Posts by Harold Nelson6

Morgan Wright5 said:It seems you might have missed the point of my previous post, but I suppose that's alright.

Could be. My bad 🙈

Morgan Wright5 said:It seems that the largest importers and transporters of Russian oil have gone ahead and implemented price caps and shipping restrictions, yet it appears these measures are being turned on their head. I suppose new buyers are simply using those very same sanctions as a convenient excuse to demand even deeper discounts on oil purchases. To put it mildly, one might say these sanctions aren't exactly having the intended effect.

I’m with you—sanctions just aren't working.

That deficit we saw back in January and February—hitting $35 billion (which is a 45% shortfall compared to spending, or more simply—they spent nearly 100% more than what actually came into the budget)—is all because Russia is pouring money into salaries, pensions, healthcare, education, and just generally leveling up the quality of life for its people. My Russian visa is currently being processed—I am officially leaving this decaying West behind for a land of milk and honey that, despite the sanctions, is actually thriving.

Larry Wilson25 said:Honestly, that’s not even a bad deficit—I mean, it’s definitely not catastrophic.
When it hits 24%, then we can start talking about a total downward spiral of nonsense.
Look, when you consider this is a country that basically survives solely on selling raw materials—and they're currently at war against a massive power backed by the West—it's not actually that terrible, especially if you notice everything started dipping in the second half of the year.
If we're talking about the budget deficit, it just means they brought in 2.4% less than what they spent. The real question is: are they going to keep pretending everything is perfectly fine, or are they actually going to try cutting spending? Let's be real—cutting spending is never politically popular, ever. Maybe they'll just officially declare war to distract everyone.

This year is going to be a much tougher climb for them because, from what I can see, prices for metals and energy have absolutely tanked.

Just a heads-up: deficits (and surpluses) are always expressed as a percentage of GDP, not as a percentage of the total budget. So, a 2.3% GDP deficit actually works out to $47.45 billion, whereas the 2022 federal budget was $450 billion.

If we were measuring the deficit against the total budget, it would be over 10% in this case.

EDIT: To put the 2023 deficit into perspective—they already ran a deficit of about $25 billion in the very first month.

Noah Diaz said:Which part of this is confusing you?

Russia took in more money in the weeks that followed the oil price cap implemented on December 5 last year, calculations from academics at the Institute of International Finance, Columbia University, and the University of California show.

The calculations show that Russia sold its crude oil for about $ 74 per barrel on average , according to the paper “Assessing the impact of International Sanctions on Russian Oil Exports” published on the Social Science Research Network.

Well... nice try with the cherry-picking—really—but if you actually Google that same research paper you’re quoting, you get the actual full picture:

We shouldn't overlook one thing—the massive discounts on Russian crude throughout most of 2022 really ate into their export revenue. Even before the European Union embargo and the G7 price cap kicked in this past December, Russia had to settle for much lower prices just to keep their export volumes moving. We’re estimating that the spread between Russian export prices and Brent crude—which spiked over $30 per barrel during April and May (check out figure 3)—effectively stripped away more than $30 billion. That's upwards of $3 billion a month from their crude oil exports compared to a scenario where Russia was actually getting prices close to market rates.

Look at what I highlighted above—if they lost $30 billion compared to market prices back in 2022, and those oil sanctions didn't even kick in until the end of that year... just imagine how much they're going to lose this entire year now that they're under constant sanctions.

Russia is offering massive discounts to certain future trading partners—specifically India—who can actually move enough volume, especially out of those ports that lost their European business.
To dig deeper into this, we focused on the period right after the embargo kicked in—breaking down exports by both route and final destination (check out Table 1). The data really highlights just how much Russia relies on shipping crude from the Baltic Sea to India—we're talking 800,000 barrels a day—which basically forces them to take the longest possible sea route and slash their prices just to make it work. They’re selling to India at $22 below Brent for those Baltic Sea shipments—and China gets it for $16 below Brent, though in much smaller volumes (around 150,000 barrels a day).

Our findings don't suggest that we should lift the sanctions on Russian oil exports. Actually—our data shows that the European Union's embargo played a massive role in driving those huge discounts on Russian crude. Most importantly, our research suggests that enforcing these export sanctions will be absolutely critical moving forward—especially when it comes to making sure shipping, maritime insurance, and other services actually stick to the price caps. This is a huge deal because, right now, sales to non-coalition countries are dominating the Russian oil trade.

