To create a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; to provide for public investment in capital infrastructure; to provide for reducing the cost of public investment; to retire public debt; to stabilize the Social Security retirement system; to restore the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernize and provide stability for the monetary system of the United States, retire public debt and reduce the cost of public investment, and for other public purposes.
Creating a full employment economy as a matter of national economic defense; providing for public investment in capital infrastructure; ensuring the reduction of public investment costs; retiring public debt; stabilizing the Social Security retirement system; restoring the authority of Congress to create and regulate money, modernizing and providing stability for the monetary system of the United States, retiring public debt, reducing the cost of public investment, and serving other public purposes.
Where is the theft mentioned there? It just mentions what everyone needs: jobs, reducing debt, pensions, Social Security, and funding capital investments.
It is common knowledge that the current global monetary system is built upon fiat money—money without any actual backing—which can be increased infinitely. When you combine that with the mechanics of fractional reserve banking, you get a system that facilitates the systematic looting of capital from the vast majority of people using that money, all to line the pockets of the money elite! This entire setup is legalized by existing state laws, which is fundamentally unjust and serves as the root cause of those devastating crisis cycles that wreck our economy. Attempting to transfer such ill-gotten gains into the government treasury through taxes or other measures doesn't just fail to solve the problem—it’s inherently unfair, because you end up taxing the honest people who earned their money legitimately just as heavily as those who obtained it through this legalized robbery.
So, let's be clear: as long as we don't establish a system based on honest money, any attempt by the government to prevent such a capital transfer through the current—even if slightly modified—system will be a total failure. The Kucinich proposal is nowhere near the kind of radical solution needed to actually create honest money; at best, it represents a redistribution scheme designed to serve state fiscal policy—something clearly evidenced by the excerpt you provided (full employment, national economic defense, and so on). Wouldn't it be far more productive to create honest money that provides a solid, lasting foundation for capital accumulation and economic circulation, rather than attempting forced redistribution when a huge chunk of capital has already been hoarded as a direct result of the legal plunder enabled by today's fiat-based monetary system?
Robert Vaughn10 said:And one more thing... By pumping money into the system through budget deficits—especially when it isn't distributed equally among everyone—you are violating the Constitution. On that basis alone, you're sowing the seeds of a new kind of evil; you're essentially taking from some to give to others. Budget deficits should be outlawed, and any funds seized through taxpayer-funded bailouts should be returned to people in terms of real purchasing power. I don't doubt your intentions are good, but reality is a far cry from what you consider "good." It's very far indeed...
Exactly. That is precisely why the Kucinich Bill doesn't solve anything. Stealing from a thief isn't a solution—after all, the person who steals from a thief is just another thief.
John Ward96 said:Ugh... look, in my humble opinion, the world is neck-deep in it—I know, I know, a massive generalization—but this whole neoliberal setup is just making us sink faster every single day. You’ve got these political games being played by the ultra-wealthy who are basically obsessed with staying at the top... It's pretty simple: handing billions (and we're talking hundreds of billions here) to individuals who are pathologically fixated on hoarding their wealth? That can't end well. And I'm not saying the answer lies in Keynesianism either, because honestly, that's just another way to "keep things under control" and protect the elite. Can you really blame them for being too arrogant to embrace a different model? Let's not kid ourselves—even Keynes had some pretty dark, eugenicist views. That said, I don't think we should just spiral into despair. We have to fight for our own opportunities, our own competitiveness, and our quality of life as best as we can. At the same time, we should try to stay informed and nurture our own niche interests... because that's how we manage to be ourselves, even if just a little bit, and unplug from the matrix, or whatever you want to call it. Real change will happen when it happens. You can feel it in the air already—do you really think workers in China are going to spend eternity working for the dollar and committing suicide from sheer depression? Eventually, things are going to hit a "reset" button, and we'll see radical shifts on a global scale; I truly believe that. Until then: live, love, and try to stay open-minded, educated, and independent. 🙂
Could someone please explain what "neoliberalism" actually represents in economic science? I am looking for a precise definition, stripped of all political bias. Thanks.
Robert Vaughn10 says: So—eliminate the deficit, eliminate interest, and favor savings and lending from the same pool. If anyone actually wants to turn a profit in that scenario, their only option would be through direct investment.
