Posts by Nancy Gomez26

Frank Nelson2 said:Consumption is something without which there is no economic growth, alongside exports. You could ramp up production by 300%, but if you have nobody to sell to, increasing output is useless. Plus, it's a common trap where you only get paid after the sale is made, creating a vicious cycle of decline.

Without consumption, there is no growth, yet very few people have said that clearly and loudly. Unfortunately, there are far too many incompetent voices stubbornly insisting that we need to slash spending.
If consumption were stimulated, the economy would pick up speed very quickly, which would automatically boost production and create new jobs, sustaining that consumption loop.
By freezing bank accounts and cutting off liquidity, we are heading in the opposite direction, and you only have to look around to see the proof.

Has it ever occurred to you that when you find yourself with nowhere to move your inventory, the issue might actually be a lack of genuine market demand? Perhaps there simply isn't an appetite for what you're producing at your current price point or quality level. It’s like trying to sell premium steak in a town where everyone can only afford canned tuna; if the value proposition doesn't align with the consumer's reality, the shelves will stay full regardless of how much effort you put into production.
The relationship between a supplier and a buyer in any market boils down to one thing: their mutual agreement. This includes payment terms. No one can force a vendor to extend credit for 300 days, nor can anyone mandate that a client pay upfront. It is a matter of negotiation. Let’s not be naive—everyone understands exactly what a 300-day payment window implies and the sheer volume of risk involved. This isn't about coercion; it is about the terms set by the parties involved. You can choose to accept them or walk away. There is no compulsion here. Then there is the second issue: the fallacy that "this is just how everyone does business." Many people fall into the trap of thinking a practice is standard simply because it is common, blindly adopting these habits without weighing the potential fallout. It is basic logic: if you opt to shoulder increased risks, you must also be prepared to shoulder the consequences—both the rewards and the wreckage. It is quite easy to spiral into a cycle of insolvency, but let’s be clear: you enter that cycle voluntarily.

Growth requires production. It’s that simple. You have to focus on manufacturing goods that the market actually demands right now. When you produce value, you generate profit. That profit funds wages, those wages drive consumption, and that cycle creates genuine, tangible economic growth. Consumption cannot exist without earned income or realized profit. Relying on credit to fuel spending isn't growth; it's an illusion. There is no long-term progress to be found in a system where rising debt levels artificially inflate consumption. Eventually, all those loans come due, along with the interest. It’s a deceptive pattern: two steps forward, five steps back once the collectors arrive. This is exactly what we are witnessing today. The same logic applies to the government printing money and handing it out to citizens. That isn't progress either. It triggers inflation and devalues the very currency being distributed. Printing money isn't economic advancement—it’s a dead end. In a free market, the system corrects itself quickly, just as it does with credit-fueled spending. It looks tempting at first glance, but it is fundamentally unsustainable in the long run. Such "economics" might serve a politician for a term or two, but the fallout is ugly, and we are already feeling the consequences. It is human nature to spend more when you have more cash, certainly. But you have to earn the money before you can spend it. If you spend what you haven't earned today, you must realize you'll be paying it back tomorrow—with interest, naturally.

Henry Hernandez7 said:Forgive me, but everything you're saying would actually make sense in a place that doesn't have such a bloated, inefficient federal bureaucracy, but since we're all living proof that's not our reality, your whole logic just falls apart, and it doesn't work because there's a fundamental glitch in the system. Basically, if the government itself is a mess—which it is—then it's impossible for small businesses or regular citizens to stay on top of everything. Get what I'm saying?

A bloated and inefficient federal bureaucracy (which very much exists) is not responsible for the fact that someone voluntarily agreed to a 300-day payment term, which might ultimately end up being written off as bad debt. Agreeing to those kinds of terms is a massive risk that an entrepreneur must realistically weigh. Perhaps the business owner factored that risk into the price of the goods, or maybe his business plan simply fell apart due to his own poor judgment, and now he expects the government to show some sympathy...
The core issue is that the state always seems to have "sympathy" for certain entrepreneurs, forgiving portions of what they owe the government. That is a systemic error. It disregards the market; it ensures that not everyone is playing on a level playing field.
If you chose to step into that kind of business risk, you should be the one to face the consequences of those decisions. Just as you would have enjoyed the profits had the business plan succeeded.

