Posts by Harold Nelson6

Maria Thomas48 said:The first guy who shows up in politics without being totally corrupt is Ivan Pernar. It’ll take him some time to connect all the dots regarding economic slavery here in America, but people learn as they live.

I started reading the mystery of banking and gave up. The guy might explain certain technical things well, but he's got errors. For example, he ruins the whole argument by tying the money supply directly to prices. That situation only works if we have a single commodity and all the money tends to be spent on trade. You can easily show that prices don't necessarily have to be linked to the money supply, and they shouldn't be. Prices should be linked to covering costs and hitting a specific profit margin. If the author can't grasp certain things, then he's going to explain a lot of things wrong. I'm not saying he won't explain how banks issue money, but generally, he'll stay intellectually stunted when trying to reach a solution.

And the earnings for the entrepreneur, the workers, and ultimately the banks come from creating some kind of new value. Like, you plant strawberries, wait for them to grow, and then sell them. Those strawberries didn't exist before; now they do. That is tangible and very tasty value.

Everyone here who wants to learn about the money scam needs to distinguish between creating new value and creating money. For instance, nobody has any money, yet you produce strawberries. The conclusion drawn from the money supply side is that the strawberries are free. Is that really how it works? The labor used in growing them has to be exchanged for some other kind of labor. That's where money comes in. Strawberries are a bad example because they aren't a permanent value.

Take an example where a small town has 10 houses and needs 5 more. According to the local money supply, the value of the houses should change once those 5 are built. But the same amount of time and materials went into the construction. It's obvious that to maintain prices, more money has to be injected. It makes no sense to increase the value of money, because then those who hold the most of it reap the profit from everyone else's labor.

Anyway, up until now, I thought you actually believed what you were writing. But after that sentence, it's clear you're just a joker. Good luck to you. 👍

I didn't say for no reason that today's politicians work for the bankers. If we have such a massive error in money regulation, and the Government, the President, the Federal Reserve, and the political parties refuse to fix it (I wrote to them), then it's obvious that politics is just a game for paradise. I said I won't vote for politicians like that anymore because it's just a waste of time. The exception is Ivan Pernar.

That's not right.

In your scenario—if the value of money increases—it increases for everyone equally. So, if you were ten times wealthier than me before, you'll still be ten times wealthier than me after the change. You aren't profiting any more than I am; we both "profit" from that "hard work" at the exact same rate.

Honestly, you're drawing a ton of wrong conclusions here—but because you're throwing out so many different points and data sets, nobody really has the time or the energy to sit down and debunk every single one of them individually.

Maria Thomas48 said:Don't forget that today's politicians are basically working for the bankers. We need new people who aren't corrupted yet.

Where does this idea come from—treating politicians like they're some kind of superhuman beings?

The odds of finding "untainted" politicians are pretty much the same as finding "untainted" bankers. Honestly—do you really believe we can have bankers who won't eventually exploit their own power and position?

Matthew Evans7 said:Like I said, people are all different. It’s totally clear to me that some Germans invest and make money, but I just don't get why anyone would defend those sold-off banks that are basically running criminal operations—unless they're a German who benefits directly from it. Sure, a handful of people in the US benefit. But whether they're acting shady or not, there's really no point in debating it.

Look, nobody is defending the banks—they're just trying to explain how the system actually works. Once you grasp the mechanics of the system, you realize that starting revolutions or calling for nationalization isn't going to put food on the table.

What debtors really need to do—and this is the only thing that seems like it might actually work—is keep building their association, then hire serious lawyers and economists to negotiate more favorable terms with the banks collectively.

Nicole Gomez38 said:What I'm trying to get across is that we don't have non-credit issuance here—even when new value is generated, it isn't covered by non-credit issuance. You're essentially creating new capital while the system creates new debt—external debt that bleeds into internal debt because the Federal Reserve acts as the exchange.

Uhh... Not quite. 😁

The fact that newly created money shows up as a liability on the Fed's balance sheet is really just an accounting classification.

Besides, there’s more primary money in the US than our total external debt—which pretty clearly points to non-credit issuance being a thing.