Noah Diaz said:I only asked that as a joke (smirk), because I already know exactly what’s happening, where, and how.

It looks like Russia is cutting off sales to the European Union, so they'll be shipping Ural over to Asia at whatever local prices they can grab there.

So, what exactly was stopping them from selling Ural to Asia at those better prices for the last 50 years?

Nathan Evans78 said:They’re working, sure, but in a very limited capacity. I don't think the people who drafted these sanctions ever imagined this whole situation would drag on for this long.
And while we're talking about "proof," let's look at the reality on the ground: they can still pull off enough low-tech production to keep their war machine chugging along. I remember just six months ago, everyone was predicting their factories would be sitting empty because they couldn't produce even a simple shell without Western inputs. Yet, here we are, watching them launch over a hundred high-tech missiles every few weeks—missiles that cost millions of dollars apiece.

I agree with what was said—everything is taking much longer than anyone anticipated. Still, I truly believe everything is heading straight toward a Russian economic collapse; all that talk about massive foreign exchange reserves, a strong ruble, or rising production levels... it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Nathan Evans78 said:

US ISM Manufacturing PMI (Jan) 52.6

Just as a quick refresher for anyone following along—anything north of 50 indicates an expansion phase. ☕

They're swapping out imports for domestic manufacturing—basically turning into a closed economy. Their whole strategy seems to be building up local SOUR brands that can't actually compete on the global stage, but they'll thrive at home simply because there's zero competition. If—or when—Russia ever reopens its borders, all these manufacturers will likely collapse just as fast as those old state-run factories did after the breakup of the former Eastern Bloc countries.

Proof that sanctions are working... ☕

urbanotter said:Think about it—what does a central bank really need in terms of foreign currency when they can just print more of their own? In this case, ExxonMobil is essentially buying from Russian importers who have been paid in foreign currency to cover their import costs; it’s a standard economic cycle seen in almost any nation.
The Federal Reserve doesn't exist just to facilitate currency trades for importers and exporters; it isn't like the old days of the Central Bank of America, where the primary goal was simply maintaining price stability by pegging the kuna to the Euro.
Looking back, we can clearly see how much "stability" that policy actually achieved.

Honestly, it’s ridiculous. Just ten days ago, you could pick up a candy bar for $2.00/, and now you can't find one for less than $9.90. So much for "stable" prices.

The specific account opened by ExxonMobil is designed specifically to bypass the freezes on funds meant for gas payments within Western banks that have slapped sanctions on Russia.

It isn't just a matter of buying and selling currency based on supply and demand; the converted funds actually remain sitting within the Russian banking system.

Because Russia is seeing such a massive trade surplus due to the drop in imports, the ruble has actually strengthened beyond what the government wants.
Now, the Central Bank is stepping in with measures to weaken an overly strong ruble because it’s starting to act as a bottleneck for Russian exports.
And remember, Russia isn't just exporting energy; they export a wide range of goods and raw materials. This is going to create significant issues with grain supplies, too. We're looking at expected yields in Ukraine dropping by as much as 50%, and with droughts ravaging American agriculture right now, yields for soft crops could easily be cut in half as well.
The rain just won't come when it's needed most, and if it finally does arrive, the damage will already be done.
Beyond just market volatility, we should probably prepare for food prices to keep climbing while everyone else tightens their belts; it’s highly unlikely that wages will keep pace with the rising cost of groceries.

Could you please explain what's actually driving inflation in Russia—since it's currently higher than the inflation rate in the European Union?

I think we can all agree that rising energy costs are a massive driver for inflation in the European Union, but what on earth could be fueling it for the Russians?

urbanotter said:I don't really have the time or particularly the desire to sit here and debunk all the misconceptions people in Europe seem to hold, but

when you look at the ruble exchange rate

I'll just drop one link showing the price of diesel
and you can draw your own conclusions. When Sergej fills up the tank in his Lada, he'll still have enough change left over for a "premium" Heineken.
But when Joža fills up his Corvette, he won't even have enough left for a cheap Heineken.

