50 or 100 years, just like they've abused it for the last 20 years.
People are inherently flawed, and we need to get ahead of that decisively.

I don't even understand that sentence. Who is supposed to adapt to what? How do slaves adapt to a life of slavery? By surviving under those conditions, or by gaining freedom?
The system needs to be reformed, and it should be written into the Constitution that economic slavery is prohibited. Economic sciences need to start dealing with actual facts instead of miseducating students. In fact, there should be legal penalties for miseducation (indoctrination), just like there are for false advertising. There is no difference, and the entire school should face the penalty.

What is even the point of teaching macroeconomics at a university if the professor can't explain capital accumulation and social development within the current system—you know, the whole import-export balance thing. If they can't explain it at a national level, there's no way they can explain it on a global scale, right?

It’s the same deal with these professors; they never explain how a country actually pays back its debt when 95% of the money comes from credit. In a scenario where imports and exports are balanced, trying to pay off a budget deficit is basically an impossible mission.

So what, are we supposed to just stay quiet and play along? Adjust to what? To a massive scam? And the idea that we shouldn't point out that things don't add up... well, just keep your mouth shut. This isn't some con being pulled on naive amateurs or street hustlers; it's being pulled on all of us. Just because some people are swimming a little better than others doesn't change the truth.

That whole mindset—that you shouldn't look for flaws in the system but just adapt to them—is exactly why economics has turned into such a dogmatic science. Economics is one of the most studied majors out there, yet the result in terms of actually solving problems is zero. Honestly, this should be a wake-up call for academic economics. But they aren't reacting. Some professors even set the example themselves, showing how to "earn" extra through corruption and just going along with the system.

I don't know who you guys are trying to impress, and honestly, you probably don't even know yourselves. The biggest question is this: if every single resident in this country were your own relative, would you still defend a system that ultimately turns them into poor people? People who will work their entire lives just to get a pathetic pension and feel lucky they don't have to scavenge for recyclables just to eat? Or people who, when they get sick, will be praying they don't end up in a hospital they can't afford? Or maybe you just don't care about your relatives, because man is a wolf to man, and the happiest guy is the one whose neighbor's cow dies.

I can use math to completely expose how useless the current monetary and banking system is for creating prosperity for the majority—those who actually want to work. I can prove that the only ones profiting are the big international bankers. And this situation exists globally. Yet, instead of this proof opening your eyes, it just turns you into an opponent who sees my text as some sort of revolution or threat to your position. Where is your logic?

1. You cannot disprove the math (the proof that state profit comes from the budget deficit).

2. An XLS spreadsheet showing state profit is also irrefutable.

3. The proof that infinite debt is created based on inflation is irrefutable.

4. It is clear by law that in an isolated nation, real global capital accumulation is impossible (unless it's at the expense of even more debt).

All of this applies to a system based entirely on issuing money as credit.

Are you still claiming this system is good and the best for us Americans?

Is it just because we don't know of anything better, or because we refuse to look for it?

The very history of how this system was created gives you more than enough answers as to why it's broken. It originated from bankers, not from the government!

I really can't wrap my head around how people can ignore mathematics and refuse to believe their own eyes. How many years can we keep talking about this while paying $1.3 million—money we'll never see—per hour? Are we truly that wealthy and selfless, or do we just lack common sense?

Stay smart and stay alive.

I don't know. I really don't know. It feels like we're just spinning our wheels here, honestly. Everyone is talking at once, but nobody is actually saying anything that sticks. It’s all just noise. Just constant, loud noise. I was thinking about it earlier while I was grabbing coffee, and it hit me—we're looking for patterns where there probably aren't any. Or maybe there are, and we're just too distracted to see them. It's hard to tell. Everything feels a bit disjointed lately. Anyway. That's just my thought. Nothing much to it. kaže:
Your argument only works if you're looking at a credit system where money is basically conjured out of thin air, which is exactly what we have here.
Just imagine if gold actually functioned as money. Like, real money. A universal currency where everything finally balances out and stays positive. There wouldn't be any debt. No more endless cycles of owing people things. It would just work.
It’s pretty simple, really. You either have gold, you have silver, or you don't have any goods at all. It’s strictly cash and carry. I mean, sure, moving actual commodities around sounds better on paper, but let's be real—it's just not feasible. Governments aren't the ones doing the heavy lifting here; it's all private entities trading amongst themselves, both domestically and across borders. The state isn't running the show when it comes to the actual flow of goods.
Just remember, the mere existence of a printing press is a one-way ticket to disaster.

Your position still just plays right into a system built entirely on credit. If you try to implement commodity-based measures using things that are fundamentally finite, you're going to run into massive walls down the road. It’s pretty simple math. Based on data from back in '96, two-thirds of the world's gold is held by The Illuminati, specifically through the IMF and the World Bank. How exactly do you plan on getting your hands on that much gold? If you let them control the money supply, then nobody—not even the people—actually owns their own wealth. They only issue currency for the purpose of lending it out. That's just how it works.

Look, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, and I know you mean well, but people are just inherently flawed. Your whole plan is basically impossible to pull off in the real world. A system like this needs to run on autopilot. You can't just hand over control to some group of people and assume they'll stay honest. Eventually, someone is going to get greedy or corrupt, and then everything just falls apart. It’s just how it goes.

Doesn't it bother you that the entire system currently hinges on bank interest rates decided by just a handful of people? Everyone wants their cut, everyone wants to turn a profit, but if there isn't actual, real money flowing in from somewhere to cover all those gains, then what exactly is happening? It feels like a loop.

The idea that debt just magically disappears? It’s completely baseless. There isn't any real argument to support it. Debt is basically just a lever used to exert pressure and maintain control over people. The reason is simple: you can't just pay it back with physical things or labor in nature. You have to settle it using money that hasn't even been printed yet—those interest rates. Of course, there is the option of paying in gold. Personally, I think any creditor would be more than happy to accept gold as repayment. That way, the lenders get to stockpile up on gold—using it as collateral for issuing credit—while the rest of us just get worked harder and harder.

The whole concept of paying for things with money you don't actually have—just leaning on credit to bridge the gap—it’s basically a fast track to debt slavery. It's how they get you.

I have a plan to fix the internal financial system. You have to balance that commodity exchange deficit through active measures, otherwise, you're stuck. You just can't compensate for a debt in that kind of trade. If we implemented a non-credit-based system across all states, the pressure to export to other countries just to stay prosperous would vanish. It would make balancing those commodity exchange debts a whole lot easier.

The solution lies in moving toward a single, unified currency or, at the very least, making sure all non-credit currencies held against agreed-upon issuances are fully convertible.

The only thing you really need to grasp here is that when you see a massive currency outflow like this, it actually opens the door to scaling back the issuance of non-credible money in the next cycle. Since there's less cash circulating within the domestic system, the math changes. Essentially, that outflow has to stay lower than the total amount of money being issued. If it crosses that line, the government could find itself completely stranded—literally left high and dry without any foundation to support issuing new currency. At the end of the day, it’s just better if we keep the money flow with foreign markets properly balanced.

Robert Vaughn10 said:What you’re suggesting about these trade deals is simply unrealistic. Who exactly is supposed to be making these deals?
An importer of bananas can't exactly sacrifice lives when they don't even have the resources to begin with.
And who, exactly, is handling the banana imports?
There has to be some sort of mechanism, a medium, that bridges those two values and connects the producer to the consumer.
The core issue isn't money itself; it's the fabrication of currency and the interest charged on that imaginary money.

The core problem is money and the balance of payments deficit. It’s basic math: if one nation runs a surplus, others must run a deficit. If a country can't cover that deficit with its own funds, it can't just borrow to bridge the gap either. Taking out credit just means you end up owing even more than you originally lacked. This is what people usually call living beyond your means.

With bartering, there's no such thing as spending unearned money.

Is there a better way to handle trade without piling on debt? Maybe a non-credit based currency at the state level specifically for international commerce. Developing nations could receive more of it, which would allow developed countries to sell their products and maintain a surplus in their balance of payments without creating a deficit elsewhere—since the money was essentially a gift. It sounds like science fiction, but it could work.

