Posts by Jerry Williams41

Anyway, Andrew Booth29, what’s your take on this claim from Pernar regarding libertarians and the monetary system?

Andrew Booth29 said:Look, property is property, an owner is an owner, and theft is—well, theft. Isn't it?

Since you're so obsessed with it, here's a little moral hazard for you:😬 how do you stop people in key banking positions from acting rationally when they know the government will just bail them out if they screw up because it absolutely has to?

The solution is to ensure the government doesn't bail them out. I honestly don't get why taxpayers would be "extracting" money from banks? If you have a problem with that, go write a letter to your local Congressman. In the US, the situation is actually the exact opposite—it's the banks that are bleeding the government dry.

I told you so.🤣

Well, I suppose Andrew Booth29 is just going to shut you down completely 🤣

The mob is always running the show, isn't it? And honestly, regarding this whole aversion you have toward "outsiders," I couldn't care less if the guy owning the forest is named Jacques, Hans, John, or Ivan. Or, to be more blunt about it, whether he’s gay or not. Does it actually matter to you?

It’s just a shame to me that a man who actually had the guts to challenge the establishment ended up completely throwing the game by just rambling on aimlessly. Nobody is smoking Che Guevara anymore.

Nicole Gomez38 said:Every single libertarian out there is pushing to dismantle this criminal monetary setup and hand control back to the government.

In America, you can't pull that off without nationalizing the banks—which we could achieve just by tweaking tax laws. We’d essentially squeeze the banks into losses until foreign owners get tired of paying for endless bailouts and just hand the keys over to the state.

And let's be clear: I'm not talking about those old-school, communist-style expropriations.

You also have to realize that what I’m proposing for the banks is exactly what the government is already doing to us—taking nearly 40% of our paychecks while people are barely keeping their heads above water.

@"On the other hand, debt default shouldn't really worry the borrowers, but rather the lenders."

Yeah, sure—that's easy to say when the bank isn't seizing your entire paycheck or kicking you out of your house.

PS: Nationalizing banks isn't some "communist" plot. Sweden did it back in '92 during their credit crisis, which was pretty similar to what we're facing now; France pulled the same move in '82. If you want to see how this has been handled globally, do some digging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization

Look, Pernar, if you actually are who you say you are, this is where you trip up, because while people might start off wanting change, they eventually realize you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

My bad.

On the flip side, if we’re being honest, the whole idea of debt defaults shouldn't actually be keeping the people receiving the money up at night; it's the lenders who really ought to be losing sleep over it.

So you’re actually admitting 🤣

I mean, does anyone honestly believe nationalizing the banks would actually fix anything, especially given how much of a disaster that worked out to be in the past?

Besides, am I just imagining things, or was there one of those early protests where people formed a literal human chain around the Federal Reserve building and started chanting "we won't let them take the Fed"?

If you’re really going to pick a fight with the establishment, you’d probably have a better shot if you leaned more into libertarian or Austrian economics rather than trying to channel Che Guevara.

Hey, Pernar, why on earth did you go and steal those charts from Nostradamus?

http://www.immobilienscout24.de

If you're looking at the German market, this is pretty much the gold standard.

George Barrett35 said:These would essentially be the processing fees for handling transfers or deposits, which basically means they're charged to the account holder.

Actually, any deposits made into non-resident accounts are handled via wire transfer protocols and are treated almost identically to international transfers, so depending on which bank you're using, the fees are pretty much the same.

So, I was talking to that lady over at Chase, and she told me straight up that the fees are on the payer. $3.25Then again, you're still going to need an American tax ID if you're looking to set up a foreign entity.

I have a feeling we’ll be joining the EU long before we actually get that account opened.

Thanks, Ronald Allen!

I find this whole concept of pooling funds into a business account pretty intriguing, because if there’s actually a legitimate way to pull that off, I might not even need to bother with a non-resident account after all...