So, despite all the sophisticated wisdom and complex spreadsheets, Sergej can quench his thirst with a Heineken—which somehow always manages to turn up in a Russian pub—while Joža stays thirsty, even though Heineken is available in every single bar and is actually cheaper there than it is in Russia.

Nice move—you actually linked an article that says the exact opposite:

A strong ruble doesn't mean the Russian economy is handling Western sanctions well. Since the war in Ukraine kicked off, thousands of international companies have pulled out of Russia, leaving behind a massive number of unemployed Russians. Foreign investment took a huge hit, and poverty levels nearly doubled in just the first five weeks of the war, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

'The Russian ruble is no longer an indicator of economic health. Even the U.S. Census Bureau—notorious for tweaking numbers to back the White House—admits that the number of Russians living in poverty jumped from 12 million to 21 million in the first quarter of 2022,' noted Hess.

Anyone arguing that a strong currency equals a healthy economy is clearly missing the point. Following that logic, you could say the economy in Canada is incredibly robust and stable since their currency always stays at about 1:2 against the euro.

Linda Collins3 said:I was watching CNN yesterday, and this expert was claiming that gas prices aren't actually spiking because of crude oil costs, but because refinery margins for processed products have allegedly shot up tenfold in some cases.

If that’s actually true, it basically means refineries are just war profiteers.

ExxonMobil Q1 2021 profit - $7 million
ExxonMobil Q1 2022 profit - $75 million

Source: https://www.exxonmobil.com/investors/...reports/

Honestly, you’d probably find it easiest to just run this through Excel using the 'FV' function.

If you get stuck—just give me a shout! 🙂

Mark Campbell5 said:"Quote"

Look, I’ll be the first to admit it—I’m completely in agreement that there are some pretty basic things I just don't get... much like how you clearly have some gaps in your own fundamental knowledge too. I mean, let's be real here—none of us actually knows everything, right?

But we all know how that works... collectively... I mean, come on.

Look, if we actually tackle this project as a team—you know, like a real collaborative effort—everyone can just jump in and handle the specific slice where they actually know what they're doing. It’s not rocket science, right? We all have our lanes. Why overcomplicate things?

Look, obviously nobody knows everything—no one does. But we should at least have enough common sense and basic decency to stay out of it—and stop acting like experts—on topics where we clearly don't know what we're talking about.

"Quote"

Mark Campbell5 said:In a perfect world, we’d just subsidize everything... you know, pool all the cash together and divvy it up among everyone...

Everyone would be happy and satisfied, assuming we actually earned enough to cover it...

That’s a damn good question... there's money to be pinched there too... pull the troops out of Afghanistan... more savings right there...

Great, so they know they’re losing the election... and nobody else seems to have a clue what to do about it...

So, what now?

It’s not really about how much money the current administration borrows—it’s about how we organize ourselves once they finally pack up and leave.

That’s just pure socialism—and honestly, in practice, it just doesn't work.

briskdrifter3 said:Everyone seems to have an opinion on where to cut the budget, but let’s be honest—it’s a pipe dream... we can't just slash everything and hope for the best. My philosophy? Incentives. Plain and simple. I’d advocate for giving every manufacturing firm a total VAT exemption—or at least a massive reduction down to 5%—to actually get things moving. Since we don't exactly have a massive industrial base here in the States yet, we wouldn't face an immediate hole in the US Federal Budget; after all, the tax revenue mostly flows from the big retailers anyway. I’d also push for eliminating customs duties and sales tax on imports of all primary raw materials—think timber logs, steel, polymer granules, and the like. And why not make utility hookups for electricity and water free? (Which is precisely why companies like Duke Energy and h voda should remain under state control...) Oh, and let's not forget making building permits and other regulatory hurdles non-existent for any greenfield manufacturing investments. We need to totally strip away restrictions on financial transactions too—so that services like PayPal finally work without all the endless friction—and waive taxes on all IT hardware.
Incentives are the actual solution, rather than just stripping away existing benefits or trying to cut through red tape...

I'm telling you the exact same thing—everyone wants to subsidize everything, but of course, that's impossible.

The worst part is that both you and I are right—but what do we do now? It's a total stalemate. 😁

Mark Campbell5, you’re tripping over the most basic terminology—how can you even attempt to debate a country's social, monetary, or political structure if you haven't mastered the fundamentals? You really need to get your facts straight before diving into such broad philosophy.