I don't really have much to say about this one. Just sitting here thinking about things. It’s fine. Everything is just fine. kaže:
...

I know I can be a bit much sometimes. I tend to ramble. But I just really like showing people that things aren't always what they seem on the surface. I have this need to prove it. To show the actual reality of a situation.

The whole idea that pumping more money into the system is just an invitation for inflation... it feels like such a common talking point. People say it all the time, but honestly, I don't think it's entirely accurate. It really comes down to the timeframe involved and how much actual labor goes into creating new value. I mean, you hear people trying to explain how credit can actually be paid back—even though if you look at the math, it doesn't seem to add up. But there’s a way to justify credit-based money when you consider the total pool of savings, or basically the accumulated profit, that builds up after a certain period of production and work. It's about what's actually being produced in the end.

People who work hard and manage to save money—which is just how life works for anyone being smart about their finances—end up building up this growing pile of profit. They don't have to reinvest it all; they can just let it sit there and accumulate. It makes you wonder. Does that mean everyone else would have to constantly sell off their assets just to keep pace because they can't replicate that same level of growth? They can't. It’s simple math. These people with high profitability simply have lower expenses than they do income. When you have a situation where the total sum of money stays constant like that, it leads straight to deflation, recession, and full-blown economic crises. It's just the way it plays out.

If you just balance the budget deficit by injecting exactly enough cash to cover what people and corporations actually pocketed in profit, you won't mess up the equilibrium between money supply and goods. It’s pretty straightforward. Besides, all that hard work put in created actual new value. Essentially, the money used for their turnover was already accounted for through that increased productivity.

Everything makes sense if the work is actually productive. If you're just trying to squeeze a profit out of doing next to nothing, then that new money isn't really worth much. It’s either worth very little or it's worth nothing at all.

The whole idea of running an unprofitable business in this country just doesn't make sense anymore. It’s becoming obsolete. If productive work actually generates real value, then that work should be rewarded with actual money. There are tangible things out there on the market—values created through genuine labor—and you can buy them. It’s pretty straightforward when you look at it that way.

There’s always this lingering fear hanging around, isn't there? People worry that if we actually achieve high employment and everyone starts making a decent living, inflation will just spiral out of control because suddenly everyone has cash in their pockets. But you have to look at the mechanics of it. For people to earn that money, they have to put in actual, honest work. That effort translates directly into new value—new goods being produced or services being provided. So, as more people get jobs, the supply of products and services scales up right along with the money. You can reach near-full employment without everything blowing up, because the supply side keeps pace. It's just how it works.

Where do you put extra cash? And honestly, is it even "extra" if it's just sitting there? I mean, if you're looking at what gets released every year... $1000 If we look at potential earnings per capita, we’re talking about maybe $18,000 over a whole career. That’s for forty years of work. Does that sound like a fortune to anyone? Not really. After four decades of grinding and saving, that's just... it's nothing. Now, if you factor in the 25% we retirees hold, theoretically, everyone could have something closer to $72,000 sitting in a pension fund. That feels a bit more realistic, I guess. But even then, that only covers about 100 months of retirement. That’s eight years. Just eight. If we started printing more credit money now, maybe by the time forty years pass, people could actually start contributing more from their own savings. The thing people always seem to forget is that over forty years, you can generate a massive amount of value. Eventually, that money will eventually balance out with whatever goods are actually on the market. It works out. It has to.

The money supply can be scaled back, but honestly, any kind of tinkering with those numbers is basically just asking for a crisis. It’s all right there if you look at how banks manage their liquidity through interest rates—too high and things fall apart. You could theoretically set a specific adjustment, maybe something like 3.5% to 5% of the national money supply annually, but that shouldn't be left to chance. It needs to be handled by actual experts. And more importantly, these people need to face serious criminal and financial consequences if they screw up. They should be held personally accountable for their mistakes.

Fiat money has value, sure, but it isn't naturally convertible between different countries. It would be ideal if you could just take your cash and buy things abroad without any hassle, but honestly, the whole process of proving a currency is actually exchangeable is a massive headache. It’s a complicated mess. Because of that, I think bartering goods is actually the most logical way to go. That way, one nation doesn't end up getting rich at the expense of another. And look, if someone doesn't want to trade anything through bartering, then they clearly have everything they need already. If you can produce everything yourself and stay completely self-sufficient, you don't really need the barter system anyway.

Trump’s approach basically tackles the trade deficit head-on, which stops all that constant draining of cash from the country. If you ask me, it’s the smartest way to handle international trade. Sure, resource shortages could mess things up, but honestly, you see the exact same issue when people are just out there buying stuff with cash. The only real difference here is that the nation ends up trading more goods for the ones they actually lack. It’s pretty clear that in this scenario, there isn't some easy fix like just taking out more loans—because you really shouldn't do that. Instead, the move is to ramp up production of the specific goods needed for trade. That might lead to some temporary shortages on the market, but it won't lead to the citizens being stuck in economic slavery. That’s a huge distinction to make. An economy can run into hiccups, but it shouldn't fall into the kind of impossible, unsolvable mess we're dealing with right now.

Bless the smart ones.

Quincy:

I don't really have much to say about that. It's just one of those things. Not my thing. I tend to stay away from that kind of content. It's fine if other people like it, I guess. Just not for me. Anyway, moving on. Maria Thomas48 says: What else is there to say besides echoing what Mark Rothra? Honestly, you can't get much higher than a fool, except maybe for the stubborn ones. 🙏 Not every business needs to turn a profit every single second. That’s just silly. It’s like saying every student in an American classroom has to maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA to be considered successful. A company's profit is really just whatever is left over after you handle payroll, reinvestment, and all those other overhead costs. If a firm breaks even—basically operating at zero—but they’re still paying their employees on time and investing back into the business, that’s actually doing fine. If they lose money one year, maybe they restructure, or maybe they go under the next year, and that's also just part of the process. That is simply how capitalism works. The strongest players survive the intense competition in the US market. Honestly, if every single entity were turning a profit simultaneously, profit wouldn't even exist as a concept. For that to happen, everyone would have to be producing more goods and services than they consume, or some aliens would have to be dumping extra resources into our economy. You've basically just invented a perpetual motion machine. Nice try though.

I'm not trying to get you guys to give up on proving the impossible. I just want you to realize that the actual truth is right there, laid out plain and simple by the math of any system that isn't constantly being pumped with fresh capital.

It’s always nice to hear people say that not everyone can be successful. It sounds fair. But if we're being honest, if you aren't succeeding, you should be working from zero, not working from a deficit. A loss shouldn't be an endless well for someone else to get rich off of. It should just be a temporary thing that happens when things fall apart. You can see this clearly if you just look at an Excel spreadsheet. In the real world, though, they hide it behind loans. They just call it growth in loan placements.

The data shows there's just no way for everyone to save even a single dollar a day. If they tried, the government would have to take on an extra $1.44 billion in debt every year just to cover the population—which isn't really "saving" anything anyway, since the national debt already dwarfs any potential savings. And honestly, that number doesn't change based on whether people are working 8-hour shifts or 16-hour shifts. It’s impossible under these conditions, regardless of how much effort you put in. So, this proves that calling Americans lazy is just nonsense. When imports equal exports, or when we're importing more than we export, you can work yourselves to death and it won't show up in your wallet by the end of the year. The money for all that labor simply won't exist. You can't link our productivity to how hard we work; it's actually tied to how poorly the money is regulated within the system. When imports exceed exports, the state tries to use its trade surplus as a source of funding on the importer's account. That's not a solution. Another country can't just compensate for that kind of deficit, and it only pushes them faster toward massive debt.

This whole discovery is pretty wild. It actually gets my blood pumping because you can clearly see all the cracks in our current system. And the fix—well, one of the possible solutions that's already floating around online—is coming from someone who isn't even an economist.

