Posts by Harold Martin10

Henry Hernandez7 said:1. If their goal was to turn a profit and avoid a budget deficit, they'd do it—it's actually pretty simple. They'd just cut the tax burden by 50%, and the US Treasury would be twice as full as it is today. But that's not in their interest because they hold all the leverage through debt via government bonds; I think you know that's the worst way to go into debt. And based on everything explained before, the whole point seems to be the downfall of businesses and the country itself, because global hostaplers have made that their mission. So, isn't it pretty obvious not to see how this works?

2. I never said they were operating without a goal or a plan; I said they are operating without a goal or plan *for success*. Instead, they're operating for failure. And which specific "Plan 21" are you talking about? Please, name it. And no, it doesn't bother me that someone is leading; it just bothers me that they are being led by neveleizdajnik.

3. My interpretation doesn't mean "anything"; it's actually quite reasonable, brief, and CLEAR. I'm glad you know what the term means too, but it's a shame you can't see it even with eyes wide open (hopefully).

4. Look, if you want to call it corruption, go ahead. It’s basically just politicians conspiring against their own people just to pad their own pockets—plain and simple corruption. See? Now we're finally on the same page.
I mean, sure, there are probably some honest politicians out there, but they're such a tiny fraction of the whole scene that they barely have any actual influence.

5. I already broke this down in my first point.

6. Around here, the only way you can claim this crisis is caused by the global economy is if you're intentionally turning a blind eye to the truth. I mean, the US doesn't even factor into the global economic equation by even a fraction of a percent; as far as the world economy is concerned, we don't even exist. This whole "global meltdown" excuse is just something used by bad actors—actually, really talented thieves in office—because they aren't running this country to make it succeed; they're running it to watch it fail. We see the results of their "success" every single day, and it just keeps getting worse.

7. What was your actual point with that one?

dustyheron5 said:Of course they lost money... but if they weren't forced to sell (and most people didn't dump their entire portfolio into gold, just a portion), there is still a chance the price recovers to make up that loss. That isn't an option with cartridges—they only regain purchasing power if the price drops back down to where it was before the spike.

Regarding that specific timeframe you chose—it stands as a fact. But it is equally a fact that you have lost 50% of your purchasing power in cartridges over the last five years... whereas someone who bought gold back then hasn't lost any purchasing power at all—not even if they sell at today's prices. You either conveniently forgot that or simply didn't think of it.😁

And finally, Felix Zulauf
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldne...ice_Spike.html

dustyheron5 said:

analogharbor44 As specified by analogharbor44:
Go ahead and keep deluding yourselves—thinking we’re headed for hyperinflation like they saw in Zimbabwe or old Germany. 😂

Personally, I don't delude myself.🤣I’m staying grounded here—unlike you, I actually realize that I lost roughly 20% of my purchasing power within the portfolio I’ve been holding since last year. You still haven't quite grasped that reality—you're essentially deluding yourself into thinking your money holds its value just because the official inflation rate sits at 4.3%. 😂

Jack Smith5 said:I have to agree with you on that point, though I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you say most Americans don't care about the economy.
If your point is that they don't grasp the underlying mechanics of how an economy actually functions, then sure, I'll give you that. But honestly, why should it matter? Aside from people planning to major in economics or work in the field later on, why should the average person be expected to care about the technicalities?

Now, if you’re talking about their general interest in the state of the US economy, I disagree. People care deeply—they complain about it constantly. They moan about having no money, the latest crisis, blah blah blah, yet somehow always find enough cash for a new iPhone or a trip to Aspen.

To step slightly outside the main topic here: people are free to decide who represents them. A lack of interest in voting doesn't necessarily mean a lack of interest in the future. It often just means a total lack of trust in the system. It’s a lack of candidates that people actually feel represent them; it feels like everyone is cut from the same cloth, so they just pick the lesser of two evils.

The real issue with that mindset is the outcome. You end up with election results decided by a MINORITY, which is a complete absurdity in a democracy that is, by definition, meant to be rule by the majority.

The solution is for people to form their own civic movements—essentially taking matters into their own hands and seizing control of their own destiny. Instead of waiting for someone else, they should decide that nobody will represent them except themselves.

Kimberly Cox59 said:I don't think that necessarily means life is good, though; maybe we're just a nation of people who have been indoctrinated. Plus, voter turnout is pretty low in Greece (35%) and in the US (38%, if you don't count the folks living abroad).