Nicole Gomez38 said:True, but look at the numbers—back in December '99, the national debt was only $9.9 billion, and today it’s sitting at $47 billion. That means the debt has ballooned by 450%, while wages only saw a 68% increase. Since external debt always trickles down to the domestic level, it’s obvious citizens are drowning in much more debt than their raises can cover. That’s exactly why we hit a credit crisis; you simply cannot pay off what you owe if the debt outpaces your actual cash flow.

On top of that, people are spending less, yet they're forced to rely even more heavily on credit just to maintain that lower level of consumption. I've laid this out before, so I'll just copy-paste it again.

The real culprit here is "compound interest." Picture a country with a million working-age adults. Suppose they all take out a loan from $333 for one year (carrying a 10% interest rate) which they then have to repay $367. After that year, they collectively owe $1.1 billion. The bank walks away with $100 million in profit, leaving everyone with $33 less than they started with. To compensate, they take out another loan, but this time it's for $367. Using $33, the bank covers its losses and hands them $333 in credit. However, they now have to pay back $403. After two years, everyone ends up with $70 less than their initial starting point. Meanwhile, the bank has cleared an additional $110 million, totaling $210 million in profit. By repeatedly taking out larger loans, this cycle just repeats itself with even deeper losses—you end up trapped in an ever-expanding mountain of debt without any extra cash to show for it.

The way you're describing lending and cumulative deposits is just... off—it completely misses the whole concept of value creation. If we're looking at things today— $33 If we can pull this off across the whole country—and actually hit our targets by the end of the year—we'll have managed to create plenty of new jobs. $1.75 Please do not print any new ones. $1.75 It’s not just about borrowing—it’s about actually creating value by producing new goods that match that worth. $1.75If we had actually used that money wisely, paying back any debt wouldn't be an issue at all—but instead, we just borrowed funds to waste on total nonsense rather than investing it to create actual value. Of course, now we're stuck in this loop of borrowing more just to cover old debts. That isn't some fundamental flaw in the system; it’s just us being irresponsible and blowing our cash on complete garbage.

Nicole Gomez38 said:I misspoke—what I meant was they were bailed out and then immediately sold off for pennies on the dollar. We all know who pulled the strings on that.

"Banks bailed out with 15 billion, sold for one, while they're worth 40 billion today"

He claims that 15 billion was spent on the FDIC bailout, yet they were sold for just a billion, even though their current value sits at 40 billion. As a specific example, the Libertarian Party points to the Bank of Miami, which was first sold to an Italian for 84 million, then flipped to an Austrian for 136 million, and finally ended up in the hands of a Frenchman for a whopping billion.

Those big four were also sold way under market value. It’s pretty obvious the government ended up drowning in debt while being stripped of its assets—all while claiming they were selling stuff off specifically to stay out of the red.

I don't know the exact numbers, so I won't comment on those—but doesn't this whole way they’re selling off banks just show how poorly the government is handling things? Tell me—if you personally owned a bank, would you really sell it for... $3.25 If she were actually worth 50? No way—not a chance. But when the government holds all the cards, it’s just business as usual—some politician is bound to greenlight selling off state assets for pennies on the dollar. $3.25 And he walks away with another couple of bucks in his pocket—just what we needed.

The whole situation with the banks isn't exactly black and white—even if you agree they were sold off for pennies on the dollar. Honestly, the wave of bank acquisitions over the years actually did some good; it acted as a stabilizer for the entire economy. Just imagine if Sanders & Co. had treated JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America like their own personal piggy banks—kind of like how some people treated Wells Fargo.

neondriver5 said:Give me a break, rustywalker82, what are you even talking about? Where are you going to pay back less?😕
Do you actually realize what extending a loan by 10 years—from 20 to 30—really means? Don't make me sit here and calculate exactly how much extra interest you'll be bleeding at the end...
On a $100,000 loan, over 20 years you'd pay back

Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR):
6.39%
Monthly payment:
$728
Total amount repaid:
$174,724
Total interest paid:
$74,724

30 years

Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR):
6.39%
Monthly payment:
$612
Total amount repaid:
$220,489
Total interest paid:
$120,489

So you save a full hundred bucks a month, but in the end, you're paying $50,000 more in interest. That's roughly 60 percent of the total cost.
Compared to a 20-year loan, where interest accounts for about 40 percent.