I don’t know, looking at the fee schedule from Chase, I’m not really seeing it that way, especially since things like "Cash deposits to a checking account" and "Incoming transfers from other US banks via domestic wire or ACH (ordered by a local entity or individual)" seem to be free of charge:

http://www.chase.com/home/wps/wcm/conn...3ef76d6e029014

Since my accounting department seems completely clueless, I’m checking here to see if any bankers are lurking who might actually have an answer. So, here it is:

It honestly feels like I’ve hit a brick wall trying to get clear information. I’ve been calling the IRS—well, the equivalent tax authorities—and they charge me almost $2.25 just to sit on hold while the line stays busy, my accountant is stumped, and some lady at the bank hasn't gotten back to me after seven days despite promising she’d check every single time I call... plus, other banks don't seem to know the first thing about accounting regulations.

Look, I am more than willing to pay for actual, useful information from anyone who can help me out.

Here is the situation. I’ve signed a representation agreement in the States for a German company. Most of our sales happen online. Payments come in via credit card, PayPal, or bank transfer. Since direct wire transfers to Germany are prohibitively expensive, the goal is to open a US-based account where customers can pay directly in dollars, and then once a month, I’ll just forward the total to the manufacturer and pay myself my commission. The goods would be shipped by mail straight from Germany, and the customer would receive an invoice in dollars sent directly from the manufacturer/seller.

The Germans don't really care what kind of US account we use; they are fine with me collecting payments on their behalf ("in trust") using my own account (I have an LLC, so any business account should work) and marking those incoming funds as "transfers." That logic holds up for them, but I have no idea how it works under American regulations. The closest solution I’ve stumbled upon is a non-resident account, which is the one that lady at the bank is taking an eternity to investigate. So, the question is, does using a non-resident account satisfy the requirements for the payment structure I described above?

Does anyone have any advice? Feel free to DM me. Like I said, I'm not looking for hand-outs; I am happy to pay for a real solution.

To all you people obsessed with models and theorems: honestly, just give it a rest. When are economists finally going to realize that there isn't some magic little formula that can account for how humans actually act? One day everyone is going to react one way, and the next day they’ll flip entirely. You can't just look at what happened yesterday and assume you know what someone is going to do tomorrow.

What even is this?

Where are those Austrians when you actually need them to come in and tear this whole communist group apart just because they can only manage eight hours of work at a time. Honestly, what they actually managed to accomplish during those eight hours isn't even worth mentioning.

Andrew Booth29 said:And what about the people who actually put their money in, only to find the fund is empty? I believe Chile privatized their pension system—we really ought to take a closer look at how they structured that transition.

It honestly feels like we've already tried to mimic that model, you know, with all that talk about the first and second pillars and everything else.

Maria Thomas48 said:The data on non-credit money demand basically shows one thing. It just can't act as a substitute for taxation.

Real backing for non-credit money comes from active production, not just sitting around doing nothing. You have to actually earn non-credit money; it only represents a small slice of a product's total price. Basically, it’s the profit that isn't immediately reinvested—it's how you turn surplus value into new capital. If you let that accumulate, you can use it for future investments, which means you won't need to inject as much non-credit money into the system later on. This is exactly what Mr. Stole was getting at. It’s the cycle everyone talks about: working, saving, and then investing. But that only works if the amount of non-credit money being issued is exactly what is actually needed.

Because of that whole idea that you shouldn't get something for nothing, social assistance shouldn't just be handed out for free. It really should require some kind of community service in return. I know there are already some small towns over in the States where they actually implement this kind of thing.

Funding a war—or even just defense—is an exceptional circumstance in any stable nation, provided all the other laws actually hold up. To be honest, I couldn't care less about what happens to the economy during wartime.

It’s pretty obvious that you need actual work backing up your cash flow. If someone is pulling in massive profits without doing much real labor, they’re essentially just inflating the currency—especially when they’re dealing directly with the government. My take is that any company wanting to land federal contracts in the future should have to agree to profit caps based on their total revenue. This shouldn't just apply to the big corporations either; it needs to extend to their suppliers and employees too. The government simply can't afford to be reckless with spending. When they are, it just ends up siphoning wealth away from the entire community and concentrating it into the hands of a tiny few.

I’m not saying all this because I'm some kind of dreamer or because I wish things worked this way. It isn't about idealism. These are just logical conclusions drawn from the equations. Money only actually holds value if it is literally earned through work. That is what gives it any real standing against another currency.