The whole forest of questions starts as an extension of the monetary issue. It all points toward a kind of economic enslavement through the banking system's debt creation process. And the first question is: Why are we just letting this happen? It’s worth asking whose interests actually come first in this country. We talk about changing the laws, but then what? We just wait around. I don't get why there's this hesitation to face the consequences of standing up for ourselves. We have a right to not be economically exploited, plain and simple. Just because they're doing it to everyone else doesn't make it okay for them to do it to us. By what authority? Any agreement that causes harm should be voided, and it can be. You have to fight for your rights. You really do. Nobody wants to connect the dots between that era of economic slavery and how things actually look right now in our economy, our society, and our financial systems. It’s all there if you look. Everyone just ignores the link.

The single best thing you can do for your own education is just watching videos. It sounds simple, maybe too simple, but it really works. You get to see things happen in real time. It sticks better than reading some dry textbook from a library. Just sitting there, watching someone explain how things work... it changes everything. It’s probably the most effective way to actually learn something useful. The Money Masters. That’s what they call them. It’s an interesting label, really. People talk about these financial gurus like they have some kind of secret map to wealth, but it feels more like a collective myth sometimes. You see them everywhere on social media or in those flashy seminars in Chicago. They make these very bold, very flat claims about how you can just flip a switch and change your entire life. It’s quite a lot to take in. I find myself wondering if there is actually any substance behind the titles, or if it's just a way to package basic economic principles into something that sounds more mystical than it actually is. It’s just an observation. (Subtitles in English). Once you dig into the history of how American bankers have been exploited—looking at the Fed, the central banking systems, and all that drama—and see how those issues were actually handled, you'll realize that the mathematical proofs people throw around are just a tiny fraction of the actual truth. We need a total overhaul of the monetary and banking system, and we need it yesterday. There’s really no point in just sitting around buying more time. Every single hour, we’re racking up more than a million dollars in new, useless debt that we honestly will never be able to pay back.

Stay smart and stay safe.

rustydrifter72 said:We simply cannot know everything. A doctor isn't expected to be an expert in electrical engineering, physics, or agriculture. A single corporation can't lead the market in winemaking, automotive manufacturing, and software development all at once. Even a nation's strengths are dictated by its geography—you can't build a winter tourism empire if you're located in the middle of the Sahara, just as you can't focus on large-scale farming if you're situated in the Arctic. Ultimately, everyone has the potential to prosper through the exchange of goods and services—but only IF they actually have something valuable to offer in return.

Nostradamus As I stated before:
However, if Germany operated under a pure free-trade system without those extra protections, their economy wouldn't be nearly as dominant. They would be far less developed because they wouldn't have the ability to exploit others to fuel their own growth.

Good grief, what a mess... If anyone is being taken advantage of here, it’s Germany. What exactly are we handing over to them? Low-end tourism and some basic agricultural goods. In return, we're importing sophisticated machinery, high-quality tools, Fords, and Mercedes-Benzes. On top of that, they don't even pay countries like Greece for their exports; those nations are essentially living off Germany's back. I have no idea which idiot in Germany actually agreed to join the European Union.

You missed the point again. The profits generated by the Federal Reserve from that 6% discount rate go directly into the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve isn't some private entity like you seem to think it is. You need to view this as just another tax levied by the federal government. The state borrows from private banks—but by what right? The root of the issue is that the government spends far more than it collects in tax revenue. It’s exactly like you spending more every month than you actually earn. Whether there's interest involved or not, you're broke because you're living beyond your means. I realize it hasn't clicked for you yet, but monetary regulation is an entire science. You seem to believe the whole economy can be boiled down to two elementary school formulas. If you keep studying, you'll eventually realize that isn't how it works. People dedicate their entire lives to specializing in economics; they study for decades, and some even win Nobel Prizes for developing entirely new models and discoveries. Believe it or not, that actually happens.

rustydrifter72: "Quote:"

You still don't get it... The Federal Reserve doesn't prioritize dealing with individual citizens. But even if they did, what’s the actual issue? Interest is paid monthly and funneled back into the budget, which then gets redistributed or handed off to banks. Those banks distribute it among their employees and managers, leaving whatever is left for the shareholders—who just go out and buy more Mercedes-Benzes. Then, some executive from Mercedes-Benz heads down to Florida for a vacation, and we end up footing the bill with those ridiculous $3 fees for trash that isn't even worth fifty cents to manufacture. With that money, we might actually manage to pay back the principal and interest to the bank for that Ford we plan on buying once the season is over. The real problem arises if that German executive decides to move his operations to Turkey because it's cheaper and more profitable there; meanwhile, we're stuck here trying to drive a new Ford.
I am glad to see you have evolved your thinking. You hit the nail on the head: you must have something of value to offer BEFORE you attempt to leverage credit. If you don't have assets, do not take out loans. Your "brilliant" idea was originally just to distribute non-creditworthy money so everyone could go out and buy a Ford, while providing absolutely nothing in return. That is simply communism. And believe me, it has failed everywhere.

rustydrifter72: "The current economic trajectory remains deeply concerning. While some analysts suggest we are approaching a period of stability, I believe we are actually witnessing the arrival of a Trojan horse within our fiscal policy. We cannot simply ignore the underlying volatility."

Banks only turn a profit when they lend money, not when they sit on it. I agree that this cycle can’t continue indefinitely, but that isn't because of the banks themselves—it's because you eventually run out of reliable borrowers. If you have one segment of the population that is responsible and saves money (by choosing to forgo certain luxuries) while another segment spends recklessly, banks will inevitably start extending credit to low-quality debtors. We have already established the fact: banks make their money by deploying capital, not by accumulating it. In the past, it was so easy in America that you could practically walk into a branch, show them a single piece of paper stating your income, and walk out with a mortgage. However, this represents a fundamental "bug" in capitalism, which is currently being patched through moderate inflation. This mechanism effectively ensures that someone who simply saves diligently over fifty years will see their purchasing power eroded, while the borrower ends up paying interest on a principal that is effectively shrinking in real value.

rustydrifter72: "Quote:"

It doesn't necessarily have to be about suffering; it should be about lowering costs or boosting productivity. China struggles with incredibly low productivity, but they offset that with dirt-cheap labor and people working themselves to death. Taking out loans just to maintain a lifestyle is absolutely destructive. If those credits were being used to build new farms or factories, that would be a completely different story. Globalization is a massive win for developing nations like China and India. Initially, the West benefited by "exploiting" their inexpensive labor, but that allowed these countries to acquire the necessary expertise and technology, ensuring they come out on top in the long run. Through sheer hard work and manufacturing, they are steadily raising their standard of living while the West’s begins to decline. Globalization levels the playing field between nations. It is fundamentally positive for the human race, regardless of how much we in the West dislike having to sacrifice our own comforts.

There are plenty of real-world examples if you bother to study communist history. You can print out as much non-credit money as you want and implement all the price controls you like... and you'll successfully drive the economy down to the level of North Korea or Cuba. But hey, if that's what people want, be my guest...

☕

Look, I'm not going to go back and forth on every single one of these baseless counterarguments you guys are throwing out. I just have one specific task for you to handle:

It's called https://sites.google.com/site/financ...attredirects=0.

Basically, if you click that link, there's an XLS spreadsheet there listing several entities and the country. There isn't any mention of imports, exports, or banks. I'd just like you to download it and try adjusting the transactions—they're all double-entry, by the way—so that if you can show the government sitting at zero while every other entity turns a profit indefinitely, then you've actually proven your theory.

You'll see that if the government is at zero, then the government needs losers in order to have winners. But that can't go on forever, because losers aren't a permanent or infinite source of profit. Right?

See, people would lose their economics degrees over this simple task because nobody ever thought to check if the whole thing was actually true. It’s not some dogma. That spreadsheet has been online since the spring of 2010 and not a single genius has managed to prove long-term monetary profitability for a state using that model. We even have unpaid labor happening right now. Is that not enough proof that your logic is just as unsustainable as the profit shown in that XLS file.