Corporate income tax has absolutely zero connection to balance sheet tax—I don't even know where to begin explaining how different they are. 🙂

Back in 2010, banks in the US paid $140 million in corporate income tax. And I bet you'll struggle to figure out why they earned more while paying less than the previous year—you'll probably just claim it's the banking lobby at work again.

Mark Campbell5 said:I don't even know where to start with this one—it's just... wow. Honestly, looking at the way things are moving, you have to wonder if anyone in charge actually has a plan, or if they're all just winging it and hoping for the best? It feels like we're constantly being blindsided by these sudden shifts in policy that nobody saw coming, even though the warning signs were practically screaming at us from the rooftops. Does anyone else get that feeling? Like we're just watching a slow-motion train wreck while everyone pretends everything is perfectly fine? It’s exhausting, really. Just one thing after another, and yet, somehow, we're expected to act surprised every single time.

My response...

It’s the same old song and dance, isn't it? That classic, tired argument people love to recycle—just sell everything off to foreign investors and hope we somehow make a killing on the tax revenue. In theory, sure, it sounds like a brilliant master plan, but we all know how that usually plays out.

Here’s how things actually play out in the real world:

So, I was sitting around wondering—and honestly, don't judge me for overthinking this one—just how much of a cut does the government actually take from the banks? You know, that specific tax hit they deal with? It’s one of those things that sounds simple until you start digging into the fine print of the tax code, and then suddenly you're three hours deep into a rabbit hole of fiscal policy. Does anyone actually have a straight answer on this, or is it all just a giant shell game played by the big players in D.C.?

0%

So, I was sitting here wondering—just a random thought that popped into my head while staring at my coffee—how much does the government actually rake in from bank taxes? You know, those little fees and levies tucked away in the fine print that seem to hit everyone eventually? It makes you wonder where all that cash actually goes once it leaves our accounts. Is it just disappearing into some bureaucratic void, or is there a clear line item for it somewhere in the US Federal Budget? Honestly, who even knows anymore?

So, earnings are sitting at exactly zero percent. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You ever just sit back and stare at the numbers until they start looking like a bad joke? It’s one of those moments where you wonder if the math is even working anymore—or if we’re all just participating in some massive, unintentional social experiment. Is it even worth checking the balance at this point, or should I just go ahead and embrace the void?

So, who actually footed the bill for those bank bailouts? Honestly, you have to wonder who’s really picking up the tab when the big guys stumble. Was it the taxpayers? The folks just trying to get through the week? It’s one of those questions that makes you want to sit down with a very large drink and just stare at a wall for a while.

The government—using our money, mind you.

So, basically, we bailed out the banks using our own damn money—handing it right back to the bankers who are already raking it in—while the rest of us, and the government for that matter, don't see a single cent of profit from the deal. Makes sense, right?

Look, let’s get one thing straight—the government isn't some damn social services agency tasked with babysitting the profits of big-bank executives... Is that really where we are now? Since when did the taxpayers become a safety net for Wall Street's bottom line? It feels like we're just throwing money into a void to make sure some suit in a skyscraper doesn't have a bad quarter. Honestly, it's absurd.

And what about the logistics of handling the necessary personnel—you know, the voting body?

You've got a point there—I really do... but just keep one other thing in mind before you get too carried away. Everyone... We’re the ones holding the ballot, right? Which basically means we share the blame for whatever mess we end up with in office... isn't that just how it works?

Whether she turns out to be a total disaster or actually pulls it off...

We’ve spent centuries grinding away just to keep this country together and maintain our independence, haven't we?

The thing is, we actually need the US Federal Budget 2012.

But The White House can't seem to pull it off... and honestly, even the economic experts are hitting a wall here... someone has to step up and get it done eventually.

Our only other option is to rely on those "guidelines" they hand down—but we already decided in our previous chats that following those is pretty much pointless...

So, it’s simple: either we pass a budget ourselves, or the European Union will just swoop in and dictate it for us next year.

And you know how this goes—once they finish selling off all the state-owned companies, they’ll start coming after private property too.

Black forecast: The number of liens and legal seizures is set to double.

The corporate tax is 21%—standard for any other business out there. On top of that, they have to cover payroll taxes and various levies for all their employees—which is about 20,000 people.