About 27% of Greeks are officially living in poverty, and there are still a ton of them stuck in debt slavery. That is what really tells you about the quality of life in any country.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Most people are fine with it? Are you kidding me?
When it comes to the elections, the main opposition was the Democratic Party, and they lost by a hair. Honestly, the folks voting for New Democracy are pretty much the same crowd that votes for the Republican Party every single time. And man, look at how things are turning out for us...

urbanotter said:That's the point; those are communist nations.
But we are a capitalist country—certainly not socialist or communist by any stretch of the imagination😍—and if you choose to ignore the reality of how things work, then everything just becomes a dead letter on paper to you.😉😂

#kocar#;43427115 said:

All you Smith and Friedman followers—and those who just worship them—are the reason we ended up in this mess.
It’s great that you think you know everything, even if your "expertise" has steered us into a corner with almost no way out.

It's all just theoretical chanting, logic games, and demagoguery. We've been listening to this same rhetoric for twenty years now, and it hasn't produced a single real result—it's just left us in a massive hole (to borrow a phrase from a former thief-turned-Prime Minister).

You're still beating a dead horse here. I've been hearing this for two decades, and instead of progress, we’re actually sliding backward.
Personally, I’d much rather see some basic, decent politics where countries actually trade on equal footing, rather than this current system that hurts our community while only lining the pockets of a tiny few.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that American economic policy is working? That we're a successful nation with a bright future?

If that's what you really believe, then you're incredibly shortsighted. You're ignoring our grim reality and the future ahead of us—something our honorable Secretary of the Treasury admitted tonight.

From where I'm sitting, our policies are pushing us into a "league" where only the giants thrive and reap the rewards. Meanwhile, many others who are similar to us aren't even given an equal playing field after all these years; they're stuck in the same struggles and hardships that we are, or even worse.

Now, saying we're regressing isn't quite right. We *are* moving forward, just much slower than everyone else. Those other countries are pulling ahead because they actually liberalized their markets and created a better climate for investment, whereas here, the government keeps dumping massive amounts of money into social programs, pensions, and bureaucracy—all while maintaining absurdly high taxes.

urbanotter said:I feel like you're being a bit contradictory here.
How exactly did the government use its power to blow up the housing bubble?🤷

I mean, the government doesn't own all the residential properties, nor were they going around buying up houses and driving up prices themselves.

Your argument feels a bit too broad; it's hard to tell which specific properties or sectors you're actually referring to.

First, you argue against government intervention, but then you turn around and criticize them for not using that very power effectively.
All this talk about the free market sounds a lot like the same old mantras and demagoguery we've been hearing for the last twenty years—rhetoric that hasn't produced results, but instead has landed us in this catastrophic situation.

You mentioned that in the long run, it wasn't the banks, the developers, or the average citizens who profited, but only the politicians.
I find that quite difficult to wrap my head around, so it would be helpful if you could elaborate on that.😉

The one point where I completely agree with your post is regarding our lack of accountability. We simply don't have enough mechanisms to control our politicians. There's far too much tolerance for their mistakes, the public tends to be incredibly forgetful—hardly remembering what happened even four years ago—and the whole system lacks transparency, which just opens the door wide for corruption.

urbanotter said:But then who exactly would you hand that power to?

Maybe we should hand it to the very people who exploited market conditions at everyone else's expense and directly contributed to us landing in this mess.

It feels like a bit of a contradiction to blame them for causing the crisis while simultaneously claiming they were just behaving "normally."😕

Do you honestly believe they’re going to undergo some sort of moral awakening or suddenly decide to change their ways if you grant them even more freedom to prioritize themselves? There's no reason to think they wouldn't just repeat the cycle instead of working toward the common good.🙂

Charles Campbell7 said:That analogy is meant to describe people who vote for a massive welfare state—essentially, voters who support a system where the government loots one segment of the population and then redistributes those stolen funds. Someone brought up an example earlier: most people would feel too guilty to personally smash a window or break into someone’s house to steal cash just to pay for their college tuition. However, when a politician (the very person they voted for) does it on their behalf, they somehow consider it perfectly legitimate. I suppose I don't quite understand the logic there. To me, it’s still just theft, even if it isn't happening directly at your front door. So, the example refers to forced taxation, though I'd argue inflation has the exact same effect as a tax, making it all pretty much the same thing in the end.

urbanotter said:What makes you think I have even an ounce of trust left in today's politicians?🤷

It isn't that I lack trust, per se, but rather that I am deeply convinced they are steering us toward becoming nothing more than cheap, low-standard labor. It feels like we're being molded to serve the interests of global elites and various "investors" who are simply looking to balloon their own wealth at our expense.