Take a look at this bill regarding the introduction of non-credit money in the USA proposed by Dennis Kuchinich: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-6550

Stay smart and stay alive.

g. I respect your effort to cloud everything over with stories, but you're just repeating the same things as Closeau. You are intentionally skipping over any actual direct answer.

The whole text is nothing but platitudes. For example, specialization. Like, why would we specialize in anything if we aren't making money off it? And if we are making money, then everyone in different specializations can't all be profiting. So that definition is just pointless.

However, under a system of free trade—without all the extra fluff—Germany wouldn't be doing so well economically. They would be much less developed because they wouldn't be able to exploit others to fuel their own growth.

For instance, you’ve elevated the role of the central bank to something divine, and I've written quite a bit about the central bank, but the most important thing is that the whole concept is a banker's invention. It's like a Trojan horse. A gift intended to destroy you. Just one simple thought experiment can show you what a central bank actually is: Combine all the commercial banks and the central bank into one single organization. And what do you get? You get a money printing press where a meager 50 million plus 750 million from corporate taxes gives the state enough to lend money back to the state at 6% interest per year. Hey, I want in on that business too! And what do you have to do to make that work? To prevent credit inflation, you just raise interest rates. Easy. That's my question. What other business does that? And you can't lose customers because everyone always needs money.

I know money multiplication in banks doesn't happen instantly. I wasn't born yesterday. But that doesn't change the end result.

The time gap—credit versus repayment—is a reality, but it's a moot point because there is no way to find the money required to pay the interest. So it's just a fairy tale for the naive. Let's say: the Federal Reserve lends money to all citizens at $3333 and demands $3667 back in a year. We already know that won't work. But we are living in that exact situation: we have 12,444 in primary money from the Federal Reserve and we need to pay interest on it just so it reaches the budget. Where does that come from? The Federal Reserve doesn't care; that's just how the law works.

One could say plenty about the Federal Reserve, but they just operate according to the crooked laws we passed ourselves.

Quincy:

He gives you a loan so you can sell something, but you still have nothing to offer him in return and you can't pay the loan back.

That is economic slavery right there. Why didn't he give you cell phones in exchange for what you have? If you have nothing, what good is a loan? And what good is the phone? First, go do something productive for the economy.

Quincy:

Hello??? What do you mean a reduction in money supply??? The Federal Reserve regulates monetary aggregates without any issue... Do you honestly think banks eat money???

I am talking about a reduction in the money supply in a way that ends up as someone's profit (savings). Whether it's a bank, an individual, or a corporation. That money sits deposited in bank accounts. The person looking to get money through credit borrows that money and can repay the principal, while the interest is paid from the remaining money that isn't being held for savings (from transaction accounts). The bank covers its costs, pays itself, and pays the savers—those same people who had excess money and aren't spending it. Practically speaking, this means there is even more money available for loans, and even less money available to actually earn. Only a fool would think this process goes on forever without consequences. In practice, this is called a lack of spending, while banks get fat. "Banks really do eat money." Their job is to accumulate money because that's how they reach new profits. And profit is never enough, is it?

Quincy:

The issue is partly monetary, but not quite in the way you’re thinking about it. It comes down to the bad exchange rate set when the dollar was introduced and how we artificially propped it up through debt. Look, if a German worker produces a car for $20000 and an American worker produces one for $40000, then the American is half as productive, period. In that scenario, the exchange rate needs to be two dollars to the mark. If people hadn't taken on all this debt, there wouldn't be a crisis, because any smart American wouldn't sit around idling—they'd just trade their currency for marks to buy foreign goods that are twice as cheap. Eventually, the foreign reserves would dry up. But they aren't drying up because money is constantly being pumped in from abroad. Devaluing the currency now is just a fast track to ruin for most people. There aren't any easy or painless fixes left. Not even a hundred Molotov cocktails could solve this; they'd probably just make things worse...

That makes sense if you're looking at emerging economies. But if energy prices are the same everywhere, where is the balance? All other prices are based on those energy costs. This means in an open economy, a less productive industry is forced to suffer because it becomes "too expensive." You can't prevent that unless you rely strictly on your own strength. Now, imagine we pay more for our own products because our productivity is low, but we also have tariffs making foreign goods too pricey. Honestly, paying more for domestic goods isn't the issue; the government can always print enough money to cover that. What actually makes a product expensive? High labor input? That just means our standard of living will be lower, but at least we won't be drowning in debt. With an open economy, it gets even uglier. People maintain their lifestyle by taking out loans, which just hollows out the actual economy. This whole idea of specialization is a myth—I think I explained that earlier. It's just a buzzword used to push globalization. And let's be real, globalization isn't for the benefit of the workers; it's about exploiting them. Everyone knows that. Anyway, the topic isn't international trade per se, but it definitely impacts the stability of the financial system. Less developed systems simply cannot survive in open trade; they just collapse. History has proven that over and over.

That's a good read regarding Argentina's collapse. You can see there what happens when you aim for a stable exchange rate, privatize core industries and banks, and sign free trade agreements.

So, for America, implementing a stable exchange rate, privatization, lowering tariffs, and maybe joining a free trade bloc is a guaranteed path to destruction. It's exactly like Argentina. And it's happening because the entire system is built on money acting as credit. Because of that, we have to deal with the issue of credit-based money specifically, otherwise, we are just following Greece's trajectory at a steady pace.

Non-credit money is our only way out. Some call it fiat money. On top of that, you'd need high mandatory reserves for banks (over 50%) and a trade surplus. Price controls are obviously necessary to keep the currency stable. Doing this could jumpstart the economy, boost employment, reduce debt creation, and clear out national debts. If someone doesn't believe that, they only have themselves to blame. Of course, there are no real-world examples, because for the last few centuries, banks have been allowed to engage in massive money multiplication.

Over at http://mandrilo.com/index.php/stop-bankama, there's a historical breakdown of how banks operate. Enjoy.

I don't really have much to say about this specific topic right now. It feels like one of those things where people get too worked up over nothing. I was just sitting here thinking about how most discussions end up being circular anyway. You talk, they talk, and nothing actually changes. It's fine. Everything is fine. Just an observation. Maria Thomas48 says:
It’s all fine in theory. It would be great if we could just put 90% of the unemployed back to work. But then you have to look at the math. If we hit those numbers, what happens when we go from 186,000 to 280,000 jobs? You'd actually need people to be working. 🤷 Building more apartments around Washington, D.C.? I don't know. It feels like one of those things people just argue about constantly without actually looking at the math. You see these massive construction cranes popping up everywhere lately. It’s just happening. Some say we need them because everyone is moving to the city and there isn't enough room left. Others think it's just going to make everything feel cramped and expensive. I tend to look at it quite neutrally. If you build them, prices might stabilize, or they might not. It’s hard to say for sure. There's always a lot of noise surrounding urban development projects these days. Just a thought.

I was re-running some numbers on the sales tax. It turns out the gross total is actually lower than we thought. If you look at the math, we’re talking about 228,000 jobs gone.

So, what have they actually been doing up until now? Honestly, nothing. They failed because there was just no way to make it profitable. But now, suddenly, this money shows up—money that actually makes things viable—and we’re all just sitting here, kind of lost, wondering what on earth we're supposed to do with it.

First things first, you have to hire people for healthcare, schools, the bare minimum of bureaucracy, the military, and the police. That's the foundation. You also need to make sure higher education is accessible to everyone who can manage it. Beyond that, we really need people working on the railroads and keeping our infrastructure maintained. It's just basic stuff.

People keep saying there isn't enough money to build that canal connecting the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers. It feels off. Honestly, we should be focusing on giving retirees better pensions instead of having them out there picking up trash.

At the end of the day, everyone needs food and basic supplies. We really need to be getting those things from domestic producers. When the government just prints money like that, there isn't enough actual foreign currency backing it up. It doesn't make sense to import everything without a good reason—it's basically just trading goods for nothing. You can actually live quite well if we focus on growing our own agriculture and supporting local industry. People buying local keeps the economy moving, which helps businesses turn a profit and eventually earn back that printed cash.