Banks are the only ones exempt from sales tax, but honestly, that doesn't change much for us since they'd just pass those costs right down to the consumers anyway.

The real question now is whether we should slap extra taxes on them—and how to actually do that without them hiking fees for everyone else (personally, I think it's nearly impossible)—but it's definitely not true that they aren't paying any taxes at all.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

Exactly—it’s completely irrelevant what the actual assets are; it’s much "better" to assume they are smaller just to get a more sensationalized return on assets figure.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

There's no wordplay here—I'm just looking at your claims from a different angle.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

So, we have unrealistic deposits being put into the bank, but the interest on those unrealistic deposits is somehow real? Brilliant. 😁

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

My bad—I was being too vague there. But regardless, both mandatory reserves and those "ordinary" reserves are tied up under orders from the Federal Reserve.

Maria Thomas48 said:I don't really care about standard terminology when things need to be clear to the average citizen. It doesn't matter if a bank considers something an asset or not. It doesn't change the math. You have the entire article on bank profits right there. I specified which column is which in the introduction. Plus, there are comments in the Excel sheet.

If we assume all those deposits, except for the very first one, are 'unreal,' then all the interest the bank earned, except for that first bit, is also 'unreal.' In other words, the bankers have just swindled themselves with their own system... 😁

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with these word games. The bank's earnings are real because they are paid out from the initial deposit. Bank profit cannot exceed the initial deposit minus the required reserve. If it did, loan repayment would become impossible.

Likewise, the bank has to pay interest on all those other deposits, just like the first one. So does interest on savings not exist for anyone except the person who provided the original deposit? And who actually provided that original deposit anyway? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

Interest on deposits isn't even relevant here. I've already explained that. It’s just a portion of the bank's earnings and is insignificant in the total amount. You could account for deposit interest by simply reducing the bank's interest income by that amount. Of course, that wouldn't include any of the bank's operating costs. That's not part of this calculation at all. This calculation is strictly about the principle of money creation and how the bank generates profit. No operational costs can change the fundamental effects of money creation and interest on that business.

You've framed the settings however you want to show that banks have exponential profit growth, and when it's shown that your profit calculation is based on incorrect assumptions, you claim everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Anyway, you're criticizing fractional reserve banking here, and I might even agree with you on that, but I can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed to impoverish everyone.

I didn't frame anything. These are just facts, and you all have the opportunity to prove with your own math that this is sustainable.

Reserves aren't just free money. It's capital tied up in an account at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until the loan is paid back.

It seems there is a misunderstanding regarding the difference between general reserves and required reserves. Required reserves sit in a specific account; they are a portion of deposits. General reserves are simply the cash part of deposits held by a bank to maintain liquidity for Treasury needs. If people don't realize this, a good chunk of what banks call profit was actually just kept as reserves instead of being paid out.

There's no scam here, it's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links because I assume anyone can find a debunking of them on Google.

Well, you certainly have interesting perspectives. These links aren't just bedtime stories for kids. Most of them are documentaries that require some serious concentration to follow. But honestly, watching films alone won't explain everything, because even the movies leave things out. That is exactly why I wrote a whole series of articles based on pure mathematics to explain things in a very straightforward way. You can find the mentioned links here: http://sites.google.com/site/financijskisustav/linkovi. All of this is verified content that avoids conspiracy theories or hunting for imaginary villains.

If you are truly interested in understanding how the entire system functions, start with my modest writings: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja and then move on to others. Finally, watch the films (links) and read the other texts (in English). It would also be a good idea to read William F. Engdahl's "Century War". It describes how modern history unfolded when viewed through the lens of banking interests. It is essential reading. No theories, just facts and reality.

Only after you have gone through all that literature should you come back and apologize for these sweeping generalizations.

P.S. There's no need to be so formal with me. It's standard etiquette on this forum to use first names. I'm likely younger than you anyway, so the formality feels unnecessary.

I can't go wrong using formal address, and it's much harder for me to say anything rude to someone when I am being polite. My suggestion? Try it, and you will see how communication culture immediately drops by 100%.

Citing Engdahl as a serious source... honestly, what can I even say to that?