I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on using the velocity of money as a fix for liquidity shortages. But what I really need is some clarity here. If we assume the velocity of money increases by 4% every single year—and stays that way indefinitely—then the math gets interesting. At that rate, the velocity should double every 17 years or so. Following that logic, over an 85-year span, you’re looking at a 32-fold increase in speed.

Advocating for the way things are right now is just plain crazy. There’s no way for the current system to actually offset inflation, other than through exponential borrowing—which we already know is impossible to pay back. Every time they hike up wages, it just speeds up our slide toward a total collapse. At the end of the day, inflation is just what happens when credit expands, and that expansion only happens because people can't settle their debts without taking out even bigger loans. It's basically the Davor Šuker method. That's just how it works.

Without credit, the whole system would just grind to a halt within a few years, sliding straight into deflation and recession. It’s inevitable. It happens the moment lenders decide to tighten the tap. But here is the thing. That move would basically be suicide for them too, because once that starts happening, people will finally start looking for actual alternatives. That is exactly why Greece was handed those loans—it was just a way to buy more time. It is the same reason they come up with these bank taxes. They keep inventing new things just to stall for time. Reducing the budget deficit is just another one of those fabrications used to keep the clock ticking.

When you realize that a community's entire profit engine relies on exports, outside investments, and running a budget deficit, then everything becomes clear. It's just how the math works out. When we cut back on the deficit, the community ends up walking away with less profit. It's just how it works. You tighten the belt, you lose that extra cushion. Simple as that.It’s just going to drag more companies straight into bankruptcy. You’d have to offset that somehow—maybe through massive exports, new investments, or just piling on even larger amounts of debt. But honestly, the only way for the community to actually see a steady stream of cash profit is through a budget deficit. Of course, that has to be non-credit based. These are just facts. Even the famous economists don't really grasp this, and they spend half their time arguing for a balanced budget instead.

It’s kind of strange, isn't it? You can only really find information about non-credit money online. Not a single mainstream news outlet seems to care about it. All these claims about how unsustainable the system is... they aren't backed up by any actual math. If people actually laid out the mathematics—just like I have done here—solutions would show up immediately.

Here is that derivation again, which holds true for a closed community without credit:



Best,
sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/home

Some pretty interesting diagrams and formulas here. Did you put this together yourself?

I’ve been sitting here thinking about how much everything seems to be shifting lately, almost like we're all just watching a slow-motion train wreck that everyone insists is actually a parade. It’s one of those days where you look at the news or scroll through whatever nonsense is trending on social media and realize that the collective attention span of this country has basically evaporated, leaving us all drifting in this sea of superficiality. You see people shouting into the void, convinced they’re making some grand stand, when really they’re just adding to the white noise that defines modern life. I don't know, maybe I'm just getting older and more tired of the constant churn, but there’s a certain heaviness to the way things move now, a sense that we’re all just spinning our wheels in the mud while pretending we’re winning a race. It doesn't really matter what anyone says, because the momentum is already set, and we're all just along for the ride, whether we want to be or not. kaže:
I’m talking about the ultra-wealthy, those people sitting on mountains of cash, because if they actually decide to stop spending, it triggers this massive domino effect where everything just grinds to a halt and consumer demand hits rock bottom.

Look, the reality is pretty simple: we have to figure out how to motivate the healthy ones—and by "healthy," I obviously mean the wealthy—to actually start spending, investing, or donating their capital, because let’s be honest, if the money stays stagnant, nothing moves. It is blindingly obvious that you need a catalyst somewhere to get the gears turning, and it has to start with those who have the most to give.

I mean, I honestly assume it’s just regular folks who paved the way for someone to walk away with that kind of cash in the first place. You could probably argue it from the opposite angle if you really wanted to get pedantic about it, but regardless of how you slice it, we’re all stuck in some sort of symbiosis with one another, whether we realize it or not.

Exactly. And that’s precisely why "luxury goods" play such a pivotal role in this whole equation.

Fine, let's just go ahead and lend them a hand by advising them to skip mortgage loans entirely, since honestly, those things are better off avoided altogether anyway.

I give up, though you’re being a stubborn lioness, Kimberly Nguyen. Besides, who actually gives a damn about mortgage rates anyway.