Anyone who doesn't buy into this should try looking at it from the perspective of a large family managing their own budget and outside investments. If you want to make sure a family stays profitable, that local cash flow has to hold its value, and you have to be bringing in fresh capital every single year. It’s pretty simple. Of course, for that to work, the family actually has to produce something. You need to create real value that matters both to the household and to the broader American market. I'm talking about things like food production, livestock, real estate, heavy machinery, and so on. You have to build something tangible.

Giving money away to people who aren't actually doing anything... it basically means you're saying that money and doing nothing have the exact same value. So, really, it’s a fair question.

It’s not really about finding something worthwhile to do. Like, I mean, there are still so many fields out there that need to be cleared of landmines. That part isn't the issue. The real problem is simply that the money isn't there.

Shipbuilding was supposed to be unprofitable? How does that even work? If you're ordering a vessel from abroad, you have to take out loans, and then you can't pay them back. It seems pretty profitable to me. Especially if you actually have the cash on hand to cover it. Just think about it: the government orders a ship using newly issued money and then sells it to bring in foreign currency. What exactly is the problem there? We ended up with the hard currency, and people are getting paid. Now those people can go buy stuff from overseas because they actually have the dollars. It honestly looks like a straight-up swap. The main difference was that there just wasn't any financing available to get the ship built.The ship starts out about 20% cheaper. It’s honestly wild. Everyone looks happy and satisfied. Shipbuilding actually becomes profitable and competitive again. Of course, you have to make sure the vessel is built using as much American-made material as possible.

You could apply this same logic to agriculture. Instead of farmers drowning in high-interest loans just to manage expensive production costs, the government could step in with advance payments. They pay the upfront amount, and then the farmers deliver the grain directly to the state. It changes the whole math—no more crushing debt, and production becomes much cheaper overall. The real question is, what’s stopping us? If the government owns the vessel, they control the grain for domestic trade. They can also export it if they want to. By doing this, you effectively cut out the middleman speculators and those parasitic wholesalers who just sit there sucking value out of the system. We really don't need them.

The government can pull off things that corporations and banks simply can't. It's pretty obvious. They can guarantee money and create it without running up debt. That’s just how it works. But at the same time, you don't need the state meddling in every single thing. There has to be a limit. The essential stuff should be under their wing—things like energy, utilities, food production, and healthcare. Those are basic human needs. Everything else? There is plenty of room for that to happen elsewhere. Service industries, industrial development, manufacturing, retail, research, all of that. That part belongs to everyone else.

We really need to sit down and figure out how to build a whole new way of living. It's about defining a concept for society that actually works—one that’s based on real money instead of just drowning in endless credit and debt. We should probably start drafting a plan to implement this kind of system. When you actually have capital, then the strategy matters. But when the pockets are empty, no amount of planning changes the reality. Some people call it a "planned economy," but I think calling it a "prosperity-driven economy" is more accurate. We have plenty of experts capable of designing a system built on prosperity, we just lack the leadership to actually guide us there.

The shift toward a non-credit-based system is inevitable, so it’s better to be informed now. If they managed to sell us on this credit-heavy system for several hundred years, then this supposed transformation into something "better" might just be another clever mask for a different kind of scam.

You always have to look at it this way: "Whatever I wouldn't want happening to my own family, I don't want happening to my country." Wealth distribution is the core issue here. Every person in society needs to understand exactly what portion they can earn through their own hard work.

May the wise survive.

As we head into 2011, I wish everyone luck, good health, steady jobs, money, and wisdom!

.......

Anything else I could say would just be repeating myself.

Every single hour, our government is basically throwing away $1.37 million because they haven't stepped up to stop banks from multiplying it and turning it into a tool for control—debt.

Think about how much that actually is—for 186,000 employees earning an average $1767 salary.
And a huge chunk of that cash would cycle right back into the treasury through sales tax. So, you'd essentially boost potential employment by another 23%, and that extra 23% would generate even more sales tax, and so on. Total employment could climb to 279,000 (that's over a 150% increase). Basically, using that $12 billion in non-credit money issuance could put nearly 280,000 people to work. That means we could employ 90% of the unemployed. Of course, the banks wouldn't be allowed to multiply the money anymore. The annual issuance would be equal to $1000 per person!? Just so nobody claims it's some massive, overwhelming amount of money. If you put that cash into a mutual fund, over 40 years of work, it would result in a balance of $40000 per person. A lot. I don't think so. You could buy a decent used car with that. Think about it: 40 years of work. 😕

rustydrifter72 said:I truly admire Nostradamus; to expend so much time and energy on absolutely nothing... You could have at least read Samuelson twice just to get an introduction, and things might actually make sense to you. Would you attempt open-heart surgery without medical school? This notion of pumping arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is a level of stupidity unparalleled—something even the former South used to attempt, and we all know how successful their economy was. You and that gentleman are advocating for the bleakest form of planned economy; with ideas like those, you might as well head straight to North Korea. Though, they did recently execute a finance minister there because he failed to curb inflation, so perhaps think twice before proceeding.
Let's stick to the basics:
1) Money serves as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value....
Your nonsense fails against all three fundamental definitions of money....
Money ceases to be a medium of exchange if you simply pump it into the system. The actual volume of goods and services provided in the country remains identical, whether that number is a million, a trillion, or any other figure. Your injection of capital will trigger a correction in the other two factors; everything becomes more expensive (that's called inflation) because having more money chasing the same amount of goods and services drives up unit prices. It is simple math, proven empirically a million times over. Furthermore, you destroy the third function: the store of value. Your idea is nothing more than tested communist lunacy designed to seize from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The only issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't bother working if someone intends to take their earnings and give them to failures. That is why communism and its various iterations collapsed.
2) What kind of madness is it to suggest everyone must profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. It’s just like school: some get A's, some get C's, and some fail. Not everyone can get an A, because that is a contradiction that nullifies the grading scale itself. The goal of capitalism is for the inefficient to fail, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to create wealth. The problem is that even those winners have to breathe air. Much like right now, where you and that fellow push pointless theories that provide zero benefit to society or the economy. This is where the government steps in, seizing from the successful through corporate taxes and handing it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (those on welfare). The crisis arises when the budget becomes bloated with parasites, corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract, and so on, eventually dragging down the productive citizens as well—which is exactly what happens here. This isn't a problem you and that man can solve with two elementary school formulas....

Like, why would you just read the Bible and immediately assume everything in it is absolute truth? I mean, what do I actually care about the Bible if it doesn't even explain my current situation or give me a roadmap for where I'm headed in the future?

This whole idea of injecting arbitrary amounts of cash into the system is just pure nonsense. It’s the kind of foolishness they used to pull back in the old South... and we all know exactly how much economic progress that actually brought.

If you’ve been paying attention, my understanding of this stuff keeps growing. My explanations of inflation and hyperinflation are getting more precise because they stay rooted in pure math. The theory holds up: printing too much money drives inflation. It isn't really about the total amount of cash out there, provided there's enough to keep prices stable. It's just basic supply and demand. But since there are endless varieties of goods and only one type of currency, things get foggy. It all boils down to unpredictability.

But then again, there’s another thing that's just predictable. If the supply of goods starts climbing, the money supply has to climb right along with it. Otherwise, everything would just have to get cheaper, wouldn't it?

The economic situation in what used to be the South is honestly pretty alarming. I’m going to say this one more time—here is how inflation actually happens, and this is the only accurate definition you'll find in any stable society:

Inflation happens because banks just keep multiplying money through more and more debt. It's all just layers of debt piled on top of itself.

It’s actually pretty easy to prove that mathematically. You can just look back at the post from December 18, 2010.

When the government starts printing cash and banks begin multiplying that money through debt—basically cranking it up by more than one—you end up with this massive explosion. It’s a cycle of endless money creation, ballooning debt, and eventually, full-blown hyperinflation. You could actually avoid all this mess by just keeping the initial money supply very small. That's what they try to do now through the Federal Reserve, where the profits just flow right back into the government budget, but the end result is always the same: a massive debt crisis.