Where is the benefit for debtors in that? Good grief...
Sure, inflation will play its part, but we're talking about the Swiss Franc. If anyone is stable, it's that currency. It will certainly lose less value than others. We won't see a situation where you pay off a loan in three months because inflation hit triple digits.

And that new "problem" could easily lead to private owners of precious metals being targeted, with the state seizing them to "distribute" the benefits to everyone else (similar to how they currently claim nationalizing banks will "spread" profits to the masses).

Nonsense. 😬 I mean, it wouldn't go that far; that would involve nationalizing massive holdings, and we saw how poorly that went in our recent history.

Not nonsense at all—just looking at things realistically.

The first step is "returning the banks to the people" from the hands of "corrupt foreigners."

Once you see how much nothing they've actually achieved, then you move to the next stage—seizing assets from individuals who have "too much" anyway. But of course, they won't touch the "suitable" tycoons who are cozy with the government and politicians; they'll only target the "unsuitable" ones and regular folks who educate themselves, work their tails off, and save money. I mean, seriously—where does ironstag8 get the nerve to have savings and buy precious metals while the average American can barely make ends meet?!

ironstag8 said:Whoa there, slow down and grab some chips first.
Where exactly did I ever justify seizing private property???

Forget the chips—it’s summer, you gotta watch your figure... 😁

You didn't justify seizing private property at all—here was my actual train of thought:

1. Zabotinski claims you'll use your own savings to fund Pernar's ideas
2. You mention turning those savings into "real" money
3. I'm just jumping in to say that even that "real" money won't save you once we hit the Mad Max scenario Pernar is setting up for us... 😁

My comment was more of a general observation—I just get the feeling a lot of people will fall for these "solutions." I wanted to point out that the people offering them have a very specific mindset—they always point the finger at some third party as the root of all evil, when really, they're just peddling demagoguery.

ironstag8 said:Savings are gradually being converted into "real" money 😉 so things like exchange rates, the Swiss Franc, and all that other nonsense won't be an issue—thank God there isn't much credit out there to worry about, so 🍿

People with this kind of mindset—the type who would totally justify the government seizing private assets through bank nationalization—wouldn't take long to find a new "problem" once they've made an absolute mess of everything by nationalizing the banks...

And that new "problem" could easily be private owners of precious metals, which would then need to be seized and handed over to the state. The logic is that doing so would allow the benefits of holding gold to "trickle down" to everyone (just like they currently claim that nationalizing banks will make their profits "trickle down" to the masses).

Donna Davis8 said:Look, I get what you're saying. Generally speaking, I agree. But I am pretty sure the average worker at Verizon isn't to blame for poor management or running at a loss. We all know who is responsible, and they don't get fired; instead, they get bonuses when expenses drop at the end of the year (mostly because of the massive payroll). It’s ironic.

Just look at what people say about Verizon. Most people are generally dissatisfied. I don't know why, and I won't dive into what needs to change since that's not my field, but it seems to me they need structural changes🤔 rather than letting go of "small-town" workers—basically the easiest targets like contractors, temporary staff, or those nearing retirement.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'll leave it at that. 🙂


From my own experience, Verizon is a sneaky company. They basically trap you with those 18-month or longer contracts. Other companies do it too, but these guys aren't cheaper than the rest. You wouldn't expect this from someone who is supposed to be a telecom leader alongside AT&T. That’s just my take. They practically scammed a 55-year-old retiree by offering a cheap phone tied to a two-year plan. They promised the monthly cost would be $17, all inclusive, but the bills always come in at over $100. I hope she enjoys those extra dollars they squeezed out of her. May they choke on it.

I completely see your point, and it's obvious the atmosphere in that company is pretty rotten, but...

My comment was more general—it wasn't exclusively about AT&T. Layoffs aren't inherently bad, and a company that lets people go and then immediately starts acquiring others isn't necessarily "corrupt"—those two things aren't actually linked.

As for AT&T itself, it’s totally expected that the first ones out the door are the least protected employees—because, let's face it, top managers aren't going to fire themselves... Unfortunately, that's just how it works in any community—the little guy always gets screwed first. Those successful managers will get their turn eventually—either sooner or later, once they've steered the whole ship into the ground.