Anyway, it's an interesting read when I have the time, but I really don't have the energy for endless debates—so, let's just leave it at that. This conversation ends here for me. 😁

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

For crying out loud—you can't just redefine standard industry terms to suit your own vocabulary; you're just creating confusion. And honestly, this "asset" concept of yours doesn't actually explain anything—it's just a made-up term that leaves us right where we started.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

If we assume all those deposits—aside from the very first one—are "unreal," then every cent of interest the bank earned (except for that first bit) is also "unreal." In other words, the bankers effectively scammed themselves with their own system... 😁

The same goes for the bank; they have to pay interest on all those other deposits just like they do on the first one. Does interest on savings only exist for the person who provided the original deposit? And who, exactly, provided that original deposit? Someone back in ancient Mesopotamia?

You’ve rigged the setup to make it look like banks have exponential profit growth, but once someone points out your math is based on flawed assumptions, you pivot to saying everything except bank profits is unreal. How convenient... 😁

Look, I can actually agree with your critique of fractional reserve banking, but I definitely can't get behind the conspiracy theory that the whole system is designed specifically to impoverish everyone.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

Look, reserves aren't just free cash sitting around—it’s money tied up at the Federal Reserve, and you can't touch it until that loan is paid back.

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. Just feels like things are moving in a certain direction. It’s hard to pin down exactly why, but you can sense it. Some people get loud about it, others just watch. I tend to just sit back and observe the patterns. Everything is interconnected, really. If you look closely enough at the data, the conclusion starts to make itself. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's just about seeing what's actually there. Most people miss it because they're too busy reacting. I prefer to stay steady. Just watching the pieces fall into place. Maria Thomas48 says:
Maria Thomas48

Regarding that spreadsheet of yours:

Your asset calculations are off throughout this entire spreadsheet. I mean, right from the jump, they can't possibly equal zero, because that would imply the bank is operating with negative equity. As you move through the rest of the table, you’re consistently underestimating total assets. You aren't accounting for the cash required for mandatory reserves, the vault holdings, or the accumulated interest income sitting in there. Once you actually nail down the asset numbers, you'll see that the return on assets is going to be a bit lower than what your sheet is showing.

Maybe I’m not using the exact same jargon as the guys at JP Morgan Chase, but in my book, an asset is simply whatever I’ve put out there as a loan that actually brings money back in.

In that "earnings/cash inflow" column, you’re just calculating the cumulative interest based on that initial $1,000 deposit. That isn't really how it works. You said it yourself—you’re adding a new deposit at the end of every cycle. To get an actual, accurate number for the earnings versus cash flow, you have to take the "bank earnings" column and divide it by the "total deposits" column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly. Once you look at it that way, there’s no such thing as exponential growth.

Only the initial deposit is actually realistic, and honestly, that’s where the bank makes its money too.😁Bank profits have to be paid out in actual, cold hard cash, right? That’s exactly why we saw all those aggressive commercials pushing people to deposit their money into the bank in the first place—it’s just so the banks actually have enough liquid cash on hand to cover their own earnings. I mean, if you didn't realize that, you really ought to go back to basics. Anyway, that little cartoon section on the small diagram there is just showing the profit margins relative to the total loans issued.

I’m still not quite following what you're trying to get at with that "free cash" column. I mean, isn't that basically the whole point of reserve requirements? A bank takes a deposit, they can't just loop it into infinite loans forever. That's how the system is set up to work, right?

It’s true that mandatory reserves act as a brake on endless credit expansion, but you have to look at it this way: free money is really just whatever is held as a reserve and hasn't been pumped out as a loan yet. We started with a solid base of cash, and from that, we ended up with 3.4 times more in total credit, while only about 2%—or roughly 9.1% of that initial deposit—actually exists as physical cash circulating in the economy.😕 This whole setup can’t keep going without a fresh injection of cash. Just look back at when JP Morgan Chase had to be recapitalized. That's exactly why central banks exist—to create money out of thin air. I mean, did it even occur to anyone to ask where my first $1,000 actually came from? Any interest you earn is exponential because if you can't pay off the interest every year, it just gets tacked onto the principal. Take a look at this chart:
Just take a look at this. I saw this article earlier today. It was pretty interesting, honestly. Just one of those pieces that sticks with you because of how it lays everything out. I don't know, it felt different from the usual stuff you see floating around online. It’s worth a look if you have some downtime..