You and that old guy are out here pushing the bleakest kind of planned economy, and honestly, with ideas like those, you might as well pack your bags for North Korea right now. I mean, they actually executed their Finance Minister over there recently because he couldn't get inflation under control. Just something to think about twice before you go down that road.

Now you're all going to go ahead and claim that this guy actually started a website too. prosperityuk.comHere’s a solid link regarding what Thomas Edison had to say about issuing credit to cover budget deficits. I mean, if you aren't a fan of Nikola Tesla, you can just cry about it now. This was coming from a true capitalist. This forum has been around for ages, and they write about money exactly the same way I do.

Let's get back to basics:
Money—it’s basically a medium of exchange, a way to measure value, and a thing you can actually store up for later. Just one of those fundamental things.
Everything you just said fails all three fundamental definitions of what money actually is.
Money stops being a medium of exchange if you just pump it into the system. The actual amount of goods and services provided stays exactly the same regardless of whether you’re talking about a million, a trillion, or any other number. Pumping that cash in will trigger a correction of two factors; everything gets more expensive—that's inflation. More money chasing the same amount of goods and services inevitably drives up unit prices. It's basic math, proven empirically a million times over. On top of that, it destroys the third function of money: storing value. This whole idea of yours is nothing more than tested communist nonsense designed to snatch from the successful to hand to the unsuccessful. The issue is that people aren't idiots, and they won't work hard just to have someone steal their earnings to give to people who can't pull their own weight. That's why communism and its various iterations failed.

Just read this text http://prosperityuk.com/2002/04/a-sh...imer-on-money/, then you'll see I'm not talking nonsense.

2) What kind of nonsense is it to suggest everyone has to profit??? The best profit, the middle class breaks even, and the losers fail. Sum = 0. Just like in school, some get an A, some get a C, and some get an F. You can't all have an A because that's a contradiction and it ruins the grading scale. The goal of capitalism is for the failures to go bust, exit the market, and leave room for those who actually know how to build wealth. Now, the problem is that even those people have to eat and breathe. Right now, you and this guy with his pointless theories aren't providing any actual benefit to society or the economy. That's where the government steps in, using taxes to take from the winners (corporate income tax) and hand it to the incompetent (those working for $1000 in imaginary government agencies) and the totally incapable (who rely on social welfare). Problems arise when there are too many parasites on the budget—corrupt officials taking kickbacks on every government contract and such—which eventually drags down the successful ones too. This is happening right here in America... This isn't a problem you or this guy with your two elementary school formulas are going to solve....

Of course, not everyone can be successful. If they were, everyone would be a billionaire. Imagine an entire country full of billionaires. All equal. Which one succeeds? Clone 1 or a million clones?

The entire money issuance system rests on one fundamental thing: the capacity for accumulation. It's obvious that money is issued through credit, but it's equally obvious that accumulation is always less than the debt being created.

And what solution is usually offered? Export-led growth. It only recently clicked for me that this isn't really a solution at all. If exporting is essentially selling surplus production, it's clear that this surplus can't be infinite. And that surplus is what brings in actual money—non-credit money—for the nation. Everyone tries to grab a piece of that influx. Naturally, most of it ends up back in the banks because they offer low interest rates and divert almost all real cash inflows into their own pockets, leaving the public stuck with the debt. That's generally why Japan and Germany have such strong export numbers and manageable debt levels.

Now, listen to this: not long ago, Slavko Kulić appeared on national television and claimed that America would succeed if it acted like an entrepreneur (meaning, exporting more than it imports). That is a disaster. He clearly doesn't understand domestic monetary processes. He didn't provide a single concrete example to prove his point. Using China as an example isn't a real solution either. One of the 200 countries currently on a development path used cheap labor and sheer scale to supply the entire world, but we don't even know their true financial standing. For instance, China's massive foreign exchange reserves mean they pumped huge amounts of money into development, so much so that their inflation is sitting at 10%. We all know where things go once inflation kicks in. You end up needing even more money, which is created through more debt.

So, what are our actual options if we don't go through with a monetary reform?

Debt is piling up higher and higher. It's happening slowly, though. No real growth to show for it. Just this steady climb in debt right now.
Debt keeps climbing because we’re constantly trying to fix our trade deficit. It just keeps growing.
Debt just keeps climbing, moving in these weird cycles of sudden growth spurts followed by total crashes.

This first stage is just survival mode. We can all see it happening. Everything is falling apart, cash is drying up, and people are bracing for much harder times ahead—the kind of times where Molotov cocktails start being prepped for government institutions.

This second part is just wishful thinking. If we're stuck dealing with global fuel prices and a sky-high cost of living, our competitiveness is going to be a major question mark. Everything is being built on credit, and those loans are only going to get more expensive.

The Democrats and their little coalition buddies are setting us up for this third round. They’re talking about diving headfirst into massive infrastructure investments just to hit that second goal. Yeah, right. It won't work. We might see things looking a bit better for two or three years, but after that? The national debt will probably be sitting at twice what it is now.

The whole thing really comes down to money. That trade deficit we see? It’s a monetary issue through and through. It isn't about whether we can afford to buy things cheaply or not—it's about where the cash actually comes from to make those purchases in the first place. We're facing a monetary squeeze because of all this heavy importing, but there's also a massive monetary imbalance happening right here in our domestic markets. Basically, any kind of liquidity flowing through the country is just a byproduct of budget deficits and credit expansion. And both of those paths just lead straight back to more debt, whether you're looking at the federal level or individual household debt.

Thinking about money solely as a medium of exchange is short-sighted. It’s a logical dead end. If you follow that line of reasoning, it implies that businesses aren't actually aiming for monetary profit through trade. And if they were? You'd be looking at a 100% tax rate on every single cent made. I laid out an example of how this works on... I was looking through some old files and found this link about the federal budget. It’s just one of those things that stays on your mind. You look at how the numbers are laid out and you start thinking about where it all goes. It's pretty straightforward if you look closely enough. Just a lot of data sitting there. Some people get worked up about it, but I find it interesting to just sit with the facts. There isn't much else to say really. It is what it is.Any time you see monetary profit being driven by accumulation—which is exactly how banks operate—it ends up shrinking the amount of money actually in circulation. It isn't really an issue to make a profit, per se. The real problem is that once that liquidity disappears, you can't just replenish it without taking on even more massive amounts of debt. You could theoretically offset it through exports, provided the buyer is the one willing to shoulder all that debt to get the products.

If you just pin everything on laziness, red tape, bureaucrats living off the system, bad management, lack of competition, corruption, or crime, you’re missing the bigger picture. You've got it all wrong. That's only one slice of the pie. Sure, those things might dictate how fast people go into debt, but they don't actually cause the borrowing itself.

The real scam isn't actually capitalism itself—it’s the way banks use money multiplication. It all comes down to the shift toward cashless payments. That's how they hide the trick. They keep the mechanics out of sight, so by the time people notice anything is wrong, we're already staring down the barrel of a massive debt crisis and a total economic collapse.

If the fact that we're looking at this doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to tell you. It’s all right there. It's just sitting there. Some people see numbers and they just see noise. They move past it without a second thought. But if you actually stop to look, if you really process what's happening, it changes things. It's about the reality of the situation. It's plain to see, really. If you ignore it, that's on you. It's just how things are. $33 There’s more borrowed money coming from the Federal Reserve. $167 Banks and loans... it all comes down to that gap between the interest they charge you and the interest they pay out on deposits. That spread is basically how the whole system stays upright. It's just math, really. They take your money, pay you a tiny bit, then turn around and lend it out at a much higher rate. That difference is where the profit lives. Simple enough. $33 It earns 1.5% annually, five times over. That adds up to 7.5% of all the primary money sitting in the banks. If you look at that $2.9 billion profit, it represents about 5% of the total primary money supply. This really tells you that a huge chunk of what the banks earned was just converted into foreign currency and tucked away somewhere safe. Now, the economy is supposed to make up for that massive deficit while still turning a profit of its own. But how? When imports equal exports, there’s just no way to pull that off under current Federal Reserve regulations. Does anyone actually have an explanation for this? Maybe Slavko Kulić has some insight, or perhaps the new Secretary of the Treasury? Or maybe someone here on the forum knows how to actually create the kind of money the banks just pocketed as pure profit.