Donna Davis8 said:Great, they should definitely incentivize them to start laying people off. 🙄

I honestly don't see this acquisition bringing any real benefits to customers, regardless of which side you're on. I actually predict we'll see a surge in AT&T service usage. Since this market is such a minefield—with so many different IPTV providers and triple-play bundles (TV, internet, phone)—they can't afford to mess up too much. But hey, we'll see how it plays out. All things considered, I think this is a bad move. It’s just a case of a big fish eating a smaller one that was actually providing fair service at a fair price.

Good grief! 😁

Look, a job isn't just an end in itself—it’s perfectly reasonable for a company to lay people off for all sorts of reasons (like, say, a dip in workload—which is basically the norm these days—or just boosting efficiency by bringing in new tech). Honestly, the fact that they laid workers off shouldn't even matter when we're talking about the AT&T acquisition.

I mean, if work is just an end in itself, why don't we just ban personal laptops in HR? Then we'd have full employment overnight.

Ashley Collins4 said:There’s another angle here—comparing the climate from fifteen years ago to what we're dealing with today.
Nobody sells off a top-tier racehorse when everyone's chasing it.
We cashed in on foreign investment back when it actually paid off.
Now, an investor is looking at a struggling economy that needs a massive jumpstart, but everyone
just wants everything handed to them on a silver platter. I was reading The New York Times in Washington, D.C. today, and they're reporting that
major international fast-food chains are closing up shop because the margins aren't there. What exactly do we expect
from people trying to build major corporations, especially when they're buried under taxes owed to the
Government? And the Government doesn't care about those losses, because nobody goes to war against themselves.
When the Government invests in a company, everything looks cheaper at the start.
So, we have no choice but to follow the old saying: look out for number one.
Things will turn around eventually.

Are you talking about Daily Fresh?
That isn't some foreign chain—it's domestic. And at the helm is Borislav Škegro, who is the perfect example of a "businessman" who never would have amounted to anything if he hadn't tangled himself up in politics. Then, following his political "career," he's simply incapable of running anything; everything he touches falls apart. Daily Fresh had all the ingredients for success—if nothing else, it had those fantastic locations (which no one else could get unless they were Škegro) for its restaurants.

Why am I bringing up Škegro? Because it proves that "entrepreneurs" born out of the government system don't know how to survive in a real market. There's no point in the government trying to "create jobs" if it's just going to end in a disaster like this.

What you're advocating for is really just a planned economy—where the government invests, hires people, pressures banks for lower interest rates, and manages everything.

I'm sorry, but we know for a fact that doesn't work.

Ashley Collins4 said:To understand our current political and economic landscape, you have to look at the bigger
picture if you want to figure out how much room this or any future
Cabinet actually has to move.
It’s pretty obvious that under our current system of PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP—where a capitalist, whether they like it or not, owns their
assets, their means of production, and essentially rents labor—there is a built-in
flaw. By owning things, they gain power over those very things, especially when
they distance themselves from the Federal Government.
Basically, the government ends up disarming itself. It can't claim total
authority over the entire National Territory because private
property rights are untouchable.

Clearly, we can only discuss what a new or old administration can do
within its own backyard—essentially within a perimeter it sets for itself. And that
perimeter is shrinking every single day. These shifts are just a shell game:
plug one hole by opening
another, then realize that second hole is fresh and wonder if you need a third one to plug it, and so on.

If the government wants to jumpstart the economy, the only way forward is to step up
as an investor in new companies to secure those 150,000+ new jobs.
We can't just sit around waiting for foreign investors; we're out of time.
The opportunities are endless: the automotive industry and all its
sub-sectors, electronics, appliances, IT, heavy manufacturing, defense,
and so on.
But does this mean the Cabinet is acting against its own principles? The idea is that the State
is a terrible economic manager, so what would it even do with massive corporations?
Following the usual systemic inertia, it would probably just end up selling them off again
because they eventually become competition for the capitalists. So, what now? How do we move forward?
The line has to be drawn clearly: there must be a boundary between the interests of the
Federal Government and private interest.

The reason big investors aren't flocking here isn't because they're "evil"—it's because they see that the math just doesn't work under our current setup. If a private investment doesn't make sense right now, then a government-backed one won't fly either. The fix? We need to build the right environment so these deals actually become profitable—then it won't matter who pulls the trigger (though, personally, I don't think the government should be the one cutting the checks).