Look, I’ve set aside some actual time to go through your spreadsheet, and honestly, I’d appreciate it if you could just keep your replies short and direct. And please, let's skip the whole thing about Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusing me of being a Satanist or some big-shot banker. Just stick to the facts. 🙂

I’m actually glad you took the time to look at this simulation. It shows how the banking system manipulates cash flow in a country where the government doesn't even issue its own currency, but instead leaves that power entirely in the hands of private banks.

It should be pretty obvious now that when banks expand the money supply just to collect interest on it, it’s nothing more than a scam. That’s basically why I wrote my piece regarding corruption. If you can't see how bankers are essentially conspiring against the state and the people after seeing this, then I really don't know what else would convince you. Maybe check out these videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXb-LrVkuwM - "The Money Masters" - This is an excellent video from 1996. There are 22 parts, about 9 minutes each, covering the history of money and banking scams throughout America and Europe, and the specific steps needed for reform. Definitely worth a watch.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHTv4eriZ8U - "The Secret of Oz" - A great video about the flawed monetary regulations that bankers have been pushing on us for centuries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S0ru...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkmU5Q9MtQg

I also forgot to mention that the diagram in the simulation hits a wall once there isn't enough free money left to issue credit. In the real world, that's exactly when a debt crisis kicks in because there's no way to pay back those loans—money has to be created somehow, usually through even more new credit. I hope that part didn't get lost in the discussion about how much profit the banks are making.

There's no scam here—that's just fractional reserve banking. And I won't bother commenting on those links, since I assume you can find plenty of debunking videos for them on Google.

P.S. No need for the formal tone with me—it's standard practice on this forum to keep things casual. Besides, I'm probably younger than you, so let's just stick to being friendly.

@Nostrađamus

Regarding your spreadsheet:

1. Your asset calculations are off throughout the whole thing. It definitely shouldn't start at zero—that would imply the bank has negative equity. Plus, you’re consistently underestimating assets because you aren't accounting for the cash needed for mandatory reserves, the vault, or interest income already earned. Once you get the actual asset totals, you'll see the earnings-to-assets ratio is actually lower than what you have listed.

2. In your 'earnings/cash inflow' column, you're just measuring cumulative interest against that initial $1,000 deposit—but that’s not right, since you mentioned a new deposit is made at the end of every cycle. To get an accurate earnings/inflow figure, you need to divide the 'bank earnings' column by the 'total deposits' column. If you do that, the percentage drops significantly, and you'll see there's no such thing as exponential growth here.

3. I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at with the 'free cash' column. Isn't that exactly why mandatory reserves exist? To prevent a bank from lending out the same deposit infinitely?

Look, I'm the only one who actually took the time to sit down and study your math, so I’d appreciate it if your replies were short and to the point—and honestly, I'd prefer we leave out the Masons, conspiracy theories, or accusations that I'm a Satanist or some big-shot banker.🙂

What's actually the difference between liberal and neoliberal capitalism?

Do you honestly think what we're seeing in the world today has anything to do with (neo)liberal capitalism?

Maria Thomas48 said:People seem to forget that modern economists hate strengthening the currency through deflation and will do anything to prevent it. And they have their reasons. It's strange that you're defending this.

Here is why deflation is an issue. Deflation creates this absurd situation where the more you invest, the less you can actually earn. It's counterproductive. It doesn't stimulate production or spending. Money just becomes more valuable simply by holding onto it. I could go on with various technical qualifications, but I'd rather just ask that we stick to arguments and keep things civil.

Most of you are jumping on Ivan Pernar and his ideas about money printing without having any clue what's actually happening. I suggest you read my articles. The best breakdown is in the piece From Problem to Solution. In there, I showed how a simple thesis proves that everyone should ideally cover their costs or maybe save a little, given that the entire system is basically a pile of half-truths and scams. I mean, who wouldn't want to break even or maybe even save something? What's the issue with that?

You're shifting the goalposts.

You provided an example thinking it supported your point, but when it was clearly shown that your specific example and thesis don't hold up, you pivoted to this general talk about how economists dislike deflation... Sure, mainstream economists don't want deflation, but that doesn't change the fact that your specific example still fails.