If former Secretary Shaker were around to see this, he’d probably just laugh, grab his luggage, and head overseas to chase a paycheck. Some people just don't have the brains, so they rely on their hustle instead. It's plain as day. Even if he played everything strictly by the book, he was never exactly a crowd favorite.

Where do these laws even come from? You know, the ones governing the Federal Reserve or the big commercial banks. We basically just copied them from other countries, operating under this assumption that they were perfect and that nothing better could ever be written. It’s like we treat these regulations as if they were the Ten Commandments. People don't even question them. They just sit there, unchangeable and absolute.

For anyone looking to actually learn something, I stumbled upon Simon Dixon’s blog: http://www.simondixon.org/blog/. If you need a hand, just use Google Translate to get it into English.

The stuff on this blog was written by an economist with real experience, and he holds the exact same fundamental views on fractional reserve banking and how the government issues money. It's enough to put an end to all those insinuations about whether my claims are accurate. Honestly, I didn't even need an economics degree to figure this out—just basic math. Just good, old-fashioned elementary school math and sound logic can yield better results than a full degree combined with a Master's and a PhD. For instance, Slavko Kulić gets quite a bit of attention for his takes, but if you actually compare his positions to Simon Dixon's, you'll see that Kulić isn't even close to the actual solution.

So, I highly recommend sitting down and reading Simon Dixon's entire blog. It’s packed with detailed breakdowns of the processes that explain how treating money as debt creates these crises in the first place.

.....

You can find a similar perspective on solving economic slavery over in the United Kingdom at: http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/solutions/. Their approach involves removing transaction accounts from the money multiplier process entirely. The only real snag is they haven't quite nailed the credit multiplication issue. Based on their own math, money issuance could still climb up to 7% of the total sum.

There are articles regarding Debt-free money available at: http://www.islamicparty.com/commonsense/woergl24.htm

A lot of pieces discussing money—specifically debt creation and such—in the United Kingdom can be found here: http://prosperityuk.com/2005/09/our-...-debt-slavery/

And there's another article that talks about money being essentially debt: http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/monetarysystem.html

And so on. There’s plenty of literature out there. You can just search using keywords like "creation Money without Debt."

The Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici...eserve_banking is full of facts that are basically impossible to argue against. Like, how are you supposed to pay back 110 if you were only given 100 and there was nothing else in existence before that?

Also, fractional reserve banking is only half of today's problem. It multiplies every single bit of new money that hits bank accounts. The other half is the issuance of money without debt—which only actually makes sense if money stops multiplying within the banks. While nobody is asking "why do we need credit money?", the real question should be "Why do we let banks issue money and then capture it through imaginary savings?" The state could handle this entire process of creating new money without ever creating debt.

Some people on forums are trying to revolutionize things by saying seizing bank assets is the answer. But that isn't a solution. Taking over bad practices doesn't mean those practices will create prosperity once they are in government hands. Every new credit is just more debt. In the end, it's just a larger monetary deficit, which leads to economic ruin because no matter how hard people work or how much effort they put in, the total sum is always heading toward collapse.

mellowwolf6 said:I mean, you're talking about printing bonds, right? Because you can't just print currency out of thin air—it's more like trying to justify some imaginary money using extra value that you might have, if you're lucky, but let's be real, there's never enough of it to actually cover the debt plus all that interest.

Printing bonds for a government running a permanent balance of payments deficit with foreign nations leads to a constantly growing debt that expands exponentially. Countries with a surplus with foreign nations, based on what was described above, are basically just surviving, but because they think they've reached their peak, they view it as some massive achievement.

Currency can be printed. Some call it fiat money, which is non-credit money. But when you combine non-credit money with bank multiplication, you get hyperinflation in a very short window. We saw this happen back during the Marković era.

It’s honestly irresponsible how today's economists aren't educated enough on this. Everyone knows that during Marković's time, we saw beautiful growth first, followed immediately by hyperinflation. The math explains it easily. For instance, $33 of issued non-credit money could turn into $205 more credit money. The bank would pay savers 4% on $238 ($9.50). There would be $33 in the vault, while earning 7% on $205 ($14). That difference leaves a profit of $4.75 annually. It’s clear you'd need to add 14.42% new money (of what was issued) just to feed the bank's appetite—and that's not even counting the savers, where it hits 43%. That is a far cry from the 3.5 to 5% of new money that can actually be added and backed by newly created value. In other words, the issuance of non-credit money would have to grow by 43% year over year, not 3.5 to 5%. Obviously, that leads straight to hyperinflation.

The situation is different when there is no money multiplication. You don't get that massive boom (money expansion), but you also don't get inflation or a debt crisis. If money is lacking, the state can issue more and pay everyone fairly who worked honestly. The money being issued is backed by honest earnings and the creation of additional value through labor.

There will never be too much money because there are always projects that need investment. Only now, we are making it possible to invest from our own accumulation rather than using non-existent money that carries interest which will never actually show up in the system. Interest should be part of the earnings given to the creditor. The only problem is that this means there needs to be more money in the system, and that’s exactly what central bank systems do—they work through credit, creating even more debt. Or rather, it's moving toward debt slavery for no reason, and we've all been cheated.

Non-credit money allows for free education, healthcare, real pension funds, cultural programs, sports programs, etc. In a credit-based system, all of that eventually gets destroyed to the point where even basic survival becomes questionable. The poverty rate in the European Union is over 20%. All of this is a consequence of giving banks the ability to create money out of nothing just so they can turn a profit. It's impossible and it's a scam. Power comes from the people, and money comes from the state. Not from the bank. No amount of taxes on banks is going to fix this. The solution lies in reform (see signature link). Anyone with half a brain can see this is a fraud. You see it in reality. And it needs to change. The sooner the better for us and our children and grandchildren. Is this what we fought for, to live in a country where we are economic slaves?

Long live the wise.

mellowwolf6 said:So, she tried playing around with some Polish eye doctor using credit they didn't even have, and then—boom—that plane carrying the whole Polish government leadership goes down. If this whole system is actually sustainable, then we are honestly never going to make it out of this mess. But, I don't know, maybe I'm being optimistic, but I really do believe there's a limit to how much fake money can be printed before things finally snap, and maybe that's when we can actually start hoping for some real change.

If that’s actually true, then it was pretty foolish to keep the whole business of non-credit money issuance—you know, through those roundabout methods—hidden from the public. It’s vital that we all recognize who our real enemies are. We have to identify the people pushing for central banking, the ones advocating for banks to multiply money out of thin air, and those trying to prevent the government from issuing its own currency. You see this pattern everywhere, from the entire European Union to the World Bank and the IMF.

Quincy:

If this whole system is actually sustainable, then we’re never going to make it out of this.

It’s sustainable, really—assuming that economic slavery is exactly what they're aiming for.

Quincy:

I still lean towards the idea that there’s a hard limit on all this fiat money. Once we hit that ceiling, maybe then we can actually start hoping for some real change.

That’s exactly why central banks exist. That’s why the Federal Reserve buys up government debt. It isn't because the country is actually going broke. No, it's about protecting the people who cooked up this whole mess—the big bankers. They just offloaded all that debt onto the Federal Reserve, which is basically just an arm of the central government anyway. It was a clever way to dump a failing business model while still making a profit like nothing ever happened. The European Union is one of those setups where anything can happen, except for long-term prosperity.

The Dollar is definitely going to crash. Energy prices are bound to spike because of this obvious money printing—it's just what happens when you create all this unnecessary debt within the credit system based on lending money and ballooning debt levels. Once energy costs start climbing, it kicks off this whole cycle of inflationary price hikes. It’s a downward spiral that leads to one of two things: hyperinflation or widespread poverty. Neither of those outcomes is going to happen quietly. You can expect massive protests and civil unrest. What happens after the chaos breaks out is really up to us. People who don't know any better are way too easy to manipulate and con.