Thomas Anderson6 said:First off, I haven't said anything bad about you personally, so let's clear that up.
Second, you've been an entrepreneur for 20 years, but I don't know your field—and there's a massive difference between a jeweler or a baker in the B2C sector and, say, a locksmith or a carpenter in the B2B sector. Those in B2B are the ones hitting the wall here. I'll agree with you that a baker or a tailor, who mostly handles cash transactions at a register, can easily cover their costs within reasonable windows—no issue there. But consider this:
An entrepreneur who supplies semi-finished goods to another firm, working within a long-term contract, might be waiting up to 300 days for payment from their client. Eventually, that client hits a liquidity crisis and leaves the supplier hanging—even through no fault of the supplier's own. What happens next? The client gets hit with an IRS freeze, which prevents them from paying the supplier; then the supplier gets frozen, unable to pay their own bills. See where I'm going? It creates a domino effect started by the government, where everyone sinks, no one gets paid, and the debt pile just keeps growing. That is the reality I am talking about.

And now, someone will suggest we just seize the entrepreneur's assets to settle the debt, right? Is that "fair" to you?
What about the entrepreneur who spent years playing by the rules, turning a profit, and paying taxes, only to build up personal assets from those profits—will they lose everything because of a systemic collapse they didn't cause?

Do you see the complexity of the problem now?

I realize you didn't mean anything by it personally—we’re essentially strangers outside this thread—but that isn't the point. The principle is what matters here.

As a small business owner, I operate with the understanding that my entire personal estate is on the line. Every decision I make is filtered through that reality. I have to protect my assets from the various charlatans and fly-by-night operators who set up LLCs with nothing more than a glorified desk plant and a cheap headset listed as their capital. I understand the fallout of those types of arrangements. For instance, I once faced long-term partnership contracts filled with highly questionable clauses. While others were signing away their futures, I consulted my attorney and walked away. I did that because I am personally liable for my actions. Others choose to operate under those shaky agreements; I choose to operate without them.
I believe entrepreneurs must recognize that our decisions carry weight and potential long-term consequences. Risks must be calculated; one must be acutely aware of exactly what they are exposing themselves to. Once you grasp the magnitude of the risk, you can make better, more disciplined choices. The excuse that "everyone else does it" or "that's how we've done it for years" is irrelevant to the actual level of exposure.
In America, many grew up learning to run businesses on other people's dime. It’s a naive stage of capitalist development, evidenced by the sheer shock expressed by so many business owners today. Those who act surprised need to learn, and until they do, they will face the music. The golden rule should be simple: I have the goods, but first—show me the money. That rule is especially vital in the current economic climate. It’s all about habit. No one thinks twice about paying their Verizon bill; those who decide to dodge it know exactly what kind of trouble follows. That is a standard, healthy way to conduct business, and it is how all commercial relationships ought to function. If you venture into deferred payment arrangements, you must account for the possibility that the service or product may never actually be paid for—an act of God, if you will. You cannot risk amounts that could sink your entire operation. It is true that this loose way of doing business was widespread in the past, and many accepted those terms just to stay afloat. I can understand why they did it, but that doesn't excuse it. Quite simply, they made poor business decisions and are now paying the price. It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, but while things looked fine for a while, the collapse hit the most naive players the hardest. Sometimes, staying home is better than working, and if certain people think these risks are acceptable, they are welcome to try their luck.

Thomas Anderson6 said:Don't take this personally, but your post reveals two things:
1. You have never actually run a business in a real-world economy like ours.
2. You lack a fundamental grasp of the subject matter.

The core issue here is that the account freeze system does more harm than good for both debtors and creditors alike. It is painfully obvious that this leads to mass business closures—triggering a domino effect that eventually cripples everyone involved.
On the consumer side, it also creates waves of people who can't participate effectively in society, which tanks consumer spending, and ultimately, everyone loses.

With all due respect, I have been a small business owner for over 20 years, living solely off my labor in the real sector. In fact, the industry I operate in is about as "real" as it gets.
As for "not knowing the subject matter"—if that were true, I would be facing the exact problems you are describing right now.