How on earth can you just "eliminate" interest? It’s the very thing that incentivizes saving and generates the capital necessary for production investments! To make that work, interest rates would need to sit at least 2 to 3% above money inflation. Of course, in a stabilized monetary system, inflation wouldn't even exist—so why in the world would anyone bother keeping their money in a bank instead of under a mattress if they weren't earning interest? In our current mess of an inflationary monetary system, people keep their cash in banks regardless of whether the interest covers actual inflation, simply because it’s still better than nothing.
Ashley Barnes9 said:The issue isn't just that rates change, it's that they're moving in the wrong direction. You have to notice that interest rates elsewhere were heading the opposite way compared to what we see here. The result? Higher monthly payments led to a spike in bad debt. Previously, banks would let people sink two-thirds of their income into debt; now, they only allow a third, which is basically an admission that their previous policies were a mess. Now, because of those mistakes and the rise in defaults, they're telling us rate cuts aren't an option. But around here, politicians and banks are always considered right—though lately, the politicians are losing that grip. I'm convinced that accountability for these errors and predatory practices will eventually reach even the untouchable bankers too...
Exactly. Around here, interest rates are heading straight off a cliff. They are desperately trying to prop up the dollar instead of letting it collapse—which would be easier, considering it's essentially just "Fiat" currency, nothing more than a tool for systemic exploitation. If you ask me? I’d implement negative interest rates immediately just to accelerate the whole inevitable process.
briskmarlin22 said:Link to the CNN article, and look, I know they aren't exactly a gold standard for news, but I haven't seen any other outlet covering this specific topic.
With these latest measures being rolled out by the USA, it feels like we've actually lost the war on terror. It sounds extreme, sure, but if you have to go to these lengths—harassing and humiliating people just to maintain a sense of security—then the terrorists have already won.
Terrorism isn't some singular enemy you can just go out and defeat—it's a tactic! It's a method of warfare used by everyone involved in a conflict, though obviously, the scale varies. The poor tie bombs around their waists, while the wealthy drop them from high-altitude aircraft.
I mean, come on. You think having that one single formula is enough? Like you could just grab it and suddenly you're running the whole world. It’s almost funny how simple people make it sound. Just one equation and boom—you're in charge of everything. It's not really like that.
So, I’ve laid out all the evidence right here. Every single bit of it. And yet, nobody in this thread has actually stepped up to explain one thing. How does the world even keep spinning like this? If we look at even the most optimistic projections out there, they don't give us more than ten years. Ten years. That's it. It just doesn't add up.
Once again, you guys are missing the point. Your whole conspiracy theory completely ignores the most basic elements: time and the actual labor involved. You just refuse to accept that part of the equation, because if you did, the whole thing would just fall apart. If people would just accept that there is actual time passing between when a loan is issued and when it’s paid back... it would change everything. Look, if Person A lends money to Person B at time T, and they don't ask for repayment until time T+N, then during that interval N, Person B has to perform some amount of work, let's call it W. A portion of that work—specifically the part that is W minus W1—has to go to Person A as interest. That makes sense. But the remaining part, W1, should stay with Person B. They shouldn't be forced to hoard it as paper assets or whatever instruments were used for the initial exchange. Instead, they should actually use that value. Spend it on someone else, put it into long-term savings, or just use it to improve their quality of life. It's just how it should work.
Five hundred years ago, imagine a farmer getting a plot of land from some local nobleman. He’s obligated to hand over a specific amount of grain every single year. But if he just got the land, where is he supposed to get the grain from? It doesn't make sense right away. It had to take time. He had to put in the actual labor first to grow the crop before he could even think about paying that interest. The nobleman wasn't demanding grain out of thin air; he gave him the time necessary to work the soil.
Back in high school, I really struggled to wrap my head around the whole time component. It just didn't click at first. But after putting in a massive amount of work and just grinding through the math, it finally made sense. I realized why acceleration is basically just the change in velocity over time. And why velocity is just distance traveled over time.
You have to realize that wealth accumulation is really just the difference between the labor put in over time. A slice of that work always goes straight to the creditor—even if they didn't lift a single finger—and whatever is left over belongs to the debtor.