Based on your previous posts and general outlook, I had assumed you were one of those people who actually trusts the system, since you seem to support this specific social and economic model currently playing out both here in the States and across the globe.

urbanotter said:It never even crossed my mind to suggest we just print money to cover standard government spending, like paying the salaries of teachers, police officers, or civil servants—that kind of direct state expenditure isn't what I'm talking about.

That’s precisely why I was advocating for passing legislation that clearly defines the specific purposes for which such funds could be utilized, and I offered a few examples of where that capital should actually be "spent."

The goal is to invest exclusively in creating new value; the issue is that currently, this money comes through borrowing, which puts a massive strain on a budget that simply can't collect enough tax revenue to cover everything.

While things like interstate highways are definitely long-term investments that don't offer an immediate return, it would be far less of a burden on the system if they were financed through that method rather than forcing us to "monetize" debt when the annuities just aren't there to pay it back.

urbanotter said:Right now, the Federal Reserve's foreign exchange reserves sit at roughly $11 to $12 billion, which serves as a cushion they can tap into whenever they need to intervene if the dollar starts getting too strong.
They also step in to buy up currency if the dollar’s value starts to drop too low.

That $47 billion debt wasn't used to build up those reserves; it was allocated toward entirely different purposes.

If we were strictly using newly printed money just to buy up foreign currencies, then sure, we'd run into issues.

But when that capital is actually deployed toward things like payroll, taxes, supplies, and the various operational costs of the specific projects that triggered the issuance in the first place, the math changes. In that scenario, you wouldn't see a surplus of cash flooding the market; instead, most of it stays right here within the domestic economy, which tends to stimulate demand and ultimately drives up production.

urbanotter said:If anyone actually understood the fundamentals of economics, they would realize that once that money enters circulation—whether through direct spending or when the government takes on debt, pays interest, and settles the principal (or just reshuffles it like a perpetual motion machine)—the impact is inevitable.😉

We saw $50 billion enter the system recently, money we didn't earn or create ourselves, yet it hasn't triggered massive inflation, and the people who received it didn't just bury it in their backyards or park it in savings accounts; they spent it.

Ryan Nelson5 said:I have two questions here... I already asked a few of these earlier...

1.) Why would the government be responsible for newly printed money if they aren't held accountable for borrowed money? We know that, so far, the state has passed the burden of borrowed debt onto the people for consumption... what mechanism prevents them from doing the same with printed money instead of investing it to lift the economy?

2.) Even if we assume the government acts responsibly and invests in the economy as you suggested, I have this follow-up...
...since printing money devalues savings, it essentially shifts the burden of economic financing onto those who were responsible and saved, while rewarding those who spent everything... basically, the more you sacrificed and saved, the more you lose... but if you blew through everything you had, you end up better off in this system... is that a fair system?

Kimberly Cox59 said:I mean, in a truly socialist society, nobody would actually be threatening anyone. It’s just that the whole idea got completely trashed by Lenin and his successors with their whole Gulag and Secret Police routine. A socialist society should work pretty simply, I guess, because people would actually see the fruits of someone else's labor for their own work. They’d realize that if they don't pull their weight, nobody else is going to work for them either. It's like a pure self-regulating system—you work for others, and others work for you. Honestly, the worst thing that could happen is that things stay just about the same. Free riders... man, they're everywhere, aren't they? I guess you could say they're just part of the deal, but still. It’s funny how that works. Maybe it's just human nature or something, who knows? Anyway, just a thought.But honestly, that’s just a tiny fraction of what the economy actually has to deal with. I mean, it's really just a small weight on the scale, if you think about it. Maybe it seems big, but compared to everything else? It's peanuts. I guess it's just one little part of the bigger picture.

Take the Spanish Civil War, for instance. In a few small communities back then, they actually managed to set up this incredible food distribution system based entirely on volunteers. It only took them a couple of months to get it running. I mean, according to that text—and I’m not even exaggerating here—it was so simple that if you needed supplies, you could basically just walk into the warehouse and grab what you needed. It sounds wild, but it happened.

I guess I’m assuming that Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't really account for property rights, which, you know, are pretty much the bedrock of freedom. Or am I totally off base here? Maybe I'm wrong. 😉

I mean, you're mistaken there. Personally, I don't think anyone should touch private property like your house, your car, or a vacation home. I guess individualism is actually a super important part of socialism—especially anarchism, for that matter.