Regarding the drop in consumer spending—that is actually a positive development. Consumption cannot, and should not, be an end in itself. No amount of mindless spending will save this economy, whether it's here in the States or anywhere else; only production moves the needle. The system needs to be purged of those who refuse to pay, but also of the naive players who conducted business based on nothing more than a handshake or a verbal promise. At first glance, this might seem unfair, but it is simply basic market selection. It is fundamentally irrational to provide goods or services without receiving payment. Yet, in our current climate, it has become normalized. Some have built entire commercial empires just by failing to pay for the inventory sitting on their shelves. This pattern of non-payment must be eradicated. My hope is that we insist on strict payment terms so we can finally evolve into an economy with streamlined, efficient relations. Only those with actual capital should be permitted to conduct business. One cannot operate using someone else's capital without providing fair compensation, such as interest. When you fail to pay interest on borrowed capital—be it in the form of inventory or cash—there is a natural tendency for repayment timelines to stretch toward infinity. Without interest, the value of what eventually gets repaid is eroded by inflation. If these "creditors" failed to account for the risks inherent in the relationships they themselves established, they must now face the consequences of their own poor business decisions.

Can someone explain the actual mechanics behind account freezes? Is it even possible for an account to be locked if you’ve been perfectly current with your vendors and the IRS? Look, if a creditor has a claim against you, it is standard practice to attempt collection. If the funds aren't there, the account gets frozen. If the freeze fails to yield payment, then we move toward garnishment. If an institution abuses its power to freeze accounts, that needs a deep, rigorous investigation followed by real penalties. That is how a functioning state operates. Turning a blind eye to corporations that dodge their financial—or any other—obligations does nothing to build a better future. In these matters, speed is everything. A government must be measured, swift, strict, and above all, just. There should be no debt forgiveness, no bankruptcy settlements, and none of those legal gimmicks used to bail out former owners who drove a company into the ground. It is particularly egregious when laws allow that same ownership structure to remain intact after a "restructuring" or debt wipeout. Private corporate debt should never be socialized; owners must be held materially accountable for the failures of their businesses.

Thomas Anderson6 said:I’m not sure which sub this belongs in—if there’s already a thread on this, mods, please merge them.
http://wsj.com/articles/bank-account-freezes-destroying-small-business-growth

The real question is whether we've reached the breaking point where the seizure laws must be overhauled—specifically regarding account freezes—if we ever want to function as a coherent society again.

This systemic aggression against small businesses, contractors, and individuals—driven primarily by the IRS and public utilities, then fueled by big banks, and finally by private creditors—is effectively gutting what remains of our economy. It pushes private citizens into the welfare system, making everyone else foot the bill.

In my view—and if you look at how things work in more stable Western economies—freezing accounts does far more harm to the creditor than good, while almost certainly destroying the debtor. Is that actually the intended goal?

Consider this scenario:
Take a manufacturing firm that falls behind on its tax obligations this month. They might have been perfectly on track to pay next month, but they hit a temporary liquidity crunch because their cash was tied up in raw materials and payroll—especially with a 60-to-80-day production cycle.
The IRS swoops in and freezes their accounts, essentially backing the company into a corner. The government gets its money today, but the business will likely be shuttered by next month. Case closed.
That is just one example—there are countless others.

Isn't it high time we saw some actual, constructive legislative initiative instead of all this endless bureaucratic maneuvering?

If the government had acted with such consistency and equality toward all entities over the last 20 years, the country would look very different today.

Generally speaking, if you want to run a business, you need capital. And taxes must be settled within the legal timeframe. The state simply doesn't care whether you or your company will actually have that cash in a month or not. For years, many operated under the assumption that they could just delay tax and payroll payments until the cash arrived. They spent years accumulating debt, only to later beg for various waivers and write-offs because "it couldn't be collected anyway." Meanwhile, those who actually paid their dues were treated like suckers.
It matters little if such a company collapses. Its place will simply be taken by another firm with a new set of employees. Those who fail to pay taxes punctually should not be allowed to operate. These are the fundamentals of a functioning state, not the antics of the protesters standing guard at Times Square.

silvertiger11 said:I think I finally see the problem here in America. We’ve been looking at all the wrong role models.
What Orban actually implemented were just superficial, populist gimmicks. There isn't a single thing there worth us trying to emulate or copy. In fact, this is a perfect cautionary tale of what could happen to us if we don't get our act together immediately.

Canada’s debt is double ours, their deficit is twice as large, and their fiscal policy is twice as reckless (if you can even call it that), and so on. Playing games with creditors is only going to kill our long-term growth potential. In the short term, it just destroys legal certainty.
As for the benefits of labor market liberalization? Their grandkids might see those results, because right now they’re driving away anyone with the drive and the means to actually hold down a job.