As long as time keeps moving and people keep feeding their labor into the system, interest can always be paid back.Look, money isn't really meant for hoarding extra labor. It’s just a tool for swapping goods and services. That's the whole point.
Who exactly is getting those interest payments back, and for what reason? Honestly, we don't even need interest in a money injection system. It’s just a setup designed to keep the whole thing running by forcing inflation on prices. People seem to have this idea stuck in their heads that prices absolutely have to go up, but they don't actually grasp the underlying cause. That's why any talk about maintaining stable prices sounds completely irrational to them. It’s because the entire logic is built on profiting from price gaps, middleman maneuvering, bank interest, and all that other stuff that has nothing to do with actual labor in the real economy. So, where is the profit actually going to come from? Seriously.Honestly, you guys don't seem to care about anything as long as there's still a chance to squeeze out some profit. It’s really just thinking without a single ounce of actual wisdom.
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.
Every single price control measure just ends up triggering shortages. If we let this happen again, we'll be forced to drive all the way to Trieste just to pick up basic daily necessities—not to mention waiting two years just to get a phone line installed!
Your proposal (see above) still relies on the idea of a government monopoly over currency (fiat money) rather than letting its market value dictate its worth—so let's be honest, this isn't some radical overhaul of the global monetary system. As long as there is even a shred of a free market for goods and services—which inherently means prices are formed through supply and demand—this little experiment of yours is never going to yield positive results.
Things are far more straightforward than people care to admit. Americans are feeling let down because Obama failed to deliver on his promises—period. The reason is simple: there just isn't any money, regardless of those billions in freshly printed cash being pumped into the economy without any actual fiscal backing. It’s incredibly easy to print money, but you can't escape the inevitable consequences—namely, the devaluation of our currency. Honestly, I find it baffling how voters in any nation fall for these empty political promises that lack even a shred of economic reality.
The survival of any nation is a constantly shifting process. The exodus of Mexicans from Mexico began ages ago—back even in the era of Maria Theresa, who paved the way for migration into Vojvodina. They lost Mexico, sure, but they gained Vojvodina in exchange.
Jack Gomez19 said:My conscience tells me I have to help, but I refuse to lose any sleep over where the money actually ends up since there's absolutely nothing I can do about that part.
Ryan Bishop2 said:I just don't get one thing—America is in a total mess right now. Parts of the Midwest and down by the Mississippi are completely flooded, and people have been living out of boats for a month already. Then, the US Government sends millions to Haiti, but they can barely scrape together half a million for the flood victims here—and even then, they only did it because the media started calling them out on where the help went.
That pretty much says everything about how much we value our own people!!!
TOTAL DISGRACE!!!!!
Some people are posting stuff here like, "Yeah, just imagine what it's like for them in Haiti"... but I gotta ask—how would you feel if your house was totally underwater and you were stuck living in a boat, while your own Government is busy sending aid to Haiti?!?!?!?!?!?
You simply cannot compare America to Haiti—nor can you compare a catastrophic earthquake to a flood. America is an incredibly developed nation compared to Haiti. Even the loss of life isn't in the same league. How many people died in the floods here in the States? In the earthquake in Haiti, the estimate is currently 200,000 people. That is a two followed by five zeros.
There is absolutely zero chance of Israel joining NATO. Let’s be real—Israel dictates its own agenda through its powerful American lobby. If you look at the dynamic, if America is the dog and Israel is the boss, then we’re basically watching a boss lead a dog around on a leash. Just as they refuse to let anyone dictate their nuclear posture, they certainly aren't going to let some international organization—no matter how much it claims to be an ally—get in the way of their military strategy. They have every opportunity to operate with total autonomy, so why on earth would they ever choose to tie their own hands?
Richard Kim10 said:...one can "perceive" destiny if they aren't blind to what is right in front of them. Clearly. One simply needs to aggregate the factors of their existence—environment, family, and so on—to understand the trajectory of where they are headed and where they will ultimately land. If one desires a different life or outcome, the solution is to alter both one's surroundings and oneself. Destiny, or the final result, remains within one's control. Based on my own circumstances—being born into a large family of over ten children in a small rural town—what do you imagine my fate was supposed to be? Destiny is merely the culmination of specific actions or inactions. Simple as that.
