Look, it doesn't really matter to me if they decide to pull the goalie and throw two wingers into the net instead; if they blow it, they blow it, because at the end of the day, we were going to score anyway...
Grace Gomez3 said:I saw someone on Facebook claiming that if he played with a Pilates ball, he might actually manage to form some kind of defense 😁"
Trust me, even with a Pilates ball, he wouldn't stand a chance; he’d probably just end up getting bypassed effortlessly. It always boils down to the same thing—either hitting one of those posts or maybe catching the goalie right in the head. This guy hasn't even managed to hit the keeper, let alone have the luck to rattle a post.
I have spent ten straight years watching Alilovic try to make a single goddamn save, and yet, here we are, still waiting for it to actually happen. I am sure he’s some kind of legend or whatever, but I swear, if I have to watch him standing in that crease one more time, I might just lose my mind and never look at a goalie again.
Honestly, today’s frustration isn't just some isolated incident; it’s been brewing for years, and frankly, we're still stuck in the same spot. It would probably hit him harder if they just planted a tree right in the middle of everything instead of having him scurry around like a mouse. It's just that everyone is so obsessed with being politically correct these days that nobody will actually say what’s on their mind, so you might as well just tell them all to go jump in a lake.
wearytrucker22 said:The Chinese have already signaled that if their savings become too vulnerable, they will move to annex Taiwan and, in a direct countermove, nationalize private American investments held in China.
🤣 yeah, that’s a distinct possibility... we could end up seeing some real fireworks over Shanghai and Beijing at that point.
But honestly, even that seems unlikely because the issue isn't really about whether they owe the money, it's more about what that debt is actually worth.
See, I told you I’d eventually circle back to that whole eagle thing. Most people don't realize that up in Alaska, you can't even lay a finger on a fallen bald eagle feather without running into legal trouble. Then again, it's not like that bird is some sacred symbol for the USA or anything, though people act like it is.
You really shouldn't lose sleep over what Americans are doing, because this entire situation is basically just a giant game of chicken; eventually, the Chinese will have to cave and let the RMB market find its own level. That’s the heart of this whole crisis, and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the US comes out on top, which would mean they can just trade more iPhones and Boeings for cheap Chinese T-shirts. Here is how it plays out: first the dollar dips, then oil and commodities skyrocket, and when that fails to fix things, American consumer spending tanks, leading straight to a default. None of that works in favor of China, especially since they've already had to aggressively subsidize their own domestic spending, and they'll keep having to do it.
And just to set the record straight on that one inaccurate claim floating around—according to my sources, that bulb didn't go for $60k, it actually went for about €300k. Think of it like someone dropping fifty grand on a single bulb that would be worth that much today.
Man, since you actually put in the work to type all this out, it would be pretty ridiculous to let this thread just sink into oblivion without a single response, so I guess I'll step in.
Maria Thomas48, look, the only way you actually stop the money printing machine is if you have a 100% reserve, so I’m just sitting here wondering what kind of math you’re using to claim that a 50% reserve somehow achieves that same result.
Banks are going to keep manufacturing money regardless of whether we stick to a Gold Standard or not. Personally, I don't mind gold—it’s a decent way to strip the power of money creation out of the hands of politicians—but it brings up that exact headache Maria Thomas48 keeps pointing out, which is the issue of hoarding or, if you ask me, an unspoken monopoly on gold as a functional medium of exchange.
Essentially, Maria Thomas48 is onto something, though they seem to struggle with putting it into words, and they've managed to get themselves tangled up in the whole concept of credit-based money creation, which they view as inherently flawed. While the idea of money appearing out of thin air is certainly a point of contention, that’s just how the system operates. If we were distributing soap and nothing else instead of debt, we’d probably be facing an even more absurd crisis.
By the way, Maria Thomas48, what’s your take on how The Dutchman managed to secure independence from the superpower that was Spain back then? My guess is they simply had much more sophisticated banking institutions at their disposal.
You’ve got it wrong. Every single morning, six billion people wake up and head out to get things done. And every day, those six billion people produce more than they did just twenty-four hours prior. If you look at the laws of thermodynamics, resources remain constant; we're really just seeing a continuous evolution in how we apply technology to utilize them.
And then there’s this whole idea about primary money issuance going straight to those who need it most—give me a break. Honestly, I’d be the first one lining up to become a homeless person just so the government would hand me primary currency to live on without having to lift a finger. Pretty soon, you’d have everyone else doing the exact same thing, and before you know it, nobody is actually working anymore, and the entire system just collapses into total chaos. It’s the same downward spiral you see in those old Stalinist regimes.
I suppose I can admit to having read through your suggestions, which explains why I ended up being wrong. But I won't take any responsibility for reading them in the first place, because, frankly, there isn't a shred of logic to be found in them.