Are we really sitting here wishing for the nationalization of pension funds?
Honestly, we are such masochists. 🤣

It isn't about how much you owe in absolute terms; it’s about the level of production you have to service that debt. If we only looked at raw numbers, developed nations in the European Union would look far worse off than us, since they all carry debts orders of magnitude larger. But the crucial distinction is that despite that debt, they maintain robust production and an industrial base capable of creating competitive goods to meet their obligations. Greece is the "negative" champion here because they lack almost any industry outside of tourism—that is their core crisis, not just the debt level, which isn't actually massive on a global scale (depending on whether you look at absolute figures or per capita). Naturally, their situation is worsened by excessive government spending—living far beyond their means—and the Greek tragedy bears a striking resemblance to our own predicament. Fortunately, we only recently joined the European Union and don't have the same unfettered access to borrowing that Greece once enjoyed; had we joined back then, we would likely be in the exact same boat as them right now.
That talk about "fighting" the IMF is meaningless. The IMF arrives and tells a state to cut spending because the current trajectory is economically unsustainable, but politicians resist because they want to win elections—which is difficult when the electorate is conditioned to expect constant handouts from the government. Many will balk now, but the reality is that while average pensions here are relatively low, the retiree base is wide, and very few people have actually reached retirement age yet. There is no hope for this to improve in the next 10 to 20 years. Then there are the redundant costs of county governments bloated with staff, and municipalities and cities that are mediocre at best, but the counties... that level of bloat is truly unnecessary. Add to that the endless subsidies for everyone and everything, various programs, and government agencies created for every whim without a clear purpose or logic. It is all dead weight that the state eventually has to clean up. Let those "employees" be sent to public works first—and if they don't like it, they can go home. This has nothing to do with the European Union or the IMF; it is strictly about us and our relationship with the state and society. We tolerate this systemic cronyism with suspicious calm, even though we are the ones paying for it out of our own pockets.

Viktor Orbán has settled his debts with the IMF, but what about the rest of the Canadian debt owed to foreign creditors? It’s a common misconception that the IMF always holds the winning hand with its policy advice, but even if they were right, this is just a fraction of the total Canadian debt. I don't buy the idea that Canada will simply slip out of debtor servitude this easily. It would be a nice fairy tale if it were true, but reality rarely works that way. Their total debt load is far too heavy relative to their production and export capacity—much like ours, actually. And that brings us to our collective issue: we aren't necessarily drowning in debt because of the numbers alone, but because our productivity is so low. That specific combination is lethal; you can't generate enough added value to realistically service the obligations you've incurred. Then there are the state's "consumer habits." Taxing banks is a perfectly fine measure, provided there is some sense of proportion involved. One shouldn't overreach.

The solution only arrives once the government starts acting in accordance with its actual financial capacity—which means spending significantly less than it does right now. It is far easier to balance the budget by cutting expenditures than by hiking taxes or levies. Relying on debt is just delaying the inevitable; you’re simply letting the interest accrue until the bill comes due, at which point the crisis will be exponentially worse. We just need the backbone to actually execute it. Ultimately, we will reach this point regardless; the only question is who will find the courage to face reality and act. It is better to initiate this process now while there is still some room for maneuvering around a minimalist budget. If we wait until creditors start dictating terms, we risk facing a series of illogical mandates that could collapse even the few healthy sectors of our economy left.

It would be ideal if a major industry arrived and opened up some high-quality jobs. But when I think about IKEA... I find myself doubting if such a thing could ever actually happen here. We have to acknowledge that manufacturing furniture is technically far simpler than the automotive industry. With IKEA, the bottleneck isn't even finding skilled labor; they are still stuck in the facility construction phase. Yet, one only needs to recall the situation with Owens Corning and the struggle to secure operating permits to see that we don't exactly look like the promised land for investors. The people deciding where to locate a plant take these factors into account when weighing their options. Would you build a manufacturing plant in a foreign country—having already secured valid building permits and all the necessary paperwork—only to have those decisions constantly "re-evaluated"? Or worse, to have someone simply "revoke" a valid permit out of thin air? Even if you haven't set foot on the construction site, the mere cost of designing the facilities is so high that if a permit is pulled at that stage, the material damage is already massive. It takes very little for foreign investors to observe how this country treats its own local entrepreneurs; once they see that, they know exactly what awaits them in the future. For a nation that desperately needs new construction and development, we are currently failing on the smallest details.