I can't get around to watching that Milton Friedman video right now (my speakers are acting up). 🤣Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for now and catch you guys tomorrow...

So, why do you think I put that signature there, genius? I guess it's just my way of showing how much I can't stand those Stalinists and that whole crowd. They always seemed to have this weird fetish for anything labeled "people's." 😉

I probably could have gone with, "Freedom without socialism is just a privilege and an injustice, while socialism without freedom is nothing but slavery and brutality." I guess that fits pretty well with anarchist philosophy, anyway.

Whoops, you guys might have a point there. Sure, the poverty rate in India is dropping, but I guess that’s mostly thanks to government handouts for the poor rather than capitalism doing the heavy lifting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17441347

Jack Smith5 said:Look, I’m sorry, but I still don't quite follow you.

I honestly can't see the connection between your framework and what I was actually getting at.

Nobody was talking about printing 10% of the budget every single year just to dump it into useless monuments that serve no purpose other than being stared at.

My point was specifically about printing between 1% and 10% of the budget ONLY during a crisis, or when there are viable projects on the market capable of driving up prices—meaning, increasing total market value.
Let's try this: suppose a market consists of 1,000 products produced by its citizens, and each product costs $3.25 on average. In that case, the total market value is 10 $0.00.

Now, if new investments are planned to create 1,000 additional products at an average price of $1.75, then once that's achieved, the total market value will be 10,000 plus 5,000, which equals $5000.

So, using simple math, before those products even exist, the government could print 5,000 new dollars and distribute them via subsidies to the entrepreneurs behind these projects to kickstart production.

They spend that money on technology, labor, and land to get things moving, but they get that capital back through the sales price of $1.75 times those 1,000 products. Everything beyond that is pure profit. The government plays it safe; they don't overstate the sales of these new goods, so they aren't printing $2000 excessively. But if the products are good enough, they might sell 2,000 units instead of the initial 1,000.

In that scenario, the government gains fresh room to print more money and pump more investment if necessary.

If the government screws up and only 500 products are sold, then that surplus of printed money creates inflation—essentially a drop in the purchasing power of money because there is too much cash chasing far too little total product value ($4167 represents the value of all products, while $5000 is what's actually available on the market, so the market adjusts by raising prices to absorb that $833 difference). If the government messes up like that, they can't just keep printing without crashing the value of existing currency.

If they want to take a risk, the government could print, say, another 1,000 dollars and intentionally underestimate the next wave of sales, perhaps setting an average price of $1.75 per unit for 200 items.

In reality, if 1,000 products were produced and sold at $1.75, the market value would increase by $1667, while the government only increased the money supply by $333. This creates a gap between market value and the money supply:
The previous 15,000 dollars plus the newly printed $333 equals $5333, which is what exists in the market.
Compared to
the previous $5000 value of all products (accounting for the inflation from the $833 difference), plus the $1667 newly acquired market value of the products, which equals $6667. Now, money is worth more, and we have deflation.

Essentially, the government is playing around with tweaking the financial system, while the market continues to determine prices and product selection based on the same old principles.

And let's not forget: not every new product increases market value. An increase in market value only happens when industrial production—or service production—expands. If factory capacity grows and the number of workers in the market increases, market value goes up. Even if the raw number of products decreases, if those fewer products are more specialized, more expensive, higher quality, and highly sought after, the market value still climbs.

However, if the products don't sell—if demand drops—then prices drop, and the market value falls along with it.

To put it simply: if we produce 1,000 screwdrivers at $1 each,
but next year we produce only 100 screwdrivers at $1 each AND 10 machines at $33 each, it means that even though numerical production capacity shrank, the market value actually increased by 10% next year (assuming demand is met and the products actually sell at those prices).

Jack Smith5 said:Hyperinflation? Please, I’m talking about pocket change here.
We're looking at maybe 10% of the budget at most, just scraping the surface.

The government—and the European Union too—is constantly subsidizing production through various joint funds they pull money from anyway. Nothing actually changes. A "normal" person isn't going to notice a slight uptick in the money supply, except for those specific people I mentioned who basically act as a black hole for social wealth: the financiers. Large-scale capital might notice a fresh influx of cash, but do you really think 99% of people—regular citizens or small business owners—are going to sense a thing if the state injects new money? They won't notice a damn thing. They don't deal with enough volume to track those kinds of shifts. They’ll just take their slice from the government and pass it along to pay for the services or tech they need.

So, what I’m actually getting at is this: why can't the state just 'tweak' the financial system directly? Why does everything have to be routed through the banks?