Russia is such a massive exporter of oil and gas, yet they just signaled they’re looking to sell off state assets. It shows they're seriously short on cash. Honestly, seeing fuel prices spike feels like a pretty logical next step.

May those who are wise and alive endure.

mellowwolf6 said:I’ve been following this thread with so much interest! I mean, Maria Thomas48 is a total visionary, and honestly, I am 100% behind them. The only thing is... I don't really agree that the US government or the state can actually do anything about it, unfortunately. If we tried, the big banks would crush us before we could even blink—it'd be like a warning to everyone else. So, I guess having any kind of monetary autonomy without a complete overhaul of the global order is just a total illusion. It feels pretty obvious that we can't pay back money, just like no other country ever could or will. When the US cracks, the whole global economy goes down with it. Even the US Congress doesn't seem to have a clue what the Fed or the central bank is actually doing! I think China is going to be the biggest loser in this setup, while the debtors will be the ones walking away with the prize, because you just can't pay back money that doesn't actually exist. It'll just have to be forgiven and wiped clean. That's how a new monetary system will rise from the ashes, I bet. And let's face it, the US isn't going to give up an inch of territory just to collect on its debts, which is basically the only real way to settle things, and all the debtors will probably act the exact same way. It would be so wild to try and project how much more money they can print before things get super scarce—that's when the real crisis hits, I guess. I don't think anyone is even going to worry about repayment, because you can't return something that isn't real. It's almost like the US creates debt as if they ever intended to pay it back in the first place. Once this whole monetary system collapses, I think the countries with high levels of self-sufficiency are going to have the best outlook.

The centennial ideas and Nostradamus's solutions might just become the core concepts for a brand new world order... my biggest fear is just how messy the collapse of this current one is going to be...

It’s all just praise at this point. Honestly, our Government could pull off absolute miracles if they actually wanted to, but that’s not the problem. They have other priorities taking center stage instead of what actually matters to the citizens of the USA. It's frustrating. I was looking at some polls recently, and it's wild—it feels like people have been so brainwashed that they’d probably agree to having their own rights stripped away just to feel like something is finally moving. People just want progress so badly they'll accept anything.

Banks are only as powerful as the laws allow them to be. I’m talking about the banks registered here in the States. Sure, an overseas institution might trigger a financial freeze, but honestly, if we just showed some solid results, other countries would follow suit pretty quickly. Then, those big-shot bankers wouldn't have much left to work with. It really isn't any surprise why everyone is rushing toward gold right now. The end feels like it's approaching, and anything sitting in a vault as a gold bar certainly isn't going anywhere. Over in England, there's this movement for non-credit money that could trigger hyperinflation in just a few years if things go wrong. Hyperinflation is actually one way to kill off the power held by banks. When that happens, you don't keep your money in a bank anymore; you just spend it.

Here’s the latest thing I’ve been chewing on, just something I wanted to share with you regular folks. It’s about that whole mystery regarding why the most successful nations—the big exporters—are always carrying around massive amounts of debt. It finally clicked for me how this mechanism actually works to keep a powerhouse nation pinned to high debt levels. It basically comes down to this: a huge trade surplus with foreign countries looks like a massive influx of cash into the domestic banking system. That surge of deposits becomes the foundation for all that lending. Because there’s such a steady stream of money coming in, interest rates stay low. You only have to look at our own situation here in the States, where interest rates can spike because there isn't enough liquidity flowing through the system, and the whole picture changes completely. Those cheap loans are what drive the boom, the actual growth we see. But here is the catch. You can't really shrink the debt. Why? Because all that profit from exports gets sucked right back into paying interest on the circulating money and fueling further credit expansion. It feels like banks are essentially manufacturing money out of thin air through a bit of a shell game. All the current profits end up in their hands, while a mountain of debt keeps growing, which then has to be covered by even more exports down the road. There is such a desperate need for fresh capital just to feed those banking interests that there's barely anything left over for the essentials—things like schools, Social Security, healthcare, the military, and all that.

It all comes down to free trade agreements. They make exporting way easier and stop people from slapping on those massive tariff barriers just to block imports they don't need. Honestly, high tariffs would actually give our domestic economy a fighting chance to step up, produce its own goods, and build some real independence. When you look at it that way, signing a free trade deal with a less developed nation really just ends up causing harm.

Some people might find this hard to wrap their heads around, but honestly, it’s just an accurate look at how things are playing out. If we suddenly became major exporters here in the States, we’d see this exact same pattern unfolding. Of course, that isn't some magic fix. Even now, you see this massive amount of credit money flooding into the economy, which just puts more pressure on businesses and ends up unfairly shifting wealth straight into the pockets of bankers.

Look, we all agree on this one point. If you want an economy to actually survive, you have to build up energy independence. You need to be independent in every other way, too. We just can't keep borrowing money indefinitely to pay for imports. It’s not sustainable. And this whole system where we tie our fuel prices to whatever they're charging in much wealthier nations? That is pure financial suicide for our entire economy. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. By doing that, our local businesses won't be able to scale down or adjust because those massive energy costs will trigger a massive wave of price hikes. Everything will spiral upward until the whole thing collapses into chaos and riots. And honestly, it's going to happen fast.

It’s not even directly about the financial system itself, really. It's more that building an economy based entirely on credit has completely warped how wealth is actually generated. We've reached a point where most economic experts and analysts can't even wrap their heads around who is actually pulling the strings and who is footing the bill. Especially when they start talking about long-term development plans or future outlooks. They just don't get it.

So, I actually stumbled upon this discussion from eleven years ago just the other day (). It really shows how little has actually changed since then. Honestly, it feels like we're talking about today's headlines. There are a few specific parts in there where economists were already concluding back then that money multiplication plays a massive role in triggering crises. It’s just funny because it never occurred to them to actually try eliminating money multiplication to see what happens. My own takeaway is that it's the main driver behind inflation—and debt slavery—or even hyperinflation, depending on whether the Government keeps the printing presses off or keeps them running.

The wise ones saw it coming.

So, I was talking about how much we really need some price controls, and then just a few days later, this interesting article pops up that hits on that exact point: .

Amanda Allen4 said:Interest rates aren't some "scam." They represent a service—one you can choose to use or ignore—and, naturally, services have a cost. When you deal with interest, you are essentially buying time. You get something in return, period. This entire transaction is governed by basic supply and demand, without any element of coercion involved.

The real scam is our current monetary system—where money is just an abstraction based on absolutely nothing! And let's not forget the fractional reserve banking institution, which allows money to be conjured out of thin air. This is what drives systemic inflation and facilitates a massive transfer of wealth directly into the coffers of those who hold the monopoly on this fake currency and the monopoly on force—namely, the Government and the big banks.

The whole argument is contradictory. How can you buy time if it ends up being a losing game in the long run? You aren't buying time; you're just giving time to this decaying system. Now the Government is getting ready to dump $100 billion into investments. That is going to be a massive mistake.

Credit is essentially an expense. There isn't actually a real influx of cash; you're just simulating it through constant credit expansion. People are noticing that the core issue lies in credit money, which is generated by multiplying deposited funds.

Also, when looking for solutions, we have to include the philosophy of sustainable lending. For instance, does it make sense to split profits between the borrower and the lender? Profit comes from the issuance of money, so it's normal for economic profit to be the source used to satisfy the lender's profit. But it makes zero sense if lenders demand more profit than what the government actually issues. That just leads to infinite debt—which is exactly where we are now, since monetary profit in the country is effectively zero, or rather, equal to the foreign trade balance.

Only then could you say that credit was truly "buying time" and that this time could actually be paid back through real business activity. As it stands, the profits of some people are being built from the new debts of others via multiplied money. There is no real chance for everyone to pay back their loans, and there never will be unless things change.

In the past, you could borrow wheat and pay it back with interest once your harvest came in. But money doesn't just grow on trees, and there is no way to "fertilize" capital within a single nation because money isn't issued without creating debt. The only way to grow it is through exporting to other countries, but even that isn't a permanent solution.