Picture this: two people buy plane tickets. One misses his flight, while the other boards and flies out. Then, the plane crashes, and everyone on board perishes. What was the smart move for the guy who missed the flight? And what was the sheer stupidity of the one who traveled into eternity? In a scenario like that, where exactly does the power of a single decision impact the outcome?
Andrew Booth29 said:Trade is an entirely different beast. The system you’re describing is purely imaginary—something that couldn't actually function in the real world—so any conclusions drawn from it are basically worthless. Let's look at the logic: one guy holds some gold, the other holds a painting, and there's absolutely nothing else involved? WTF? What are you even supposed to conclude from that? In that scenario, the gold is practically useless—maybe just as jewelry, if we're being generous. And if Joe Biden trades a painting for gold, it's simply because Joe Biden wants his wife to wear gold jewelry. Both parties come out ahead—Joe Biden gets his gold, and the other person gets their art. You can't view gold as "money" in this context, because money barely even exists in the system you've constructed. To start with, trade isn't a zero-sum game. A merchant's profit isn't someone else's loss. Both the seller and the buyer walk away better off than they were before. Now, sure, there are types of trading that *are* zero-sum games, but that's a completely different conversation.
Look, trading is a service that carries immense value—truly massive value—because without it, essentially every engine of progress driven by knowledge and technology would grind to a halt. Therefore, both trading and the commodities themselves directly influence the value of money.
The "Zero-sum game" concept applies to the NASDAQ. If one player wins, another loses. Period. No value is being created or extracted from thin air. That said, the NASDAQ serves an indispensable function because it uses supply and demand to price national currencies—something that simply wouldn't work if we were still tethered to the old International Monetary Fund agreements (you know, that fixed link to the USD and gold).
It’s not funny. We are living in an era of pure fabrication. Everything—our food, our politics, and our currency—has been falsified. Some people actually see a profit opportunity in manufacturing "healthy" food (sic). Isn't that just tragic? Healthy food? What else is food supposed to be if not healthy? What follows that—"healthy" medicine? But let’s leave food, medicine, and politics alone for a moment; we are on a forum that deals directly, if not indirectly, with money, so it isn't out of line to mention forged currency.
Any money that isn't capital in its own right—but instead represents someone else's debt and a mere promise—is nothing more than fake money. Here is some data regarding this counterfeit currency found in Mike Howard’s book, "Dollar Daze."
The average lifespan of all 559 fiat currencies (fake money) worldwide that are no longer in circulation was a mere 15 years. Meanwhile, the average for the 176 fiat currencies still currently in circulation is 39 years. The US dollar has existed for 219 years. Of those 219 years, it has been unbacked for only 38 years—meaning for 83% of its existence, it was backed by gold, which is precisely why it's still breathing. Within a year, that average will shift, and how much longer it will last is strictly a matter of time. Given the current global monetary and economic situation, if some kind of correction doesn't happen very soon, I don't foresee it lasting another century.
The global monetary system has already collapsed. Just as a corpse's hair and nails continue to grow for a short while after death, this dead monetary system continues to persist solely through its own massive inertia. The perceptive few—and there aren't many of them—can see that something is fundamentally broken, while the rest of the population, the vast majority, hasn't the slightest clue what is happening. They are far more concerned with the next episode of some idiotic TV show than they are with the reality of what is happening to their money.
The question remains: what will replace the current global monetary system? Will it be honest money, or just another new forgery?
mistystag0 said:I’ll try to be gentle here. From my perspective, since you seem to have a somewhat naive view of finance, you are making some pretty significant errors.😢
To start with, maybe you could look up some basics on monetary policy: the Bretton Woods agreement and the gold standard, how a central bank maintains its independence, primary versus secondary money issuance, supply and demand, and monetary aggregates.
I guess once you've looked all of that over, you might realize just how much there is left to learn.
LP👋
Look, I’m not going to play nice like you are, so I’ll just say it: your post is incredibly arrogant. Here is a person trying to learn, politely asking for help, and you’re just standing there rubbing their nose in it? Get a grip. Remember, there are no stupid questions—only stupid mistakes in life. From a purely human standpoint, why don't you take a second to evaluate whether your response was a massive mistake or not?
One more thing—just out of pure curiosity—what is the deal with that "Void" username you use? The name truly fits the content.