Maria Thomas48, it seems like you’re still struggling to wrap your head around the whole concept of newly created value, despite what was being attempted to be explained via the strawberry analogy just a few pages back. If we look at the mechanics of debt—say you borrow 100 bucks and have to pay back 110—you can't just run that cycle indefinitely without some actual value being generated along the way. It simply doesn't work unless there is new value being produced to cover the gap, and that is exactly what happens over time; for instance, a century ago, jumbo jets didn't exist, but now they do.
slydrifter39 said:Look, I don't want to play moderator here, but this guy looks like a total plant sent specifically to wreck the group we're trying to build. Feels like a paid shill to me. Honestly, just delete him. 🤷
If you go ahead and delete it, you basically end up looking like a shill for the banking Masons, but if you don't, you lose that essential exchange of ideas and you're essentially preventing people from forming their own perspectives based on the debate. It’s definitely a messy off-topic situation, sure, but maybe it would be better to just move the conversation to its own dedicated thread and let people work on founding the association in peace.
Banderas, it’s pretty obvious he isn't actually going to answer you; he’s just throwing out these empty platitudes, hoping they’ll land with someone gullible.
@Zack, one of those clichés he loves to lean on is this idea that casino owners are inherently predatory because the house always wins while most people lose. My take is simpler: it’s just a service, much like walking into a Chase branch or heading to a barber shop, and as long as there’s a demand for that service, it exists. You have account management services at a bank—not exactly mandatory—and then there’s the whole credit expansion business, which I'm fairly certain isn't an obligation either.
What really gets under my skin about the big banks, though, is the complete lack of transparency when they push variable interest rates. It feels like a total scam, and honestly, I can't wrap my head around how people ever agreed to it, but here we are. They only signed up because they were chasing their own immediate interests, trying to snag a piece of real estate before the market prices them out.
Nicole Gomez38 said:The issue isn't actually about paying back the savers—that money is sitting right there in the bank—it's the impossibility of disabling foreign exchange clauses for loans while still allowing them for savings at the same time.
Ideally, the owners should just become employees and clients themselves. After all, a bank operates just like a casino—it doesn't actually create any real value; it just shuffles the chips (the cash) around in a circle so that the house always wins and everyone else loses.
Well, now you’ve stepped right into my backyard. How can you say a casino doesn't create value? Just look at what it costs to build one, all those people they employ, the sheer scale of the operation. Sure, most players lose, but they’re paying for what they want out of it—the adrenaline, the entertainment, that slim chance at a jackpot. A casino provides a service, much like a bank does, and as long as people keep walking through those doors, it means that service is something they clearly feel they need.
And moving on to the banking side of things, banks are fundamental to how society progresses. Period. Try finding a bank in Zimbabwe that would ever lend you money in local currency at a fixed interest rate. Try finding a single bank tucked away in the middle of the Amazon rainforest.
Another thing to consider is how bankers have basically engineered a system to insulate themselves from the consequences of their own bad or reckless decisions. They’ve been throwing around someone else's Johnson like it was some kind of socialist collective fund, and they can thank their cozy little relationships with politicians for that privilege.
To me, this whole situation looks like a textbook Ponzi scheme where the current mortgage holders are stuck at the very bottom of the pyramid. They were the last ones to jump in. I’d be curious to see if the people who bought their properties back when they were, say, $200,000 a unit, and now see them worth $300,000, are actually complaining about rising rates. Does anyone here actually fit that description?
coppersurfer21 said:If anyone deserves to be called reckless in this situation, it’s definitely the banks.
Oh sure, let's just start taking handouts from overseas donors like the LGBT crowd does—yeah, I totally agree, that’d definitely make us more productive and way more united. ☕
Nope. Not even close. If you honestly think banks are ever going to offer something that actually benefits the customer instead of just lining their own pockets, you’re dreaming. Seriously, get real.
Nobody can tell you for sure what the next 20 years are going to look like. The only thing that's a total guarantee? This whole deal, cooked up between the government and the big banks, is just a move to make sure they can squeeze those loan payments out of us easier, both now and in the near future. If the wind shifts, you better believe the banks will be the first ones to pivot. No doubt about it.
It’s just as unlikely that any consumer is going to offer something that serves the interests of the banks, or that anyone is going to take a hit purely out of the goodness of their heart. It’s rare to find a politician who engages in politics to serve the public rather than their own selfish ambitions, and even Bill Gates isn't handing over his billions out of pure pity for kids halfway across the world; he knows that if everyone gets everything handed to them without working for it, the probability of his own children dying from an overdose goes up.
So, when you hear someone claiming they're acting in your best interest rather than their own, you might want to just walk away because they're lying to you. Everyone operates exclusively for their own benefit, and once you accept that as the baseline reality, there aren't really any hard feelings left to deal with.